Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches Vol. 1

’

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

(14th April 1891 - 6th December 1956)

An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels

for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts.

In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously

communicated and shared. There should be varied and free

points of contact with other modes of association. In other

words there should be social endosmosis. This is fraternity,

which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is

not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of

associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It

is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards

fellowmen.

- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

in ‘Annihilation of Caste’

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

VOL. 1

Compiled

Vasant Moon

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches

Vol. 1

First Edition by Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra : 14 April, 1979

Re-printed by Dr. Ambedkar Foundation : January, 2014

ISBN (Set) : 978-93-5109-064-9

Courtesy : Monogram used on the Cover page is taken from

Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar’s Letterhead.

Secretary

Education Department

Government of Maharashtra

Price : One Set of 1 to 17 Volumes (20 Books) : Rs. 3000/-

Publisher:

Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

15, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001

Phone : 011-23357625, 23320571, 23320589

Fax : 011-23320582

Website : www.ambedkarfoundation.nic.in

The Education Department Government of Maharashtra, Bombay-400032

for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee

Printer

M/s. Tan Prints India Pvt. Ltd., N. H. 10, Village-Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana

MESSAGE

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chief Architect of Indian Constitution was

a scholar par excellence, a philosopher, a visionary, an emancipator and a true

nationalist. He led a number of social movements to secure human rights to the

oppressed and depressed sections of the society. He stands as a symbol of struggle

for social justice.

The Government of Maharashtra has done a highly commendable work of

publication of volumes of unpublished works of Dr. Ambedkar, which have brought

out his ideology and philosophy before the Nation and the world.

In pursuance of the recommendations of the Centenary Celebrations Committee

of Dr. Ambedkar, constituted under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister

of India, the Dr. Ambedkar Foundation (DAF) was set up for implementation of

different schemes, projects and activities for furthering the ideology and message

of Dr. Ambedkar among the masses in India as well as abroad.

The DAF took up the work of translation and publication of the Collected Works

of Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar published by the Government of Maharashtra

in English and Marathi into Hindi and other regional languages. I am extremely

thankful to the Government of Maharashtra’s consent for bringing out the works

of Dr. Ambedkar in English also by the Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.

Dr. Ambedkar’s writings are as relevant today as were at the time when these

were penned. He firmly believed that our political democracy must stand on the

base of social democracy which means a way of life which recognizes liberty,

equality and fraternity as the principles of life. He emphasized on measuring the

progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.

According to him if we want to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also

in fact, we must hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and

economic objectives. He advocated that in our political, social and economic life,

we must have the principle of one man, one vote, one value.

There is a great deal that we can learn from Dr. Ambedkar’s ideology and

philosophy which would be beneficial to our Nation building endeavor. I am glad

that the DAF is taking steps to spread Dr. Ambedkar’s ideology and philosophy

to an even wider readership.

I would be grateful for any suggestions on publication of works of Babasaheb

Dr. Ambedkar.

(Kumari Selja)

Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment

& Chairperson, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Kumari Selja

Collected Works of Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar (CWBA)

Editorial Board

Kumari Selja

Minister for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

and

Chairperson, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Manikrao Hodlya Gavit

Minister of State for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

Shri P. Balram Naik

Minister of State for Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

Shri Sudhir Bhargav

Secretary

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

Shri Sanjeev Kumar

Joint Secretary

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India

and

Member Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Viney Kumar Paul

Director

Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Shri Kumar Anupam

Manager (Co-ordination) - CWBA

Shri Jagdish Prasad ‘Bharti’

Manager (Marketing) - CWBA

Shri Sudhir Hilsayan

Editor, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material

Publication Committee, Maharashtra State

EDITORIAL BOARD

1. S

HRI KAMALKISHOR KADAM … …. … President

Minister For Education

2. S

HRI JAVED KHAN … … … Vice-President

Education Minister For State

3. S

HRI R. S. GAVAI … … … Vice-President

4. S

HRI DADASAHEB RUPAVATE … … … Executive President

5. S

HRI B. C. KAMBLE … … … Member

6. D

R. P. T. BORALE … … … Member

7. S

HRI GHANSHYAM TALVATKAR … … … Member

8. S

HRI SHANKARRAO KHARAT … … … Member

9. S

HRIMATI SHANTABAI DANI … … … Member

10. S

HRI WAMAN NIMBALKAR … … … Member

11. S

HRI PRAKASH AMBEDKAR … … … Member

12. S

HRI R. R. BHOLE … … … Member

13. S

HRI S. S. REGE … … … Member

14. D

R. BHALCHANDRA PHADKE … … … Member

15. S

HRI DAYA PAWAR … … … Member

16. S

HRI LAXMAN MANE … … … Member

17. P

ROF. N. D. PATIL … … … Member

18. P

ROF. MORESHWAR VANMALI … … … Member

19. P

ROF. JANARDAN WAGHMARE … … … Member

20. B

ARRISTER P. G. PATIL … … … Member

21. D

R. M. P. MANGUDKAR … … … Member

22. P

ROF. G. P. PRADHAN … … … Member

23. S

HRI B. M. AMBHAIKAR … … … Member

24. S

HRI N. M. KAMBLE … … … Member

25. P

ROF. J. C. CHANDURKAR … … … Member

26. Secretary, Education Department … … Member

27. Director of Education … … … Member-Secretary

28. S

HRI V. W. MOON, O.S.D. … … … Member

FOREWORD

Maharashtra is a land of saints and sages, philosophers and political

savants, social thinkers, social reformers and leaders of national

eminence, who have not only moulded and enriched all facets of

life of Maharashtra but have also made singular contribution to the

growth and development of India.

Maharashtra, an ancient land in the Deccan, has witnessed the

flowering, growth and spread of the Buddhist thought and culture

and Sanskrit Scholarship. We have saints like Namdeo, Eknath,

Chokhamela, Sawata Maharaj, Gora, Dnyaneshwar, Sena and others.

We also see the rise of Indian Nationalism in the form of Shivaji

the Great. In Mahatma Phuley, a contemporary of Karl Marx, we

have the ‘patria protestas of the Indian social revolution and the

first leader of the peasants. Lokmanya Tilak has been accredited as

the Father of Indian unrest, Ranade as the Father of Indian socio-

economic thought, Gokhale as the thinker whom no less a person

than Mahatma Gandhi acclaimed as his political Guru and Savarkar

as an ardent revolutionary. In Shahu Chhatrapati, we had a unique

king who was a relentless fighter for social equality. Maharshi Shinde

was a great social reformer who combined revolutionary fervour with

a liberal attitude. Thus, there has been a galaxy of great men in

different fields in Maharashtra. It may not be too much to say that

there was a time in pre-independent India when Maharashtra had

virtually become the centre of all activities, whether social, economic

or political. The period from Phuley to Ambedkar can, therefore, be

aptly described as the dawn of social revolution in the history not

only of Maharashtra but of the country as a whole.

VIII FOREWORD

In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, we have not only a crusader against

the caste system, a valiant fighter for the cause of the downtrodden

in India but also an elder statesman and national leader whose

contribution in the form of the Constitution of India will be cherished

forever by posterity. In fact his fight for human rights and as an

emancipator of all those enslaved in the world gave him international

recognition as a liberator of humanity from injustice, social and

economic. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru paid a glowing tribute to

Dr. Ambedkar while moving a condolence resolution in the Parliament

as follows:

“Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a symbol of revolt against all oppressive features

of the Hindu Society.”

There is, therefore, a vital need to preserve the thoughts of this great

son of India as expressed by him in his writings and speeches. While

some efforts are being made in that direction by some institutions

and research scholars, there is an urgent need to bring together all

the material available and publish it in a series of volumes.

The Government of Maharashtra has, under its various schemes,

so far published the works of Mahatma Phuley, Mahatma Gandhi

and saints such as Tukaram, Dnyaneshwar, Namdeo, Eknath and

others. The Government had set up an Advisory Committee in 1976,

with the Education Minister as the Chairman and comprising political

followers of Dr. Ambedkar, scholars and noted writers, to compile the

thoughts and writings of Dr. Ambedkar and have them published.

The Committee set up the following Editorial Board :

(1) Prof. M. B. Chitnis, Chairman

(2) Prof. Anant Kanekar

(3) Dr. P. T. Borale

(4) Dr. Vinayakrao E. Moray

(5) Shri S. P. Bhagwat

(6) Shri G. M. Bomblay, Director, Stale Institute of Education,

Pune

(7) Shri Vasant Moon, Officer on Special Duty

The Government of Maharashtra desires to bring a series of

volumes comprising all the available writings and speeches of

FOREWORD IX

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. The present publication is the result of

sustained work done by the Advisory Committee and particularly

by the Editorial Board. I thank all the members of the Editorial

Board, Mrs. Savita w/o Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mrs. Meerabai

Yeshwant Ambedkar and Shri Prakash Ambedkar, for their willing

co-operation. I am particularly glad that this long awaited commitment

is being fulfilled. I sincerely hope that people in general and the

youth in particular, in Maharashtra and all over the country, will

derive inspiration and guidance from the thoughts of Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar and come forward to contribute their mite for the social

reconstruction of the country.

(SHARAD PAWAR)

Chief Minister

Maharashtra State

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

It is almost ten years since the first edition of the first volume of the

Writings and Speeches of Dr. B.R. alias Babasaheb Ambedkar was published.

During these ten years the Government could publish six volumes of Writings

and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar who has emerged from these pages as a

constructive social reformer and legal philosopher who in the originality

of his analysis and profundity of his convictions and conceptions compels

comparison with the best minds of the East and the West and who still

shapes our thinking. It is not difficult to discern the reasons for the Second

Edition against this background. We have availed of this opportunity to

correct obvious printing errors in the Second Edition of the first volume

which contains Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions such as Castes in India;

Annihilation of Caste; Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province; Need for checks

and balances; Thoughts on Linguistic States; Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah;

Evidence before the Southborough Committee; Federation Vs. Freedom;

Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve it; States and Minorities; Small

Holdings in India; and Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society. In all

these apparently diverse topics, it is not difficult to discern the silver strands

of fundamental reflections on the value of equality as the comer stone of

the constitutional polity in democracy. It is interesting to refer to what Dr.

Ambedkar writes apropos of Mr. Russell and the reconstruction of society

which is a review of Bertrand Russell’s ‘Principles of Social Reconstruction.’

Writes Dr. Ambedkar :

“Of the many reasons urged in support of the Indian view of life one is that

it is chiefly owing to its influence that India alone of all the oldest countries

has survived to this day. This is a statement often heard and even from persons

whose opinions cannot be too easily set aside. With the proof or disproof,

however, of this statement, I do not wish to concern myself. Granting the fact

of survival I mean to make a statement yet more important. It is this: there

are many modes of survival and not all are equally commendable. For instance,

mobility to beat timely retreat may allow weaker varieties of people to survive.

So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the power of rising to the

occasion be the condition of the survival of a people.”

Dr. Ambedkar drawing copiously on his vast erudition, eloquently citing

Burke, depicts the ideal society in Annihilation of Caste. He says: “If you ask

me, my ideal would be a society based on liberty, equality and fraternity....

an ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a

change taking place in one part to other parts.” Dr. Ambedkar incorporated

these values of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Constitution of free

India. It is a living tribute to his juristic genius and social conscience that

over the years, the High Courts and the Supreme Court have shaped the

law to serve the social ends of Governmental efforts to improve the lot of

the poor.

XII

Dr. Ambedkar was a supreme social architect who looked upon law as

the instrument of creating a sane social order in which the development of

individual would be in harmony with the growth of society. His approach finds

a responsive chord in the writings of Roscoe Pound- an eminent American

jurist of our century. Writes Roscoe Pound:

“Law in the sense of the legal order has for its subject matter relations of

individual human beings with each other and the conduct of individual so far

as they affect other or affect the social or economic order. Law in the sense

of the body of authoritative grounds of or guides to judicial decisions and

administrative action has for its subject matter, the expectations of claims or

wants held or asserted by individual human beings or groups of human beings

which affect their relations or determine their conduct.”

Law embodies the civilisational values of the time and place. Civilisation

in this sense is the development of human faculties to their most complete

possibilities. Civilisation has two sides viz. control over external or physical

nature and control over internal or human nature. The Writings and Speeches

of Dr. Ambedkar show what values Indians should develop and how they

should modernise their social and political institutions. They provide the rich

source of the civilising influences in our society. The range of his topics, the

width of his vision, the depth of his analysis, the rationality of his outlook and

the essential humanity of his suggestions for action evoke ready responses.

Such was Dr. Ambedkar-a man whose talents, acquirements and virtues

were so extraordinary that the more his character is considered, the more

he will be regarded by the present age and by posterity with admiration

and reverence, to paraphrase the words of James Bosewell who spoke about

his mentor Dr. Johnson in his inimitable classical biography. We shall feel

rewarded in our efforts if we are compelled to bring out the third edition of

the Writings and Speeches in the centenary year of his birth, as that would

be the best way to cherish his memory and honour his precepts in practice.

(Kamalkishor Kadam)

Education Minister

Maharashtra State

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts as reflected in his writings and speeches

have significant importance in tracing the history and growth of

social thought in India. In the course of time so many of his

publications are not even available in the market. In some cases the

authentic editions are getting out of print. Besides, as time passes,

many of his observations in matters social, economic and political

are coming true. Social tensions and caste conflicts are continuously

on the increase. Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts have therefore, assumed

more relevance today. If his solutions and remedies on various socio-

economic problems are understood and followed, it may help us to

steer through the present turmoil and guide us for the future. It was

therefore very apt on the part of the Government of Maharashtra to

have appointed an Advisory Committee to compile all the material

available on Dr. Ambedkar for publishing the same in a suitable

form. All efforts are therefore being made to collect what the learned

Doctor wrote and spoke.

In the present volume, besides Castes in India. Annihilation of

Caste, his address on Justice Ranade. Federation versus Freedom

and other publications, some of his articles not easily available such

as Small Holdings in India, Review on Russell’s book etc. ; have also

been included.

The salient features of the contents of this volume are presented

below :

Castes in India

Dr. Ambedkar read this paper, before the Anthropology Seminar

of Dr. Goldenweizer during his stay at the Columbia University

XIV INTRODUCTION

for the Doctoral studies. Naturally he deals with the subject of Caste

system from the Anthropological point of view. He observes that the

population of India is mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and

Scythians. Ethrically all people are heterogeneous. According to him,

it is the unity of culture that binds the people of Indian Peninsula

from one end to the other. After evaluating the theories of various

authorities on Caste, Dr. Ambedkar observes that the superimposition

of endogamy over exogamy is the main cause of formation of caste

groups. Regarding endogamy, he states that the customs of ‘Sati’,

enforced widow-hood for life and child-marriage are the outcome of

endogamy. To Dr. Ambedkar, sub-division of a society is a natural

phenomenon and these groups become castes through ex-communication

and imitation.

Annihilation of Caste

This famous address invited attention of no less a person than

Mahatma Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar observes that the reformers among

the high-caste Hindus were enlightened intellectuals who confined

their activities to abolish the enforced widow-hood, child-marriage,

etc., but they did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition

of castes nor did they have courage to agitate against it. According

to him, the political revolutions in India were preceded by the social

and religious reforms led by saints. But during the British rule,

issue of political independence got precedence over the social reform

and therefore social reform continued to remain neglected. Pointing

to the. Socialists, he remarked that the Socialists will have to fight

against the monster of caste either before or after the revolution. He

asserts that caste is not based on division of labour. It is a division

of labourers. As an economic organisation also, caste is a harmful

institution. He calls upon the Hindus to annihilate the caste which is

a great hindrance to social solidarity and to set up a new social order

based on the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in consonance

with the principles of Democracy. He advocates inter-caste marriage

as one of the solutions to the problem. But he stresses that the belief

in the ‘Shastras’ is the root cause of maintaining castes. He therefore

suggests, “Make every man and woman free from the thraldom of the

INTRODUCTION XV

‘Shastras’, cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on

the ‘Shastras’ and he or she will interdine and intermarry”. According

to him, the society must be bused on reason and not on atrocious

traditions of caste system.

Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province

Part II includes Dr. Ambedkar’s major writings on linguistic States.

Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province is his first statement on the

creation of linguistic provinces. It is a memorandum submitted in

1948 to the Linguistic Provinces Commission. While acknowledging

the danger to the Unity of India inherent in the creation of linguistic

provinces with their pride in race, language and literature developing

into mentalities of being separate nations, Dr. Ambedkar sees certain

definite political advantages in the reconstitution of provinces on

linguistic basis. With the proviso that the official language of the State

shall be the official language of the Central Government, Dr. Ambedkar

maintains that a linguistic province with a homogeneous population

is more suitable for the working of democracy than a heterogeneous

population can ever be. Since six provinces in India exist as linguistic

provinces the question of the reconstitution of Bombay, Madras and

Central Provinces as unilingual provinces cannot be postponed in view

of the new democratic constitution of free India.

Dr. Ambedkar next pleads for the creation of an unilingual

Maharashtra as a province with a single legislature and single executive

by merging with it all the contiguous Marathi-speaking districts of the

Central Province and Berar with the City of Bombay as its capital.

Dr. Ambedkar refutes on historical, geographical, demographical,

commercial, economic and other grounds with solid documentary

proof, the arguments which are advanced in support of the separation

of the city of Bombay from Maharashtra and its constitution into a

separate province. Spurning the proposal of settling the problem of

Bombay by arbitration he asserts that Maharashtra and Bombay are

not merely inter-dependent but that they are really one and integral.

Need for Checks and Balances

In this article published in the ‘Times of India’ after tracing the

history and growth of the concept of linguistic States Dr. Ambedkar

XVI INTRODUCTION

examines their viability and communal set-up. The State of Andhra,

according to him will not be viable if the other Telugu-speaking area

from the State of Hyderabad remains excluded from it. The caste set

up, he observes, within the linguistic areas like PEPSU, Andhra and

Maharashtra will be of one or two major castes large in number and

a few minor castes living in subordinate dependence on the major

castes. He questions the propriety of consolidating in one huge State

all people who speak the same language. Consolidation which creates

separate consciousness may lead to animosity between State and

State. Accepting however the fact that there is a case for linguistic

provinces he advocates that there should be checks and balances to

ensure that caste majority does not abuse its power under the garb

of linguistic State.

Thoughts on Linguistic States

‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ is Dr. Ambedkar’s final statement on

the formation of linguistic States that came as a critique of the report

of the States Reorganization Commission. What the Commission has

created, according to him, is not a mere disparity between the States

by leaving U.P. and Bihar as they are, but by adding to them a

new and bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan. It creates a new

political problem of the consolidated Hindi-speaking North versus the

balkanized South. Considering the vast cultural differences between

the two sectors and the apprehensions of dominance of the North

articulated by the leaders of the South Dr. Ambedkar predicts the

danger of a conflict between the two in course of time. He observes

that the Commission should have followed the principle of “one State

one language” and not “one language one State”

He favours formation of unilingual States as against multi-

lingual States for the very sound reasons that the former fosters

the fellow-feeling which is the foundation of a stable and

democratic State, while the latter with its enforced juxtaposition

of two different linguistic groups leads to faction fights for

leadership and discrimination in administration — factors which

are incompatible with democracy. His support for unilingual

States is however qualified by the condition that its official language

INTRODUCTION XVII

shall be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose, English

shall continue. He foresees the danger of a unilingual Stale developing

an independent nationality if its regional language is raised to the

status of official language.

To remove the disparity between the large States of the North and

the small States of the South which has been accentuated by the

absence of the provision for equal representation of the States in the

central legislature irrespective of their areas and popula tions, Dr.

Ambedkar’s remedy is to divide the larger States into units with a

population not exceeding two crores. He suggests tentatively division

of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into two States each and of United

Provinces into three States. Each of these States being unilingual the

division will not affect the concept of a linguistic State. His proposal

for Maharashtra is to divide it, as in ancient times, into three States

of Western, Central and Eastern Maharashtra with Bombay City as

a separate city State of Maharashtra. Such smaller States, in his

opinion, will meet the requirements of efficient administration and the

special needs of different areas. It will also satisfy their sentiments.

In a smaller State the proportion of majority to minority which

in India is not political but communal and unchangeable, decreases

and the danger of the majority practising tyranny over the minority is

also minimised. To give further protection to minorities against such

tyranny, Dr. Ambedkar suggests amendment of the constitution that

will provide a system of plural-member constituencies (two or three)

with cumulative voting.

Dr. Ambedkar advocate’s also the creation of a second capital for

India and locating it in the South preferably in the city of Hyderabad

to ease the tension and political polarization of the North and the

South.

Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah

Dr. Ambedkar delivered this important address on the 101st birth

anniversary of Justice Ranade, one of India’s foremost political

and social thinkers. At the beginning of his address, Dr. Ambedkar

discusses the role of man as a maker of history. According to him,

XVIII INTRODUCTION

the theory of Buckle that the history is created by Geography and

Physics, and that of Marx that it is the result of economic forces,

both speak the half truth. They do not give any place to man.

But Dr. Ambedkar asserts that man is a factor in the making of

history and that environmental forces alone are not the makers of

history.

Dr. Ambedkar further proceeds to discuss the tests of a great man

as propounded by Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship, and also of

other political thinkers. After exhaustive discussion, he observes that

sincerity and intellect the combination of which are necessary to make

a man great. But these qualifications are not alone sufficient. A man

possessed of these two qualities must be motivated by the dynamics

of a social purpose and must act as a scavenger of society.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, Ranade was a great man by any

standard. He wanted to vitalize the Hindu society to create social

democracy. Ranade lived in times when social and religious customs,

however unmoral, were regarded as sacrosanct. What appeared to

Ranade to be shames and wrongs of the Hindu society, were considered

by the people to be most sacred injunctions of their religion. Ranade

wanted to vitalize the conscience of the Hindu society which became

moribund as well as morbid. Ranade aimed to create a real social

democracy. without which there could be no sure and stable politics.

Dr. Ambedkar points out that Ranade’s aim was to cleanse the old

order and improve the moral tone of the Hindu society.

Concluding his address, Dr. Ambedkar cautions against despotism.

He says, “ Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective.

Nor does despotism become agreeable because the Despots belong to

our own kindred ………….. The real guarantee against despotism is

to confront it with the possibility of its dethronement ………………….

of its being superseded by a rival party.”

Evidence before the Southborough Committee

Dr. Ambedkar’s evidence before the Southborough Committee

was his first assay in political writings. The evidence comprises

of a written statement submitted to the Franchise Committee

INTRODUCTION XIX

under the Chairmanship of Rt. Hon’ble Lord Southborough and

also of the oral evidence before the same Committee on January

27, 1919.

After arguing theoretically that any scheme of franchise and

constituency that fails to bring about representation of opinions

as well as representation of persons falls short of creating a

popular Government. He shows how very relevant the two

factors are in the context of the Indian society which is ridden

into castes and religious communities. Each caste group tends to

create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness which depends

upon the extent of communication, participation or endosmosis.

Absence of this endosmosis is most pronounced between touchable and

untouchable Hindus, more than between the religious communities

such as Hindus, Muslims, Parsees etc. These communities have on

secular plane common material interests. There will be in such groups

landlords, labourers and capitalists. The untouchables are, however,

isolated by the Hindus from any kind of social participation. They

have been dehumanised by socio-religious disabilities almost to the

status of slaves. They are denied the universally accepted rights of

citizenship. Their interests are distinctively their own interests and

none else can truly voice them.

On the population basis, Dr. Ambedkar demands for the

untouchables of the Presidency of Bombay, eight to nine

representatives in the Bombay Legislative Council with franchise

pitched as low for them as to muster a sizable electorate. While

reviewing the various schemes proposed by different organiza tions he

criticises the Congress scheme which offers communal representation

only to the Muslims and leaves untouchables to seek representation

in general electorate as typical of the ideology of its leaders who are

political radicals and social tories. He does not agree with the proposals

of moderates to reserve only one or two seats for the untouchables in

plural constituencies as this does not give them effective representation.

He brushes aside the proposal of the Depressed Class Mission for

nomination by co-option by the elected members of the Council as

an attempt to dictate to the untouchables what their good shall

be, instead of an endeavour to agree with them so that they may seek

XX INTRODUCTION

to find the good of their own choice. The communal representation

with reserved seats for the most depressed community, he holds out,

will not perpetuate social divisions, but will act as a potent solvent for

dissolving them by providing opportunities for contact, co-operation and

re-socialisation of fossilised attitudes. Moreover it was the demand of

the untouchables for self-determination which the major communities

too were claiming from the British bureaucracy.

Federation versus Freedom

Dr. Ambedkar’s two addresses, “Federation vs. Freedom” and

“Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” were delivered

by him before the Gokhale Institute of Economics. Pune on

January 29, 1939 and at the session of the All India Scheduled Castes

Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945 respectively. They are in

the nature of tracts of the time. In 1939 all major political parties

of India had accepted and some were even implementing that part

of the Government of India Act, 1935 which related to provincial

autonomy. The question of accepting the Federal structure at the

Centre was however, looming large on the political horizon of India.

Dr. Ambedkar who till then had not expressed in public his views

on the subject took the opportunity to do so before the learned body

of the Gokhale Institute of Economics.

In the address he sets out briefly the outline of the scheme

of Federation and examines it in the light of accepted tests of

democratic federations in operation. The examination reveals

that the scheme granted only a limited responsibility at the centre;

it has the potentiality to evolve into a dominion status. There is

inequality of status between the two sets of federating units viz. the

Provinces and the Princely States. Federation is a natural corollary of

autonomous provinces. They join the Federation as a natural course,

while accession of the princely States is governed by the various

conditions of their historical treaties with the British crown and the

instrument of accession they would sign. Accession of the States and

not only of the autonomous provinces, is the precondition for the

implementation of the Federation. The representation of the provinces

to the two Federal Houses is by election but the State representatives

INTRODUCTION XXI

are the nominees of their autocratic rulers and owe their allegiance to

the rulers. These representatives will always be at the beck and call

of the British bureaucracy which yields paramountcy over the rulers.

Instead of fostering one all India nationalism, the Indian Princely

States being treated under the Federation as foreign territories will

encourage separatist tendencies. The scheme also does not permit

the Federal Legislature to discuss the conduct of the ruler nor the

administration of his State, though his nominees can participate in

the debate pertaining to a province and vote on the issue. As in the

matter of representation so too in that of taxation, administration,

legislation etc, there is, in the scheme discrimination in favour of

the princes. The princes thus become arbiters of the destiny of the

British India.

On these and several other counts Dr. Ambedkar rejects the Federal

structure as envisaged by the Government of India Act of 1935. His

solution of the problem of the States is, to regard it not as a political

one but as an administrative one. To tackle it legally is to pension

off princes and annexe their territories as is done under the Land

Acquisition Act which allows private rights and properties to be

acquired for political purposes.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, excepting the Princes, and the Hindu

Mahasabha which felt that the accession of the Princes was an accretion

to the Hindu strength, no major political party was happy with the

scheme of the Federation. The view of the freeman and of the poor

man of whom the Federation does not seem to take any account says

Dr. Ambedkar, will be a similar one. If the Federation comes the

autocracy of the Princes will be a menace to the freedom of a freeman

and obstacle to the poor man who wants constitution to enable him

to have old values revalued and to have vested rights devastated.

Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It

“Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” is yet another

tract of the time included in this volume. It purports to be a

constructive proposal put forth on behalf of the Scheduled

Castes for the future constitution of India. This plan was one

of the many advanced by Dr. Ambedkar’s contemporaries to

explore the possibility of solving the communal problem in the

XXII INTRODUCTION

eventful year of 1945. Earlier, in 1941. Dr. Ambedkar had

advocated creation of Pakistan on the principle of self-deter mination’

and also as a historical necessity. The present tract sets out an

alternative plan which in his opinion would ensure a United India,

where with proper checks and balances interests of all minorities

would be safeguarded.

He is wholly opposed to the setting of a Constituent Assembly

before the communal problem is solved. Moreover India has already

constitutional ideas and constitutional forms ready at hand in the

Government of India Act of 1935. All that is necessary is to delete

those sections of the Act, which are inconsistent with Dominion status.

If at all there is to be a Constituent Assembly, says Dr. Ambedkar.

the communal question should not form a part of it.

After examining the two schemes for Constituent Assembly one each

by Sir Stafford Cripps and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr. Ambedkar

concludes that both the schemes leave the communal question unsolved.

In his opinion all such schemes and plans advocated so far fail because

of their wrong approach. They proceed by a method instead of by a

principle. The ultimate result is constant appeasement of ever-growing

demands of communal minorities.

The principle he enunciates is that in India majority being communal

majority and not a convertible political majority, the majority rule is

untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. The major community

should be content with relative majority. Even this should not be so

large as to enable it to secure an absolute majority by coalition with

a smaller minority to establish its rule. In the same way the major

minority should also not have the possibility to secure a majority by

similar combination. The combination of all minorities should however

have an absolute majority in the legislature. Dr. Ambedkar has set

out in detail how the application of these principles would reflect

community-wise in the central and provincial legislatures.

Dr. Ambedkar’s proposal is mainly for a United India; but

even if the partition of India eventuates, he expects, the Muslims

of Pakistan not to deny the benefit of these principles to

INTRODUCTION XXIII

non-Muslim residents of their country. Their co-religionists, who

otherwise would be a helpless minority in India, will have their interests

safeguarded by the acceptance of these principles. Abandonment of

the principle of majority rule in politics cannot, in the opinion of Dr.

Ambedkar, affect the Hindus in other walks of life such as social

and economic.

States and Minorities

States and minorities is a memorandum on the safeguards for the

minorities in general and the Scheduled Castes in particular drafted

by Dr. Ambedkar and submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf

of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation in the year 1946. It is

in the form of draft articles of a constitution, followed by explanatory

notes and other statistics.

The memorandum sets out in specific terms fundamental rights of

citizens, safeguards of the rights of minorities and Scheduled Castes to

representation in the legislatures, local bodies, executive and services.

It also provides for special provisions for education and new settlement

of the Scheduled Castes in separate villages. The very first article is

allotted to the admission of Indian States into the Union which are

here classified as Qualified and Unqualified on admission to the

Union. The qualified State has an obligation to have an internal

government which is in consonance with the principles Underlying

the Constitution of the Union. The territory of the Unqualified states

will be treated as the territory of the Union.

The memorandum not only prescribes the rights and privileges of

the Scheduled Castes but also lays down the remedies in the event

of encroachment upon them. For this the author draws heavily from

his own memorandum submitted to the minorities of the Round

Table Conference in 1931. They are derived from the United States

statutes and amendments passed in the interest of the Negroes after

their emancipation and from the Burma Anti-boycott Act. One of the

novel features of the memorandum is the provision for the election of

the Prime Minister — Union and provincial — by the whole house

of the legislature, of the representatives of the different minorities in

XXIV INTRODUCTION

the cabinet by members of each minority in the house and of the

representatives of the majority community in the executive again by

the whole house.

Another unique feature is the provision of remedies against invasion

of the fundamental rights of citizens of freedom from economic

exploitation and from want and fear. This is sought to be accomplished

by constitutional provision enforceable within ten years of the passing of

the constitution for alteration of the economic structure of the country.

In short by adopting state socialism, it envisages state ownership and

management of all key and basic industries and insurance. Agriculture

which is included in the key industries is to be organised on collectivised

method. Owners of the nationalised industries and land are to be

compensated in the form of debentures. The debenture-holders are

entitled to receive interest at such rates as defined by the law.

Small Holdings in India

The subjects of Dr. Ambedkar’s Doctoral thesis were in the disciplines

of economics only. The present paper was one of his articles dealing

with the problem of agricultural economy of the Country. Amongst

several problems of agricultural economy dealing with agricultural

production, Dr. Ambedkar chose the subject of the size of holdings as

it affects the productivity of agriculture.

Dr. Ambedkar in his paper points out that the holdings of

land in India are not small but they are also scattered. This

feature of Indian agriculture has caused great anxiety

regarding agriculture which Dr. Ambedkar designates as an industry.

The problems of these holdings are two-fold—(1) How to con-

solidate the holdings and (2) after consolidation, how to perpe -

tuate the said consolidation. The heirs of deceased in India desire

to secure share from each survey number of the deceased rather

than distributing complete holdings amongst themselves. This

has resulted into rendering the farming most inefficient and

causing several problems. Dr. Ambedkar discusses methods

for consolidation e.g., restripping, restricted sale of the occupancy

of the fragmented land to the contagious holder and the right of

INTRODUCTION XXV

pre-emption. In this connection Dr. Ambedkar discusses the report

of the Baroda Committee and the proposals of Prof. Jevons and

Mr. Keatinge, and points out that the consolidation may obviate the

evils of scattered holdings, but it will not obviate the evils of small

holdings unless the consolidated holding becomes an economic holdings.

While discussing the terms of economic holding, Dr. Ambedkar

observes, “Mere size of land is empty of all economic connotation………….

It is the right or wrong proportion of other factors of production to

a suit of land that renders the latter economic or uneconomic”. Thus

a small farm may be economic as well as a large farm. Verifying

the statistics at length, he concludes that “the existing holdings are

uneconomic, not, however, in the sense that they are too small but

that they are too large” as against the inadequacy of other factors of

production. He therefore suggests that the remedy lies in not enlarging

the holding but in the matter of increasing capital and capital goods.

According to Dr. Ambedkar, the evil of small holding is the product

of mal-adjustment of the Indian social economy. A large part of

population of superfluous and idle labour exerts high pressure on

agriculture. He tries to analyse how to remedy the ills of agriculture

and suggests that industrialization of India is the soundest remedy

for the agricultural problems of India.

Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society

While reviewing the book “Principles of Social Reconstruction”

by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand Russell, Dr. Ambedkar deals

only with the analysis of the institution of Property and the modi-

fications it is alleged to produce in human nature. Commenting

on the observations of Mr. Russell on the philosophy of war,

Dr. Ambedkar opines that Mr. Russell is against war but is not

for quieticism. Quieticism is another name of death. Activity

leads to growth. He suggests that to achieve anything we must use

force ; only we must use it constructively as energy and not destructively

as violence. The pacifist Mr. Russell, according to Dr. Ambedkar,

thinks that even war is an activity leading to the growth

XXVI INTRODUCTION

of the individual and condemns it only because it results in death and

destruction. He therefore thinks that Russell would welcome milder

forms of war.

Dr. Ambedkar further discusses the analysis of effects of property

as propounded by Mr. Russell. Regarding the mental effects of

property, he finds that Russell’s discussion on this aspect is marked

by certain misconceptions. Criticising the statement about “love of

money” as interpreted by Mr. Russell, Dr. Ambedkar points out that

there is genuine difference in the outlook of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

Hence their attitude about money will be different. According to him,

Mr. Russell failed to inquire into the purpose of the love of money

which has given rise to wrong conception. Dr. Ambedkar feels that

this thesis is shaky from the production side of our life.

He further proceeds to discuss and prove how the above proposition

is also untenable from the consumption side of life. Here the learned

Doctor enters into a psychological discussion of the desires and

pleasures. We leave this interesting discussion to be read by the readers

in original without taking their much time.

The editors do not claim to have covered all the main features of

the closely reasoned arguments of the learned Doctor in the present

volume.

Members of the Editorial Board are deeply indebted to the Hon’ble

Chief Minister of Maharashtra State, Shri Sharad Pawar and Hon’ble

Minister for Education, Shri Sadanand Varde, for their valuable

help, guidance and co-operation in bringing out this volume. We are

also grateful to Shri Sapre, the Director of Government Printing and

Stationery, and his staff for having helped us in bringing out this

book in record time.

MEMBERS

EDITORIAL BOARD

CONTENTS

FOREWARD .. .. .. vii

PREFACE .. .. .. xi

INTRODUCTION .. .. .. xiii

PAGE

PART I

ON CASTE

1 C

ASTES IN INDIA .. .. .. 3

2 A

NNIHILATION OF CASTE .. .. .. 23

PART II

ON LINGUISTIC STATES

3 M

AHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE .. 99

4 N

EED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES .. .. 129

5 T

HOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES .. .. 137

PART III

ON HERO AND HERO-WORSHIP

6 R

ANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH .. .. 205

PART IV

ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

7 E

VIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE .. 243

8 F

EDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM .. 279

9 C

OMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT .. 355

10 S

TATES AND MINORITIES .. .. .. 381

PART V

ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

11 S

MALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA .. .. .. 453

12 M

R. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY 481

INDEX .. .. .. 493

PART I

ON CASTE

CASTES IN INDIA

Their Mechanism, Genesis and

Development

Paper read before

the Anthropology Seminar

Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer

The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.

9th May 1916

From : Indian Antiquary, May 1917, Vol. XLI

CASTES IN INDIA

Many of us, I dare say, have witnessed local, national or international

expositions of material objects that make up the sum total of human

civilization. But few can entertain the idea of there being such a thing as

an exposition of human institutions. Exhibition of human institutions is a

strange idea ; some might call it the wildest of ideas. But as students of

Ethnology I hope you will not be hard on this innovation, for it is not so,

and to you at least it should not be strange.

You all have visited, I believe, some historic place like the ruins of Pompeii,

and listened with curiosity to the history of the remains as it flowed from the

glib tongue of the guide. In my opinion a student of Ethnology, in one sense

at least, is much like the guide. Like his prototype, he holds up (perhaps

with more seriousness and desire of self-instruction) the social institutions

to view, with all the objectiveness humanly possible, and inquires into their

origin and function.

Most of our fellow students in this Seminar, which concerns itself with

primitive versus modern society, have ably acquitted themselves along

these lines by giving lucid expositions of the various institutions, modern

or primitive, in which they are interested. It is my turn now, this evening,

to entertain you, as best I can, with a paper on “Castes in India : Their

mechanism, genesis and development”

I need hardly remind you of the complexity of the subject I intend to

handle. Subtler minds and abler pens than mine have been brought to the

task of unravelling the mysteries of Caste ; but unfortunately it still remains

in the domain of the “unexplained”, not to say of the “un-understood” I am

quite alive to the complex intricacies of a hoary institution like Caste, but I

am not so pessimistic as to relegate it to the region of the unknowable, for

I believe it can be known. The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically

and practically. Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous

consequences. It is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief,

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

for “as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or

have any social intercourse with outsiders ; and if Hindus migrate to other

regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem.”

Theoretically,

it has defied a great many scholars who have taken upon themselves, as

a labour of love, to dig into its origin. Such being the case, I cannot treat

the problem in its entirety. Time, space and acumen, I am afraid, would

all fail me, if I attempted to do otherwise than limit myself to a phase of

it, namely, the genesis, mechanism and spread of the caste system. I will

strictly observe this rule, and will dwell on extraneous matters only when

it is necessary to clarify or support a point in my thesis.

To proceed with the subject. According to well-known ethnologists, the

population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and

Scythians. All these stocks of people came into India from various directions

and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal state.

They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with their

predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful neighbours.

Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a common

culture that superseded their distinctive cultures. It may be granted that

there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make

up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of

India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour

to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never

be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically

all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of

homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country

that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture.

It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper

and a much more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that

covers the land from end to end. But it is because of this homogeneity that

Caste becomes a problem so difficult to be explained. If the Hindu Society

were a mere federation of mutually exclusive units, the matter would be

simple enough. But Caste is a parcelling of an already homogeneous unit,

and the explanation of the genesis of Caste is the explanation of this process

of parcelling.

Before launching into our field of enquiry, it is better to advise ourselves

regarding the nature of a caste I will therefore draw upon a few of the best

students of caste for their definitions of it:

(1) Mr. Senart, a French authority, defines a caste as “a close corporation,

in theory at any rate rigorously hereditary : equipped with a certain

traditional and independent organisation, including a chief and a

council, meeting on occasion in assemblies of more or less plenary

1. Ketkar, Caste, p. 4.

CASTES IN INDIA

authority and joining together at certain festivals : bound together

by common occupations, which relate more particularly to marriage

and to food and to questions of ceremonial pollution, and ruling its

members by the exercise of jurisdiction, the extent of which varies,

but which succeeds in making the authority of the community more

felt by the sanction of certain penalties and, above all, by final

irrevocable exclusion from the group”.

(2) Mr. Nesfield defines a caste as “a class of the community which disowns

any connection with any other class and can neither intermarry nor

eat nor drink with any but persons of their own community”.

(3) According to Sir H. Risley, “a caste may be defined as a collection of

families or groups of families bearing a common name which usually

denotes or is associated with specific occupation, claiming common

descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to

follow the same professional callings and are regarded by those who

are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homogeneous

community”.

(4) Dr. Ketkar defines caste as “a social group having two characteristics :

(i) membership is confined to those who are born of members and

includes all persons so born ; (ii) the members are forbidden by an

inexorable social law to marry outside the group”.

To review these definitions is of great importance for our purpose. It will

be noticed that taken individually the definitions of three of the writers

include too much or too little : none is complete or correct by itself and all

have missed the central point in the mechanism of the Caste system. Their

mistake lies in trying to define caste as an isolated unit by itself, and not

as a group within, and with definite relations to, the system of caste as a

whole. Yet collectively all of them are complementary to one another, each

one emphasising what has been obscured in the other. By way of criticism,

therefore, I will take only those points common to all Castes in each of the

above definitions which are regarded as peculiarities of Caste and evaluate

them as such.

To start with Mr. Senart. He draws attention to the “idea of pollution”

as a characteristic of Caste. With regard to this point it may be safely said

that it is by no means a peculiarity of Caste as such. It usually originates

in priestly ceremonialism and is a particular case of the general belief in

purity. Consequently its necessary connection with Caste may be completely

denied without damaging the working of Caste. The “idea of pollution” has

been attached to the institution of Caste, only because the Caste that enjoys

the highest rank is the priestly Caste : while we know that priest and purity

are old associates. We may therefore conclude that the “idea of pollution”

is a characteristic of Caste only in so far as Caste has a religious flavour.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Nesfield in his way dwells on the absence of messing with those outside

the Caste as one of its characteristics. In spite of the newness of the point

we must say that Mr. Nesfield has mistaken the effect for the cause. Caste,

being a self-enclosed unit naturally limits social intercourse, including

messing etc. to members within it. Consequently this absence of messing

with outsiders is not due to positive prohibition, but is a natural result of

Caste, i.e. exclusiveness. No doubt this absence of messing originally due to

exclusiveness, acquired the prohibitory character of a religious injunction,

but it may be regarded as a later growth. Sir H. Risley, makes no new point

deserving of special attention.

We now pass on to the definition of Dr. Ketkar who has done much

for the elucidation of the subject. Not only is he a native, but he has also

brought a critical acumen and an open mind to bear on his study of Caste.

His definition merits consideration, for he has defined Caste in its relation

to a system of Castes, and has concentrated his attention only on those

characteristics which are absolutely necessary for the existence of a Caste

within a system, rightly excluding all others as being secondary or derivative

in character. With respect to his definition it must, however, be said that

in it there is a slight confusion of thought, lucid and clear as otherwise it

is. He speaks of Prohibition of Intermarriage and Membership by Autogeny

as the two characteristics of Caste. I submit that these are but two aspects

of one and the same thing, and not two different things as Dr. Ketkar

supposes them to be. If you prohibit intermarriage the result is that you

limit membership to those born within the group. Thus the two are the

obverse and the reverse sides of the same medal.

This critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste leave no doubt

that prohibition, or rather the absence of intermarriage—endogamy, to be

concise—is the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when rightly

understood. But some may deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for

there exist endogamous groups without giving rise to the problem of Caste. In

a general way this may be true, as endogamous societies, culturally different,

making their abode in localities more or less removed, and having little to

do with each other are a physical reality. The Negroes and the Whites and

the various tribal groups that go by name of American Indians in the United

States may be cited as more or less appropriate illustrations in support of

this view. But we must not confuse matters, for in India the situation is

different. As pointed out before, the peoples of India form a homogeneous

whole. The various races of India occupying definite territories have more or

less fused into one another and do possess cultural unity, which is the only

criterion of a homogeneous population. Given this homogeneity as a basis,

Caste becomes a problem altogether new in character and wholly absent in

the situation constituted by the mere propinquity of endogamous social or

CASTES IN INDIA

tribal groups. Caste in India means an artificial chopping off of the population

into fixed and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another

through the custom of endogamy. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that

Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste, and if we

succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we shall practically have

proved the genesis and also the mechanism of Caste.

It may not be quite easy for you to anticipate why I regard endogamy as

a key to the mystery of the Caste system. Not to strain your imagination

too much, I will proceed to give you my reasons for it.

It may not also be out of place to emphasize at this moment that no

civilized society of today presents more survivals of primitive times than does

the Indian society. Its religion is essentially primitive and its tribal code, in

spite of the advance of time and civilization, operates in all its pristine vigour

even today. One of these primitive survivals, to which I wish particularly to

draw your attention is the Custom of Exogamy. The prevalence of exogamy

in the primitive worlds is a fact too wellknown to need any explanation.

With the growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy, and

excepting the nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar restricting

the field of marriage. But regarding the peoples of India the law of exogamy

is a positive injunction even today. Indian society still savours of the clan

system, even though there are no clans ; and this can be easily seen from

the law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is

not that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a marriage even between

Sagotras (of the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.

Nothing is therefore more important for you to remember than the fact

that endogamy is foreign to the people of India. The various Gotras of

India are and have been exogamous : so are the other groups with totemic

organization. It is no exaggeration to say that with the people of India

exogamy is a creed and none dare infringe it, so much so that, in spite of

the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly observed and

that there are more rigorous penalties for violating exogamy than there are

for violating endogamy. You will, therefore, readily see that with exogamy

as the rule there could be no Caste, for exogamy means fusion. But we have

castes ; consequently in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India

is concerned, means the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. However,

in an originally exogamous population an easy working out of endogamy

(which is equivalent to the creation of Caste) is a grave problem, and it is

in the consideration of the means utilized for the preservation of endogamy

against exogamy that we may hope to find the solution of our problem.

Thus the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.

But this is not an easy affair. Let us take an imaginary group that desires

to make itself into a Caste and analyse what means it will have to adopt to

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

make itself endogamous. If a group desires to make itself endogamous a

formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be of no

avail, especially if prior to the introduction of endogamy, exogamy had been

the rule in all matrimonial relations. Again, there is a tendency in all groups

lying in close contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and

thus consolidate into a homogeneous society. If this tendency is to be strongly

counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is absolutely necessary

to circumscribe a circle outside which people should not contract marriages.

Nevertheless, this encircling to prevent marriages from without creates

problems from within which are not very easy of solution. Roughly speaking,

in a normal group the two sexes are more or less evenly distributed, and

generally speaking there is an equality between those of the same age.

The equality is, however, never quite realized in actual societies. At the

same time to the group that is desirous of making itself into a caste the

maintenance of equality between the sexes becomes the ultimate goal, for

without it. endogamy can no longer subsist. In other words, if endogamy

is to be preserved conjugal rights from within have to be provided for,

otherwise members of the group will be driven out of the circle to take care

of themselves in any way they can. But in order that the conjugal rights be

provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain a numerical

equality between the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group

desirous of making itself into a Caste. It is only through the maintenance

of such an equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept

intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it.

The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing

the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it. Left

to nature, the much needed parity between the units can be realized only

when a couple dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The

husband may die before the wife and create a surplus woman, who must be

disposed of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the

group. In like manner the husband may survive his wife and be surplus man,

whom the group, while it may sympathise with him for the sad bereavement,

has to dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break the

endogamy. Thus both the surplus man and the surplus woman constitute a

menace to the Caste if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners

inside their prescribed circle (and left to themselves they cannot find any,

for if the matter be not regulated there can only be just enough pairs to

go round) very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and

import offspring that is foreign to the Caste.

Let us see what our imaginary group is likely to do with this surplus man

and surplus woman. We will first take up the case of the surplus woman.

CASTES IN INDIA

She can be disposed of in two different ways so as to preserve the endogamy

of the Caste.

First: burn her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get

rid of her. This, however, is rather an impracticable way of solving the

problem of sex disparity. In some cases it may work, in others it may not.

Consequently every surplus woman cannot thus be disposed of, because it

is an easy solution but a hard realization. And so the surplus woman (=

widow), if not disposed of, remains in the group : but in her very existence

lies a double danger. She may marry outside the Caste and violate endogamy,

or she may marry within the Caste and through competition encroach upon

the chances of marriage that must be reserved for the potential brides in

the Caste. She is therefore a menance in any case, and something must

be done to her if she cannot be burned along with her deceased husband.

The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for the rest of her life.

So far as the objective results are concerned, burning is a better solution

than enforcing widowhood. Burning the widow eliminates all the three evils

that a surplus woman is fraught with. Being dead and gone she creates no

problem of remarriage either inside or outside the Caste. But compulsory

widowhood is superior to burning because it is more practicable. Besides

being comparatively humane it also guards against the evils of remarriage

as does burning; but it fails to guard the morals of the group. No doubt

under compulsory widowhood the woman remains, and just because she is

deprived of her natural right of being a legitimate wife in future, the incentive

to immoral conduct is increased. But this is by no means an insuperable

difficulty. She can be degraded to a condition in which she is no longer a

source of allurement.

The problem of surplus man (= widower) is much more important and

much more difficult than that of the surplus woman in a group that desires

to make itself into a Caste. From time immemorial man as compared with

woman has had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group

and of the two sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional superiority

of man over woman his wishes have always been consulted. Woman, on the

other hand, has been an easy prey to all kinds of iniquitous injunctions,

religious, social or economic. But man as a maker of injunctions is most

often above them all. Such being the case, you cannot accord the same kind

of treatment to a surplus man as you can to a surplus woman in a Caste.

The project of burning him with his deceased wife is hazardous in two

ways : first of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a man. Secondly,

if done, a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste. There remain then only two

solutions which can conveniently dispose of him. I say conveniently, because

he is an asset to the group.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still more important, and

the solution must assure both these ends. Under these circumstances he

may be forced or I should say induced, after the manner of the widow, to

remain a widower for the rest of his life. This solution is not altogether

difficult, for without any compulsion some are so disposed as to enjoy self-

imposed celibacy, or even to take a further step of their own accord and

renounce the world and its joys. But, given human nature as it is, this

solution can hardly be expected to be realized. On the other hand, as is

very likely to be the case, if the surplus man remains in the group as an

active participator in group activities, he is a danger to the morals of the

group. Looked at from a different point of view celibacy, though easy in

cases where it succeeds, is not so advantageous even then to the material

prospects of the Caste. If he observes genuine celibacy and renounces the

world, he would not be a menace to the preservation of Caste endogamy or

Caste morals as he undoubtedly would be if he remained a secular person.

But as an ascetic celibate he is as good as burned, so far as the material

well-being of his Caste is concerned. A Caste, in order that it may be large

enough to afford a vigorous communal life, must be maintained at a certain

numerical strength. But to hope for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same

as trying to cure atrophy by bleeding.

Imposing celibacy on the surplus man in the group, therefore, fails both

theoretically and practically. It is in the interest of the Caste to keep him

as a Grahastha (one who raises a family), to use a Sanskrit technical term.

But the problem is to provide him with a wife from within the Caste. At

the outset this is not possible, for the ruling ratio in a caste has to be one

man to one woman and none can have two chances of marriage, for in a

Caste thoroughly self-enclosed there are always just enough marriageable

women to go round for the marriageable men. Under these circumstances

the surplus man can be provided with a wife only by recruiting a bride

from the ranks of those not yet marriageable in order to tie him down to

the group. This is certainly the best of the possible solutions in the case

of the surplus man. By this, he is kept within the Caste. By this means

numerical depletion through constant outflow is guarded against, and by

this endogamy morals are preserved.

It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity

between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are : (1) burning the widow

with her deceased husband ; (2) compulsory widowhood—a milder form of

burning ; (3) imposing celibacy on the widower and (4) wedding him to a girl

not yet marriageable. Though, as I said above, burning the widow and imposing

celibacy on the widower are of doubtful service to the group in its endeavour

to preserve its endogamy, all of them operate as means. But means, as forces,

when liberated or set in motion create an end. What then is the end that

these means create ? They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and

CASTES IN INDIA

endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of caste, are

one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means is identical with

caste and caste involves these means.

This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste in a system of

castes. Let us now turn from these high generalities to the castes in Hindu

Society and inquire into their mechanism. I need hardly premise that there

are a great many pitfalls in the path of those who try to unfold the past,

and caste in India to be sure is a very ancient institution. This is especially

true where there exist no authentic or written records or where the people,

like the Hindus, are so constituted that to them writing history is a folly,

for the world is an illusion. But institutions do live, though for a long time

they may remain unrecorded and as often as not customs and morals are

like fossils that tell their own history. If this is true, our task will be amply

rewarded if we scrutinize the solution the Hindus arrived at to meet the

problems of the surplus man and surplus woman.

Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to

a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely :

(i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased

husband.

(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry.

(iii) Girl marriage.

In addition, one also notes a great hankering after Sannyasa (renunciation)

on the part of the widower, but this may in some cases be due purely to

psychic disposition.

So far as I know, no scientific explanation of the origin of these customs

is forthcoming even today. We have plenty of philosophy to tell us why these

customs were honoured, but nothing to tell us the causes of their origin and

existence. Sati has been honoured (Cf. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Sati: A Defence

of the Eastern Woman in the British Sociological Review, Vol. VI, 1913)

because it is a “proof of the perfect unity of body and soul” between husband

and wife and of “devotion beyond the grave”, because it embodied the ideal

of wifehood, which is well expressed by Uma when she said, “Devotion to her

Lord is woman’s honour, it is her eternal heaven : and O Maheshvara”, she

adds with a most touching human cry, “I desire not paradise itself if thou

are not satisfied with me !” Why compulsory widowhood is honoured I know

not, nor have I yet met with any one who sang in praise of it, though there

are a great many who adhere to it. The eulogy in honour of girl marriage is

reported by Dr. Ketkar to be as follows : “A really faithful man or woman

ought not to feel affection for a woman or a man other than the one with

whom he or she is united. Such purity is compulsory not only after marriage,

but even before marriage, for that is the only correct ideal of chastity. No

maiden could be considered pure if she feels love for a man other than the one

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

to whom she might be married. As she does not know to whom she is going

to be married, she must not feel affection for any man at all before marriage.

If she does so, it is a sin. So it is better for a girl to know whom she has

to love before any sexual consciousness has been awakened in her.”

Hence

girl marriage.

This high-flown and ingenious sophistry indicates why these institutions

were honoured, but does not tell us why they were practised. My own

interpretation is that they were honoured because they were practised.

Any one slightly acquainted with rise of individualism in the 18th century

will appreciate my remark. At all times, it is the movement that is most

important; and the philosophies grow around it long afterwards to justify it

and give it a moral support. In like manner I urge that the very fact that

these customs were so highly eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for

their prevalence. Regarding the question as to why they arose, I submit

that they were needed to create the structure of caste and the philosophies

in honour of them were intended to popularize them, or to gild the pill,

as we might say, for they must have been so abominable and shocking to

the moral sense of the unsophisticated that they needed a great deal of

sweetening. These customs are essentially of the nature of means, though they

are represented as ideals. But this should not blind us from understanding

the results that flow from them. One might safely say that idealization of

means is necessary and in this particular case was perhaps motivated to

endow them with greater efficacy. Calling a means an end does no harm,

except that it disguises its real character ; but it does not deprive it of its

real nature, that of a means. You may pass a law that all cats are dogs,

just as you can call a means an end. But you can no more change the

nature of means thereby than you can turn cats into dogs; consequently I

am justified in holding that, whether regarded as ends or as means, Sati,

enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were primarily

intended to solve the problem of the surplus man and surplus woman in a

caste and to maintain its endogamy. Strict endogamy could not be preserved

without these customs, while caste without endogamy is a fake.

Having explained the mechanism of the creation and preservation of

Caste in India, the further question as to its genesis naturally arises. The

question or origin is always an annoying question and in the study of Caste

it is sadly neglected ; some have connived at it, while others have dodged it.

Some are puzzled as to whether there could be such a thing as the origin

of caste and suggest that “if we cannot control our fondness for the word

‘origin’, we should better use the plural form, viz. ‘origins of caste’ ”. As for

myself I do not feel puzzled by the Origin of Caste in India for, as I have

established before, endogamy is the only characteristic of Caste and when

I say Origin of Caste I mean The Origin of the Mechanism for Endogamy.

2. History of Caste in India, 1909, pp. 2-33.

CASTES IN INDIA

The atomistic conception of individuals in a Society so greatly popularised—

I was about to say vulgarized—in political orations is the greatest humbug.

To say that individuals make up society is trivial; society is always composed

of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class-conflict,

but the existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may

differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in

a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early

Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter

of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study

of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to

determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste, for class

and caste, so to say, are next door neighbours, and it is only a span that

separates the two. A Caste is an Enclosed Class.

The study of the origin of caste must furnish us with an answer to the

question—what is the class that raised this “enclosure” around itself ? The

question may seem too inquisitorial, but it is pertinent, and an answer to

this will serve us to elucidate the mystery of the growth and development

of castes all over India. Unfortunately a direct answer to this question is

not within my power. I can answer it only indirectly. I said just above that

the customs in question were current in the Hindu society. To be true to

facts it is necessary to qualify the statement, as it connotes universality of

their prevalence. These customs in all their strictness are obtainable only in

one caste, namely the Brahmins, who occupy the highest place in the social

hierarchy of the Hindu society ; and as their prevalence in non-Brahmin castes

is derivative of their observance is neither strict nor complete. This important

fact can serve as a basis of an important observation. If the prevalence of

these customs in the non-Brahmin Castes is derivative, as can be shown

very easily, then it needs no argument to prove what class is the father of

the institution of caste. Why the Brahmin class should have enclosed itself

into a caste is a different question, which may be left as an employment

for another occasion. But the strict observance of these customs and the

social superiority arrogated by the priestly class in all ancient civilizations

are sufficient to prove that they were the originators of this “unnatural

institution” founded and maintained through these unnatural means.

I now come to the third part of my paper regarding the question of the

growth and spread of the caste system all over India. The question I have

to answer is : How did the institution of caste spread among the rest of the

non-Brahmin population of the country ? The question of the spread of the

castes all over India has suffered a worse fate than the question of genesis.

And the main cause, as it seems to me, is that the two questions of spread

and of origin are not separated. This is because of the common belief among

scholars that the caste system has either been imposed upon the docile

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

population of India by a law-giver as a divine dispensation, or that it has

grown according to some law of social growth peculiar to the Indian people.

I first propose to handle the law-giver of India. Every country has its

law-giver, who arises as an incarnation (avatar) in times of emergency to set

right a sinning humanity and give it the laws of justice and morality. Manu,

the law-giver of India, if he did exist, was certainly an audacious person. If

the story that he gave the law of caste be credited, then Manu must have

been a dare-devil fellow and the humanity that accepted his dispensation

must be a humanity quite different from the one we are acquainted with. It

is unimaginable that the law of caste was given. It is hardly an exaggeration

to say that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class that

can submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a man, and

suffer him to raise another class to the pinnacle ? Unless he was a tyrant

who held all the population in subjection it cannot be imagined that he

could have been allowed to dispense his patronage in this grossly unjust

manner, as may be easily seen by a mere glance at his “Institutes”. I may

seem hard on Manu. but I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill

his ghost. He lives, like a disembodied spirit and is appealed to, and I am

afraid will yet live long. One thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu

did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed

long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised

about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of

Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules

and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste

system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an

individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory that the Brahmins

created the Caste. After what I have said regarding Manu, I need hardly

say anything more, except to point out that it is incorrect in thought and

malicious in intent. The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things,

and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-

Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the

process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed

their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one’s own

pattern ! How glorious ! How hard ! One can take pleasure and eulogize

its furtherance, but cannot further it very far. The vehemence of my attack

may seem to be unnecessary ; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled

for. There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu

Society was somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and

that it is an organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does

this belief exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but

be good, because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot

be wrong. I have urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not

because the religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help

those reformers who are preaching against it. Preaching did not make

CASTES IN INDIA

the caste system neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of

the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific

explanation.

Thus the great man theory does not help us very far in solving the spread

of castes in India. Western scholars, probably not much given to hero-

worship, have attempted other explanations. The nuclei, round which have

“formed” the various castes in India, are, according to them : (1) occupation;

(2) survivals of tribal organizations etc. ; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) cross-

breeding and (5) migration.

The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other

societies and whether they are peculiar to India. If they are not peculiar to

India, but are common to the world, why is it that they did not “form” caste

on other parts of this planet ? Is it because those parts are holier than the

land of the Vedas, or that the professors are mistaken ? I am afraid that

the latter is the truth.

In spite of the high theoretic value claimed by the several authors for

their respective theories based on one or other of the above nuclei, one

regrets to say that on close examination they are nothing more than filling

illustrations— what Matthew Arnold means by “the grand name without

the grand thing in it”. Such are the various theories of caste advanced by

Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Mr. Nesfield, Mr. Senart and Sir H. Risley. To criticise

them in a lump would be to say that they are a disguised form of the Petitio

Principii of formal logic. To illustrate : Mr. Nesfield says that “function and

function only. .. was the foundation upon which the whole system of Castes

in India was built up”. But he may rightly be reminded that he does not very

much advance our thought by making the above statement, which practically

amounts to saying that castes in India are functional or occupational, which

is a very poor discovery ! We have yet to know from Mr. Nesfield why is it

that an occupational group turned into an occupational caste ? I would very

cheerfully have undertaken the task of dwelling on the theories of other

ethnologists, had it not been for the fact that Mr. Nesfield’s is a typical one.

Without stopping to criticize those theories that explain the caste system

as a natural phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of disintegration,

as explained by Herbert Spencer in his formula of evolution, or as natural

as “the structural differentiation within an organism”—to employ the

phraseology of orthodox apologists—, or as an early attempt to test the laws

of eugenics—as all belonging to the same class of fallacy which regards the

caste system as inevitable, or as being consciously imposed in anticipation

of these laws on a helpless and humble population, I will now lay before

you my own view on the subject.

We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in

common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

are the (1) Brahmins or the priestly class ; (2) the Kshatriya, or the

military class ; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra,

or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the

fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when

qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their

personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class

socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through

a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes being

subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation,

some into large, others into very minute groups. The Vaishya and Shudra

classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of

the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not very

easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya class could

have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.

This sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural thing

about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door character

of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes.

The question is : were they compelled to close their doors and become

endogamous, or did they close them of their own accord ? I submit that

there is a double line of answer : Some closed the door : Others found it

closed against them. The one is a psychological interpretation and the

other is mechanistic, but they are complementary and both are necessary

to explain the phenomena of caste-formation in its entirety.

I will first take up the psychological interpretation. The question we

have to answer in this connection is : Why did these sub-divisions or

classes, if you please, industrial, religious or otherwise, become self-

enclosed or endogamous ? My answer is because the Brahmins were so.

Endogamy or the closed-door system, was a fashion in the Hindu society,

and as it had originated from the Brahmin caste it was whole-heartedly

imitated by all the non-Brahmin sub-divisions or classes, who, in their

turn, became endo gamous castes. It is “the infection of imitation” that

caught all these sub-divisions on their onward march of differentiation

and has turned them into castes. The propensity to imitate is a deep-

seated one in the human mind and need not be deemed an inadequate

explanation for the formation of the various castes in India. It is so

deep-seated that Walter Bagehot argues that, “We must not think of

. . . imitation as voluntary, or even conscious. On the contrary it has

its seat mainly in very obscure parts of the mind, whose notions, so far

from being consciously produced, are hardly felt to exist; so far from

being conceived beforehand, are not even felt at the time. The main

seat of the imitative part of our nature is our belief, and the causes

predisposing us to believe this or disinclining us to believe that are

among the obscurest parts of our nature. But as to the imitative nature

CASTES IN INDIA

of credulity there can be no doubt.”

This propensity to imitate has been made

the subject of a scientific study by Gabriel Tarde, who lays down three laws

of imitation. One of his three laws is that imitation flows from the higher to

the lower or, to quote his own words, “Given the opportunity, a nobility will

always and everywhere imitate its leaders, its kings or sovereigns, and the

people likewise, given the opportunity, its nobility.”

Another of Tarde’s laws

of imitation is : that the extent or intensity of imitation varies inversely in

proportion to distance, or in his own words “The thing that is most imitated

is the most superior one of those that are nearest. In fact, the influence

of the model’s example is efficacious inversely to its distance as well as

directly to its superiority. Distance is understood here in its sociological

meaning. However distant in space a stranger may be, he is close by, from

this point of view, if we have numerous and daily relations with him and

if we have every facility to satisfy our desire to imitate him. This law of

the imitation of the nearest, of the least distant, explains the gradual and

consecutive character of the spread of an example that has been set by the

higher social ranks.”

In order to prove my thesis—which really needs no proof—that some castes

were formed by imitation, the best way, it seems to me, is to find out whether

or not the vital conditions for the formation of castes by imitation exist in

the Hindu Society. The conditions for imitation, according to this standard

authority are : (1) that the source of imitation must enjoy prestige in the group

and (2) that there must be “numerous and daily relations” among members

of a group. That these conditions were present in India there is little reason

to doubt. The Brahmin is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god. He sets

up a mode and moulds the rest. His prestige is unquestionable and is the

fountain-head of bliss and good. Can such a being, idolised by scriptures and

venerated by the priest-ridden multitude, fail to project his personality on

the suppliant humanity ? Why, if the story be true, he is believed to be the

very end of creation. Such a creature is worthy of more than mere imitation,

but at least of imitation ; and if he lives in an endogamous enclosure, should

not the rest follow his example ? Frail humanity! Be it embodied in a grave

philosopher or a frivolous housemaid, it succumbs. It cannot be otherwise.

Imitation is easy and invention is difficult.

Yet another way of demonstrating the play of imitation in the formation

of castes is to understand the attitude of non-Brahmin classes towards those

customs which supported the structure of caste in its nascent days until, in

the course of history, it became embedded in the Hindu mind and hangs there

to this day without any support—for now it needs no prop but belief—like

3. Physics and Politics, 1915, p. 60.

4. Laws of Imitation, Tr. by E.C. Parsons, 2nd edition, p. 217.

5. Ibid., p. 224.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a weed on the surface of a pond. In a way, but only in a way, the status of a

caste in the Hindu Society varies directly with the extent of the observance of

the customs of Sati, enforced widowhood, and girl marriage. But observance

of these customs varies directly with the distance (I am using the word in

the Tardian sense) that separates the caste. Those castes that are nearest

to the Brahmins have imitated all the three customs and insist on the strict

observance thereof. Those that are less near have imitated enforced widowhood

and girl marriage ; others, a little further off, have only girl marriage and

those furthest off have imitated only the belief in the caste principle. This

imperfect imitation, I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls “distance”

and partly to the barbarous character of these customs. This phenomenon

is a complete illustration of Tarde’s law and leaves no doubt that the whole

process of caste-formation in India is a process of imitation of the higher by

the lower. At this juncture I will turn back to support a former conclusion

of mine, which might have appeared to you as too sudden or unsupported.

I said that the Brahmin class first raised the structure of caste by the

help of those three customs in question. My reason for that conclusion was

that their existence in other classes was derivative. After what I have said

regarding the role of imitation in the spread of these customs among the

non-Brahmin castes, as means or as ideals, though the imitators have not

been aware of it, they exist among them as derivatives ; and, if they are

derived, there must have been prevalent one original caste that was high

enough to have served as a pattern for the rest. But in a theocratic society,

who could be the pattern but the servant of God ?

This completes the story of those that were weak enough to close their

doors. Let us now see how others were closed in as a result of being closed out.

This I call the mechanistic process of the formation of caste. It is mechanistic

because it is inevitable. That this line of approach, as well as the psychological

one, to the explanation of the subject has escaped my predecessors is entirely

due to the fact that they have conceived caste as a unit by itself and not as

one within a System of Caste. The result of this oversight or lack of sight has

been very detrimental to the proper understanding of the subject matter and

therefore its correct explanation. I will proceed to offer my own explanation

by making one remark which I will urge you to bear constantly in mind. It

is this : that caste in the singular number is an unreality. Castes exist only

in the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste : There are always

castes. To illustrate my meaning : while making themselves into a caste, the

Brahmins, by virtue of this, created non-Brahmin caste; or, to express it in my

own way, while closing themselves in they closed others out. I will clear my

point by taking another illustration. Take India as a whole with its various

communities designated by the various creeds to which they owe allegiance,

to wit, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians and Parsis. Now,

barring the Hindus, the rest within themselves are non-caste communities.

CASTES IN INDIA

But with respect to each other they are castes. Again, if the first four enclose

themselves, the Parsis are directly closed out, but are indirectly closed in.

Symbolically, if Group A wants to be endogamous, Group B has to be so by

sheer force of circumstances.

Now apply the same logic to the Hindu society and you have another

explanation of the “fissiparous” character of caste, as a consequence of the

virtue of self-duplication that is inherent in it. Any innovation that seriously

antagonises the ethical, religious and social code of the Caste is not likely

to be tolerated by the Caste, and the recalcitrant members of a Caste are in

danger of being thrown out of the Caste, and left to their own fate without

having the alternative of being admitted into or absorbed by other Castes.

Caste rules are inexorable and they do not wait to make nice distinctions

between kinds of offence. Innovation may be of any kind, but all kinds

will suffer the same penalty. A novel way of thinking will create a new

Caste for the old ones will not tolerate it. The noxious thinker respectfully

called Guru (Prophet) suffers the same fate as the sinners in illegitimate

love. The former creates a caste of the nature of a religious sect and the

latter a type of mixed caste. Castes have no mercy for a sinner who has

the courage to violate the code. The penalty is excommunication and the

result is a new caste. It is not peculiar Hindu psychology that induces

the excommunicated to form themselves into a caste ; far from it. On the

contrary, very often they have been quite willing to be humble members of

some caste (higher by preference) if they could be admitted within its fold.

But castes are enclosed units and it is their conspiracy with clear conscience

that compels the excommunicated to make themselves into a caste. The logic

of this obdurate circumstance is merciless, and it is in obedience to its force

that some unfortunate groups find themselves enclosed, because others in

enclosing, themselves have closed them out, with the result that new groups

(formed on any basis obnoxious to the caste rules) by a mechanical law are

constantly being converted into castes to a bewildering multiplicity. Thus is

told the second tale in the process of Caste formation in India.

Now to summarise the main points of my thesis. In my opinion there

have been several mistakes committed by the students of Caste, which have

misled them in their investigations. European students of Caste have unduly

emphasised the role of colour in the Caste system. Themselves impregnated

by colour prejudices, they very readily imagined it to be the chief factor in the

Caste problem. But nothing can be farther from the truth, and Dr. Ketkar

is correct when he insists that “All the princes whether they belonged to the

so-called Aryan race, or the so-called Dravidian race, were Aryas. Whether

a tribe or a family was racially Aryan or Dravidian was a question which

never troubled the people of India, until foreign scholars came in and began

to draw the line. The colour of the skin had long ceased to be a matter of

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

importance.”

Again, they have mistaken mere descriptions for explanation

and fought over them as though they were theories of origin. There are

occupational, religious etc., castes, it is true, but it is by no means an

explanation of the origin of Caste. We have yet to find out why occupational

groups are castes ; but this question has never even been raised. Lastly

they have taken Caste very lightly as though a breath had made it. On the

contrary, Caste, as I have explained it, is almost impossible to be sustained :

for the difficulties that it involves are tremendous. It is true that Caste

rests on belief, but before belief comes to be the foundation of an institution,

the institution itself needs to be perpetuated and fortified. My study of the

Caste problem involves four main points : (1) that in spite of the composite

make-up of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2) that

caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there was

one caste to start with and (4) that classes have become Castes through

imitation and excommunication.

Peculiar interest attaches to the problem of Caste in India today; as

persistent attempts are being made to do away with this unnatural institution.

Such attempts at reform, however, have aroused a great deal of controversy

regarding its origin, as to whether it is due to the conscious command of

a Supreme Authority, or is an unconscious growth in the life of a human

society under peculiar circumstances. Those who hold the latter view will,

I hope, find some food for thought in the standpoint adopted in this paper.

Apart from its practical importance the subject of Caste is an all absorbing

problem and the interest aroused in me regarding its theoretic foundations

has moved me to put before you some of the conclusions, which seem to me

well founded, and the grounds upon which they may be supported. I am not,

however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way final, or anything

more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject. It seems to me that

the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the primary object of the

paper is to indicate what I regard to be the right path of investigation, with

a view to arrive at a serviceable truth. We must, however, guard against

approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be outlawed from the

domain of science and things should be judged from an objective standpoint.

For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own

idealogy, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding

many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial forever. To

conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be

shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.



6. History of Caste, p. 82.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

WITH

A Reply to Mahatma Gandhi

“Know Truth as Truth and Untruth as Untruth”

—BUDDHA

“He that WILL NOT reason is a bigot

He that CANNOT reason is a fool

He that DARE NOT reason is a slave”

—H. DRUMMOND

Printed from the third edition of 1944

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The speech prepared by me for the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore has

had an astonishingly warm reception from the Hindu public for whom it

was primarily intended. The English edition of one thousand five hundred

was exhausted within two months of its publication. It is translated into

Gujarati and Tamil. It is being translated in Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi and

Malayalam. The demand for the English text still continues unabated. To

satisfy this demand it has become necessary to issue a Second Edition.

Considerations of history and effectiveness of appeal have led me to retain

the original form of the essay—namely the speech form—although I was

asked to recast it in the form of a direct narrative. To this edition I have

added two appendices. I have collected in Appendix I the two articles

written by Mr. Gandhi by way of review of my speech in the Harijan,

and his letter to Mr. Sant Ram, a member of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal.

In Appendix II, I have printed my views in reply to the articles of Mr.

Gandhi collected in Appendix I. Besides Mr. Gandhi many others have

adversely criticised my views as expressed in my speech. But I have felt

that in taking notice of such adverse comments I should limit myself to

Mr. Gandhi. This I have done not because what he has said is so weighty

as to deserve a reply but because to many a Hindu he is an oracle, so

great that when he opens his lips it is expected that the argument must

close and no dog must bark. But the world owes much to rebels who

would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not

infallible. I do not care for the credit which every progressive society

PREFACE

must give to its rebels. I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize

that they are the sick men of India and that their sickness is causing

danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.

B. R. AMBEDKAR

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

The Second edition of this Essay appeared in 1937, and was exhausted

within a very short period. A new edition has been in demand for a

long time. It was my intention to recast the essay so as to incorporate

into it another essay of mine called “Castes in India, their Origin and

their Mechanism”, which appeared in the issue of the Indian Antiquary

Journal for May 1917. But as I could not find time, and as there is very

little prospect of my being able to do so and as the demand for it from

the public is very insistent, I am content to let this be a mere reprint

of the Second edition.

I am glad to find that this essay has become so popular, and I hope

that it will serve the purpose for which it was intended.

22, Prithwiraj Road B. R. AMBEDKAR

New Delhi

1st December 1944

PROLOGUE

On December 12, 1935, I received the following letter from

Mr. Sant Ram, the Secretary of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal :

My dear Doctor Saheb,

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 5th December. I have released

it for press without your permission for which I beg your pardon, as I

saw no harm in giving it publicity. You are a great thinker, and it is my

well-considered opinion that none else has studied the problem of Caste so

deeply as you have. I have always benefited myself and our Mandal from

your ideas. I have explained and preached it in the Kranti many times and

I have even lectured on it in many Conferences. I am now very anxious to

read the exposition of your new formula—“It is not possible to break Caste

without annihilating the religious notions on which it, the Caste system,

is founded.” Please do explain it at length at your earliest convenience, so

that we may take up the idea and emphasise it from press and platform.

At present, it is not fully clear to me.

* * * * *

Our Executive Committee persists in having you as our President for

our Annual Conference. We can change our dates to accommodate your

convenience. Independent Harijans of Punjab are very much desirous to meet

you and discuss with you their plans. So if you kindly accept our request and

come to Lahore to preside over the Conference it will serve double purpose.

We will invite Harijan leaders of all shades of opinion and you will get an

opportunity of giving your ideas to them.

The Mandal has deputed our Assistant Secretary, Mr. Indra Singh, to

meet you at Bombay in Xmas and discuss with you the whole situation with

a view to persuade you to please accept our request.

* * * * *

The Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, I was given to understand, to be an

organization of Caste Hindu Social Reformers, with the one and

only aim, namely to eradicate the Caste System from amongst the

Hindus. As a rule, I do not like to take any part in a movement

which is carried on by the Caste Hindus. Their attitude towards

social reform is so different from mine that I have found it

difficult to pull on with them. Indeed, I find their company quite

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

uncongenial to me on account of our differences of opinion. Therefore

when the Mandal first approached me I declined their invitation to

preside. The Mandal, however, would not take a refusal from me and

sent down one of its members to Bombay to press me to accept the

invitation. In the end I agreed to preside. The Annual Conference

was to be held at Lahore, the headquarters of the Mandal. The

Conference was to meet in Easter but was subsequently postponed

to the middle of May 1936. The Reception Committee of the Mandal

has now cancelled the Conference. The notice of cancellation came

long after my Presidential address had been printed. The copies of

this address are now lying with me. As I did not get an opportunity

to deliver the address from the presidential chair the public has not

had an opportunity to know my views on the problems created by

the Caste System. To let the public know them and also to dispose of

the printed copies which are lying on my hand, I have decided to put

the printed copies of the address in the market. The accompanying

pages contain the text of that address.

The public will be curious to know what led to the cancellation

of my appointment as the President of the Conference. At the start,

a dispute arose over the printing of the address. I desired that the

address should be printed in Bombay. The Mandal wished that it

should be printed in Lahore on the ground of economy. I did not agree

and insisted upon having it printed in Bombay. Instead of agreeing

to my proposition I received a letter signed by several members of

the Mandal from which I give the following extract :

27-3-36

Revered Dr. Ji,

Your letter of the 24th instant addressed to Sjt. Sant Ram has been

shown to us. We were a little disappointed to read it. Perhaps you are not

fully aware of the situation that has arisen here. Almost all the Hindus in

the Punjab are against your being invited to this province. The Jat-Pat-

Todak Mandal has been subjected to the bitterest criticism and has received

censorious rebuke from all quarters. All the Hindu leaders among whom

being Bhai Parmanand, ML.A. (Ex-President, Hindu Maha Sabha), Mahatma

Hans Raj, Dr. Gokal Chand Narang, Minister for Local Self-Government,

Raja Narendra Nath, M.L.C. etc., have dissociated themselves from this

step of the Mandal.

Despite all this the runners of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal (the leading figure

being Sjt. Sant Ram) are determined to wade through thick and thin but

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

would not give up the idea of your presidentship. The Mandal has earned a

bad name.

* * * * *

Under the circumstances it becomes your duty to co-operate with the Mandal.

On the one hand, they are being put to so much trouble and hardship by the

Hindus and if on the other hand you too augment their difficulties it will be a

most sad coincidence of bad luck for them.

We hope you will think over the matter and do what is good for us all.

* * * * *

This letter puzzled me greatly. I could not understand why the Mandal

should displease me for the sake of a few rupees in the matter of printing

the address. Secondly, I could not believe that men like Sir Gokal Chand

Narang had really resigned as a protest against my selection as President

because I had received the following letter from Sir Gokal Chand himself :

5 Montgomery Road

Lahore, 7-2-36

Dear Doctor Ambedkar,

I am glad to learn from the workers of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal that you

have agreed to preside at their next anniversary to be held at Lahore during

the Easter holidays. It will give me much pleasure if you stay with me while

you are at Lahore. More when we meet.

Yours sincerely,

G. C. N

ARANG

Whatever be the truth I did not yield to this pressure. But even when

the Mandal found that I was insisting upon having my address printed

in Bombay instead of agreeing to my proposal the Mandal sent me a

wire that they were sending Mr. Har Bhagwan to Bombay to “talk over

matters personally” Mr. Har Bhagwan came to Bombay on the 9th of

April. When I met Mr. Har Bhagwan I found that he had nothing to say

regarding the issue. Indeed, he was so unconcerned regarding the printing

of the address, whether it should be printed in Bombay or in Lahore,

that he did not even mention it in the course of our conversation. All

that he was anxious for was to know the contents of the address. I was

then convinced that in getting the address printed in Lahore the main

object of the Mandal was not to save money but to get at the contents

of the address. I gave him a copy. He did not feel very happy with some

parts of it. He returned to Lahore. From Lahore, he wrote to me the

following letter :

Lahore, dated April 14, 1936

My dear Doctor Sahib,

Since my arrival from Bombay, on the 12th, I have been indisposed owing

to my having not slept continuously for 5 or 6 nights, which were spent in the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

train. Reaching here I came to know that you had come to Amritsar. I

would have seen you there if I were well enough to go about. I have made

over your address to Mr. Sant Ram for translation and he has liked it very

much, but he is not sure whether it could be translated by him for printing

before the 25th. In any case, it woud have a wide publicity and we are sure

it would wake the Hindus up from their slumber.

The passage I pointed out to you at Bombay has been read by some of

our friends with a little misgiving, and those of us who would like to see

the Conference terminate without any untoward incident would prefer that

at least the word “Veda” be left out for the time being. I leave this to your

good sense. I hope, however, in your concluding paragraphs you will make

it clear that the views expressed in the address are your own and that the

responsibility does not lie on the Mandal. I hope, you will not mind this

statement of mine and would let us have 1,000 copies of the address, for

which we shall, of course, pay. To this effect I have sent you a telegram

today. A cheque of Rs. 100 is enclosed herewith which kindly acknowledge,

and send us your bills in due time.

I have called a meeting of the Reception Committee and shall communicate

their decision to you immediately. In the meantime kindly accept my heartfelt

thanks for the kindness shown to me and the great pains taken by you in

the preparation of your address. You have really put us under a heavy debt

of gratitude.

Yours sincerely,

AR BHAGWAN

P.S.—Kindly send the copies of the address by passenger train as soon

as it is printed, so that copies may be sent to the Press for publication.

Accordingly I handed over my manuscript to the printer with an

order to print 1,000 copies. Eight days later, I received another letter

from Mr. Har Bhagwan which I reproduce below :

Lahore, 22-4-36

Dear Dr. Ambedkar,

We are in receipt of your telegram and letter, for which kindly accept

our thanks. In accordance with your desire, we have again postponed our

Conference, but feel that it would have been much better to have it on the

25th and 26th, as the weather is growing warmer and warmer every day

in the Punjab. In the middle of May it would be fairly hot, and the sittings

in the day time would not be very pleasant and comfortable. However, we

shall try our best to do all we can to make things as comfortable as possible,

if it is held in the middle of May.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

There is, however, one thing that we have been compelled to bring to

your kind attention. You will remember that when I pointed out to you the

misgivings entertained by some of our people regarding your declaration on

the subject of change of religion, you told me that it was undoubtedly outside

the scope of the Mandal and that you had no intention to say anything from

our platform in that connection. At the same time when the manuscript of

your address was handed to me you assured me that that was the main

portion of your address and that there were only two or three concluding

paragraphs that you wanted to add. On receipt of the second instalment

of your address we have been taken by surprise, as that would make it so

lengthy, that we are afraid, very few people would read the whole of it.

Besides that you have more than once stated in your address that you had

decided to walk out of the fold of the Hindus and that that was your last

address as a Hindu. You have also unnecessarily attacked the morality and

reasonableness of the Vedas and other religious books of the Hindus, and

have at length dwelt upon the technical side of Hindu religion, which has

absolutely no connection with the problem at issue, so much so that some

of the passages have become irrelevant and off the point. We would have

been very pleased if you had confined your address to that portion given

to me, or if an addition was necessary, it would have been limited to what

you had written on Brahminism etc. The last portion which deals with

the complete annihilation of Hindu religion and doubts the morality of the

sacred books of the Hindus as well as a hint about your intention to leave

the Hindu fold does not seem to me to be relevant.

I would therefore most humbly request you on behalf of the people

responsible for the Conference to leave out the passages referred to above,

and close the address with what was given to me or add a few paragraphs

on Brahminism. We doubt the wisdom of making the address unnecessarily

provocative and pinching. There are several of us who subscribe to your

feelings and would very much want to be under your banner for remodelling

of the Hindu religion. If you had decided to get together persons of your cult

I can assure you a large number would have joined your army of reformers

from the Punjab.

In fact, we thought you would give us a lead in the destruction of the evil

of caste system, especially when you have studied the subject so thoroughly,

and strengthen our hands by bringing about a revolution and making yourself

as a nucleus in the gigantic effort, but declaration of the nature made by

you when repeated loses its power, and becomes a hackneyed term. Under

the circumstances, I would request you to consider the whole matter and

make your address more effective by saying that you would be glad to take a

leading part in the destruction of the caste system if the Hindus are willing

to work in right earnest toward that end, even if they had to forsake their

kith and kin and the religious notions. In case you do so, I am sanguine

that you would find a ready response from the Punjab in such an endeavour.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I shall be grateful if you will help us at this juncture as we have already

undergone much expenditure and have been put to suspence, and let us know

by the return of post that you have condescended to limit your address as

above. In case, you still insist upon the printing of the address in toto, we

very much regret it would not be possible—rather advisable for us to hold

the Conference, and would prefer to postpone it sine die, although by doing

so we shall be losing the goodwill of the people because of the repeated

postponements. We should, however, like to point out that you have carved

a niche in our hearts by writing such a wonderful treatise on the caste

system, which excels all other treatises so far written and will prove to be a

valuable heritage, so to say. We shall be ever indebted to you for the pains

taken by you in its preparation.

Thanking you very much for your kindness and with best wishes.

I am, yours sincerely,

AR BHAGWAN

To this letter I sent the following reply :

27th April 1936

Dear Mr. Har Bhagwan,

I am in receipt of your letter of the 22nd April. I note with regret that the

Reception Committee of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal “would prefer to postpone

the Conference sine die” if I insisted upon printing the address in toto. In

reply I have to inform you that I also would prefer to have the Conference

cancelled—I do not like to use vague terms—if the Mandal insisted upon

having my address pruned to suit its circumstances. You may not like

my decision. But I cannot give up, for the sake of the honour of presiding

over the Conference, the liberty which every President must have in the

preparation of the address. I cannot give up for the sake of pleasing the

Mandal the duty which every President owes to the Conference over which

he presides to give it a lead which he thinks right and proper. The issue is

one of principle and I feel I must do nothing to compromise it in any way.

I would not have entered into any controversy as regards the propriety

of the decision taken by the Reception Committee. But as you have given

certain reasons which appear to throw the blame on me. I am bound to

answer them. In the first place, I must dispel the notion that the views

contained in that part of the address to which objection has been taken by

the Committee have come to the Mandal as a surprise. Mr. Sant Ram, I am

sure, will bear me out when I say that in reply to one of his letters I had

said that the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring

about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious

notions on which Caste was founded and that Mr. Sant Ram in return asked

me to explain what he said was a novel point of view. It was in response to

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

this invitation from Mr. Sant Ram that I thought I ought to elaborate

in my address what I had stated in a sentence in my letter to him. You

cannot, therefore, say that the views expressed are new. At any rate, they

are not new to Mr. Sant Ram who is the moving spirit and the leading

light of your Mandal. But I go further and say that I wrote this part of my

address not merely because I felt it desirable to do so. I wrote it because

I thought that it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument. I am

amazed to read that you characterize the portion of the speech to which

your Committee objects as “irrelevant and off the point”. You will allow me

to say that I am a lawyer and I know the rules of relevancy as well as any

member of your Committee. I most emphatically maintain that the portion

objected to is not only most relevant but is also important. It is in that part

of the address that I have discussed the ways and means of breaking up

the Caste System. It may be that the conclusion I have arrived at as to the

best method of destroying Caste is startling and painful. You are entitled

to say that my analysis is wrong. But you cannot say that in an address

which deals with the problem of Caste it is not open to me to discuss how

Caste can be destroyed.

Your other complaint relates to the length of the address. I have pleaded

guilty to the charge in the address itself. But, who is really responsible for

this ? I fear you have come rather late on the scene. Otherwise you would

have known that originally I had planned to write a short address for my

own convenience as I had neither the time nor the energy to engage myself

in the preparation of an elaborate thesis. It was the Mandal who asked me

to deal with the subject exhaustively and it was the Mandal which sent

down to me a list of questions relating to the Caste System and asked me

to answer them in the body of my address as they were questions which

were often raised in the controversy between the Mandal and its opponents

and which the Mandal found difficult to answer satisfactorily. It was in

trying to meet the wishes of the Mandal in this respect that the address has

grown to the length to which it has. In view of what I have said I am sure

you will agree that the fault respecting length of the address is not mine.

I did not expect that your Mandal would be so upset because I have

spoken of the destruction of Hindu Religion. I thought it was only fools who

were afraid of words. But lest there should be any misapprehension in the

minds of the people I have taken great pains to explain what I mean by

religion and destruction of religion. I am sure that nobody on reading my

address could possibly misunderstand me. That your Mandal should have

taken a fright at mere words as “destruction of religion etc.” notwithstanding

the explanation that accompanies, them does not raise the Mandal in my

estimation. One cannot have any respect or regard for men who take the

position of the Reformer and then refuse even to see the logical consequences

of that position, let alone following them out in action.

You will agree that I have never accepted to be limited in any way in the

preparation of my address and the question as to what the address should or

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

should not contain was never even discussed between myself and the Mandal.

I had always taken for granted that I was free to express in the address such

views as I held on the subject. Indeed until, you came to Bombay on the 9th

April the Mandal did not know what sort of an address I was preparing.

It was when you came to Bombay that I voluntarily told you that I had

no desire to use your platform from which to advocate my views regarding

change of religion by the Depressed Classes. I think I have scrupulously kept

that promise in the preparation of the address. Beyond a passing reference

of an indirect character where I say that “I am sorry I will not be here. . .

etc.” I have said nothing about the subject in my address. When I see you

object even to such a passing and so indirect a reference, I feel bound to

ask ; did you think that in agreeing to preside over your Conference I would

be agreeing to suspend or to give up my views regarding change of faith by

the Depressed Classes ? If you did think so I must tell you that I am in no

way responsible for such a mistake on your part. If any of you had even

hinted to me that in exchange for the honour you were doing me by electing

as President, I was to abjure my faith in my programme of conversion, I

would have told you in quite plain terms that I cared more for my faith

than for any honour from you.

After your letter of the 14th, this letter of yours comes as a surprize to

me. I am sure that any one who reads them will feel the same. I cannot

account for this sudden volte face on the part of the Reception Committee.

There is no difference in substance between the rough draft which was before

the Committee when you wrote your letter of the 14th and the final draft

on which the decision of the Committee communicated to me in your letter

under reply was taken. You cannot point out a single new idea in the final

draft which is not contained in the earlier draft. The ideas are the same.

The only difference is that they have been worked out in greater detail in

the final draft. If there was anything to object to in the address you could

have said so on the 14th. But you did not. On the contrary you asked me

to print off 1,000 copies leaving me the liberty to accept or not the verbal

changes which you suggested. Accordingly I got 1,000 copies printed which

are now lying with me. Eight days later you write to say that you object to

the address and that if it is not amended the Conference will be cancelled.

You ought to have known that there was no hope of any alteration being

made in the address. I told you when you were in Bombay that I would

not alter a comma, that I would not allow any censorship over my address

and that you would have to accept the address as it came from me. I also

told you that the responsibility for the views expressed in the address was

entirely mine and if they were not liked by the Conference I would not mind

at all if the Conference passed a resolution condemning them. So anxious

was I to relieve your Mandal from having to assume responsibility for my

views and also with the object of not getting myself entangled by too intimate

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

an association with your Conference, I suggested to you that I desired to

have my address treated as a sort of an inaugural address and not as a

Presidential address and that the Mandal should find some one else to

preside over the Conference, and deal with the resolutions. Nobody could

have been better placed to take a decision on the 14th than your Committee.

The Committee failed to do that and in the meantime cost of printing has

been incurred which, I am sure, with a little more firmness on the part of

your Committee could have been saved.

I feel sure that the views expressed in my address have little to do with

the decision of your Committee. I have reasons to believe that my presence

at the Sikh Prachar Conference held at Amritsar has had a good deal to do

with the decision of the Committee. Nothing else can satisfactorily explain

the sudden volte face shown by the Committee between the 14th and the

22nd April. I must not however prolong this controversy and must request

you to announce immediately that the Session of the Conference which

was to meet under my Presidentship is cancelled. All the grace has by now

run out and I shall not consent to preside even if your Committee agreed

to accept my address as it is in toto. I thank you for your appreciation of

the pains I have taken in the preparation of the address. I certainly have

profited by the labour if no one else does. My only regret is that I was put

to such hard labour at a time when my health was not equal to the strain

it has caused.

Yours sincerely,

B. R. A

MBEDKAR

This correspondence will disclose the reasons which have led to the

cancellation by the Mandal of my appointment as President and the

reader will be in a position to lay the blame where it ought properly

to belong. This is I believe the first time when the appointment of a

President is cancelled by the Reception Committee because it does

not approve of the views of the President. But whether that is so or

not, this is certainly the first time in my life to have been invited

to preside over a Conference of Caste Hindus. I am sorry that it has

ended in a tragedy. But what can any one expect from a relationship

so tragic as the relationship between the reforming sect of Caste

Hindus and the self-respecting sect of Untouchables where the former

have no desire to alienate their orthodox fellows and the latter have

no alternative but to insist upon reform being carried out ?

Rajgriha, Dadar, Bombay 14

15th May 1936 B. R. AMBEDKAR

SPEECH PREPARED

Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR

FOR

The 1936 Annual Conference of

the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore

BUT

NOT DELIVERED

Owing to the cancellation of the Conference by

the Reception Committee on the ground that

the views expressed in the Speech would be

unbearable to the Conference

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

Friends,

I am really sorry for the members of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who

have so very kindly invited me to preside over this Conference. I am

sure they will be asked many questions for having selected me as the

President. The Mandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported

a man from Bombay to preside over a function which is held in Lahore.

I believe the Mandal could easily have found some one better qualified

than myself to preside on the occasion. I have criticised the Hindus. I

have questioned the authority of the Mahatma whom they revere. They

hate me. To them I am a snake in their garden. The Mandal will no

doubt be asked by the politically-minded Hindus to explain why it has

called me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great daring. I shall

not be surprised if some political Hindus regard it as an insult. This

selection of mine cannot certainly please the ordinary religiously-minded

Hindus. The Mandal may be asked to explain why it has disobeyed the

Shastric injunction in selecting the President. Accoding to the Shastras

the Brahmin is appointed to be the Guru for the three Varnas,

o.kkZuke

czkã.kks xq#,

is a direction of the Shastras. The Mandal therefore knows

from whom a Hindu should take his lessons and from whom he should

not. The Shastras do not permit a Hindu to accept any one as his Guru

merely because he is well-versed. This is made very clear by Ramdas, a

Brahmin saint from Maharashtra, who is alleged to have inspired Shivaji

to establish a Hindu Raj. In his Dasbodh, a socio-politico-religious treatise

in Marathi verse Ramdas asks, addressing the Hindus, can we accept an

Antyaja to be our Guru because he is a Pandit (i.e. learned) and gives

an answer in the negative. What replies to give to these questions is a

matter which I must leave to the Mandal. The Mandal knows best the

reasons which led it to travel to Bombay to select a president, to fix upon

a man so repugnant to the Hindus and to descend so low in the scale

as to select an Antyaja— an untouchable—to address an audience of the

Savarnas. As for myself you will allow me to say that I have accepted the

invitation much against my will and also against the will of many of my

fellow untouchables. I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that

I am not a persona grata with them. Knowing all this I have deliberately

kept myself away from them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them.

I have been giving expression to my views from my own platform. This

has already caused a great deal of heartburning and irritation. I have

no desire to ascend the platform of the Hindus to do within their sight

what I have been doing within their hearing. If I am here it is because

of your choice and not because of my wish. Yours is a cause of social

reform. That cause has always made an appeal to me and it is because

of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an opportunity of helping the

cause especially when you think that I can help it. Whether what I am

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

going to say today will help you in any way to solve the problem you are

grappling with is for you to judge. All I hope to do is to place before you

my views on the problem.

The path of social reform like the path to heaven at any rate in India,

is strewn with many difficulties. Social reform in India has few friends and

many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes. One class consists of

political reformers and the other of the socialists.

It was at one time recognized that without social efficiency no permanent

progress in the other fields of activity was possible, that owing to mischief

wrought by the evil customs, Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency

and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils. It was due

to the recognition of this fact that the birth of the National Congress was

accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference. While the Congress

was concerned with defining the weak points in the political organisation of

the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the weak points

in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For some time the Congress

and the Conference worked as two wings of one common activity and they

held their annual sessions in the same pandal. But soon the two wings

developed into two parties, a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform

Party, between whom there raged a fierce controversy. The Political Reform

Party supported the National Congress and Social Reform Party supported

the Social Conference. The two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The

point at issue was whether social reform should precede political reform.

For a decade the forces were evenly balanced and the battle was fought

without victory to either side. It was however evident that the fortunes of

the Social Conference were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over

the sessions of the Social Conference lamented that the majority of the

educated Hindus were for political advancement and indifferent to social

reform and that while the number of those who attended the Congress was

very large and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with

it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was

very much smaller. This indifference, this thinning of its ranks was soon

followed by active hostility from the politicians. Under the leadership of

the late Mr. Tilak, the courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social

Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn and the spirit of enmity

went to such a pitch that when the Social Conference desired to erect its

own pandal a threat to burn the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus

in course of time the party in favour of political reform won and the Social

Conference vanished and was forgotten. The speech, delivered by Mr. W.C.

Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad as President of the eighth session of the

Congress, sounds like a funeral oration at the death of the Social Conference

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

and is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it

the following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said :

“I for one have no patience with those who say we shall not be fit for political

reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between

the two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain

unmarried and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries ?

because our wives and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends ?

because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge ?” (Cheers)

I have stated the case for political reform as put by Mr. Bonnerji. There

were many who are happy that the victory went to the Congress. But those

who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is the argument

such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final ? Does it prove that the victory went to

those who were in the right ? Does it prove conclusively that social reform

has no bearing on political reform ? It will help us to understand the matter

if I state the other side of the case. I will draw upon the treatment of the

untouchables for my facts.

Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country the untouchable

was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along lest

he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow. The untouchable was required

to have a black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a mark

to prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through

mistake. In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required

to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the

dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted.

In Poona, the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung in

his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth

should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. Let

me take more recent facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the

Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will serve my purpose.

You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928.

The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high caste Hindus,

viz. Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins including the Patels and Patwaris of

villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other

villages in the Indore district (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of

their respective villages that if they wished to live among them they must

conform to the following rules :

(1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.

(2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.

(3) They must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives

of the deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may be

living.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions

and during the marriage.

(5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not

wear fancy gowns or jackets.

(6) Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women.

(7) Balais must render services without demanding remuneration and

must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.

(8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must clear

out of the villages. The Balais refused to comply ; and the Hindu

element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water

from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle

to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned

by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields

owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field.

The Hindus also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The

Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar against these persecutions ;

but as they could get no timely relief, and the oppression continued,

hundreds of Balais with their wives and children were obliged to

abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations

and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas,

Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in

their new homes may for the present be left out of our consideration.

The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. The

Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon

sending their children to the common village school maintained by

Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha had to

undergo for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of

the Hindus is too well known to need detailed description. Another

instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad district

of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do

families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon

the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity

and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence. A most

recent event is reported from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State.

It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that

an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had

arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the village

as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to

a sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also.

But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of

the food, the Hindus in their hundreds, armed with lathis, rushed to

the scene, despoiled the food and belaboured the untouchables who

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

left the food they were served with and ran away for their lives.

And why was this murderous assault committed on defenceless

untouchables ? The reason given is that the untouchable host was

impudent enough to serve ghee and his untouchable guests were

foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich.

But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a mark of

high social status. The Hindus of Chakwara thought otherwise and

in righteous indignation avenged themselves for the wrong done to

them by the untouchables, who insulted them by treating ghee as

an item of their food which they ought to have known could not be

theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus. This means that

an untouchable must not use ghee even if he can afford to buy it,

since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened

on or about the 1st of April 1936 !

Having stated the facts, let me now state the case for social reform.

In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji, as nearly as I can and ask the

political-minded Hindus “Are you fit for political power even though you do

not allow a large class of your own countrymen like the untouchables to

use public school ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not

allow them the use of public wells ? Are you fit for political power even

though you do not allow them the use of public streets ? Are you fit for

political power even though you do not allow them to wear what apparel

or ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power even though you

do not allow them to eat any food they like ?” I can ask a string of such

questions. But these will suffice. I wonder what would have been the reply

of Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an

affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that

one country is not fit to rule another country must admit that one class is

not fit to rule another class.

How is it then that the Social Reform Party lost the battle ? To understand

this correctly it is necessary, to take note of the kind of social reform

which the reformers were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary

to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of

the Hindu Family and social reform in the sense of the reorganization

and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has relation to widow

remarriage, child marriage etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of

the Caste System. The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned

itself with the reform of the high caste Hindu Family. It consisted mostly of

enlightened high caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating

for the abolition of caste or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt

quite naturally a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood,

child marriages etc., evils which prevailed among them and which were

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

personally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of the Hindu

society. The battle that was fought centered round the question of the reform

of the family. It did not relate to the social reform in the sense of the break-

up of the caste system. It was never put in issue by the reformers. That is

the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.

I am aware that this argument cannot alter the fact that political reform

did in fact gain precedence over social reform. But the argument has this

much value if not more. It explains why social reformers lost the battle. It

also helps us to understand how limited was the victory which the Political

Reform Party obtained over the Social Reform Party and that the view

that social reform need not precede political reform is a view which may

stand only when by social reform is meant the reform of the family. That

political reform cannot with impunity take precedence over social reform in

the sense of reconstruction of society is a thesis which, I am sure, cannot be

controverted. That the makers of political constitutions must take account of

social forces is a fact which is recognized by no less a person than Ferdinand

Lassalle, the friend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian

audience in 1862 Lassalle said :

“The constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions of right

but questions of might. The actual constitution of a country has its existence

only in the actual condition of force which exists in the country : hence political

constitutions have value and permanence only when they accurately express those

conditions of forces which exist in practice within a society.”

But it is not necessary to go to Prussia. There is evidence at home. What

is the significance of the Communal Award with its allocation of political

power in defined proportions to diverse classes and communities ? In my

view, its significance lies in this that political constitution must take note of

social organisation. It shows that the politicians who denied that the social

problem in India had any bearing on the political problem were forced to

reckon with the social problem in devising the constitution. The Communal

Award is so to say the nemesis following upon the indifference and neglect

of social reform. It is a victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that

though defeated they were in the right in insisting upon the importance of

social reform. Many, I know, will not accept this finding. The view is current,

and it is pleasant to believe in it, that the Communal Award is unnatural

and that it is the result of an unholy alliance between the minorities

and the bureaucracy. I do not wish to rely on the Communal Award as a

piece of evidence to support my contention if it is said that it is not good

evidence. Let us turn to Ireland. What does the history of Irish Home Rule

show ? It is well-known that in the course of the negotiations between

the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr. Redmond, the

representative Ireland, in order to bring Ulster in a Home Rule Constitution

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

common to the whole of Ireland said to the representatives of Ulster :

“Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have them” What was

the reply that Ulstermen gave ? Their reply was “Damn your safeguards,

we don’t want to be ruled by you on any terms.” People who blame the

minorities in India ought to consider what would have happened to the

political aspirations of the majority if the minorities had taken the attitude

which. Ulster took. Judged by the attitude of Ulster to Irish Home Rule, is

it nothing that the minorities agreed to be ruled by the majority which has

not shown much sense of statesmanship, provided some safeguards were

devised for them ? But this is only incidental. The main question is why did

Ulster take this attitude? The only answer I can give is that there was a

social problem between Ulster and Southern Ireland the problem between

Catholics and Protestants, essentially a problem of Caste. That Home Rule

in Ireland would be Rome Rule was the way in which the Ulstermen had

framed their answer. But that is only another way of stating that it was

the social problem of Caste between the Catholics and Protestants, which

prevented the solution of the political problem. This evidence again is sure

to be challenged. It will be urged that here too the hand of the Imperialist

was at work. But my resources are not exhausted. I will give evidence

from the History of Rome. Here no one can say that any evil genius was

at work. Any one who has studied the History of Rome will know that the

Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to

the Communal Award. When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the Kingly

power or the Imperium was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex

Maximus. In the Consuls was vested the secular authority of the King,

while the latter took over the religious authority of King. This Republican

Constitution had provided that, of the two Consuls one was to be Patrician

and the other Plebian. The same constitution had also provided that, of the

Priests under the Pontifex Maximus, half were to be Plebians and the other

half Patricians. Why is it that the Republican Constitution of Rome had

these provisions which, as I said, resemble so strongly the provisions of the

Communal Award ? The only answer one can get is that the Constitution

of Republican Rome had to take account of the social division between the

Patricians and the Plebians, who formed two distinct castes. To sum up,

let political reformers turn to any direction they like, they will find that in

the making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of

the prevailing social order.

The illustrations which I have taken in support of the proposition that

social and religious problems have a bearing on political constitutions seem

to be too particular. Perhaps they are. But it should not be supposed that

the bearing of the one on the other is limited. On the other hand one can

say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that political

revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The religious Reformation started by Luther was the precursor of the political

emancipation of the European people. In England Puritanism led to the

establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded the new world. It was

Puritanism which won the war of American Independence and Puritanism

was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before

the Arabs became a political power they had undergone a thorough religious

revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even Indian History supports

the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was

preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political

revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform

brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the

Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak.

It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that

the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for

the political expansion of the people.

III

Let me now turn to the Socialists. Can the Socialists ignore the problem

arising out of the social order ? The Socialists of India following their fellows

in Europe are seeking to apply the economic interpretation of history to

the facts of India. They propound that man is an economic creature, that

his activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is

the only source of power. They, therefore, preach that political and social

reforms are but gigantic illusions and that economic reform by equalization

of property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may

join issue on every one of these premises on which rests the Socialists’ case

for economic reform having priority over every other kind of reform. One

may contend that economic motive is not the only motive by which man

is actuated. That economic power is the only kind of power no student of

human society can accept. That the social status of an individual by itself

often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the sway

which the Mahatmas have held over the common man. Why do millionaires

in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs ? Why do millions of paupers in

India sell their trifling trinckets which constitute their only wealth and go

to Benares and Mecca ? That, religion is the source of power is illustrated

by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man

often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such things

as strikes and elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so easily be

given a religious twist. Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a further

illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this

point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under

the Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul

elected by a separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata,

which was an assembly of Plebians. They wanted a Consul of their own

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

because they felt that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the

Plebians in carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a

great gain because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul

had the power of vetoing an act of the other Consul. But did they in fact

gain anything ? The answer to this question must be in the negative. The

Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong

man and who could act independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary

course of things the Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul in view

of the fact that his election was to be by a separate electorate of Plebians.

The question is why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to officiate

as their Consul ? The answer to this question reveals the dominion which

religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the

whole Roman populus that no official could enter upon the duties of his office

unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess.

The priests who were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were

all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was

known to be a strong party man opposed to the Patricians or “communal” to

use the term that is current in India, the Oracle invariably declared that he

was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how the Plebians were cheated

out of their rights. But what is worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted

themselves to be thus cheated because they too like the Patricians, held firmly

the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the

taking charge by an official of his duties and that election by the people

was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that election was enough

and that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary they would have

derived the fullest benefit from the political right which they had obtained.

But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves

but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant more amenable to

the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material

gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can

be a source of power as great as money if not greater ? The fallacy of the

Socialists lies in supposing that because in the present stage of European

Society property as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true

of India or that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social

status and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man

has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage, the

other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If liberty

is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man

holds over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic

reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of

power and dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and

religious then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the

necessary sort of reform.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One can thus attack the doctrine of Economic Interpretation of History

adopted by the Socialists of India. But I recognize that economic interpretation

of history is not necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that

equalization of property is the only real reform and that it must precede

everything else. However, what I like to ask the Socialists is this : Can you

have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the social

order ? The Socialists of India do not seem to have considered this question.

I do not wish to do them an injustice. I give below a quotation from a letter

which a prominent Socialist wrote a few days ago to a friend of mine in

which he said, “I do not believe that we can build up a free society in India

so long as there is a trace of this ill-treatment and suppression of one class

by another. Believing as I do in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in

perfect equality in the treatment of various classes and groups. I think that

Socialism offers the only true remedy for this as well as other problems.”

Now the question that I like to ask is : Is it enough for a Socialist to say, “I

believe in perfect equality in the treatment of the various classes ?” To say

that such a belief is enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding

of what is involved in Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and

is not merely an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not

whether he believes in equality. The question for him is whether he minds

one class ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system, as

a matter of principle and thus allow tyranny and oppression to continue to

divide one class from another. Let me analyse the factors that are involved

in the realization of Socialism in order to explain fully my point. Now it is

obvious that the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come

about unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That

seizure of power must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is : Will

the proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution ? What will

move men to such an action ? It seems to me that other things being equal

the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling

that other man with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality

and fraternity and above all of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for

the equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution is

achieved they will be treated equally and that there will be no discrimination

of caste and creed. The assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that

he does not believe in caste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance

must be the assurance proceeding from much deeper foundation, namely,

the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit

of personal equality and fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of

India, poor as it is, recognise no distinctions except that of the rich and the

poor ? Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of

caste or creed, high or low ? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front

can be expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich ? How

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

can there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front?

Suppose for the sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution

does take place and the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal

with the problems created by the particular social order prevalent in India ?

I can’t see how a Socialist State in India can function for a second without

having to grapple with the problems created by the prejudices which make

Indian people observe the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean.

If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the

Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality then they must recognize

that the problem of social reform is fundamental and that for them there

is no escape from it. That, the social order prevalent in India is a matter

which a Socialist must deal with, that unless he does so he cannot achieve

his revolution and that if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune he

will have to grapple with it if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition

which in my opinion is incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account

of caste after revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution.

This is only another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, caste

is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you

cannot have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.

It is a pity that Caste even today has its defenders. The defences are

many. It is defended on the ground that the Caste System is but another

name for division of labour and if division of labour is a necessary feature

of every civilized society then it is argued that there is nothing wrong in

the Caste System. Now the first thing is to be urged against this view is

that Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division

of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But

in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural

division of labourers into water-tight compartments. Caste System is

not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division

of labour—it is an heirarchy in which the divisions of labourers are

graded one above the other. In no other country is the division of labour

accompanied by this gradation of labourers. There is also a third point of

criticism against this view of the Caste System. This division of labour is

not spontaneous, it is not based on natural aptitudes. Social and individual

efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of an individual to the point

of competency to choose and to make his own career. This principle is

violated in the Caste System in so far as it involves an attempt to appoint

tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original

capacities, but on that of the social status of the parents. Looked at from

another point of view this stratification of occupations which is the result

of the Caste System is positively pernicious. Industry is never static. It

undergoes rapid and abrupt changes. With such changes an individual must

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

be free to change his occupation. Without such freedom to adjust himself to

changing circumstances it would be impossible for him to gain his livelihood.

Now the Caste System will not allow Hindus to take to occupations where

they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity. If a Hindu is

seen to starve rather than take to new occupations not assigned to his

Caste, the reason is to be found in the Caste System. By not permitting

readjustment of occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much of the

unemployment we see in the country. As a form of division of labour the

Caste system suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour

brought about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice.

Individual sentiment, individual preference has no place in it. It is based on

the dogma of predestination. Considerations of social efficiency would compel

us to recognize that the greatest evil in the industrial system is not so much

poverty and the suffering that it involves as the fact that so many persons

have callings which make no appeal to those who are engaged in them. Such

callings constantly provoke one to aversion, ill-will and the desire to evade.

There are many occupations in India which on account of the fact that they

are regarded as degraded by the Hindus provoke those who are engaged in

them to aversion. There is a constant desire to evade and escape from such

occupations which arises solely because of the blighting effect which they

produce upon those who follow them owing to the slight and stigma cast

upon them by the Hindu religion. What efficiency can there be in a system

under which neither men’s hearts nor their minds are in their work ? As

an economic organization Caste is therefore a harmful institution, inasmuch

as, it involves the subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations

to the exigencies of social rules

Some have dug a biological trench in defence of the Caste System. It is

said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of

blood. Now ethnologists are of opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere

and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world.

Especially is this the case with the people of India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar

in his paper on Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population has stated that

“There is hardly a class, or Caste in India which has not a foreign strain

in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior

classes—the Rajputs and the Marathas—but also among the Brahmins who

are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements.”

The Caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of preventing the

admixture of races or as a means of maintaining purity of blood. As a matter

of fact Caste system came into being long after the different races of India

had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of Castes or

really distinctions of race and to treat different Castes as though they were

so many different races is a gross perversion of facts. What racial affinity

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras ?

What racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the

untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin

of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab ? What racial difference is there

between the Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah of Madras ? The Brahmin

of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar of the Punjab and

the Brahmin of Madras is of the same race as the Pariah of Madras. Caste

system does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social division of

people of the same race. Assuming it, however, to be a case of racial divisions

one may ask : What harm could there be if a mixture of races and of blood

was permitted to take place in India by intermarriages between different

Castes ? Men are no doubt divided from animals by so deep a distinction

that science recognizes men and animals as two distinct species. But even

scientists who believe in purity of races do not assert that the different races

constitute different species of men. They are only varieties of one and the

same species. As such they can interbreed and produce an offspring which

is capable of breeding and which is not sterile. An immense lot of nonsense

is talked about heredity and eugenics in defence of the Caste System. Few

would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic principle

of eugenics because few can object to the improvement of the race by judicious

mating. But one fails to understand how the Caste System secures judicious

mating. Caste System is a negative thing. It merely prohibits persons

belonging to different Castes from intermarrying. It is not a positive method

of selecting which two among a given Caste should marry. If Caste is eugenic

in origin then the origin of sub-Castes must also be eugenic. But can any one

seriously maintain that the origin of sub-Castes is eugenic ? I think it would

be absurd to contend for such a proposition and for a very obvious reason.

If Caste means race then differences of sub-Castes cannot mean differences

of race because sub-Castes become ex hypothesia sub-divisions of one and

the same race. Consequently the bar against intermarrying and interdining

between sub-Castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining purity of race

or of blood. If sub-Castes cannot be eugenic in origin there cannot be any

substance in the contention that Caste is eugenic in origin. Again if Caste

is eugenic in origin one can understand the bar against intermarriage. But

what is the purpose of the interdict placed on interdining between Castes

and sub-Castes alike ? Interdining cannot infect blood and therefore cannot

be the cause either of the improvement or of deterioration of the race. This

shows that Caste has no scientific origin and that those who are attempting

to give it an eugenic basis are trying to support by science what is grossly

unscientific. Even today eugenics cannot become a practical possibility unless

we have definite knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. Prof. Batcson in

his Mendel’s Principles of Heredity says, “There is nothing in the descent of

the higher mental qualities to suggest that they follow any single system of

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

transmission. It is likely that both they and the more marked developments

of physical powers result rather from the coincidence of numerous factors

than from the possession of any one genetic element.” To argue that the

Caste System was eugenic in its conception is to attribute to the forefathers

of present-day Hindus a knowledge of heredity which even the modern

scientists do not possess. A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields.

If caste is eugenic what sort of a race of men it should have produced ?

Physically speaking the Hindus are a C

people. They are a race of Pygmies

and dwarfs stunted in stature and wanting in stamina. It is a nation 9/10ths

of which is declared to be unfit for military service. This shows that the

Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modern scientists. It is a

social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse

section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in

fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.

Caste does not result in economic efficiency. Caste cannot and has not

improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has completely

disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.

The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society

is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the

Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves.

It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion.

They did not feel the necessity of a common name because they had no

conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu society as such

does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its

existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not

even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other

castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each

caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes.

Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each

caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there

be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India

which so amuse the tourists ? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living

in his own hole refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter

lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call “consciousness of kind”.

There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness

that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the

Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation. There are however many

Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are

not a nation, that they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have

insisted that underlying the apparent diversity there is a fundamental unity

which marks the life of the Hindus in as much as there is a similarity of

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts which obtain all over the continent

of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts there is.

But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus constitute

a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up

a society. Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity any

more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many

miles away from other men. Secondly similarity in habits and customs,

beliefs and thoughts is not enough to constitute men into society. Things

may be passed physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way

habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts of one group may be taken over

by another group and there may thus appear a similarity between the two.

Culture spreads by diffusion and that is why one finds similarity between

various primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and customs, beliefs

and thoughts, although they do not live in proximity. But no one could say

that because there was this similarity the primitive tribes constituted one

society. This is because similarly in certain things is not enough to constitute

a society. Men constitute a society because they have things which they

possess in common. To have similar thing is totally different from possessing

things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess

things in common with one another is by being in communication with one

another. This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to exist

by communication indeed in communication. To make it concrete, it is not

enough if men act in a way which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel

activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society. This is

proved by the fact that the festivals observed by the different Castes amongst

the Hindus are the same. Yet these parallel performances of similar festivals

by the different castes have not bound them into one integral whole. For

that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and participate in a

common activity so that the same emotions are aroused in him that animate

the others. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated

activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure

is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them. The Caste

System prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it

has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and

a consciousness of its own being.

VII

The Hindus often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or

a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget

that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System.

One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as

the Germans did in singing their hymn of hate against the English during

the last war. The literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin

to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of

literature. This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone

deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In

my province the Golak Brahmins, Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins,

Palshe Brahmins and Chitpavan Brahmins, all claim to be sub-divisions of

the Brahmin Caste. But the anti-social spirit that prevails between them is

quite as marked and quite as virulent as the anti-social spirit that prevails

between them and other non-Brahmin castes. There is nothing strange in

this. An anti-social spirit is found wherever one group has “interests of its

own” which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that its

prevailing purpose is protection of what it has got. This anti-social spirit,

this spirit of protecting its own interests is as much a marked feature of the

different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations in their

isolation. The Brahmin’s primary concern is to protect “his interest” against

those of the non-Brahmins and the non-Brahmin’s primary concern is to

protect their interests against those of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore,

are not merely an assortment of castes but they are so many warring groups

each living for itself and for its selfish ideal. There is another feature of

caste which is deplorable. The ancestors of the present-day English fought

on one side or the other in the wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War.

But the decendents of those who fought on the one side do not bear any

animosity—any grudge against the descendents of those who fought on the

other side. The feud is forgotten. But the present-day non-Brahmins cannot

forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insult their ancestors gave to Shivaji.

The present-day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for

the infamy cast upon their forefathers by the forefathers of the latter. To

what is this difference due ? Obviously to the Caste System. The existence

of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past

feuds between castes green and has prevented solidarity.

VIII

The recent discussion about the excluded and partially included areas has

served to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginal

tribes in India. They number about 13 millions if not more. Apart from the

questions whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper or

improper, the fact still remains that these aborigines have remained in their

primitive uncivilized State in a land which boasts of a civilization thousands

of years old. Not only are they not civilized but some of them follow pursuits

which have led to their being classified as criminals. Thirteen millions of

people living in the midst of civilization are still in a savage state and are

leading the life of hereditary criminals ! ! But the Hindus have never felt

ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is quite unparalleled.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

What is the cause of this shameful state of affairs ? Why has no attempt

been made to civilize these aborigines and to lead them to take to a more

honourable way of making a living ? The Hindus will probably seek to account

for this savage state of the aborigines by attributing to them congenital

stupidity. They will probably not admit that the aborigines have remained

savages because they had made no effort to civilize them, to give them

medical aid, to reform them, to make them good citizens. But supposing

a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary is doing for these

aborigines, could he have done it ? I submit not. Civilizing the aborigines

means adopting them as your own, living in their midst, and cultivating

fellow-feeling, in short loving them. How is it possible for a Hindu to do

this ? His whole life is one anxious effort to preserve his caste. Caste is

his precious possession which he must save at any cost. He cannot consent

to lose it by establishing contact with the aborigines the remnants of the

hateful Anaryas of the Vedic days. Not that a Hindu could not be taught

the sense of duty to fallen humanity, but the trouble is that no amount of

sense of duty can enable him to overcome his duty to preserve his caste.

Caste is, therefore, the real explanation as to why the Hindu has let the

savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization without blushing

or without feeling any sense of remorse or repentance. The Hindu has not

realized that these aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these

savages remain savages they may not do any harm to the Hindus. But if

they are reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their faiths they will

swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this happens the Hindu

will have to thank himself and his Caste System.

Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause of

civilizing the savages but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented

the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the

cultural level of the higher castes. I will give two instances, one of the Sonars

and the other of the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known

in Maharashtra. Like the rest of the communities desiring to raise their

status these two communities were at one time endeavouring to adopt some

of the ways and habits of the Brahmins. The Sonars were styling themselves

Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their “dhotis” with folds on and using

the word namaskar for salutation. Both, the folded way of wearing the “dhoti”

and the namaskar were special to the Brahmins. The Brahmins did not like

this imitation and this attempt by Sonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the

authority of the Peshwas the Brahmins successfully put down this attempt

on the part of the Sonars to adopt the ways of the Brahmins. They even

got the President of the Councils of the East India Company’s settlement in

Bombay to issue a prohibitory order against the Sonars residing in Bombay.

At one time the Pathare Prabhus had widow-remarriage as a custom of their

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

caste. This custom of widow-remarriage was later on looked upon as a mark

of social inferiority by some members of the caste especially because it was

contrary to the custom prevalent among the Brahmins. With the object of

raising the status of their community some Pathare Prabhus sought to stop

this practice of widow-remarriage that was prevalent in their caste. The

community was divided into two camps, one for and the other against the

innovation. The Peshwas took the side of those in favour of widow-remarriage

and thus virtually prohibited the Pathare Prabhus from following the ways

of the Brahmins. The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread

their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the

score of the inquisition. But really speaking who is better and more worthy

of our respect—the Mohammedans and Christians who attempted to thrust

down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for

their salvation or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would

endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his

intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to

make it a part of their own make-up ? I have no hesitation in saying that if

the Mohammedan has been cruel the Hindu has been mean and meanness

is worse than cruelty.

Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a missionary religion has been a

controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a missionary religion.

Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a missionary

religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of India,

if it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary religion

is also a fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not whether

or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The real question is

why did the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion ? My answer

is this. Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste

System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion.

Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in

conversion. To find a place for the convert in the social life of the community

is another and a much more important problem that arises in connection with

conversion. That problem is where to place the convert, in what caste ? It is

a problem which must baffle every Hindu wishing to make aliens converts

to his religion. Unlike the club the membership of a caste is not open to

all and sundry. The law of caste confines its membership to person bom in

the caste. Castes are autonomous and there is no authority anywhere to

compel a caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. Hindu Society being

a collection of castes and each caste being a close corporation there is no

place for a convert. Thus it is the caste which has prevented the Hindus from

expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. So long as caste

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

remain, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion and Shudhi

will be both a folly and a futility.

The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also

responsible for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea underlying Sanghatan

is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which

so painfully make him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh and which

have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting

himself. The question naturally arises : From where does the Sikh or the

Mohammedan derive his strength which makes him brave and fearless ? I am

sure it is not due to relative superiority of physical strength, diet or drill. It

is due to the strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the

rescue of a Sikh when he is in danger and that all Mohammedans will rush

to save a Muslim if he is attacked. The Hindu can derive no such strength.

He cannot feel assured that his fellows will come to his help. Being one and

fated to be alone he remains powerless, develops timidity and cowardice and

in a fight surrenders or runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim stands

fearless and gives battle because he knows that though one he will not be

alone. The presence of this belief in the one helps him to hold out and the

absence of it in the other makes him to give way. If you pursue this matter

further and ask what is it that enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to

feel so assured and why is the Hindu filled with such despair in the matter

of help and assistance you will find that the reasons for this difference lie in

the difference in their associated mode of living. The associated mode of life

practised by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The

associated mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims

there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is

no such cement and one Hindu does not regard another Hindu as his Bhai.

This explains why a Sikh says and feels that one Sikh, or one Khalsa is

equal to Sava Lakh men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to

a crowd of Hindus. This difference is undoubtedly a difference due to caste.

So long as caste remains, there will be no Sanghatan and so long as there

is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek. The Hindus claim

to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On many

occasions they can be intolerant and if on some occasions they are tolerant

that is because they are too weak to oppose or too indifferent to oppose.

This indifference of the Hindus has become so much a part of their nature

that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate an insult as well as a wrong. You

see amongst them, to use the words of Morris, “The great reading down the

little, the strong heating down the weak, cruel men fearing not, kind men

daring not and wise men caring not.” With the Hindu Gods all forbearing,

it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of the wronged and the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease

that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent ? In my opinion

this indifferentism is the result of Caste System which has made Sanghatan

and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.

XII

The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own

independence and interest as over against group standards, group authority

and group interests is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform

will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual

assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such

individuals they will continue to assert and in the end succeed in converting

their fellows. On the other hand if the group is intolerant and does not

bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals they will perish

and the reform will die out. New a caste has an unquestioned right to

excommunicate any man who is guilty of breaking the rules of the caste

and when it is realized that excommunication involves a complete cesser

of social intercourse it will be agreed that as a form of punishment there

is really little to choose between excommunication and death. No wonder

individual Hindus have not had the courage to assert their independence

by breaking the barriers of caste. It is true that man cannot get on with

his fellows. But it is also true that he cannot do without them. He would

like to have the society of his fellows on his terms. If he cannot get it on

his terms then he will be ready to have it on any terms even amounting to

complete surrender. This is because he cannot do without society. A caste is

ever ready to take advantage of the helplessness of a man and insist upon

complete conformity to its code in letter and in spirit. A caste can easily

organize itself into a conspiracy to make the life of a reformer a hell and if

a conspiracy is a crime I do not understand why such a nefarious act as an

attempt to excommunicate a person for daring to act contrary to the rules

of caste should not be made an offence punishable in law. But as it is, even

law gives each caste an autonomy to regulate its membership and punish

dissenters with excommunication. Caste in the hands of the orthodox has

been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform.

XIII

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste

has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity.

Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. His

responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste.

Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There

is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious.

There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response.

There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

is sympathy but not for men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge

and follow the leadership of a great and good man? The case of a Mahatma

apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is a man of his

caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha

if he is a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man

apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of

virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality

is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right or wrong; my caste-man,

good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue and not standing by

vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste. Have not Hindus

committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste ?

XIV

I would not be surprised if some of you have grown weary listening

to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There

is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the

problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question

that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a

society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not ? What

objection can there be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society

should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking

place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many

interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied

and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words

there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another

name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government.

It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated

experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards

fellowmen. Any objection to Liberty ? Few object to liberty in the sense of

a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There

is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and

materials as being necessary for earning a living to keep the body in

due state of health. Why not allow liberty to benefit by an effective and

competent use of a person’s powers ? The supporters of caste who would

allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would not

readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to

choose one’s profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate

slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection.

It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from

other the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains even

where mere is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the

Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed

callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality ? This

has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound and one may have

to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that ? Equality may be

a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A

man’s power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance

or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of

scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient

than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three

respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we

treat them as unequal because they are unequal ? This is a question

which the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the

individualist it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts

are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to

the full development of every one’s powers. But what would happen if men

were treated unequally as they are, in the first two respects ? It is obvious

that those individuals also in whose favour there is birth, education, family

name, business connections and inherited wealth would be selected in the

race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of

the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason therefore,

which forces that in the third respect we should treat men unequally

demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally as

possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is good for the social

body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them only

by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race.

That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another

reason why we must accept equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast

numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine

distinctions and to treat each equitably i.e. according to need or according

to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of

men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification.

The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and that

rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they are alike

but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of

equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a

statesman can proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and

which demands a severely practical test.

But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by

the name of the Arya Samajists and their ideal of social organization is what

is called Chaturvarnya or the division of society into four classes instead of

the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive

and to disarm opposition the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to

point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth).

At the outset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot reconcile myself. In the

first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual

is to take his place in the Hindu Society according to his worth. I do not

understand why the Arya Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin,

Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A learned man would be honoured without

his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier would be respected without his

being designated a Kshatriya. If European society honours its soldiers and

its servants without giving them permanent labels, why should Hindu

Society find it difficult to do so is a question, which Arya Samajists have

not cared to consider. There is another objection to the continuance of these

labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiment and mental

attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common experience

that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments,

which determine a person’s attitude towards men and things. The names,

Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, are names which are associated

with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is

that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these names continue, Hindus

will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as

hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly.

The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen if

the old labels remain and continue to recall to his mind old notions. If new

notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people it is necessary to give

them new names. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To

allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking

labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions

based on birth, is a snare.

XVI

To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent and my whole

being rebels against it. But I do not wish to rest my objection to Chaturvarnya

on mere grounds of sentiments. There are more solid grounds on which I rely

for my opposition to it. A close examination of this ideal has convinced me

that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful

and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view,

the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists

do not seem to have taken into account. The principle underlying caste is

fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna. Not only are

they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The

former is based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have

acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth

to vacate that status ? How are you going to compel people to recognize

the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a

lower status based on his birth ? For this you must first break up the Caste

System, in order to be able to establish the Varna system. How are you going

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

to reduce the four thousand castes, based on birth, to the four Varnas,

based on worth ? This is the first difficulty which the protagonists of the

Chaturvarnya must grapple with. There is a second difficulty which the

protagonists of Chaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make the

establishment of Chaturvarnya a success.

Chaturvarnya pre-supposes that you can classify people into four definite

classes. Is this possible ? In this respect, the ideal of Chaturvarnya has,

as you will see, a close affinity to the Platonic ideal. To Plato, men fell by

nature into three classes. In some individuals, he believed mere appetites

dominated. He assigned them to the labouring and trading classes. Others

revealed to him that over and above appetites, they have a courageous

disposition. He classed them as defenders in war and guardians of internal

peace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the universal reason underlying

things. He made them the law-givers of the people. The criticism to which

Plato’s Republic is subject, is also the criticism which must apply to the

system of Chaturvarnya, in so far as it proceeds upon the possibility

of an accurate classification of men into four distinct classes. The chief

criticism against Plato is that his idea of lumping of individuals into a

few sharply marked-off classes is a very superficial view of man and his

powers. Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every individual, of

his incommensurability with others, of each individual forming a class of

his own. He had no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies

and combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To him,

there were types of faculties or powers in the individual constitution. All this

is demonstrably wrong. Modern science has shown that lumping together

of individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes is a superficial view

of man not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently, the utilization

of the qualities of individuals is incompitable with their startification by

classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. Chaturvarnya

must fail for the very reason for which Plato’s Republic must fail, namely

that it is not possible to pigeon men into holes, according as he belongs to

one class or the other. That it is impossible to accurately classify people

into four definite classes is proved by the fact that the original four classes

have now become four thousand castes.

There is a third difficulty in the way of the establishment of the system of

Chaturvarnya. How are you going to maintain the system of Chaturvarnya,

supposing it was established ? One important requirement for the successful

working of Chaturvarnya is the maintenance of the penal system which could

maintain it by its sanction. The system of Chaturvarnya must perpetually

face the problem of the transgressor. Unless there is a penalty attached to the

act of transgression, men will not keep to their respective classes. The whole

system will break down, being contrary to human nature. Chaturvarnya

cannot subsist by its own inherent goodness. It must be enforced by law.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

That, without penal sanction the ideal of Chaturvarnya cannot be realized,

is proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killing Shambuka. Some

people seem to blame Rama because he want only and without reason killed

Shambuka. But to blame Rama for killing Shambuka is to misunderstand

the whole situation. Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya. As a king,

Rama was bound to maintain Chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to kill

Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed his class and wanted to be a

Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama killed Shambuka. But this also shows

that penal sanction is necessary for the maintenance of Chaturvarnya. Not

only penal sanction is necessary, but penalty of death is necessary. That is

why Rama did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why

Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue or

pouring of molten lead in the ears of the Shudra, who recites or hears the

Veda. The supporters of Chaturvarnya must give an assurance that they

could successfully classify men and they could induce modern society in the

twentieth century to reforge the penal sanctions of Manu-Smriti.

The protagonists of Chaturvarnya do not seem to have considered what

is to happen to women in their system. Are they also to be divided into

four classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra? Or are they to be

allowed to take the status of their husbands. If the status of the woman is

to be the consequence of marriage what becomes of the underlying principle

of Chaturvarnya, namely, that the status of a person should be based upon

the worth of that person ? If they are to be classified according to their

worth is their classification to be nominal or real ? If it is to be nominal

then it is useless and then the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must admit

that their system does not apply to women. If it is real, are the protagonists

of Chaturvarnya prepared to follow the logical consequences of applying

it to women ? They must be prepared to have women priests and women

soldiers. Hindu society has grown accustomed to women teachers and women

barristers. It may grow accustomed to women brewers and women butchers.

But he would be a bold person, who would say that it will allow women

priests and women soldiers. But that will be the logical outcome of applying

Chaturvarnya to women. Given these difficulties, I think no one except a

congenital idiot could hope and believe in a successful regeneration of the

Chaturvarnya.

XVII

Assuming that Chaturvarnya is practicable, I contend that it is the most

vicious system. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge, that the

Kshatriya should bear arms, that the Vaishya should trade and that the

Shudra should serve sounds as though it was a system of division of labour.

Whether the theory was intended to state that the Shudra need not or that

whether it was intended to lay down that he must not, is an interesting

question. The defenders of Chaturvarnya give it the first meaning. They say,

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

why should the Shudra need trouble to acquire wealth, when the three

Varnas are there to support him ? Why need the Shudra bother to take to

education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the occasion

for reading or writing arises ? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself

because there is the Kshatriya to protect him ? The theory of Chaturvarnya,

understood in this sense, may be said to look upon the Shudra as the ward

and the three Varnas as his guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a simple,

elevating and alluring theory. Assuming this to be the correct view of the

underlying conception of Chaturvarnya, it seems to me that the system

is neither fool-proof nor knave-proof. What is to happen, if the Brahmins,

Vaishyas and Kshatriyas fail to pursue knowledge, to engage in economic

enterprise and to be efficient soldiers which are their respective functions ?

Contrary-wise, suppose that they discharge their functions but flout their

duty to the Shudra or to one another, what is to happen to the Shudra if

the three classes refuse to support him on fair terms or combine to keep him

down ? Who is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra or for the matter of

that of the Vaishya and Kshatriya when the person, who is trying to take

advantage of his ignorance is the Brahmin ? Who is to defend the liberty

of the Shudra and for the matter of that, of the Brahmin and the Vaishya

when the person who is robbing him of it is the Kshatriya ? Inter-dependence

of one class on another class is inevitable. Even dependence of one class

upon another may sometimes become allowable. But why make one person

depend upon another in the matter of his vital needs ? Education everyone

must have. Means of defence everyone must have. These are the paramount

requirements of every man for his self-preservation. How can the fact that

his neighbour is educated and armed help a man who is uneducated and

disarmed. The whole theory is absurd. These are the questions, which the

defenders of Chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they are

very pertinent questions. Assuming their conception of Chaturvarnya that

the relationship between the different classes is that of ward and guardian

is the real conception underlying Chaturvarnya, it must be admitted that it

makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from the misdeeds

of the guardian. Whether the relationship of guardian and ward was the

real underlying conception, on which Chaturvarnya was based, there is no

doubt that in practice the relation was that of master and servants. The

three classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas although not very happy

in their mutual relationship managed to work by compromise. The Brahmin

flattered the Kshatriya and both let the Vaishya live in order to be able to

live upon him. But the three agreed to beat down the Shudra. He was not

allowed to acquire wealth lest he should be independent of the three Varnas.

He was prohibited from acquiring knowledge lest he should keep a steady

vigil regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing arms lest he

should have the means to rebel against their authority. That this is how

the Shudras were treated by the Tryavarnikas is evidenced by the Laws

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

of Manu. There is no code of laws more in famous regarding social rights

than the Laws of Manu. Any instance from anywhere of social injustice

must pale before it. Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils

to which they have been subjected ? There have been social revolutions in

other countries of the world. Why have there not been social revolutions

in India, is a question which has incessantly troubled me. There is only

one answer, which I can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus

have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched

system of Chaturvarnya. They could not bear arms and without arms

they could not rebel. They were all ploughmen or rather condemned to be

ploughmen and they never were allowed to convert their ploughshare into

swords. They had no bayonets and therefore everyone who chose could and

did sit upon them. On account of the Chaturvarnya, they could receive no

education. They could not think out or know the way to their salvation.

They were condemned to be lowly and not knowing the way of escape

and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal

servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate. It is true that

even in Europe the strong has not shrunk from the exploitation, nay the

spoliation of the weak. But in Europe, the strong have never contrived to

make the weak helpless against exploitation so shamelessly as was the

case in India among the Hindus. Social war has been raging between the

strong and the weak far more violently in Europe than it has ever been in

India. Yet, the weak in Europe has had in his freedom of military service

his physical weapon, in suffering his political weapon and in education his

moral weapon. These three weapons for emancipation were never withheld

by the strong from the weak in Europe. All these weapons were, however,

denied to the masses in India by Chaturvarnya. There cannot be a more

degrading system of social organization than the Chaturvarnya. It is the

system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful

activity. This is no exaggeration. History bears ample evidence. There is

only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom, greatness

and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At all other times the

country suffered from defeat and darkness. But the Mourya period was a

period when Chaturvarnya was completely annihilated, when the Shudras,

who constituted the mass of the people, came into their own and became

the rulers of the country. The period of defeat and darkness is the period

when Chaturvarnya flourished to the damnation of the greater part of the

people of the country.

XVIII

Chaturvarnya is not new. It is as old as the Vedas. That is one of the

reasons why we are asked by the Arya Samajists to consider its claims.

Judging from the past as a system of social organization, it has been tried

and it has failed. How many times have the Brahmins annihilated the seed

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of the Kshatriyas ! How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the

Brahmins! The Mahabharata and the Puranas are full of incidents of the

strife between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. They even quarreled

over such petty questions as to who should salute first, as to who should

give way first, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, when the two met in

the street. Not only was the Brahmin an eyesore to the Kshatriya and

the Kshatriya an eyesore to the Brahmin, it seems that the Kshatriyas

had become tyrannical and the masses, disarmed as they were under the

system of Chaturvarnya, were praying Almighty God for relief from their

tyranny. The Bhagwat tells us very definitely that Krishna had taken

Avtar for one sacred purpose and that was to annihilate the Kshatriyas.

With these instances of rivalry and enmity between the different Varnas

before us, I do not understand how any one can hold out Chaturvarnya

as an ideal to be aimed at or as a pattern, on which the Hindu Society

should be remodelled,

XIX

I have dealt with those, who are without you and whose hostility to your

ideal is quite open. There appear to be others, who are neither without

you not with you. I was hesitating whether I should deal with their point

of view. But on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that

I must and that for two reasons. Firstly, their attitude to the problem of

caste is not merely an attitude of neutrality, but is an attitude of armed

neutrality. Secondly, they probably represent a considerable body of people.

Of these, there is one set which finds nothing peculiar nor odious in the

Caste System of the Hindus. Such Hindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs

and Christians and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes

amongst them. In considering, this question you must at the outset bear

in mind that nowhere is human society one single whole. It is always

plural. In the world of action, the individual is one limit and society the

other. Between them lie all sorts of associative arrangements of lesser

and larger scope, families, friendship, co-operative associations, business

combines, political parties, bands of thieves and robbers. These small

groups are usually firmly welded together and are often as exclusive as

castes. They have a narrow and intensive code, which is often anti-social.

This is true of every society, in Europe as well as in Asia. The question

to be asked in determining whether a given society is an ideal society; is

not whether there are groups in it, because groups exist in all societies.

The questions to be asked in determining what is an ideal society are :

How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared

by the groups ? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of

associations ? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more numerous

than the forces that unite ? What social significance is attached to this

group life ? Is its exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience or is

it a matter of religion ? It is in the light of these questions that one must

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

decide whether caste among Non-Hindus is the same as caste among Hindus.

If we apply these considerations to castes among Mohammedans, Sikhs and

Christians on the one hand and to castes among Hindus on the other, you

will find that caste among Non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste

among Hindus. First, the ties, which consciously make the Hindus hold

together, are non-existent, while among Non-Hindus there are many that

hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the presence of

points of contact, possibilities of interaction between different groups which

exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls “organic filaments” i.e. the elastic

threads which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to

reunite them. There is no integrating force among the Hindus to counteract

the disintegration caused by caste. While among the Non-Hindus there

are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them together. Again it

must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus,

as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for

Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask Mohammedan or a Sikh, who he is ?

He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh as the case may be. He

does not tell you his caste although he has one and you are satisfied with

his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to

ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Sunni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or

Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is

Jat or Roda; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells

you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why ?

Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing

it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. That caste has not the

same social significance among Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear

if you take into consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste.

There may be castes among Sikhs and Mohammedans but the Sikhs and the

Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mohammedan if he broke his

caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the Sikhs and

the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. He

is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the difference in the

social significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This is the second

point of difference. But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste

among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration ; but among the Hindus

most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a

sacred institution. They, did not originate it. With them it is only a survival.

They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus

to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not

compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus

wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it will not be

so in the case of Non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take

comfort in the mere existence of caste among Non-Hindus, without caring

to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether there are other

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“organic filaments”, which subordinate the feeling of caste to the feeling of

community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion the better.

The other set denies that caste presents any problem at all for the Hindus

to consider. Such Hindus seek comfort in the view that the Hindus have

survived and take this as a proof of their fitness to survive. This point of

view is well expressed by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu view of

Life. Referring to Hinduism he says, “The civilization itself has not been a

shortlived one. Its historic records date back for over four thousand years

and even then it had reached a stage of civilization which has continued

its unbroken, though at times slow and static, course until the present day.

It has stood the stress and strain of more than four or five millenniums

of spiritual thought and experience. Though peoples of different races and

cultures have been pouring into India from the dawn of History, Hinduism

has been able to maintain its supremacy and even the proselytising creeds

backed by political power have not been able to coerce the large majority

of Hindus to their views. The Hindu culture possesses some vitality which

seems to be denied to some other more forceful currents. It is no more

necessary to dissect Hinduism than to open a tree to see whether the sap

still runs.” The name of Prof. Radhakrishnan is big enough to invest with

profundity whatever he says and impress the minds of his readers. But I

must not hesitate to speak out my mind. For, I fear that, his statement

may become the basis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is

proof of fitness to survive. It seems to me that the question is not whether

a community lives or dies ; the question is on what plane does it live. There

are different modes of survival. But all are not equally honourable. For an

individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between merely living

and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode. To

beat a retreat, to surrender and to live the life of a captive is also a mode

of survival. It is useless for a Hindu to take comfort in the fact that he and

his people have survived. What he must consider is what is the quality of

their survival. If he does that, I am sure he will cease to take pride in the

mere fact of survival. A Hindu’s life has been a life of continuous defeat

and what appears to him to be life everlasting is not living everlastingly

but is really a life which is perishing everlastingly. It is a mode of survival

of which every right-minded Hindu, who is not afraid to own up the truth,

will feel ashamed.

There is no doubt, in my opinion, that unless you change your social

order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilize the

community either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on

the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build

up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will

crack and will never be a whole.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

The only question that remains to be considered is—How to bring about

the reform of the Hindu social order ? How to abolish caste ? This is a

question of supreme importance. There is a view that in the reform of

caste, the first step to take, is to abolish sub-castes. This view is based

upon the supposition that there is a greater similarity in manners and

status between sub-castes than there is between castes. I think, this is an

erroneous supposition. The Brahmins of Northern and Central India are

socially of lower grade, as compared with the Brahmins of the Deccan and

Southern India. The former are only cooks and water-carriers while the

latter occupy a high social position. On the other hand, in Northern India,

the Vaishyas and Kayasthas are intellectually and socially on a par with the

Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. Again, in the matter of food

there is no similarity between the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern

India, who are vegetarians and the Brahmins of Kashmir and Bengal who

are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the Brahmins of the Deccan and

Southern India have more in common so far as food is concerned with such

non-Brahmins as the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Banias and Jains. There is no

doubt that from the standpoint of making the transit from one caste to

another easy, the fusion of the Kayasthas of Northern India and the other

Non-Brahmins of Southern India with the Non-Brahmins of the Deccan and

the Dravid country is more practicable than the fusion of the Brahmins of

the South with the Brahmins of the North. But assuming that the fusion

of sub-Castes is possible, what guarantee is there that the abolition of sub-

Castes will necessarily lead to the abolition of Castes ? On the contrary,

it may happen that the process may stop with the abolition of sub-Castes.

In that case, the abolition of sub-Castes will only help to strengthen the

Castes and make them more powerful and therefore more mischievous.

This remedy is therefore neither practicable nor effective and may easily

prove to be a wrong remedy. Another plan of action for the abolition of

Caste is to begin with inter-caste dinners. This also, in my opinion, is an

inadequate remedy. There are many Castes which allow inter-dining. But

it is a common experience that inter-dining has not succeeded in killing

the spirit of Caste and the consciousness of Caste. I am convinced that the

real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling

of being kith and kin and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred,

becomes paramount the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—

created by Caste will not vanish. Among the Hindus inter-marriage must

necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life than it need be in the

life of the non-Hindus. Where society is already well-knit by other ties,

marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society cut asunder,

marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity. The real

remedy for breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the

solvent of Caste. Your Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has adopted this line of attack

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

It is a direct, and frontal attack, and I congratulate you upon a correct

diagnosis and more upon your having shown the courage to tell the Hindus

what is really wrong with them. Political tyranny is nothing compared to

social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous

man than a politician, who defies Government. You are right in holding

that Caste will cease to be an operative force only when inter-dining and

inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located

the source of the disease. But is your prescription the right prescription for

the disease ? Ask yourselves this question; Why is it that a large majority

of Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry? Why is it that your

cause is not popular ? There can be only one answer to this question and

it is that inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and

dogmas which the Hindus regard as sacred. Caste is not a physical object

like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from

co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion,

it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean

the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may

be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity

to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste

not because they are inhuman or wrong headed. They observe Caste because

they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my

view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of

Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with,

is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them

this religion of Caste. Criticising and ridiculing people for not inter-dining

or inter-marrying or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating

inter-caste marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The

real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How

do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould

the beliefs and opinions of the people ? Not to question the authority of the

Shastras, to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions

and to blame them and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational

and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying on social reform. Reformers

working for the removal of untouchability including Mahatma Gandhi, do

not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of

their beliefs inculcated upon their minds by the Shastras and that people

will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of

the Shastras on which their conduct is founded. No wonder that such efforts

have not produced any results. You also seem to be erring in the same way

as the reformers working in the cause of removing untouchability. To agitate

for and to organise inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages is like forced

feeding brought about by artificial means. Make every man and woman free

from the thraldom of the Shastras, cleanse their minds of the pernicious

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

notions founded on the Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and inter-

marry, without your telling him or her to do so.

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that

the Shastras do not say what they are believed to say, grammatically

read or logically interpreted. What matters is how the Shastras have been

understood by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You

must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard

the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak.

You must have courage to tell the Hindus, that what is wrong with them

is their religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of the

sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage ?

XXI

What are your chances of success ? Social reforms fall into different species.

There is a species of reform, which does not relate to the religious notion of

people but is purely secular in character. There is also a species of reform,

which relates to the religious notions of people. Of such a species of reform,

there are two varieties. In one, the reform accords with the principles of the

religion and merely invites people, who have departed from it, to revert to

them and to follow them. The second is a reform which not only touches

the religious principles but is diametrically opposed to those principles

and invites people to depart from and to discard their authority and to

act contrary to those principles. Caste is the natural outcome of certain

religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras, which are believed

to contain the command of divinely inspired sages who were endowed with a

supernatural wisdom and whose commands, therefore, cannot be disobeyed

without committing sin. The destruction of Caste is a reform which falls

under the third category. To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to

go contrary to their fundamental religious notions. It is obvious that the

first and second species of reform are easy. But the third is a stupendous

task, well-nigh impossible. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social

order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness

and divinity with which Caste has become invested. In the last analysis,

this means you must destroy the authority of the Shastras and the Vedas.

I have emphasized this question of the ways and means of destroying Caste,

because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is more important

than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and means, all

your shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct then your task

is herculean. You alone can say whether you are capable of achieving it.

Speaking for myself, I see the task to be well-nigh impossible. Perhaps you

would like to know why I think so. Out of the many reasons, which have led

me to take this view, I will mention some, which I regard much important.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility, which the Brahmins have

shown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the

movement for political reform and in some cases also of economic reform.

But they are not to be found even as camp-followers in the army raised

to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins

ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter ? I say no. You may ask

why ? You may argue that there is no reason why Brahmins should continue

to shun social reform. You may argue that the Brahmins know that the

bane of Hindu Society is Caste and as an enlightened class could not be

expected to be indifferent to its consequences. You may argue that there

are secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins and if the latter do not take

up the cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will.

All this of course sounds very plausible. But in all this it is forgotten that

the break up of the Caste system is bound to affect adversely the Brahmin

Caste. Having regard to this, is it reasonable to expect that the Brahmins

will ever consent to lead a movement the ultimate result of which is to

destroy the power and prestige of the Brahmin Caste ? Is it reasonable to

expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed against

the priestly Brahmins ? In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction

between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and

kin. They are two arms of the same body and one bound to fight for the

existence of the other. In this connection, I am reminded of some very pregnant

remarks made by Prof. Dicey in his English Constitution. Speaking of the

actual limitation on the legislative supremacy of Parliament, Dicey says :

“The actual exercise of authority by any sovereign whatever, and notably

by Parliament, is bounded or controlled by two limitations. Of these the one

is an external, and the other is an internal limitation. The external limit

to the real power of a sovereign consists in the possibility or certainty that

his subjects or a large number of them will disobey or resist his laws. . .

The internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the nature of

the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance

with his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which

he lives, including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the

society to which he belongs. The Sultan could not, if he would, change the

religion of the Mohammedan world, but even if he could do so, it is in the

very highest degree improbable that the head of Mohammedanism should wish

to overthrow the religion of Mohammed ; the internal check on the exercise

of the Sultan’s power is at least as strong as the external limitation. People

sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or

that reform ? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man

who becomes a Pope and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to

be a revolutionist.” I think, these remarks apply equally to the Brahmins

of India and one can say with equal truth that if a man who becomes a

Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a Brahmin

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin

to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the

British Parliament, as was said by Leslie Stephen, to pass an Act requiring

all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether the

Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or whether

they do not. To take this view is in my judgment to ignore the part played

by the intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory

of the great man as the maker of history or whether you do not, this much

you will have to concede that in every country the intellectual class is the

most influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is

the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give lead.

In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought

and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There

is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends

upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest, independent and

disinterested it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead

when a crisis arises. It is true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only

a means and the use of means depends upon the ends which an intellectual

person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he can easily be

a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons,

ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a

gang of crooks or a body of advocates of a narrow clique from which it draws

its support. You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is

simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two

are one ; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound with

one single caste, that this intellectual class should share the interest and the

aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself the custodian

of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the country. All

this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains, that the Brahmins form

the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class but

it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus. The

Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth)

o.kkZuke~

czkã.k A xq#_

The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers.

Manu says, “If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the

Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is that which

Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force.” :

vukEukrs"kq /esZ"kq dFka L;kfnfr psn~Hkosr~ A

;a f'k"Vk czkã.kk czw;q% l /eZ% L;kn'kfÄïr% A

When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community

in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a

movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The second reason, why I say the task is impossible, will be clear if

you will bear in mind that the Caste system has two aspects. In one of its

aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it

places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social

status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the

scale of castes it is above some other caste. As an outward mark of this

gradation, there is also a gradation of social and religious rights technically

spoken of an Ashta-dhikaras and Sanskaras. The higher the grade of a caste,

the greater the number of these rights and the lower the grade, the lesser

their number. Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible

to organise a common front against the Caste System. If a caste claims

the right to inter-dine and inter-marry with another caste placed above it,

it is frozen, instantly it is told by mischief-mongers, and there are many

Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers, that it will have to concede inter-

dining and inter-marriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the Caste

System. But all the slaves are not equal in status. To excite the proletariat

to bring about an economic revolution, Karl Marx told them : “You have

nothing to lose except your chains.” But the artful way in which the social

and religious rights are distributed among the different castes whereby

some have more and some have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite

useless to excite the Hindus against the Caste System. Castes form a graded

system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous of their status and

which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them stand to lose

more of their prestige and power than others do. You cannot, therefore, have

a general mobilization of the Hindus, to use a military expression, for an

attack on the Caste System.

XXII

Can you appeal to reason and ask the Hindus to discard Caste as being

contrary to reason ? That raises the question : Is a Hindu free to follow his

reason ? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must

conform in the matter of his behaviour

osn% Le`fr% lnkpkj% LoL; p fiz;ekReu%

Here there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must follow either

Veda, Smriti or Sadachar. He cannot follow anything else. In the first place

how are the texts of the Vedas and Smritis to be interpreted whenever any

doubt arises regarding their meaning ? On this important question the view

of Manu is quite definite. He says :

;ks¿oeU;sr rs ewys gsrq'kkòkJ;kr~ f}t% A

l lk/qfHkcZfg"dk;ksZ ukfLrdks osnfuUnd% AA

According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and

Smritis, is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as atheism and

the punishment provided for it is ex-communication. Thus, where a matter is

covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking.

Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and Smritis on matters on which

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

they have given a positive injunction, the solution is not left to reason. When

there is a conflict between two Shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal

authority. Either of them may be followed. No attempt is to be made to find

out which of the two accords with reason. This is made clear by Manu :

Jqfr}S/a rq ;=k L;kIr=k /ekZoqHkkS Le`rkS A

“When there is a conflict between Shruti and Smriti, the Shruti must

prevail.” But here too, no attempt must be made to find out which of the

two accords with reason. This is laid down by Manu in the following Shloka :

;k osnckák% Le`r;ks ;k'p dk'p dqn`"V% A

lokZLrk fu"iQyk% izsR; reksfu"Bk fg r% Le`rk% AA

Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the Manu-Smriti

must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find out which of the two

accords with reason. This is the ruling given by Brihaspati:

osnk;Roksifuca/`Ror~ izek.;a fg euks% Le`ra A

eUoFkZfoijhrk rq ;k Le`fr% lk u 'kL;rs AA

It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on which the Shrutis and Smritis

have given a positive direction, a Hindu is not free to use his reasoning

faculty. The same rule is laid down in the Mahabharat:

iqjk.ka ekuoks /eZ% lkaxks osnf ÜpfdfRlra A

vkKkfl¼kfu pRokfj u gUrO;kfu gsrqfHk% AA

He must abide by their directions. The Caste and Varna are matters,

which are dealt with by the Vedas and the Smritis and consequently, appeal

to reason can have no effect on a Hindu. So far as Caste and Varna are

concerned, not only the Shastras do not permit the Hindu to use his reason

in the decision of the question, but they have taken care to see that no

occasion is left to examine in a rational way the foundations of his belief

in Caste and Varna. It must be a source of silent amusement to many

a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus breaking Caste

on certain occasions, such as railway journey and foreign travel and yet

endeavouring to maintain Caste for the rest of their lives! The explanation

of this phenomenon discloses another fetter on the reasoning faculties of

the Hindus. Man’s life is generally habitual and unreflective. Reflective

thought, in the sense of active, persistent and careful consideration of any

belief or supposed form or knowledge in the light of the grounds that support

it and further conclusions to which it tends, is quite rare and arises only

in a situation which presents a dilemma—a crisis. Railway journeys and

foreign travels are really occasions of crisis in the life of a Hindu and it is

natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain Caste

at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He breaks

Caste at one step and proceeds to observe it at the next without raising

any question. The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in

the rule of the Shastras, which directs him to maintain Caste as far as

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

possible and to undergo prayaschitta when he cannot. By this theory of

prayaschitta, the Shastras by following a spirit of compromise have given

caste a perpetual lease of life and have smothered reflective thought which

would have otherwise led to the destruction of the notion of Caste.

There have been many who have worked in the cause of the abolition

of Caste and Untouchability. Of those, who can be mentioned, Ramanuja,

Kabir and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts of these

reformers and exhort the Hindus to follow them ? It is true that Manu has

included Sadachar (

lnkpkj) as one of the sanctions along with Shruti and

Smriti. Indeed, Sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras :

;|íkp;Zrs ;su /E;± ok¿/E;Zeso ok A

ns'kL;kpj.ka fuR;a pfj=ka rf¼dhfrZre~ AA

According to this, Sadachar, whether, it is /E;Z or v/E;Z in accordance

with Shastras or contrary to Shastras, must be followed. But what is the

meaning of Sadachar ? If any one were to suppose that Sadachar means

right or good acts i.e. acts of good and righteous men he would find himself

greatly mistaken. Sadachar does not means good acts or acts of good men.

It means ancient custom good or bad. The following verse makes this clear :

;fLeu~ ns'ks ; vkpkj% ikjai;Z=kQekxr% A

o.kkZuka fdy losZ"kka l lnkpkj mP;rs AA

As though to warn people against the view that Sadachar means good

acts or acts of good men and fearing that people might understand it

that way and follow the acts of good men, the Smritis have commanded

the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in their good

deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti, Smriti and Sadachar. This may

sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the fact remains that

u nsopfjra pjsr~ is an injunction, issued to the Hindus by their Shastras.

Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury

of a Reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable

him for action. How are you going to break up Caste, if people are not

free to consider whether it accords with reason ? How are you going to

break up Caste it people are not free to consider whether it accords with

morality ? The wall built around Caste is impregnable and the material,

of which it is built, contains none of the combustible stuff of reason and

morality. Add to this the fact that inside this wall stands the army of

Brahmins who form the intellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural

leaders of the Hindus, Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary

soldiers but as an army fighting for its homeland and you will get an

idea why I think that breaking-up of Caste amongst the Hindus is well-

nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take ages before a breach is made.

But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be done

quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about a breach

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

in the system then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the

Shastras, which deny any part to reason, to Vedas and Shastras, which deny

any part to morality. You must destroy the Religion of the Shrutis and the

Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.

XXIII

Some may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion ; some

may find the idea revolting to them and some may find it revolutionary.

Let me therefore explain my position. I do not know whether you draw

a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only I make a

distinction but I say that this distinction is real and important. Rules are

practical; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription.

But principles are intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things.

Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue. Principles

do not prescribe a specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do

tell just what to do and how to do it. A principle, such as that of justice,

supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings

of his desires and purposes, it guides him in his thinking by suggesting

to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind. This

difference between rules and principles makes the acts done in pursuit of

them different in quality and in content. Doing what is said to be good by

virtue of a rule and doing good in the light of a principle are two different

things. The principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible.

The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not

be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of this

responsibility, Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot

be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules it ceases to be

Religion, as it kills responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious

act. What is this Hindu Religion ? Is it a set of principles or is it a code

of rules ? Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas and the

Smritis, is nothing but a mass of sacrificial, social, political and sanitary

rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is called Religion by the Hindus

is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the

sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all

countries, to all times, is not to be found in them, and if it is, it does not

form the governing part of a Hindu’s life. That for a Hindu, Dharma means

commands and prohibitions is clear from the way the word Dharma is used

in Vedas and the Smritis and understood by the commentators. The word

Dharma as used in the Vedas in most cases means religious ordinances or

rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimansa defines Dharma as “a desirable

goal or result that is indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages”. To put it

in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law or at best

legalized class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this code of ordinances, as

Religion. The first evil of such a code of ordinances, misrepresented to the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

people as Religion, is that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and

spontaneity and to reduce it (for the conscientious at any rate) to a more

or less anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules. Under

it, there is no loyalty to ideals, there is only conformity to commands. But

the worst evil of this code of ordinances is that the laws it contains must

be the same yesterday, today and forever. They are iniquitous in that they

are not the same for one class as for another. But this iniquity is made

perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. The

objectionable part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certain

persons called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable part is that this

code has been invested with the character of finality and fixity. Happiness

notoriously varies with the conditions and circumstances of a person, as well

as with the conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case,

how can humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without being cramped

and without being crippled ? I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that

such a religion must be destroyed and I say, there is nothing irreligious in

working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your

bounden duty to tear the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as

caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you.

Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable

them to realize that what they are told as Religion is not Religion but that

it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge for its amendment or

abolition. So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be ready

for a change, because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not associated

with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of

change and when people come to know that what is called Religion is really

Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and

accept that law can be changed.

XXIV

While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I must not be understood to hold

the opinion that there is no necessity for a religion. On the contrary, I agree

with Burke when he says that, “True religion is the foundation of society,

the basis on which all true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction.”

Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules of life be annulled, I

am anxious that its place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which

alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of the

necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as

necessary items in this religious reform. The following in my opinion should

be the cardinal items in this reform : (1) There should be one and only one

standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by

all Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu religion such as

Vedas, Shastras and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative,

must by law cease to be so and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

social contained in these books should be penalized. (2) It should be better if

priesthood among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible,

the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes

to be a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by

law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a priest unless he has passed

an examination prescribed by the State and holds a sanad from the State

permitting him to practise. (3) No ceremony performed by a priest who does

not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in law and it should be made

penal for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a priest. (4) A priest

should be the servant of the State and should be subject to the disciplinary

action by the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs and worship, in

addition to his being subject along with other citizens to the ordinary law

of the land. (5) The number of priests should be limited by law according to

the requirements of the State as is done in the case of the I.C.S. To some,

this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothing revolutionary in

this. Every profession in India is regulated. Engineers must show proficiency,

Doctor must show proficiency, Lawyers must show proficiency, before they

are allowed to practise their professions. During the whole of their career,

they must not only obey the law of the land, civil as well as criminal, but

they must also obey the special code of morals prescribed by their respective

professions. The priest’s is the only profession where proficiency is not

required. The profession of a Hindu priest is the only profession which is not

subject to any code. Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physically a priest

may be suffering from a foul disease, such as syphilis or gonorrhea, morally

he may be a wreck. But he is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter

the sanctum sanctorum of a Hindu temple and worship the Hindu God. All

this becomes possible among the Hindus because for a priest it is enough

to be born in a priestly caste. The whole thing is abominable and is due to

the fact that the priestly class among Hindus is subject neither to law nor

to morality. It recognizes no duties. It knows only of rights and privileges.

It is a pest which divinity seems to have let loose on the masses for their

mental and moral degradation. The priestly class must be brought under

control by some such legislation as I have outlined above. It will prevent it

from doing mischief and from misguiding people. It will democratise it by

throwing it open to every one. It will certainly help to kill the Brahminism

and will also help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate.

Brahminism is the poison which has spoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in

saving Hinduism if you will kill Brahminism. There should be no opposition

to this reform from any quarter. It should be welcomed even by the Arya

Samajists, because this is merely an application of their own doctrine of

guna-karma.

Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis

to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality

and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no authority on the subject.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance

with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to

borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on

the Upanishads. Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, a

considerable scraping and chipping off the ore they contain, is more than I

can say. This means a complete change in the fundamental notions of life. It

means a complete change in the values of life. It means a complete change

in outlook and in attitude towards men and things. It means conversion ;

but if you do not like the word, I will say, it means new life. But a new life

cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can enter only in a new body.

The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new

life can enter into it. To put it simply, the old must cease to be operative

before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate. This is what I meant

when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the

religion of the Shastras.

XXV

I have kept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a close.

This would have been a convenient point for me to have stopped. But this

would probably be my last address to a Hindu audience on a subject vitally

concerning the Hindus. I would therefore like, before I close, to place before

the Hindus, if they will allow me, some questions which I regard as vital

and invite them seriously to consider the same.

In the first place, the Hindus must consider whether it is sufficient to

take the placid view of the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said

about the beliefs, habits, morals and outlooks on life, which obtain among

the different peoples of the world except that they often differ ; or whether

it is not necessary to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality,

beliefs, habits and outlook have worked best and have enabled those who

possessed them to flourish, to go strong, to people the earth and to have

dominion over it. As is observed by Prof. Carver, “Morality and religion, as

the organised expression of moral approval and disapproval, must be regarded

as factors in the struggle for existence as truly as are weapons for offence

and defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and feathers. The social

group, community, tribe or nation, which develops an unworkable scheme of

morality or within which those social acts which weaken it and unfit it for

survival, habitually create the sentiment of approval, while those which would

strengthen and enable it to be expanded habitually create the sentiment

of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its habits of approval or

disapproval (these are the results of religion and morality) that handicap it,

as really as the possession of two wings on one side with none on the other

will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as futile in the one case as in

the other to argue, that one system is just as good as another.” Morality

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

and religion, therefore, are not mere matters of likes and dislikes. You may

dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality, which, if universally practised

within a nation, would make that nation the strongest nation on the face

of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike such a nation will become strong.

You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality and an ideal of justice, which

if universally practised within a nation, would make it unable to hold its

own in the struggle with other nations. Yet in spite of your admiration this

nation will eventually disappear. The Hindus must, therefore, examine their

religion and their morality in terms of their survival value.

Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the

whole of their social heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to

future generations only that much and no more. Prof. John Dewey, who

was my teacher and to whom I owe so much, has said : “Every society gets

encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the past, and with

what is positively perverse... As a society becomes more enlightened, it

realizes that it is responsible not to conserve and transmit the whole of its

existing achievements, but only such as make for a better future society.”

Even Burke, in spite of the vehemence with which he opposed the principle

of change embodied in the French Revolution, was compelled to admit that

“a State without the means of some change is without the means of its

conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part

of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.” What

Burke said of a State applies equally to a society.

Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship

the past as supplying its ideals. The beneful effect of this worship of the past

are best summed up by Prof. Dewey when he says : “An individual can live

only in the present. The present is not just something which comes after the

past; much less something produced by it. It is what life is in leaving the

past behind it. The study of past products will not help us to understand

the present. A knowledge of the past and its heritage is of great significance

when it enters into the present, but not otherwise. And the mistake of making

the records and remains of the past the main material of education is that

it tends to make the past a rival of the present and the present a more or

less futile imitation of the past.” The principle, which makes little of the

present act of living and growing, naturally looks upon the present as empty

and upon the future as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress and

is an hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.

Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for

them to recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing

sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for

individuals as well as for society. In a changing society, there must be a

constant revolution of old values and the Hindus must realize that if there

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

must be standards to measure the acts of men there must also be a readiness

to revise those standards.

XXVI

I have to confess that this address has become too lengthy. Whether this

fault is compensated to any extent by breadth or depth is a matter for you

to judge. All I claim is to have told you candidly my views. I have little to

recommend them but some study and a deep concern in your destiny. If you

will allow me to say, these views are the views of a man, who has been no

tool of power, no flatterer of greatness. They come from one, almost the whole

of whose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for the

poor and for the oppressed and whose only reward has been a continuous

shower of calumny and abuse from national journals and national leaders,

for no other reason except that I refuse to join with them in performing the

miracle—I will not say trick—of liberating the oppressed with the gold of

the tyrant and raising the poor with the cash of the rich. All this may not

be enough to commend my views. I think they are not likely to alter yours.

But whether they do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must

make your efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in your way. I am

sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change. This is not the place

for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out of your fold, I will watch

your movement with active sympathy and you will have my assistance for

what it may be worth. Yours is a national cause. Caste is no doubt primarily

the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over and

everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim and Christian. You, therefore, deserve

the support of all those who are suffering from this infection, Sikh, Muslim

and Christian. Yours is more difficult than the other national cause, namely

Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side.

In this, you have to fight against the whole nation and that too, your own.

But it is more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if

you cannot defend it. More important than the question of defending Swaraj

is the question of defending the Hindus under the Swaraj. In my opinion

only when the Hindu Society becomes a casteless society that it can hope

to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength,

Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery. Good-bye

and good wishes for your success.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

APPENDIX I

A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI

(A Reprint of his Articles in the “Harijan” )

Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment

The readers will recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was to have presided

last May at the annual conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore.

But the conference itself was cancelled because Dr. Ambedkar’s address was

found by the Reception Committee to be unacceptable. How far a Reception

Committee is justified in rejecting a President of its choice because of his

address that may be objectionable to it is open to question. The Committee

knew Dr. Ambedkar’s views on casts; and the Hindu scriptures. They

knew also that he had in unequivocal terms decided to give up Hinduism.

Nothing less than the address that Dr. Ambedkar had prepared was to be

expected from him. The committee appears to have deprived the public of an

opportunity of listening to the original views of a man, who has carved out

for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future,

Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.

Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the Reception Committee.

He has answered their rejection of him by publishing the address at his

own expense. He has priced it at 8 annas, I would suggest a reduction to

2 annas or at least 4 annas.

No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox will gain by reading it.

This is not to say that the address is not open to objection. It has to be read

only because it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to

Hinduism. Brought up as a Hindu, educated by a Hindu potentate, he has

become so disgusted with the so-called Savarna Hindus for the treatment that

he and his people have received at their hands that he proposes to leave not

only them but the very religion that is his and their common heritage. He

has transferred to that religion, his disgust against a part of its professors.

But this is not to be wondered at. After all, one can only judge a system

or an institution by the conduct of its representatives. What is more.

Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast majority of Savarna Hindus had not only

conducted themselves inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists,

whom they classed as untouchables, but they had based their conduct on the

authority of their scriptures, and when he began to search them he had found

ample warrant for their beliefs in untouchability and all its implications.

The author of the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his

three-fold indictment—inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed justification

for it on the part of the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the

justification was warranted by their scriptures.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate

the importance of this indictment. Dr. Ambedkar is not alone in his disgust

He is its most uncompromising exponent and one of the ablest among them.

He is certainly the most irreconcilable among them. Thank God, in the front

rank of the leaders, he is singularly alone and as yet but a representative

of a very small minority. But what he says is voiced with more or less

vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed classes. Only the

latter, for instance Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah and Dewan Bahadur Srinivasan,

not only do not threaten to give up Hinduism but find enough warmth in

it to compensate for the shameful persecution to which the vast mass of

Harijans are exposed.

But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold is no warrant

for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to say. The Savarnas have to correct

their belief and their conduct. Above all those who are by their learning and

influence among the Savarnas have to give an authoritative interpretation of

the scriptures. The questions that Dr. Ambedkar’s indictment suggest are :

(1) What are the scriptures ?

(2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them

or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorised interpolations ?

(3) What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on

the question of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter-dining

and intermarriages ?

(These have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.)

I must reserve for the next issue my own answer to these questions and

a statement of the (at least some) manifest flaws in Dr. Ambedkar’s thesis,

(Harijan, July 11, 1936)

The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas including Ramayana and

Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures. Nor is this a finite list. Every age or

even generation has added to the list. It follows, therefore, that everything

printed or even found handwritten is not scripture. The Smritis for instance

contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus, many

of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the Smritis cannot be accepted

as authentic. The scriptures, properly so-called, can only be concerned with

eternal varieties and must appeal to any conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes

of understanding are opened. Nothing can be accepted as the word of God

which cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spiritually experienced.

And even when you have an expurgated edition of the scriptures, you will

need their interpretation. Who is the best interpreter? Not learned men

surely. Learning there must be. But religion does not live by it. It lives in the

experiences of its saints and seers, in their lives and sayings. When all the

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

most learned commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten, the

accumulated experience of the sages and saints will abide and be an

inspiration for ages to come.

Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not

know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger.

But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth.

Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have nothing to do with castes.

The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread

by following the ancestral calling. It defines not our rights but our duties.

It necessarily has reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare

of humanity and to no other. It also follows that there is no calling too

low and none too high. All are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status.

The callings of a Brahmin—spiritual teacher—and a scavenger are equal,

and their due performance carries equal merit before God and at one time

seems to have carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to

their livelihood and no more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages

the faint lines of this healthy operation of the law. Living in Segaon with

its population of 600, I do not find a great disparity between the earnings

of different tradesmen including Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins

are to be found even in these degenerate days who are living on alms freely

given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures.

It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature

in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly

commit a breach of its only operative rule. Arrogation of a superior status by

and of the Varna over another is a denial of the law. And there is nothing

in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The essence of

Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and

its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family.)

I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many

besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. It is an interpretation

by which I have lived for nearly half a century and according to which I

have endeavoured to the best of my ability to regulate my life.

In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in

his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value and

the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so

woefully misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar,

every known living faith will probably fail.

In his able address, the learned Doctor has overproved his case- Can a

religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar,

Ramkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Rain Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath

Tagore, Vivekanand and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so

utterly devoid of merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar’s address ? A religion

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have

produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to aspire

to, if not to improve upon.

(Harijan, July 18, 1936)

III

VARNA VERSUS CASTE

Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore wants me to

publish the following :

“I have read your remarks about Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak

Mandal, Lahore. In that connection I beg to submit as follows :

“We did not invite Dr. Ambedkar to preside over our conference because

he belonged to the Depressed Classes, for we do not distinguish between

a touchable and an untouchable Hindu. On the contrary our choice fell

on him simply because his diagnosis of the fatal disease of the Hindu

community was the same as ours, i.e. he too was of the opinion that caste

system was the root cause of the disruption and downfall of the Hindus.

The subject of the Doctor’s thesis for Doctorate being caste system, he has

studied the subject thoroughly. Now the object of our conference was to

pursuade the Hindus to annihilate castes but the advice of a non-Hindu

in social and religious matters can have no effect on them. The Doctor in

the supplementary portion of his address insisted on saying that that was

his last speech as a Hindu, which was irrelevant as well as pernicious

to the interests of the conference. So we requested him to expunge that

sentence for he could easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But

he refused and we saw no utility in making merely a show of our function.

In spite of all this, I cannot help praising his address which is, as far as

I know, the most learned thesis on the subject and worth translating into

every vernacular of India.

Moreover, I want to bring to your notice that your philosophical

difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle to be grasped by people

in general, because for all practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste

and Varna are one and the same thing, for the function of both of them

is one and the same i.e. to restrict inter-caste marriages and inter-dining.

Your theory of Varnavyavastha is impracticable in this age and there

is no hope of its revival in the near future. But Hindus are slaves of

caste and do not want to destroy it. So when you advocate your ideal of

imaginary Varnavyavastha they find justification for clinging to caste.

Thus you are doing a great disservice to social reform by advocating

your imaginary utility of division of Varnas, for it creates hindrance in

our way. To try to remove untouchability without striking at the root of

Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease or

to draw a line on the surface of water. As in the heart of their hearts

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

dvijas do not want to give social equality to the so-called touchable and

untouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste, and give liberal donations

for the removal of untouchability, simply to evade the issue. To seek the help

of the Shastras for the removal of untouchability and caste is simply to wash

mud with mud.”

The last paragraph of the letter surely cancels the first. If the Mandal

rejects the help of the Shastras, they do exactly what Dr. Ambedkar does,

i.e. cease to be Hindus. How then can they object to Dr. Ambedkar’s address

merely because he said that that was his last speech as a Hindu ? The

position appears to be wholly untenable especially when the Mandal, for

which , Shri Sant Ram claims to speak, applauds the whole argument of

Dr. Ambedkar’s address.

But it is pertinent to ask what the Mandal believes if it rejects the

Shastras. How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran, or a

Christian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are

convertible terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which

define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects Caste i.e. Varna

can call himself a Hindu.

Shri Sant Ram likens the Shastras to mud. Dr. Ambedkar has not, so

far as I remember, given any such pictures que name to the Shastras. I

have certainly meant when I have said that if Shastras support the existing

untouchability I should cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if the

Shastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may

not call myself or remain a Hindu since I have no scruples about interdining

or intermarriage. I need not repeat my position regarding Shastras and

their interpretation. I venture to suggest to Shri Sant Ram that it is the

only rational and correct and morally defensible position and it has ample

warrant in Hindu tradition.

(Harijan, August 15, 1936)

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX II

A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR

I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma in taking notice

in his Harijan of the speech on Caste which I had prepared for the Jat Pat

Todak Mandal. From a perusal of his review of my speech it is clear that

the Mahatma completely dissents from the views I have expressed on the

subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with

my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act

otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person I would

not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatma himself I feel

I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to

put forth. While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to

a sense of surprize on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should

accuse me of a desire to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests

that in publishing the undelivered speech my object was to see that I was

not “forgotten”. Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say my object in

publishing the speech was to provoke the Hindus to think and take stock

of their position. I have never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I

have more of it than I wish or need. But supposing it was out of the motive

of gaining publicity that I printed the speech who could cast a stone at me ?

Surely not those, who like the Mahatma live in glass houses.

Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by

me in the speech ? First of all any one who reads my speech will realize

that the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the

issues be has raised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased

to call my indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried

to make out in my speech may be catalogued as follows : (1) That caste has

ruined the Hindus ; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the

basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavyavastha is like a

leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is incapable of sustaining

itself by its own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a

caste system unless there is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced

against every one transgressing his Varna ; (3) That the reorganization of the

Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful because the effect of

the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them opportunity to

acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be

armed ; (4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis

which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity;

(5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

Caste and Varna must be destroyed ; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and

Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the

Shastras. It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma

are absolutely beside the point and show that the main argument of the

speech was lost upon him.

III

Let me examine the substance of the points made by the Mahatma. The

first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not

authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to

state that the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the late

Mr. Tilak who was a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and

on the Hindu Shastras. His second point is that these Shastras should be

interpreted not by the learned but the saints and that, as the saints have

understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchability. As

regards the first point what I like to ask the Mahatma is what does it avail

to any one if the texts are interpolations and if they have been differently

interpreted by the saints ? The masses do not make any distinction between

texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do

not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents

of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told and what

they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the

observance of Caste and Untouchability.

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different

and elevating their teachings may have been as compared to those of

the merely learned they have been lamentably ineffective. They have

been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly, none of the saints ever attacked

the Caste System. On the contrary, they were staunch believers in the

System of Castes. Most of them lived and died as members of the castes

which they respectively belonged. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo

to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would

not admit him to their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his status

as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity. And even the saint

Eknath who now figures in the film “Dharmatma” as a hero for having

shown courage to touch the untouchables and dine with them, did so not

because he was opposed to Caste and Untouchability but because he felt

that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in the

sacred waters of the river Ganges.* The saints have never according to

my study carried on a campaign against Caste and Untouchability. They

were not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned

with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men

were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God—

*vaR;tkpk foVkG T;klh A xaxkLukus 'kq¼Ro R;klh AA—,dukFkh Hkkxor] v- üø] vks-ûùû-

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a very different and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find

difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the

teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been

taught that a saint might break Caste but the common man must not. A

saint therefore never became an example to follow. He always remained a

pious man to be honoured. That the masses have remained staunch believers

in Caste and Untouchability shows that the pious lives and noble sermons

of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct as against the

teachings of the Shastras. Thus it can be a matter of no consolation that

there were saints or that there is a Mahatma who understands the Shastras

differently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the masses hold

different view of the Shastras is fact which should and must be reckoned

with. How is that to be dealt with except by denouncing the authority of

the Shastras, which continue to govern their conduct, is a question which

the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts

forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the

Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by one good Samaritan may

be very elevating to himself but in India, with the attitude the common man

has to saints and to Mahatmas—to honour but not to follow—one cannot

make much out of it.

The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by

Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramkrishna Paramahansa

etc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion

has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have

produced. I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite

understand what the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should

be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough but does

it dispose of the matter ? I say it does not. The question still remains—why

the worst number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are

two conceivable answers to this question : (1) That the worst by reason of

some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore

incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That

the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral

twist to the lives of the many and that the best have become best in spite

of the wrong ideal—in fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right

direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first

and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the contrary. To

my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless

the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many

and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously

the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best

followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have

gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if only

many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for another

reason.* By citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc.

what the Mahatma seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest

form is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without

any fundamental change in its structure if all the high caste Hindus can be

persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their dealings with the

low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect

those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life.

Without such men India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live

in than it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the

members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal

character is in my judgment wasting his energy and hugging an illusion.

Can personal character make the maker of armaments a good man, i.e. a

man who will sell shells that will not burst and gas that will not poison ?

If it cannot, how can you accept personal character to make a man loaded

with the consciousness of Caste, a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his

fellows as his friends and equals ? To be true to himself he must deal with

his fellows either as a superior or inferior according as the case may be; at

any rate, differently from his own caste fellows. He can never be expected

to deal with his fellows as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a

Hindu does treat all those who are not of his Caste as though they were

aliens, who could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom

any fraud or trick may be practised without shame. This is to say that there

can be a better or a worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This

is so not because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In

fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows. The

best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and

their fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave his master

may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man

cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies

to the relationship between high caste and low caste. To a low caste man

a high caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high caste

men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so far as he must have

a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man. It cannot be good

to a low caste man to be conscious that there is a high caste man above

him. I have argued in my speech that a society based on Varna or Caste

is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the

Mahatma would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing

that he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing

the ground on which it is based

* In this connection see illuminating article on Morality and the Social Structure by Mr. H. N.

Brailsford in the Aryan Path for April 1936.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches ? One does not like to make

personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But

when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity

to know how far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure

to practise is due to the ideal being too high to be attainable ; it may be

that his failure to practise is due to the innate hypocracy of the man. In

any case he exposes his conduct to examination and I must not be blamed

if I asked how far has the Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in his

own case. The Mahatma is a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned

trading in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In

his own life, before he became a Mahatma, when occasion came for him to

choose his career he preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became

half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his

ancestral calling. His youngest son—I take one who is a faithful follower

of his father—born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin’s daughter and has

chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have

condemned him for not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong

and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely

the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if he even fails to realize

the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the

practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that he often spoke

on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder whether such has not

been the case with the Mahatma in regard to the subject matter of Caste.

Otherwise certain questions which occur to me would not have escaped him.

When can a calling be deemed to have become an ancestral calling so as

to make it binding on a man ? Must man follow his ancestral calling even

if it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be profitable ?

Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he finds it to be immoral ?

If every one must pursue his ancestral calling then it must follow that a

man must continue to be a pimp because his grandfather was a pimp and

a woman must continue to be a prostitute because her grandmother was a

prostitute. Is the Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his

doctrine ? To me his ideal of following one’s ancestral calling is not only an

impossible and impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal.

VII

The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin remaining a Brahmin all his

life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who do not like to remain

Brahmins all their lives. What can we say about those Brahmins who have

clung to their ancestral calling of priesthood ? Do they do so from any faith in

the virtue of the principle of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives

of filthy lucre ? The Mahatma does not seem to concern himself with such

queries. He is satisfied that these are “real Brahmins who are living on alms

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

freely given to them and giving freely what they have of spiritual treasures”.

This is how a hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma—a carrier

of spiritual treasures. But another portrait of the hereditary Brahmin can

also be drawn. A Brahmin can be a priest to Vishnu—the God of Love. He

can be a priest to Shankar—the God of Destruction. He can be a priest at

Buddha Gaya worshipping Buddha—the greatest teacher of mankind who

taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can be a priest to Kali, the

Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice of an animal to satisfy her thirst

for blood ; He will be a priest of the temple of Rama—the Kshatriya God! He

will also be a priest of the Temple of Parshuram, the God who took Avatar

to destroy the Kshatriyas ! He can be a priest to Bramha, the Creator of

the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God Allah will not brook the

claim of Bramha to share his spiritual dominion over the world! No one can

say that this is a picture which is not true to life. If this is a true picture

one does not know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties to Gods

and Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man

can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this extraordinary

phenomenon as evidence of the greatest virtue of their religion—namely

its catholicity, its spirit of toleration. As against this facile view, it can be

urged that what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more

creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These two attitudes

are hard to distinguish in their outer seeming. But they are so vitally unlike

in their real quality that no one who examines them closely can mistake

one for the other. That a man is ready to render homage to many Gods

and Goddesses may be cited as evidence of his tolerant spirit. But can it

not also be evidence of insincerity born of a desire to serve the times ? I am

sure that this toleration is merely insincerity. If this view is well founded,

one may ask what spiritual treasure can there be with a person who is

ready to be a priest and a devotee to any deity which it serves his purpose

to worship and to adore ? Not only must such a person be deemed to be

bankrupt of all spiritual treasures but for him to practice so elevating a

profession as that of a priest simply because it is ancestral, without faith,

without belief, merely as a mechanical process handed down from father to

son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the prostitution of a noble

profession which is no other than the service of religion.

VIII

Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of every one following his or

her ancestral calling ? He gives his reasons nowhere. But there must be some

reason although he does not care to avow it. Years ago writing on “Caste versus

Class” in his Young India he argued that Caste System was better than Class

System on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social

stability. If that be the reason why the Mahatma clings to the theory of every

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

one following his or her ancestral calling, then he is clinging to a false

view of social life. Everybody wants social stability and some adjustment

must be made in the relationship between individuals and classes in order

that stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody wants. One

thing nobody wants is static relationship, something that is unalterable,

something that is fixed for all times. Stability is wanted but not at the cost

of change when change is imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere

adjustment. Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice.

Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of

caste i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary calling avoids these two

evils ? I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible

adjustment I have no doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch

as it offends against both the canons of social adjustment—namely fluidity

and equity.

Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch

as he now only believes in Varna and does not believe in Caste. It is

true that there was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a

blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He believed in the Vedas, the Upanishads,

the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and

therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and defended it

with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry for inter-dining,

inter-drinking and inter-marrying and argued that restraints about inter-

dining to a great extent “helped the cultivation of will-power and the

conservation of certain social virtue”. It is good that he has repudiated

this sanctimonious nonsense and admitted that caste “is harmful both to

spiritual and national growth,” and may be, his son’s marriage outside

his caste has had something to do with this change of view. But has the

Mahatma really progressed ? What is the nature of the Varna for which

the Mahatma stands ? Is it the Vedic conception as commonly understood

and preached by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his followers, the Arya

Samajists ? The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of

a calling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. The essence of the

Mahatma’s conception of Varna is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective

of natural aptitude. What is the difference between Caste and Varna as

understood by the Mahatma ? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma,

Varna becomes merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason

that it is the same in essence—namely pursuit of ancestral calling. Far

from making progress the Mahatma has suffered retrogression. By putting

this interpretation upon the Vedic conception of Varna he has really made

ridiculous what was sublime. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for

reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna

as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an

inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s

view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes

it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts.

Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste

is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as

distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between

the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every one following his

or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the Caste

System and that in calling it the Varna System he is not only guilty of

terminological inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded.

I am sure that all his confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has

no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste

and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism. He has

said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reason to change his

view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism. Does he regard Varna as

the essence of Hinduism ? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer.

Readers of his article on “Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment” will answer “No”. In

that article he does not say that the dogma of Varna is an essential part

of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making Varna the essence of Hinduism

he says “the essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one

and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of

the human family” But the readers of his article in reply to Mr. Sant Ram

will say “Yes”. In that article he says “How can a Muslim remain one if

he rejects the Quran, or a Christian remain as Christian if he rejects

the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if Varna is an

integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism I do not know how a

person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu ?” Why this

prevarication ? Why does the Mahatma hedge ? Whom does he want to

please ? Has the saint failed to sense the truth ? Or does the politician stand

in the way of the Saint ? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering

from this confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the

temperament of the Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity

of the child with the child’s capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can

believe in anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such

time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna as it has

pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second source of confusion

is the double role which the Mahatma wants to play—of a Mahatma and a

Politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether

he has succeeded in it or not Politics have certainly commercialized him.

A politician must knew that Society cannot bear the whole truth and that

he must not speak the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth it

is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting

Caste and Varna is because he is afraid that if he opposed them he will

lose his place in politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the

people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.

The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and

Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those standards every known

living faith will probably fail. The complaint that my standards are high

may be true. But the question is not whether they are high or whether they

are low. The question is whether they are the right standards to apply.

A People and their Religion must be judged by social standards based on

social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning if religion is held

to be a necessary good for the well-being of the people. Now I maintain

that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are the

most appropriate standards and that I know of none that are better. The

conclusion that every known religion would fail if tested by my standards

may be true. But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the champion

of Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the existence

of one madman should give comfort to another madman or the existence of

one criminal should give comfort to another criminal. I like to assure the

Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which

has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which I am

charged. I realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one

who wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I am

prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in

which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a

society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals

will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I

am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that

they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel with

Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct.

It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.

Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral regeneration which

it is dangerous to postpone. And the question is who can determine and

control this moral regeneration ? Obviously only those who have undergone an

intellectual regeneration and those who are honest enough to have the courage

of their convictions born of intellectual emancipation. Judged by this standard

the Hindu leaders who count are in my opinion quite unfit for the task. It

is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminary intellectual

regeneration. If they had undergone an intellectual regeneration they would

neither delude themselves in the simple way of the untaught multitude nor

would they take advantage of the primitive ignorance of others as one sees

them doing. Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu society these

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

leaders, will nevertheless unblushingly appeal to ideals of the past which

have in every way ceased to have any connection with the present; which

however suitable they might have been in the days of their origin have now

become a warning rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect

for the earlier forms which make them disinclined—nay opposed to any

examination of the foundations of their Society. The Hindu masses are

of course incredibly heedless in the formation of their beliefs. But so are

the Hindu leaders. And what is worse is that these Hindu leaders become

filled with an illicit passion for their beliefs when any one proposes to rob

them of their companionship. The Mahatma is no exception. The Mahatma

appears not to believe in thinking. He prefers to follow the saints. Like a

conservative with his reverence for consecrated notions he is afraid that if

he once starts thinking, many ideals and institutions to which he clings wilt

be doomed. One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent

thinking puts some portion of apparently stable world in peril. But it is

equally true that dependence on saints cannot lead us to knew the truth.

The saints are after all only human beings and, as Lord Balfour said, “the

human mind is no more a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig”.

In so far as he does think, to me he really appears to be prostituting his

intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social structure of the

Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of it and therefore the worst

enemy of the Hindus.

Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who arc not content merely

to believe and follow. They dare to think, and act in accordance with the

result of their thinking. But unfortunately they are cither a dishonest lot

or an indifferent lot when it comes to the question of giving right guidance

to the mass of the people. Almost every Brahmin has transgressed the

rule of Caste. The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than

those who practise priesthood. Not only have the Brahmins given up their

ancestral calling of priesthood for trading but they have entered trades

which are prohibited to them by the Shastras. Yet how many Brahmins who

break Caste every day will preach against Caste and against the Shastras ?

For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his

practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them,

there are hundreds who break Caste and trample upon the Shastras every

day but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the

sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity ? Because they feel that if the

masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste they would be a menace to

the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this

intellectual class who would deny the masses the fruits of their thinking is

a most disgraceful phenomenon.

The Hindus in the words of Mathew Arnold are “wandering between two

worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born”. What are they to do ? The

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma to whom they appeal for guidance does not believe in thinking

and can therefore give no guidance which can be said to stand the test of

experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are

either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the right direction.

We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the face of this tragedy all

one can do is to lament and say—such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.



PART II

ON LINGUISTIC STATES

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC

PROVINCE

Statement submitted

the Linguistic Provinces Commission

Published : 1948

Printed from the edition of 1948

NOTE

The figures quoted in this memorandum have been taken from various books

and pamphlets written by various writers on the subject of reconstituting

Maharashtra on a linguistic basis. I rely upon the writers for their accuracy.

Similarly, the map of Maharashtra attached to this Memorandum need not

be taken as accurate or complete. The idea is merely to give a picture of

how the Province when reconstituted will look like.

B. R. A.

14-10-48

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC

PROVINCE

PART I

THE PROBLEM OF LINGUISTIC PROVINCES

The question of Linguistic Provinces has not only led to a great deal

of controversy born out of party prejudices and party interests but it

has led to a difference of opinion as to the merits thereof. The points of

controversy relate to claims and counter-claims as between contiguous

Provinces to territories as well as to the terms of their inclusion. I shall

deal with them at a later stage in so far as they relate to the creation

of the Maharashtra Province. I shall first take up the question of the

merits of the proposal for Linguistic Provinces.

Purposes behind the demand for Linguistic Provinces

2. What is the purpose which lies behind the demand for Linguistic

Provinces ? The generality of those who advocate the creation of Linguistic

Provinces do so because they believe that the Provinces have different

languages and cultures. They should therefore have the fullest scope to

develop their languages and their cultures. In other words, the Provinces

have all the elements of a distinct nationality and they should be allowed

the freedom to grow to their fullest in nationhood.

Difficulties arising out of Linguistic Provinces

3. In discussing the question of creating such Linguistic Provinces it

would be very short-sighted to omit from one’s consideration the fact

that the structure of Government of India of the future is to be cast in

a dual form : (a) a Central Government and (b) a number of Provincial

Governments inextricably inter-linked and inter-woven in the discharge

of their respective Legislative, Executive and Administrative functions.

Before one could agree to the creation of Linguistic Provinces, one must,

therefore, consider the effects which Linguistic Provinces would have on

the working of the Central Government.

102

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

4. Among the many effects that may be envisaged, the following are obvious :

(1) Linguistic Provinces will result in creating as many nations as there

are groups with pride in their race, language and literature. The

Central Legislature will be a League of Nations and the Central

Executive may become a meeting of separate and solidified nations

filled with the consciousness of their being separate in culture and

therefore in interests. They may develop the mentality of political

insubordination, i.e., refusal to obey the majority or of staging walk-

outs. The development of such a mentality is not to be altogether

discounted. If such a mentality grows it may easily make the working

of the Central Government impossible.

(2) The creation of Linguistic Provinces would be fatal to the maintenance

of the necessary administrative relations between the Centre and the

Provinces. If each Province adopts its own language as its official

language the Central Government will have to correspond in as

many official languages as there are Linguistic Provinces. This must

be accepted as an impossible task. How great a deadlock Linguistic

Provinces will create in the working of the Governmental machine can

be better understood by studying the effects of Linguistic Provinces

on the Judiciary. In the new set-up, each Province will have a High

Court with a series of subordinate courts below it. At the apex of

these High Courts will be the Supreme Court with the right to

hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts. On the basis

of Linguistic Provinces, Courts of each Province including its High

Court will conduct their proceedings in the language of the Province.

What is the Supreme Court to do when its jurisdiction is invoked

for rectifying a wrong done by the High Court ? The Supreme Court

will have to close down. For, if it is to function — every judge of

the Supreme Court — I am omitting for the moment the lawyers

practising therein — must know the language of every Province —

which it is impossible to provide for.

No one can contemplate such a situation with equanimity. It may lead to a

break-up of India. Instead of remaining united, India may end in becoming

Europe — faced with the prospect of chaos and disorder.

Advantages from Linguistic Provinces

5. While it is true that the proposal of Linguistic Provinces creates a

problem which goes to the very root of the matter — inasmuch as it affects the

unity of India — there can be no doubt that the reconstruction of Provinces

on linguistic basis has certain definite political advantages.

6. The main advantage of the scheme of Linguistic Provinces which

appeals to me quite strongly is that Linguistic Provinces would make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

103

democracy work better than it would in mixed Provinces. A Linguistic

Province produces what democracy needs, namely, social homogeneity.

Now the homogeneity of a people depends upon their having a belief in a

common origin, in the possession of a common language and literature, in

their pride in a common historic tradition, community of social customs,

etc. is a proposition which no student of sociology can dispute. The

absence of a social homogeneity in a State creates a dangerous situation

especially where such a State is raised on a democratic structure. History

shows that democracy cannot work in a State where the population is

not homogeneous. In a heterogeneous population divided into groups

which are hostile and anti-social towards one another the working of

democracy is bound to give rise to cases of discrimination, neglect,

partiality, suppression of the interests of one group at the hands of another

group which happens to capture political power. The reason why in an

heterogeneous society, democracy cannot succeed is because power instead

of being used impartially and on merits and for the benefit of all is used

for the aggrandisement of one group and to the detriment of another.

On the other hand, a State which is homogeneous in its population can

work for the true ends of democracy, for there are no artificial barriers

or social antipathies which lead to the misuse of political power.

7. It follows that if democracy is to function properly the subjects of the

State must be so distributed as to form a single homogeneous group. The

constitution for the Provinces of India which is on the anvil is designed

for a democratic form of Government. It follows that each Province must

be homogeneous in its population if democracy in the Province is to be

successful. This is simply another way of saying that each Province must

be a linguistic unit if it is to be fitted to work a democratic constitution.

Herein lies the justification for Linguistic Provinces.

Can the creation of Linguistic Provinces be postponed ?

8. Can the solution of this problem be postponed ? In this connection,

I would like to place before the Commission the following considerations :

(i) There is nothing new in the demand for Linguistic Provinces.

Six Provinces (1) East Punjab, (2) United Provinces, (3) Bihar,

(4) West Bengal, (5) Assam and (6) Orissa already exist as

Linguistic Provinces. The Provinces which are clamouring for being

reconstituted on linguistic basis are : (1) Bombay, (2) Madras and

(3) Central Provinces. When the principle of Linguistic Provinces

is accepted in the case of six Provinces, the other Provinces which

are asking the same principle to be applied to them, cannot be

asked to wait indefinitely:

(ii) The situation in the Non-Linguistic Provinces has become

exasperating if not dangerous and is in no way different from the

104

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

situation as it existed in the old Turkish Empire or in the old

Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(iii) The demand for Linguistic Provinces is an explosive force of the

same character which was responsible for blowing up the old

Turkish Empire or Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is better not to

allow it to get too hot when it may become difficult to prevent an

explosion.

(iv) So long as the Provinces were not democratic in their constitutions

and so long as they did not possess the widest sovereign powers

which the new constitution gives them the urgency of Linguistic

Provinces was not very great. But with the new constitution, the

problem has become very urgent.

The solution of the difficulties

9. If the problem must be dealt with immediately what is to be the

solution ? As has already been pointed out, the solution must satisfy two

conditions. While accepting the principle of Linguistic Provinces it must

provide against the break-up of India’s unity. My solution of the problem

therefore is that, while accepting the demand for the re-constitution of

Provinces on linguistic basis, the constitution should provide that the

official language of every Province shall be the same as the official

language of the Central Government. It is only on that footing that I am

prepared to accept the demand for Linguistic Provinces.

10. I am aware of the fact that my suggestion runs counter to the

conception of Linguistic Provinces which is in vogue. It is that the

language of the Province shall be its official language. I have no objection

to Linguistic Provinces. But I have the strongest objection to the language

of the Province being made its official language where it happens to be

different from the official language of the Centre. My objection is based

on the following considerations :

(1) The idea of having a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with the

question of what should be its official language. By a Linguistic

Province, I mean a Province which by the social composition of

its population is homogeneous and therefore more suited for the

realization of those social ends which a democratic Government

must fulfil. In my view, a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with

the language of the Province. In the scheme of Linguistic Provinces,

language has necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited

to the creation of the Province, i.e., for demarcation of the boundaries

of the Province. There is no categorical imperative in the scheme

of Linguistic Provinces which compels us to make the language of

the Province its official language. Nor is it necessary, for sustaining

the cultural unity of the Province, to make the language of the

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

105

Province its official language. For, the cultural unity of the Province,

which already exists, is capable of being sustained by factors other

than language such as common historic tradition, community of

social customs, etc. To sustain Provincial cultural unity which

already exists it does not require the use of the Provincial language

for official purposes. Fortunately for the Provincialists there

is no fear of a Maharashtrian not remaining a Maharashtrian

because he spoke any other language. So also there is no fear of

a Tamilian or an Andhra or a Bengali ceasing to be a Tamilian,

Andhra or Bengali if he spoke any other language than his own

mother-tongue.

(2) The out-and-out advocates of Linguistic Provinces would no doubt

protest that they have no intention of converting the Provinces

into separate nations. Their bona fides need not be doubted. At

the same time, it often happens that things do take a shape which

their authors never intended. It is therefore absolutely necessary

to take from the very beginning every step to prevent things

taking an evil shape in course of time. There is therefore nothing

wrong if the loc ening of the ties in one direction is accompanied

by their being tightened up in another direction.

(3) We must not allow the Provincial language to become its official

language even if it was natural that the Provincial language should

be the official language of the Province. There is no danger in

creating Linguistic Provinces. Danger lies in creating Linguistic

Provinces with the language of each Province as its official language.

The latter would lead to the creation of Provincial nationalities.

For the use of the Provincial languages as official languages would

lead Provincial cultures to be isolated crystalized, hardened and

solidified. It would be fatal to allow this to happen. To allow

this is to allow the Provinces to become independent nations,

separate in everything and thus open the road to the ruination of

United India. In Linguistic Provinces without the language of the

Province being made its official language the Provincial culture

would remain fluid with a channel open for give and take. Under

no circumstances, we must allow the Linguistic Provinces to make

their Provincial languages their official languages.

11. The imposition of an All-India official language on a Linguistic

Province which may happen to be different from the language of the

Province cannot come in the way of maintaining Provincial culture. Official

language will be used only in the field occupied by Government. The non-

official field or what may be the purely cultural field will still remain

open to the Provincial language to play its part. There may be a healthy

competition between the official and non-official language. One may try to

106

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

oust the other. If the official language succeeds in ousting the non-official

language from the cultural field, nothing like it. If it fails, there cannot

be much harm. Such a position cannot be said to be intolerable. It is no

more intolerable than the present position in which we have English as the

official language and the Provincial language as its non-official language.

The only difference is that the official language will not be English but

some other.

The requirements of a satisfactory solution

12. I am aware of the fact that my solution is not an ideal solution. It

makes working of the constitution in the Provinces on democratic lines

possible. But it does not make possible the democratic working of the

constitution at the Centre. That is because mere linguistic unity, i.e., the

facility to speak a common language does not ensure homogeneity which

is the result of many other factors. As stated before, the representatives

selected by the Provinces to the Central Legislature will remain what they

are, namely, Bengalis, Tamilians, Andhras, Maharashtrians, etc., even

though they may be speaking the official language of the Centre and not

their mother-tongue. But an ideal solution which can be put into effect

immediately, I cannot see. We must be content with the next best. The only

thing we must be sure about is that the solution we adopt immediately

must satisfy two conditions :

(i) It must be the very next best to the ideal; and

(ii) It must be capable of developing itself into the ideal.

Judged in the light of these considerations, I venture to say that the

solution which I have suggested satisfies these two conditions.

PART II

WILL MAHARASHTRA BE A VIABLE PROVINCE ?

Tests of Viability

13. Coming to the specific question of Maharashtra Province it is necessary

to be satisfied that it will be a viable Province. For being declared a viable

Province, a Province must satisfy certain tests. It must be of a certain size,

it must have a certain volume of population and a commensurate amount

of revenue. A Province must not only be self-supporting — which any

Province can be by choosing to live on a lower plane — but it must have

sufficient revenue to provide for a minimum standard of administration

required by efficiency and the needs of social welfare.

Is Maharashtra Viable ?

14. Does the Province of Maharashtra satisfy these tests ? The following

are the figures which show the size and population of the Maharashtra

Province as constituted on a linguistic basis :

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

107

Territory Area in

square

miles

Total

population

of the

territory

Total

Marathi-speaking

population of the

territory

Percentage of

Marathi-

speaking

population

to total

population

Twelve Districts of the Bombay

Presidency

.. .. 47,284 1,29,13,544 1,00,45,100 77.8

Eight Districts of C. P. and Berar .. .. 36,865 70,20,694 53,88,300 76.7

Total .. 84,151 1,99,34,238 1,54,33,400 77.4

States within Bombay Presidency .. .. 11,314 27,20,207 21,20,700 77.9

Marathi-speaking Districts of Hyderabad

State

.. 22,766 42,49,272 32,99,300 77.6

Goa .. .. .. .. 1,534 5,80,000 5,20,000 89.6

State of Bastar .. .. .. .. 13,701 6,33,888 2,12,300 33.5

Total .. 49,315 81,83,367 61,42,300 ….

Grand Total .. 1,33,466 2,81,17,605 2,15,85,700 76.8

108

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Area and population of Maharashtra

15. The above table gives figures for the Maharashtra Province in its two

forms (1) abridged and (2) unabridged. In its unabridged form which means

if all the area occupied by the Marathi-speaking people was constituted

in one single Province the area and the population of Maharashtra will

be 1,33,466 square miles with a population of 2,15,85,700. In its abridged

form which means that if the area and population of the Marathi-speaking

people comprised within the States was for the moment omitted, even then

the proposed Maharashtra Province would comprise an area of 84,151

square miles with a population of 1,54,33,400.

Revenue of Maharashtra

16. Turning to the revenue side of the Province, it has been estimated

that the total annual revenue at the existing rate of taxation which

will accrue to the abridged Maharashtra Province will be approximately

Rs. 25,61,51,000.

Comparison of Maharashtra with other Provinces

17. Some comparisons are necessary to get an idea if a Province of this

size, with this population and with so much revenue will be viable. For

this, I give below figures of the first or the biggest and the forty-seventh or

the smallest states within the U.S.A. in order of their size and population :

States Area in

square miles

1st Texas .. .. .. .. 2,67,339

47th Delaware .. .. .. .. 2,057

States Population

1st New York .. .. .. .. 1,26,32,890

47th Wyoming .. .. .. .. 2,57,108

18. It is obvious that Maharashtra whether one takes its abridged

edition or the unabridged edition of it will be several times bigger than

Delaware which is the smallest State in U.S.A. in point of area and also

several times bigger than New York which is the biggest state in U.S.A.

in point of population.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

109

19. Comparison of Maharashtra with the existing and prospective

Linguistic Provinces of India may also be useful. Their position in point of

area, population and revenue is as follows :

Province Area in

sq. miles

Population Annual

Revenue

Rs.

Existing Linguistic Province—

United Provinces .. 106,247 5,50,20,617 32,65,08,000

Bihar .. .. 69,745 3,63,40,151 16,26,78,000

Orissa .. .. 32,198 82,28,544 4,60,62,000

New Linguistic Provinces—

Andhra .. .. 70,000 1,90,00,000 ….

Karnatak .. .. 25,000 45,00,000 ….

Kerala .. .. 6,000 35,00,000 ….

These figures when compared with the figures for Maharashtra leave no

doubt that Maharashtra will not merely be a viable Province but a strong

Province in point of area, population and revenue.

PART III

SHOULD THE MAHARASHTRA PROVINCE BE

FEDERAL OR UNITARY ?

20. I will now turn to what are known to be points on which there is

controversy. There is no controversy regarding the unification of Maharashtra

into one Province. The controversy relates to the way it should be brought

about. One view is that the new Maharashtra Province should be a unitary

Province, with a single legislature and a single executive. The other view

is that Maharashtra should be a Federation of two sub-Provinces, one

sub-Province to consist of the Marathi-speaking districts of the Bombay

Presidency and the other of the Marathi-speaking districts of the present

Province of the Central Provinces and Berar. The idea of creating sub-

Provinces has originated from the spokesmen of the Marathi-speaking districts

of Central Provinces and Berar. I am satisfied that it is only the wish of

a few high-caste politicians who feel that in a unified Maharashtra their

political careers will come to an end. It has no backing from the people of

Central Provinces and Berar. I would not have referred to this point but

for the fact that it gives me an opportunity to enunciate what I regard as

a very vital principal. When it is decided to create a Linguistic Province,

I am definitely of opinion that all areas which are contiguous and which

speak the same language should be forced to come into it. There should

be no room for choice nor for self-determination. Every attempt must be

110

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

made to create larger provincial units. Smaller provincial units will be a

perpetual burden in normal times and a source of weakness in an emergency.

Such a situation must be avoided. That is why I insist that all parts of

Maharashtra should be merged together in a single province.

PART IV

MAHARASHTRA AND THE CITY OF BOMBAY

Controversy over Bombay

21. Should the City of Bombay be included in Maharashtra or not is

another point over which there has been a controversy. A meeting was held in

Bombay in the building of the Indian Merchants Chamber. The meeting was

attended by no more than sixty. With the exception of one Indian-Christian

it was attended by only Gujarathi-speaking merchants and industrialists.

Although it was small and sectional meeting, its proceedings were flashed

on the front page of every important newspaper in India and the Times of

India was so impressed by its importance that it wrote an editorial which

while mildly castigating the vituperative tone which the speakers at the

meeting adopted against the Maharashtrians, supported the resolutions

passed at the meeting regarding the future of Bombay. This proves what

truth there is in the reply given by Lord Birkenhead to the Irish Leader,

Mr. Redmond, in the course of the Irish controversy when he said that there

are cases where a minority is a majority.

My memorandum would be woefully incomplete if I omitted to deal with

the pros and cons of this controversy. This is because of two reasons : In

the first place, the meeting has been recognized to be very important and

secondly because the resolutions of the meeting have been supported by

eminent University Professors.

Proposals regarding Bombay

22. The meeting passed the following resolutions :

(1) That the question of the creation of Linguistic Provinces should be

postponed ; or

(2) That if it is not postponed, Bombay City should be constituted into

a separate Province.

There is a third suggestion, namely, that Konkan should be constituted

into a separate Province with Bombay as its capital. There is hardly any

support to this plan. There is therefore no necessity to discuss it.

Decision regarding Bombay must be made now

23. I have no complaint against that part of the Resolution which

says the question of Linguistic Provinces be postponed provided the main

question namely whether Bombay should or should not be included in

Maharashtra is settled. If this question was settled it did not matter if it

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

111

took five or ten years to give effect to the Settlement. But the resolution is

only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the controversy.

The main question must therefore be tackled right now.

Ground for the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra

24. The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra

are set out below :

(1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra.

(2) Bombay was never a part of the Maratha Empire.

(3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a majority of the population

of the City of Bombay.

(4) Gujarathis have been old residents of Bombay.

(5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas outside Maharashtra.

Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra. It belongs

to the whole of India.

(6) It is the Gujarathi-speaking people of Bombay who have built up the

trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only

clerks and coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade

and industry under the political dominance of the working classes

who form the bulk of Maharashtrians.

(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because

it wants to live on the surplus of Bombay.

(8) A multi-lingual State is better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of

smaller people.

(9) Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on

national lines.

Burden of Proof

25. On an examination of these points it is obvious that points (1) and

(2) are preliminary in the sense that they help us to decide on whom rests

the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay is part of Maharashtra,

then the burden of proof for separating it from Maharashtra must fall upon

those who urge that it should be separated and not upon those who claim

that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will therefore deal with these

two points first.

1. Prof. Gheewala—Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes—Free Press Journal,

September 18, 1948.

2. Ibid.

3. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 21, 1948.

4. Prof. Gheewala, Free Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948.

5. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.

6. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Bombay Chronicle.

7. Prof. C. N. Vakil, at the meeting of India Merchants Chamber.

8. Prof. Dantwala, Free Press Journal, September 1, 1948.

9. Prof. Gheewala, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.

112

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

POINTS (1) AND (2)

Verdict of History

26. These points can be considered both in the light of history as well

as of geography. I am, however, convinced that history cannot help us to

decide the issue. In the first place, how far back must we go to find the

data on which to base our conclusion. It is obvious that the history of the

ancient past would be of no use to us in this connection. What could be

of use to us is the past of the present. One may go further and question

any reliance being placed upon such a past of the present for drawing

any conclusion that can have a bearing on the issue before us. Most of

the contacts between people during historical times have been between

conquerors and conquered. This is true of India as well as of Europe. But

the results of such contacts have been quite different in Europe and in India.

In Europe such contacts have produced assimilation of the conflicting social

elements. Frequent inter-marriages have confounded the original stocks.

One language, either the most useful or the most commonly spoken, has

tended to supplant the other. If one civilization is superior to the others

in the same country it has automatically supplanted them. This natural

tendency towards assimilation which we see in Europe is so strong that

steps have to be taken to counteract it. What is the tendency in India ? It

is definitely against assimilation. The Musalmans conquered Hindus. But

the Musalmans remained Musalmans and the Hindus remained Hindus.

The Gujarathis were conquered by Maharashtrians and were ruled by them

for some years. What effect has it produced upon the Gujarathis ? Nothing.

Gujarathis have remained Gujarathis and Maharashtrians have remained

Maharashtrians. The Chalukyas conquered Maharashtrians and so did the

Shilahars. But there was no assimilation between them. The Shilahars and

Chalukyas remained what they were and so did the Maharashtrians. This

being the case, what help can Indian History give in the decision of the

issue ? The history of internal upheavals as well as of external aggressions

has been nothing more than a passing show. Conquest means nothing and

proves nothing.

Verdict of Geography

27. Let us now turn to geography and ask for its verdict. It seems to

be a better witness than history. For this purpose one must consider the

location of Bombay in relation to the Province of Maharashtra. The Province

of Maharashtra once it is created will be triangular in shape. One side of

this triangle is formed by the Western Coast Line of India between Daman

in the North and Karwar in the South. The City of Bombay lies in between

Daman and Karwar. The Province of Gujarat starts from Daman and

spreads northwards. The Kanada Province starts from Karwar and spreads

southwards. It is about 85 miles South of Daman which is the starting point

of Gujarat, and 250 miles North of Karwar, which is the starting point of

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

113

Karnatak Province. If the unbroken territory between Daman and Karwar is

geographically part of Maharashtra, how could Bombay be held not to be a

part of Maharashtra ? This is an incontrovertible fact of nature. Geography

has made Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to challenge

the fact of nature do so. To an unbiassed mind it is conclusive proof that

Bombay belongs to Maharashtra.

Bombay and the Maratha Empire

28. That the Marathas did not care to make it a part of their Empire

does in no way affect the validity of the conclusion drawn from geography.

That the Marathas did not care to conquer it does not prove that Bombay

is not a part of Maharashtra. It only means that the Maratha power was a

land power and did not therefore care to spend its energy in the conquest

of a seaport.

29. With the decision on Points (1) and (2), the burden must now shift on

those who contended that Bombay should not be included in Maharashtra.

Have they discharged the burden ? This leads to the consideration of other

points.

OINT (3)

Marathi-speaking population—majority or minority

30. There is no unanimity on this question. Prof. Gadgil speaking for

the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra asserts that the Marathi-speaking

population of Bombay according to the census of 1941 is 51 per cent.

Speaking against the inclusion of Bombay, Prof. Gheewala says that the

Marathi-speaking population of Bombay is 41 per cent. Prof. Vakil has

brought it down to 39 per cent, which he regards as a very liberal estimate.

I have not had time to check up these figures and I understand that the

Census of Bombay does not render much help in arriving at a precise figure.

However, if one reads the reasons assigned by Prof. Vakil, one would find

his conclusion to be speculative if not wishful thinking. But assuming that

the figures given by Prof. Vakil are correct, what of it ? What conclusion

can be drawn from it ? Does it defeat the claim of Maharashtra to include

Bombay ? Ever since the British became the masters of India, India has been

one country with a right to free movement from place to place. If people

from all parts of India were allowed to come to Bombay and settle there,

why should the Maharashtrians suffer ? It is not their fault. The present

state of the population cannot therefore be a ground for excluding Bombay

from Maharashtra.

OINT (4)

Are Gujarathis Natives of Bombay ?

31. Let us however fully consider the question. Are the Gujarathis

natives of Bombay ? If they are not, how did they come to Bombay ? What

114

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is the source of their wealth ? No Gujarathi would claim that the Gujarathis

are the natives of Bombay. If they are not the natives of Bombay, how

did they come to Bombay ? Like the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch

and the English on adventures to fight their way through and willing to

take any risks? The answers which history gives to these questions are

quite clear. The Gujarathis did not come to Bombay voluntarily. They

were brought to Bombay by the officers of the East India Company to

serve as commercial Adatias or go-betweens. They were brought because

the East India Company’s officers who had their first factory in Surat

had got used to Surti Banias as their go-betweens in carrying on their

trade. This explains the entry of Gujarathis in Bombay. Secondly, the

Gujarathis did not come to Bombay to trade on the basis of free and

equal competition with other traders. They came as privileged persons

with certain trading rights given to them exclusively by the East India

Company. Their importation into Bombay was considered for the first

time in the year 1671 by Governor Aungier. This fact is referred to in

the Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island, Vol. I in the following terms :

“Another scheme for the advantage of Bombay in which Governor

Aungier interested himself was the settlement of Surat Banias in

Bombay. It appears that the Mahajan or committee of the Surat Bania

community desired the assurance of certain privileges before risking the

move to Bombay and that the company had given a general approval to

the Mahajan’s proposal. On the 10th January the Surat Council wrote

to the Company. The Mahajan or Chief Council of the Banias have been

much satisfied with the answer which you were pleased to give to their

petition sent you by the ship Samson touching their privileges in Bombay.

It seems they have determined once more to trouble Your Honours with

a letter which they have ordered your broker Bhimji Parakh to write,

representing their desires that the said privileges may be confirmed to

them under your great seal, for which their request they give you their

reason and ground in their own letter which they have sent us to be

transmitted to you and now goes in your packet by ship Falcon. The

argument they use to strengthen their request seems to have some weight.

They say the Honourable Company are perpetual and their ordinances

always of force, but their Presidents and Councils are mutable, and the

succeeding Presidents and Councils, do alter often what their predecessors

have granted on which score they hope your Honours will be pleased to

grant their petition. As to our judgments hereon, we humbly offer that we

cannot see any detriment can accrue to you thereby, rather a considerable

advantage may follow; and as to the latitude and extent of what privileges

you shall afford them, it must be totally referred to your own wisdoms

howsoever you shall please to determine in this matter. We judge

10. Bombay Gazetteer, I, pp. 46-47.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

115

if your Honours would please to favour them with a line in answer to their

letter, it would be a great comfort to them and no disadvantage to your interest.”

32. What were the privileges which the Gujarathi Banias had asked

for from the East India Company ? The following petition by one Nima

Parakh, an eminent Bania belonging to the City of Diu, gives some idea

of what they were :

“That the Honourable Company shall allot him so much ground in or

near the present, town free of rent as shall be judged necessary to build

a house or warehouse thereon.

“2. That he with the Brahmans of Vers (Gors or priests) of his caste shall

enjoy the free exercise of their religion within their own houses without the

molestation of any person whatsoever ; that no Englishman, Portuguese, or

other Christian nor Muhammadan shall be permitted to live within their

compound or offer to kill any living creature there, or do the least injury

or indignity to them, and if any shall presume to offend them within the

limits of their said compound, upon their complaint to the Governor (at

Surat), or Deputy Governor (at Bombay), the offenders shall be exemplarily

punished ; that they shall have liberty to burn their dead according to their

custom, also to use their ceremonies at their weddings ; and that none of

their profession of what age, sex or condition whatever they be, shall be

forced to turn Christians, nor to carry burthens against their wills.

“3. That he and his family shall be free from all duties of watch and

ward, or any charge and duty depending thereon ; that neither the Company

nor the Governor, Deputy Governor or Council, or any other person, shall

on any pretence whatsoever force them to lend money for public or private

account or use any indirect.

“4. That in case there falls out any difference or suit in law between

him or his vakil or attorneys or the Banias of his caste, and any other

persons remaining on the island, the Governor or Deputy Governor shall

not suffer him or them to be publicly arrested dishonoured or carried to

prison, without first giving him due notice of the cause depending, that he

or they may cause justice to be done in an honest and amicable way and

in case any difference happen between him or his attorney and any Bania

of their own caste, they may have liberty to decide it among themselves

without being forced to go to law.”

“5. That he shall have liberty of trade in his own ships and vessels to

what port he pleases, and come in and go out when he thinks good, without

paying anchorage, having first given the Governor or Deputy Governor or

customer notice and taken their consent thereunto.

11. Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, pp. 74-76.

116

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“6. That in case he brings any goods on shore more than he can sell on

the island within the space of 12 months, he shall have liberty to transport

them to what port he pleases, without paying custom for exportation.

“7. That in case any person be indebted to him, and also to other Banias,

and be not able to pay all his debts, his right may be preferred before

other Banias.

“8. That in case of war or any other danger which may succeed, he

shall have a warehouse in the castle to secure his goods, treasure, and

family therein.

“9. That he or any of his family shall have liberty of egress and regress to

and from the fort or residence of the Governor or Deputy Governor; that they

shall be received with civil respect and be permitted to sit down according

to their qualities; that they shall freely use coaches, horses or palanquins

and quitasols (that is barsums or umbrellas) for their convenience without

any disturbances ; that their servants may wear swords and daggers, shall

not be abused, beaten or imprisoned except they offend, and that in case

of any of his kindred or friends shall come to visit him or them from any

other ports, they shall be used with civility and respect.

“10. That he and his assigns shall have liberty to sell and buy coconuts,

betelnuts, pan or betel-leaves, and any other commodity not rented out

without any molestation on the island.”

33. How this petition of Nima Parakh was disposed of can be seen

from the reply of the Deputy Governor of Bombay dated 3rd April, 1677,

which was in the following terms :

“According to order we have considered the articles of Nima Parakh

Bania, which if we rightly understand we do not apprehend any prejudice

in their concession the most of them being what the meanest enjoy.

“The first is very easy, the Company having vast ground enough, and

we daily do the same to Banias and others who come to inhabit here. As

to the second, the free exercise of religion is permitted to all with the

use of their ceremonies at weddings and feast, the Banias always burning

their dead without molestation. Neither do we permit any person to kill

anything near the Banias who all live by themselves, much less can any

person presume to enter into anybody’s house or compound without the

owner’s license ; and, for forcing people to turn Christian against their

wills, the whole world will vindicate us ; neither are any persons forced

to carry burdens against their wills. No Bania, Brahman, Moor, or such

man is obliged to watch or ward or other duty, but if any person buys

an oart or warge (vada) he is bound on every alarm to send a musquiter.

But if he possesses no land no duty is exacted, so the articles may be

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

117

granted to Nima, and when he goes about to buy any land he may be

acquainted with that small incumbrance thereon.

“The 4th article is indeed a privilege but no more than Girdhar, the

Moody and some others have, which does not in the least exempt them

from the hands of the law or justice, but does only ask that justice be

done respectfully, which he need not doubt of, and for matter of differences

among themselves there is already his Honour’s patent authorising them

to decide such things.

“As to the 5th, the great anchorage of a rupee per ton is wholly taken

off. There remains only a small one of a rupee for every 100 tons, which is

so inconsiderable a matter that we do not believe we will stick at it. If he

does, it will amount but to a small matter being only for his own vessels

that the Company may easily allow it.

“The 6th if we rightly apprehend it, is no more than what all people

enjoy, who are so far from paying custom at exportation of their own goods

that they pay none for what goods they buy. But if he intends his goods

must pay no custom at landing nor none at exportation of what he cannot

sell, it will be so great a loss to the Company, they having farmed out

the customs for two years, that the benefit of his settling here, will, we

believe, not countervail it, till it comes into the Company’s hands again.

“As to the 7th, our law is such that if a person be indebted to several

men, whosoever gets a judgment first in Court will be paid his full debt, but

no man can be aggrieved at that, nor can any creditor have any pretence

to what is once paid, and when judgment is given it is already paid in law,

so that he is no longer proprietor of it. But when a person is indebted to

two men and the first sues him and upon that the second comes in and

sues him too, with what justice can we pay all the debtor’s estate to the

second creditor. Only of this he may be assured that all justice shall be

done him with speed according to our law and the party forced to pay the

full debt, if able, and lie in prison for the rest till he pleases to release

him, which we suppose may well content him.

“As to the 8th, in case of war all persons of quality have liberty to repair

to the castle and secure their money and other things of value. Nor that

I suppose he intends to fill up the castle with gurf (coarse) goods ; but for

money, jewels household stuff, cloth goods of value, that take up small

room, he may bring what he pleases and may have a warehouse apart

allotted for himself and family.

“The 9th and 10th we may join together, they being only to fill up the

number. They are plain optics to show the nature of those they live under

which, when they have experimented our Government, themselves will

laugh at us, enjoying more freedom than the very articles demand, for

118

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the meanest person is never denied egress and regress upon respectful notice

given and for horses and coaches and the like he may keep as many as he

pleases and his servants be permitted to wear what arms they please, a thing

common to all. Nothing is more promoted by us than the free liberty for buying

and selling which is the load-stone of trade.

“That last thing he asked of having 10 mans of tobacco free of all duties

is the most difficult thing of all, for the farmers will ask a vast deal to grant

such a licence, it being a very great profit they make in the sale of 10 mans,

so that we know not which way this article can be condescended to, but in this

your Honours can judge better than us.”

34. In reply on the 26th April, the Surat Council wrote :

“We observe

your answer touching the articles proposed by Nima Parakh Bania in order

to his settlement on Bombay. When we come again to treat with him thereon,

we hope so to moderate the affair that the island shall not receive any the

least prejudice thereby and we do not question but wholly to put him by

his request to 10 mans of tobacco which he would annually receive or bring

on the island free of all duties.”

OINT (5)

Bombay—an Emporium of India

35. That Bombay is an emporium for the whole of India may be admitted.

But it is difficult to understand how it can be said that because of this,

Maharashtra cannot claim Bombay. Every port serves a much larger area

than the country to which it belongs. No one, on that account, can say

the country in which the port is situated cannot claim it as a part of its

territory. Switzerland has no port. It uses either German, Italian or French

Ports. Can the Swiss therefore deny the right of Germany, Italy or France,

the territorial rights of their ports. Why then should Maharashtrians be

denied the right to claim Bombay merely because it serves as a port for

Provinces other than Maharashtra ? It would be different if the Province of

Maharashtra were to get a right to close the Port to Non-Maharashtrians.

Under the constitution, it will not have that right. Consequently, the inclusion

of Bombay in Maharashtra will not affect the right of non-Maharashtrians

to use the port as before.

OINT (6)

Gujarathis—owners of Trade and Industry of Bombay

36. It may be granted that the Gujarathis have a monopoly of trade.

But, as has already been pointed out, this monopoly, they have been able

to establish because of the profits they were able to make which were the

result of the privileges given to them by the East India Company on their

12. This is probably new demand made by Nima Parakh.

13. Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, p. 77.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

119

settlement in Bombay. Who built up the trade and industry of Bombay

is a matter for which no very great research is necessary. There is no

foundation in fact for the statement that the trade and industry of

Bombay was built up by Gujarathis. It was built up by Europeans and

not by Gujarathis. Those who assert that it is the Gujarathis who did it

should consult the Times of India Directory before making such a claim.

The Gujarathis have been just merchants which is quite a different thing

from being industrialists.

37. Once it is established that Bombay belonged to Maharashtra the claim

of Maharashtra to include Bombay cannot be defeated by the argument

that the trade and industry of Bombay is owned by the Gujarathis. The

claim of mortgagor to his land cannot be defeated by the mortgagee on

the ground that the mortgagee has built up permanent structures on the

land. The Gujarathis assuming they have built up the trade and industry

of Bombay are in no better position than a mortgagee is.

38. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay seems to

me quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay should or

should not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on monopoly

of trade and industry is really a political argument. It means that the

owners may rule the workers but the workers must not be allowed to

rule the owners. Those who use this argument do not seem to know what

they are up against. The one thing they are up against is whether this

argument is to be confined only to the City of Bombay or whether it is

to have a general application.

39. There is no reason why it should not have a general application.

For just as in Bombay City society is divided into owners and workers

or into capitalists and wage-earners, such also is the case of society in

Gujarat or for the matter of that in every province of India. If the owners

and capitalists of Bombay are to be protected by the exclusion of Bombay

from Maharashtra because Maharashtrians belong to the working classes,

what is the method they suggest for protecting the capitalists of Gujarat

from the working classes of Gujarat. Those Gujarathi Professors like Vakils

and Dantwalas who are searching their brains to supply arguments to

the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay have not thought of finding ways

and means for protecting the Gujarathi capitalists of Gujarat against

the working classes of Gujarat. The only remedy they can suggest is the

abandonment of adult suffrage. That is the only way by which they can

protect the capitalists if they are out to protect capitalists in general and

not the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay in particular.

40. There is however one argument which the Professors could urge. It is

that the Maharashtrians being in a majority would discriminate against the

Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay if Bombay was included in Maharashtra.

120

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One could appreciate such an argument. But those who like to use this

argument must remember two things :

(i) That Maharashtra is not the only place in which such a situation

can arise. It may arise in any province. I like to refer to Bihar. In

Bihar the land in which coal is found belongs to the people of Bihar.

But the coal-owners are Gujarathis, Kathiawaris or Europeans.

Is there no possibility of Biharis making a discrimination against

Gujarathi and Kathiawari coal-owners ? Are the coalfields of Bihar

to be excluded from the Province of Bihar and constituted into

a separate Province in the interest of Kathiawari and Gujarathi

coal-owners ?

(ii) The constitution of India has noted the possibility of discrimination

being made against a minority and has made more than ample

provision for preventing it. There are the fundamental rights.

There are the provisions against discrimination; there are the

provisions of payment of compensation, and there are the High

Courts with the inherent rights to issue high prerogative writs both

against individuals and Governments to stop any harm, injustice

or harassment being done to any citizen. What more protection do

the Gujarathi traders and industrialists of Bombay want against

the possibility of discrimination ?

OINT (7)

Maharashtra’s eye on Bombay’s surplus

41. Before accusing Maharashtrians of having an eye on the surplus

of Bombay it must be proved that Bombay has a surplus. What appears

as surplus is due really to bad accounting. It is bad accounting where

expenditure on overhead charges such as (1) the Governor and his

establishment, (2) the Ministers and their establishments, (3) the

Legislature and the expenditure thereon, (4) Judiciary, (5) Police and (6)

Provincial establishments such as those of the Commissioners of Police

and Directors of Public Instruction is not being taken into account. I

doubt very much if on the existing basis of taxation, Bombay will have

any surplus if expenditure on these items is charged to Bombay. It is a

fallacy to charge all such expenditure to Maharashtra and exempt Bombay

from it and then argue that Bombay has a surplus.

42. The statement that the Maharashtrians want Bombay because they

want to live on the surplus revenue of Bombay, besides being wrong in

fact raises a question of motive. I do not know if the Maharashtrians are

actuated by any such motive. They are not a commercial community. Unlike

other communities, the Maharashtrians have no nose for money, and I am

one of these who believe that it is one of their greatest virtues. Money has

never been their god. It is no part of their culture. That is why they have

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

121

allowed all other communities coming from outside Maharashtra to

monopolize the trade and industry of Maharashtra. But as I have shown

there is no surplus and no question of Maharashtrians casting their eyes

on it.

43. But supposing such a motive in the minds of the Maharashtrians,

what is wrong in it ? It is quite open to Maharashtrians to contend that

they have a greater claim on Bombay’s surplus because they have played

and they will continue to play a greater part in supplying labour for the

building up of the trade and industry of Bombay more than the people

from other Provinces have done or likely to do. It would be difficult for

any economist with any reputation to save who could deny that labour

has as much claim on the wealth produced as capital if not more.

44. Secondly, the surplus from Bombay is not consumed by Maharashtra

alone but is consumed by the whole of India. The proceeds of the Income-

tax, Super-tax, etc. which Bombay pays to the Central Government are

all spent by the Central Government for all-India purposes and is shared

by all other Provinces. To Prof. Vakil it does not matter if the surplus

of Bombay is eaten up by United Provinces, Bihar, Assam, Orissa, West

Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. What he objects to is Maharashtra

getting any part of it. This is not an argument. It is only an exhibition

of his hatred for Maharashtrians.

45. Granting that Bombay was made into a separate Province, what

I don’t understand is how Prof. Vakil is going to prevent Maharashtra

from getting share of Bombay surplus revenue. Even if Bombay is made

separate Province, Bombay will have to pay income-tax, super-tax, etc.

and surely Maharashtra will get a part of the revenue paid by Bombay

to the Centre either directly or indirectly. As I have said the argument

has in it more malice than substance.

OINTS (8) AND (9)

General arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra

46. I will now turn to the Points (8) and (9) which have been urged by

Professors Dantwala and Gheewala. Their arguments strike at the very root

of the principle of Linguistic Provinces. As such I should have dealt with

them in Part I of this Memorandum. But as the aim of their argument is

to exclude Bombay from being included in Maharashtra, I have thought

it proper to deal with them in this Part of the Memorandum as they

are really arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra.

47. The sum total of the arguments of the two Professors is that

Linguistic Provinces are bad. This cry against Linguistic Provinces is too

late. Since when two Professors having been holding these views is not

known. Are they opposed to Gujarat being reconstituted on Linguistic

122

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Provinces also has not been made clear by them. Or, is it that they

believed in the principle of Linguistic Provinces but hurried to disavow

it when they realized that the admission of the principle involves the

surrender of Bombay to Maharashtra. It is perhaps one of these cases

where a person not finding argument limited to his purpose is forced to

resort to an argument which proves more than he is anxious to allow.

I am, however, prepared to examine the substance of their argument.

48. Prof. Dantwala relies upon Lord Acton and quotes the following

passage from his Essay on Nationality printed in his well-known book

The History of Freedom and Other Essays in support of his own view

against Linguistic Provinces. The quotation reads as follows :

“The combination of various nations in one State is a necessary condition

of civilized life as the combination of men in society.”

49. I am sorry to say that this quotation completely misrepresents

Lord Acton. The quotation is only a few opening lines of a big passage.

The full passage reads as follows :

“The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition

of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior races are raised

by living in political union with races intellectually superior. Exhausting and

decaying nations are revived by the contact of younger vitality. Nations in

which the elements of organization and the capacity for Government have

been lost, either through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the

disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated a new under

the discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilizing and

regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one Government.

It is in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the

vigour, the knowledge and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be

communicated to another.’’

50. Why Prof. Dantwala left out the rest of the passage, it is difficult to

understand. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate case of suppresio

veri and suggestio falsi. The fact is that it does misrepresent Lord Acton.

Why has the Professor relied upon this passage, I do not understand. It

is quite obvious that if the inferior races are placed in common with the

superior races, the inferior races may improve. But the question is, who is

inferior or who is superior. Are the Gujarathis inferior to Maharashtrians?

Or are the Maharashtrians inferior to Gujarathis ? Secondly, what is the

channel of cummunion between Gujarathis and Maharashtrians which

can assure the fusion of the two ? Prof. Dantwala has not considered

the question. He found a sentence in Lord Acton’s Essay and jumped at

it for he could find nothing else to support his case. The point is that

there is nothing in the passage which has any relevance to the principle

involved in the question of Linguistic Province.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

123

51. So much for Prof. Dantwala’s arguments. I will now examine

Prof. Gheewala’s arguments. Prof. Gheewala also relies on Lord Acton.

He quotes a portion of a passage from Lord Acton’s Essay on Nationality.

I reproduce below the passage in full :

“The greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory

of nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with

each other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all other

nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit them to an

equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State, because the

State would then cease to be national, which would be a contradiction of

the principle of its existence. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity

and civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the

community, the inferior races are exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or

outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence.”

52. I do not understand why the learned Professor has dragged in the

name of Lord Acton. The passage does not really help him. There is one

thing which seems to be uppermost in his mind. He thinks that if Bombay

is included in Maharashtra the Province of Maharashtra will consist of

two nationalities—one consisting of the Marathi-speaking people and the

other of the Gujarathi-speaking people and the Marathi-speaking people

who would be the dominant class will reduce the Gujarathi-speaking

people to a subject condition. It is in support of this he thought of citing

Lord Acton. Such a possibility is always there. There is no objection to

the way in which he has presented the problem. But there are great

objections to the conclusions he draws.

53. In the first place, in a country like India in which society is

throughout communally organized it is obvious that in whatever way it

is divided into areas for administrative purposes, in every area there will

always be one community which by its numbers happens to be a dominant

community. As a dominant community it becomes a sole heir to all political

power, which the area gets. If Marathi-speaking people in a unified

Maharashtra with Bombay thrown into it will become dominant over the

Gujarathi-speaking people, will this prospect be confined to Maharashtra

only ? Will such a phenomena not occur within the Marathi-speaking

people ? Will it not be found in Gujarat if Gujarat became a separate

Province ? I am quite certain that within the Marathi-speaking people

who are sharply divided between the Marathas and the non-Marathas, the

Marathas being a dominant class will reduce both Gujarathi-speaking and

the non-Marathas to a subject condition. In the same way in Gujarat in

some parts the Anavil Brahmins from a dominant class. In other parts it is

the Patidars who form a dominant class. It is quite likely that the Anavils

and the Patidars will reduce the condition of the other communities to

124

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

subjection. The problem therefore is not a problem peculiar to Maharashtra.

It is a general problem.

54. What is the remedy for this problem ? Prof. Gheewala believes that

the remedy lies in having a mixed State. So far as this remedy is concerned

it is not his own. He has adopted it from Lord Acton. But I have no doubt

that so far as Lord Acton advocates this remedy he is quite wrong. Lord

Acton cites the case of Austria in support of his view. Unfortunately, Lord

Acton did not live to see the fate of Austria. It was a mixed State. But far

from providing for the safety of nationalities the clash of nationalities blew

up Austria to bits. The real remedy is not a mixed State but an absolute

State with no power to the people which is generally captured by a communal

majority and exercised in the name of the people. Is Prof. Gheewala prepared

for this remedy ? One need have no doubt to what his answer would be.

55. In the second place, Prof. Gheewala has confounded nationality in the

social sense of the term with Nationality in its legal and political sense.

People often speak of nationality in speaking about Linguistic Provinces.

Such use of the term can be only in the non-legal and non-political sense

of the term. In my scheme there is no room even for the growth of separate

provincial nationality. My proposal nips it in the bud. But even if the

commonly suggested pattern of Linguistic Provinces with the language of

the Province as the official language were adopted, Provinces cannot have

that attribute of sovereignty which independent nations have.

56. It is very difficult to understand what exactly what Prof. Gheewala

wants. Broadly he wants two things : He wants a mixed State and he also

wants that a dominant section should not be in a position to reduce the

smaller sections to subjection. I cannot see how Linguistic Provinces can come

in the way of achieving it. For even after Provinces have been re-constituted

on linguistic basis,—

(1) Provinces will continue to be a conglomeration of communities which

will give Prof. Gheewala the mixed State that he wants ;

(2) If Prof. Gheewala wants a more pronounced form of a mixed State to

protect smaller communities or nationalities, he will certainly have

it at the Centre.

As I have said, I do not think a mixed State is either a good State or stable

State. But if Prof. Gheewala prefers it, he will have it in one form or another,

both in the Provinces as well as at the Centre, in the former in the form of

different communities and in the latter in the form of the representatives

of different Provinces.

57. With regard to his second objective, there will be double protection.

In the first place, the citizen will have such protection as a mixed State

he thinks can give. Secondly, citizenship will be common throughout India.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

125

There is no provincial citizenship. A Gujarathi in Maharashtra will have

the same rights of citizenship in Maharashtra as Maharashtrian will have.

Given these facts, I fail to understand what objection Prof. Gheewala can

have to Linguistic Provinces ?

58. Prof. Gheewala has made two other recommendations. He says, (1) if

Provinces have to be reconstituted, constitute them on rational basis rather

than on linguistic basis and (2) make nationality a personal thing.

59. To reconstitute Provinces on economic basis—which is what is meant

by rational basis—appears more scientific than reconstituting them on

linguistic basis. However, unscientific linguistic reorganization of Provinces I

cannot see how they can come in the way of rational utilization of economic

resources of India. Provincial boundaries are only administrative boundaries.

They do not raise economic barriers for the proper utilization of economic

resources. If the position was that the resources contained within a Linguistic

Province must only be explained by the people of the Province and no other

than it could no doubt be said that the scheme of Linguistic Provinces was

mischievous. But such is not the case. So long as Linguistic Provinces are

not allowed to put a ban on the exploitation of the resources of the people

by any body capably of wishing to exploit them a Linguistic Province will

yield all the advantages of a rationally planned Province.

60. The proposal of making nationality as a personal thing and put it

on the same footing as religion may be dismissed as being to Utopian. It

would raise many administrative problems. It will come when the world is

one and all nationals are its citizens. Nationality will automatically vanish

as being quite useless.

61. So far I have dealt with the arguments advanced by those who are

opposed to the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. I have taken pains to

do so not because I felt that they were very weighty. I did so because I felt

it desirable to prevent the common man from being misled. The possibility

of this happening was there and for two reasons. In the first place, those

who have come forward with these arguments are not ordinary men. They

are University Professors. Secondly, these Professors came out with their

arguments after Prof. Gadgil had put forth the case for the inclusion of

Bombay in Maharashtra. Unfortunately, no attempt has so far been made to

refute the arguments of the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil. The result has been

the creation of an impression that Prof. Gadgil’s adversaries have carried

the day. It was absolutely essential to remove this impression.

The other side

62. There are however arguments which the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil

have not thought of hut which may be advanced with justice as well as force,

126

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

in favour of the claim of Maharashtrians for the inclusion of Bombay in

Maharashtra. It is quite possible that these arguments may suggest themselves

to the Commission. But I don’t like to leave it to chance. I therefore propose

to set them out below even though the Commission might think that it was

unnecessary.

Calcutta and Bombay

63. In deciding upon the issue of exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra

the Commission will have to take into account the position of Calcutta. Like

Bombay it is the chief emporium of the whole of eastern part of India. Like

the Maharashtrians in Bombay the Bengalis in Calcutta are in a minority.

Like the Maharashtrians in Bombay, the Bengalis do not own the trade

and industry of Calcutta. The position of the Bengalis vis-a-vis Calcutta is

worse than the position of the Maharashtrians vis-a-vis Bombay. For, the

Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not

capital for the trade and industry of Bombay. The Bengalis cannot even say

this. If the Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation

of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be equally prepared to recommend

the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal. For it is a very pertinent

question to ask that if for the reasons given Bombay can be separated from

Maharashtra why when the same reasons exist Calcutta be not separated

from West Bengal.

Is Bombay Viable

64. Before Bombay can be separated it must be proved that financially

Bombay is a viable Province. As I have already said if proper accounting of

revenue and expenditure was made Bombay on the basis of present level of

taxation may not be a self-sufficient Province. If that be so, the proposal for

creating Bombay a separate Province must fall to the ground. It is no use

comparing Bombay with Provinces like Orissa and Assam. The standard of

administration, the standard of living and consequently the level of wages

in Bombay are all so high that I doubt that even with a crashing rate of

taxation Bombay will be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue to

meet the expenditure.

The aim behind Greater Bombay

65. This doubt regarding viability of Bombay Province is heightened

by the indecent haste shown by the Government of Bombay in creating

Greater Bombay by including within the limits of Bombay the adjoining

parts of Maharashtra. It seems that the object of including such area

cannot but be to make Bombay viable. What else can it be? So long as

Bombay remained part of Maharashtra it did not matter to Maharashtrians

in which administrative area a portion of Maharashtra was included. But

when Bombay is to be a separate Province it will take a long time to make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE

127

Maharashtrians part with their territory to make Bombay greater and viable.

What is more important is the scheme of greater Bombay casts responsibility

upon the Linguistic Provinces Commission to decide whether they could,

with justice force Maharashtrians not only to submit to the demand of the

Gujarathis to give up Bombay but also to submit to their further demand

to hand over a part of territory of Maharashtra to make Bombay a viable

Province. The Commission cannot escape this responsibility.

66. Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent, they

are really one and integral. Severance between the two would be fatal to

both. The sources of water and electricity for Bombay lie in Maharashtra.

The intelligentsia of Maharashtra lives in Bombay. To sever Bombay from

Maharashtra would be to make the economic life of Bombay precarious and

to dissociate the masses of Maharashtra from its intelligentsia without whose

lead the masses of Maharashtra will be nowhere.

Arbitration as a Solution

67. I have seen a suggestion made in some quarters that problem of

Bombay should be settled by arbitration. I have never heard of a more absurd

suggestion than this. It is as absurd as the suggestion to refer matrimonial

cause to arbitration. The matrimonial tie is too personal, to be severed by

a third party. Bombay and Maharashtra are tied together by God to use

a Biblical phrase. No arbitrator can put them as under. The only agency

which is authorized to do so is the Commission. Let it decide.



NEED FOR CHECKS AND

BALANCES

Article on Linguistic States

From : The Times of India, dated 23rd April 1953

131

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

The British who ruled India for more than 150 years never thought of

creating linguistic States although the problem was always there. They were

more interested in creating a stable administration and maintaining law

and order throughout the country than in catering to the cultural craving of

people in multi-lingual areas. It is quite true that towards the end of their

career they did realise that the administrative set-up which they had built

required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations,

at any rate in cases where the conglomeration was very glaring. For instance,

they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as linguistic States before they

left. It is difficult to say whether if they had continued to rule, they would

have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion.

But long before the British thought of creating linguistic provinces the

Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already in the year 1920 framed

a constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic provinces. Whether the

ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as framed in 1920 was

a well thoughtout ideology or whether it was a sop to draw people inside

the Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is, however,

no doubt about it that the British did realise that linguistic considerations

were important and they did give effect to them to a limited extent.

Opposition

Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of course, not called upon to face

the responsibility which it had created for itself by its constitution of 1920.

It was only in the year 1945 when it assumed office that this responsibility

dawned upon the Congress. Looking into the recent history of the subject

the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament

by moving a resolution for the creation of linguistic provinces in India.

132

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The duty of answering on behalf of the Government to the debate fell on me.

Naturally I took the matter to the higher authorities in order to ascertain

what exactly their point of view was. Strange as it may appear, it became

clear to me that the High Command was totally opposed to the creation of

linguistic provinces. In these circumstances, the solution that was found was

that the responsibility to answer the debate had better be taken over by the

Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to the debate made statement

promising the creation of an Andhra State immediately. On the basis of

the statement made by the Prime Minister, the resolution was withdrawn.

The matter rested there.

Second Time

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had to deal with the matter a

second time. When the draft Constitution was completed, I wrote a letter to

the Prime Minister asking him whether I could include Andhra as a separate

State in Part A States of the Constitution in view of what he had said in

the course of the debate on the Resolution. I have nothing with me here

to refresh my memory as to what exactly happened. But the President of

the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, appointed a Committee to

investigate into the formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship

of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.

People will remember the Dhar Committee for one thing if not for any

other. The Committee said that under no circumstances should Bombay City

be included in Maharashtra if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State.

That report was then considered by the Jaipur session of the Congress.

The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three-Man Committee consisting of the

Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. They

produced a report, the gist of which was that an Andhra province should be

created immediately but the city of Madras should remain with the Tamils.

A committee was appointed to go into the details. It produced a more or less

unanimous report. But the report was opposed by substantial elements among

the Andhras including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to relinquish

their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there.

After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had to sacrifice

his life for the sake of an Andhra province. It is a sad commentary on the

ruling party that Mr. Sriramulu should have had to die for a cause the

validity of which was accepted by all Congressmen. The creation of a new

Andhra province now being thought of is only a pindadan to the departed

soul of Mr. Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such action on the

part of the Government would have been tolerated in any other country is

a matter on which there is no use speculating.

There are, in my opinion, three conditions which must be satisfied before

a linguistic State is brought into being. The first condition is that it must

be a viable State. This rule was accepted as absolute when the question of

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

133

the merger of the Indian States was under consideration during the making

of the Constitution. Only those Indian States which were viable were

allowed to remain as independent States. All others were merged into the

neighbouring States.

A Sahara ?

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State ? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had

very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra

State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is possible for the proposed

Andhra State to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in

expenditure ? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to

take the responsibility of meeting this deficit ? If so, will this responsibility

be confined to the proposed Andhra State or will it be extended to all similar

cases ? These are questions which are to be considered.

The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidently say

that I have never heard of the creation of a State without a capital.

Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest Tamilian tribesman) will not show the

Government of the proposed Andhra State the courtesy of allowing it to

stay in Madras city even for one night—courtesy which is prescribed by the

Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi. The new Government is left to

choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to transact

its business. What place can it choose ? With what can it construct its

hutments ? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some

place in this Sahara it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious

place, and the money spent on this temporary headquarters would be all a

waste. Has the Government considered this aspect of the case ? Why not

right now give them a place which has the possibility of becoming their

permanent capital.

It seems to me that Warangal is best suited from this point of view. It

is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a railway junction. It has got

quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within that part of

Andhra which is part of Hyderabad State. As a matter of principle Hyderabad

State which is a monstrocity should have been broken up and a complete

Andhra State might have been created. But if the Prime Minister has some

conscientious objection to the proposal, can he not create an enclave in the

Andhra part of Hyderabad and join it to the new Andhra State and make a

way to Warangal ? An enclave is not a new thing in India. But the Prime

Minister wants to work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in

Kashmir. I am sure he will very soon learn the consequences of it.

First Condition

This is just incidental. My main point is that a linguistic State must

be viable. This is the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic

State. The second consideration is to note what is likely to happen within

134

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a linguistic State. Unfortunately no student has devoted himself to a

demographic survey of the population of India. We only know from our census

reports how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews,

how many Christians and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge

we get as to how many religions there are this information is of no value.

What we want to know is the distribution of castes in different linguistic

areas. On this we have very little information. One has to depend on one’s

own knowledge and information. I don’t think it would be contradicted if

it is said that the caste set-up within the linguistic area is generally such

that it contains one or two major castes large in number and a few minor

castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes.

Communal Set-up

Let me give a few illustrations. Take the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats

dominate the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence

on them. Take Andhra—there are two or three major communities spread

over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis or the Kammas and

the Kappus. They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business. The

untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Maharashtra.

The Marathas are a huge majority in every village in Maharashtra. The

Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate

co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived

without fear. But times have changed. After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the

Brahmins and the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have

run away to the towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables,

the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny

of the Maratha communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-

up will do so at his peril.

In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to

look to ? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature ? Can they hope to

maintain a place in the State service ? Can they expect any attention to their

economic betterment ? In these circumstances, the creation of a linguistic

State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority. What an

end to Mr. Gandhi’s Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of

the problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of

linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.

Third Issue

The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation

of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people

speaking one language into one State. Should all Maharashtrians be collected

together into one Maharashtra State ? Should all Andhra area be put into

one Andhra State ? This question of consolidation does not merely relate

to new units. It relates also to the existing linguistic provinces such as

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

135

U.P., Bihar and West Bengal. Why should all Hindi-speaking people be

consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P. ? Those who ask for

consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other

States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in

course of time an India very much like what it was after the break-up of

Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving us towards it ?

This does not mean that there is no case for linguistic provinces. What

it means is that there must be definite checks and balances to see that a

communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic

State.



THOUGHTS

LINGUISTIC STATES

First Published : 1955

Reprinted from the edition of 1955

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

PREFACE

The creation of Linguistic States is a burning question of the day.

I regret that owing to my illness I was not able to take part in the

debate that took place in Parliament much less in the campaign that

is carried on in the country by partisans in favour of their views. The

question is too important for me to sleep over in silence. Many have

accused me for remaining quiet not knowing what the cause was.

I have therefore taken the other alternative i.e. to set out my

views in writing.

Readers may find certain inconsistencies in my views as expressed in

this brochure and as expressed formerly in certain public statements.

Such changes in my view are, I am sure, very few. The former

statements were made on the basis of fragmentary data. The whole

picture was then not present to the mind. For the first time it met

my eye when the report of the S.R.C. came out. This is sufficient

justification for any change in my views which a critic may find.

To a critic who is a hostile and malicious person and who wants to

make capital out of my inconsistencies my reply is straight. Emerson

has said that consistency is the virtue of an ass and I don’t wish to

make an ass of myself. No thinking human being can be tied down

to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important

than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn

to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the

courage to rethink and change his thoughts. Of course there must

be good and sufficient reasons for unlearning what he has learned

and for recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in thinking.

140

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The formation of Linguistic States, although essential, cannot be

decided by any sort of hooliganism. Nor must it be solved in a manner

that will serve party interest. It must be solved by cold blooded

reasoning. This is what I have done and this is what I appeal to

my readers to do.

23rd December 1955

B. R. AMBEDKAR

Milind Mahavidyalaya

Nagsen Vana, College Road

Aurangabad (Dn.)

PART I

THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION

CHAPTER 1

LINGUISM AND NOTHING ELSE

The present Constitution of India recognizes the following States which

are enumerated in the Schedule :

ART ‘A’ STATES PART ‘B’ STATES PART ‘C’ STATES

1. Andhra 1. Hyderabad 1. Ajmer

2. Assam 2. Jammu and

Kashmir

2. Bhopal

3. Bihar 3. Coorg

4. Bombay 3. Madhya Bharat 4. Delhi

5. Madhya Pradesh 4. Mysore 5. Himachal Pradesh

6. Madras 5. Patiala 6. Kutch

7. Orissa 6. Rajasthan 7. Manipur

8. Punjab 7. Saurashtra 8. Tripura

9. Uttar Pradesh 8. Travancore-Cochin 9. Vindhya Pradesh

Article 3 of the Constitution gives power to Parliament to create new

States. This was done because there was no time to reorganize the States

on linguistic basis for which there was a great demand.

In pursuance of this incessant demand the Prime Minister appointed the

States Reorganization Commission to examine the question. In its report

the States Reorganization Commission has recommended the creation of

the following States :

Proposed New States

Name of the State Area

(in sq. miles)

Population

(in crores)

Language

1. Madras .. .. .. 50,170 3.00 Tamil

2. Kerala .. .. .. 14,980 1.36 Malyalam

3. Karnatak .. .. .. 72,730 1.90 Kanarese

4. Hyderabad .. .. .. 45,300 1.13 Telugu

5. Andhra .. .. .. 64,950 2.09 Telugu

6. Bombay .. .. .. 151,360 4.02 Mixed

7. Vidarbha .. .. .. 36,880 0.76 Marathi

142

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Proposed New States—contd.

Name of the State Area

(in sq. miles)

Population

(in crores)

Language

8. Madhya Pradesh .. .. .. 171,200 2.61 Hindi

9. Rajasthan .. .. .. 132,300 1.60 Rajasthani

10. Punjab .. .. .. 58,140 1.72 Punjabi

11. Uttar Pradesh .. .. .. 113,410 6.32 Hindi

12. Bihar .. .. .. 66,520 3.82 Hindi

13. West Bengal .. .. .. 34,590 2.65 Bengali

14. Assam .. .. .. 89,040 0.97 Assamese

15. Orissa .. .. .. 60,140 1.46 Oria

16. Jammu and Kashmir .. .. 92,780 0.14 Kashmiri

The important thing is to compare the size of the States—

Taking population as the measuring red the result may be presented as

follows :

There are 8 States with a population between 1 and 2 crores each.

There are 4 States with a population between 2 and 4 crores.

There is one State above 4 crores.

There is one State above 6 crores.

The result, to say the least, is fantastic. The Commission evidently thinks

that the size of a State is a matter of no consequence and that the equality in

the size of the States constituting a Federation is a matter of no moment.

This is the first and the most terrible error which the Commission has

committed. If not rectified in time, it will cost India a great deal.

CHAPTER 2

LINGUISM IN EXCELSIS

In the first chapter it has been pointed out that one result of the recommendations

of the States Reorganization Commission is the disparity in the size of the different

States the Commission has suggested for creation.

But there is another fault in the recommendations of the Commission which

perhaps is hidden but which is nonetheless real.

It lies in not considering the North in relation to the South. This will be clear

from the following table :

Southern States Central States Northern States*

Name .. Population

(in crores)

Name Population

(in crores)

Name .. Population

(in crores)

Madras .. 3.00 Maharashtra 3.31 Uttar

Pradesh

.. 6.32

Kerala .. 1.36 Gujarat 1.13 Bihar .. 3.85

Karnataka .. 1.90 Saurashtra 0.4 Madhya

Pradesh

.. 2.61

Andhra .. 1.09 Kutch 0.5 Rajasthan .. 1.60

Hyderabad .. 1.13 Punjab .. 1.72

* I have included certain centrally situated States because by language they are affiliated to

one another.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

143

This scheme of dividing India in the name of Linguistic States cannot

be overlooked. It is not so innocuous as the Commission thinks. It is full

of poison. The poison must be emptied right now.

The nature of Union of India expresses only an idea. It does not

indicate an achievement. Bryce in his “American Commonwealth” relates

the following incident which is very instructive. This is what he says :

“A few years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied

at its annual conference in revising liturgy. It was thought desirable to

introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people ;

and an eminent New England Divine proposed the words ‘O Lord, bless our

Nation’. Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence

was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were

raised by the laity to the word, ‘Nation’, as importing too definite recognition

of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the

words, ‘O Lord, bless these United States.’ ”

India is not even mentally and morally fit to call itself the United

States of India. We have to go a long way to become the United States

of India. The Union of India is far, far away, from the United States of

India. But this consolidation of the North and balkanisation of the South

is not the way to reach it.

PART II

THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM

CHAPTER 3

THE PROS AND CONS OF A LINGUISTIC STATE

“One State, one language” is a universal feature of almost every State.

Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France,

examine the constitution of Italy, examine the constitution of England,

and examine the constitution of the U.S.A. “One State, one language” is

the rule.

Wherever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a

danger to the State. The illustration of the mixed States are to be found

in the old Austrian Empire and the old Turkish Empire. They were blown

up because they were multi-lingual States with all that a multi-lingual

State means. India cannot escape this fate if it continues to be a congery

of mixed States.

The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a multi-lingual State

unstable are quite obvious. A State is built on fellow-feeling. What is this

fellow-feeling ? To state briefly it is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of

oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith

and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of

144

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those who are

not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “consciousness of kind ” which

on the one hand, binds together those who have it so strongly that it over-

rides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations

and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is

a longing not to belong to any other group.

The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation of a stable and

democratic State.

This is one reason why a linguistic State is so essential. But there are

other reasons why a State should be unilingual. There are two other reasons

why the rule “one State, one language ” is necessary.

One reason is that democracy cannot work without friction unless there

is fellow-feeling among those who constitute the State. Faction fights for

leadership and discrimination in administration are factors ever present in

a mixed State and are incompatible with democracy.

The present State of Bombay is the best illustration of the failure of

democracy in a mixed State. I am amazed at the suggestion made by the

States Reorganization Commission that the present Bombay State should

be continued as it is to enable us to gain experience of how a mixed State

flourishes. With Bombay as a mixed State for the last 20 years, with the

intense enmity between the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis, only a thoughtless

or an absent-minded person could put forth such a senseless proposal. The

former State of Madras is another illustration of the failure of democracy

in a mixed State. The formation of a mixed State of United India and the

compulsory division of India into India and Pakistan are other illustrations

of the impossibility of having democracy in a mixed State.

Another reason why it is necessary to adopt the rule of “one State, one

language” is that it is the only solvent to racial and cultural conflicts.

Why do Tamils hate Andhras and Andhras hate Tamils ? Why do Andhras

in Hyderabad hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Andhras ? Why

do Gujaratis hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Gujaratis ? The

answer is very simple. It is not because there is any natural antipathy between

the two. The hatred is due to the fact that they are put in juxtaposition and

forced to take part in a common cycle of participation, such as Government.

There is no other answer.

So long as this enforced juxtaposition remains, there will be no peace

between the two.

There will be people who would cite the cases of Canada, Switzerland

and South Africa. It is true that these cases of bilingual States exist. But

it must not be forgotten that the genius of India is quite different from the

genius of Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. The genius of India is to

divide—the genius of Switzerland, South Africa and Canada is to unite.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

145

The fact that they have been held together uptil now is not in the

natural course of things. It is due to the fact that both of them are bound

by the Congress discipline. But how long is the Congress going to last ?

The Congress is Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is Congress. But is Pandit

Nehru immortal ? Any one who applies his mind to these questions will

realize that the Congress will not last till the sun and the moon. It must one

day come to an end. It might come to an end even before the next election.

When this happens the State of Bombay will find itself engaged in civil war

and not in carrying on administration.

We therefore want linguistic States for two reasons. To make easy the

way to democracy and to remove racial and cultural tension.

In seeking to create linguistic States India is treading the right road. It is

the road which all States have followed. In the case of other linguistic States

they have been so, from the very beginning. In the case of India she has to

put herself in the reverse gear to reach the goal. But the road she proposes

to travel is well-tried road. It is a road which is followed by other States.

Having stated the advantages of a linguistic State I must also set out

the dangers of a linguistic State.

A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language

may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an

independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this

happens, India will cease to be Modern India we have and will become the

medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and

warfare.

This danger is of course inherent in the creation of linguistic States.

There is equal danger in not having linguistic States. The former danger a

wise and firm statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed State are

greater and beyond the control of a statesman however eminent.

How can this danger be met ? The only way I can think of meeting the

danger is to provide in the Constitution that the regional language shall not

be the official language of the State. The official language of the State shall

be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose English. Will Indians

accept this ? If they do not, linguistic States may easily become a peril.

One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people.

This is an inexorable law. Culture is conserved by language. Since Indians

wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the bounden duty of all

Indians to own up Hindi as their language.

Any Indian who does not accept this proposal as part and parcel of a

linguistic State has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent

Maharashtrian, a hundred per cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi,

146

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

but he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word except in a

geographical sense. If my suggestion is not accepted India will then cease

to be India. It will be a collection of different nationalities engaged in

rivalries and wars against one another.

God seems to have laid a heavy curse on India and Indians, saying ‘Ye

Indians shall always remain divided and ye shall always be slaves !’

I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher,

so to say, of Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only

by partition that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India

and Pakistan had remained united in one State Hindus though independent

would have been at the mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India

would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus.

It would have been a Government of one country by two nations and of

these two the Muslims without question would have been the ruling race

notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh. When the partition

took place I felt that God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one,

great and prosperous. But I fear that the curse may fall again. For I find

that those who are advocating linguistic States have at heart the ideal of

making the regional language their official language.

This will be a death knell to the idea of a United India. With regional

languages as official languages the ideal to make India one United country

and to make Indians, Indians first and Indians last, will vanish. I can do

no more than to suggest a way out. It is for Indians to consider it.

CHAPTER 4

MUST THERE BE ONE STATE FOR ONE LANGUAGE ?

What does a linguistic State mean ?

It can mean one of two things. It can mean that all people speaking one

language must be brought under the jurisdiction of one State. It can also

mean that people speaking one language may be grouped under many States

provided each State has under its jurisdiction people who are speaking one

language. Which is the correct interpretation ?

The Commission took the view that the creation of one single State for

all people speaking one and the same language was the only rule to be

observed.

Let the reader have a look at map No. 1. He will at once note the

disparity between the Northern and Southern States. This disparity is

tremendous. It will be impossible for the small States to bear the weight

of the big States.

How dangerous this disparity is, the Commission has not realized. Such

disparity no doubt exists in the United States. But the mischief it might

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

147

cause has been prevented by the provisions in the Constitution of the

United States.

One such safeguard in the Constitution of the United States has been

referred to by Mr. Pannikar in his dissenting minute to the Report (See

Table No. 2).

I give below the following extract from his minute :

“I consider it essential for the successful working of a federation that the

units should be fairly evenly balanced. Too great a disparity is likely to create

not only suspicion and resentment but generate forces likely to undermine the

federal structure itself and thereby be a danger to the unity of the country.

This is clearly recognised everywhere. In most federal constitutions, though

wide variation exists in respect of the population and resources of the unit,

care is taken to limit the influence and authority of the larger States. Thus in

the United States of America, for example, though the States are of varying

population and resources and the State of New York has many times the

population, say of Nevada, the constitution provides for equal representation

of every State in the Senate.”

On this point Mr. Pannikar also refers to the Soviet Union and old

Germany. This is what he says:

“In the Soviet Union also, in which great Russia has a larger population

than most other units of the Federation taken together, representation in

the House of Nationalities is weighed against her so that the other units of

the Federation may not be dominated by the larger unit. In the Bismarckian

Reich again, though Prussia had a dominant position from the point of view

of population, she was given less representation in the Reichsrat or the

house representing the states than she was entitled to (less than one-third)

and the permanent presidency of that body was vested in Bavaria, clearly

demonstrating that even here—where there was concentration of political,

military and economic power in one State—it was considered necessary, in

the interest of the union, to give weightage to the smaller units and also to

reduce Prussia to the position of minority in the Reichsrat, States Council,

which enjoyed greater powers than the Reichstag or the House of the People.”

Mr. Pannikar has however not mentioned one other safeguard in the

Constitution of the United States against the evils of disparity. In our

Constitution the two Houses are not co-equal in authority. But the position

in the Constitution of the United States is quite different. In the U.S.A.

the two Houses are co-equal in authority. Even for money bills the consent

of the Senate is necessary. This is not so in India. This makes a great

difference to the disparity in the population.

This disparity in the population and power between the States is sure

to plague the country. To provide a remedy against it is most essential.

148

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

CHAPTER 5

THE NORTH VERSUS THE SOUTH

What the Commission has created is not a mere disparity between the

States by leaving U.P. and Bihar as they are, by adding to them a new

and a bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan it creates a new problem

of North versus South.

The North is Hindi speaking. The South is non-Hindi speaking. Most

people do not know what is the size of the Hindi-speaking population. It

is as much as 48 per cent of the total population of India. Fixing one’s

eye on this fact one cannot fail to say that the Commission’s effort will

result in the consolidation of the North and the balkanization of the South.

Can the South tolerate the dominance of the North?

It may now not be a breach of a secret if I revealed to the public what

happened in the Congress Party meeting when the Draft Constitution of

India was being considered, on the issue of adopting Hindi as the national

language. There was no article which proved more controversial than

Article 115 which deals with the question. No article produced more

opposition. No article, more heat. After a prolonged discussion when

the question was put, the vote was 78 against 78. The tie could not

be resolved. After a long time when the question was put to the Party

meeting the result was 77 against 78 for Hindi. Hindi won its place as a

national language by one vote. I am stating these facts from my personal

knowledge. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I had naturally entry

to the Congress Party enclosure.

These facts reveal how much the South dislikes the North. This

dislike may grow into hatred if the North remains consolidated and the

South becomes disintegrated and if the North continues to exercise a

disproportionate influence on the politics of India (See Map 1).

To allow one State to have such preponderating influence in the Centre

is a dangerous thing.

Mr. Pannikar has referred to this aspect of the case. In his dissenting

minute he says :

“The consequence of the present imbalance, caused by the denial of the

federal principal of equality of units, has been to create feelings of distrust and

resentment in all the States outside Uttar Pradesh. Not only in the Southern

States but also in the Punjab, Bengal and elsewhere the view was generally

expressed before the Commission that the present structure of government

led to the dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India matters. The existence of

this feeling will hardly be denied by anyone. That it will be a danger to our

unity, if such feelings are allowed to exist and remedies are not sought and

found now, will also not be denied.”

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

149

There is a vast difference between the North and the South. The North is

conservative. The South is progressive. The North is superstitious, the South

is rational. The South is educationally forward, the North is educationally

backward. The culture of the South is modern. The culture of the North is

ancient.

Did not Prime Minister Nehru on the 15th of August 1947 sit at the

Yajna performed by the Brahmins of Benares to celebrate the event of a

Brahmin becoming the first Prime Minister of free and independent India

and wear the Raja Danda given to him by these Brahmins and drink the

water of the Ganges brought by them ?

How many women have been forced to go Sati in recent days and immolate

themselves on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands. Did not the President

recently go to Benares and worship the Brahmins, washed their toes and

drank the water ?

The North still has its Satis, its Nanga Sadhus. What havoc the Nanga

Sadhus made at the last Hardwar Fair ! Did anyone in U.P. protest against

it ?

How can the rule of the North be tolerated by the South ? Already there

signs of the South wanting to break away from the North.

Mr. Rajagopalachari has made a statement on the recommendations of

the States Reorganization Commission which has appeared in the Times of

India of the 27th November, 1955. This is what he says :

“If it is impossible to put the States Reorganization Schemes in cold storage

for the next 15 years, the only alternative is for the Centre to govern India as

a unitary state and deal with district officers and district boards directly, with

regional commissioners’ supervision.

“It would be utterly wrong to fritter away national energy in dispute

over boundaries and divisions conceived in the drawing room and not on the

background of conditions that have resulted historically.

“Apart from the general convictions of mine, I feel that a large southern

State is absolutely essential for preserving the political significance of that part

of the country. To cut the South up into Tamil, Malayalam and other small

States will result only in complete insignificance of everybody and, in the net

result, India as a whole will be the poorer.”

Mr. Rajagopalachari has not expressed himself fully. He did do so fully

and openly to me when he was the Head of the State and I was the Law

Minister in charge of drafting the constitution. I went to Mr. Rajagopalachari

for my usual interview which was the practice of the day. At one such

interview Mr. Rajagopalachari, referring to the sort of constitution which

the Constituent Assembly was making, said to me, “You are committing

a great mistake. One federation for the whole of India with equal

150

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

representation for all areas will not work. In such a federation the Prime

Minister and President of India will always be from the Hindi speaking

area. You should have two Federations, one Federation of the North and

one Federation of the South and a Confederation of the North and the

South with three subjects for the Confederation to legislate upon and equal

representation for both the federations.”

These are the real thoughts of Mr. Rajagopalachari. They came to me as

a revelation coming as they did from the innermost heart of a Congressman.

I now regard Mr. Rajagopalachari as a prophet predicting the break-up

of India into the North and the South. We must do everything to falsify

Mr. Rajagopalachari’s prophecy.

It must not be forgotten that there was a civil war in the U.S.A. between

the North and the South. There may also be a civil war between the North

and the South in India. Time will supply many grounds for such a conflict.

It must not be forgotten that there is a vast cultural difference between the

North and the South and cultural differences are very combustible.

In creating this consolidation of the North and balkanization of the South

the Commission did not realize that they were dealing with a political and

not a merely linguistic problem.

It would be most unstatesmanlike not to take steps right now to prevent

such a thing happening. What is the remedy ?

PART III

SOLUTION

CHAPTER 6

THE DIVISION OF THE NORTH

The problem having been realized we must now search for a solution.

The solution lies obviously in adopting some standard for determining

the size of a State. It is not easy to fix such a standard. If two crores of

population be adopted as a standard measure most of the Southern States

will become mixed States. The enlargement of the Southern States to meet

the menace of the Northern States is therefore impossible. The only remedy

is to break up the Nothern States of U.P., Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

How did this solution not strike the Congress Working Committee I am

unable to understand. It is so obvious.

Division of the Northern States

As I have said the Commission in designing linguistic States has created

a consolidation of the North and balkanization of the South. The Commission

has not I am sure done this intentionally. But intentionally or unintentionally

the fact is there. Its evil consequences are also clear.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

151

It is therefore necessary that this situation must be rectified. The only way

to do this is to divide the three States of (1) Uttar Pradesh, (2) Bihar and

(3) Madhya Pradesh into smaller units.

In this behalf I make bold to offer certain tentative proposals.

This division does not conflict with the underlying principles of a linguistic

State. For, if these States are divided in the way suggested, each resulting State

will be a linguistic State.

I am happy to find Mr. Pant saying in the recent debate in Parliament on

the subject that he has no objection to the cutting up of the U.P. What he said

for U.P. may well be taken as applicable to Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

Division of Uttar Pradesh.—My proposal with regard to the Uttar Pradesh

is to divide it into three States (See Map 2). Each of these three States should

have a population of approximately two crores which should be regarded as

the standard size of population for a State to administer effectively. Where

the boundary lines of these three States should be drawn I have shown in the

accompanying Map No. 2.

The three States of the Uttar Pradesh could have as their capitals (1) Meerut

(2) Cawnpore and (3) Allahabad. They are situated quite in the centre of each

of these three States.

Division of Bihar—My proposal with regard to Bihar is to divide it into two

States (See Map 3). Each of these two States will have a population of a little

over one and half crores. It is not a small population for one Government to

administer.

Where the boundary lines should be drawn I have shown in the accompanying

Map No. 3.

The two States of Bihar could have as their capitals (1) Patna and (2) Ranchi.

They are situated quite in the centre of the two States.

Division of Madhya Pradesh.—Madhya Pradesh stands before us in two forms.

The old Madhya Pradesh and the new Madhya Pradesh.

The old Madhya Pradesh consisted of :

(1) the Province at one time known as C. P. and Berar, and

(2) some Indian States out of the States known as the Eastern States.

This old State of Madhya Pradesh had a population of 2½ crores. It consisted

of 22 districts. Its legislature had 223 members.

The new Madhya Pradesh as planned by the Commission will consist of:

(1) the 14 districts of the old Madhya Pradesh,

(2) the whole of Bhopal,

(3) the whole of Vindhya Pradesh,

(4) Madhya Bharat except : Sunel enclave of Mandasaur district, and

(5) the Sironj sub-division of Kota district of Rajasthan.

152

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The total population of this new Madhya Pradesh will be 26.1 million and its

area will be about 171.200 square miles.

I suggest that it should be divided into two States : (1) Northern Madhya

Pradesh, (2) Southern Madhya Pradesh (See Map 4).

The State of New Madhya Pradesh should consist of the following areas :

(1) The whole of Vindhya Pradesh.

(2) The whole State of Bhopal.

The State of Southern Madhya Pradesh should consist of—

(1) the whole State of Indore, and

(2) the 14 districts of Mahakosal.

The population of this Indore State will be about 2 crores and the population

of this Vindhya Pradesh will be about 1.30 crores. (See Map No. 4).

Why the Commission created this monster State it is no way to know. Even

Prime Minister Nehru was surprised at its creation.

All that one can think of is that the Commission has been under the impression

that one language, one State is a categorical imperative from which there is no

escape. As I have shown one language, one State can never be categorical imperative.

In fact one State, one language should be the rule. And therefore people forming

one language can divide themselves into many States.

CHAPTER 7

THE PROBLEMS OF MAHARASHTRA

THE PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH MAHARASHTRA

Maharashtra is another area which is a subject of controversy.

There are four proposals in the field :

(1) To retain the Bombay State as it is i.e. to retain it as a mixed State

consisting of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay.

(2) To disrupt the existing State and to separate Maharashtra and Gujarat

and make them into two separate States.

(3) To make united Maharashtra with Bombay as one State.

(4) To separate Bombay from Maharashtra and make it a separate City State.

I would like to state what my proposals are. They are as follows :

Bombay as a mixed State should be done away with.

I would divide Maharashtra into four States (See Map 5) : (1) Maharashtra

City State (Bombay), (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra and

(4) Eastern Maharashtra.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

153

Maharashtra City State.—The City of Bombay plus such area of

Maharashtra as would enable it to be a good and strong City State.

Western Maharashtra.—(1) Thana, (2) Kolaba, (3) Ratnagiri, (4) Poona,

(5) North Satara, (6) South Satara, (7) Kolhapur and (8) the Marathi-speaking

territories given over to Karnataka.

Central Maharashtra—(1) Dang, (2) East Khandesh, (3) West Khandesh,

(4) Nasik, (5) Ahmednagar, (6) Aurangabad, (7) Nanded, (8) Parbhani,

(9) Beed, (10) Usmanabad, (11) Sholapur City and the Marathi-speaking

area of Sholapur District and (12) the Marathi-speaking territories given

over to Telangana.

Eastern Maharashtra.—(1) Buldhana, (2) Yeotmal, (3) Akola, (4) Amraoti,

(5) Wardha, (6) Chanda, (7) Nagpur, (8) Bhandara and (9) the Marahi-

speaking territories given to Hindi States.

I will next proceed to examine the merits of these proposals.

MAHARASHTRIANS UNDER THE MIXED STATE

Should Bombay remain a mixed State ? It is a most unusual procedure.

The City of Calcutta is not a separate City State. Madras is not a separate

City State. Why Bombay alone be made the exception ?

Secondly, it is already a mixed State. What is the experience of the

Maharashtrians under this mixed State ? The Maharashtrians have suffered

terribly under this mixed State.

What is the position of the Maharashtrians in the Bombay Cabinet ?

Let us consider the distribution of Ministership :

Gujarathi Ministers ... ... ... 4

Marathi Ministers ... ... ... 4

Kannada Ministers ... ... ... 1

Total ... 9

Gujarathi members in the Assembly are only 106, Marathi members

are 149 and yet the number of Gujarathi Ministers is equal to that of

Maharashtrian Ministers.

Let us come to Deputy Ministers :

Marathi speaking ... ... ... 5

Gujarathi speaking ... ... ... 2

Kannada speaking ... ... ... 2

Total ... 9

Only among Deputy Ministers do the Maharashtrians have a majority

of one.

154

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But how the power and subjects are distributed among the Ministers

and Deputy Ministers is the most important matter. It shows what power

and authority the Maharashtrian Ministers possess in this mixed Cabinet

of the Bombay State.

Allocation of Subjects among Ministers

Gujarathi Ministers Maharashtrian Ministers

1. Morarji Desai .. 105 Subs. Hirey .. 49 Subs.

2. Dinkerrao Desai .. 26 Subs. Nimbalkar .. 20 Subs.

3. Jivaraj Mehta .. 43 Subs. Tapase .. 15 Subs.

4. Shantilal Shah .. 28 Subs. Chavan .. 4 Subs.

Total .. 202 88

The allocation of subjects among Deputy Ministers is also done on the

same pattern.

Allocation of Subjects among Deputy Ministers

Gujarathi

Deputy Ministers

Maharashtrian

Deputy Ministers

1. Indumati Sheth .. 12 Subs. 1. Wandrekar .. 12 Subs.

2. Babubhai J. Patel 3 Subs. 2. Deshmukh .. 4 Subs.

3. Naravane .. 5 Subs.

4. Sathe .. 5 Subs.

5. Faki .. 3 Subs.

Total .. 15 29

Let us now consider how much money is spent on development in

Maharashtra and in Gujarath. The following figures will give an idea of the

Per Capita Expenditure for the three years on Maharashtra and Gujarath :

Per Capita Expenditure on Development in Rupees

Years

Population 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53

1. Maharashtra .. 2,17,20,091 1.7 2.3 1.8

2. Gujarath .. 1,18,96,789 2.9 3.1 3.2

What a differential treatment ? What a discrimination ? What an injustice ?

Can anybody blame the Maharashtrians if they felt disgusted with the mixed

State of Bombay ?

Such a position of subordination no Maharashtrian can tolerate. The idea

of a mixed State must be blown off once for all.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

155

III

THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY

The Bombay City is an area which is a subject matter of controversy.

The controversy has become very acute.

Maharashtrians want the City to be part of Maharashtra, Gujarathis

want the City to be a separate State. Heads have been broken over the

controversy. But there has been no agreement. It is therefore necessary to

go to the root of the matter.

The Gujarathis do not claim Bombay City as their own. But will not let go

their hold on it. They claim a sort of easement over it by reason of the fact

that they control the trade and industry of the City. The issue is : should

it become part of Maharashtra or should it be constituted into a separate

State ? The Gujarathis and Maharashtrians are sharply divided on the

issue. The Maharashtrians want that Bombay should become exclusively a

part of the new Maharashtra State. The Gujarathis are stoutly opposed to

it. They have presented two alternatives. One alternative is not to break up

the existing bi-lingual State of Bombay into two linguistic units of Gujarath

and Maharashtra. The Congress Working Committee’s decision is to make

the city of Bombay into a separate State.

The Gujarathis are happy. The Maharashtrians are naturally angry.

The resentment of the Maharashtrians is well justified. The arguments

urged against the claim of the Maharashtrians have no force at all.

The first argument that is urged is that the Marathi-speaking population

of Bombay City does not form a majority of the total population of the City.

The total population of Bombay City is very large (See Statistical Appendix).

Marathi-speaking population is 48 per cent.

Those who use this kind of argument do not seem to realize the weakness

of it

The total Marathi population of Bombay City is no doubt less than

50 per cent but it has to be valued against two factors. One is that

geographically no one can deny that Bombay is part of Maharashtra even if

the Maharashtrians are in a minority in the City. Even Mr. Morarji Desai

admitted in the course of his speech in the meeting of the Gujarath Pradesh

Congress Committee that Bombay is part of Maharashtra.

The second point to be taken into consideration in valuing the population

factor is the continued influx of population from the rest of India who come

to Bombay either for making profits or for earning their bread. None of

them regard Bombay as their home ; they should not therefore be counted

as permanent residents of Bombay City. Many come for a few months and

go back.

156

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Bombay is a home only to the Maharashtrians and none else. It is not

therefore logical or fair to count the non-Maharashtrians for the purpose of

coming to the conclusion as to who form the majority of population in the

Bombay City.

Again it is not realized that the increase in the non-Marathi-speaking

people in the Bombay City is due to the absence of a local law restricting

citizenship. If Bombay State had such a law all this influx into Bombay

from all parts of India could have been shut out and the Maharashtrian

majority retained.

It is also not realized that the influx of the non-Maharashtrians in Bombay

is due to the fact that Bombay is a port, and it is a port on the Western

Coast. The route from Europe to Bombay is much shorter than the route

from Europe to Calcutta or Europe to Madras. That is why large number of

poor people from other parts of India leave their homes and come to Bombay

as temporary residents. It is easier to find a job in Bombay than elsewhere.

Really speaking the matter has to be looked at from a different point of

view. People have been coming to Bombay for the last two hundred years or

so. Yet this influx has not reduced the Maharashtrian population in the city

below 48 per cent. After two hundred years, the bedrock of its population

remains Maharashtrian in its composition. This is due to the migratory

character of City (See Appendix 3). The Gujarathis are migratory population.

There are also other arguments which could be urged in favour of allowing

Bombay to remain as part of Maharashtra.

Bombay is not the only composite city in India. Calcutta and Madras are

also composite cities. If Calcutta can be part of Western Bengal and Madras

can be part of Madras State what objection can there be to Bombay being

made part of Maharashtra ? This is the question that every Maharashtrian

will ask. I see no answer to this question. The only answer that comes to

one’s mind is that the Congress High Command thinks that Maharashtrians

are unfit to rule others. This is a slur on the Maharashtrian character and

they will not tolerate it.

It is said that Bombay has been built up by the capital belonging to

non-Maharashtrians. That may be so. But has Madras been built by the

capital of Madrasees ? Has Calcutta been built by the capital of Bengalees?

Without the capital of Europeans Madras and Calcutta would have been

villages. Then why urge this point against the Maharashtrians when they

claim Bombay to themselves ? Maharashtrians have at least contributed

labour without which Bombay could not have been what it is. It must

always be remembered that the life lines of Bombay lie in Maharashtra. The

sources of its electricity lie in Maharashtra. Sources of its water supply lie

in Maharashtra. The sources of its labour lie in Maharashtra. Maharashtra

can at any time make the city of Bombay ‘Mohenjodaro’ a City of the Dead.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

157

The Gujarathi population is filled with fear that Maharashtrians

will practise discrimination against them. But under our Constitution

discrimination is not possible for the reason that the Constitution contains

a list of fundamental rights and remedies by way of writs from the High

Court and the Supreme Court which can immediately provide redress for

a wrong. For every wrong of a discriminative character there is a remedy

provided by the Constitution. Why should the Gujarathis have any fear ?

Let us now consider what benefit the Gujarathis are going to get from

Bombay being made a separate City State. Their population in the Bombay

State is only ten per cent. How many seats can they get in the Bombay City

State Legislature ? Not even ten per cent. How can ten per cent protect

their clients against 90 per cent ?

It must be remembered that the feelings between the Maharashtrians

and the Gujarathis would hereafter be running high as never before. A

Maharashtrian will not vote for a Gujarathi candidate and a Gujarathi

voter will not vote for a Maharashtrian candidate. Hitherto the Gujarathis

have been able to plough the sands of Maharashtra with their money. But

money may not succeed once self-respect is aroused. The Gujarathis must

consider whether goodwill is not a better protection than a paltry share in

the Government of the City.

While the case of Maharashtra is as strong as steel there are some points

on the other side which they must not fail to consider in their anger.

They want Bombay to be within Maharashtra. But the question which

they must consider is : What do they want ? Do they want prosperous

Bombay or do they want decadent Bombay ? Can Bombay be prosperous

under Maharashtra ? This in other words means : can Maharashtra

provide the capital necessary for the growing trade and industry of the

City ? No Maharashtrian can answer this question in the affirmative. The

Maharashtrians may be able to supply the need for capital after a course

of years. But certainly not now.

The second point is : what would be the effect on the standard of living

of Maharashtrians living in Bombay if the City’s prosperity declines either

by flight of capital or removal of business houses. The Maharashtrians must

not forget, however it may hurt their pride, that they are a nation of clerks

and coolies. What employment can they get in a declining city ?

The Maharashtrian should consider the question of Bombay from this

point of view. There is a saying which says :

loZuk'ks leqRiÂs v/Z R;tfr iafMr% A

There is also another reason why Bombay City should be made a separate

state. The minorities and the Scheduled Castes who are living in the villages

are constantly subjected to tyranny, oppression, and even murders by the

members of the majority communities. The minorities need an asylum,

158

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a place of refuge where they can be free from the tyranny of the majority.

If there was a United Maharashtra with Bombay included in it where they

can go to for safety ? The same tyranny was practised over the Brahmins,

Marwaris and Gujarathis living in the villages when Godse killed Mr. Gandhi.

All the Brahmins, Marwaris and Gujarathis who were once living in villages

ran away and are now living in towns and forgetting their experiences are

shouting for United Maharashtra, after having reached a safe harbour.

It seems to me that Maharashtrians will do well to accept the decision

of the Congress High Command for the time being.

The Maharashtrians need have no fear of losing Bombay. Nobody can

dispossess Maharashtrians of Bombay. Much less can there be any custer

of them by anybody.

The real objection to the creation of Bombay as a separate State arises

from the fact that the name Bombay does not carry within it the sense that

it is part of Maharashtra. It is to remove this objection that I propose that

the new State of Bombay should be renamed by another name which will

carry on its face the word Maharashtra.

Supposing in terms of this suggestion instead of saying that Bombay

be made a separate State it is said that Maharashtra be divided into four

States, (1) Maharashtra City State (which is Bombay City), (2) Western

Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra, (4) Eastern Maharashtra; what

objection can there be to the creation of a separate State of Bombay ?

This also involves the separation of Bombay. With this change in the

name of the City I like to know which Maharashtrian can raise objection

to the creation of Bombay as a separate City State on the ground that this

scheme separates Bombay from Maharashtra ? To say that Bombay be made

a separate State is merely stating that Maharashtra be divided into four

States. If there is no objection to Maharashtra being divided into two or

three States what objection can there be to Maharashtra being divided into

four? I can see none. For the sake of similarity in language I propose that

Calcutta be called Bengal City State and Madras be called Tamil City State.

This is one proposal which I make to ease the tension between

Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.

The Maharashtra City State will be a surplus State. Those who are

wanting United Maharashtra with Bombay are hoping to get the benefit of

this surplus for Maharashtra.

The surplus revenue of the City State arises because of (1) The Property

Tax and (2) The Electricity Tax. Can the revenue from these two sources

be appropriated by Maharashtra if Bombay becomes a separate City State ?

Nothing can be done to take away the yield of the Property Tax from

the Bombay City State Property Tax. It is a local tax, on local situated

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

159

property. The State within which the property is situated is entitled to the

yield of the Tax.

With regard to the Electricity Tax the situation is different.

When Gujarath and Maharashtra are separated—and they must be—

Gujarath will claim the revenue derived from electricity produced and

consumed within Gujarath. Maharashtra will claim the revenue derived from

electricity produced and consumed within Maharashtra. Bombay City as a

State will do the same. Can Bombay be allowed to do so and appropriate

the revenue to itself ? Is it just ? Bombay City does not produce electricity.

It is produced outside Bombay City in Maharashtra. Therefore the new

Bombay City State has no right to appropriate to itself the whole revenue

derived from electricity. The proper thing to do is to apply the principle of

the segregation of the sources and division of the yield well known to all

students of State Finance.

To put it in concrete shape let the Centre take over the taxation of

Electricity and divide the yield among the four States of Maharashtra—

(1) Bombay, (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra, (4) Eastern

Maharashtra according to their needs.

It will also ease the financial strain that the three Maharashtras are

likely to suffer on account of the separation of Bombay.

UNITED OR DIVIDED ?

I have said that Bombay be given a new area and made into a separate

City State.

There now remains the question of how to deal with the rest of the

Maharashtra. I have suggested that the rest of the Maharashtra should be

divided into three States.

From very ancient times Maharashtra has been divided into three States.

Maharashtra first comes to be known in history during the time of Ashok.

It is mentioned in Mahavansa in connection with reference to the missionaries

sent by Ashok to different parts of India for the purpose of propagating

Buddhism. But thereafter the Pali literature speaks of Trai Maharashtrika

or three Maharashtras. It means that from very ancient times there have

been three Maharashtras. My proposal is not therefore new.

The distribution of population, area and revenue would be as shown in

Table (on page 160).

The accompanying map No. 5 will show the area and boundaries of each

of the three divisions.

160

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

For the present, from the point of view of area and population there is

nothing to complain against the three divisions.

From the earliest times they have always been spoken of as Trai

Maharashtras.

The division does no wrong to the language principle. In fact if all the

three Maharashtras have the same language it can help to develop the

Marathi language if it is worth their while to do so.

The question of viability I will consider later on. I propose to deal with

it separately in a special chapter.

Bombay was then unknown. Otherwise it would have been the fourth

part of Maharashtra.

Of the remaining three parts what I call Eastern Maharashtra is already

a separate State. All that required is that it should be allowed to remain

separate. It has got a well-established administration system, a well-

established revenue system and a well-established judicial system. It has

been separated from the trammels of the Hindi-speaking people.

The only problem that remains is how to divide the area covered by the

Maharashtra which is part of the present Bombay State and the Marathwada

of the Hyderabad State.

Instead of forming a merger of the two into one and joining it to the third

which I call Eastern Maharashtra, why not divide the Maharashtra part

of Bombay and Marathwada into two equal States ? This is my scheme.

I transfer six districts of Maharashtra part of the Bombay State and make

them part of Marathwada. (See Map No. 5). The distribution of the area

and population of the three Maharashtras are shown below :

The Population Area and Revenue of the Three Maharashtra

States will be approximately as follows

Name of State

Total

Population

(in crores)

Total Area

(in sq.

miles)

Total

Revenue

Total

Expenditure

WESTERN MAHARASHTRA 1,26,77,316 30,028 26,24,20,441 not known

CENTRAL MAHARASHTRA 1,24,09,044 55,482 21,63,80,095 not known

EASTERN MAHARASHTRA 80,27,130 39,004 9,41,11,012 not known

Total .. 3,31,13,490 1,24,514 57,29,11,548

I will now proceed to state my reasons in support of my plan.

I have said that Maharashtra has always been divided into three. This is

a historical argument. It at least shows that the tradition, the way of life

and the social and economic condition of what is called United Maharashtra

is not one. Those who are in a hurry to have United Maharashtra

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

161

may not take it seriously. But there are other arguments which arise out of

the present condition and which cannot be ignored. I mention a few.

My first argument is that a single Government cannot administer such

a huge State as United Maharashtra.

The total population of the Marathi-speaking area is 3,30,83,490. The

total area occupied by the Marathi-speaking people is 1,74,514 sq. miles.

It is a vast area and it is impossible to have efficient administration by

a single State. Maharashtrians who talk about Samyukta Maharashtra

have no conception of the vastness as to the area and population of their

Maharashtra. But why there should be one single Maharashtrian State. I

am quite unable to understand. To have a separate Maharashtra State is

one thing. To have a single. Maharashtra State is quite a different thing.

I am in favour of a separate Maharashtra, separate from Gujarathis and

separate from Hindi-speaking people. But I am unable to understand why a

free Maharashtra should be made into one single State. The Maharashtrians

are not planning to declare war on U.P. and therefore they need not have

a common front.

Even from the point of view of Marathas why should there be this

consolidation ? What affiliation has a Maratha of Satara got with the

Maratha of Aurangabad ? What affiliation has a Maratha of Nasik got with

the Maratha of Ratnagiri? What care and interest a Maratha of Satara is

going to bestow upon the problems of the Maratha of Aurangabad ? What

care and interest a Maratha of Nasik is going to bestow upon the problems

of the Maratha of Ratnagiri ? The consolidation has no meaning and can

serve no purpose.

All Maratha Ministers in the present Bombay Cabinet come from Satara

District or Nasik District. There is none from Konkan.

The second consideration is the economic inequality between the three

parts of Maharashtra. Marathwada has been solely neglected by the Nizam.

What guarantee is there that the other two Maharashtras will look after

the interests of what I call the Central Maharashtra ?

The third consideration is industrial inequality between the three parts

of Maharashtra. Western Maharashtra and Eastern Maharashtra are

industrially well developed. What about the Central Maharashtra ? What

guarantee is there of its industrial development ? Will Western Maharashtra

and Eastern Maharashtra take interest in the industrial development of

Central Maharashtra ?

The fourth consideration is the inequality of education between Eastern

and Western Maharashtra on the one hand and Central Maharashtra on the

other. The inequality between them is marked. If the Central Maharashtra

goes under the Poona University its destiny is doomed.

162

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I am greatly worried about Marathwada. It was hitherto part of the Nizam’s

Territory for the last 200 years. The Nizam had criminally neglected this

area. He took no interest in it. There is not a mile of canal irrigation in

Marathwada. There is hardly a high school in taluka places in Marathwada.

There is hardly a youth in Nizam’s public service from Marathwada. I speak

from knowledge and experience. People are not only down and out they

are ignorant. They are being grabbed by highly advanced people on both

sides. When their avenues of employment are closed there will be further

degradation in their position.

I shudder to think what would happen when Marathwada goes under the

Poona University. The standard of education in the schools and colleges under

the Poona University is so high that hardly any boy from Marathwada can

hope to pass the examination. It is quite possible that with the madness for

united Maharashtra there will develop a madness for a single and common

University.

The creation of United Maharashtra will be followed by the onrush of

Poona and Nagpur Brahmins in Marathwada to pick up the jobs.

There is a further reason why Maharashtra should be divided into three.

The total strength of the Bombay Legislative Assembly is 315. Out of

them 149 members are Marathi-speaking. The total strength of the Bombay

Legislative Council is 72 ; out of them 34 are Marathi-speaking. Obviously

some Marathi-speaking person should have been the Chief Minister of the

Bombay State. Mr. Hirey stood up as a candidate for the Chief Ministership.

But he was made to sit down by the Congress High Command. Not

only was Mr. Hirey made to sit down but he was forced to move that

Mr. Morarji Desai be made the Chief Minister. What a humiliation for a

Maharashtrian leader ! And what value does the Congress High Command

attach to the political intelligence of Maharashtrians ?

The same incapacity of the Maratha Ministers is clear from the division

of subjects referred earlier.

It is obvious from the facts given above that the Marathas are lacking

in political talent. There is no man of eminence among them such as Tilak,

or Gokhale or Ranade. The Maharashtrian today counts for nothing. The

Congress Maharashtrian counts for much less in the Congress. The non-

Congress Maharashtrian also counts for nothing. It is therefore absolutely

essential to train up Maharashtrians in political life. This political training

has become fundamental because of the transfer of power to the masses. The

word Marathas is used in two senses. In one sense it means all those who

speak the Marathi language. In another sense it means all those who are

Marathas by caste. They are all spoken of as Marathas. But they all fail to

make the distinction between Marathas i.e. those who speak the Marathi

language and Marathas i.e. those who are Marathas by caste.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

163

Those who are going to rule Maharashtra are not Marathas by speech but

Marathas by caste, notwithstanding the hopes of the Brahmins. Now it cannot

be denied that Marathas are politically the most backward community. It is

fundamental that they should receive political training. If there is only one

Maharashtra only one Maratha can be trained as Chief Minister and five or

six as Ministers. On the other hand if there are three Maharashtra States,

three Marathas can find training as Chief Ministers and thirty Marathas

can get training as Ministers. We can do real service to ourselves by helping

to educate our Masters.

The only way of educating the Marathas is to give them more field for

developing their abilities and exercising their abilities. Only the creation of

three Maharashtras can do this.

There is a story which is very appropriate to the occasion. The father of

a young girl had taken her for an outing in a jungle. She found that under

big trees there stood small shrubs. Finding this to be uniformly so, she

asked her father why these small shrubs under the big trees do not grow.

The father not being a botanist could not give an answer. So he said : Oh !

I do not know. He, however, felt that the question was very significant. He

was a Professor in a college. Next day he went to the college and put the

question to his Botanist colleague. The Botanist replied : Why ! The answer

is simple. The big trees use up all the sun’s rays to themselves. The shrubs

do not get any rays. That is why they do not grow. The Marathwada people

must not forget the moral of this story.

The only argument in favour of United Maharashtra is that it is like a

meeting of the two brothers Rama and Bharat in Ramayana after a long

separation. It is a silly argument, not worth consideration.

There are some Maharashtrians who are satisfied with some kind of

Political Treaty with Western Maharashtra guaranteeing some concessions.

Treaties are like scraps of paper. They cannot be enforced. Instead of political

treaties which nobody can enforce is it not better to have power in one’s

own hands ?

What a poor and wretched show by Maharashtrians in the Government

of Bombay ! If this is the show that the most advanced and educated part

of Maharashtrians can make, what can be expected from the people of

Marathwada ?

I advise the people of Marathwada or Central Maharashtra to have a

State of their own so that they have power in their own hands to improve

their own lot.

RECLAMATION OF LOST TERRITORY

Should all the Marathi-speaking people be huddled up under one State ?

Or should they be divided into two or more States.

164

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

How to dispose of the remainder when Bombay is separated is the next

question. The remainder consists of two parts : (1) Gujarath, (2) Maharashtra.

I am concerned with Maharashtra.

While creating Linguistic Provinces the Commission has given over

Marathi-speaking areas to non-Marathi-speaking areas. The number of such

excluded areas are as follows :

1. Belgaum Taluka with the City of Belgaum.

2. Khanapur Taluka.

3. Chikori Taluka including Nipani.

4. Supa Taluka.

5. Karwar Taluka.

6. Nilanga Taluka in Bidar.

7. Ahamadpur Taluka in Bidar.

8. Udgir Taluka in Bidar.

9. Rajgir Taluka in Adilabad.

10. Some portion from Vidarbha given to the neighbouring Hindi-speaking

State.

The Maharashtrians excluded from Maharashtra come to 13,89,648 in

terms of population.

The Commission in retaining the mixed State of Bombay had to secure

two most important objects. One is not to allow Bombay to go into the hands

of Maharashtrians. This the Commission did by creating a mixed State. The

second thing they had to do was to secure equality between Maharashtrians

and the Gujarathis. The necessity of equality between the two in the future

Legislature of the Bombay State as planned by the Commission had become

urgent as the members of Karnatak in the old Assembly on whom the

Gujarathis depended for their majority were to disappear in the new Karnatak

State. This the Commission did by clipping the wings of Maharashtra by

handing over Marathi-speaking people to non-Marathi-speaking States. There

seems to be no other reason for this political vandalism.

This wrong done by the Commission to Maharashtra must now be remedied

and fortunately it can be undone. The proposal of a mixed State is gone and

there is no necessity for equality between Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.

CHAPTER 8

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ISSUE

For the sake of the reader I summarize below the principles which should

underly the creation of Linguistic States which are already enunciated in

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

165

the foregoing pages but which lie about scattered. These principles may be

stated as below :

(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.

(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.

(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the

formula of one language, one State.

(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking

one language should be brought under one Government irrespective

of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people

speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation

for a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula

and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking

one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other

parts of the world.

(5) Into how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up,

should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration,

(2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different

areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority and minority.

(6) As the area of the State increases the proportion of the minority

to the majority decreases and the position of the minority becomes

precarious and the opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny

over the minority become greater. The States must therefore be small.

(7) The minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the

majority. To do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions

must be made for a system on plural member constituencies (two or

three) with cumulative voting.

PART IV

THE PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTIC STATES

CHAPTER 9

VIABILITY

Will the three Maharashtrian States be viable ? Will their Revenue be

sufficient to meet their expenditure ? Such a question is bound to be asked.

It is not that such a question can be asked about Maharashtra alone. It

can be asked about many other States in India.

I give four statements relating to Part A States, Part B States and the

Central Government from Part III of the Report of the Taxation Inquiry

Committee presided over by Dr. John Mathai (See Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7).

166

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

From these statements the following propositions stand out :

(1) That upto a certain year in the life of the States there was no deficit.

They were all viable. It is only after Congress came into office that States

ceased to be viable.

(2) That since the Congress came into office the Excise Revenue has begun

to dwindle. It has gone down to a vanishing point.

(3) That Income Tax and Sales Tax have increased enormously.

These are the causes which explain why States have ceased to be viable.

The Excise Revenue is being sacrificed for a false idealogy which has no

meaning, no sense and no reality.

In regard to the Policy of Prohibition followed by the Congress, the following

conclusions can be drawn without fear of challenge :

(1) An enormous amount of revenue is sacrificed for nothing.

(2) People have not ceased to drink. There is enormous amount of illicit

manufacture of liquor which is being sold to the public clandestinely.

(3) The money lost by Government is picked up by the illicit manufacturer.

(4) Prohibition has demoralized Society. Formerly only male members of

the family drank because they alone could go to the liquor shop. Now

illicit liquor manufacture has become a Home Industry. Liquor being

now made at home both men and women drink.

(5) In addition to the loss of revenue on account of Prohibition Government

has to undertake increased expenditure on Police to enforce Prohibition

which, however, they never do.

What good is this Prohibition which does not prohibit ? The Congress threatens

to extend this Prohibition to the whole of India. God bless the Congress! It is

said that God first makes them mad whom. He wishes to destroy. God is doing

the same with Congressmen.

It is enough for me to say that Congress cannot have both viability and

Prohibition.

Coming to the Land Revenue it could certainly be increased. But the Congress

is afraid to touch the agriculturist for fear of losing votes. It is therefore raising

money from the Sales Tax and the Income Tax both of which fall so heavily on

the urban classes as is apparent from Table No. 6.

It is therefore clear that viability is no problem. Only the Congress has to

revise its Taxation Policy.

Viability is a question of capacity to bear taxation and will to tax. There is

enough capacity. What is wanted is will.

The whole of the Indian Taxation system requires to be changed. It is a

question of altering the Constitution. I cannot deal with it now. I must reserve

it for another occasion.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

167

CHAPTER 10

MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES

Politics is nothing if not realistic. There is very little in it that is academic. It

is therefore follows that before passing any judgement on any scheme of politics

it is essential that one must consider the ground plan.

Someone may ask what do I mean by “Ground Plan”. To me the ground plan

means the social structure of a community to which the political plan is sought

to be applied.

It needs no argument to show that the political structure rests on the social

structure. Indeed the social structure has a profound effect on the political

structure. It may modify it in its working. It may nullify it or it may even make

a mockery of it.

In the case of India the social structure is built up on the caste system, the

special product of Hindu civilization and culture.

The caste system is so well known that one need not wait to explain its

nature. One can straight proceed to show what effect it is likely to have on

Linguistic States.

There are some peculiar features of the caste system which must however

be noted—

(1) Castes are so distributed that in any given area there is one caste which

is major and there are others which are small and are subservient to

the major caste owing to their comparative smallness and their economic

dependence upon the major caste which owns most of the land in the

village.

(2) The caste system is marked not merely by inequality but is affected by

the system of graded inequality. All castes are not on a par. They are

one above the other. There is a kind of ascending scale of hatred and a

descending scale of contempt.

(3) A caste has all the exclusiveness and pride which a nation has. It is

therefore not improper to speak of collection of castes as a collection of

major and minor nations.

I am sorry, I cannot illustrate these points by reference to facts and figures.

The census which is the only source of information on these points fails to help

me. The last census omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature

of the Indian census ever since its birth. The Home Minister of the Government

of India who is responsible for this omission was of the opinion that if a word

does not exist in a dictionary it can be proved that the fact for which the word

stands does not exist. One can only pity the petty intelligence of the author.

The consequences of the caste system on politics are quite obvious. The

interesting part is to see what effect it has upon elections which is the foundation

of Representative Government which is reared up on a system of single member

constituencies.

168

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The effects may be summarized as follows :

(1) Voting is always communal. The voter votes for the candidate of his

community and not for the best candidate.

(2) The majority community carries the seat by sheer communal majority.

(3) The minority community is forced to vote for the candidate of the

majority community.

(4) The votes of the minority community are not enough to enable

the candidate to win the seat against the candidate put up by the

majority community.

(5) As consequence of social system of graded inequality the voter of the

higher (major) communities can never condescend to give his vote to

a candidate of a minority community. On the other hand the voter of

the minority community who is socially on a lower level takes pride

in giving his vote to the candidate of the majority community. That

is another reason why a candidate of a minority community loses

in election.

The Congress always wins, so it is found. But no one asks why does

the Congress win ? The answer is that Congress is very popular. But why

is the Congress popular ? The true answer is that Congress always puts

up candidates which belong to castes which are in the majority in the

constituencies. Caste and Congress are closely linked. It is by exploiting the

caste system that the Congress wins.

These evil consequences of the caste system are sure to be sharpened

by creation of Linguistic States. Minority communities may be crushed. If

not crushed they may be tyrannized and oppressed. They are sure to be

discriminated against and denied equality before law and equal opportunity

in public life.

The history of nations and the changes in their idealogies have been well

traced by Lord Action :

“In the old European system, the rights of nationalities were neither recognized

by governments nor asserted by the people. The interest of the reigning families,

not those of the nations, regulated the frontiers, and the administration was

conducted generally without any reference to popular desires. Where all liberties

were suppressed, the claims of national independence were necessarily ignored,

and a princess, in the words of Fenelon, carried a monarchy in her wedding

portion.”

Nationalities were at first listless. When they became conscious :

“They first rose against their conquerors in defence of their legitimate

rulers. They refused to be governed by usurpers. Next came a time when

they revolted because of the wrongs inflicted upon them by their rulers.

The insurrections were provoked by particular grievances justified by

definite complaints. Then came the French Revolution which effected

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

169

a complete change. It taught the people to regard their wishes and wants as

the supreme criterion of their right to do what they like to do with themselves.

It proclaimed the idea of the sovereignty of the people uncontrolled by the past

and uncontrolled by the existing state.”

The caste is a nation but the rule of one caste over another may not be

admitted to be the same as the rule of one nation over another. But supposing

the case is not carried so far but is limited to majority and minority even

then the question remains : What right has the majority to rule the minority?

The answer is that whatever the majority does it is right. What complain

the minorities can haye ?

People who rely upon majority rule forget the fact that majorities are of

two sorts : (1) Communal majority and (2) Political majority.

A political majority is changeable in its class composition. A political

majority grows. A communal majority is born. The admission to a political

majority is open. The door to a communal majority is closed. The politics

of a political majority are free to all to make and unmake. The politics of a

communal majority are made by its own members born in it.

How can a communal majority run away with the title deeds given to a

political majority to rule ? To give such title deeds to a communal majority is

to establish a hereditary Government and make the way open to the tyranny

of that majority. This tyranny of the communal majority is not an idle dream.

It is an experience of many minorities. This experience to Maharashtrian

Brahmins being every recent it is unnecessary to dilate upon it.

What is the remedy ? No doubt some safeguards against this communal

tyranny are essential. The question is : What can they be ? The first

safeguard is not to have too large a State. The consequences of too large

a State on the minority living within it are not understood by many. The

larger the State the smaller the proportion of the minority to the majority.

To give one illustration—If Mahavidarbha remained separate, the proportion

of Hindus to Muslims would be four to one. In the United Maharashtra

the proportion will be fourteen to one. The same would be the case of the

Untouchables. A small stone of a consolidated majority placed on the chest

of the minority may be borne. But the weight of a huge mountain it cannot

bear. It will crush the minorities. Therefore creation of smaller States is a

safeguard to the minorities.

The second safeguard is some provision for representation in the

Legislature. The old type of remedy provided in the Constitution were

(1) certain number of reserved seats and (2) separate electorates. Both these

safeguards have been given up in the new Constitution. The lambs are shorn

of the wool. They are feeling the intensity of the cold. Some tempering of

the wool is necessary.

170

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Separate electorates or reservation of seats must not be restored to. It

would be enough to have plural member constituencies (of two or three)

with cumulative voting in place of the system of single-member constituency

embodied in the present Constitution. This will allay the fears which the

minorities have about Linguistic States.

PART V

THE NEED FOR A SECOND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 11

INDIA AND THE NECESSITY OF A SECOND CAPITAL

A WAY TO REMOVE TENSION BETWEEN

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH

Can India afford to have one Capital ? That India has now one capital does

not close the question. If the Capital of India is not satisfactorily located,

now is the time for considering the question.

Since the departure of the British, India has only one capital and that

is Delhi. Before the British, India has always had two capitals. During the

Moghal period, India had Delhi as one Capital and Shrinagar in Kashmir

as another Capital. When the British came they too had two capitals,

one was Calcutta and another was Simla. Even when they left Calcutta

for Delhi, they retained Simla as their summer Capital. The two capitals

maintained by the Moghuls and by the British were the results of climatic

conditions. Neither the British nor the Moghuls were able to live in Delhi or

in Calcutta continuously for 12 months. The summer months in Delhi were

unbearable to the Moghuls. They made Shrinagar their second capital for

summer months. The summer months in Calcutta were equally unbearable

to the British. They, therefore, established a second capital. To these climatic

conditions must now be added three other conditions. There was no popular

Government when the Moghuls ruled or when the British ruled. Now we

have popular Government and the convenience of the people is an important

factor. Delhi is most inconvenient to the people of the South. They suffer

the most from cold as well as distance. Even the Northern people suffer in

the summer months. They do not complain because they are nearer home

and they are nearer the seat of power. Second is the feeling of the Southern

people and the third is the consideration of Defence. The feeling of the

Southern people is that the Capital of their Country is far away from them

and that they are being ruled by the people of Northern India. The third

consideration is of course more important. It is that Delhi is a vulnerable

place. It is within bombing distance of the neighbouring countries. Although

India is trying to live in peace with its neighbours it cannot be assumed

that India will not have to face war sometime or other and if war comes,

the Government of India will have to leave Delhi and find another place for

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

171

its location. Which is the place to which the Government of India can

migrate ? A place that one can think of is Calcutta. But Calcutta is also

within bombing distance from Tibet. Although India and China today are

friends, how long the friendship would last no one can definitely say. The

possibility of conflict between India and China remains. In that event Calcutta

would be useless. The next town that could be considered as a refuge for

the Central Government is Bombay. But Bombay is a port and our Indian

Navy is too poor to protect the Central Government if it came down to

Bombay. Is there a fourth place one could think of ? I find Hyderabad to be

such a place. Hyderabad. Secunderabad and Bolarum should be constituted

into a Chief Commissioner’s Province and made a second capital of India.

Hyderabad fulfils all the requirements of a capital for India. Hyderabad is

equidistant to all States. Anyone who looks at the table of distances given

below will realize it :

From Delhi

Miles

From Hyderabad

Miles

To Bombay .. .. 798 440

To Calcutta .. .. 868 715

To Madras .. .. 1,198 330

To Karnul .. .. 957 275

To Trivendrum .. .. 1,521 660

To Patiala .. .. 124 990

To Chandigarh .. .. 180 1,045

To Lucknow .. .. 275 770

From the defence point of view it would give safety to the Central

Government. It is equidistant from all parts of India. It would give satisfaction

to the South Indian people that their Government is sometimes with them.

The Government may remain in Delhi during winter months and during

other months it can stay in Hyderabad. Hyderabad has all the amenities

which Delhi has and it is a far better City than Delhi. It has all the grandeur

which Delhi has. Buildings are going cheap and they are really beautiful

buildings, far superior to those in Delhi. They are all on sale. The only thing

that is wanting is a Parliament House which the Government of India can

easily build. It is a place in which Parliament can sit all the year round

and work, which it cannot do in Delhi. I do not see what objection there

can be in making Hyderabad a second capital of India. It should be done

right now while we are reorganising the States.

Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Bolarum should be constituted into a second

capital of India. Fortunately, it can be very easily done with satisfaction to

the whole of South India, to Maharashtra and to the Andhras.

This is another remedy for easing the tension between the North and

the South.

PART VI

MAPS

MAP NO. 1

INDIA

NORTH VS. SOUTH

PART VII

STATISTICAL APPENDICES

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

183

APPENDIX 1

Population by Linguistic Families

Language groups No. of

languages

spoken

No. of

speakers as

mother-tongue

and subsidiary

1931 (bilinguals

shown twice)

No. of

speakers

1931

No. of

speakers

mother-

tongue

only 1931

Difference

between

columns 4

and 5

(increase in

1931 +

decrease

in 1931 –)

Difference

between

columns 4

and 3

(increase +

decrease –)

1234567

A—Language of India and Burma .. 225 366,430,537 315,525,177 349,887,527 + 94,362,350 +

50,905,360

(i) Austric Languages—

1. Indonesian languages .. 2 6,542 5,561 6,542 + 981 +981

2. Mon-Khmer languages .. 10 734,204 549,917 726,578 + 176,661 + 184,287

3. Munda languages* .. 7 4,710,685 3,973,873 4,609,588 + 635,715 + 736,812

(ii) Tibeto-Chinese languages—

1. Tibeto-Burman languages .. 128 14,167,611 11,959,011 12,982,840 + 1,023,829 +

2,208,600

2. Tai-Chinese languages .. 11 1,150,220 926,335 1,027,656 + 101,321 + 223,885

3. Man and Karen languages* .. 17 1,351,291 1,114,617 1,342,278 + 227,661 + 236,674

(iii) Dravidian languages—

1. Dravida languages . .. 7 47,032,874 37,285,594 41,454,593 + 4,168,999 +

9,747,280

2. Intermediate languages .. 5 3,661,277 3,056,598 3,609,418 + 552,820 + 604,679

3. Andhra language .. 1 28,195,824 23,601,492 26,373,727 + 2,772,235 +

4,594,332

4. N.W. language .. 1 231,581 184,368 207,049 + 22,681 + 47,213

184

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 1—contd.

1234567

(iv) Indo-European languages—

1. Eranian languages .. 3 2,457,134 1,981,675 2,270,466 + 288,791 + 475,459

2. Dardic languages .. 5 1,354,031 1,304,319 1,522,936 + 218,617 + 238,712

3. Indo-Aryan languages .. 19 261,105,909 229,560,555 253,699,403 + 24,138,848 + 31,545,354

(v) Unclassed languages—

1. Andamanese .. 2 466 580 466 +114 –114

2. Burushaski .. 1 26,076 .... 26,076 + 26,076 + 26,076

3. Gipsy dialects † .. 6 25,999 15,018 25,999 + 10,981 + 10,981

4. Languages not returned

and unspecified.

.... ‡ 29,813 5,664 2,912 + 3,752 + 24,149

B—Languages of other Asiatic

countries and Africa.

17 305,386 211,894 302,324 + 90,430 + 93,492

C—Languages of Europe .. 10 452,099 319,112 339,706 + 20,594 + 132,987

*The correct classification of these two languages is doubtful. Pizyluski treats them as Tai (Meillet and Cohen, langues du Monde 380), but it is

probable they have Austric affinities.

†These dialects are drawn from various Indian languages and contain such diverse elements that they cannot fairly be allotted to one family rather

than another.

‡Includes Hill and aboriginal subsidiary languages (27,841).

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

185

APPENDIX 2

Area and Population of States of United States of America

Name of State Area

sq. miles

Population

Est. 1944

123

1. Alabama .. .. .. 51,609 2,818,083

2. Arirona .. .. .. 113,909 638,412

3. Arkansas .. .. .. 53,102 1,776,446

4. California .. .. .. 158,693 8,746,989

5. Colorado .. .. .. 104,247 1,147,269

6. Connecticut .. .. .. 5,009 1,176,807

7. Delaware .. .. .. 2,057 283,802

8. Florida .. .. .. 58,560 3,367,217

9. Georgia .. .. .. 58,876 3,223,727

10 Idaho .. .. .. 83,557 531,573

11. Illinois .. .. .. 56,400 7,729,720

12. Indiana .. .. .. 36,291 3,419,707

13. Jowa .. .. .. 56,280 2,269,759

14. Kansas .. .. .. 82,276 1,774,447

15. Kentucky .. .. .. 40,395 2,630,194

16. Louisiana .. .. .. 48,523 2,535,385

17. Maine .. .. .. 33,215 793,600

18. Maryland .. .. .. 10,577 2,127,874

19. Massachusetts .. .. .. 8,257 4,162,815

20. Michigan .. .. .. 58,216 5,429,641

21. Minnesota .. .. .. 84,008 2,508,663

22. Mississippi .. .. .. 47,716 2,175,877

23. Missouri .. .. .. 69,674 3,589,538

24. Montana .. .. .. 147,138 464,999

25. Nebraska .. .. .. 77,237 1,213,792

26. Nevada .. .. .. 110,540 156,445

27. New Hampshire .. .. 9,304 457,231

28. New Jersey .. .. .. 7,836 4,167,840

29. New Mexico .. .. .. 121,666 532,212

30. New York .. .. .. 49,576 12,632,890

31. North Caroline .. .. 52,712 3,534,545

32. North Dakota .. .. 70,665 528,071

33. Ohio .. .. .. 41,222 638,667

186

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 2—contd.

Name of State Area

sq. miles

Population

Est. 1944

123

34. Oklahoma .. .. .. 69,919 2,064,679

35. Oregon .. .. .. 96,981 1,214,226

36. Pennsylvania .. .. 45,332 9,247,088

37. Rhode-Island .. .. .. 1,214 778,972

38. South Carolina .. .. 31,055 1,923,354

39. South Dakota .. .. 77,047 558,629

40. Tennessee .. .. .. 42,246 2,870,158

41. Texas .. .. .. 267,339 6,876,248

42. Utah .. .. .. 84,916 606,994

43. Vermont .. .. .. 9,609 310,941

44. Virginia .. .. .. 40,815 3,119,115

45. Washington .. .. .. 68,192 2,055,378

46. West Virginia .. .. 24,181 1,715,984

47. Wisconsin .. .. .. 56,154 2,975,910

48. Wyoming .. .. .. 97,914 257,108

APPENDIX 3

The population of the Bombay City according to the Communities

given in the Census of 1941 is as follows:

Hindu .. .. .. .. .. 8,99,398

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. .. 1,21,352

Muslims .. .. .. .. .. 2,51,518

Indian Christians .. .. .. .. 1,22,683

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. .. 8,787

Parsees .. .. .. .. .. 58,813

Sikhs .. .. .. .. .. 2,418

Jains .. .. .. .. .. 33,281

Buddhists .. .. .. .. .. 912

Tribes .. .. .. .. .. 4,606

Others .. .. .. .. .. 29,847

Total .. 1,489,883

The area of the Bombay City according to the Census of 1941 was 30 sq. miles.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

187

APPENDIX 3A

Inter-Provincial Immigration And Emigration In India

Variation As Compared With 1921 In The Volume Of Migration Within India

Net gain +

or loss –

1931 Net gain +

or loss –

1921 Variation 1921-31

Province or State Immigrants Emigrants Immigrants Emigrants Immigrants Emigrants

1 2 34 5 678 9

Provinces or

States which

gain

Assam .. + 1,241,011 1,314,047 73,036 + 1,140,752 1,216,661 75,909 + 97,386 – 2,873

Bengal .. + 771,936 1,726,370 954,434 1,132,192 1,817,775 685,581 – 91,405 + 268,853

Burma .. + 593,324 617,521 24,197 + 553,471 572,530 19,059 + 44,991 + 5,138

Bombay .. + 596,707 1,188,901 592,194 + 472,023* 1,039,622 567,599* + 256,074 +

318,280*

Central Provinces

and Berar.

+ 27,003 649,064 422,061 + 197,323 603.924 406,601 + 45,140 + 15,460

Mysore .. + 215,462 340,700 125,238 + 210,064 309,850 99,786 + 30,850 + 25,452

Delhi .. + 189,736 259,163 69,427 + 113,158 182,485 69,327 + 76,678 + 100

Baroda .. + 127,907 333,077 105,176 + 10,674 231,880 221,206 + 101,197 – 16,030

Central India

Agency

+ 115,566 598,102 482,536 + 58,056 544,688 486,632 + 53,414 – 4,096

Travancore .. + 83,919 133,852 49,933 + 49,732 71,973 22,241 + 61,879 + 27,692

Ajmer-Merwara .. + 44,029 104,938 60,909 + 66,033 108,452 42,419 – 3,514 + 18,490

Cochin .. + 41,424 87,214 45,790 + 15,792 39,689 23,897 + 47,525 + 21,893

188

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 3A—contd.

123456789

Coorg .. + 35,388 38,619 3,231 + 30,988 33,838 2,850 + 4,781 + 381

Baluchistan .. + 23,779 66,542 42,763 + 5,924 66,166 60,242 + 376 – 17,479

North West Frontier + 21,187 111,868 90,681 + 50,835 118,395 67,560 – 6,527 + 23,121

Province.

Andamans and

Nicobars.

+ 13,703 14,255 582 + 14,080 14,396 316 – 141 + 236

Provinces or

States which Lose

Sikkim .. – 4,782 2,403 7,212 – 2,297 1,836 4,133 + 594 + 3,079

Gwalior .. – 14,471 281,350 296,821 + 632 289,657 289,025 – 8,307 + 7,796

Jammu and Kashmir – 33,266 61,189 94,445 – 22,685 61,561 84,246 – 372 + 10,029

Punjab .. – 67,792 635,025 702,817 + 60,940 591,885 530,942 + 43,140 + 171,875

Hyderabad .. – 19,788 312,814 332,602 – 166,326 197,127 363,453 + 115,687 – 30,851

Western India States

Agency.

– 186,890 106,795 293,685 Included against Bombay

Rajputana .. – 516,898 329,913 864,811 – 625,650 242,234 8,67,893 + 87,670 – 21,082

Madras .. – 888,339 246,892 1,135,231 – 718,183 196,609 914,792 + 50,283 + 220,439

United Provinces .. – 1,063,143 494,308 1,557,451 – 974,642 425,152 1,399,794 + 69,156 + 157,657

Bihar and Orisa .. – 1,291,567 466,563 1,758,130 – 1,567,968 387,068 1,955,036 + 79,495 – 196,906

*Includes Western India Agency. Includes Punjab States Agency

Note—The figures for provinces include those for the States attached to them except in the case of Madras, where

they exclude Cochin and Travancore. Migration figures to and from countries outside British India are excluded.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

189

APPENDIX 4

Provincial/State Revenue

Yield (Crores of Rupees) Share in total revenue (per cent)

1921-22 1936-37 1938-39 1944-45 1953-54

(R. E.)

1921-22 1936-37 1938-39 1944-45 1953-54

(R. E.)

1234567 8 910

Total Revenue .. .. 58.48 74.86 76.78 193.87 462.04 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Land Revenue .. .. 29.08 25.96 25.40 30.21 69.20 49.7 34.7 33.1 15.6 15.0

State excise .. .. 15.67 13.63 13.08 43.42 44.81 26.8 18.2 17.0 22.4 9.7

Stamps .. .. 10.14 10.80 9.53 15.20 23.50 17.3 14.4 12.4 7.8 5.1

Registration .. .. 1.07 1.11 1.09 2.39 3.91 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.9

General Sales Tax .. .... .... .... 7.91 57.25 .... .... .... 4.1 12.4

Forests (net) .. .. 0.66 0.71 0.63 4.58 10.82 1.1 0.9 0.8 2.4 2.3

Irrigation works for which

capital accounts are kept

(net).

5.55 7.53 7.57 10.14 8.09 9.5 10.0 9.9 5.2 1.8

Devolution of revenue and

grants from the Centre.

(—)

9.02 2.67 6.45 36.89 117.92 .... 3.6 8.4 19.1 25.6

Share of income-tax assigned

to States.

3.09 0.04 1.47 25.75 56.90 5.3 0.1 1.9 13.3 12.3

Share of jute duty assigned

to States.

.... 2.13 2.51 1.48 .... .... 2.8 3.3 0.8 ....

190

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 4—contd.

1234567 8910

Share of Central excise

duties assigned to State.

.... .... .... .... 15.94 .... .... .... .... 3.5

Grants in aid, etc., from the

Centre.

12.11 0.50 2.47 9.66 45.08 .. 0.7 3.2 5.0 9.8

Figures for 1921-22 exclude those for Burma but include Sind as part of Bombay. Figures for 1936-37 exclude those

for Burma, Sind and N.W.F.P. Figures for 1938-39 and 1944-45 are for nine Provinces excluding Sind and N.W.F.P..

Figures for 1953-54 relate to all Part A, Part B and Six Part C States.

Transfers from funds are excluded, receipts under forests are taken net after deducting entire expenditure from

gross receipts, for other public utilities and State undertaking net receipts (after deducting working expenses) are

included.

APPENDIX 5

Budgetary Position of the States on Revenue Account

PART ‘A’ STATES

1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54*

(R.E.)

1954-55

(B.E.)

Revenue .. .. .. .. 214.37 315.60 229.32 357.49 367.17

Expenditure .. .. .. .. 293.08 309.10 329.37 371.64 400.89

Surplus (+) or deficit (–) .. .. .. (+) 1.29 (+) 6.50 (–) 0.15 (–) 14.15 (–) 33.72

Surplus (+) or deficit (–) (excluding transfers from

and to Revenue Reserve Funds).

(–) 3.15 (–) 2.25 (–) 12.01 (–) 20.82 (–) 39.86

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

191

APPENDIX 6

Budgetary Position of the States on Revenue Account

PART ‘B’ STATES

(Crores of Rupees)

1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54

†(R.E.)

1954-55

(B.E.)

Revenue .. .. .. .. 93 33 106.70 108.12 112.21 121.76

Expenditure .. .. .. .. 81.93 100.53 105.88 115.85 127.65

Surplus (+) or deficit (–) .. .. .. (+) 1.45 (+) 6.17 (+) 3.24 (–) 3.64 (–) 5.89

Surplus (+) or deficit (–) (excluding transfers from

and to Revenue Reserve Funds).

(+) 1.45 (+) 5.97 (+) 3.24 (–) 3.64 (–) 5.89

† Figures for 1953-54 include budget estimates for the composite State of Madras and revised estimates are available for later six months only.

APPENDIX 7

Central Revenues (Selected Years)

1921-22 1936-37 1938-39 1944-45 1953-54

(R.E.)

Total Revenue* .. .. 80.00 100 81.45 100 82.90 100 334.40 100 394.34 100

Customs (net) .. .. 31.61 39.5 38.11 46.8 40.51 48.9 39.77 11.9 160.00 40.6

Taxes on income (net) .. .. 18.74 23.4 15.33 18.8 13.74 16.6 80.52 24.1 69.31 17.6

Corporation tax .. .. ..... .... .... .... 2.04 2.5 84.22 25.2 38.40 9.7

Central excise duties (net) .. .. 2.80 3.5 13.35 16.4 8.66 10.5 38.14 11.4 78.00 19.8

Salt duty .. .. .. 6.34 7.9 8.81 10.8 8.12 9.8 9.29 2.8 .... ....

Commercial Departments—

Railways (net contribution) .. (–)9.09 ..... .... .... 1.37 1.7 32.00 9.6 7.50 1.9

Posts & Telegraphs (net) .. .. .. .... ..... 0.14 0.2 0.19 0.2 10.25 3.1 2.02 0.5

Total revenue includes net receipts under opium, irrigation, forests, electricity and road transport schemes.

Figures for 1921-22 and 1936-37 are inclusive of those for Burma. Figures for 1938-39 and 1944-45 relate to undivided India.

192

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 8

Population of the Indian Union by Communities

Hindus Muslims

Population Scheduled Castes Others

Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Madras .. 49,841 24,800 25,040 8,152 4,064 4,088 35,095 17,466 17,630 3,927 1,939 1,987

Bombay .. 29,384 15,184 14,200 2,526 1,217 1,256 20,691 10,680 10,011 2,463 1,321 1,142

West Bengal .. 21,837 11,834 10,003 3,520 1,847 1,673 11,206 6,160 5,046 5,544 3,011 2,533

United Provinces .. 56,346 29,542 26,804 11,931 6,128 5,803 34,923 18,411 16,512 8,692 4,574 4,117

East Punjab .. 12,697 6,853 5,844 1,028 540 487 4,489 2,435 2,053 4,427 2,380 2,047

Bihar .. 36,546 18,325 18,220 4,344 2,135 2,209 22,263 11,252 11,010 4,719 2,340 2,379

C.P. & Berar .. 19,948 9,845 9,802 3,310 1,639 1,671 10,920 5,491 5,428 811 425 387

Assam .. 7,685 4,068 3,617 377 203 174 2,885 1,564 1,321 1.754 939 815

Orissa .. 13,768 6,706 7,062 1,865 906 956 8,187 3,963 4,224 166 81 85

Ajmer .. 589 310 279 1 0.5 0.5 380 198 182 90 49 41

Andaman & Nicobar 34 21 12 .... .... .... 8 6 3 8 6 2

Islands.

Bilaspur .. 110 57 53 16 8 7 93 48 45 1 0.8 0.6

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

193

APPENDIX 8—contd.

1 23456 7 8 91011 12

Bhopal .. 785 410 375 187 96 91 410 215 195 110 59 51

Coorg .. 169 92 76 26 15 11 105 56 49 14 9 6

Cutch .. 501 239 262 39 19 20 279 135 144 117 57 60

Delhi .. 918 535 383 123 69 53 445 262 182 305 176 128

Himachal Pradesh .. 935 495 441 229 120 109 672 356 316 29 16 13

Manipur .. 512 249 263 ... ... ... 304 148 156 30 15 15

Tripura .. 513 272 241 12 6 6 336 178 158 124 66 57

Vindya Pradesh .. 3,569 1,819 1,750 399 202 197 2,851 1,455 1,397 95 49 46

Madhya Bharat .. 7,141 3,734 3,407 437 221 216 5,025 2,648 2,377 475 251 224

P.E.P.S.U. .. 3,424 1,868 1,557 214 112 102 978 530 448 899 483 416

Rajasthan .. 13,085 6,868 6,217 ... ... ... 9,878 5,196 4,682 1,256 663 593

Saurashtra .. 3,556 1,809 1,747 242 122 120 2,737 1,402 1,336 436 220 226

Travancore Cochin .. 7,493 3,742 3,751 537 269 268 3,902 1,931 1,971 543 276 268

Hyderabad .. 16,339 8,347 7,992 2,928 1,487 1,442 10,382 5,303 5,073 2,097 1,080 1,017

Kashmir .. 4,022 2,130 1,892 113 61 53 694 369 325 3,074 1,627 1,446

Mysore .. 7,329 3,763 3,566 1,405 723 682 5,282 2,702 2,580 485 258 227

194

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9

Statistics of Chief Castes

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Agri .. .. 265,285 Bombay.

Ahar, Ahir, Gopi, Goshi, Goala,

Golla, Gowari, Gaura,

Kavundan Idaiyan.

14,170,032 Most Provinces.

Ahom .. .. 249,434 Assam

Arain, Kunjra, Koeri, Kachhi,

Murao.

5,048,849 Most Provinces.

Arora, Bhansali, Lohana .. 1,499,407 Baluchistan, Bombay, N.W.F.P.

Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir,

W. I. States.

Babhan, Bhuinhar .. 1,113,541 Bihar and Orissa, U.P.C.P.

Baidya .. .. 110,739 Bengal.

Baiga, Bhaina, Binjwar, Bharia,

Kadar, Bhumia, Bhunjia,

Bhuiya,Ghatwar,Naiya, Pao.

1,050,760 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, C.P.,

C.I., Rajputana, Sikkim.

Bairagi .. .. 838,285 Most Provinces.

Baloch .. .. 1,333,215 Baluchistan, Bombay, Punjab,

N.W.F.P.

Baniya, Bhatia, Chetti, Khatri,

Kamati (Vaishya).

5,176,383 Most Provinces.

Banjara, Lumbadi, Labana,

Lamani.

951,022 Bombay, C.P., C.I., Gwalior-

Hyderabad, Mysore, Raj

putana.

Baria, Bhalia, Chodhra,

Gedia, Khant, Koli, Kotwal,

Naikda, Patclia, Patanwadia,

Thakarda, Talabda, Valvi.

3,418,643 Most Provinces.

Bauri, Bagdi .. .. 1,671,481 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

Rajputana.

Bawaria, Bavuri, Baori, Bagari,

Vagri, Badhik.

309,720 Most Provinces.

Bayar, Barmanu, Dhangar,

Musahar.

811,746 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.,

Central India.

Bedar, Boya .. 991,536 Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad,

C. P.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

195

APPENDIX 9—contd.

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Bhandari. Idiga, Iruvan,

Siyal

.. 1,253,403 Bihar and Orissa, Cochin,

Mysore, Madras, Travancore,

Rajputana, Baroda.

Bhangi .. .. 797,599 Ajmer-Merwara, Bombay, U.P.,

Baroda, Gwalior, Rajputana,

W. I. States.

Bharwad, Dhangar,

Gadariya Kuruba.

1,816,283 Most Provinces.

Bhat, Barhmabhatt,

Charan Jasondhi.

397,274 Most Provinces.

Bhatra, Pardhana, Parja .. 353,183 Madras, C.P. and Berar.

Bhil, Barela Bhilala.

Dhanka, Mankar,

Mavchi, Pathia,

Rathia, Tadvi.

1,454,144 Most Provinces.

Bhisti, Bhoi, Dhimar,

Jhinwar, Kahar,

Machhi, Tiyar.

3,575,941 Most Provinces.

Bohra .. .. 212,752 Bombay, Baroda, C.I.,Gwalior,

C.P., Rajputana, W.I. States

Travancore.

Brahman .. .. 15,207,277 Most Provinces.

Brahui .. .. 224,415 Baluchistan, Bombay.

Chamar, Khalpa, Samagara

.. 12,195,516 Most Provinces.

Chasa, Raju .. 835,236 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

Chasi, Kajbartta (Mahisya)

.. 2,381,266 Bengal.

Chuhra .. .. 721,981 N.W.F. Prov. Punjab, Delhi.

Dhanuk, Kandra .. 758,671 Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,

C.P., C.I., Ajmer-Merwara,

Rajputana, Delhi, Gwalior.

Dhobi, Parit, Vanran,

Velutte-dan.

3,161,428 Most Provinces.

Dom, Dombar, Bansphor

Dharkar, Dholi.

907,776 Most Provinces.

Dhor, Chakkliyan .. 671,926 Bombay, C.P., Madras, Cochin,

Travancore, W.I. States.

Dusadh .. .. 1,400,878 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.

196

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9—contd.

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Fakir .. .. 820,577 Punjab, U.P., C.P., Rajputana

C.I., Agency Gwalior.

Garo, Hajong, Kachari, Mech, 695,648 Assam, Bengal.

Rabha.

Gond, Dhanwar, Kalota,

Kamar, Karwar, Kolam,

Kondh, Konda, Dora, Koya,

Maria, Muria Nagarchi.

4,719,222 Andamans and Nicobars,

Bengal, Bihar and

Orissa, Bombay, C.P.,

and Berar, Madras, U.P.

C.I. Hyderabad, Gwalior,

Rajputana.

Gujar .. .. 2,430,669 Ajmer-Merwara, Bombay,

C.P. and Berar, Delhi,

N.W. Frontier, Punjab,

U.P., C.I., Rajputana.

Guria, Halwai .. 246,583 Bihar and Orissa, U.P., C.I.,

Rajaputana, Gwalior.

Hajjam, Ambattan, Bhandari,

Kelashi, Mhali, Nadig,

Nai “Naibrahman”, Napit,

Nhavi, Pandithar, Vellakat-

talavan.

3,725,860 Most Provinces.

Hari .. .. 418,830 Assam, Bengal, Bihar and

Orissa Madras.

Jat .. .. 8,377,819 N.W. Frontier, Punjab, U.P.

Kashmir, Rajputana.

Jogi .. .. 111,586 Gwalior, C.I., Agency,

Rajputana, Jammu and

Kashmir.

Kaikolan .. .. 419,078 Madras, Cochin, Travancore.

Kalar .. .. 1,017,179 Ajmer-Merwara, Bengal,

C.P. and Berar, U.P.,

Baroda, C.I., Gwalior,

Hyderabad, Rajputana,

Sikkim.

Kallavan, Maravan .. 948,630 Madras, Cochin, Travancore.

Kamalan, “Viswabrahman”,

Panchal.

7,735,393 Most Provinces.

Karen .. .. 1,367,673 Burma.

Kayastha, Karan, Prabhu .. 2,946,228 Most Provinces.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

197

APPENDIX 9—contd.

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Kewat, Kaibartta .. 1,813,278 Assam, Bengal, Bihar and

Orissa, C.P. and Berar, U.P.

Kolita .. .. 109,250 Bihar and Orissa, C.P. and

Berar.

Koshti, Devang .. .. 921,201 Bengal, Bombay, C. P. and

Berar, Madras, C.I.,

Hyderabad, Mysore, Gwalior,

Cochin.

Khandayat, Paik .. 1,060,587 Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,

Madras.

Kisan .. .. 431,044 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, U.P.

Khasi, Synteng .. .. 232,595 Assam, Andamans and Nico-

bars.

Khatik, Chick .. .. 412,520 U.P., C.P., Bengal, Delhi,

Ajmer-Merwara, Baluchistan

Hyderabad, Rajputana

Gwalior.

Kori, Katia, Balai, Chaupal,

Jugi.

2,165,953 Most Provinces.

Korku, Korwa .. .. 246,765

Bihar and Orissa, C.P., C.I., U.P.

Kumhar, Kusavan .. 3,580,143 Most Provinces.

Kunbi, Karbi, Kurmi,

Kshatriya, Kapu, Kapewar,

Raddi, Vakkaliga, Vellala.

11,082,108 Most Provinces.

Labbai .. .. 374,829 Coorg, Madras, Mysore,

Travancore.

Lodhi .. .. 1,742,470 C.P. and Berar, U.P., C.I.,

Bengal, Delhi, Rajputana,

Hyderabad, Gwalior.

Lushei, Sokte, Thado .. 192,520 Assam, Bengal, Burma.

Mahar, Mehra, Dhed, Vankar,

Holiya, Pulayan, Cheruman.

4,729,405 Most Provinces.

Mala .. .. 852,050 C.P. and Berar, Madras.

Mali, Phulmali, Saini,

Malakar

2,332,143 Most Provinces.

198

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 9—contd.

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Mallah, Goriya, Gonrhi .. 894,951 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

U.P., N.W. Frontier, C.I.,

Gwalior, Rajputana,

Mang, Megh, Meghwal, Madgi,

Madiga.

2,556,765 Most Provinces.

Mapilla .. .. 139,621 Travancore, Cochin, Coorg,

Burma.

Maratha .. .. 6,113,061 Bombay, C.P. and Berar,

Gwalior, Hyderabad,

Baroda,

Mysore, C.I.

Meithei .. .. 330,545 Assam, Burma.

Mina, Meo .. .. 1,110,479 Most Provinces.

Mirasi .. .. 283,637

Punjab, N.W. Frontier, Raj-

putana, Ajmer-Merwara,

Jammu and Kashmir, C.I.,

Gwalior.

Mochi, Jingar, Dabgar .. 1,026,405 Most Provinces.

Momin .. .. 3,122,100 Most Provinces.

Munda, Mawasi, Ho, Kol,

Kharwar, Kharia, Bhogia,

Bhumji, Kora.

2,315,276 Bihar and Orissa, Bengal,

C.P. and Berar, C.I., U.P.,

Rajputana.

Naga .. .. 272,529 Assam, Burma, Gwalior.

Namasudra .. .. 2,265,476 Assam, Bengal.

Nayar .. .. 1,550,641 Madras, Travancore, Cochin.

Nepali .. .. 371,906 Most Provinces.

Nuniya, Od, Beldar, Bind,

Rehgar.

561,926 Most Provinces.

Oraon .. .. 1,021,334 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

C.P. and Berar.

Pallan .. .. 825,224 Madras.

Pan, Panka, Ganda, Paidi,

Baraik.

1,241,322 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

C.P. and Berar, Madras,

C.I.

Paraiyan, Turi .. .. 1,277,365

Madras, Bombay, Baroda,

Cochin, W.I. States, Coorg.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

199

APPENDIX 9—concld.

Caste Strength Where chiefly found

Pasi, Arakh .. .. 1,743,166 Bihar and Orissa, U.P.,

Bengal, C. I.

Oinjara, Sarahira, Dhunia

.. 565,254 U. P., Bombay, Rajputana

Gwalior, N.W. Frontier,

Punjab, C.I., Mysore,

W.I. States, Jammu and

Kashmir.

Rajbhar, Rajjhar, Rajwar Bhar. 630,708 U. P., Bihar and Orissa,

Bengal, C.P. and Berar.

Rajput .. .. 10,743,001 Most Provinces.

Santal, Saunta, Karmali .. 2,524,472 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

C.I.

Saun .. .. 480,131 U.P., C.I.

Sawara, Saonr, Savar, Saharia 675,628 Bihar and Orissa, C.P.,

Madras, U. P., C. I.,

Rajputana, Gwalior.

Shaha, Sunri .. .. 533,825 Bengal, Madras, Sikkim.

Shan .. .. 900,204 Burma.

Silpkar .. .. 333,036 U.P.

Singpho, Kachin .. 156,253 Burma, Assam.

Talavla, Dubla .. .. 229,190

Bombay, Baroda, W.I. States.

Tamboli, Barai

.. 452,423

Bengal, U.P., C.I., Rajputana,

Gwalior, Baroda.

Tankkshatriya .. .. 926,274 Most Provinces.

Tanti, Tatwa, Bhulia, Chadar,

Sali.

1,132,563 Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,

Bombay, C.P. and Berar.

Telaga .. .. 1,669,559 C.I.

Teli, Tili, Chakkan, Ganig,

Chanchi, Vaniyan.

5,024,496 Madras, Hyderabad, Coorg.

Thakkar, Rathi, Rawat, Kanet,

Ghirath.

714,503 Bombay, Punjab, C.I.,

Gwalior, Jammu and

Kashmir, Rajputana.

200

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX 10

Relative Population of Different Communities

Distribution by Religion of 10,000 persons in India, in the Provinces and in the States, 1921 and 1931

Province etc. Year Hindu Muslim Buddhist Tribal Christian Sikh Jain Others

12345678910

India .. 1921 6,856 2,174 366 309 150 103 37 5

1931 6,824 2,216 365 236 179 124 36 20

Provinces .. 1921 6,606 2,407 465 280 123 96 18 5

1931 6,548 2,469 468 213 142 118 17 25

Ajmer-Merwara .. 1921 7,356 2,055 .... 96 112 4 372 5

1931 7,755 1,734 .... 27 124 6 348 6

Andamans and Nicobars .. 1921 3,278 1,515 979 3,387 586 144 .... 111

1931 2,586 2,280 988 3,379 496 220 .... 51

Assam .. 1921 5,434 2,896 17 1,479 168 1 5 ..

1931 5,720 3,196 17 825 235 3 3 1

Baluchistan .. 1921 920 8,731 4 .... 159 182 .... 4

1931 894 8,744 1 1 174 181 1 4

Bengal .. 1921 4,327 5,399 57 181 31 .... 3 2

1931 4,304 5,487 63 105 36 2 2 1

Bihar and Orissa .. 1921 8,284 1,085 .... 553 76 1 1 ....

1931 8,231 1,132 .... 544 91 1 1 ....

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

201

APPENDIX 10—contd.

12345678910

Bombay .. 1921 7,658 1,974 1 64 137 4 111 51

1931 7,605 2,039 1 59 145 10 92 49

Burma .. .. 1921 368 380 8,506 534 195 4 1 12

1931 390 399 8,430 444 226 7 1 103

C.P. and Berar .. 1921 8,354 405 ... 1,160 30 1 49 1

1931 8,601 440 ... 872 33 3 50 1

Coorg .. .. 1921 7,733 795 1 1,265 194 ... 12 ...

1931 8,939 844 ... ... 210 ... 5 2

Delhi .. .. 1921 6,569 2,904 ... ... 273 57 96 1

1931 6,285 3,253 1 ... 267 101 84 9

Madras .. 1921 8,864 671 ... 137 322 ... 6 ...

1931 8,831 707 ... 75 380 ... 7 ...

N.W.F.P. .. .. 1921 666 9,162 ... ... 47 125 ... ...

1931 590 9,184 ... ... 51 175 ... ...

Punjab .. .. 1921 3,181 5,533 1 ... 159 1,109 17 ...

1931 2,684 5,655 2 ... 176 1,299 15 169

United Provinces .. 1921 8,509 1,428 ... ... 44 3 15 1

1931 8,440 1,484 ... ... 42 10 14 ...

States .. .. 1921 7,748 1,343 12 415 250 126 104 2

1931 7,771 1,347 12 316 307 141 101 5

N.B.—A blank indicates that the number per 10,000 is fractional ; 0 indicates that none at all were returned.

In the case of Assam the Khasi States are included in the 1921 figures; Otherwise all States are excluded from Provinces.

PART III

ON HERO AND

HERO-WORSHIP

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

Address delivered on the 101st Birthday Celebration

MAHADEO GOVIND RANADE

held on

the 18th January 1943

the Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona

First Published : 1943

Reprinted from the first edition of 1943

Facsimile of Dr. Ambedkar’s handwriting from a letter addressed to

Prof. M. B. Chitnis

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

PREFACE

The Deccan Sabha of Poona invited me to deliver an address

on the 101st birthday of the late Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade

which it proposed to celebrate and which fell on the 18th January

1940. I was not very willing to accept the invitation. For I knew

that my views on social and political problems, a discussion of which

could not be avoided in a discourse on Ranade, would not be very

pleasing to the audience and even perhaps to the members of the

Deccan Sabha. In the end I accepted their invitation. At the time

when I delivered the address I had no intention of publishing it.

Addresses delivered on anniversaries of great men are generally

occasional pieces. They do not have much permanent value. I did

not think that my address was an exception to this. But I have

some troublesome friends who have been keen on seeing the whole

of it in print and have been insisting upon it. I am indifferent

to the idea. I am quite content with the publicity it has received

and I have no desire to seek more. At the same time if there are

people who think that it is worthy of being rescued from falling

into oblivion, I do not see any reason for disappointing them.

The address as printed differs from the address as delivered in

two respects. Section X of the address was omitted from the address

as delivered to prevent the performance going beyond reasonable

time. Even without it, it took one hour and a half to deliver the

address. This is one difference. The other difference lies in the

omission of a large portion of Section VIII which was devoted to

a comparison of Ranade with Phule. For the omission there are

208

PREFACE

two reasons. In the first place, the comparison was not sufficiently

full and detailed to do justice to the two men ; in the second

place, when the difficulties of finding enough paper compelled me

to sacrifice some portion of the address this appeared to be best

offering.

The publication of the address is taking place under peculiar

circumstances. Ordinarily reviews follow publication. In this case

the situation is reversed. What is worse is that the reviews have

condemned the address in scathing terms. This is a matter primarily

for the publishers to worry about. I am happy that the publisher

knows the risk and he takes it. Nothing more need be said about

it except that it supports the view taken by my friends that the

address contains matter which is of more than ephemeral value. As

for myself I am not in the least perturbed by the condemnation of

this address by the Press. What is the ground for its condemnation ?

And who has come forward to condemn it ?

I am condemned because I criticized Mr. Gandhi and

Mr. Jinnah for the mess they have made of Indian politics, and

that in doing so I am alleged to have shown towards them hatred

and disrespect. In reply to this charge what I have to say is that

I have been a critic and I must continue to be such. It may be

I am making mistakes but I have always felt that it is better to

make mistakes than to accept guidance and direction from others

or to sit silent and allow things to deteriorate. Those who have

accused me of having been actuated by feelings of hatred forget

two things. In the first place this alleged hatred is not born of

anything that can be called personal. If I am against them it is

because I want a settlement. I want a settlement of some sort

and I am not prepared to wait for an ideal settlement. Nor can

I tolerate anyone on whose will and consent settlement depends

to stand on dignity and play the Grand Moghul. In the second

place, no one can hope to make any effective mark upon his time

and bring the aid that is worth bringing to great principles and

struggling causes if he is not strong in his love and his hatred.

I hate injustice, tyranny, pompousness and humbug, and my

hatred embraces all those who are guilty of them. I want to tell

my critics that I regard my feelings of hatred as a real force.

They are only the reflex of the love I bear for the causes I believe

209

PREFACE

in and I am in no wise ashamed of it. For these reasons I tender no

apology for my criticism of Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, the two men

who have brought India’s political progress to a standstill.

The condemnation is by the Congress Press. I know the Congress

Press well. I attach no value to its criticism. It has never refuted

my arguments. It knows only to criticise, rebuke and revile me for

everything I do and to misreport, misrepresent and pervert every-

thing I say. Nothing, that I do, pleases the Congress Press. This

animosity of the Congress Press towards me can to my mind not

unfairly, be explained as a reflex of the hatred of the Hindus for

the Untouchables. That their animosity has become personal is clear

from the fact that the Congress Press feels offended for my having

criticised Mr. Jinnah who has been the butt and the target of the

Congress for the last several years.

However strong and however filthy be the abuses which the

Congress Press chooses to shower on me I must do my duty. I am

no worshipper of idols. I believe in breaking them. I insist that if

I hate Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah—I dislike them, I do not hate

them—it is because I love India more. That is the true faith of a

nationalist. I have hopes that my countrymen, will some day learn

that the country is greater than the men, that the worship of Mr.

Gandhi or Mr. Jinnah and service to India are two very different

things and may even be contradictory of each other.

22 Prithviraj Road B. R. AMBEDKAR

New Delhi

15th March 1943

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

I must tell you that I am not very happy over this invitation. My fear is

that I may not be able to do justice to the occasion. When a year ago the

Centenary of Ranade’s Birthday was celebrated in Bombay, the Rt. Hon’ble

Srinivas Shastri was chosen to speak. For very many reasons he was

well-qualified for performing the duty. He can claim to be a contemporary

of Ranade for a part of his life. He had seen him at close range and was

an eye witness of the work to which Ranade devoted his life. He had

opportunity to judge him and compare him with his co-workers. He could

therefore expound his views about Ranade with a sense of confidence

and with intimacy born out of personal touch. He could cite an anecdote

and illuminate the figure of Ranade before his audience. None of these

qualifications are available to me. My connection with Ranade is of the

thinnest. I had not even seen him. There are only two incidents about

Ranade which I can recall. First relates to his death. I was a student in

the first standard in the Satara High School. On the 16th January 1901

the High School was closed and we boys had a holiday. We asked why it

was closed and we were told that because Ranade was dead. I was then

about 9 years old. I knew nothing about Ranade, who he was, what he

had done ; like other boys I was happy over the holiday and did not care

to know who died. The second incident which reminds me of Ranade is

dated much later than the first. Once I was examining some bundles of

old papers belonging to my father when I found in them a paper which

purported to be a petition sent by the Commissioned and non-Commissioned

officers of the Mahar Community to the Government of India against

the orders issued in 1892 banning the recruitment of the Mahars in the

Army. On inquiry I was told that this was a copy of a petition which was

drafted by Ranade to help the aggrieved Mahars to obtain redress. Beyond

these two incidents I have nothing to recall of Ranade. My knowledge

about him is wholly impersonal. It is derived from what I have read about

212

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

his work and what others have said about him. You must not expect me

to say anything of a personal character which will either interest, you or

instruct you. I propose to say what I think of him as a public-man in his

days and his place in Indian politics today.

As you are well aware, there are friends of Ranade who do not hesitate

to describe him as a great man and there are others who with equal

insistance deny him that place. Where does the truth lie? But this question

must, I think, wait upon another, namely, is history the biography of great

men ? The question is both relevant as well as important. For, if great

men were not the makers of history, there is no reason why we should

take more notice of them than we do of cinema stars. Views differ. There

are those who assert that however great a man may be, he is a creature of

Time—Time called him forth, Time did everything, he did nothing. Those

who hold this view, in my judgment, wrongly interpret history. There have

been three different views on the causes of historical changes. We have

had the Augustinian theory of history, according to which history is only

an unfolding of a divine plan in which mankind is to continue through war

and suffering until that divine plan is completed at the day of judgment.

There is the view of Buckle who held that history was made by Geography

and Physics. Karl Marx propounded a third view. According to him history

was the result of economic forces. None of these three would admit that

history is the biography of great men. Indeed they deny man any place in

the making of history. No one except theologians accepts the Augustinian

theory of history. As to Buckle and Marx, while there is truth in what they

say, their views do not represent the whole truth. They are quite wrong

in holding that impersonal forces are everything and that man is no factor

in the making of history. That impersonal forces are a determining factor

cannot be denied. But that the effect of impersonal forces depends on man

must also be admitted. Flint may not exist everywhere. But where it does

exist, it needs man to strike flint against flint to make fire. Seeds may not

be found everywhere. But where they do exist, it needs man to ground it

to powder and make it a delectable and nutritious paste and thereby lay

the foundation of agriculture. There are many areas devoid of metals. But

where they do exist, it needs a man to make instruments and machines

which are the basis of civilization and culture.

Take the case of social forces. Various tragic situations arise. One such

situation is of the type described by Thayer in his biography of Theodore

Roosevelt when he says :

“There comes a time in every sect, party or institution when it stops

growing, its arteries harden, its young men see no visions, its old men

dream no dreams ; it lives on the past and desperately tries to perpetuate

213

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

the past. In politics when this process of petrifaction is reached we call it

Bourbonism and the sure sign of the Bourbon is that, being unconscious that

he is the victim of sclerosis, he sees no reason for seeking a cure. Unable to

adjust himself to changed and new conditions he falls back into the past as an

old man drops into his worm-out arm-chair.”

The other kind of situation is not one of decay but of destruction. The

possibilities of it are always present whenever there is a crisis. The old

ways, old habits and old thoughts fail to lift society and lead it on. Unless

new ones are found there is no possibility of survival. No society has a

smooth sailing. There are periods of decay and possibilities of destruction

through which every society has to pass. Some survive, some are destroyed,

and some undergo stagnation and decay. Why does this happen? What is

the reason that some survive ? Carlyle has furnished an answer. He puts

in his characteristic way:

“No time need have gone to ruin, could it have found a great enough, a man

wise and good enough; Wisdom to discern truly what the Time wanted, valour

to lead it on to the right road thither, these are the salvation of any Time.”

This seems to me to be quite a conclusive answer to those who deny man

any place in the making of history. The crisis can be met by the discovery

of a new way. Where there is no new way found, society goes under. Time

may suggest possible new ways. But to step on the right one is not the work

of Time. It is the work of man. Man therefore is a factor in the making of

history and that environmental forces whether impersonal or social if they

are the first are not the last things.

III

Who can be called a great man ? If asked of military heroes such as

Alexander, Attila, Caesar and Tamerlane, the question is not difficult to

answer. The militarymen make epochs and effect vast transitions. They

appal and dazzle their contemporaries by their resounding victories. They

become great without waiting to be called great. As the lion is among the

deer, so they are among men. But it is equally true that their permanent

effect on the history of mankind is very small. Their conquests shrink, and

even so great a General as Napoleon after all his conquests left France

smaller than he found it. When viewed from a distance they are seen to

be only periodical, if necessary, incidents in the world’s movement, leaving

no permanent mark on the character of the society in which they live The

details of their career and their moral may be interesting, but they do not

affect society and form no leaven to transform or temper the whole.

The answer becomes difficult when the question is asked about a person

who is not a military general. For, it then becomes a question of tests, and

different people have different tests.

214

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship had a test of his own. He laid it

down in the following terms :

“But of great man especially, of him I will venture to assert that it is

incredible he should have been other than true. It seems to me the primary

foundation of him, this... No man adequate to do anything, but is first of all

in right earnest about it; what I call a sincere man. I should say sincerity,

a deep, great genuine sincerity, is the first characteristic of all men in any

way heroic.”

Carlyle was of course particular in defining his test of sincerity in

precise terms, and in doing so he warned his readers by defining what

his idea of sincerity was—

“Not the sincerity that calls itself sincere : Ah no,” he said, “that is a

very poor matter indeed ; — a shallow, braggart, conscious sincerity ; oftenest

self-conceit mainly. The great man’s sincerity is of the kind he cannot speak

of, is not conscious of : Nay, I suppose, he is conscious rather of insincerity ;

for what man can walk accurately by the law of truth for one day ? No, the

great man does not boast himself sincere, far from that; perhaps does not

ask himself if he is so : I would say rather, his sincerity does not depend

on himself ; he cannot help being sincere!”

Lord Rosebery proposed another test when dealing with Napoleon—who

was as great an Administrator as a General. In answering the question,

Was Napoleon Great ? Rosebery used the following language :

“If by ‘great’ be intended the combination of moral qualities with those of

intellect, great be certainly was not. But that he was great in the sense of

being extraordinary and supreme we can have no doubt. If greatness stands

for natural power, for predominance, for something human beyond humanity,

then Napoleon was assuredly great. Besides that indefinable spark which

we call genius, he represents a combination of intellect and energy which

has never perhaps been equalled, never certainly surpassed.”

There is a third test, suggested by the philosophers or, to be more

accurate, by those who believe in divine guidance of human affairs. They

have a different conception of what is a great man. To summarise the

summary of their view, as given by Rosebery, a great man is launched

into the world, as a great natural or supernatural force, as a scourge

and a scavenger boon to cleanse society and lead it on to the right path

who is engaged in a vast operation, partly positive, mainly negative, but

all relating to social regeneration.

Which of these is the true test ? In my judgment all are partial and none

is complete. Sincerity must be the test of a great man. Clemenceau once said

that most statesmen are rogues. Statesmen are not necessarily great men,

215

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

and obviously those on whose experience he founded his opinion must have

been those wanting in sincerity. Nonetheless no one can accept that sincerity

is the primary or the sole test. For sincerity is not enough. A great man

must have sincerity. For it is the sum of all moral qualities without which

no man can be called great. But there must be something more than mere

sincerity in a man to make him great. A man may be sincere and yet he

may be a fool, and a fool is the very antithesis of a great man. A man is

great because he finds a way to save society in its hours of crisis. But what

can help him to find the way ? He can do so only with the help of intellect.

Intellect is the light. Nothing else can be of any avail. It is quite obvious

that without the combination of sincerity and intellect no man can be great.

Is this enough to constitute a great man? At this stage we, must, I think,

make a distinction between an eminent individual and a great man. For I

am certain that a great man is something very different from an eminent

individual. Sincerity and intellect are enough to mark out an individual as

being eminent as compared to his fellows. But they arc not enough to rake

him to the dignity of a great man. A great man must have something more

than what a merely eminent individual has. What must be that thing ? Here

comes the importance of the philosopher’s definition of a great man. A great

man must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act

as the scourge and the scavenger of society. These axe the elements which

distinguish an ominent individual from a great man and constitute his title-

deeds to respect and reverence.

Was Ranade a great man ? He was of course great in his person. Vast in

physique—he could have been called “Your Immense” as the Irish servant

who could not pronounce Your Eminence used respectfully to call Cardinal

Wiseman—his master. He was a man of sanguine temperament, of genial

disposition and versatile in his capacity. He had sincerity which is the sum

of all moral qualities and his sincerity was of the sort which was prescribed

by Carlyle. It was not a conscious “braggart sincerity”. It was the natural

sincerity, a constitutional trait and not an assumed air. He was not only

big in his physique and in his sincerity, he was also big in intellect. Nobody

can question that Ranade had intellect of a high calibre. He was not merely

a lawyer and a judge of the High Court, he was a first class economist, a

first class historian, a first class educationist and a first class divine. He

was not a politician. Perhaps it is good that he was not. For if he had

been, he might not have been a great man. As Abraham Lincoln said,

“Politicians are a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of

the people and who, to say the most of them are taken as a mass, at least

one long step removed from honest men.’’ Ranade though not a politician

was a profound student of politics. Indeed it would be difficult to find in the

history of India any man who could come up to Ranade in the width of his

216

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

learning, the breadth of his wisdom and the length of his vision. There

was no subject which he did not touch and in which he did not acquire

profundity. His reading was on the scale of the colossal and every inch

he was a scholar. He was great not merely by the standard of his Time,

but he was great— measured by any standard. As I have said no claim

for being a great man can rest on the foundation of sincerity and intellect

either singly or in combination. Ranade could not be called great if he had

these two qualities and no more. His title to being a great man must rest

upon the social purposes he served and on the way he served them. On

that there can be no doubt. Ranade is known more as a social reformer

than as a historian, economist or educationist. His whole life is nothing

but a relentless campaign for social reform. It is on his role as a social

reformer that this title to being a great man rests. Ranade had both the

vision and the courage which the reformer needs, and in the circumstances

in which he was born his vision was no small a virtue than his courage.

That he developed a vision of the Prophet—I am using the word in the

Jewish sense—cannot but be regarded as a matter of surprise if the time

in which he was born is taken into account. Ranade was born in 1842 some

24 years after the battle of Kirkee which brought the Maratha Empire to an

end. The downfall of the Maratha Empire evoked different feelings among

different people. There were men like Natu who served as accessories before

the fact. There were some who played the part of accessories after the fact,

inasmuch as they were happy that the cursed rule of the Brahmin Peshwa

was brought to an end. But there can be no doubt that a large majority of

the people of Maharashtra were stunned by the event. When the whole of

India was enveloped by the advancing foreign horde and its people being

subjugated piece by piece, here in this little corner of Maharashtra lived a

sturdy race who knew what liberty was, who had fought for it inch by inch

and established it over miles and miles. By the British conquest they had

lost what was to them a most precious possession. One can quite imagine

how the best intellect of Maharashtra had its mind utterly confounded and

its horizon fully and completely darkened. What could be the natural reaction

to so great a catastrophe? Can it be other than resignation, defeatism and

surrender to the inevitable? How did Ranade react? Very differently. He held

out the hope that the fallen shall rise. Indeed he developed a new faith on

which this hope was founded. Let me quote his own words. He said :

“I profess implicit faith in two articles of my creed. This country of ours is

the true land of promise. This race of ours is the chosen race.”

He did not rest quiet by merely enunciating this new Mosaic Gospel of

hope and confidence. He applied his mind to the question of the realization

of this hope. The first requisite was of course a dispassionate analysis of the

causes of this downfall. Ranade realized that the downfall was due to certain

weaknesses in the Hindu social system and unless these weaknesses were

217

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

removed the hope could not be realized. The new gospel was therefore

followed by a call to duty. That duty was no other than the duty to reform

Hindu society. Social reform became therefore the one dominant purpose of

his life. He developed a passion for social reform and there was nothing he

did not do to promote it. His methods included meetings, missions, lectures,

sermons, articles, interviews, letters—all carried, on with an unrelenting

zeal. He established many societies. He founded many journals. But he was

not content with this. He wanted something more permanent, something

more systematic for promoting the cause of social reform. So he founded the

Social Conference, an All-India Organization which ran as an adjunct to the

Indian National Congress. Year after year the Conference met to discuss

the social ills and to find the ways of remedying them, and year after year

Ranade attended its annual sessions as though it was a pilgrimage and

fostered the cause of social reform.

In fostering the cause of social reform Ranade showed great courage.

Many people of this generation will perhaps laugh at such a claim. Courting

prison has become an act of martyrdom in India. It is regarded both as a

patriotic act and also as an act of courage. Most people who would otherwise

be beneath notice and in whose case it could rightly be said that they were

scoundrels who had taken to politics as their last refuge, have by going to

prison become martyrs and have acquired a name and fame which, to say

the least, is quite astounding. There would be some substance in this view,

if prison life involved the rigours to which men like Tilak and those of his

generation had been subjected. Prison life today has lost all its terrors. It has

become a mere matter of detention. Political prisoners are no longer treated

as criminals. They are placed in a separate class. There are no hardships to

suffer, there is no reputation to lose and there is no privation to undergo.

It calls for no courage. But even when prison life had, as in the time of

Mr. Tilak, its rigours the political prisoners could make no claim to greater

courage than a social reformer. Most people do not realize that society can

practise tyranny and oppression against an individual in a far greater degree

than a Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for

oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government, also

they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is comparable

in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication ? Who has greater

courage—the social reformer who challenges society and invites upon himself

excommunication or the political prisoner who challenges Government and

incurs sentence of a few months or a few years imprisonment ? There is

also another difference which is often lost sight of inestimating the courage

shown by the social reformer and the political patriot. When the social

reformer challenges society there is nobody to hail him a martyr. There

is nobody even to befriend him. He is loathed and shunned. But when

218

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the political patriot challenges Government he has whole society to support

him. He is praised, admired and elevated as the saviour. Who shows more

courage—The social reformer who fights alone or the political patriot who

fights under the cover of vast mass of supporters ? It would be idle to deny

that Ranade showed courage in taking up the cause of social reform. Indeed

he showed a high degree of courage. For let it be remembered that he lived

in times when social and religious customs however gross and unmoral

were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning their divine

and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but as intolerable

blasphemy and sacrilege.

His path as a reformer was not smooth. It was blocked from many

sides. The sentiments of the people whom he wanted to reform were deeply

rooted in the ancient past. They held the belief that their ancestors were

the wisest and the noblest of men, and the social system which they had

devised was of the most ideal character. What appeared to Ranade to be

the shames and wrongs of the Hindu society were to them the most sacred

injunctions of their religion. This was the attitude of the common man. The

intelligentsia was divided into two schools—a school which was orthodox in

its belief but unpolitical in its outlook, and a school which was modern in its

beliefs but primarily political in its aims and objects. The former was led by

Mr. Chiplunkar and the latter by Mr. Tilak. Both combined against Ranade

and created as many difficulties for him as they could. They not only did

the greatest harm to the cause of social reform, but as experience shows

they have done the greatest harm to the cause of political reform in India.

The unpolitical or the orthodox school believed in the Hegelian view—it is a

puzzle to me—namely to realize the ideal and idealize the real. In this it was

egregiously wrong. The Hindu religious and social system is such that you

cannot go forward to give its ideal form a reality because the ideal is bad ;

nor can you attempt to elevate the real to the status of the ideal because the

real, i.e., the existing state of affairs, is worse than worse could be. This is

no exaggeration. Take the Hindu religious system or take the Hindu social

system, and examine it from the point of social utility and social justice. It is

said that religion is good when it is fresh from the mint. But Hindu religion

has been a bad coin to start with. The Hindu ideal of society as prescribed

by Hindu religion has acted as a most demoralizing and degrading influence

on Hindu society. It is Nietzschean in its form and essence. Long before

Nietzsche was born Manu had proclaimed the gospel which Nietzsche sought

to preach. It is a religion which is not intended to establish liberty, equality

and fraternity. It is a gospel which proclaims the worship of the superman—

the Brahmin by the rest of the Hindu society. It propounds that the superman

and his class alone are born to live and to rule. Others are born to serve

219

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

them, and to nothing more. They have no life of their own to live, and

no right to develop their own personality. This has been the gospel of the

Hindu Religion. Hindu philosophy, whether it is Vedanta, Sankhya, Nyaya,

Vaishashika, has moved in its own circle without in anyway affecting the

Hindu religion. It has never had the courage to challenge this gospel. That

Hindu philosophy that everything is Brahma remained only a matter of

intellect. It never became a social philosophy. The Hindu philosophers had

both their philosophy and their Manu held apart in two hands, the right not

knowing what the left had. The Hindu is never troubled by their inconsistency.

As to their social system, can things be worst ? The Caste system is in itself

a degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which is the ideal of the Hindu. How

can anybody who is not a congenital idiot accept Chaturvarnya as the ideal

form of society ? Individually and socially it is a folly and a crime. One class

and one class alone to be entitled to education and learning! One class and

one class alone to be entitled to arms! One class and one class alone to trade!

One class and one class alone to serve! For the individual the consequences are

obvious. Where can you find a learned man who has no means of livelihood

who will not degrade his education? Where can you find a soldier with no

education and culture who will use his arms to conserve and not to destroy ?

Where can you find a merchant with nothing but the acquisitive instinct to

follow who will not descend to the level of the brute ? Where can you find the

servant who is not to acquire education, who is not to own arms and who is

not to possess other means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended

him to be ? If baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not

enough for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must be able

to weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the gale and the

wind of an aggression ? It is obvious that it cannot. Either for defence or

for offence a society must be able to mobilize its forces. With functions and

duties exclusively distributed and immutably assigned, what way is there

for mobilization ? Ninety per cent of the Hindus— Brahmins, Vaishyas and

Shudras—could not bear arms under the Hindu social system. How can a

country be defended if its army cannot be increased in the hour of its peril.

It is not Buddha who, as is often alleged, weakened Hindu society by his

gospel of non-violence. It is the Brahminic theory of Chaturvarnya that has

been responsible not only for the defeat but for the decay of Hindu society.

Some of you will take offence at what I have said about the demoralizing

effect of the Hindu socio-religious ideal on Hindu society. But what is the

truth ? Can the charge be denied ? Is there any society in the world which

has unapproachables, unshadowables and unseeables ? Is there any society

which has got a population of Criminal Tribes ? Is there a society in which

there exists today primitive people, who live in jungles, who do not know

even to clothe themselves ? How many do they count in numbers ? Is it a

matter of hundreds, is it a matter of thousands ? I wish they numbered

220

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a paltry few. The tragedy is that they have to be counted in millions, millions

of Untouchables, millions of Criminal Tribes, millions of Primitive Tribes!!

One wonders whether the Hindu civilization, is civilization or infamy? This

is about the ideal. Turn now to the state of things as it existed when Ranade

came on the scene. It is impossible to realize now the state of degradation

they had reached when the British came on the scene and with which the

reformers like Ranade were faced. Let me begin with the condition of the

intellectual class. The rearing and guiding of a civilization must depend

upon its intellectual class—upon the lead given by the Brahmins. Under

the old Hindu Law the Brahmin enjoyed the benefit of the clergy and not

be hanged even if he was guilty of murder, and the East India Company

allowed him the privilege till 1817. That is no doubt because he was the

salt of the Earth. Was there any salt left in him ? His profession had lost

all its nobility. He had become a pest. The Brahmin systematically preyed

on society and profiteered in religion. The Puranas and Shastras which

he manufactured in tons are treasure trove of sharp practices which the

Brahmins employed to befool, beguile and swindle the common mass of

poor, illiterate and superstitious Hindus. It is impossible in this address to

give references to them. I can only refer to the coercive measures which the

Brahmins had sanctified as proper to be employed against the Hindus to the

encashment of their rights and privileges. Let those who want to know read

the preamble to Regulation XXI of 1795. According to it whenever a Brahmin

wanted to get anything which could not be willingly got from his victim, he

resorted to various coercive practices—lacerating his own body with knives

and razors or threatening to swallows some poison were the usual tricks he

practised to carry out his selfish purposes. There were other ways employed

by the Brahmin to coerce the Hindus which were as extraordinary as they

were shameless. A common practice was the erection in front of the house

of his victim of the koorh—a circular enclosure in which a pile of wood was

placed—within the enclosure an old woman was placed ready to be burnt

in the koorh if his object was not granted. The second devise of such a

kind was the placing of his women and children in the sight of his victim

and threaten to behead them. The third was the Dhurna—starving on the

doorstep of the victim. This is nothing. Brahmins had started making claims

for a right to deflower the women of non-Brahmins. The practice prevailed

in the family of the Zamorin of Calicut and among the Vallabhachari sect of

Vaishnavas. What depths of degradation the Brahmins had fallen to ! If, as

the Bible says, the salt has lost its flavour wherewith shall it be salted ? No

wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a dangerous point.

The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a Regulation (VII of 1819) to

put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The preamble to the Regulation says

that women were employed wholesale to entice and take away the wives

or female children for purposes of prostitution, and it was common practice

221

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

among husbands and fathers to desert their families and children. Public

conscience there was none, and in the absence of conscience it was futile to

expect moral indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins

were engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived

on them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the lot

of the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child marriage and

they defended enforced widowhood—the two great props of the Caste system.

They defended the burning of widows, and they defended the social system

of graded inequality with its rule of hypergamy which led the Rajputs to

kill in their thousands the daughters that were born to them. What shames!

What wrongs! Can such a society show its face before civilized nations ?

Can such a society hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade

asked. He concluded that on only one condition it could be saved—namely,

rigorous social reform.

His greatest opponents however came from the political school of the

intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. According to that thesis

political reform was to have precedence over social reform. The thesis was

argued from platform to platform and was defended by eminent people like

Mr. Justice Telang, a Judge of the Bombay High Court, with the consummate

skill of an acute lawyer. The thesis caught the imagination of the people.

If there was one single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform

movement could be attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis

is unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were

wrong and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the country.

The grounds on which Mr. Justice Telang defended the Politicians’ thesis

were of course logical. But he totally forgot that logic is not reason, and

analogy is not argument. Neither did he have a correct understanding of the

inter-relation between the “social” and the “political” which Ranade had. Let

us examine the reasons for the thesis. Those that were advanced were not

very impressive. But I am prepared to meet the most impressive arguments

that could be advanced. Even then the thesis will not stand. The following

strike me as being the most impressive. In the first place, it could be said

that we want political power first because we want to protect the rights of

the people. This answer proceeds from a very frugal theory of Government

as was propounded by the American statesman Jefferson according to whom

politics was only an affair of policing by the State so that that the rights

of people were maintained without disturbance. Assume that the theory is

a sound one. The question is, what is there for the State to police if there

are no rights ? Rights must exist before policing becomes a serious matter

of substance. The thesis that political reform should precede social reform

becomes on the face of it an absurd proposition, unless the idea is that the

Government is to protect those who have vested rights and to penalize those

222

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who have none. The second ground that could be urged in support of the

thesis is that they wanted political power because they wanted to confer on

each individual certain fundamental rights by law and that such conferring of

the political rights could not take place unless there was political power first

obtained. This of course sounds very plausible. But is there any substance

in it ? The idea of fundamental rights has become a familiar one since their

enactment in the American Constitution and in the Constitution, framed by

Revolutionary France. The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to

every individual is no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make

them effective ? The prevalent view is that once rights are enacted in a

law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted assumption.

As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by the social and

moral conscience of society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared

to recognize the rights which law chooses to enact, rights will be safe and

secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no

Law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense

of the word. What is the use of the fundamental rights to the Negroes in

America, to the Jews in Germany and to the Untouchables in India? As

Burke said, there is no method found for punishing the multitude. Law can

punish a single solitary recalcitrant criminal. It can never operate against

a whole body of people who are determined to defy it. Social conscience—to

use the language of Coleridge—that calm incorruptible legislator of the soul

without whom all other powers would “meet in mere oppugnancy—is the

only safeguard of all rights fundamental or non-fundamental.”

The third argument of the politicals could be based on the right to self-

Government. That self-Government is better than good Government is a

well-known cry. One cannot give it more value than one can give to a slogan,

and all would like to be assured that self-Government would also be a good

Government. There is no doubt that the politicals wanted good Government

and their aim was to establish a democratic form of Government. But they

never stopped to consider whether a democratic form of Government was

possible. Their contention was founded on a series of fallacies. A democratic

form of Government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal

framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there

was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that democracy was

not a form of Government : it was essentially a form of society. It may not

be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community

of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it

does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an

attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social

organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and

inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in the distinction

223

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

between the privileged and the unprivileged. Unfortunately, the opponents

of Ranade were never able to realize the truth of this fact.

One may judge it by any test and it will be found that the stand that

Ranade took in this controversy and his plan of work were correct and

fundamental to if they were not the pre-requisites of political reform.

Ranade argued that there were no rights in the Hindu society which the

moral sense of man could recognize. There were privileges and disabilities,

privileges for a few and disabilities for a vast majority. Ranade struggled to

create rights. Ranade wanted to vitalize the conscience of the Hindu society

which had become moribund as well morbid. Ranade aimed to create a real

social democracy, without which there could be no sure and stable politics.

The conflict was between two opposing points of view and it centred round

the question which is more important for the survival of a nation, political

freedom or. strong moral fiber. Ranade took the view that moral stamina

was more important than political freedom. This was also the view of Lecky

the great historian who after a careful and comparative study of history

came to the conclusion that :

“The foundation of a Nation’s strength and prosperity is laid in pure domestic

life, in commercial integrity, in a high standard of moral worth, and of public

spirit, in simple habits, in courage, uprightness, and a certain soundness and

moderation of judgment which springs quite as much from character as from

intellect. If you would form a wise judgment of the future of a nation, observe

carefully whether these qualities are increasing or decaying. Observe carefully

what qualities count for most in public life. Is character becoming of greater

or less importance ? Are the men who obtain the highest posts in the nation

men of whom, in private life, irrespective of party competent judges speak

with genuine respect ? Are they of sincere convictions, consistent lives and

indisputable integrity ? It is by observing this current that you can best cast

the horoscope of a nation.”

Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his opponents

against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social Tories. In clear and

unmistakable terms he warned them saying :

“You cannot be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics and

conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. You cannot

cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the sphere of your political

rights and privileges, and at the same time keep your hearts closed and cramped.

It is an idle dream to expect men to remain enchained and enshackled in their

own superstition and social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights

and privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will find

their dreams lost.”

Experience has shown that these words of Ranade have been true, even

prophetic. Let those who deny this consider : Where are we today in politics

224

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and why are we where we are ? It is now 50 years since the National

Congress was born. Its stewardship has passed hands, I won’t say from

the sane to the insane, or from realists to idealists, but from moderates

to radicals. Where does the country stand today at the end of 50 years

of political marching ? What is the cause of this deadlock ? The answer is

simple. The cause of deadlock is the absence of Communal settlement. Ask

why is communal settlement necessary for political settlement and you

realize the fundamental importance of the stand that Ranade took. For the

answer to this question is to be found in the wrong social system, which is

too undemocratic, too over-weighed in favour of the classes and against the

masses, too class conscious and too communally minded. Political democracy

would become a complete travesty if it were built upon its foundations. That

is why nobody except the high caste Hindus will agree to make it the case

of a political Democracy without serious adjustments. Well may some people

argue to their satisfaction that the deadlock is the creation of the British

Govern ment. People like to entertain thoughts which sooth them and which

throw responsibility on others. This is the psychology of escapism. But it

cannot alter the fact that it is the defects of social system which has given

rise to the communal problem and which has stood in the way of India

getting political power.

Ranade’s aim was to cleanse the old order if not to build a new one.

He insisted on improving the moral tone of Hindu society. If he had been

heard and followed, the system would have at least lost its rigours and its

rigidity. If it could not have avoided Communal settlement it would have

made it easy. For his attempts, limited as they were, would have opened

the way to mutual trust. But the politicals had developed a passion for

political power which had so completely blinded them that they refused to

see virtue in anything else. Ranade has had his revenge. Is not the grant

of political safeguard a penalty for denying the necessity of social reform ?

How much did Ranade achieve in the field in which he played so dominant

a part ? In a certain sense the question is not very important. Achievement

is never the true measure of greatness. “Alas”, as Carlyle said, “we know

very well that ideals can never be completely embodied in practice. Ideals

must ever lie a very great way off; and we will right thankfully content

ourselves with any not intolerable approximation thereto!” Let no man,

as Schillar says, too querulously “measure by a scale of perfection the

meagre product of reality” in this poor world of ours. We will esteem him

no wise man ; we will esteem him a sickly discontented foolish man. And

yet Ranade’s record of achievement was not altogether bare. The problems

facing the then social reformers contained in the statement on social reform

prepared by Rai Bahadur P. Anandcharly were five : (1) early marriage ;

(2) remarriages of widows ; (3) liberty for our countrymen to travel—or

225

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

sojourn in foreign lands ; (4) women’s rights of property and (5) education of

women. Of this programme he achieved a great part. If he did not achieve

all, there were the odds against him, which should never be forgotten. A

clever, determined and an insincere intelligentsia came forward to defend

orthodoxy and give battle to Ranade. The scenes were exciting, as exciting

as those of a dread grim of battle. And battle it was. One cannot recall the

spirit of the time when this controversy over social reform was raging in

this country. It is not possible for decency to enter into the abuses that were

hurled, the calumnies that were uttered, the strategies that were employed

by the orthodox section against the Social Reformers. It is impossible to

read the writing of those who supported orthodoxy in their opposition to the

Age of Consent Bill without realizing the depth of the degradation to which

the so-called leaders of the peoples had fallen. The Bill aimed to punish a

husband who would have sexual intercourse with his wife if she had not

attained the age of 12. Could any sane man, could any man with a sense of

shame oppose so simple a measure ? But it was opposed, and Ranade had to

bear the brunt of the mad orthodoxy. Assuming that Ranade’s achievements

were small; who could take pride or exultation in his failure to achieve

more ? There was no cause for exultation. The decline of social reform was

quite natural. The odium of social reform was too great. The appeal of

political power too alluring. The result was that social reform found fewer

and fewer adherents. In course of time the platform of the Social Reform

Conference was deserted and men flocked to the Indian National Congress.

The politicians triumphed over the social reformers. I am sure that nobody

will now allow that their triumph was a matter for pride. It is certainly

a matter of sorrow. Ranade may not have been altogether on the winning

side, but he was not on the wrong side and certainly never on the side of

the wrong as some of his opponents were.

VIII

How does Ranade compare with others ? Comparisons are always odious

and unpleasant. At the same time it is true that there is nothing more

illuminating than comparisons. Of course in making them one must bear in

mind that to be interesting and instructive comparisons must be between

those that are alike. Fortunately there is field for comparison. Ranade was

a social reformer and as a social reformer he could be usefully compared

with other social reformers. Particularly illuminating will be the comparison

between Ranade and Jotiba Phule. Phule was born in 1827 and died in

1890. Ranade was born in 1842 and died in 1901. Thus Phule and Ranade

were contemporaries and both were foremost social reformers. Some may

perhaps demur to the wisdom of comparing Ranade with other politicians.

This can only be on the ground that Ranade was not a politician. To say that

Ranade was not a politician is to impose a very narrow and very restricted

meaning upon the term politician. A politician does not merely trade in

politics but he also represents particular faith covering both—the method

226

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

as well as the metaphysics of politics. Ranade was the founder of a school

of politics which was distinctive for its method as well as for metaphysics.

Used in this sense Ranade was a politician and could be usefully compared

with other politicians. Comparisons of Ranade with social reformers and

with politicians cannot but be illuminating and there is enough material

for such comparisons. The question really is one of time and taste. Time

will not permit any extensive comparison of Ranade being made both with

social reformers as well as with politicians. I must really choose between

comparing Ranade with social reformers or with politicians. This is a matter

of taste. Left to myself I would have preferred to use my available time to

compare Ranade with Phule. For I regard social Reform more fundamental

than political reform. Unfortunately my taste is different from the taste of

the audience and I feel that in detaining the audience I must be guided

more by its likes and dislikes than my own. The ardour for social reform

has cooled down. The craze for politics has held the Indian public in its grip.

Politics has become an appetiser—a mastic the more one tastes it the more

one craves it. The task I am undertaking is a very unpleasant one and if I

venture upon it, it is only because it is my duty to expound fully and the

desire of the public to know truly the value of Ranade’s political philosophy

and his place among politicians of today.

Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be compared ?

Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore be compared

with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of India two great men,

so big that they could be identified without being named—Gandhi and

Jinnah, What sort of a history they will make may be a matter for posterity

to tell. For us it is enough that they do indisputably make headlines for the

Press. They hold leading strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the

Muslims. They are the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare

them with Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to

make some observations upon their temperaments and methods with which

they have now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for

what they are worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be

difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal egotism,

to whom personal ascendency is everything and the cause of the country

a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of

personal feud. Consequences have no terror for them ; indeed they do not

occur to them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget

the cause, or if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency

which saves them from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of

splendid isolation. They will themselves off from their equals. They prefer to

open themselves to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient

of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have

developed a wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they

227

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

are always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be

supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In

addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. Pius IX during

whose sacred regime as Pope the issue of infallibility was raging said—

“Before I was Pope I believed in Papal infallibility, now I feel it.” This is

exactly the attitude of the two leaders whom Providence—may I say in his

unguarded moments—has appointed to lead us. This feeling of supre macy and

infallibility is strengthened by the Press. One cannot help saying that. The

language used by Gardiner to describe the Northcliffe brand of journalism,

in my opinion, quite appropriately describes the present state of journalism

in India. Journalism in India was once a profession. It has now become a

trade. It has no more moral function than the manufacture of soap. It does

not regard itself as the responsible adviser of the Public. To give the news

uncoloured by any motive, to present a certain view of public policy which it

believes to be for the good of the community, to correct and chastise without

fear all those, no matter how high, who have chosen a wrong or a barren

path, is not regarded by journalism in India its first or foremost duty. To

accept a hero and worship him has become its principal duty. Under it,

news gives place to sensation, reasoned opinion to unreasoning passion,

appeal to the minds of responsible people to appeal to the emotions of the

irresponsible. Lord Salisbury spoke of the Northcliffe journalism as written by

office-boys for office-boys. Indian journalism is all that plus something more.

It is written by drum-boys to glorify their heroes. Never has the interest of

country been sacrificed so senselessly for the propagation of hero-worship.

Never has hero-worship become so blind as we see it in India today. There

are, I am glad to say, honourable exceptions. But they are too few and their

voice is never heard. Entrenched behind the plaudits of the Press, the spirit

of domination exhibited by these two great men has transgressed all limits.

By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized

politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and

the other half hypocrites. In estabhshing their supremacy they have taken

the aid of “big business” and money magnates. For the first time in our

country money is taking the field as an organised power. The questions

which President Roosevelt propounded for American Public to consider will

arise here, if they have not already arisen : Who shall rule—wealth or

man ? Which shall lead, money or intellect ? Who shall fill public stations,

educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate Capital ?

For the present, Indian politics, at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of

being spiritualized has become grossly commercialized, so much so that it

has become a byword for corruption. Many men of culture are refusing to

concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind of sewage

system intolerably unsavoury and insanitary. To become a politician is like

going to work in the drain.

228

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a competition

in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be

known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have

the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the

All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working

Committee and its Council. The session of the Congress must be followed

by a session of the League. II the Congress issues a statement the League

must also follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words,

the Muslim League’s Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand

words. If the Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League

President must have his. If the Congress must address an appeal to the

United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be outbidden.

When is all this to end ? When is there to be a settlement ? There are no

near prospects. They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah

insists that Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that

Jinnah should admit that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has

there been such a deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one

sees in these two leaders of India. They are making long and interminable

speeches, like lawyers whose trade it is to contest everything, concede

nothing and talk by the hour. Suggest anything by way of solution for the

deadlock to either of them, and it is met by an everlasting “Nay”. Neither

will consider a solution of the problems which is not eternal. Between them

Indian politics has become “frozen” to use a well-known Banking phrase and

no political action is possible.

How does Ranade strike as compared to these two ? I have no personal

impression to give. But reading what others have said I think I can say

what he must have been like. He had not a tinge of egotism in him. His

intellectual attainments could have justified any amount of pride, nay even

insolence. But he was the most modest of men. Serious youths were captivated

by his learning and geniality. Many, feeling completely under his sway,

responded to his ennobling influence and moulded their whole lives with

the passionate reverence for their adored master. He refused to be satisfied

with the praises of fools, and was never afraid of moving in the company of

equals and of the give and take it involves, He never claimed to be a mystic

relying on the inner voice. He was a rationalist prepared to have his views

tested in the light of reason and experience. His greatness was natural. He

needed no aid of the stage nor the technique of an assumed eccentricity nor

the means of a subsidized press. As I said, Ranade was principally a social

reformer. He was not a politician in the sense of one who trades in politics.

But he has played an important part in the political advancement of India.

To some of the politicians he acted as the teacher who secured such signal

successes and who dazzled their critics by their brilliance. To some he acted

as the guide, but to all he acted as the philosopher.

229

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

What was the political philosophy of Ranade ? It may be summed up in

three propositions :

(1) We must not set up as our ideal something which is purely imaginary.

An ideal must be such that it must carry the assurance that it is a

practicable one.

(2) In politics, sentiment and temperament of the people are more

important than intellect and theory. This is particularly so in the

matter of framing a Constitution. A constitution is as much a matter

of taste as clothes are. Both must fit, both must please.

(3) In political negotiations the rule must be what is possible. That does

not mean that we should be content with what is offered. No. It

means that you must not refuse what is offered when you know that

your sanctions are inadequate to compel your opponent to concede

more.

These are the three main doctrines of Ranade’s political philosophy.

It would be quite easy to illustrate them by appropriate quotations from

his writings and his speeches. There is no time for that nor is there any

necessity, for they must be clear to every student of Ranade’s speeches and

writings. Who could quarrel with Ranade on these three propositions and

if there be one, on which ? On the first only a visionary will quarrel. We

need not take any notice of him. The second proposition is so evident that

we could only ignore it at our peril. The third proposition is something on

which a difference of opinion is possible. Indeed it is this which divided the

Liberals from the Congressmen. I am not a liberal, but I am sure the view

Ranade held was the right one. There can be no compromise on principle,

and there should not be. But once the principle is agreed upon, there can be

no objection to realize it by instalments. Graduation in politics is inevitable,

and when the principle is accepted it is not harmful and indeed it may in

certain circumstances be quite advantageous. On this third proposition there

was really no difference between him and Tilak, except this : Tilak would

have the possible maximised by the application of sanctions ; Ranade would

look askance at sanctions. This is all. On the rest they were agreed. The

absence of sanctions in Ranade’s political philosophy need not detract much

from its worth. We all know what sanctions are available to us. We have

tried all, old as well as new, with what effect I need not stop to describe.

In celebrating the birthday of Ranade we must not overlook what the

critics and opponents are likely to say. The critics will ask what is the point

in celebrating the birthday of Ranade. That the days of hero-worship are

gone long past will be the line of their argument. The oppenents will say if

I condemn idolatry when it pertains to Mr. Gandhi and to Mr. Jinnah how

do I join in idolizing Mr. Ranade ? These are very pertinent questions. True

230

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

hero-worship is dying. Of that there is no doubt. It was dying even in the

days of Carlyle who indignantly complained against his age saying—

“This is an age that as it were denies the existence of great men : denies

the inevitableness of great men.”

“Show our critics a great man”, he said and “They begin to what they call

‘account for him’; not to worship him but take the dimensions of him.”

But hero-worship is certainly not dead in India. India is still par excellence

the land of idolatry. There is idolatry in religion, there is idolatry in politics.

Heroes and hero-worship is a hard if unfortunate, fact in India’s political life.

I agree that hero-worship is demoralizing for the devotee and dangerous to

the country. I welcome the criticism in so far as it conveys a caution that

you must know that your man is really great before you start worshipping

him. This unfortunately is not an easy task. For in these days, with the

Press in hand, it is easy to manufacture great men. Carlyle used a happy

phrase when he described the great men of history as so many Bank Notes.

Like Bank Notes they represent gold. What we have to see is that they are

not forged notes. I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship

of great men. For in this country we have perhaps arrived at such a stage

when alongside the notice boards saying “beware of pickpockets” we need to

have notice boards saying “beware of great men”. Even Carlyle who defended

the worship of great men warned his readers how :

“Multitudes of men have figured in history as great men who were false and

selfish.” He regretted deeply that “The World’s wages (of homage) are pocketed

(by these so-called great men), the World’s work is not done. Heroes have gone

out; quacks have come in.”

Ranade never received the honours of apotheosis as these great men of

India today are destined to receive. How could he ? He did not come with a

message hot from Senai. He performed no miracles and promised no speedy

deliverance and splendour. He was not a genius and he had no superhuman

qualities. But there are compensations. If Ranade did not show splendour

and dominance he brought us no catastrophe. If he had no superhuman

qualities to use in the service of India, India was saved from ruin by its

abuse. If he was not a genius, he did not display that perverse supersubtlety

of intellect and a temper of mind which is fundamentally dishonest and which

has sown the seeds of distrust and which has made settlement so difficult

of achievement. There is nothing exuberant and extravagant in Ranade.

He refused to reap cheap notoriety by playing the part of an extremist.

He refused to mislead people by playing upon and exploiting the patriotic

sentiments of the people. He refused to be a party to methods which are

231

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

crude which have volume but no effect and which are neither fool-proof nor

knave-proof and which break the back even of the most earnest and sincere

servants of the country and disable them from further effort. In short Ranade

was like the wise Captain who knows that his duty is not to play with his

ship clever and masterful tricks, just for effect and show in the midst of the

ocean but to take it safely to its appointed port. In short Ranade was not

a forged bank note and in worshipping him we have no feeling of kneeling

before anything that is false.

In the second place this celebration of Ranade’s birthday is not all an

act of hero-worship. Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our unbounded

admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a totally different kind of hero-

worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a

most pernicious thing. The former is only man’s respect for everything which

is noble and of which the great man is only an embodiment. The latter is

the villain’s fealty to his lord. The former is consistent with respect, but

the latter is a sign of debasement. The former does not take away one’s

intelligence to think and independence to act. The latter makes one a perfect

fool. The former involves no disaster to the State. The latter is the source

of positive danger to it. In short in celebrating Ranade’s birthday we are

not worshipping a boss who is elected by no one, accountable to no one and

removable by no one, but paying our tribute of admiration to a leader who

led and did not drive people, who sought to give effect to their deliberate

judgment and did not try to impose his own will upon them by trickery or

by violence.

In the third place it is not for hero-worship for which this gathering has

assembled. This is an occasion to remind ourselves of the political philosophy

of Ranade. To my mind it has become necessary to remind ourselves of it

from time to time. For his is a philosophy which is safe and sound, sure if

slow. Even if it does not glitter it is nonetheless gold. Do any have doubt ? If

they have let them ponder over the following utterances of Bismark, Balfour

and Morley. Bismark the great German Statesman said :

“Politics is the game of the possible.”

Balfour in his Introduction to Walter Bagehot’s well-known book on the

English Constitution says :

“If we would find the true basis of the long drawn process which has

gradually converted medieval monarchy into a modern democracy the

process by which so much has been changed and so little destroyed, we

must study temperament and character rather than intellect and theory.

This is a truth which those who recommend the wholesale adoption of

British Institutions in strange lands might remember with advantage. Such

an experiment can hardly be without its dangers. Constitutions are easily

copied ; temperaments are not ; and if it should happen that the borrowed

constitution and the native temperament fail to correspond, the misfit may

232

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

have serious results. It matters little what other gifts a people may possess

if they are wanting in these which, from this point of view, are of most

importance. If, for example, they have no capacity for grading their loyalties

as well as for being moved by them ; If they have no natural inclination

to liberty and no natural respect for law ; If they lack good humour and

tolerate foul play ; If they know not how to compromise or when ; If they have

not that distrust of extreme conclusions which is sometimes misdescribed

as want of logic ; If corruption does not repel them ; and if their divisions

tend to be either too numerous or too profound, the successful working of

British Institutions may be difficult or impossible. It may indeed be least

possible where the arts of Parliamentary persuasion and the dexterities of

party management are brought to their highest perfection.”

Morley has observed :

“To hurry on after logical perfection is to show one’s self-ignorant of the

material of that social structure with which the politician has to deal. To

disdain anything short of an organic change in thought or institution is

infatuation. To be willing to make such changes too frequently, even when

they are possible, is fool-hardiness. That fatal French saying about small

reforms being the worst enemies of great reforms, is, in the sense in which

it is commonly used, a formula of social ruin.”

These are the principles on which success in Politics depends. Are they

different from those which Ranade enunciated ? It bespeaks greatness

in Ranade that he should have propounded them years before Bismark,

Balfour and Morley.

The generation which Ranade served was wise in taking him as its

political guide, friend and philosopher. His greatness lies in the fact that

he can be a guide, friend and philosopher to this present, nay even to

future generations.

There is one charge against Ranade which is frequently made and

which I think must be met. It is said of Ranade that he believed that

the conquest of India by the British was Providential, that it was in the

best interest of India, that she should remain within the British Empire

and that therein lay her final destiny. In short Ranade is accused of

being opposed to India’s Independence.

The charge is founded on the following utterances of Ranade :

“It cannot be easily assumed that in God’s Providence, such vast

multitudes as those who inhabit India were placed centuries together under

influences and restraints of alien domination, unless such influences and

restraints were calculated to do lasting service in the building up of the

strength and character of the people in directions in which the Indian races

233

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

were most deficient. Of one thing we are certain, that after lasting over five

hundred years, the Mohammedan Empire gave way, and made room for the

re-establishment of the old native races in the Punjab, and throughout Central

Hindusthan and Southern India, on foundations of a much more solid character

than those which yielded so easily before the assaults of the early Mohammedan

conquerors.”

“Both Hindus and Mohammedans lack many of those virtues represented

by the love of order and regulated authority. Both are wanting in the love

of municipal freedom, in the exercise of virtues necessary for civic life, and

in aptitudes for mechanical skill, in the love of science and research in the

love and daring of adventurous discovery, the resolution to master difficulties,

and in chivalrous respect for womankind. Neither the old Hindus nor the old

Mohammedan civilization was in a condition to train these virtues in a way

to bring up the races of India on a level with those of Western Europe, and

so the work of education had to be renewed, and it has been now going on for

the past century and more under the Pax Brittanica with results—which all

of us are witnesses to in ourselves.”

A mere glance at these statements is enough to show that the charge is

based on a misunderstanding if not on a misreading of the statements. The

statements are plain and simple and they cannot even by inference be said

to lead to the conclusion that Ranade was opposed to India’s independence.

In that sense the charge is false and without foundation.

These statements of Ranade far from casting any reflection upon his self-

respect testify to his wisdom and to his sagacity. What did Ranade want to

convey by these statements ? As I understand them, I think, Ranade wanted

to convey two things. The first thing he wanted to convey was that the

conquest of India by Britain has given India the time, the opportunity and

the necessary shelter for rebuilding, renovating and repairing her economic

and social structure, to refit herself for bearing the strain of any foreign

aggression when she does become free. The second thing Ranade wanted to

convey was that going out of the British Empire by India before she had

satisfied and solidified herself into a single nation, unified in thought, in

feeling, and charged with a sense of a common destiny, was to invite chaos

and disruption in the name of independence.

How very important these truths are ? People do not realize the part that

shelter plays in the smooth working out of social, economic and political

conflicts which are inevitable in every society which desires to advance.

The late Prof. Maitland was once asked to explain why Parliamentary

Institutions flourished in England but failed to take roots in Europe. His

answer reveals the importance of shelter. He said the difference was due to

the English channel. By this answer what he meant to convey was that by

234

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

reason of the English channel England was immune from foreign aggression

while she was repairing her own body politic and therefore it became safe

for people to fight against their King for Liberty and also safe for the King

to allow it to his people. This importance of shelter was also emphasized by

Abraham Lincoln. In a speech devoted to showing why American Political

Institutions were destined to remain perpetual, Lincoln said :

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined. . . with a Bonaparte

for a Commander, could not by force take a drink from Ohio, or make a track

on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”

In this Lincoln was also emphasizing the importance and the necessity

for shelter for social reconstruction. India is not a sheltered country as

England and America are. She lies across and on the roads, whether the

roads are land routes, sea routes or air routes. As she has no shelter the

fear is that she will be broken up if she is attacked from outside while she

is engaged in refitting herself. India needs a dry dock as a shelter for the

period of her refitting and the British Empire is a dry dock for her. Who

can say that Ranade was not wise in asking his countrymen to bear in mind

the importance of a shelter which the British Empire can give and which

India needs so much?

A servient nation is always eager to cut the knot and declare its

independence of the dominant nation. But it seldom stops to consider the effect

of independence on itself. Such a consideration is however very important.

It is not often realized that the knot which binds the servient nation to

the dominant nation is more necessary to the servient nation than to the

dominant nation. It depends upon the conditions inside the servient nation.

The servient nation may be one whole. The servient nation may consist of

parts. The parts may be such that they will never become one whole. Or

the parts may be such that they are not yet one whole but if held together

longer they will become one whole. The effect which the cutting of the knot

will have on the servient nation will depend upon the internal condition

of the servient nation. There may be every good in cutting the knot by

a servient nation which is one whole. Nothing good or nothing worse can

happen—depends upon how one looks at it—by the cutting of the knot by a

nation in which the parts can never become one whole. But there is positive

danger in the third case. The premature cutting of the knot is sure to lead

to disintegration where integration is desirable and possible. It would be a

wanton act. This is the second danger which Ranade wanted to caution his

countrymen against.

Who can say that Ranade was not wise in giving this caution ? Those who

are inclined to question its necessity have only to look to China. It is 30 years

since the Chinese Revolution took place. Have the Chinese settled down ? No.

People are still asking “when will the Chinese revolution stop revolving ?”

235

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

and those who know the conditions in China cannot do better than say

“Perhaps in another hundred years.” Has China found a stable Government

having the allegiance of all Chinese ? Far from it. Indeed if truth be told,

China after the revolution has been a land of disunity and disruption far

more than she was ever before. The Revolution has produced a chaos of

such magnitude that her very independence has been put in peril. Few

Indians are aware of the fact that if China has not lost her independence

as a result of the chaos caused by the Revolution it is only because she had

too many enemies who could not agree as to which of them should devour

her. The Chinese Revolution was a great mistake. That was the opinion of

Yuan Shih-k’ai who said :

“I doubt whether the people of China are at present ripe for a Republic or

whether under present conditions a Republic is adapted to the Chinese people...

The adoption of a limited monarchy would bring conditions back to the normal

and would bring stability much more rapidly than that end could be attained

through any experimental form of Government unsuited to the genius of the

people or to the present conditions in China... My only reason for favouring the

retention of the present Emperor is that I believe in a constitutional monarchy.

If we are to have that form of Government, there is nobody else whom the

people would agree upon for his place... My sole aim in this crisis is to save

China from dissolution and the many evils that would follow.”

Those who think that China should be rather a warning to Indians than

an example will, far from accusing Ranade for opposing India’s independence

will be happy that he had the wisdom to foresee the evils of a premature

revolution and warn his countrymen against taking a similar step.

Posterity is always interested in the last words and last regrets of great

men. The last words of great men are not always significant of their experience

of this world or their vision of the next. For instance the last thoughts of

Socrates were to call Crito and say, “We owe a cock to Aesculapius; discharge

the debt, and by no means omit it.” But their last regrets are always

significant and worth pondering over. Take the case of Napoleon. Napoleon

before his death at St. Helena showed evidence of being uneasy over three

capital points which constituted his last regrets. They were: that he could

not have died at some supreme moment of his career ; that he left Egypt

and gave up his Eastern ambitions ; and last but by no means the least his

defeat at Waterloo. Had Ranade any supreme regrets ? One thing is certain

that Ranade if he had any, could not have the same regrets such as those

which disturbed the peace of mind of Napoleon. Ranade lived for service and

not for glory. It mattered very little to him whether the moment of his death

was glorious or inglorious or whether he died as a hero, as a conqueror or

236

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a master or whether he died as a common man sometimes does of common

cold. As a matter of fact Ranade was not troubled by any regrets. So far as

record goes Ranade does not seem to be conscious of any act or event about

which he had any regrets. He died a happy and a peaceful death. But it is

worth-while asking could Ranade have any regrets if he came to life today ?

I am sure there is one matter over which he will feel extremely grieved—

namely the present condition of the Liberal Party in India.

What is the present position of the Liberal Party in India ? The Liberal

Party is a casualty. Indeed this is a very mild expression. The Liberals are

“the contemptibles” of Indian politics. To use the language of Norton used

in another connection they are disowned by the people, unowned by the

Government, having the virtues of neither, but possessing the vices of both.

There was a time when the Liberal Party was the rival of the Congress.

Today the relation of the Liberal Party to the Congress is that of a dog to

his master. Occasionally the dog barks at his master but for the most part

of his life he is content to follow him. What is the Liberal Party if not the

tail of the Congress ? Many are asking, why do not the Liberals merge in

the Congress—so useless has their existence become. How can Ranade help

not regretting the collapse of the Liberal Party ? How can any Indian help

regretting it ?

The collapse of the Liberal Party is a tragedy to the Liberals. But it is

really a disaster to the country. The existence of a party is so essential to

a popular Government that it is impossible to conceive the possibility of

getting on without it. As an eminent American historian says :

“It is easier to imagine the demolition of any part of our constitutional

organization, the submersion of a large part of what the constitution describes,

than to imagine our getting on without political combinations : they are our

vital institutions.”

Indeed to attempt to govern a country by the mass of voters without the

control and discipline of a Party is, to use the language of James Bryce :

“Like attempting to manage a rail-board by the votes of uniformed share

holders, or to lay the course of a sailing ship by the votes of the passengers.”

It is undeniable that a party is an essential adjunct to Popular Government.

But it is equally undeniable that the rule of a single party is fatal to Popular

Government. In fact it is a negation of Popular Government. The case of

Germany and Italy furnish the most cogent evidence on this point. Instead of

taking a warning from the totalitarian States we are taking them as models

to copy. The one party system is being hailed in this country in the name

of national solidarity. Those who are doing so are failing to take note of the

possibilities of tyranny as well as the possibilities of misdirection of public

affairs which is inherent in the one party Government. To have Popular

237

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

Government run by a single party is to let democracy become a mere

form for despotism to play its part from behind it. How under one party

Government the tyranny of the majority ceases to be an empty phrase

and becomes a menacing fact has been our experience, in India, under

the Congress Regime. Were we not told by Mr. Rajgopalachariar that the

separation of the Executive and the Judiciary which was necessary under

the British is no longer necessary ? Does it not show the Despot’s taste for

blood ? Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it is elective. Nor

does despotism become agreeable because the Despots belong to our own

kindred. To make it subject to election is no guarantee against despotism.

The real guarantee against despotism is to confront it with the possibility

of its dethronement, of its being laid low, of its being superseded by a rival

party. Every Government is liable to error of judgment, great many liable

to bad administration and not a few to corruption, injustice and acts of

oppression and bad faith. No Government ought to be free from criticism.

But who can criticize a Government ? Left to individuals it can never be

done. Sir Toby has left behind advice as to how one should deal with one’s

enemy. He said : “soon, so soon as ever thou seest him, draw, and as thou

drawest, swear horrible” But this is not possible for an individual who

wants to stand up against a Government. There are various things against

individuals successfully playing that part. There is in the first place what

Bryce calls the fatalism of the multitude, that tendency to acquiesce and

submit due to the sense of insignificance of individual effort, the sense of

helplessness arising from the belief that the affairs of men are swayed by

large forces whose movements cannot be turned by individual effort. In

the second place there is possibility of the tyranny of the majority which

often manifests in suppressing and subjecting to penalties and other social

disabilities persons who do not follow the majority, of which some of us have

good experience during the Congress regime. In the third place there is the

fear of the C.I.D. The Gestapo and all the other instrumentalities which are

at the disposal of the Government to shadow its critics and to silence them.

The secret of freedom is courage, and courage is born in combination

of individuals into a party. A party is necessary to run Government. But

two parties are necessary to keep Government from being a despotism. A

democratic Government can remain democratic only if it is worked by two

parties—a party in power and a party in opposition. As Jennings puts it :

“If there is no opposition there is no democracy. ‘His Majesty’s Opposition’

is no idle phrase. His Majesty needs an opposition as well as a Government.”

In the light of these considerations who could deny that the collapse of

the Liberal Party in India is not a major disaster ? Without the resusciation

of the Liberal Party or the formation of another party the fight for freedom

238

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

will result in loss of freedom for despotism is antithetical of freedom whether

the despotism is native or foreign. It is a pity Indians have lost sight of this

fact. But I have no doubt those who are shouting that the Congress is the

only party and that the Congress is the nation will live to rue their decision.

Why has the Liberal Party collapsed? Is there something wrong in the

Philosophy of Ranade ? Is there anything wrong with the men in the Liberal

Party ? Or is the working of the Liberal Party at fault ? I for one hold that

there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the philosophy of Ranade. Nor

can it be said that of the two the Congress has the best cause and the

Liberal Party the best men. The Liberal Party has both. To my mind what

has brought about the collapse of the Liberal Party is the complete lack of

organization.

It may not be without interest to expose the weaknesses in the organization

of the Liberal Party.

As pointed out by Pendleton Herring in his volume on Politics of Democracy

the organization of a party is spread over three concentric rings. The centre

ring represents the oligarchy in control of the party organization—what is

called the High Command. There are associated with it, its workers who

are primarily concerned with securing their livelihood through the party

organiza tion whether as party officials or through public office. They are

called professional politicians and constitute the party machine. Surrounding

this inner group—the High Command and the machine—there is a large

circle of persons bound to the party by ties of tradition and emotional

loyalty. They think of the principles professed by the party. They are more

concerned with its ideals and symbols than with the acts of the professional

party workers and leaders. They vote for the party ideal rather than for the

party record. Outside this second ring lies that vast body of people who are

not attached to any party. It is a floating population. The reason for their

being unattached is either because they are aimless, thoughtless or because

they have particular interests which are not included in the platform of

any party. Those outside the second ring constitute the most vital field of

action for a political party. They are the prize which a party must capture.

To capture this prize it is not enough to enunciate principles and formulate

policies. Men are not interested in principles and policies. But they are

interested in accomplishing things. What is necessary for a party is to bring

about concerted action. For in the words of President Woodrow Wilson, given

self-Government with a majority rule, things can be accomplished not by

individual voice but by concerted action. Now for concerted action what is

necessary is the crystallization of individual opinions into public opinion.

This crystallization or building up of public opinion as a sanction behind a

particular principle becomes the main functions of a party. Theoretically,

political parties are agencies for the expression and execution of public

opinion but in practice parties create, direct, influence and often control

239

RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH

public opinion. Indeed this is the chief function of a party. For this, a party

must do two things. In the first place it must establish contact with the

masses. It must go out among the masses with its wares—its principles,

policies, ideas and candidates. In the second place it must carry on propaganda

among the masses in favour of its wares. It must animate them and enlighten

them, to quote Bryce again “Give the voters some knowledge of the political

issues they have to decide, to inform them of their leaders, and the crimes

of their opponents”. These are the basic factors from which concerted action

can arise. A party which fails to forge concerted action has no right to call

itself a party.

Which of these things the Liberal Party has done as an organization? The

Liberal Party has only the High Command. It has no machine. Not having

any machine the high command is only a shadow. Its following is confined

to that second concentric ring consisting of persons who are bound by ties

of tradition. The leaders have nothing to evoke emotional loyalty. They have

no war-cry to gather a crowd. The Liberal Party does not believe in mass

contact. It would be difficult to imagine a party so completely isolated and

insulated from the main mass of people. It does not believe in conversion.

Not that it has no Gospel to preach ; but like the Hindu religion it is a

non-proselytising creed. It believes in the formulation of principles and

policies. But it does not work for giving effect to them. Propaganda and

concerted action are anathema to the Liberal Party. Individual voices and

annual meetings and clamour for invitation when a Cripps arrives or when

the Viceroy decides to invite important individuals have become the limits

of its political activity.

Is there any wonder if the Liberal Party has fallen into disrepute ? The

Liberal Party has forgotten the most elementary fact that organization is

essential for the accomplishment of any purpose and particularly in politics

where the harnessing of so many divergent elements in a working unity is

so great.

Who is responsible for this collapse of the Liberal Party in India ?

How ever much we may regret to have to say it, I think it will have to be

admitted that the responsibility for this catastrophe does to some extent fall

on Ranade. Ranade belonged to the Classes. He was born and bred among

them. He never became a man of masses. The Liberal Party has no machine

and the reason why it did not forge a machine is because it did not believe

in mass contact. This aversion to mass contact is the legacy of Ranade. In

avoiding mass contact the party is following the tradition left by Ranade.

There is another legacy of Ranade to the Liberal Party and that relates to

the false faith in the driving force of principles and policies. Mazzini once

said : “You may kill men, you cannot kill a great idea.” To me it appears

to be a most mistaken view. Men are mortal. So are ideas. It is wrong to

hold that an idea will take roots pro prio-vigore. An idea needs propagation

240

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

as much as a plant needs watering. Both will otherwise wither and die.

Ranade agreed with Mazzini and did not believe that the fructification of

an idea needed the resources of strenuous husbandry. If the Liberal Party

is content with mere formulation of principles and policies it is also because

of this tradition of Ranade.

What is the duty of the Liberals. All Liberals I know will say our duty

is to follow the master. What else could be the attitude of a devout band of

disciples ? But can anything be more mistaken or more uncritical ? Such an

attitude implies two things. It means that a great man works by imposing

his maxims on his disciples. It means that the disciples should not be wiser

than the master. Both these conclusions are wrong. They do injustice to

the master. No great man really does his work by crippling his disciple by

forcing on them his maxims or his conclusions. What a great man does is

not to impose his maxims on his disciples. What he does is to evoke them,

to awaken them to a vigorous and various exertion of their faculties. Again

the pupil only takes his guidance from his master. He is not bound to

accept his master’s conclusions. There is no ingratitude in the disciple not

accepting the maxims or the conclusions of his master. For even when he

rejects them he is bound to acknowledge to his master in deep reverence

“You awakened me to be myself : for that I thank you.” The master is not

entitled to less. The disciple is not bound to give more.

It is therefore wrong to the master as well as to himself for the disciple

to bind himself to the maxims and conclusions of his Master. His duty is to

know the principles and if he is convinced of their value and their worth,

to spread them. That is the wish of every Master. Jesus wished it, Buddha

wished it. I am sure the same must be the wish of Ranade. It follows that

if the Liberals have faith in, and love and respect for Ranade their supreme

duty lies not merely in assembling together to sing his praises but in

organising themselves for spreading the Gospel of Ranade.

What hope is there of the Liberals coming forward to fulfil this duty?

Signs are very depressing. In the last election the Liberals did not even

contest the seats. That of course is in itself a matter of some surprise. But

this pales into nothing when one recalls the announcement made by the

Rt. Hon’ble Srinivas Shastri—the Leading Light of the Liberal Party— that

he wished the Congress to succeed ! ! There is no parallel to this except

in the treacherous and treasonous conduct of Bhishma who lived on the

bounty of the Kauravas but wished and worked for success to their enemies

the Pandavas. This shows even the Liberals had lost faith in the gospel of

Ranade. If this is the general condition of health of the Liberal Party it is

better if the party died. It would clear the way for a new orientation and

spare us the tedium of idle clatter of liberals and liberalism. For such an

event even Ranade may express satisfaction from his grave.



PART IV

ON CONSTITUTIONAL

REFORMS

EVIDENCE BEFORE

THE

SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

FRANCHISE

Examined on : 27th January 1919

From the Report of the Reforms Committee (Franchise)

Vol. II, 1919

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE

SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

The Committee was constituted as under :

The Rt. Hon. Lord Southborough, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., G.C.M.C. (Chairman).

Sir Frank G. Sly, K.C.S.I., I.C.S.

Sahibzada Aftab Ahmed Khan.

The Hon’ble Babu Surendranath Banerjea.

The Hon’ble Mr. M. N. Hogg.

W. M. Hailey, Esq., C.S.I., C.I.E., I.C.S.

The Hon’ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri (Not present on 25-1-1919 and 27-1-1919).

And the following added members :

L. C. Crump, Esq., I.C.S.

K. Natarajan, Esq.

P. C. Tallents, Esq., I.C.S. (Secretary).

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE

SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

WRITTEN STATEMENT

“The most difficult and the most momentous question of Government

(is) how to transmit the force of individual opinion and preference into

public action. This is the crux of popular institutions.” So says Professor

A.B. Hart. But this is only half the definition of popular Government. It

is therefore necessary to emphasize the other half which is equal if not

more in importance. As the Government is the most important field for the

exercise of individual capacities, it is in the interest of the people that no

person as such should be denied the opportunity of actively participating

in the process of Government. That is to say popular Government is not

only Government for the people but by the people. To express the same

in a different way, representation of opinions by itself is not sufficient to

constitute popular Government. To cover its true meaning it requires personal

representation as well. It is because the former is often found without the

latter that the Franchise Committee has to see in devising the franchises

and constituencies for a popular Government in India, it provides for both,

i.e., representation of opinions and representation of persons. Any scheme

of franchise and constituency that fails to bring this about fails to create a

popular Government.

2. Success in this task will ultimately depend upon the accuracy of the

de facto conception of the society which is to be given the popular form of

Government. De facto India was well portrayed by Lord Dufferin when he

described it as a ...

“Population . . . composed of a large number of distinct nationalities,

professing various religions, practising diverse rites, speaking different

languages, while many of them ... still further separated from one another

by discordant prejudices, by conflicting sources of usages, and even

antagonistic material interests. But perhaps the most patent characteristic

248

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of our Indian cosmos is its division into two mighty political communities as

distant from each other as the poles apart—On the one hand the Hindus—with

their elaborate caste distinctions—on the other hand, the Mohammedans—with

their social equality. To these must be added a host of minor nationalities

most of them numbering millions—almost as widely differentiated from one

another by ethnological or political distinctions as are the Hindus from the

Mohammedans, such as Sikhs, with their warlike habits and traditions and

their enthusiastic religious beliefs, the Rohillas, the Pathans, the Assamese,

the Baluchis and other wild and martial tribes on our frontiers, the hillmen

dwelling in the folds of the Himalayas, our subjects in Burma, Mongol in

race and Buddhist in religion, the Gonds, Mhars, Bheels and other non-

Aryan people in the centre and south of India, and the enterprising Parsees,

with their rapidly developing manufactures and commercial interests. Again,

amongst these numerous communities may be found, at one and the same

moment, all the various stages of civilization through which mankind has

passed from the pre-historic ages to the present days.”

3. Englishmen have all along insisted that India is unfit for

representative Government because of the division of her population into

castes and creeds. This does not carry conviction with the advanced wing

of Indian politicians. When they say that there are also social divisions

in Europe as there are in India they are amply supported by facts. The

social divisions of India are equalled, if not outdone, in a country like

the United States of America. Corresponding to those in the former, we

have in the latter men bonded together in a criminal conspiracy and trust

or combinations that prey upon the public. Not only are there political

sub-divisions but also industrial, scientific, and religious associations,

differing in their aims and their attitudes towards each other. Apart

from political parties with diverse ends, social sets, cliques and gangs

we find in the United States of America more permanent divisions of the

population such as the Poles, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, Russians, etc.,

each with its own language, religious and moral codes and traditions. If

social divisions unfit a country for representative Government, it should

unfit the United States of America as much as India. But if with all the

social divisions, the United States of America is fit for representative

Government, why not India ? Ask the Indian politicians, so entrenched,

it is difficult to dislodge them, and show that the social divisions of India

are of a different kind or grant them their contention. Without these two

there is no third alternative possible.

4. In my opinion their contention cannot be granted for the social

divisions of India do matter in politics. How they matter can be best shown

by understanding when they don’t matter. Men live in a community by

virtue of the things they have in common. What they must have in common

in order to form a community are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge,

249

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

a common understanding ; or to use the language of the Sociologists,

they must be like-minded. But how do they come to have these things in

common or how do they become like-minded ? Certainly, not by sharing

with another as one would do in the case of a piece of cake. To cultivate

an attitude similar to others or to be like-minded with others is to be in

communication with them or to participate in their activity. Persons do not

become like-minded by merely living in physical proximity, any more than

they cease to be like-minded by being distant from each other. Participation

in a group is the only way of being like-minded with the group. Each group

tends to create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness, but where there

are more groups than one to be brought into political union, there would

be conflict among the differently like-minded. And so long as the groups

remain isolated the conflict is bound to continue and prevent the harmony

of action. It is the isolation of the groups that is the chief evil. Where the

groups allow of endosmosis they cease to be evil. For endosmosis among

the groups makes possible a resocialization of once socialized attitudes. In

place of the old, it creates a new like-mindedness, which is representative

of the interests, aims, and aspirations of all the various groups concerned.

Like-mindedness is essential for an harmonious life, social or political and,

as has just been shown, it depends upon the extent of communication,

participation or endosmosis. Applying this test to the divisions in India,

we must pronounce upon them as constituting an obstacle in the path of

realizing an harmonious political life.

5. The groups or divisions each with its set like-mindedness that are sure

to be in conflict may be given as follows :

(1) Hindus;

(2) Mohammedans ;

(3) Christians ;

(4) Parsees;

(5) Jews, etc.

Except the Hindus the rest of the divisions are marked by such complete

freedom of communication from within that we may expect their members

to be perfectly like-minded with respect to one another. Regarding the

Hindus, however, the analysis must be carried on a little farther. The

significant fact about the Hindus is that before they are Hindus they are

members of some caste. The castes are so exclusive and isolated that the

consciousness of being a Hindu would be the chief guide of a Hindu’s

activity towards non-Hindu. But as against a Hindu of a different caste

his caste-consciousness would be the chief guide of activity. From this, it is

plain that as between two Hindus, caste-like-mindedness is more powerful

than the like-mindedness due to their both being Hindus. Thus from within

the Hindus, as from without, there is likely to be a conflict of like-minded

persons. There are some who argue that this conflict runs through the whole

250

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

gamut of the caste system. But this is protesting too much. From the point of

view of communication the Hindus, in spite of castes, divide themselves into

two significant groups—the touchables and the untouchables. The touchables

have enough communication between them to enable us to say that the

conflict of like-mindedness so far as they are concerned is not much to be

dreaded. But there is a real difference and consequent conflict between the

like-mindedness of the touchables and the untouchables. Untouchability is

the strongest ban on the endosmosis between them. Their complete isolation

accounts for the acuteness of the difference of like-mindedness.

The real social divisions of India then are :

(1) Touchable Hindus.

(2) Untouchable Hindus.

(3) Mohammedans.

(4) Christians.

(5) Parsees.

(6) Jews.

6. It will not do good to ignore these real divisions in devising a system

of policy, if the policy is to take the form of popular Government. But if the

success of popular Government depends upon how well the constituencies

and franchises transmit the social forces and how well they secure personal

representation ; we must first study the form which the conflict between

these groups will assume in an election.

7. In a territorial constituency, which will group together voters

belonging to the above groups, a majority of votes will declare a candidate

to be a representative for the constituency in question. Now the question

arises : is such a candidate, a true representative of the groups, covered

by the territorial constituency ? Is he a true mirror of the mind of the

constituency ? Is he a representative of all the interests in the constituency ?

To be concrete, will a Hindu candidate represent Mohammedan interests ?

At this stage it must be recalled that the various divisions described above

are held together by a community of interests which are non-secular or

purely religious. We cannot say that each division is held together by a

community of interests which are secular or material. If so, then for secular

purposes the groups will be broken up. From the point of view of material

interests, there are no such people as Mohammedans, Parsees, Hindus, etc.

There will be in each of these groups landlords, labourers, capitalists, free

traders, protectionists, etc., each of the groups having community of interests

which are material will be composed of Hindus, Mohammedans, Parsees,

etc. Consequently, a Hindu candidate can very well represent the material

interests of the Mohammedans and vice versa. There is thus no conflict of

material interest in the main among the communities as such. If we suppose

that religious interests in future will occupy a subordinate place in the

251

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

affairs of men, the secular interests of a group can be well represented by

a candidate from another group.

8. From this point of view a territorial constituency will be sufficient

for a popular Government. A little more consideration will show that it

will be sufficient for only one-half the definition of popular Government.

How true it is, will be shown presently. In an electoral fight between the

various groups in a territorial constituency the voters will discriminate in

favour of a candidate with whom they are in sympathy. But with whom

they will be in sympathy is determined for them in advance. Given two

candidates belonging to different groups but purporting to represent the

same interest, the voters will mark their votes on the person belonging to

the same community. Any group yielding a large number of electors will

have its own candidate elected. This discrimination on the part of the voters,

though it may not leave unrepresented the interests of the members of the

minor groups, leaves them without any chance of personal representation.

9. To those who are busy in devising schemes for the proper and adequate

representation of interests and opinions dilating on the importance of

personal representation is likely to seem idle. But personal representation

is not therefore unimportant. In recent times “Government for the people”

has claimed more attention than “Government by the people”. In fact there

are instances to show that “Government for the people” can exist in the best

sense of the phrase without there being a “Government by the people.” Yet

all political theorists will unanimously condemn such a form of Government.

And the why of it is important to know. It will be granted that each kind

of association, as it is an educative environment, exercises a formative

influence on the active dispositions of its members. Consequently, what one

is as a person is what one is as associated with others. A Government for

the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and

others into subjects; because it is by the reflex effects of association that one

can feel and measure the growth of personality. The growth of personality

is the highest aim of society. Social arrangement must secure free initiative

and opportunity to every individual to assume any role he is capable of

assuming provided it is socially desirable. A new rule is a renewal and

growth of personality. But when an association—and a Government is after

all an association—is such that in it every role cannot be assumed by all, it

tends to develop the personality of the few at the cost of the many—a result

scrupulously to be avoided in the interest of Democracy. To be specific, it is

not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers ; otherwise

who can be law-makers will be masters of those who can only be electors.

10. Territorial constituencies are therefore objected to, and rightly, on

the ground that they do nothing to prevent this absurd outcome. They

erroneously suppose that electors will vote on the programmes of the

252

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

candidates without any regard for their persona. As a matter of fact, the

electors before they are electors are primarily members of a group. The

persona of the candidates does matter with them. Naturally, therefore, as

members of a group they prefer the candidate who belongs to their group

to another candidate who does not belong to their group though both of

them claim to represent the same interest. As a result of this preference

the electors of a large group are destined to rise to a higher position of

becoming eventual law-makers, while the electors of a smaller group for no

fault of theirs are doomed to a lower position of remaining electors. One crux

of popular Government is the representation of interests and opinions. The

other crux is personal representation. Territorial constituencies fail to create

popular Government because they fail to secure personal representation to

members of minor groups.

11. If this is a correct analysis as to how the social divisions operate to the

prejudice of the political life of some communities, never was a more improper

remedy advocated to meet the situation than proportional representation.

Proportional representation is intended to give proportionate representation

to views. It presupposes that voters vote for a candidate because of his views

and not because of his persona. Proportional representation is ill-suited for

the purpose in hand.

12. We have therefore two possible methods of meeting the situation :

either to reserve seats in plural constituencies for those minorities that cannot

otherwise secure personal representation or grant communal electorates. Both

have their usefulness. So far as the representation of the Mohammedans is

concerned, it is highly desirable that they should participate in a general

election with seats reserved for them in plural constituencies. The angularity

of the division that separates the Hindus and Mohammedans is already

sharp and communal representation, it may be urged, sharpens it the

more. Communal election, however, seems to be a settled fact, so far as the

Mohammedans are concerned and nothing is likely to alter it, even though

alteration is likely to be beneficial.

13. But this argument is mainly intended to concern itself with the

representation of the Hindus in general, and of the untouchable Hindus in

particular. The discussion of the representation of the Hindus may be best

introduced by a quotation which expresses the newer consciousness that has

arisen in the various Hindu groups. It is said :

“A community may claim representation only on the ground of separate interests

which require protection. In India, such interests are of three kinds only : either

they arise out of religious antipathies which are pretty strong in India, or out of

the backward state of a community in educational matters, or out of the socio-

religious disabilities to which a community may be subject. Confining ourselves

to the Hindu communities there are certain communities who, besides being very

253

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

backward, are suffering under a great social tyranny. The untouchable classes

must have their own men in the Council Hall to fight for the redress of their

grievances. The non-Brahmins as a class are subjected to the social and

intellectual domination of the Brahmin priesthood and may therefore rightly

advocate separate representation.”

14. From this it will be seen that the new consciousness among the Hindus

while acknowledging the separate interests of the untouchables does not

accept the position that the touchable Hindus form a group by themselves.

The new consciousness insists on dividing the touchable group into Brahmins

and non-Brahmins each with its own separate interests. Separate electorates

or reserved seats in mixed electorates are demanded for the three groups

in which the Hindus are divided. Before dealing with the problems of the

representation of the untouchables something will be said on the question

of the Brahmins and non-Brahmins.

15. That the non-Brahmins are “backward in educational matters” cannot

be said in any way to be their special interest. It is the general interest of

all even of those Brahmins who are educationally backward. “The intellectual

and social domination of the Brahmins” is not a matter that affects the

non-Brahmins alone. It affects all and it is therefore the interest of all.

What remains then as a special interest for the non-Brahmins to require

their protection ?

The case for separate representation for non-Brahmins fails because they

cannot prove to have a common non-Brahmin interest.

16. But do they fail to secure personal representation ?

This can be best shown by reference to figures—

Group I Group II

Caste of

Local Board

voters

No. of voters

for the Local

Boards of the

districts of

Belgaum,

Bijapur and

Dharwar 2

Total

population

of the three

districts

No. of voters

for the Local

Boards of

the

districts of

Ratnagiri

and

Kolaba

Total

population

of the two

districts

12345

Brahmins . . 4,600 85,739 4,477 89,786

Lingayats . . 12,730 933,123 . . . . . . . .

Marathas . . 1,074 255,526 3,667 446,077

Mahars . . 22 196,751 33 138,738

Mohammedans . . 661 295,838 1,169 106,273

Others . . 4,241 1,065,821 2,837 1,016,930

Total . . 23,328 2,832,798 12,183 1,797,804

254

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Reducing the above figures to the basis of a thousand we have the following

interesting result :

Group I Group II

Names of Castes Propor -

tion of

popula -

tion of

a caste

to every

thousand

of the

popula -

tion

covered

Propor-

tion of

voters of

a caste

to every

thousand

of the

popula -

tion of

the same

caste

Propor-

tion of

voters of

a caste

to every

thousand

of voters

Propor-

tion of

popula-

tion of

a caste

to every

thousand

of the

popula-

tion

covered

Propor-

tion of

voters of

a caste

to every

thousand

of the

popula-

tion of

the same

caste

Propor-

tion of

voters of

a caste

to every

thousand

of voters

1234567

Brahmins . . 30.2 53.7 197.2 50.8 49.8 367.4

Lingayats . . 329.4 13.6 545.7 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marathas . . 90.2 4.2 46.0 248.8 8.2 300.9

Mahars . . 69.5 0.1 0.9 74.5 0.2 2.7

Mohammedans . . 104.4 2.2 28.3 59.2 10.9 95.9

Others . . 376.2 3.9 181.3 562.2 2.8 232.8

So arranged, the conclusions to be drawn from these figures are highly

important.

(1) The Brahmins, given a uniform franchise for all, though a small

minority so far as numbers are concerned becomes a majority so far

as the total of voters is concerned as is the case in Group II.

(2) Though with an uniform franchise the non-Brahmin communities

like the Lingayats and Marathas do not fail to figure on the voters’

list, the proportion of their voters to their population is insignificant

as compared with the proportion which the Brahmin voters bear to

the Brahmin population.

17. The proportion of the Brahmins to their voters is really extravagant.

It is justified neither by faith in them nor by their own numbers. The

Lingayats though they can legitimately complain that the proportion of

their voters is small will succeed in securing personal representation. The

Marathas though larger in numbers than the Brahmins, besides the very

small proportion of their voters suffer on the voters’ list and very likely will

fail to secure personal representation for themselves.

255

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

So argued, the case for special provision of the Marathas can be sustained

and should be admitted.

18. The question is in what form the provision should take. In my

opinion such provision instead of taking the form of separate electorates of

reserved seats should take the form of a low pitched franchise. The franchise

for the non-Brahmin should be lower than that for the Brahmin. By this

arrangement the Marathas would improve their position on the voters’ list

and the altogether favoured position of the Brahmin would be equalized. It is

in the interest of all that the Brahmin should not play such a preponderant

part in politics as he has been doing hitherto. He has exerted a pernicious

influence on the social life of the country and it is in the interest of all that

his pernicious influence should be kept at a minimum in politics. As he is

the most exclusive he is most anti-social.

19. Even the authors of the report on constitutional reforms are not in

favour of a limited or uniform franchise. They say, “We consider that the

limitations of the franchise, which it is obviously desirable to make as

broad as possible, should be determined rather with reference to practical

difficulties than to any prior considerations as to the degree of education

or amount of income which may be held to constitute a qualification. It is

possible that owing to unequal distribution of population and wealth it may

be necessary to differentiate the qualifications for a vote not merely between

provinces, but between different parts of the same province” (P. 147) To this

I should like to add that we should differentiate the qualifications for a vote

not merely between provinces or parts thereof but between communities

of the same province. Without this differentiation some communities with

a small but wealthy or educated population will secure more votes than a

large community consisting of poor and uneducated members. Uniformity

in franchise should be dispensed with. An important result will be that

communal representation or reservation of seats for some non-Brahmin

communities who are now clamouring for it would be avoided.

20. The untouchables are usually regarded as objects of pity but they are

ignored in any political scheme on the score that they have no interests to

protect. And yet their interests are the greatest. Not that they have large

property to protect from confiscation. But they have their very persona

confiscated. The socio religious disabilities have dehumanized the untouchables

and their interests at stake are therefore the interests of humanity. The

interests of property are nothing before such primary interests.

21. If one agrees with the definition of slave as given by Plato, who

defines him as one who accepts from another the purposes which control

his conduct, the untouchables are really slaves. The untouchables are so

socialized as never to complain of their low estate. Still less do they ever

dream of trying to improve their lot, by forcing the other classes to treat

256

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

them with that common respect which one man owes to another. The idea

that they have been born to their lot is so ingrained in their mind that it

never occurs to them to think that their fate is anything but irrevocable.

Nothing will ever persuade them that men are all made of the same clay,

or that they have the right to insist on better treatment than that meted

out to them.

22. The exact description of the treatment cannot be attempted. The

word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has

untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in

the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain

civil rights. For instance, in Konkan the untouchables are prohibited from

using the public road. If some high caste man happens to cross him, he has

to be out of the way and stand at such a distance that his shadow will not

fall on the high caste man. The untouchable is not even a citizen. Citizen

ship is a bundle of rights such as (1) personal liberty, (2) personal security,

(3) rights to hold private property, (4) equality before law, (5) liberty of

conscience, (6) freedom of opinion and speech, (7) right of assembly, (8) right

of representation in a country’s Government and (9) right to hold office under

the State. The British Government by gradual growth may be said to have

conceded these rights at least in theory to its Indian subjects. The right

of representation and the right to hold office under the State are the two

most important rights that make up citizenship. But the untouchability of

the untouchables puts these rights far beyond their reach. In a few places

they do not even possess such insignificant rights as personal liberty and

personal security, and equality before law is not always assured to them.

These are the interests of the untouchables. And as can be easily seen they

can be represented by the untouchables alone. They are distinctively their

own interests and none else can truly voice them. A free trade interest can

be voiced by a Brahmin, a Mohammedan or a Maratha equally well. But

none of these can speak for the interests of the untouchables because they

are not untouchables. Untouchability constitutes a definite set of interests

which the untouchables alone can speak for. Hence it is evident that we

must find the untouchables to represent their grievances which are their

interests and, secondly, we must find them in such numbers as will constitute

a force sufficient to claim redress.

23. Now, will a general territorial electorate provided for the adequate

return of the untouchables to the law-making body ? Referring back to

the figures we find that the untouchables (represented in the table by the

Mahars), though they formed 69.4 in every thousand of the population, did

not claim even a voter from their class. Under such circumstances it is

impossible for them to elect their own man in a general electorate. On the

other hand they must despair of any votes being cast by the touchable Hindus

for an untouchable candidate. The gradation of castes produces a certain

257

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

theological basis which cuts the untouchables both ways : in the minds

of the lower orders it creates a preference for the higher orders while it

creates a contempt for the lower orders in the minds of the higher orders.

Thus the ascending scale of preference and the descending scale of hatred

and contempt beggars the untouchables both ways. Without giving a single

vote to the untouchables the touchables are sure to make a large draft on

the already meagre voting strength of the untouchables.

24. So situated, the untouchables with the largest interests at stake will

be the greatest sufferers in a general territorial electorate. To give them

an opening, special provision shall have to be made for their adequate

representation. But before a scheme can be outlined it is necessary to see

how much is the untouchable population in the Bombay Presidency. The

Census Report for the Bombay Presidency for the year 1911 gives the

following figures for castes which “cause pollution” :

Bhungis . . . . . . . . 93,691

Chamars

Mochis . . . . . . . . 306,478

Machigars

Sochis

Mhars . . . . . . . . 1,470,992

Holiyas

Dheds

Mangs . . . . . . . . 274,037

Madigs

Total . . 2,145,193

To this must be added the . .

Dhors amounting to . . . . . . 13,506

Total Untouchables . . 2,158,699

The following figures give the distribution of the untouchables by districts :

District Total

population

1911

Total

Hindu

population

Total

untouchable

Population

Percentage

of un-

touchables

to the total

population

Percentage

of un-

touchables

to the

Hindu

population

123456

British Districts (exclu-

ding Aden).

19,628,477 14,920,267 1,627,980 8 10.9

1. Bombay City . . 979,445 664,042 89,052 9 11.6

Northern Division . . 3,685,383 3,117,263 245,050 6.6 7.8

2. Ahmedabad . . 827,809 693,155 78,869 10 11.4

3. Broach . . 306,717 192,935 22,390 7 11.6

258

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

1 2 3456

4. Kaira . . 691,744 598,164 41,497 5.9 6.9

5. Panch Mahals . . 332,695 274,339 14,410 4 5

6. Surat . . 654,109 571,745 36,509 5.6 6

7. Thana . . 882,309 786,925 50,010 5.6 6

Central Division . . 6,387,064 5,993,828 7,73,184 12 13

8. Ahmednagar . . 945,305 855,676 116,929 12 13.6

9. Khandesh (East) . . 1,034,886 902,131 112,391 10.8 12

10. Khandesh (West) . . 580,723 474,200 36,809 6 7.7

11. Nasik . . 905,030 843,705 97,740 10.7 11

12. Poona . . 1,071,512 991,725 113.118 12.4 13.3

13. Satara . . 1,081,278 1,028,176 144,688 13 14

14. Sholapur . . 768,330 703,215 129,063 16.7 18

Southern Division . . 5,061,150 4,502,708 385,470 7.6 8.5

15. Belgaum . . 943,820 817,797 83,199 8.8 10.1

16. Bijapur . . 862,973 757,542 80,501 9 10.6

17. Dharwar . . 1,026,005 872,885 52,540 5 6

18. Kanara . . 430,548 383,624 10,767 2.4 2.9

19. Kolaba . . 594,156 560,266 51,108 8.5 9.1

20. Ratnagiri . . 1,203,638 1,110,594 107,354 8.9 9.7

Sind (British

Districts)

. . 3,513,435 837,426 135,224 3.8 16

25. The total population of the Bombay Presidency by the Census of 1911

(British districts only) is 19,626,477. Of this the untouchable population is

1,627,980 or 8 per cent of the total. Assuming for the present the Bombay

Legislative Council to consist of 100 elected members, the untouchables should

have 8 representatives to represent them in the Council. If we distribute one

representative to every 200,000 of the people (which is just the ratio of 100

representatives to the 20 millions of the population), then the untouchables

can by right claim 8 representatives to themselves. But the untouchables

of the Bombay Presidency may be allowed to elect 9 members in all. The

election of one additional member will be justified later on.

26. Allowing them to elect 9 members, the constituencies which are to

elect them should be as follows:

1. The various districts of the Presidency except the City of Bombay and

the Province of Sind should be grouped together on a linguistic basis as

follows:

259

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

I. Gujarathi-speaking districts II. Marathi-speaking

districts

III. Kanarese-speaking

districts

1. Ahmedabad . . . . 78,969 1. Thana . . . . 50,010 1. Dharwar . . . . 52,540

2. Broach . . . . 22,390 2. Kolaba . . . . 51,108 2. Bijapur . . . . 80,503

3. Kaira . . . . 41,497 3. Ratnagiri . . . . 107,354 3. Belgaum . . . . 83,199

4. Panch Mahals . . 14,410 4. Ahmednagar . . . . 116,929 4. Kanara . . . . 10,758

5. Surat . . . . 36,509 5. Khandesh West . . . . 36,809

6. Khandesh East. . . . . 112,391

7. Satara . . . . 144,738

8. Poona . . . . 148,118

9. Nasik . . . . 96,740

10. Sholapur . . . . 129,063

260

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

27. The following should be the constituencies of the untouchables and the number of representatives which each

constituency should elect:

Language District Population

each district

Population in

each

constituency

Number of

the constituency

Number of

representatives

to be elected by

the constituency

123456

Bombay City . . 89,052 89,052 I 1

1. Ahmedabad . . 78,869

2. Broach . . 22,390

I. Gujarathi 3. Kaira . . 41,497 193,675 II 1

4. Panch Mahals . . 14,410

5. Surat . . 36,509

1. Thana . . 50,010

2. Kolaba . . 51,108 208,472 III 1

3. Ratnagiri . . 107,354

4. Ahmednagar . . 116,929

II. Marathi 5. Khandesh East . . 112.391 363,869 IV 2

6. Khandesh West . . 36,809

7. Nasik . . 97,740

8. Satara . . 144,688

9. Poona . . 133,118 406,869 V 2

10. Sholapur . . 129,063

1. Belgaum . . 83,199

2. Bijapur . . 80,501 227,007 VI

III. Kanarese 3. Dharwar . . 52,540

4. Kanara . . 10,767

Sind . . 135,224 135,224 VII 1

Total number of representatives to be elected by the untouchables of the Presidency.

261

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

These 9 elected members should form a constituency to elect one member

from among themselves to represent the untouchables of this Presidency in

the Imperial Legislative Council.

28. It may be objected that though 8 representatives are not in excess

to the untouchable population it may be in excess to the voting strength of

untouchables. That the untouchables are a poor community and that under

the same franchise they yield per thousand a smaller proportion of voters

than other communities is a fact. But if the grave position of the untouchables

is admitted instead of restricting their number of representatives, the aim

should be to increase the number of their voters, i.e., we must aim at lowering

the franchise so far as the untouchables are concerned.

29. What the franchise should be is a very important question. There

is a line of argument which urges that franchise should be given to those

only who can be expected to make an intelligent use of it. As against this

view it can be said in the words of Prof. L. T. Hobhouse that it is true

that “the success of democracy depends on the response of voters to the

opportunities given them. But conversely the opportunities must be given

in order to call forth the response. The exercise of popular Government is

itself all education ... enfranchisement itself may precisely be the stimulus

needed to awaken interest. The ballot alone effectively liberates the quiet

citizen from the tyranny of the shouter and the wire-puller. An impression of

existing inertness alone is not a sufficient reason for with-holding responsible

Government or restricting the area of sufferage.” Taking into consideration

that sufferage is an education and that there are groups with unequal

distribution of wealth and education among them and that these groups are

not sympathetically like-minded, the authors of the reports rightly argue

that the case for uniformity of franchise cannot be sustained.

30. But in the case of the untouchables there are as few reasons for

curtailing the number of their representatives as the reasons for widening

their electorate are many. If under a given franchise the untouchables do

not muster strong as electors, it is not their fault. The very untouchability

attached to their person is a bar to their moral and material progress. The

principal modes of acquiring wealth are trade, industry or service. The

untouchables can engage in none of these because of their untouchability.

From an untouchable trader no Hindu will buy. An untouchable cannot

be engaged in lucrative service. Military service had been the monopoly

of the untouchables since the days of the East India Company. They had

joined the Army in such large numbers that the Marquis Tweedledale in

his note which he submitted to the Indian Army Commission of 1859 wrote,

“It should never be forgotten that India was conquered with the help of

the low-caste men.”. But after the mutiny when the British were able to

secure soldiers from the ranks of the Marathas, the position of the low-caste

men who had been the prop of the Bombay Army became precarious, not

262

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

because the Marathas were better soldiers but because their theological

bias prevented them from serving under low-caste officers. The prejudice

was so strong that even the non-caste British had to stop recruitment from

the untouchable classes. In like manner, the untouchables are refused

service in the Police Force. In a great many of the Government offices it is

impossible for an untouchable to get a place. Even in the mills a distinction

is observed. The untouchables are not admitted in Weaving Departments of

the Cotton Mills though many of them are professional weavers. An instance

at hand may be cited from the school system of the Bombay Municipality.

This most cosmopolitan city ruled by a Corporation with a greater freedom

than any other Corporation in India has two different sets of schools ... one

for the children of touchables and the other for those of the untouchables.,

This in itself is a point worthy of note. But there is something yet more

noteworthy. Following the division of schools it has divided its teaching staff

into untouchables and touchables. As the untouchable teachers are short of

the demand, some of the untouchable schools are manned by teachers from

the touchable class. The heart-killing fun of it is that if there is a higher

grade open in untouchable school service, as there is bound to be because

of a few untouchable trained teachers, a touchable teacher can be thrust

into the grade. But if a higher grade is open in the touchable school service,

no untouchable teacher can be thrust into that grade. He must wait till

a vacancy occurs in the untouchable service ! ! ! Such is the ethics of the

Hindu social life. Under it if the untouchables are poor, the committee, it

may be hoped, will not deny them representation because of their small

electoral roll but will see its way to grant them adequate representation to

enable the untouchables to remove the evil conditions that bring about their

poverty. At present when all the avenues of acquiring wealth are closed, it

is unwise to require from the untouchables a high property qualification.

To deny them the opportunities of acquiring wealth and then to ask from

them a property qualification is to add insult to injury. Just what sort of

franchise and just what pitch are required to produce sufficient voting strength

from the untouchables ? In absence of data, I leave it to the Committee to

decide. It would be better to pitch the franchise so low as to educate into

political life as many untouchables as possible. They are too degraded to be

conscious of themselves. I only wish to emphasize that in deciding upon the

representation of the untouchables the Committee looking to their interests

at stake will not let the extent of the electorate govern the number of

representatives, but will rather let the number of representatives govern

the extension of the electorate.

31. In this connection it would not be improper to remind the Committee

of Lord Morley who is reported to have said that “the object of Government

was that the Legislative Councils should represent truly and effectively

with reasonable approach to the balance of real social forces, the wishes

and needs of the communities concerned. This could not be done by Algebra,

263

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

Arithmetic, Geometry or Logic, but by a wide outlook. He saw no harm as to

a compromise that while numbers should be the main factor in determining

the extent of representation modifying causes might influence the number of

representatives.” It is therefore proposed that the untouchables of the Bombay

Presidency should be allowed to elect 9 members through the constituencies

made up as above. These 9 members will further form a constituency to

elect one member from among themselves to represent the untouchables

in the Imperial Legislative Council leaving 8 members to represent the

untouchables in the Bombay Legislative Council.

32. Besides communal electorates there are other schemes in the field for

the representation of the untouchables. It would not be proper to close this

statement without a word of comment on those Schemes.

33. The Congress has denied communal representation except in the case of

Mohammedans and it also denies the extensive use of nomination ; the only

way then left, open to the untouchables is to fight in a general electorate.

Now this is as it should be if all were equally free to fight. To educate the

untouchables by Shahtras into pro-touchables and the touchables into anti-

untouchables and then to propose that the two should fight out at an open

poll is to betray signs of mental aberration or a mentality fed on cunning.

But it must never be forgotten that the Congress is largely composed of men

who are by design political Radicals and social Tories. Their chant is that

the social and the political are two distinct things having no bearing on each

other. To them the social and the political are two suits and can be worn

one at a time as the season demands. Such a psychology has to be laughed

at because it is too interested to be seriously taken into consideration either

for acceptance or for rejection. As it pays to believe in it, it will die a hard

death. Starting from this unnatural premise the Congress activities have

been quite natural. Those who attend the Congress do not care to attend

the National Social Conference held in the same pandal. In fact those who

attend the Congress had once started a campaign to refuse the use of the

pandal to the Conference which was once refused the pandal in the city

of Poona, the roosting place of the intelligentia of our Presidency, As the

Congress is a non-national or anti-national body, its views on communal

electorates are worthy of no serious consideration.

34. The moderates in their separate meeting have been more kindly than

just. They proposed the reservation of seats for backward communities in

plural constituencies. They have not specified the number of seats for the

untouchables. But the general sense of many enlightened moderates and

others kindly inclined is that one or two representatives of the untouchables

in the Legislative Council would suffice. It is impossible to agree with these

gentlemen though they are entitled to gratitude for this much sympathy.

One or two representatives of the untouchables are as good as having none.

264

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

A Legislative Council is not an old curiosity shop. It will be a Council

with powers to make or mar the fortunes of society. How can one or two

untouchables carry a legislative measure to improve their condition or

prevent a legislative measure worsening their state ? To be frank, the

untouchables cannot expect much good from the political power to be given

over to the high caste Hindus. Though the power may not be used against

the untouchables and one cannot be altogether sure of this, it may not be

used for their betterment. A Legislative Council may be sovereign to do

anything it likes, but what it will like to do depends upon its own character.

The English Parliament, we may be certain, though it is sovereign to do

anything, will not make the preservation of blue-eyed babies illegal. The

Sultan will not, though he can, change the religion of Mohammed just as

the Pope will not, though he can, overthrow the religion of Christ. In the

same way legislature, mainly composed of high caste men, will not pass

a law removing untouchability, sanctioning inter-marriages, removing the

ban on the use of public streets, public temples, public schools ; in short,

cleansing the person of the untouchables. This is not because they cannot,

but chiefly because they will not. A legislature is the product of a certain

social condition and its power is determined by whatever determines society.

This is too obvious to be denied. What may happen in future can be guessed

from what has happened in the past. The high caste men in the Council

do not like any social question being brought before the legislature, as may

be seen from the fact of the Resolution introduced by the Honourable Mr.

Dadabhoy in 1916 in the Imperial Legislative Council. That it was adversely

criticized by many who claimed to evince some interest in the untouchables

is too well known to need repetition. But what is not well known is that

though the resolution was lost the mover was not pardoned ; for the very

moving of such a nasty resolution was regarded as a sin. At a subsequent

election the mover had to make room for the Honourable Mr. Khaparde,

who once wrote in an article : “ Those who work for the elevation of the

untouchables are themselves degraded.”

Isn’t this sympathy of the higher castes for the untouchables, sympathy

with a vengeance ?

35. Those who tell that one or two members would suffice for the

untouchables fail to grasp the true import of political right. The chief

import of a political right though technically summed up in the power

to vote does lie either in voting upon for laws or for those who make

laws ; neither does it consist in the right to speak for or against a certain

measure nor in being able to say “yea or nay” upon roll-call; to be able

to put into a ballot-box a piece of paper with a number of names written

thereon is an act which, like those mentioned above, of itself possesses no

value which stamps it as inherently superior to many of the most ordinary

transactions of daily life. They are educative but as much as any transaction

265

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

is. The chief significance of sufferage or a political right consists in a chance

for active and direct participation in the regulation of the terms upon which

associated life shall be sustained. Now the terms upon which the associated

life between the touchables and untouchables is carried on today are the

most ignominious to the former and highly detrimental to the latter. To make

effective the capacities of a people there must be the power to fix the social

conditions of their exercise. If the conditions are too obdurate, it is in the

interest of the untouchables as well as of the touchables that the conditions

should be revised. The untouchables must be in a position to influence the

revision. Looking to the gravity of their interests, they should get their

representation as proposed in proportion to their population. One or two is

only kind but neither just nor sufficient. As Lord Morley says in an earlier

quotation, needs not numbers should govern the extent of representations.’

36. Recently there is brought into the forefront a rival scheme for the

representation of the untouchables by the Depressed Class Mission. The

scheme is known as co-option. The scheme proposes that the representatives

of the untouchables should be nominated by the co-option of the elected

members of the Council. Whether one should laugh or cry at the solicitude

of the Mission for the untouchables it is rather difficult to decide. To cry

is to believe that such a silly scheme would ever be adopted. The best way

is to laugh it out. From the scheme can be easily seen that what is some

times called benevolent interest in others may be an unwilling mask for an

attempt to dictate to them what their good shall be, instead of an endeavour

to agree with them so that they may seek and find the good of their own

choice. The Mission, it must be said, was started with the intention of

improving the condition of the Depressed Classes by emancipating them

from the social tyranny of their high caste masters. But the Mission has

fallen on such bad times that it is forced to advocate a scheme by which its

wards or their representatives will be bounden slaves of their past masters.

The masters and the mission have thus met and evolved a scheme which

will keep the Depressed classes eternally depressed without any hope of

deliverance. Such tactics do not deceive the untouchables ignorant as they

are ; much less will they deceive the Franchise Committee. From another

point of view the scheme of the Mission is unacceptable. It is aggravating to

see the Mission proposing a scheme for the representation of the untouchables

while persistently refusing to admit an untouchable in its governing council.

Interested and officious as it is, its scheme must be rejected.

37. Nomination even though by Government in itself to be preferred to the

former kind of nomination, is to be objected to from the stand-point of the

untouchables. Apart from restricting the freedom of the representatives it

fails to give political education which is the urgent need of all communities,

much more of the untouchables.

266

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

38. At this stage we must consider the argument against communal

representation. The first argument raised by the authors of the report is to

the effect “that the history of self-government among the nations who have

developed it is decisively against” communal representation. But on an earlier

page the authors say that the difference of caste and creeds must be taken

“into account as presenting a feature of Indian Society which is out of harmony

with the ideas on which elsewhere in the world representative institutions

rest” (page 97). In writing the former the later analysis of the situation

must have vanished from their minds, else we must say that the authors

could hold two opposing views at the same time. Presented in juxtaposition,

the authors must be expected to agree to communal representation on the

score of an exceptional remedy required to meet an exceptional situation.

39. Another and chief argument against communal representation is that

it will perpetuate social divisions. The fun of it is that those who uphold the

social divisions are the loudest in their expression of this adverse argument.

The committee will please note that those who are the opponents of communal

representation on this score are also the staunchest opponents of Mr. Patel’s

Inter-Caste Marriage Bill as a caste-breaking bill. The sincerity of those

who bring forward this argument is seriously to be doubted. But as even

the authors of the report have put it as a second count against communal

representation, this particular argument must be met if possible.

Does communal representation perpetuate social divisions ? If you look

upon communal representation as making electoral Colleges of social divisions,

the criticism may be said to be valid. This is true only if it is presupposed

that the divisions are no real divisions and that they don’t matter. This is

as false a pre-supposition as that of inviting India which is made when it

is said that Englishmen are unsocial. Communal Representation is a device

to ward off the evil effects of the divisions. To those who, while agreeing

to this particular benefit of communal representation, object to it on the

score that it perpetuates the divisions it can be shown that there is another

perspective from which it can be said that communal representation instead

of perpetuating the social divisions is one of the ways of dissolving them.

40. While communal electorates will be co-terminous with social divisions

their chief effect will be to bring together men from diverse castes who would

not otherwise mix together into the Legislative Council. The Legislative

Council will thus become a new cycle of participation in which the

representatives of various castes who were erstwhile isolated and therefore

anti-social will be thrown into an associated life. An active participation

in an associated life, in its turn, will not leave unaffected the dispositions

and attitudes of those who participate. A caste or a religious group to-day

is a certain attitude. So long as each caste or a group remains isolated its

attitude remains fossilized. But the moment the several castes and groups

267

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

begin to have contact and co-operation with one another the resocialization

of the fossilized attitude is bound to be the result. If the Hindus become

resocialized with regard to their attitude towards Mohammedans, Christians,

etc., and the Mohammedans, Christians, etc., become resocialized with

regard to their attitudes towards the Hindus, or the touchable Hindus with

regard to the untouchables, caste and divisions will vanish. If caste is an

attitude and it is nothing else, it must be said to be dissolved when that

particular attitude symbolizing the caste is dissolved. But the existing set

attitude representing the diverse castes and groups will be dissolved only if

the diverse groups meet together and take part in a common activity. Such

changes of disposition and attitudes will not be ephemeral but will, in their

turn influence associated life outside the Council Hall. The more opportunities

are created for such conjoint activities the better. The resocialization will

then be on a larger scale and bring about a speedier end of caste and

groups. Thus those who condemn communal representation on the score of

perpetuating the existing divisions will welcome it, on reflection, as a potent

solvent for dissolving them.

41. The importance and necessity of communal and adequate representation

of untouchables is beyond question. The depth of emotion with which the

untouchables speak on this topic must have been easily gauged when the

untouchables of the Madras Presidency told Mr. Montagu that there would

be bloodshed if Home Rule for India was not accompanied by communal

representation to the untouchables. The authors of the Report however are

actuated by a faith in the intelligentsia to effect all reforms fox the elevation

of the untouchables from permanent degradation and ostracism. They say

“they find the educated Indian organizing effort not for political ends alone

but for various forms of public and social service.”. As the authors have

connived at the demands of the untouchables on this score it is but proper

to investigate whether their faith is well grounded. On education and its

social value the words of Joseph Addison are not too stale to be recalled.

He said, “There can be no greater injury to human society than that good

Talents among men should be held Honourable to those who are endowed

with them without any regard how they are applied. The Gifts of Nature

and the Accomplishments of Art are valuable but as they are exerted in the

interest of virtue or governed by the Rules of Honour, we ought to abstract

our minds from the observation of an excellence in those we converse with,

till we have taken some notice or received some good information of the

Disposition of their Minds, otherwise they make us fond of those whom our

reason and judgment will tell us we ought to abhor.”

42. Statistics will show that the intelligentia and the Brahmin caste

are exchangeable terms. The disposition of the intelligentsia is a Brahmin

disposition. Its outlook is a Brahmin outlook. Though he has learned to

speak in the name of all, the Brahmin leader is in no sense a leader of the

268

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

people. He is a leader of his caste at best, for he feels them as he does

for no other people. It is not intended to say that there are no Brahmins

who feel for the untouchables. To be just, there are a few more moderate

and rational Brahmins who admit the frightful nature of the institution

of untouchability in the abstract and perceive the dangers to society with

which it is fraught. But the great majority of the Brahmins are those who

doggedly deny the horrors of the system in the teeth of such a mass of

evidence as never was brought to bear on any other subject and to which

the experience of every day contributes its immense amount; who, when they

speak of freedom, mean the freedom to oppress their kind and to be savage,

merciless and cruel, and whose inalienable rights can only have their growth

in the wrongs of the untouchables. Their delicate gentility will neither bear

the Englishmen as superior nor will it brook the untouchables as equal. “I

will not tolerate a man above me, and of those below none must approach

too near” sums up the true spirit of their social as well as political creed.

Those who speak against the anti-social spirit of the Brahmin leaders are

often cautioned that in their denunciation they do not pay sufficient regard

to the existence of the first class of Brahmin leaders. This is no doubt the

case. Noble but very rare instances of personal and pecuniary sacrifice may

be found among them just as may be found to be tender in the exercise of

their unnatural power. Still it is to be feared that this injustice is inseparable

from the state of things with which humanity and truth are invoked to deal.

The miserable state of the untouchables is not a bit more tolerable because

some tender hearts are bound to show sympathy, nor can the indignant tide

of honest wrath stand still because in its course it overwhelms a few who

are comparatively innocent among a host of guilty.

43. The trend of nationalism in India does not warrant us to believe that

the few who are sympathetic will grow in volume. On the other hand it is

the host of guilty that time is sure to multiply. With the growth of political

agitation, the agitation for social reform has subsided and has even vanished

The Prarthana Samaj, the Brahmo Samaj with their elevating influence have

become things of the past. The future has few things like these in store.

The growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessarily

lead to liberalism. It may lead to the justification and conservation of class

interest; and instead of creating the liberators of the down-trodden, it may

create champions of the past and the supporters of the status quo. Isn’t,

this the effect of education so far ? That it will take a new course in future

ceteris paribus, there is no ground to believe. Therefore, instead of leaving

the untouchables to the mercy of the higher castes, the wiser policy would

be to give power to the untouchables themselves who are anxious, not like

others, to usurp power but only to assert their natural place in society.

44. This gigantic world war, however motivated, has yielded what is

known as the principle of self-determination which is to govern international

269

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

relations of the future. It is happy to note that the pronouncement of the

20th August 1917 declared the application of the principle to India — a

principle which enunciates the rule that every people must be free to

determine the conditions under which it is to live. It would be a sign of

imperfect realization of the significance of this principle if its application were

restricted to international relations, because discord does not exist between

nations alone, but there is also discord between classes from within a nation.

Wittingly our Indian politicians in their political speeches and harangues

hold to the de jure conception of the Indian people. By the de jure conception

they conceive of the Indian people as by nature one and emphasize the

qualities such as praiseworthy community of purpose and welfare, loyalty

to public ends and mutuality of sympathy which accompany this unity. How

the de jure and de facto conceptions conflict, it is hoped, the committee will

not fail to realize. As an instance the following may be noted. The moral

evil to the Indian people of their conquest and subjugation by the British

is a theme which is very attractive to the Brahmin politicians, who never

fail to make capital out of it. The moral evils were once portrayed by John

Shore in his “Notes on Indian Affairs” written in 1832. The late Honourable

Mr. Gokhale once voiced the same feeling when speaking about the “excessive

costliness of the foreign agency”. He said :

“There is a moral evil which, if anything, is even greater. A kind of dwarfing

or stunting of the Indian race is going on under the present system. We must

live all the days of our life in an atmosphere of inferiority and the tallest

of us must bend, in order that the exigencies of the existing system may be

satisfied. The upward impulse, if I may use such an expression, which every

schoolboy at Eton and Harrow may feel, that he may one day be a Gladstone

or Napoleon or a Wellington, and which may draw forth the best efforts of

which he is capable, is denied to us. The full height to which our manhood is

capable of rising can never be reached by us under the present system. The

moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot be felt by us. Our

administrative and military talents must gradually disappear, owing to sheer

disuse till at last our lot as hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own

country, is stereotyped.”.

45. I beg to invite the attention of the Committee whether these sentiments

which have been voiced by a Brahmin (a noble Brahmin to be sure) to the

disgrace of the British bureaucracy cannot be more fittingly voiced by the

untouchables to the disgrace of the Brahmin oligarchy? May it be said to

the credit of the bureaucracy, that it has disproved the charge of being

wooden and shown itself susceptible to feeling by proposing changes in the

system of the Government which has dwarfed the personality of those for

whom it was devised. But can the oligarchy claim anything half as noble?

Their belief is that the Hindu social system has been perfected for all time

270

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

by their ancestors who had the superhuman vision of all eternity and

supernatural power for making infinite provision for future ages. This deep

ingrained ethnocentrism has prevented a reconstruction of Hindu Society

and stood in the way of a revision of vested rights for the common good.

A farce of a conference for the removal of untouchability was enacted in

March 1918 in Bombay. Doctor Kurtakoti, the Shankaracharya of Karvir

fame, though promised to attend, left for Northern India just a day or two

before the conference met, on some urgent business. Mr. Tilak is credited

with a short speech at the conference which has for the good luck of

Mr. Tilak remained unreported. But this was only lip sympathy shown to

hoodwink the untouchables for when the draft of the proclamation removing

untouchabilily was presented to Mr. Tilak, it is known on creditable evidence

that he refused to honour it with his signature.

46. Here is disclosed a patent disharmony within a nation and therefore

a proper field for the application of the principle of self-determination. If

the advanced classes are clamouring for its application to India and if the

powers that be have sanctioned it, however partially, to ward off the future

stunting and dwarfing of the Indian people, may not the untouchables with

justice claim its benefit in their own interest ? Admitting the necessity of

self-determination for the untouchables communal representation cannot be

withheld from them, for communal representation and self-determination are

but two different phrases which express the same notion.

Supplementary Written Statement of Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar

1. The object of this supplement is primarily, to show how the scheme

of representation which I have recommended for the untouchables of the

Bombay Presidency in my previous statement can be fitted into the scheme

of representation proposed by the Government of Bombay for the composition

of the Legislative Council.

2. First I wish to propose certain changes in number of seats assigned

by the Government to the various main constituencies. The several changes

proposed are indicated in the following table :

Distribution of Seats among By Govt. By me

(1) Zamindars and Jahagirdas of Sind . . . 1 1

(2) Sardars of Gujarat . . . . . . 1 1

(3) Sardars of Deccan . . . . . . 1 1

(4) Bombay University . . . . . . 2 2

(5) Europeans . . . . . . 4 4

(6) Sindh Hindus . . . . . . 3 4

(7) Mohammedans . . . . . . 18 10

(8) Six cities . . . . . . 18 .17

(9) Twenty-six Districts of the Presidency . . . 52 60

Total . . . 100 100

3. As regards the method of election proposed for I, II, III, IV & V of the

above constituencies, I agree with the Government.

271

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

4. The Government has reserved 3 seats for the Sindh Hindus. I have

proposed 4 of them, one of which should be earmarked for the untouchables

of Sind to be filled by a communal electorate.

5. For the 6 cities I have reserved 17 seats. Of this I propose that Bombay

should be given 10. Of the 10 seats the untouchables of the city should be

given 1 seat, also to be filled by a communal electorate.

6. So far it is shown how the Sind untouchables and their fellows in Bombay

can be provided for. In addition to these two seats the untouchables of the

Presidency proper, excluding the city of Bombay, should be given 7 seats.

The constituencies among which these 7 seats are to be distributed, I have

indicated on page 7 of my previous statement. It is in this fashion that the

9 seats for the untouchables of the Presidency should be carved out. The

Government of Bombay finds difficulty in defining the Depressed Classes.

The difficulty is not a real difficulty, for, for all practical purposes the

untouchables and the Depressed classes are the same. Knowing full well the

degradation of the untouchables, the callousness of the Bombay Government

is appalling. By refusing to make provision for the representation of the

Depressed classes the Government have deliberately thrown the gravest

of interests into the greatest of perils—a calamity which I am sure the

Committee will avert.

7. Having taken out 7 seats from the 60, I propose to distribute the

remaining 53 among the touchable population of the 26 districts as follows :

I allow, though cannot quite agree with the Government, that the 7

districts of Sind should elect 14 members on the basis of 2 per district.

But in the case of the 19 districts which are outside Sind I feel that a

two-member constituency will not suffice, principally because the touchable

Hindu population is not homogeneous. In order to satisfy the aspirations of

the subdivisions of the touchable Hindus we must at least in some cases

give up the principle of a two-member constituency. [91 (2)] To distribute

the 39 seats among the 19 districts in question I should first group the

districts on linguistic basis as follows :

Districts Touchable

Hindu Population

I Gujarathi

(1) Ahmedabad . . . . . . . . . 614, 286

(2) Broach . . . . . . . . . 170, 545

(3) Kaira . . . . . . . . . 556, 667

(4) Panch Mahals . . . . . . . . . 259, 929

(5) Surat . . . . . . . . . 535, 236

Total 21, 36, 663

II Marathi

(1) Thana . . . . . . . . . 736, 915

(2) Kolaba . . . . . . . . . 509, 158

(3) Ratnagiri . . . . . . . . . 1, 003, 240

(4) Ahmednagar . . . . . . . . . 738, 747

272

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Districts Touchable

Hindu Population

(5) Khandesh East . . . . . . . . . 789, 740

(6) Khandesh West . . . . . . . . . 437, 391

(7) Nasik . . . . . . . . . 745, 965

(8) Satara . . . . . . . . . 883, 488

(9) Poona . . . . . . . . . 858, 607

(10) Sholapur . . . . . . . . . 574,152

Total . . . 72, 77, 403

III K

ANARESE

(1) Belgaum . . . . . . . . . 734, 598

(2) Bijapur . . . . . . . . . 677, 041

(3) Dharwar . . . . . . . . . 820, 345

(4) Kanara . . . . . . . . . 372, 857

Total . . . 26, 04, 841

Grand total of touchable Hindus in the 19 Districts concerned 12,018,907.

Of the 39 seats to be distributed I should give 8 seats to the Gujarati.

23 to the Marathi and 8 to the Kanarese districts.

The actual constituencies may be as under :

Language

Districts

Population in

each constituency

Number

of the

Constituency

Number of

Representatives

to be elected by

the Constituency

1234

I GUJARATHI

(1) Ahmednagar . . 614, 286 I 2

(2) Broach . . 727, 212 II 3

(3) Kaira . .

(4) Panch Mahais . . 795, 165 III 3

(5) Surat . .

II Marathi

(1) Thana . . 1, 246, 073 IV 4

(2) Kolaba . .

(3) Ratnagiri . . 1, 003, 240 V 2

(4) Ahmednagar . . 1, 484, 712 VI 3

(5) Nasik . .

(6) Khandesh East . . 1, 227, 131 VII 3

(7) Khandesh West . .

(8) Satara . . 883, 488 VIII *

(9) Poona . . 858, 607 IX 3

(10) Sholapur . . 574, 152 X 3

*No Figure is shown against the Satara district in the original.

273

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

1234

III K

ANARESE

(1) Belgaum . . 1,411,639 IX 4

(2) Bijapur

(3) Dharwar

(4) Kanara . . 1,193,202 XII 4

Total number of representatives for the 19 districts 39.

The Principal advantage of such a grouping is that the demand of the

Marathas and the Lingayats can be satisfied without resorting to communal

representation. There is no sacredness about a district that can plead against

transcending its boundaries for political purposes when such a transcending

enables us to minimise the field for communal representation.

8. I have differed from the Government of Bombay on the number of

representatives to be given to the Mohamedans. Of the two bases, population

and the Congress Scheme, the Government of Bombay have preferred the

latter without even making a show of reasoning. In doing so they have

contravened the most considered opinion of the authors of the Reforms

Scheme who say that there is no basis other than that of negotiation for

the proportion of Mohammedan representation fixed in the Congress League

Scheme. It must be urged that looking to its composition the Congress is a

body whose vicarious promises can never be binding on the vast population

who have played no part in its deliberations.

9. The Mohammedans of this presidency form 20 per cent of the total

population. On the basis of population therefore, they are entitled only to

20 seats out of the 100 elective seats. But tempering population by need I

think 24 seats ought to satisfy them. Any excess over this cannot be tolerated

as it will be at the cost of the other communities. Of these 24, the 7 districts

of Sind on the basis of 2 per district will return 14 Mohammedans. The

other 10 seats may be distributed as follows :

Population No. of

Representatives

(1) Bombay City . . . 179, 246 2

(2) Northern Division . . . 342, 696 2

(3) Central Division . . . 367, 509 3

(4) Southern Division . . . 457, 997 3

Total . . . 10

I should prefer linguistic grouping to divisional grouping even in the case

of the Mohammedans. I fail to see how a Mohammedan from Thana can

have any affiliation with a Mohammedan of Surat though both the districts

come under the same division. To group together for political purposes people

who are ethnically different is absurd.

274

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar called and examined

Sir Frank Sly: He was a professor in the Sydenham College of Commerce.

He graduated from the Elphinstone College, Bombay and was an M.A. of

the Columbia University, New York. He was a Mahar by caste and his

statement dealt largely with the depressed classes.

So far as the Hindu community was concerned, he divided them into two

classes, touchables and untouchables; a distinction which was unmistakable

in practice and more convenient than a division by castes. He recognised

also a distinction between Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but this was of

less importance. The distinction between Brahmin and non-Brahmin would

not make much difference as regards the attitude of voter to a candidate,

but the distinction between touchable and untouchable would make a very

great difference.

He did not think there was any necessity for communal electorates for

non-Brahmins as, if three-member constituencies were granted according to

his supplementary statement, non-Brahmins would get some seats. From the

figures in para 16 of his written statement he intended to show that on a

uniform property qualification, a community which might be in a minority

with regard to population might be in a majority in respect of voting strength ;

some of the communities that he had mentioned might be minorities in the

whole province, but majorities in particular districts. They should try to

reduce the fever for communal representation as much as possible, and he

therefore recommended three-member constituencies.

He wanted a variation of the franchise for the untouchables ; but, if

constituencies with more than two members were adopted, the lowering of

the franchise became a matter of less importance. In the case of a small

constituency, for instance, the Marathas, it might be desirable to group them.

If a particular community had a majority of votes in a constituency, there

was no need for that community to have separate communal representation.

If the untouchables had a majority of votes in a particular constituency,

he would not ask for communal representation. It was because they were

in a minority and would always remain so on a uniform franchise that he

asked for separate representation. His justification for asking for a low

franchise was that as a result of being untouchable, the untouchables had

no property ; they could not trade because they could not find customers. He

remembered a case in which a Mahar woman was taken to the police court

for selling water-melons. He was not aware of the conditions outside the

Bombay Presidency. In the mills in the Bombay Presidency the untouchables

were not yet allowed to work in the weaving department ; in one case an

untouchable did work in the weaving department of a mill saying that he

was a Mohammedan, and when found out, he was severely beaten.

275

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

The definition of an “untouchable” as a person who would cause

pollution by his touch, was a satisfactory one for electoral purposes. It

was not the case that some castes were considered to be untouchable in

some districts and touchable in others.

According to his classification the untouchables amounted to about

8 per cent of the population, but he had proposed 9 seats which would

make about 9 per cent. These seats should be filled by separate communal

election.

He was aware that the untouchable in his present state of development

was in no way qualified to give a responsible vote. In the whole Bombay

Presidency there were one B.A. and 6 or 7 matriculates among the

depressed classes. The proportion of those who were literate in English

was very small, but not much smaller than in the case of the backward

classes. The depressed classes, especially the Mahars and the Chamars,

were fit to exercise the vote. He would also give them the votes by way of

education. He could find at least 25 or more men amongst them who had

passed the 6th or the 7th Standards of a High School, and, although the

number was not large, the 9 seats which he suggested for the depressed

classes could be filled from amongst them. Such a candidate in practical

matters would be as good as a graduate although, the latter might be

able to express himself better.

He was opposed to any system under which the representatives of

the depressed classes were drawn from other classes. Representation by

missionaries, for instance, would not be representation in any real sense

of the word.

He suggested large constituencies for the depressed classes; if such

large constituencies had been accepted for the Mohammedans he did not

see why they were not practicable in the case of the depressed classes.

In order to obtain the required number of seats for the depressed classes

he would reduce the number of seats suggested by Government for the

Mohammedans, from 18 to 10. This reduction was justifiable, as on the

population basis the Mohammedans were only entitled to 20 per cent of

the seats. He did not consider the Congress League Pact as binding on all.

Mr. Hailey : Untouchables were persons to whom certain rights of

citizenship had been denied. For instance, it was the right of every

citizen to walk down the street, and if a man were prevented from doing

so, even temporarily, it was an infringement of his right. Whether a

man was prevented from exercising his rights by law or social custom,

made very little difference to him. Government had recognised custom

and persons belonging to the untouchable classes were not employed in

Government service.

276

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

He suggested the lowering of the franchise qualification in the case of the

depressed classes, as it should be the object of the Government to improve

the lot of the community.

From an examination of the Census Report he would say that the problem

of touchable and non-touchable existed in Sind, as although the greater

proportion of the population there were Mohammedans, there were also

Hindus. If special provision was going to be made for the Hindus in Sind,

he did not see why special provision should not be made for the depressed

classes also.

Mr. Banerjee: The depressed classes would be able to find 9 men who were

able to speak English and who could represent their cause in the Council.

The 6th standard was the class below the matriculation, and a man who had

passed the 6th standard would be able to follow the debates in the Council.

They had about 25 persons who had passed that standard.

For political purposes there would be no difficulty in defining the depressed

classes, who were the same as the untouchables. No one who was not a

member of a depressed class would think of trying to make himself out to be

such, though such a thing might occur in the case of the backward classes.

He would accept 8 representatives as the minimum for the depressed

classes, and they should be elected. Nominated representative would not be

in a position adequately to represent their interests.

Mr. Crump: He had no experience of the problem and conditions of the

untouchable classes in Sind, and could not say anything with regard to the

statement that there was only one such class, viz., the Bhangis, there- His

information was that the total Hindu population in Sind was 837,426 and

the total of the untouchable classes was 135,224.

Mr. Natarajan: His view was that British rule in India was meant to

provide equal opportunities for all, and that in transferring a large share

of the power to popular assemblies, arrangements should be made whereby

the hardships and disabilities entailed by the social system should not be

reproduced and perpetuated in political institutions. As regards the exact

position at present, he admitted that, for instance, at the Parel school which

was meant for the depressed classes, there were many higher-caste pupils,

who came there because it was a good school. Similarly as a professor he,

being a member of a depressed class, had pupils of all classes and found no

difficulty in dealing with his higher caste pupils. If the untouchable classes

were recognized by Government by the grant of seats, their status would be

raised and their powers would be stimulated. He was not very particular

about the number of their seats; all he wanted was something adequate.



277

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

The following persons were called and examined at Bombay

between 24 January 1919 and 31 January 1919:

(1) L. C. Cramp, Esq., I.C.S. representing the Government of Bombay

(24 January 1919).

(2) The Hon’ble Major C. Fernandez, M. D. I. M. S. (Temporary)

(24 January 1919).

(3) The Rev. Cannon D. L. Joshi, representing the Bombay Indian

Christian (Protestant) Association (24 January 1919).

(4) Lieut. Colonel H.A.J. Gidney, I.M.S. (Retired), representing the

Anglo-Indian Empire League (Bombay Branch) (25 January 1919).

(5) Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, BART (25 January 1919).

(6) W. A. Haig Brown, Esq., representing the Bombay Branch of the

European Association (25 January 1919).

(7) Mr. D. D. Sathaye, representing the Bombay National Union

(25 January 1919).

(8) The Hon’ble Mr. M. A. Jinnah (25 January 1919).

(9) Mr. C. N. Wadia, representing the Bombay Millowners Association

(27 January 1919).

(10) Mr. V. R. Shinde (27 January 1919).

(11) Mr. K. R. Koregawkar, representing the Maratha Aikyecchu Sabha

(27 January 1919).

(12) The Hon’ble Mr. M.A. Jinnah (27 January 1919).

(13) Mirza Ali Muhamad Khan (27 January 1919).

(14) Bhimrao R. Ambedkar Esq. (27 January 1919).

(15) The Hon’ble Mr. V. J. Patel (28) January 1919).

(16) The Hon’ble Sahib Hiralal Desaibhai Desai (28 January 1919).

(17) The Hon’ble Mr. Chunilal V. Mehta (28 January 1919).

(18) A. B. Latthe, Esq. (28 January 1919).

(19) The Hon’ble Mr. R. P. Paranjpye (28 January 1919).

(20) Mr. V. R. Kothari, representing the Deccan Ryots’ Association

(28 January 1919).

(21) Messrs. Umar Sobhani and S. G. Banker, representing the Bombay

Home Rule League (29 January 1919).

(22) H. N. Apte Esq., representing the Deccan Sabha, Poona (23 January

1919).

(23) N. C. Kelkar Esq. (29 January 1919).

(24) The Hon’ble Mr. D. V. Belvi (29 January 1919).

(25) Rao Bahadur Thakorram Kapilram (29 January 1919).

(26) N. M- Joshi Esq., Member of the Servants of India Society

(30 January 1919).

(27) The Hon’ble Rao Bahadur Venkatesh Srinivas Naik (30 January

1919).

(28) Pandit R. Chikodi (30 January 1919).

278

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(29) The Hon’ble Mr. S. J. Gillum and Sir Thomas Birkett, Kt., representing

the Bombay Chamber of Commerce (30 January 1919).

(30) Mr. Ambalal Sarabhai with Mr. Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Dalpatbhai

representing the Ahmadabad Miliowners’ Association (30 January

1919).

(31) Devidas Madhavji Thakersey, Esq., representing the Bombay Native

Piece-goods Merchants Association (30 January 1919).

(32) The Hon’ble Mr. Ghulam Hussain Hidayatulla (31 January 1919).

(33) Mr. B. V. Jadhav (31 January 1919).

(34) The Hon’ble Sir Pazulbhoy Currimbhoy, Kt., C.I.E. (31 January 1919).

(35) H. P. Mody Esq. (31 January 1919).

(36) Sardar V. N. Mutalik representing the Inamdars’ Central Association,

Satara (31 January 1919).



TRACTS FOR THE TIMES: No. 3.

FEDERATION

VERSUS

FREEDOM

(Kale Memorial Lecture)

Address delivered on 29th January 1939

the Annual Function

the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics

held in

the Gokhale Hall, Poona

“The distance you have gone is less important than

the direction in which you are going today.”

—Tolstoy

First Published : 1939

Reprinted from the first edition

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

PREFACE

A word or two as regards the origin of this tract and the motive

which has led me to publish it at this time will, I think, not be out

of place.

Many in this country must be aware that there exists in Poona

an institution which is called the Gokhale Institute of Politics and

Economics, working under the direction of Dr. D. R. Gadgil. The

Institute holds a function annually to celebrate what is called the

Founder’s Day and invites some one to deliver an address on some

subject connected with politics or economics. This year, I was asked

by Dr. Gadgil to deliver an address. I accepted the invitation and

chose the Federal Scheme as the subject of my address. The address

covered both (1) the structure of the Federation and (2) a critique of

that structure. The address was delivered on 29th January 1939 at

the Gokhale Hall in Poona. The address as prepared had become too

lengthy for the time allotted to me and although I kept the audience

for two hours when usually the time allotted for such address is one

hour I had to omit from the address the whole of the part relating

to the Federal structure and some portion from the part relating to

the criticism of the structure. This tract, however, contains the whole

of the original address prepared by me for the occasion.

So much for the origin of this tract. Now as to the reasons for

publishing it. All addresses delivered at the Gokhale Institute

are published. It is in the course of things that this also should

be published. But there are other reasons besides this, which

have prevailed with me to publish it. So far as the Federation

282

PREFACE

is concerned, the generality of the Indian public seems to be living in

a fog. Beyond the fact that there is to be a Federation and that the

Federation is a bad thing the general public has no clear conception

of what is the nature of this Federation and is, therefore, unable to

form an intelligent opinion about it. It is necessary that the general

public should have in its hand a leaflet containing an outline of the

Federal structure and a criticism of that structure in small compass

sufficient to convey a workable understanding of the Scheme. I feel

this Tract will supply this need.

I also think that the publication of this tract will be regarded as

timely. Federation is a very live issue and it is also a very urgent

one. Soon the people of British India will be called upon to decide

whether they should accept the Federal Scheme or they should not.

The premier political organization in this Country, namely, the

Congress seems to be willing to accept this Federation as it has

accepted Provincial Autonomy. The negotiations that are going on

with the Muslim League and the manoeuvres that are being carried

on with the Indian States give me at any rate the impression that

the Congress is prepared to accept the Federation and that these

negotiations and manoeuvres are designed to bring about a working

arrangement with other parties so that with their help the Congress

may be in the saddle at the Centre as it has been in the Provinces.

Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose has even gone to the length of suggesting

that the right wing of the Congress has committed itself to this

Federation so far that it has already selected its cabinet. It matters

not whether all this is true or not. I hope all this is untrue. Be that

as it may, the matter is both grave and urgent, and I think all those

who have anything to say on the subject should speak it out. Indeed

I feel that silence at such a time will be criminal. That is why I have

hastened to publish my address. I believe that I have views on the

subject of Federation which even if they do not convince others will

at least provoke them to think

1-3-39 B. R. AMBEDKAR

Rajgraha

Dadar, Bombay 14

INTRODUCTORY

Dr. Gadgil and students of the Gokhale Institute,

I feel greatly honoured by your invitation to address you this evening

You have met today to celebrate a day which is set out as your Founder’s

Day. I had the privilege of personally knowing the late Rao Bahadur

R. R. Kale the founder of your Institute. He was my colleague in the old

Bombay Legislative Council. I know how much care and study he used to

bestow upon every subject which he handled. I am sure he deserves the

gratitude of all those who care for knowledge and study for helping to

‘establish this Institute, whose main function as I understand is to dig for

knowledge and make it ready for those who care to use it. For, first knowledge

is power as nothing else is, and secondly, not all those who wish and care

for knowledge have the leisure and the patience to dig for it. As one who

believes in the necessity of knowledge and appreciates the difficulties in its

acquisition I am glad to be associated in this way with him and with the

Institute he has founded.

The theme I have chosen for the subject matter of my address is the

Federal Scheme embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935. The title

of the subject might give you the impression that I am going to explain

the Federal Constitution. That would be an impossible task in itself. The

Federal Scheme is a vast thing. Its provisions are contained, first in 321

sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, secondly in the 9 Schedules

which are part of the Act, thirdly in 31 Orders-in-Council issued under

the Act and fourthly the hundreds of Instruments of Accession to be

passed by the Indian States. Very few can claim mastery over so vast a

subject and if any did he would take years to expound it in all its details.

284

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I have set to myself a very limited task. It is to examine the scheme

in the light of certain accepted tests and to place before you the results

of this examination so that you may be in a position to form your own

judgment regarding the merits of the scheme. It is true that I cannot

altogether avoid setting out the outlines of the scheme. In fact, I am

going to give an outline of the scheme. I realize that it is an essential

preliminary without which my criticism might remain high up in the air.

But the outline I am going to draw for my purpose will be the briefest

and just enough to enable you to follow what I shall be saying regarding

the merits of the scheme.

BIRTH AND GROWTH OF INDIAN FEDERATION

There are five countries which are known in modern times to

have adopted the federal form of Government. They are : (1) U.S.A.,

(2) Switzerland, (3) Imperial Germany, (4) Canada and (5) Australia.

To these five it is now proposed to add the sixth which is the All-India

Federation.

What are the constituent units of this Federation ? For an answer to

this question refer to section 5. It says:

“5. (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, if an address in that behalf has

been presented to him by each House of Parliament and if

the condition hereinafter mentioned is satisfied, to declare

by Proclamation that as from the day therein appointed

there shall be united in a Federation under the Crown, by

the name of the Federation of India,—

(a) The Provinces hereinafter called Governors’ Provinces ; and

(b) the Indian States which have acceded or may thereafter accede to

the Federation ; and in the Federation so established there shall

be included the Provinces hereinafter called Chief Commissioners’

Provinces.

(2) The condition referred to is that, States—

(a) the Rulers whereof will, in accordance with the provision contained

in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act be entitled to choose

not less than fifty-two members of the Council of State ; and

(b) the aggregate population whereof, as ascertained in accordance

with the said provisions, amounts to at least one-half of the

total population of States, as so ascertained, have acceded to the

Federation.”

Leaving aside the conditions prescribed by this Section for the

inauguration of the Federation it is clear that the Units of the Federation

are (1) The Governors’ Provinces, (2) Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and

(3) The Indian States.

Proclamation

of Federation

of India

285

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

What is the size of this Indian Federation ?

Many people when they speak of the Indian Federation do not seem to

realize what an enormous entity it is going to be—

Population Area Units

U.S.A. 122,775,040 2,973,773 48 States plus

1 Federal Dist.

Germany 67,000,000 208,780 25

Switzerland 466,400 15,976 22

Canada 10,376,786 3,729,665 9

Australia 6,629,839 2,974,581 6

India 352,837,778 1,808,679 162

The Indian Federation in point of area is 3/5th of U.S.A. and of Australia

and half of Canada. It is 9 times of Germany and 120 times of Switzerland.

In point of population it is 3 times of U.S.A., 5 times of Germany, 35 times

of Canada, 58 times of Australia and 88 times of Switzerland. Measured

by the Units which compose it, it is 3 times larger than U.S.A., 6½ times

larger than Germany, 8 times larger than Switzerland, 18 times larger than

Canada and 27 times larger than Australia. Thus the Indian Federation is

not merely a big federation. It is really a monster among federations.

What is the source from which the Federation derives its Governmental

Powers and Authority ?

Section 7 says that the executive authority of the Federation shall be

exercised on behalf of His Majesty by the Governor-General. That means that

the Authority of the Federation is derived from the Crown. In this respect

the Indian Federation differs from the Federation in the U.S.A. In the U.S.A.,

the powers of the Federation are derived from the people. The people of the

United States are the fountain from which the authority is derived. While

it differs from the Federation in the U.S.A. the Indian Federation resembles

the Federations in Australia and Canada. In Australia and Canada the

source of the Authority for the Federal Government is also the Crown and

Section 7 of the Government of India Act is analogous to section 61 of the

Australian Act and section 9 of the Canadian Act. That the Indian Federation

should differ in this respect from the American Federation and agree with

the Canadian and Australian Federation is perfectly understandable. The

United States is a republic while Canada and India are dominions of the

Crown. In the former the source of all authority are the people. In the latter

the source of all authority is the Crown.

From where does the Crown derive its authority ?

Such a question is unnecessary in the case of Canada and Australia,

because the Crown is the ultimate source of all authority and

286

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

there is nothing beyond or behind, to which his authority is referable.

Can this be said of the Indian Federation ? Is the Crown the ultimate

source of authority exercised by the Federation ? Is there nothing beyond

or behind the Crown to which this authority needs to be referred ? The

answer to this question is that only for a part of the authority of the

Federation the Crown is the ultimate source and that for remaining part

the Crown is not the ultimate source.

That this is the true state of affairs is clear from the terms of the

Instrument of Accession. I quote the following from the draft Instruments :—

“Whereas proposals for the establishment of a Federation of India

comprising such Indian States as may accede thereto and the Provinces

of British India constituted as Autonomous Provinces have been discussed

between representatives of His Majesty’s Government of the Parliament of

the United Kingdom, of British India and of the Rulers of the Indian States;

And Whereas those proposals contemplated that the Federation of India

should be constituted by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

and by the accession of Indian States ;

And Whereas provision for the constitution of a Federation of India has

now been made in the Government of India Act, 1935 ;

And Whereas that Act provided that the Federation shall not be established

until such date as His Majesty may, by proclamation, declare, and such

declaration cannot be made until the requisite number of Indian States have

acceded to the Federation ;

And Whereas the said Act cannot apply to any of my territories save

by virtue of my consent and concurrence signified by my accession to the

Federation;

Now, therefore, I (insert full name and title), Ruler of (insert name of

State), in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State for

the purpose of co-operating in the furtherance of the interests and welfare

of India by uniting in a Federation under the Crown by the name of the

Federation of India with Provinces called Governors’ Provinces and with

the Provinces called Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and with the Rulers of

other Indian States do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession, and

hereby declare that subject to His Majesty’s acceptance of this Instrument,

I accede to the Federation of India as established under the Government

of India Act, 1935.”

This is a very important feature of the Indian Federation. What has brought

about this difference between the Indian Federation and the Canadian and

Australian Federation ? For what part is the Crown the ultimate source

and for what part is it not? To understand these questions you must take

287

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

note of two things. First, the Indian Federation comprises two distinct areas :

British India and Indian States. This will be clear if you refer to section 5.

Second, the relationship of these two areas with the Crown is not the same.

The area known as British India is vested in the Crown while the area

comprised in an Indian State is not vested in the Crown but is vested in

the Ruler. This is clear if you refer to sections 2 and 311. The territory of

British India being vested in the Crown the sovereignty over it belongs to

the Crown and the territory of an Indian State being vested in the Ruler of

the State the sovereignty over the State belongs to the Ruler of the State.

You will now understand why I said that in the Indian Federation

the Crown is the ultimate source for a part of its authority and for the

remaining part the Crown is the ultimate source of authority of the Indian

Federation in so far as British India is part of the Federation. The Indian

Ruler is the ultimate source of authority in so far as his State is part of this

Federation. When therefore section 7 says that the Executive Authority of

the Federation shall be exercised by the Governor-General on behalf of the

Crown it must be understood that Crown’s authority which is delegated by

him to the Governor-General in the working out of the Indian Federation

is partly its own and partly derived from the Rulers of the Indian States.

What is the process by which the Crown acquires the authority which

belongs to the Ruler of an Indian State ? The process is known under the

Indian Act as Accession. This Accession is effected by what is called an

Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler of a State. The provisions

relating to the Instrument of Accession are contained in section 6(1). That

section reads as follows :-

“6. A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty

has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler

for himself, his heirs and successors—

(a) declares that he accedes to the Federation as established under this

Act, with the intent that His Majesty the King, the Governor-General

of India, the Federal Legislature, the Federal Court and any other

Federal Authority established for the purposes of the Federation

shall by virtue of his Instrument of Accession, but subject always

to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Federation,

exercise in relation to his State such functions as may be vested in

him by or under this Act; and

(b) assumes the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given within

his State to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable

therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession.”

It is this Instrument of Accession which confers authority upon the Crown

in the first instance so far as an Indian State is part of the Federation and

288

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

it is because of this that the Crown’s Authority in and over this Federation

is derivative in part.

This is the law as to the birth of the Federation. What is the law as

to the growth of this Federation ? In other words what is the law as to

change? The law as to change is contained in section 6(1)(a), Schedule II

and section 6(5).

Section 6(1)(a) makes it clear that the accession by a Prince, effected

through his Instrument of Accession, is “to the Federation as established

by this Act.” Schedule II deals with future amendment of the Constitution.

It declares what are the provisions in the Government of India Act an

amendment of which will be deemed to affect the Instrument of Accession

and what are the provisions an amendment of which will not affect the

Instrument of Accession by the States.

Section 6(5) does two things. In the first place it provides that the

Instrument of Accession shall be deemed to confer upon Parliament the

right to amend these provisions which are declared by Schedule II as open

to amendment without affecting the Instrument of Accession. In the second

place it provides that although Parliament may amend a provision of the Act

which is declared by Schedule II as open to amendment without affecting

the Instrument of Accession such an amendment shall not bind the States

unless it is accepted as binding by the State by a supplementary Instrument

of Accession.

To sum up, the units of this Federation do not form one single whole

with a common spring of action. The units are separate. They are just held

together. For some purposes the position of the units cannot be altered at

all. For some purposes alteration is permissible but such alteration cannot

bind all the units alike. Some will be bound by it but some will not be

unless they consent to be bound. In other words in this Federation there is

no provision for growth. It is fixed. It cannot move. A change by evolution is

not possible and where it is possible it is not binding unless it is accepted.

III

THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERATION

(a) The Federal Legislature

The Federal Legislature is a bicameral legislature. There is a Lower

House which is spoken of as the Legislative Assembly and there is an Upper

House which is called the Council of State. The composition of the two

Chambers is a noteworthy feature. They are very small Chambers compared

with other legislatures having regard to the population and the area as

the total membership of the Federal Assembly is 375 and of the Council of

State 260. These seats are divided in a certain proportion between British

India and the Indian States. Of the 375 seats in the Federal Assembly 250

289

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

are allotted to British India and 125 to the Indian States. In the Council of

State, out of the 260 seats, 156 are allotted to British India and 104 to the

Indian States. It may be noticed that distribution between British India and

the Indian States is not based upon an equalitarian principle. It is possible

to take the population as the basis of representation. It is also possible to

take the revenue as the basis of representation. But neither of these has

been taken as the basis of distribution of seats. Whether you take population

as the basis or whether you take revenue as the basis, you will find that

British India has been under-represented, while the Indian States have been

over-represented in the two Chambers. The method of filling the seats is also

noteworthy. The representatives of the British India in both the Chambers

will be elected. The representatives of the Indian States, on the other hand,

are to be appointed i.e., nominated, by the Rulers of the States. It is open

to a Ruler to provide that the representatives of his State, though appointed

by him, may be chosen by his subjects but this is a matter which is left to

his discretion. He may appoint a person who is chosen by his people or he

may, if he pleases, do both, choose and appoint. In the final result a State’s

representative is to be appointed by the Ruler as distinguished from being

elected by the people. In the case of British India, the representatives are

to be elected, but here again there is a peculiarity which may be noticed.

In the case of all bi-cameral Legislatures the Lower House being a popular

house is always elected directly by the people, while the Upper House being

a revising Chamber is elected by indirect election. In the case of the Indian

Federation this process is reversed. The Upper Chamber will be elected by

direct election by the people and it is the Lower Chamber which is going to

be elected indirectly by the Provincial Legislatures. The life of the Federal

Assembly is fixed for a term of five years, although it may be dissolved

sooner. The Council of State on the other hand is a permanent body not

liable to dissolution. It is a body which lives by renewal of a third part of

its membership every three years.

Now the authority of the two Chambers to pass laws and to sanction

expenditure may be noted. With regard to the authority to pass laws some

constitutions make a distinction between money bills and other bills and

provide that with regard to money bills the Upper Chamber shall not have

the power to initiate such a bill, and also that the Upper Chamber shall

not have the authority to reject it. It is given the power only to suspend

the passing of the bill for a stated period. The Indian constitution makes no

such distinction at all. The money bills and other bills are treated on the

same footing and require the assent of both the Chambers before they can

become law. The only distinction is that while according to section 30(1) a

bill which is not a money bill may originate in either Chamber, a money

bill, according to section 37, shall not originate in the Upper Chamber. But

according to section 3(2) a money bill needs the assent of the Upper Chamber

as much as any other bill.

290

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

With regard to the authority to sanction expenditure : here again there

is a departure made in the accepted principles of distributing authority

between the two Chambers when a Legislature is bi-cameral.

According to section 31(1) the Annual Financial Statement of estimated

receipts and expenditure shall be laid before both Chambers of the Federal

Legislature and shall, of course, be open to discussion in both the Chambers.

Not only are they open to discussion in both the Chambers, they are also

subject to the vote of both the Chambers. Section 34(2) requires that the

expenditure shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants to the

Federal Assembly and thereafter to the Council of State and either Chamber

shall have the power to assent to or refuse any demand, or to assent to any

demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein.

It will thus be seen that the two Chambers are co-equal in authority,

both in the matter of their authority to pass laws and in the matter of

sanctioning expenditure. A conflict between the two Chambers cannot end

by one Chamber yielding to the other if that Chamber does not wish so to

yield. The procedure adopted for the resolving of differences between the

two Chambers is the method of joint sessions. Section 31(1) deals with

the procedure with regard to joint sessions where the conflict relates to a

bill. Section 34(3) relates to the procedure where the conflict relates to the

differences with regard to sanctioning of expenditure.

(b) The Federal Executive

The constitution of the Federal Executive is described in section 7(1).

According to this section the executive Authority of the Federation is handed

over to the Governor-General. It is he who is the Executive Authority for the

Federation. The first thing to note about this Federal Executive is that it is

a unitary executive and not a corporate body. In India ever since the British

took up the civil and military government of the country, the executive has

never been unitary in composition. The executive was a composite executive. In

the Provinces it was known as the Governor-in-Council. At the Centre it was

known as the Governor-General-in-Council. The civil and military government

of the Provinces as well as of India was not vested either in the Governor or

in the Governor-General. The body in which it was vested was the Governor

with his Councillors. The Councillors were appointed by the King and did not

derive their authority from the Governor-General. They derived their authority

from the Crown and possessed co-equal authority with the Governor and the

Governor-General and, barring questions where the peace and tranquillity of

the territory was concerned, the Governor and the Governor-General were

bound by the decision of the majority. The constitution, therefore, makes a

departure from the established system. I am not saying that this departure is

unsound in principle or it is not justified by precedent or by the circumstances

291

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

arising out of the necessities of a federal constitution. All I want you to note

is that this is a very significant change.

The next thing to note about the Federal Executive is that although the

Governor-General is the Executive Authority for the Federation, there are

conditions laid down for the exercise of his powers as the Federal Executive.

The constitution divides the matters falling within his executive authority into

four classes and prescribes how he is to exercise his executive authority in

respect of each of these four classes. In certain matters the Governor-General

(1) is to act in his own discretion ; (2) In certain matters he is to act on the

advice of his Ministers ; (3) in certain matters he is to act after consultation

with his Ministers, and (4) in certain matters he is to act according to his

individual judgment. A word may be said as to the de jure connotation that

underlies these four cases of the exercise of the executive authority by the

Governor-General. The best way to begin to explain this de jure connotation

is to begin by explaining what is meant by “acting on the advice of his

ministers.” This means, in those matters the government is really carried

on, on the authority of the Ministers and only in the name of the Governor-

General. To put the same thing differently, the advice of the Ministers is

binding on the Governor-General and he cannot differ from their advice.

With regard to the matters where the Governor-General is allowed “to act

in his discretion” what is meant is that the Government is not only carried

on in the name of the Governor-General, but is also carried on the authority

of the Governor-General. That means that there can be no intervention or

interference by the Ministers at any stage. The Ministers have no right to

tender any advice and the Governor-General is not bound to seek their advice ;

or to make it concrete, the files with regard to these matters need not go to

the Ministers at all. “Acting in his individual judgment” means that while the

matter is within the advisory jurisdiction of the Minister, the Minister has

no final authority to decide. The final authority to decide is the Governor-

General. The distinction between “in his discretion” and “in his individual

judgment” is this that while in regard to matters falling “in his discretion”

the Ministers have no right to tender advice to the Governor-General, the

Ministers have a right to tender advice when the matter is one which falls

under “his individual judgment”. To put it differently in regard to matters

which are subject to his individual judgment the Governor-General is bound

to receive advice from his ministers but is not bound to follow their advice.

He may consider their advice, but may act otherwise and differently from the

advice given by the Ministers. But in respect of matters which are subject

to his discretion he is not bound even to receive the advice of his Ministers.

The phrase “after consultation” is a mere matter of procedure. The authority

in such matter vests in the Governor-General. All that is required is that

he should take into account the wishes of the Ministers. Cases relating to

292

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“acting after consultation” may be distinguished from cases relating to

“individual judgment” in this way. In cases relating to “individual judgment”

the authority vests in the Ministers. The Governor-General has the power

to superintend and, if necessary, overrule. In the cases falling under “after

consultation”, the authority belongs to the Governor-General and the Ministers

have the liberty to say what they wish should be done.

The Government of India Act provides for the constitution of a Federal

Court as part of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court is to consist of a

Chief Justice and such Puisne Judges as His Majesty thinks necessary, their

number not to exceed six until an address is presented by the Legislature

asking for an increase. The Federal Judiciary has original as well as appellate

jurisdiction. Section 204, which speaks of the Original Jurisdiction of the

Federal Court, prescribes that, that Court shall have exclusive Original

Jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation, the Provinces and the

federated States which involves any question of law or fact on which the

existence or extent of a legal right depends. This section, however, provides

that if a State is party then the dispute must concern the interpretation of

the Act or an Order in Council thereunder, or the extent of the legislative or

executive authority vested in the Federation by the Instrument of Accession

or arise under an Agreement under Part VI of the Act for the administration

of a federal law in the States, or otherwise concern some matter in which

the Federal Legislature has power to legislate for the States or arise under

an agreement made after federation with the approval of the Representative

of the Crown between the States and the Federation or a Province, and

includes provision for such jurisdiction. Even this limited jurisdiction of

the Federal Court over the States is further limited by the proviso that no

dispute is justiciable if it arises under an agreement expressly excluding

such jurisdiction.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court is regulated by section

205 and section 207. Section 205 says that an appeal shall lie to the

Federal Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in

British India if the High Court certified that the case involves a substantial

question of law as to the interpretation of this Act or an Order in Council

made thereunder. Section 207 relates to appeal from decision of Courts of

the Federated States. It says that an appeal shall be to the Federal Court

from a Court in a federated State on the ground that a question of law has

been wrongly decided, being a question which concerns the interpretation of

this Act or of any Order in Council made thereunder or the extent of the

legislative or executive authority vested in the Federation by virtue of the

Instrument of Accession of that State or arises under an Agreement made

under Part VI of this Act in relation to the administration in that State of

a law of the Federal Legislature ; but sub-section (2) to section 207 provides

293

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

that an appeal under this section shall be by way of a special case to be

stated for the opinion of the Federal Court by a High Court, and the Federal

Court may require a case to be so stated.

Two further points with regard to the Federal Judiciary may be noted.

The first is the power of the Federal Court to execute its own orders. The

Federal Court has no machinery of its own to enforce its orders. Section

210 provides that the orders of the Federal Court shall be enforceable by

all courts and authorities in every part of British India or of any Federated

State as if they were orders duly made by the highest court exercising civil

or criminal jurisdiction as the case may be in that part. The instrumentality,

therefore, which the Federal Court can use for the enforcement of its own

orders consists of the administrative machinery of the units of the Federation.

The units of the Federation are bound to act in aid of the Federal Court. This

is different to what prevails for instance, in the United States of America,

where the Supreme Court has its own machinery for enforcing its own orders.

The second point to note with regard to the Federal Court is the question

of the powers of the Executive to remove the judges and the power of the

Legislature to discuss their conduct. In this respect also the Federal Court

stands on a different footing from the Federal Courts in other Federations.

The Constitution does not give the Governor-General the power to suspend

a Judge of the Federal Court. It forbids any discussion of a judge’s judicial

conduct by the Legislature. This, no doubt, gives the judge of the Federal

Court the greatest fixity of tenure and immunity from interference by the

Executive or by the Legislature. To remove the Judiciary from the control of

the Executive it has been found necessary that the tenure of a judge must

not be subject to the pleasure of the Executive. All constitutions, therefore,

provide that the tenure of a judge shall be during good behaviour and that

a judge shall be removeable only if address is presented by the Legislature

pronouncing that he is not of good behaviour. Some such authority must be

vested in somebody which should have the power to pronounce upon the good

behaviour of a judge. This provision is absent in the Federal Constitution,

so that a Judge of the Federal Court once appointed is irremoveable from

his place till retirement, no matter what his conduct during that period

may be. Instead of this, power is given to His Majesty under section

200(2)(b) to remove a Judge of the Federal Court on the ground of

misbehaviour or infirmity of body or mind if the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council reports that he may be removed on any such ground.

POWERS OF THE FEDERATION

Before I describe the powers of the Federal Government it might be

desirable to explain what is the essence of a Federal Form of Government,

294

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

There is no simpler way of explaining it than by contrasting it with the

Unitary Form of Government.

Although the Federal Form of Government is distinct from the Unitary

form, it is not easy to see distinction. On the other hand, there is, outwardly

at any rate, a great deal of similarity between the two. The Government

of almost every country in these days is carried on by an inter-related

group of Administrative Units operating in specific areas and discharging

specific public functions. This is true of a country with a Federal Form of

Government and also of a country with a Unitary form of Government. In

a Federal Constitution there is a Central Government and there are inter-

related to it several Local Governments. In the same way in an Unitary

Constitution there is a Central Government and there are inter-related to

it several Local Governments. On the surface, therefore, there appears to

be no difference between the two.

There is, however, a real difference between them although it is not

obvious. That difference lies in the nature of the inter-relationship between

the Central and the Local Administrative Units. This difference may be

summed up in this way. In the Unitary Form of Government, the powers of

the local bodies are derived from an Act of the Central Government. That

being so the powers of the Local Government can always be withdrawn by

the Central Government. In the Federal form of Government the powers of

the Central Government as well as of the Local Government are derived

by the law of the Constitution which neither the Local Government nor

the Central Government can alter by its own Act. Both derive their powers

from the law of the Constitution and each is required by the Constitution to

confine itself to the powers given to it. Not only does the Constitution fix the

powers of each but the constitution establishes a judiciary to declare any Act

whether of the Local or the Central Government as void if it transgresses

the limits fixed for it by the Constitution. This is well stated by Clement in

his volume on the Canadian Constitution in the following passage :

“Apart from detail, the term federal union in these modern times implies

an agreement .................... to commit .................... people to the control of one

common government in relation to such matters as are agreed upon as of common

concern, leaving each local government still independent and autonomous in

all other matters, as a necessary corollary the whole-arrangement constitutes

a fundamental law to be recognised in and enforced through the agency of the

Courts.

“The exact position of the line which is to divide matters of common

concern to the whole federation from matters of local concern in each

unit is not of the essence of federalism. Where it is to be drawn in

any proposed scheme depends upon the view adopted by the federating

communities as to what, in their actual circumstances, geographical, com-

295

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

mercial, racial or otherwise, are really matters of common concern and as

such proper to be assigned to a common government. But the maintenance

of the line, as fixed by the federating agreement, is of the essence of modern

federalism; at least, as exhibited in the three great Anglo Saxon federations

today, the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, and

the Dominion of Canada. Hence the importance and gravity of the duty

thrown upon the Courts as the only constitutional interpreter of the organic

instrument which contains the fundamental law of the land.”.

Thus to draw a line for the purpose of dividing the powers of Government

between the Central and Local Governments by the law of the Constitution

and to maintain that line through the judiciary are the two essential

features of the Federal Form of Government. It is these two features

which distinguish it from the Unitary Form of Government. In short

every federation involves two things : (1) Division of Powers by metes and

bounds between the Central Government and the Units which compose

it by the law of the Constitution, which is beyond the power of either

to change and to limit the action of each to the powers given and (2) a

Tribunal beyond the control of either to decide when the issue arises as

to whether any particular act of the Centre or of the Unit, Legislative,

Executive, Administrative or Financial is beyond the powers given to it

by the Constitution.

Having explained what is meant by Federal Government, I will now

proceed to give you some idea of the Powers which are assigned by the

constitution to the Federal Government.

(a) Legislative Powers of the Federation

For the purposes of distributing the Legislative Powers the possible

subjects of Legislation are listed into three categories. The first category

includes subjects, the exclusive right to legislate upon which is given to

the Federal Legislature. This list is called the Federal List. The second

category includes subjects, the exclusive right to legislate upon which is

given to the Provincial Legislature. The list is called the Provincial List.

The third category includes subjects over which both the Federal as well

as the Provincial Legislature have a right to legislate. This list is called

the Concurrent list. The scope and contents of these lists are given in

Schedule VII to the Government of India Act.

In accordance with the fundamental principles of Federation a law made

by the Federal Legislature if it relates to a matter which is included in

the Provincial List, would be ultra vires and a nullity. Similarly, if the

Provincial Legislature were to make a law relating to a matter falling

in the Federal List such a Provincial Law would be ultra vires and

therefore a nullity. This is, however declared by statute and section 107 is

296

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

now the law on the point. Cases of conflict of legislation touching the Federal

List and the Provincial List are not likely to occur often. But cases of conflict

between the two are sure to arise in the concurrent field of legislation. The

law as to that you will find in section 107. Sub-section (1) lays down when a

Federal Law shall prevail over a Provincial Law. Sub-section (2) lays down

as to when a Provincial Law shall prevail over the Federal Law. Reading

the sub-sections together the position in law is this. As a rule a Federal Law

shall prevail over a Provincial Law if the two are in conflict. But in cases

where the Provincial Law, having been reserved for the consideration of

the Governor-General or for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure, has

received the assent of the Governor-General or His Majesty, the Provincial

Law shall prevail until the Federal Legislature enacts further legislation with

respect to the same matter.

With regard to the question of this distribution of powers of legislation every

Federation is faced with a problem. That problem arises because there can be

no guarantee that enumeration of the subjects of legislation is exhaustive and

includes every possible subject of legislation. However complete and exhaustive

the listing may be there is always the possibility of some subject remaining

unenumerated. Every Federation has to provide for such a contingency and

lay down to whom the powers to legislate regarding these residuary subjects

shall belong. Should they be given to the Central Government or should they

be given to the Units ? Hitherto there has been only one way of dealing with

them. In some Federations, these residuary powers are given to the Central

Government, as in Canada. In some Federations they are given to the Units,

as in Australia. The Indian Federation has adopted a new way of dealing

with them. In the Indian Federation they are neither assigned to the Central

Government nor to the Provinces. They are in a way vested in the Governor-

General by virtue of section 104. When a Legislation is proposed on a subject

which is not enumerated in any of the three lists it is the Governor-General,

who is to decide whether the powers shall be exercised by the Federal

Legislature or by the Provincial Legislature.

(b) Executive Powers of the Federation

The first question is, what is the extent of the executive powers of the

Federation ? Is it co-extensive with the legislative powers ? In some of

the Federations this was not made clear by statute. It was left to judicial

decision. Such is the case in Canada. The Indian Constitution does not leave

this matter to courts to decide. It is defined expressly in the Act itself. The

relevant section is section 8(1). It says that the executive authority of the

Federation extends—

(a) to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature has powers

to make laws ;

(b) to raising in British India on behalf of His Majesty of naval, military

and air forces and to the governance of His Majesty’s forces borne on

the Indian establishment;

297

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

exercisable by His Majesty by treaty, grant, usage, sufference, or

otherwise in and in relation to the tribal areas.

There is no difficulty in following the provisions of this sub-section. There

might perhaps be some difficulty in understanding sub-clause (a). It says

that the executive powers must be co-extensive with the legislative powers

of the Federation. Now the legislative power of the Federation extends not

only to the Federal List but also to the Concurrent List. Does the executive

power of the Federation extend to subjects included in the Concurrent List ?

Two points must be borne in mind before answering this question. First, the

Concurrent List is also subject to the legislative authority of the Province.

Second, according to section 49(2) that the executive authority of each

Province extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the

Province has power to make laws. The answer to the question whether the

executive authority of the Federation extends also to the Concurrent list is

that the Executive Authority in respect of the Concurrent List belongs to

the Federal Government as well as to the Provincial Government. This is

clear from the terms of section 126(2). It belongs to Provincial Government

except in so far as the Federal Legislature has covered the field. It belongs

to the Federal Government except in so far as the Provincial Legislature

has covered the field.

The Concurrent List is not the only list which is subject to Legislation by

the Federal Legislature. The Federal Legislature has the right to legislate

even on Provincial subjects under Section 102 in cases of emergency and under

Section 106 to give effect to international agreements. Does the Executive

Authority of the Federation extend to such matters also ? The answer is

that when a field is covered by Federal Legislation that field also becomes

the field of Executive Authority of the Federation.

The Administrative Powers of the Federation follow upon the Executive

Powers of the Federation just as the Executive Powers of the Federation

follow upon the Legislative Powers of the Federation.

To this there is one exception. That exception relates to the administration

of subjects included in the Concurrent List. The Concurrent List is a list

to which the Legislative Authority of the Federation extends by virtue of

Section 100. As has already been pointed out the executive authority of the

Federation extends in so far as Federal Legislation has covered the field.

But the administrative powers for subjects falling in the Concurrent List do

not belong to the Federation. They belong to the Provinces.

(d) Financial Powers of the Federation

The revenues of the Federal Government are derived from four different

sources : (1) Revenue from Commercial Enterprise, (2) Revenue from

298

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Sovereign Functions; (3) Revenue from Tributes ; and (4) Revenue from

Taxes.

Under the first head fall all revenues from Posts and Telegraphs. Federal

Railways, banking profits and other commercial operations. Under the second

head come revenues from currency and coinage, from bona vacantia and

territories administered directly by the Federal Government. Under the third

head are included Contributions and Tributes from the Indian States.

The classification of Revenue from taxes follows upon the Powers of Taxation

given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Powers of Taxation

given to the Federal Government fall into three main categories. In the first

category fall those powers of taxation which is wholly appropriable by the

Federal Government. In the second category, fall those powers of taxation

which are exercisable for raising revenue which is divisible between the Federal

Government and the Provincial Governments.

The heads of revenue which fall under the first category of Taxing Powers

cover those which are specifically mentioned in the Federal List—

1. Duties of customs, including export duties.

2. Duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced

in India except—

(a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption ;

(b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics, non-

narcotic drugs ;

stance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this entry.

3. Corporation tax.

4. Salt.

5. State lotteries.

6. Taxes on income other than agricultural income.

7. Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land

of individuals and companies ; taxes, on the capital of companies.

8. Duties in respect of succession to property other than agricultural land.

9. The rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques,

promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance

proxies and receipts.

10. Terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway or air ; taxes

on railway fares and freights.

11. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list but not including fees

taken in any court.

In connection with this, attention might be drawn to the following items

in the Concurrent List :

1. Marriage and divorce.

2. Wills, intestacy and succession.

3. Transfer of Property and other agricultural lands.

299

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Being in the Concurrent list, the Federal Legislature has power to

legislate upon with respect to these. Can the Federal Legislature also while

legislating upon them raise revenue from them ? The Act does not seem to

furnish any answer to this question. It may however be suggested that the

rules contained in section 104 regarding the exercise of Residuary Powers

will also apply here.

The sources of revenue which are made divisible by the Constitution are :

(1) Income Tax other than Corporation Tax and (2) Jute Export duty. Those

which are made divisible according to the Federal Law are : (1) Duty on

Salt, (2) Excise duty on Tobacco and other goods and (3) Duties of Export.

In respect of the financial powers of the Federation there is one feature

which by reason of its pecularity is deserving of attention. The Act in giving

the Federal Government the right to tax, makes a distinction between power

to levy the tax and the right to collect it and even where it gives the power

to levy the tax it does not give it the right to collect it. This is so in the

case of surcharge on Income tax and the Corporation tax. The Income tax

is only leviable in the Provinces and not in the States although it is a tax

for Federal purposes. The State subjects are liable to pay only a Federal

surcharge on Income Tax because such a surcharge is leviable both within

the Provinces as well as the States. But under section 138(3) the Federal

Government has no right to collect it within the States. The collection is

left to the Ruler of the State. The Ruler, instead of collecting the surcharge

from his subjects, may agree to pay the Federation a lump sum and the

Federation is bound to accept the same. Similar is the case with regard to

the Corporation tax. The Federation can levy it on State subjects but cannot

collect it directly by its own agency. Section 139 provides that the collection

of the Corporation tax shall as of right be the function of the Ruler.

CHARACTER OF THE FEDERATION

(1) The Nature of the Union

How does the Indian Federation compare with other Federations ? This is

not only a natural inquiry but it is also a necessary inquiry. The method of

comparison and contrast is the best way to understand the nature of a thing.

This comparison can be instituted from points of view. There is no time for

a comparison on so vast a scale. I must confine this comparison to some

very moderate dimensions. Therefore I propose to raise only four questions :

(1) Is this Federation a perpetual Union ? (2) What is the relationship of

the Units to the Federal Government ? (3) What is the relationship of the

Units as between themselves ? (4) What is the relationship of the people

under the Units ?

There is no doubt that the accession of the Indian States to the Federation

is to be perpetual so long as the Federation created by the Act is in

300

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

existence. While the Federation exists there is no right to secede. But that

is not the real question. The real question is, will the federation continue

even when the Act is changed ? In other words the question is, is this a

perpetual Union with no right to secede or, is this a mere alliance with a

right to break away? In my opinion the Indian Federation is not a perpetual

union and that the Indian States have a right to secede. In this respect the

constitution of the United States and this Indian Federation stand in clear

contrast. The constitution of the United States says nothing as to the right

of secession. This omission was interpreted in two different ways. Some said

that it was not granted because it was copy recognized. Others said it was

not excluded because it was not negatived. It was this controversy over the

question namely whether the right of secession was excluded because it was

not recognized which led to the Civil War of 1861. The Civil War settled

two important principles : (1) No State has a right to declare an Act of the

Federal Government invalid ; (2) No State has a right to secede from the

Union. In the Indian Federation it would be unnecessary to go to war for

establishing the right to secession because the Constitution recognizes the

right of the Indian States to secede from the Indian Federation if certain

eventualities occur. What is a perpetual Union and what is only a compact

is made nowhere so clear as by Blackstone in his analysis of the nature of

the Union between England and Scotland. To use his language the Indian

Federation is not an incorporate Union because in a Union the two contracting

States are totally annihilated without any power of revival. The Indian

Federation is an alliance between two contracting parties, the Crown and

the Indian States, in which neither is annihilated but each reserves a right

to original Status if a breach of condition occurs. The Constitution of the

United States originated in a compact but resulted in a union. The Indian

Federation originates in a compact and continues as a compact. That the

Indian Federation has none of the marks of a Union but on the other hand

it has all the marks of a compact is beyond dispute. The distinguishing

marks of a Union were well described by Daniel Webster, when in one of

his speeches on the American Constitution he said—

“ ...The constitution speaks of that political system which is established as ‘the

Government of the United States’. Is it not doing a strange violence to languages

to call a league or a compact between sovereign powers a Government ? The

Government of a State is that organisation in which political power resides”.

“ ...The broad and clear difference between a government and a league

or a compact is that a government is a body politic ; it has a will of its

own ; and it possesses powers and faculties to execute its own purposes

Every compact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. Even

in a compact between sovereign communities, there always exists this

ultimate reference to a power to ensure its execution ; although in such

301

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

a case, this power is but the force of one party against the force of another;

that is to say, the power of war. But a Government executes its decisions by

its own supreme authority. Its use of force in compelling obedience to its own

enactments is not war. It contemplates no opposing party having a right of

resistance. It rests on its power to enforce its own will; and when it ceases to

possess this power it is no longer a Government”.

In the light of this the following facts should be noted. The Act does not

ordain and establish a Federal Government for British India and the Indian

States. The Act ordains and establishes a Federal Government for British

India only. The Federal Government will become a Government for the

States only when each State adopts it by its Instrument of Accession. Again

note that the subjection of the States to the Federal Government is not to

be for all times. It is to continue only under certain circumstances. It is to

continue so long as certain provisions of the Act are continued without a

change. Thirdly, where change in the provisions is permissible such change

shall not bind the State unless it agrees to be bound by it.

All these are unmistakable signs which show that the Indian Federation

is a compact and not a perpetual Union. The essence of a compact is that

it reserves the right to break away and to return to the original position.

In this respect therefore the Indian Federation differs from the Federations

in U.S.A., Canada and Australia. It differs from the U.S.A., because the

right to secede is recognized by the Indian Constitution if the constitution is

altered, while it is not recognized by the Constitution of the U.S.A., even if

the constitution is altered against the wishes of a particular State. In regard

to Australia and Canada such a question cannot really arise and if it did, a

civil war would be quite unnecessary to decide the issue. In these federations

the sovereignty, whether it is exercised by the Federal Governments or the

Units belongs to the Crown and the maintenance of the Federation or its

breakup remains with the King and Parliament. Neither the Federation nor

the Units could decide the issue otherwise than with the consent of Parliament.

If a break-up came, it would be a mere withdrawal of the sovereignty of the

Crown and its re-distribution which the Crown is always free to do. The

break up could be legal and even if it was perpetrated by non-legal means it

could give sovereignty to the rebellious units because it belongs to the Crown.

The same would have been the case, if the Indian Federation had been the

Federation of British Indian Provinces only. No question of secession could

have arisen. The Provinces would have been required to remain in the position

in which the Crown might think it best to place them. The Indian Federation

has become different because of the entry of the Indian States. The entry

of the Indian States is not for all times and under all circumstances. Their

entry is upon terms and conditions. That being so the Indian Federation

302

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

could not be a perpetual union. Indeed, the Indian States would not enter

into matrimony with the Indian Provinces unless the terms of divorce were

settled before-hand. And so they are. That is why the Indian Federation is

a compact and not a union.

(2) Relationship of the Units to the Federal Government

That each separate unit should have approximately equal political rights

is a general feature of federations. Equality of status among the different

units is a necessity. To make them unequal in status is to give units the

power to become dominant partners. The existence of dominant partners

in a federation, as observed by Dicey is fraught with two dangers. Firstly,

the dominant partners may exercise an authority almost inconsistent with

federal equality. Secondly, it may create combinations inside the Federation

of dominant units and subordinate units and vice versa. To prevent such

an unhealthy state of affairs, all federations proceed upon the principle of

equality of status. How far does this principle obtain in the Indian Federation?

(a) In the matter of Legislation

As you know for purposes of Legislation the field is divided into three

parts and there are three lists prepared which are called the Federal List,

the Concurrent List and the Provincial List.

The Federal List contains 59 items as subjects of legislation. The Concurrent

List contains 36 items.

The first thing to note is that both these lists are binding upon the

Provinces. They cannot pick and choose as to the matters in these two lists

in respect of which they will subject themselves to the authority of the

Federation. The Provinces have no liberty to contract out of these two lists.

The position of a Federating State is quite different. A Federating State can

wholly keep itself out of the Concurrent List. Under section 6(2) there is no

objection to the Ruler of any Indian State to agree to federate in respect

of matters included in the Concurrent List. But there is no obligation upon

them to do so. Such an agreement is not a condition precedent to their

admission into the Federation.

With regard to the Federal List, there is no doubt an obligation on

the Ruler of a State to subject himself to the legislative authority of

the Federation in respect of the Federal List, but his subjection to the

Federation will be confined to matters specified by him in his Instrument

of Accession. There are as I stated altogether 59 items in the Federal List.

There is no obligation upon the Prince to accept all subjects in the Federal

List as a condition precedent for his entry into Federation. He may accept

some only or he may accept all. Again one Ruler may accept one item

and another Ruler may accept another. There is no rule laid down in the

constitution that some items must be accepted by every Ruler who chooses

303

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

to enter the Federation. The Federation, therefore, while it affects British

India and the Provinces uniformly and completely so far as the legislative

authority of the Federation is concerned, it touches different States in

different degrees. A Ruler may federate in respect of one subject yet he is

as good a member of the Federation as a Ruler who accepts all the fifty-

nine items in the Federal List.

The Provincial List is a list which is subject to the exclusive Legislative

authority of the Provinces. There is no corresponding State List given in the

Act for the Federated States. It cannot be given. But it can be said that it

includes all these subjects which are not surrendered by the State to the

Federation. Now with regard to the exclusive authority of the Provincial

Legislature, still in the event of emergency it is open to the Federal Legislature

to make laws for a Province or any part thereof with respect to any of the

matters enumerated in the Provincial List, it the Governor-General has

in his discretion declared under section 102 by proclamation that a grave

emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened whether by

way of war or by internal disturbances. There is no such provision in respect

of the Indian States. A grave emergency which threatens India may quite

well arise within a State as it may within the territories of a Province. It

is thus clear that while the Federal Legislature can intervene and make

laws for a Province when there is emergency, it cannot intervene and make

laws for the Federated States under similar circumstances.

(b) In the matter of the Executive

Again in the matter of the Executive, the States and the Provinces do

not stand on the same footing. Section 8 defines the scope of the executive

authority of the Federation which according to section 7 is exercisable by

the Governor-General on behalf of His Majesty. According to sub-section (1)

to sub-clause (a) the authority of the Federal Executive extends to matters

with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws,

but this clause has not the same application with respect to the States as

it has with respect to the provinces. With regard to the provinces it has

authority in all matters which are included in the Federal Legislative List.

It has also exclusive authority with respect to certain matters included in

the Concurrent List subject to certain limitations ; but with regard to the

States the case is very different. With regard to the States the Federation

can have no executive authority in respect of subjects in the Concurrent

List, but also the Federation is not entitled to have exclusive authority with

respect to matters included in the Federal Legislative List. Sub-clause 2 of

section 8 is very important. It says :

“The executive authority of the Ruler of a Federated State shall,

notwithstanding anything in this section, continue to be exercisable in that

State with respect to matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature

304

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

has power to make laws for that State except in so far as the executive authority

of the Federation becomes exercisable in the State to the exclusion of the

executive authority of the Ruler by virtue of a federal law.”.

In plain language what the sub-section means is this—With regard to a

province the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters

over which the Federation has legislative authority. With regard to the

State the position is different. The mere fact that the federal legislature has

authority to legislate in respect of a subject does not give the Federation any

executive authority over the State in respect of that subject. Such executive

authority can be conferred only as a result of a law passed by the Federation.

Whether it is possible to pass such a law is problematic in view of the large

representation which the States have in Federal Legislature. Whatever may

be the eventuality, in theory the executive authority of the Federation does

not extend to a Federated State. The position is that while with regard to

the provinces the Federation can legislate as well as execute, in the case of

the Federated States, the Federation can legislate, but cannot execute. The

execution may be with the State.

When you begin to examine the constitution from the point of view of

administration you will find certain sections in the Act which lay down rules

for the guidance of the Federal Government, of the Provincial Governments

and of the State Governments. The purpose of the sections is to tell them how

they should exercise the executive authority belonging to them respectively.

These sections are 122, 126 and 128.

Section 122 is addressed to the Federal Government. It reads as follows :

“122. (1) The executive authority of every Province and Federated State shall

be so exercised as to secure respect for the laws of the Federal Legislature

which apply in that Province or State.

(2) The reference in sub-section (1) of this section to laws of the Federal

Legislature shall, in relation to any Province, include a reference to any existing

Indian Law applying in that Province.

(3) Without prejudice to any of the other provisions of this part of this Act,

in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation in any Province or

Federated State regard shall be had to the interests of that Province or State.”.

Section 126 is addressed to the Provincial Governments. It provides that—

“126 (1) The executive (authority of every Province shall be so exercised

as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the

Federation, and the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the

giving of such directions to a Province as may appear to the Federal Government

to be necessary for that purpose.”.

305

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Section 128 is addressed to the States. It runs as follows :

“128. (1) The executive authority of every Federated State shall be so

exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority

of the Federation so far as it is exercisable in the State by virtue of the law

of the Federal Legislature which applies therein.

(2) If it appears to the Governor-General that the Ruler of any Federated

State has in any way failed to fulfil his obligations under the preceding sub-

section, the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may after considering

any representations made to him by the Ruler, issue such directions to the

Ruler as he thinks fit :

Provided that if any question arises under this section as to whether the

executive authority of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect

to which it is so exercisable, the question may, at the instance either of the

Federation or the Ruler, be referred to the Federal Court for determination by

that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under this Act.’

All these sections would have been very useful if there was any possibility

of conflict in the exercise of their executive authority by these agencies.

But these will be quite unnecessary because there would be as a matter

of fact no conflict of executive authority which can arise only when such

executive authority is followed by administrative act. When administration

is divorced from Executive Authority there is no possibility of conflict and

the admonitions contained in such sections are quite unnecessary.

Now it is possible that in the Federal Constitution the Federal Government

may be altogether denuded of its powers of administration and may be made

just as a frame without any spring of action in it. The constitution provides

that the Governor-General of the Federal Legislature may provide that the

administration of a certain law passed by it instead of being carried on by

the Federal Executive might be entrusted to Units i.e. to the Provincial

Governments and the Indian States. This is clear from the terms of section

124 :

“124. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Governor-General may,

with the consent of the Government of a Province or the Ruler of a Federated

State, entrust either conditionally to the Government or Ruler or to their

respective Officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive

authority of the Federation extends.

(2) An Act of the Federal Legislature may, notwithstanding that it relates

to a matter with respect to which a Provincial Legislature has no power to

make laws, confer powers and impose duties upon a Province or officers and

authorities thereof.

(3) An Act of the Federal Legislature which extends to a Federated State

may confer powers and impose duties upon the State or officers and authorities

thereof to be designated for the purpose by the Ruler.

306

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(4) Where by virtue of this section powers and duties have been conferred

or imposed upon a Province or a Federated State or officers or authorities

thereof, there shall be paid by the Federation to the Province or State such

sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined

by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any

extra cost of administration incurred by the Province or State in connection

with the exercise of those powers and duties.”

It is quite possible for States and Provinces to combine to rob the

Federation of all administrative powers and make it only a law making

body.

A more staggering situation however is created by section 125. It is

in the following terms:

“125. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, agreements may, and, if

provision has been made in that behalf by the Instrument of Accession of

the State, shall be made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of

a Federated State for the exercise by the Ruler or his officers of functions

in relation to the administration in his State of any law of the Federal

Legislature which applies therein.

(2) An agreement made under this section shall contain provisions enabling

the Governor-General in his discretion to satisfy himself, by inspection or

otherwise that the administration of the law to which the agreement relates

is carried out in accordance with the policy of the Federal Government and,

if he is not so satisfied, the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may

issue such directions to the Ruler as he thinks fit.

(3) All courts shall take judicial notice of any agreement made under

this section.”.

This section means that a State by its Instrument of Accession may

stipulate that the administration of Federal laws in the State shall be

carried out by the State agency and not by the agency of the Federation

and if it does so stipulate then the Federation shall have no administrative

power inside the State. The benefit of a law depends upon its administration.

A law may turn out to be of no avail because the administration is

either inefficient or corrupt. To deprive the Federal Government of its

administrative powers is really to cripple the Federal Government. There

is no Federation in which some units of the Federation are permitted to

say that the Federal Government shall have no administrative powers in

their territory. The Indian Federation is an exception. Not only is there a

difference between the Provinces and the States in this matter but they

also differ in their liability to supervision and direction by the Federal

307

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Government in the matter of the exercise of their executive authority. That

difference will be clear if you will compare section 126 with section 128.

Section 126 enacts that the executive authority of every province shall

be exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive

authority of the Federation and the executive authority of the Federation

shall extend to the giving of such directions to a Province as may appear

to the Federal Government to be necessary for that purpose. Section 128

is a section which enacts a similar rule with respect to a Federated State,

but there is a significant difference between the two sections. Section 126

says that the executive authority of the Federation extends to the giving of

such directions to a province as may appear to the Federal Government to

be necessary for that purpose, while section 128 does not give such a power.

That means that the Federation does not possess the inherent executive

authority to give a direction to the Ruler of a Federated State to prevent

him from so exercising the executive authority of the State as to impede

or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation. That

is one very significant difference. Such authority, instead of being given to

the Federation, is given to the Governor-General, who, of course, under the

law is distinct from the Federal Government and it is the Governor-General

who is empowered to issue such directions to the Ruler as he thinks fit.

A further distinction is also noticeable. When directions are issued to the

Governor of a province under section 126 he is bound to carry them out. He

has no right to question the necessity of the directions nor can he question

the capacity of the Governor-General to issue such directions. With regard

to the Ruler of a State, however, the position is entirely different. He can

question such a direction, and have the matter adjudicated in the Federal

Court, because the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 128 says that if any

question arises under this section as to whether the executive authority

under this section of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect

to any matter or as to the extent to which it is so exercisable, the question

may at the instance either of the Federation or the Ruler be referred to the

Federal Court for determination by that Court.

(3) In the matter of Finance

Coming to the question of Finance, the disparity between the Provinces

and the States is a glaring disparity. Take the case of the taxing authority

of the Federation over the Provinces and the States. It may be noted that

the revenues of the Federation are derivable from sources which fall under

two main heads—those derived from taxation and those not derived from

taxation. Those not derived from taxation fall under six heads—

(1) Fees in respect of matters included in the Federal List.

(2) Profits, if any, on the work of the Postal Services, including Postal

Savings Banks.

(3) Profits, if any, on the operation of Federal Railways.

308

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(4) Profits, if any, from Mint and Currency operations.

(5) Profits, if any, from any other Federal enterprise, such as Reserve

Bank, and

(6) Direct contribution to the Crown from Federated or non-Federated

States.

As regards the revenues derived from taxation under the Government of

India Act, they fall under two heads; Ordinary taxation and Extraordinary

taxation. Ordinary taxation includes levy from following sources :

(1) Customs duties;

(2) Export duties;

(3) Excise duties;

(4) Salt;

(5) Corporation tax;

(6) Tax on income, other than agricultural; and

(7) Property Taxes i.e., taxes on Capital value of the individual assets

or a property.

The extraordinary revenue falls under following heads :

(1) Surcharges on Income-tax.

(2) Surcharges on succession duties.

(3) Surcharges on terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by rail

or air and all taxes on railway freights.

(4) Surcharges on Stamp duties, etc.

Now, while the provinces are liable to bear taxation under any of these

heads whether the taxation is of an ordinary character or is of an extraordinary

character, the same is not true of the States. For instance, the States are

not liable in ordinary time to ordinary taxes falling under heads 6 and 7,

while the Provinces are liable,

With regard to extraordinary taxation, the States are not liable to

contribute even in times of financial stringency the taxes levied under

items 2, 3 and 4 and even where they are liable to contribute under head

1 of the extraordinary sources of revenue, it must be certified that all other

economies have been made.

There is another difference from the financial point of view between the

States and the Provinces. The field of taxation for provincial Governments

has been defined in the Act. A provincial Government cannot raise revenue

from any source other than those mentioned in the Act. Such is not the

case with the State. There is nothing in the Government of India Act,

which defines the powers of a Federated State with regard to its system

of taxation. It may select any source of taxation to raise revenue for the

purpose of internal administration and may even levy customs duties upon

articles entering its territory from a neighbouring province although that

neighbouring province is a unit of the Federal Government of which the

309

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Federated State is also a unit. This is a most extraordinary feature of this

Indian Federation and also one of its worst features. One of the results of

a Federation, if not its primary object, has been the freedom of trade and

commerce inside the territory of the Federation. There is no federation known

to history which has permitted one unit of the Federation to levy customs

duties or raise other barriers with a view to prevent inter-State commerce.

The Indian Federation is an exception to that rule and this is a feature of

the Indian Federation which makes it stand out in glaring contrast with

other federations with which people are familiar today.

One of the characteristics of a Federal Constitution is that although the

territory comprised in the Federation is distributed or held by different units,

still they constitute one single territory. At any rate for customs purposes

the territory is treated as a single unit. Every Federal Constitution contains

powers and prohibitions to prevent trade and customs barriers being erected

by one unit against another.

The American constitution by Section 9 of Article II prohibits a State from

preventing the import or export of goods or from levying import or export

duties upon goods passing in or out of the State boundary. Section 8(3) of

Article II gives the Federal Government the power of regulating trade or

commerce between the States of the Union.

In Australia by virtue of Section 92 of its Constitution both the States and

the Federal Government are bound so to exercise their power of regulation

as not to transgress the fundamental guarantee of the Constitution embodied

in Section 92 that “trade and commerce among the States whether by means

of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely free”.

In Canada section 121 enacts that “all articles of the growth, produce

or manufacture of any one Province shall, from and after the Union, be

admitted free into each of the other Provinces.”

In the Indian Constitution the provision relating to freedom of trade

and commerce within the Federation is contained in Section 297. It reads

as follows :

“297. (1) No Provincial Legislature or Government shall—

(a) by virtue of the entry in the Provincial Legislative List relating to

trade and commerce within the Province, or the entry in that list

relating to the production, supply, and distribution of commodities,

have power to pass any law or take any executive action prohibiting

or restricting the entry into, or export from, the Province of goods

of any class or description ; or

(b) by virtue of anything in this Act have power to impose any tax, cess,

toll, or due which, as between goods manufactured or produced in

the Province and similar goods not so manufactured or produced,

discriminates in favour of the former, or which, in the case of goods

manufactured or produced outside the Province, discriminates between

310

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods

manufactured or produced in another locality.

(2) Any law passed in contravention of this shall, to the extent of the

contravention, be invalid.”

Now it will be clear from the terms of this section that the freedom of

trade and commerce is confined only to the provinces. That means the Indian

States are free to prohibit the entry of goods from the Provinces absolutely

or subject them to duty. This is quite contrary to the fundamental idea

underlying a federal union. To allow one unit of the Federation to carry on

commercial warfare against another unit is nothing but negation of federation.

(4) Relationship of the People under the Federation

Before I enter into this question it is necessary to clear the ground by

pointing out certain distinctions. The words ‘State’ and ‘Society’ are often

presented as though there was a contrast between the two. But there is no

distinction of a fundamental character between a State and a society. It is

true that the plenary powers of the State operate through the sanction of law

while society depends upon religious and social sanctions for the enforcement

of its plenary powers. The fact, however, remains that both have plenary

powers to coerce. As such, there is no contrast between state and society.

Secondly, the persons composing society are persons who are also members

of the State. Here again, there is no difference between State and Society.

There is, however, one difference, but it is of another kind. Every person,

who is a member of society and dwells in it, is not necessarily a member

of the State. Only those who dwell within the boundary of the State do

not necessarily belong to the State. This distinction between those, who

belong to the State and those who do not, is very crucial and should not be

forgotten because it has important consequences. Those who belong to State

are members and have the benefits of membership which consists of the

totality rights and duties which they possess over against the State. From

the side of duty the relation is best indicated by the word subject, from

the side of rights it is best designated by the word citizen. This difference

involves the consequence that those who dwell in the State without belonging

to it have no benefit of membership which means that they are foreigners

and not citizens.

Theoretically, the task of differentiating the foreigners from the citizens

of a State would seem to be an easy task, in fact, almost a mechanical task.

This is particularly true of an Unitary State. Here there is a simple question :

What is the relation of this State as against any and all foreign States ? In

a Federal State the matter is complicated by the fact that every individual

stands in a dual relationship. On the one hand, he sustains certain relations

to the Federal State as a whole ; and on the other he sustains certain

relations to the State in which he may reside. The moment an attempt is

311

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

made to define the status of a person in a Federal State, therefore, not

one question, but several must be answered : What is the relation of this

person to the Federal State, as against any and all foreign States ? What

is the relation of this person to the State in which he resides ? Further is

it possible to be a citizen of one State and not a citizen of Federal State ?

Such questions did not arise in Canada and Australia when they became

federations. The reason was that persons residing in their respective units

were natural born British subjects—a status which remained with them when

the Federation came. After the Federation the powers of naturalization was

given to the Federation and consequently every one who is naturalized by

the Federation is a citizen of the Federation and therefore of every unit in it.

Such questions however did arise in the U.S.A., Switzerland and Germany,

because before the Federation their units were all foreign States and their

subjects were foreign subjects. But it is noteworthy that in all these cases a

common citizenship was established as a part of the federation. A rule was

established whereby it was accepted that a citizenship of one unit carried

with it a citizenship of the Federation.

The case of the Indian Federation is similar to that of the U.S.A., Germany

and Switzerland. The subject of an Indian State is a foreigner in British

India as well as in another Indian State. The subject of a British Indian

Province is a foreigner in every Indian State.

What does the Indian Federation do with regard to this matter ? Does

it forge a common Citizenship for all Units which become members of the

Federation ? The answer is no. A British Indian will continue to be a foreigner

in every Indian State even though it is a Federal State after the Federation,

as he was before the Federation. Similarly a subject of a Federated Indian

State will be a foreigner in every British Indian Province after the Federation

as he was before Federation. There is no common nationality. The whole

principle of the Federation is that the ruler of a Federated State shall remain

the ruler of the State and his subjects shall remain his subjects and the

Crown as the ruler of the Federated Provinces shall remain the ruler of the

Provinces and his subjects shall remain his subjects.

This difference in citizenship manifests itself in two specific ways.

Firstly, it manifests itself in the matter of right to serve. Federation being

established under the Crown, only persons who are subjects of the Crown are

entitled to serve under it. This is recognized by Section 262. This of course

is an injustice to the subjects of the States. To prevent this injustice which

of course is a logical consequence of difference of citizenship, power is given

to the Secretary of State to declare the subjects of the Indian States eligible

for service under the Federation. This is an anomalous state of affairs and

although the injustice to Indian State subjects is mitigated, the injustice

312

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

against British Indians in the matter of right to employment in Indian States

continues. For, Indian States are not required to declare that British Indians

shall be deemed to be eligible for service under them. That notwithstanding

Federation such an anomaly should exist shows that this Federation is a

freak.

Secondly, this difference in citizenship shows itself in the terms of the

oath prescribed for members of the Legislature by Schedule IV.

In the case of a member who is a British subject the form of the oath

is as under :

“I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this

Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful

and bear true allegiance to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs

and successors, and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am

about to enter.”

In the case of a person who is a subject of a Ruler of an Indian State

the form of the oath is as follows :

“I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated or appointed) a member of this

Council (or Assembly), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that saving the faith and

allegiance which I owe to C.D., his heirs and successors, I will be faithful and

bear true allegiance in any capacity as Member of this Council (or Assembly)

to His Majesty the King, Emperor of India, His heirs and successors, and that

I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter.”

The subject of an Indian State, it is obvious from the terms of the oath,

owes a double allegiance. He owes allegiance to the ruler of his State and

also to the King. Superficially the position seems not very different from

what one find in the United States. In the United States the individual is

a citizen of the Union as well as of the State and owes allegiance to both

powers. Each power has a right to Command his obedience. But ask the

question, to which, in case of conflict, is obedience due and you will see the

difference between the two. On this question this is what Bryce has to say :

“The right of the State to obedience is wider in the area of matters which it

covers. Prima facie every State-law, every order of a competent State authority

binds the citizen, whereas the National government has but a limited power; it

can legislate or command only for certain purposes or on certain subjects. But

within the limits of its power, its authority is higher than that of the State,

must be obeyed even at the risk of disobeying the State.

“Any act of a State Legislature or a State Executive conflicting with

the Constitution, or with an act of the National Government, done under

the Constitution, is really an act not of the State Government, which

313

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

cannot legally act against the Constitution, but of persons falsely assuming

to act as such government, and is therefore ipso jure void. Those who disobey

Federal authority on the ground of the commands of a State authority are

therefore insurgents against the Union who must be coerced by its power. The

coercion of such insurgents is directed not against the State but against them

as individuals though combined wrongdoers. A State cannot secede and cannot

rebel. Similarly, it cannot be coerced.”.

Can the Federal Government in India take the stand which the Union

Government can when there is a conflict of allegiance ? There can be no

doubt that it cannot, for the simple reason that the allegiance to the King

saves the allegiance to the Ruler. This is a very unhappy if not a dangerous

situation.

(5) Strength of the Federal Frame

The existence in the country of one Government which can speak and act

in the name of and with the unified will of the whole nation is no doubt the

strongest Government that can be had and only a strong Government can

be depended upon to act in an emergency. The efficiency of a Governmental

system must be very weak where there exists within a country a number of

Governments which are distinct centres of force, which constitute separately

organized political bodies into which different parts of the nation’s strength

flows and whose resistance to the will of the Central Government is likely to

be more effective than could be the resistance of individuals, because such

bodies are each of them endowed with a government, a revenue, a militia,

a local patriotism to unite them. The former is the case where the unitary

system of Government prevails. The latter is the case where the Federal

form of Government prevails.

The Indian Federation by reason of the fact that it is a Federation

has all the weaknesses of a Federal form of Government. But the Indian

Federation has its own added weaknesses which are not to be found in

other Federations and which are likely to devitalize it altogether. Compare

the Indian Federation with the Federation of the United States. As Bryce

says, “the authority of the national Government over the citizens of every

State is direct and immediate, not exerted through the State organization,

and not requiring the co-operation of the State Government. For most

purposes the National Government ignores the States, and it treats the

citizens equally bound by its laws. The Federal Courts, Revenue Officers

and Post Office draw no help from any State Officials, but depend directly

on Washington ……………….. There is no local self-Government in Federal

Matters ……………….. the Federal authority, be it executive or judicial,

acts upon the citizens of a State directly by means of its own officers who

are quite distinct from and independent of State Officials. Federal indirect

taxes, for instance, are levied all along the coast and over the country by

Federal custom-house collectors and excisemen acting under the orders

314

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of the treasury department at Washington. The judgments of Federal Courts

are carried out by U.S. Marshals, likewise dispersed over the country and

supplied with a staff of assistants. This is a provision of the utmost importance,

for it enables the central, national Government to keep its fingers upon

the people everywhere, and make its laws and the commands of its duly

constituted authorities respected whether the State within whose territory

it acts be heartily loyal or not, and whether the law which is being enforced

be popular or abnoxious. The machinery of the national Government ramifies

over the whole union as the nerves do over the whole body, placing every

point in direct connection with the Central executive.”.

Not one of these things can be predicated of the Indian Federation. It

is a dependent Government and its relation with the people is not direct.

In the United States, the States as States have no place in the Central

Government and although the States elect representatives to the Federal

Legislature, political action at the centre does not run in State channels.

There is no combination of States into groups and it is not the fashion for

States to combine in an official way through their State organizations. How

different is the Indian Federation! States, as such, have been given de jure

recognition, they have been given de jure exemptions, and immunities from

law. There are great possibilities of combined action and counteraction by

States and Provinces over these exemptions and immunities. This is another

reason which leads to the feeling that the Indian Federation will have very

little vitality.

BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL SCHEME

The protagonists of the Federal Scheme have urged three grounds in

favour of the acceptance of the Scheme. The first ground is that it helps to

unite India. The second ground is that it enables British India to influence

Indian India and to gradually transform the autocracy that is prevalent

in Indian India into the democracy that exists in British India. The third

ground is that the Federal Scheme is a scheme which embodies what is

called Responsible Government.

These three arguments in favour of the Federal Scheme are urged in

such seriousness and the authority of those who urge them is so high that

it becomes necessary to examine the substance that underlies them.

1. Federation and the Unity of India

The advantages of common system of Government are indeed very real.

To have a common system of law, a common system of administration and

a feeling of oneness are some of the essentials of good life. But they are all

the results which follow from a common life led under a common system of

Government. Other things being equal, a federation as a common system

of Government for the whole of India should be welcome. But does this

Federation unite under one governmental system the whole territory called

India in the Government of India Act, 1935 ? Is this an All India Federation ?

315

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

That this fededation includes British India is of course true; when Provinces

are declared to be the units of the Federation it means that British India is

included in the Federation. Because the Provinces which are declared to be

the units of the Federation compromise what is called Indian India. Indian

India is no small tract. The following figures of area and population will

give a comparative idea of the extent of British India and this Indian India:

Area in square miles

(1931)

Population

(1931)

British India excluding Burma and Aden. 8,62,630 2,56,859,787

Indian States … … 7,12,508 81,310,845

It will be seen that Indian India comprises 39 per cent of the population

and 31 per cent of India as a whole.

How much of this Indian India is going to be brought under this Federation?

Many will be inclined to say that as this is spoken of as an All India

Federation every inch of this area will be included in the Federation and will

be subject to the authority of the Federal Government Such an impression

is no doubt created by the wording of Section 6(1) which relates to the

accession of the states. This section speaks of a Ruler declaring his desire

to join the Federation and thereby suggesting that every State is entitled

to join the Federation. If this is true, then no doubt the Federation can in

course of time be an All India Federation. But this impression is wrong.

Such an impression cannot arise if Section 6(1) is read with Schedule I of

the Act Schedule I is merely thought of as a schedule which contains a Table

of Seats for the Rulers. This is a very incomplete reading of the Schedule.

The Schedule does more than that. It not only gives a table of seats, but

also enumerates the States which are entitled to join the Federation and

thereby fixes the maximum number of States which can come within the

Federation if they wish to do so. In other words it is not open to every

State to join the Federation. Only those enumerated can join. This is the

significance of the Table of Seats given in Schedule I.

What is the total number of the states which can join the Federation ?

Schedule I limits the number to 147. A number of questions crop up by

reason of this limit fixed by the Schedule. According to official figures there

are in all 627 States in India. That means 480 States will remain outside

the Federation and can never become part of the Federation. Can this

be called an All India Federation? If it is to be an All India Federation,

why are these States excluded? What is the position of these excluded

316

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

States ? If they are not States with sovereignty why are they allowed to join

the federation ? If they are not States with sovereignty and if the sovereignty

is with the Crown, why has the Crown not transferred its sovereignty to

the Federation in respect of these territories ? What will be the ultimate

destiny of such excluded States? Will these be merged in some Indian States

or will these be merged in some Indian Provinces? I mention all this, firstly

because I want to show that this Federation is not an All India Federation

and secondly because I want to draw attention to the move of some Indian

States to get these excluded States to merge into them.

A second question may be raised. Will this Federation help to unite the

people of British India and the Indian States into one nation ?

A Federation is necessarily a composite body. Within it are units which are

smaller political communities. Above the units is a larger political community

called the Federation. Whether these different political communities will

remain merely political associations or whether they will develop a common

social fabric leading ultimately to the formation of a nation will depend upon

what form their association takes. As Bryce points out—

“When within a large political community smaller communities are found

existing, the relation of the smaller to the larger usually appears in one or other

of the two following forms. One form is that of the League, in which a number

of political bodies, be they monarchies or republics are bound together so as

to constitute for certain purposes, and especially for the purpose of common

defence, a single body. The members of such a composite body or league are not

individual men but communities. It exists only as an aggregate of communities,

and will therefore vanish so soon as the communities which compose it separate

themselves from one another. Moreover it deals with and acts upon these

communities only. With the individual citizen it has nothing to do, no right of

taxing him, or judging him, or making laws for him, for in all these matters

it is to his own community that his allegiance is due.

“In the second form, the smaller communities are mere sub-divisions of that

greater one which we call a nation. They have been created, or at any rate

they exist, for administrative purposes only. Such powers as they possess are

powers delegated by the nation, and can be overridden by its will. The nation

acts directly by its own officers, not merely on the communities, but upon every

single citizen and the nation, because it is independent of these communities,

would continue to exist were they all to disappear ………….”.

The former is the case where the form of Government is a confederation.

The latter is the case where there exists a unitary form of Government. A

Federal Government is between the two. It must not however be assumed

that nationalism is compatible only with a Unitary Government and

317

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

incompatible with a Federal form of Government. It must be borne in mind

that as a nation may be found in being, so also a nation, may be brought into

being. In a Federal Government there may be at the start no nation, it may

be a collection of heterogeneous communities. But it is possible to have in

the end a nation even under a Federal Government. The most striking case

is that of the United States of America. Mr. Bryce relates a story which is

both interesting as well as instructive. This is the story and I give it in his

own words. “Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was

occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought

desirable to introduce among the short sentence a prayer for the whole people;

and an eminent New England Divine proposed the words, ‘O Lord, bless our

nation’. Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence

was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were

raised by the laity to the word ‘nation’, as importing too definite a recognition

of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the

words, ‘O Lord, bless these United States.’ Notwithstanding this prayer to

the Lord, notwithstanding the reluctance to encourage the idea of a nation

over against the idea of the states and notwithstanding the federal form oi

Government the United States is a nation. That it is a nation in the social

sense of the word is incontrovertible.”

How has this happened in the United States ? Can we hope to see this

happen in India under the Federal Scheme ? Bryce explains how this

happened in America. He points out that in America “The Central or National

Government is not a mere league, for it does not wholly depend on the

component Communities which we call the States. It is itself a Commonwealth

as well as a Union of Commonwealths, because it claims directly the obedience

of every citizen, and acts immediately upon him through its Courts and

executive officers”. It can tax him, make law for him and judge him. In short

it is the process of Government which is responsible largely if not wholly for

moulding the Americans into a nation and that this was possible because

in the Federal Form of Government of the United States there is a direct

contact between the National Government and the individual.

Is this possible under the Indian Federal Scheme ? My answer is that

such a thing is not possible. The people in the Indian States remain the

subjects of the States. The Federal Government cannot deal with them

directly. Everything has to be done through the State. There is no contact

between the two, not even for purposes of taxation. How can a feeling

that they belong to the national Government grow in the subject of the

Indian States if they are excluded from any and every influence and are

not even made to feel the existence of the National Government ? I am

afraid this United States of India will not be more than a mere body

318

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of United States. It has no potentiality of forging a nation out of these States

and probably the framers of the Scheme have had no such intention at all.

2. Democratization of Autocracies

The other advantage of the Federal Scheme which is claimed by its

protagonists is that it brings beneath the dome of a single political edifice the

new democracies of British India and the ancient autocracies of the Indian

States and that by bringing the two under one edifice it provides contact

between democracy and autocracy and thus enables the democracy in British

India to democratize the autocracies in the Indian States. To examine this

argument and to see how much force there is behind it, it is well to note

that the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces are geographically

contiguous. There is regular intercourse between them. The people of British

India and those of the Indian States racially, linguistically and culturally form

parts of one whole. With all these contacts and with all the unity of race,

religion, language and culture British India has not been able to influence

at all the forms of government which are prevalent in the Indian States. On

the contrary while British India has advanced from autocracy to democracy,

the Indian States have remained what they were with their fixed form of

government. Unless therefore there is something special in the Act itself

which enables British India to exercise its influence on the Indian States

through the legislature and through the executive, this argument can have

no substance at all. Is there anything in the Act which gives British India

power to influence the States ? In this connection reference may be made to

section 34(1) which deals with the procedure in the legislature with respect

to the discussion and voting of the Budget estimates.

From an examination of this Section it will be clear that the estimates

relating to para (a) and para (f) of sub-section (3) of section 33 cannot even

be discussed by the Federal legislature. Para (a) of sub-section (3) refers to

the salary and allowances of the Governor-General and other expenditure

relating to his office for which estimate is required to be made by Orders

in Council, and para (f) relates to the sums payable to His Majesty under

this Act out of the revenue of the Federation in respect of the expenses

incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relations with

the Indian States. Another section which has a bearing upon this point is

Section 38. Section 33 is a section which deals with the making of the rules

by the Federal legislature for regulating its procedure in the conduct of its

business. While this section permits the Federal legislature to make its own

rules it allows the Governor-General to make rules —

matter connected with any Indian State, other than a matter with

319

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

respect to which the Federal legislature has power to make laws for

the State, unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied

that the matter affects Federal interest or affects a British subject

and has given his consent to the matter being discussed or the

question being asked ;

(d) For prohibiting —

(i) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter

connected with relations between His Majesty or the Governor-

General and any foreign State or Prince ; or

(ii) the discussion, except in relation to estimates of expenditure of,

or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with the

tribal area or the administration of any excluded area; or

( iii) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, the personal

conduct of the ruler of any Indian State, or of a member of the

ruling family thereof;

and the section further provides that if and so far as any rule so

made by the Governor-General is inconsistent with any rules made by

the Chamber, the rules made by the Governor-General shall prevail.

Another section having a bearing on this point is section 40. It says:

“No discussion shall take place in the Federal legislature with respect to the

conduct of any judge of the Federal Court or a High Court in the discharge

of his duties and provides that in this sub-section the reference to a High

Court shall be construed as including a reference to any court in a Federated

State which is a High Court for any of the purposes of Part 9 of this Act.”

Similar provisions are contained in that part of the Act which relates to

the constitution of the provincial legislatures. Section 84 is a counterpart of

section 38 and prevents any member of a Provincial legislature from asking

any question with regard to the personal conduct of the ruler of any Indian

State or the affairs of a State. Section 86 is a counterpart of section 40.

Now it is obvious that the two most important ways open to a Legislature

for influencing the conduct of the administration is by discussion of the

Budget and by asking questions. The discussions on the budget had its

origin in the theory which postulates that there can be no supply given to

the executive unless the grievances of the people were redressed. The slogan

of democracy has been : Redress of grievances before supplies of moneys. The

discussion on the budget is the one opportunity of placing the grievances

of a people before the executive. It is therefore a very valid privilege, as

will be seen from section 34, the legislature is prevented but from placing

the grievances of the subjects of the States before the executive on the

floor of the House. Similarly, the right to interrogate and ask questions

320

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is also valid privilege, but that also is denied. The right to criticise on a

proper motion the conduct of the judiciary is always open to the legislature,

but that also has been excluded. It is difficult to see exactly in what way

the Federal legislature could influence the internal administration of the

Indian States. Not only the representatives of British India are prevented

from asking any question or moving any resolution with regard to the

internal administration of the States, but the same disability is imposed

upon the representatives of the States themselves who are the victims of

this maladministration.

Compare with this the influence which the Federated States are in a

position to exercise over British India.

In the first place there is no restriction on the representatives of the

Federated States in the matter of asking any question or raising any matter

in the Federal Legislature. The fact that the question or matter touches

British India and relates to internal administration of British India is not

a bar against the representatives of the Federated States from raising such

an issue.

Secondly, there is no restraint upon the representatives of the Federated

States in the matter of discussing and voting upon the financial proposals

of the Federal Government. The fact that any such proposal affects British

India only and does not affect the States can cause no legal impediment

in their way.

Thirdly, in the matter of Legislation the Representatives of the Federated

States are free to vote upon any measure brought before the Federal

Legislature. There are two lists over which the legislative authority of the

Federation extends—The Federal list and the Concurrent list. The provinces

are wholly bound by the Federal List. A Federated State is not wholly bound

by it. The provinces are wholly bound by the concurrent list. A Federated

State may not be bound at all. Yet the State represenatives have a right to

vote upon any measure falling under either of the two lists. In other words

the Federal Scheme gives the States the right to legislate for British India,

while British India gets no such right to legislate for the States except to

the extent to which the States choose to subject themselves to these two

legislative lists.

The scope of this Legislative influence by the States over British India is

by no means small nor is it inconsequential. To Confine to the Concurrent

list only, it includes 36 subjects. Among the 36 are such subjects as, Criminal

Law, Criminal and Civil Procedure, Professions, Newspapers, Books and

Printing Press etc. It is clear that these subjects are vital subjects. They

affect the liberties of the people in the Provinces. Now as the States have a

right to participate and vote upon all legislation within the Concurrent list,

the Indian States will have the right and the authority to pass legislation

affecting the rights, privileges and liberties of British Indians in the Provinces.

321

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Further in the Legislative sphere, so far as it relates to the Concurrent

List the States have obtained authority without any obligation. They are free

to legislate and need not consider their own case in doing so because they

are not bound, by the laws they make. Their conduct can be as irresponsible

as they may choose to make it.

It is however an understatement to say that the States have only a right

to influence administration and Legislation in British India. The truth is

that the States can dominate British India because they can maintain in

office a ministry in the Federal Government although it is defeated by a

majority of the representatives of British India on a matter purely affecting

India. This is because they have a right to vote upon any motion including

a non-confidence motion irrespective of the question whether the motion

relates to a matter which affects them or not If this does not vest control

over British India in Indian States I wonder what will.

The injustice and anomaly of the States taking part in the discussions of

the internal affairs of British India while the representatives of British India

having no corresponding right to discuss the affairs of the States was sought

to be remedied by limiting the rights of the States to discuss and vote upon

such questions as did not relate to internal affairs of British India, but the

Princes and their representatives have always been against such distinction

being drawn and they insisted that on any matter on which the fate of the

Ministry depended they must have the right to decide upon the future of

that Government. The constitution has given effect to the point of view of

the Princes and set aside the point of view of British India.

This comparison shows that the States are placed by law in a position

to control the affairs of British India and by the same law British India is

disabled from exercising any influence over the States. That this is the true

state of facts must be admitted by all. In other words the Federal Scheme does

not help, indeed hinders British India from setting up in motion processes

which would result in the democratisation of the Indian States. On the

other hand it helps the Indian States to destroy democracy in British India.

3. Federation and Responsibility

Let us examine the plea of Responsibility. From the stand-point of British

India it is of more decisive importance than the two other pleas and must

be scrutinized more carefully.

It cannot be denied that the Federation has some degree of responsibility.

The question is what is the degree of that responsibility and whether within

its sphere it is a responsibility which can be called real.

Let us ask, how much responsibility is there in this Federation ? To be

able to answer this question, you should read sections 9 and 11 together,

322

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

By reading them together you will get an idea of the extent of this

responsibility. According to these two sections the field of Governmental

Authority is divided into two categories. In one category are put four

subjects (1) Defence, (2) Ecclesiastical affairs, (3) External affairs, and

(4) the Administration of Tribal Areas. The rest of the subjects within the

executive authority of the Federation are put in another and a separate

category. The executive authority for both these categories is vested in the

Governor-General. But a distinction is made between them in the matter of

Governmental Authority. The Governmental Authority in respect of the four

subjects falling in the first category is under the Act the Governor-General

in his discretion. The Governmental Authority in respect of the rest of the

subjects put in the second category is under the Act, the Governor-General

acting on the advice of the Minister. In the case of the first four subjects

the Government is not responsible to the Legislature, because the Governor-

General in whom the Governmental Authority in respect of these four

subjects is vested is not removable by the legislature. In the case of the rest

of the subjects the Government is responsible to the Legislature, because

the ministers on whose advice the Governmental Authority is exercisable

are removable by the Legislature. The responsiblity in the Federal scheme

is therefore a case of limited responsibility. The responsibility does not

extend to Defence and Foreign Affairs which after all are the most important

subjects from social, political and financial point of view. The scheme has

a close resemblance to dyarchy with the division of subjects into Reserved

and Transferred such as was the basis of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms,

which was embodied in the Provincial Constitution under the Government

of India Act of 1919. The scheme of resposibility in the Federal Constitution

under the Act of 1935 is an exact replica of the scheme of responsibility in

the Provincial Constitution under the Act of 1919.

Is this responsibility real ? My answer is in the negative. I will give you

my reasons. Firstly the field of responsibility besides being limited is not a

free field of activity for ministers. To realize how fettered this limited field

of responsibility is, we must note certain restraints which have been imposed

upon the powers of the Ministers when acting in the field of responsibility.

The first set of restraints imposed upon the authority of the Ministers

when acting in the field of responsibility arises from what are called the

special responsibilities of the Governor-General.

There exist another set of restraints on the authority of the Ministers while

exercising the Governmental Authority in respect of transferred subjects. To

understand this you must understand one special feature of this Federal

constitution. The constitution classifies subjects from the stand-point of

323

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Governmental Authority and that this classification has resulted in that

division of subjects which for brevity’s sake may be designated as Transferred

and Reserved. The Constitution does not stop here. It goes further and

proceeds to divide the category of Transferred subjects into two classes.

(1) subjects over which the Ministers’ Governmental Authority carries with it

administrative control and (2) subjects over which the Governmental Authority

of Ministers does not carry with it administrative control. As an illustration

of this classification may be mentioned the case of Railways. Railways are

a transferred subject. The Governmental Authority of the Ministers extends

to Railways. But the Ministers have no right to exercise any administrative

control over the Railways. The administrative control over Railways is vested

in what is called the Railway Authority. The distinction between Governmental

Authority with Administrative Control and Governmental Authority without

administrative control is not a distinction without difference. On the other

hand the difference between the two positions is very real. That difference

is made clear in sub-clause (2) of section 181 in the matter of Railways.

That distinction is the distinction between authority to lay down a policy

and competency to act. It is for those who plead for this Federation to say

whether there is reality of responsibility in a Scheme of Government where

there is a divorce between competence to act and authority to lay down policy.

Two things are clear in regard to this Responsibility in the Federal

Scheme. First is that this responsibility is limited in its ambit. Secondly it

is not real because it is fettered by the restraints arising from the special

responsibilities of the Governor-General and from the withdrawal from the

Ministers Governmental Authority of their competence to act in certain

subjects such as the Railways, although they are Transferred subjects.

I have stated that the system of responsibility in the Federal Scheme

resembles the system of dyarchy introduced into the provinces under the

Act of 1919. But if the Scheme of responsibility in the Federation was

compared with the system of dyarchy introduced into the Provinces it will

be found that the former is designed to yield less responsibility than the

latter. There are two things introduced in the Federal Scheme which were

not to be found in the dyarchy in the Provinces and there existed one thing

in the dyarchy which is absent in the Federation. The presence of the two

and the absence of one makes this dyarchy in the Federation worse than

the dyarchy in the Provinces.

Of the two things that are new in the Federal Scheme one is the

principle of special responsibilities of the Governor-General in respect of

the Transferred field and the other is the separation between Governmental

Authority from administrative control in respect of matters falling within

the Transferred field. These two are new things and did not exist in the

dyarchical constitution in the provinces.

324

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

It may be said that the special responsibilities of the Governor-General

is simply another name for the Veto power, that is the power to overrule

the Ministers and that even in the English Constitution the King has

such a Veto power. On the face of it, this view of special responsibilities

of the Governor-General appears to be correct. But in reality it involves a

misconception of the conditions and circumstances under which the King’s

Veto power can be exercised.

To my knowledge no one has explained the relationship of the King and

his Ministers in a system of responsible Government better than Macaulay.

To use his language—

“In England the King cannot exercise his Veto power unless there is some

Minister to take responsibility for the King’s act. If there is no Minister to take

responsibility the King must yield, fight, or abdicate.” The Governor-General

stands in a different position. He need not yield. He can act even if there is

no Minister to take responsibility for his act. That is the difference between

the King’s Veto and the Veto of the Governor-General. What is however more

important to note is that this Veto power exists in respect of the Transferred

field. In the dyarchical constitution in the Provinces the Transferred field was

not subject to such a Veto power of the Governor. In other words there were

no special responsibilities of the Governor. If the Governor-General can overrule

Ministers even in the Transferred field, question is what substance is there in

Ministerial responsibility. I see very little.

The second thing which is new is the separation between Governmental

Authority and administrative control. Such a provision did not exist in the

dyarchical constitution in the Provinces. In the dyarchical constitution of the

Provinces when a subject was transferred both Governmental Authority as well

as Administrative control was transferred to the Minister. You will ask yourself

what substance is there in Ministerial responsibility if a Minister can only issue

directions and cannot control the action taken thereunder ? I see very little.

The provision which existed in the dyarchical constitution of the Provinces

and which has been omitted from the Federal Constitution relates to the

financing of the Reserved subjects. Section 72D of the old Act of 1919 and

sections 33 and 34 of the present Act may be usefully compared in this

connection. Section 72D, sub-section (2) reads as follows:

“The estimates of annual expenditure and revenue of the Province shall

be laid in the form of a statement before the Council in each year, and

the proposals of the local Government for the appropriation of provincial

revenues and other moneys in any year shall be submitted to the vote of

the Council in the form of demands for grants. The Council may assent,

or refuse its assent, to a demand, or may reduce the amount therein

referred to, either by a reduction of any of the items of expenditure

325

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

of which the grant is composed.” Compare with this section 34 of the present

Act of 1935 ; sub-section (1) of section 34 reads as follows:

“So much of the estimates of expenditure as relates to expenditure charged

upon the revenues of the Federation shall not be submitted to the vote of the

Legislature, but nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as preventing

the discussion in either chamber of the Legislature of any of these estimates

other than estimates relating to expenditure referred to in paragraph (a) or

paragraph (f) of sub-section (3) of section 33.”

According to section 33 expenditure charged on the revenues of the

Federation includes expenditure on the reserved subjects. On a comparison

between the provisions of the two Acts, it is clear that under the old Act no

distinctions were made by section 72D between Transferred and Reserved

subjects, so far as the powers of the Legislature in regard to the granting

of supply were concerned and the expenditure on Reserved subjects was not

only open to discussion but was also subject to the vote of the Legislature.

Under the provisions of section 34, of the new Act the Federal Legislature can

only discuss the expenditure on the reserved subjects but cannot vote upon

it. This is a very important distinction. Under the old constitution even the

reserved subjects were amenable to the financial powers of the Legislature.

Under the present constitution they arc independent of the financial powers

of the Federal Legislature. It is true that in the provincial Constitution the

vote of the Legislature with regard to expenditure on reserved subjects was

not final. That under a proviso to section 72D the Governor was given the

power “in relation to any such demand to act as if it had been assented

to, notwithstanding the withholding of such assent or the reduction of the

amount (by the Legislature) if the demand relates to reserved subject, and

the Governor certifies that the expenditure provided for by the demand is

essential to the discharge of his responsibility for the subject”. It is also true

that in the Government of India Act, 1935 the amount of expenditure on

reserved subjects is fixed to 42 crores. But the same difference exists, namely

that under the old constitution the reserved subjects were amenable to the

financial control of the Legislature while in the new constitution they are

not. This difference is not a small difference. The power to grant supplies is

the most effective mode of enforcing the responsibility of the executive. The

power of certification might have deprived the Legislature of control of the

reserved subjects. But it did not altogether destroy its influence. Under the

present constitution the Legislature has not only no control over reserved

subjects but also it cannot have any influence over them. There can therefore

be no doubt that there was more responsibility in the dyarchy in the old

Provincial Constitution than there is in this dyarchy in the Federation.

The fact that the Executive is not responsible to the Legislature is

simply another way of stating that in the Federal Scheme the Executive

326

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

is supreme. This supremacy of the Executive may be maintained in various

ways. It may be maintained by curtailing the powers of the Legislature or it

may be maintained by planning the composition of the Legislature in such a

way that the Legislature will always be at the beck and call of the Executive.

The Federal Scheme adopts both these means. In the first place, it limits

the powers of the Federal Legislature. I have already described how greatly

the Federal Scheme curtails the financial powers of the Federal Legislature.

The Federal Legislature has no right to refuse supplies to any expenditure

which is declared to be a charge on the revenues.

The Federal Scheme also curtails the Legislative powers of the Federal

Legislature. These restraints are specified in section 108 which reads as

follows :

“108. (1) Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give

his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either

Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which—

(a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of

Parliament extending to British India ; or

(b) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor-General’s or

Governor’s Act, or any ordinance promulgated in his discretion by

the Governor-General or a Governor; or

under this Act, required to act in his discretion; or

(d) repeals, amends or affects any Act relating to any police force ; or

(e) affects the procedure for criminal proceedings in which European

British subjects are concerned ; or

(f) subjects-persons not resident in British India to greater taxation

than persons resident in British India or subjects companies not

wholly controlled and managed in British India to greater taxation

than companies wholly controlled and managed therein ; or

(g) affects the grant of relief from any Federal tax on income in respect

of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom.

(2) Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his

previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in a Chamber

of a Provincial Legislature any Bill or amendment which—

(a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of

Parliament extending to British India ; or

(b) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor-General’s Act, or

any ordinance promulgated in his discretion by the Governor-General;

under this Act, required to act in his discretion ; or

327

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

(d) affects the procedure for criminal proceedings in which European

British subjects are concerned ;

and unless the Governor of Province in his discretion thinks fit to give his

previous sanction, there shall not be introduced or moved any Bill or amendment

which—

(i) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any Governor’s Act, or any

ordinance promulgated in his discretion by the Governor; or

(ii) repeals, amends or affects any Act relating to any police force.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other provision in

this Act which requires the previous sanction of the Governor-General or of

a Governor to the introduction of any Bill or the moving of any amendment.”

The Federal Scheme does not stop with merely curtailing the power of

the Federal Legislature as a means of maintaining the supremacy of the

Executive. Under it the composition of the Federal Legislature is so arranged

that the Legislature will always be at the beck and call of the Executive. In

this connection it is necessary to bear in mind what the actual composition

of the Federal Legislature is. As has already been pointed out there are 375

members in the Legislative Assembly and of them 125 have been assigned

to the Indian States and 250 to British India. In the Council of State the

total is 260 and of them 104 are assigned to the States and 156 are alloted

to British India. The seals assigned to the States are to be filled by the

Princes by nomination. The scats assigned to British India are to be filled

by election. The Federal Legislature is therefore an heterogeneous legislature

partly elected and partly nominated.

The first question to be considered is how the Princes’ nominees in the

Federal Legislature will behave. Will they be independent of the Federal

Executive or will they be subservient to it ? It is difficult to prophesy. But

certain influences which are likely to play a part in the making of these

nominations may be noted- It is an indisputable fact that the British

Government claims what are called rights of paramountcy over the States

“Paramountcy” is an omnibus term to denote the rights which the Crown

can exercise through the Political Department of the Government of India

over the States. Among these rights is the right claimed by the Political

Department to advise the Indian Princes in the matter of making certain

appointments. It is well known that what is called “advice” is a diplomatic

term for dictation. There is no doubt that the Political Department will

claim the right to advise the Princes in the matter of filling up these places.

Should this happen, what would be the result ? The result would be this that

the Princes’ representatives would be simply another name for an official

block owing allegiance, not to the people and not even to the Princes, but to

the Political Department of the Government of India. Two things must be

further noted. First is that Paramountcy is outside the Federal Government.

328

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

That means that the Ministers, will have no right to give any advice in the

matter of the nomination of the Princes’ Representatives and the Legislature

will have no right to criticise it. They will be under the control of the

Viceroy as distinct from the Governor-General. Secondly, this official block

of the Princes is not a small block. In the Lower House a party which has

187 seats can command a majority. In the Upper Chamber a party which

has 130 seats can command a majority. In the Lower House the Princes

have 125 seats. All that they need is a group of 62 to make a majority.

In the Upper Chamber they have 104 ; all that they need is 26. All this

vast strength the Executive can command. How can such a Legislature be

independent ? The Reserved half can control the Transferred half with this

strength in its possession.

How will the representatives of British India behave ? I cannot make any

positive statement. But I like it to be borne in mind that in some States

there is no such thing as a regular budget and there is no such thing as

independent audit and accounts. It would not be difficult for the Princes to

purchase support from British India representatives. Politics is a dirty game

and British India politicians cannot all be presumed to be beyond corruption

and when purchases can be made without discovery the danger is very real.

Look at the Federal Scheme any way you like and analyze it as you may

its provisions relating to responsibility, you will see that of real responsibility

there is none.

VII

THE BANE OF THE FEDERAL SCHEME

There is no one who does not recognize that this Scheme for an All Indian

Federation is full of defects. A difference of opinion arises only when the

question is asked what shall we do about it. The answers given to this

question by prominent Indians from time to time disclose that broadly

speaking, there are two quite different attitudes to this Federation. There

is the attitude of those who think that bad as it is, we should accept the

Federation and work it so as to derive whatever good it can yield. On the

other hand, there is the attitude of those who think that certain changes

must be made in the Constitution of the Federation before it can be accepted

and worked. It is agreeable to find that both the Congress as well as the

Liberal Federation are one on this issue. Both have declared that certain

changes must be made before they will accept to work the Federation.

That this Federation is not acceptable to a large majority of the Indian

people is beyond question. The question is in what respects should we

require the Constitution to be amended ? What are the changes which we

should demand ? We may take as our starting point the resolutions passed

by the Congress and the Liberal Federation relating to this question.

329

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

The Congress at its session held at Haripura in 1938 passed the following

resolution:

“The Congress has rejected the new Constitution and declared that a

Constitution for India, which can be accepted by the people, must be based

on independence and can only be framed by the people themselves by means

of a Constituent Assembly, without interference by any foreign authority.

Adhering to this policy of rejection, the Congress has, however, permitted the

formation in provinces of Congress Ministries with a view to strengthen the

nation in its struggle for independence. In regard to the proposed Federation,

no such considerations apply even provisionally or for a period, and the

imposition of this Federation will do grave injury to India and tighten the

bonds which hold her in subjection to imperialist domination. This scheme

of Federation excludes from the sphere of responsibility vital functions of

Government.

The Congress is not opposed to the idea of Federation ; but a real

Federation must, even apart from the question of responsibility consist of free

units enjoying more or less the same measure of freedom and civil liberty,

and representation by the democratic process of election. The Indian States

participating in the Federation should approximate to the provinces in the

establishment of representative institutions and responsible Government,

civil liberties and method of election to the Federal Houses. Otherwise the

Federation as it is now contemplated, will, instead of building up Indian

unity, encourage separatist tendencies and involve the States in internal

and external conflicts.

The Congress therefore reiterates its condemnation of the proposed Federal

Scheme and calls upon the Provincial and Local Congress Committees and

the people generally, as well as the Provincial Governments and Ministries,

to prevent its inauguration. In the event of an attempt being made to impose

it, despite the declared will of the people, such an attempt must be combated

in every way and the Provincial Governments and Ministries must refuse to

co-operate with it. In case such a contingenncy arises, the All India Congress

Committee is authorised and directed to determine the line of action to be

pursued in this regard.”.

The resolution passed by the National Liberal Federation at its last session

held in Bombay was in the following terms:

“The National Liberal Federation reiterates its opinion that the Constitution,

especially as regards the Centre as embodied in the Government of India Act,

1935, is utterly unsatisfactory and in several respects retrogade. While the

National Liberal Federation accepts a federal form of Government for India

as the only natural ideal for our country, the Federation considers that vital

changes are required in the form of the Federation as laid down in the Act

330

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

especially in the direction of (a) clearing up the position of the Princes and

securing the subjects of States the right of election of States’ representatives,

(b) doing away with the safeguards regarding the monetary policy and

commercial discrimination, (c) introducing direct elections for the members

of the Federal Assembly by the Provinces and (d) making Constitution

sufficiently elastic so as to enable India to attain Dominion Status within

a reasonable period of time.

The National Liberal Federation considers that the present position when

there is an irresponsible Government in the Centre coupled with responsible

Governments in the Provinces is altogether untenable and earnestly urges on

Parliament to make immediate changes in the Federal part of the Constitution

so as to make it generally acceptable.

The Federation is further of opinion that these modifications are essential

for the successful working of the Federal Constitution.”

Should these changes demanded by the Congress or by the Liberal

Federation suffice to alter the present attitude of rejection into one of

acceptance of Federation? Speaking for myself I have no hesitation in saying

that the changes asked for in these Resolutions even if they are made will not

convert me. To my mind whether the British Parliament is prepared to alter

this, that or the other detail of the Federal Scheme immediately is a very

unimportant consideration. In the view I take of the matter the objections

to the Federal Scheme will not be removed in the least even if the British

Parliament will be ready to grant every one of the demands contained in

these Resolutions. To me the fundamental question is whether this Federal

Scheme is capable of so evolving that in the end India will reach her goal

and it is from this point of view that I want you and every one interested

to examine the Federal Scheme.

What is the goal of India’s political evolution? There does not seem to

any fixity or definiteness about it. The Congress which claims to voice the

political aspirations of the Indian people began with good Government as

its goal. It moved from good Government to Self-Government or Responsible

Government ; from Responsible Government to Dominion Status and from

Dominion Status it advanced to Independence. There the Congress stopped

for some time in a mood of self-examination. Then there was period of

vaccilation. Now it seems to have come back to Dominion Status and we

shall not be very wrong if we take that to be the goal of India according to

the Congress. Now the question is, can the Federal Scheme blossom in due

course into Dominion Status ?

Many Indians seem to think that the question of Dominion Status is

a matter of gift which lies in the hands of the British Parliament. If the

British Parliament were to make up its mind to grant it, nothing can stand

331

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

in the way. They contend that if India has no hope of Dominion Status, it

is because the British Parliament refused to grant it. In support of their

opinion they refer to the refusal of The British Parliament to add a Preamble

to the Act of 1935 declaring Dominion Status as the goal for India.

It must be granted that the demand for such a preamble was a very

proper one. In 1929 Lord Irwin with the consent of all the political parties

in the British Parliament declared that the goal of India’s political evolution

was Dominion Status. What the Indians therefore wanted was not new. It

had already been so stated authoritatively by the Governor-General and

Viceroy, but the British Government refused to put such a preamble. The

refusal was therefore a strange piece of conduct on the part of the British

Government. But the grounds urged in support of the refusal were stranger

still. The British Government sought to justify their conduct in not having

a preamble in those terms on various grounds.

The first ground was that a preamble was a futility and that it had no

operative force, but that argument was easily met. All Acts of Parliament

have had Preambles expressing the purpose and the intention of Parliament.

It is true that it has no legal effect, but all the same Courts have not held

that a preamble is a futile thing. On the other hand, wherever there is any

doubt with regard to the wording of a section, Courts have always resorted to

the preamble as a key to understand the purpose of the enactment and made

use of it for resolving any doubtful construction. Driven from this position,

the British Government took another position and that was to repeal the Act

of 1919 but to retain the Preamble to that Act. This again is a very queer

thing. In the first place if the Preamble is a futility, there is no necessity

to save the Preamble enacted as part of the Act of 1919. Secondly if the

Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a necessity, it should have been enacted

afresh as a part of this Act of 1935, which the British Government would

not do. Instead it preferred to present the strange spectacle of the head

separated from the trunk. The head is now to be found in the repealed Act

of 1919 and the trunk is to be found in the present enactment of 1935. In

the third place, what the Indian people wanted was a preamble promising

Dominion Status and that is what the declaration of Lord Irwin contained.

The preamble to the Act of 1919 speaks only of Responsible Government.

It does not speak of Dominion Status and the retention of the Preamble to

the Act of 1919 was to say the least the silliest business possible.

Why did the British Parliament refuse to enact a Preamble defining

Dominion Status as the goal ? Why did the British Parliament run from

pillar to post rather than grant the demand ? The explanation offered is

of course the usual one namely, the perfidy of the Albion ! My own view

is different. The British Parliament did not promise Dominion Status by

332

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

enacting a preamble because it realized that it would be beyond its power to

fulfil such a promise. What the British Parliament lacked was not honesty.

Indeed it was its honesty which led it to refuse to enact such a preamble

because it knew that it could not give effect to such a preamble. What it

lacked was courage to tell the Indians that the Federal Scheme left no way

for Dominion Status.

Why is Dominion Status impossible under the Federal Scheme? It is

impossible because it is not possible to have Responsible Government. It

must be borne in mind that to reach Dominion Status, India must first attain

Responsible Government. To attain Responsible Government the subjects

which are reserved must become transferred. That is the first stage in the

process of evolution towards Dominion Status.

Some of you will want to know the reasons why I say that the reserved

subjects cannot become transferred. They are sure to recall that there were

Reserved subjects in the Provincial Scheme as they are in the Federal

Scheme and will ask that if the reserved subjects have become transferred

in the course of say 20 years what difficulty can there be in the similar

things happening in the Federation. As the question is important, I proceed

to give my reason. In the first place, the analogy of the Provinces is false.

It is important to note why the analogy is false. It is false because in the

Provincial Scheme the distinction between the reserved and the transferred

subjects was based upon the requirements of administrative efficiency. That

the distinction between the reserved and the transferred subjects in the

Federal Scheme is based upon legal necessity and not upon administrative

efficiency needs no proof. One of the reasons why the Simon Commission did

not recommend dyarchy at the Centre was that it felt that administratively

it was not possible to divide subjects into two water-tight compartments, one

reserved and the other transferred, without affecting the efficiency of all ;

and the Government of India’s despatch on the Simon Commission entirely

agreed with the view. The division, therefore, is not administrative in its

basis. It is the result of a legal necessity. This is a fundamental distinction

and ought never to be lost sight of.

How does this legal necessity arise? I say the legal necessity for treating

certain subjects as reserved arises because of the Indian States. I go further

and say that there would be necessity for treating certain subjects as

reserved if the Federation was confined to the British India Provinces only.

The reservation of certain subjects is a direct consequence of the entry of

the Indian States into the Federation.

What is it, in the position of the Indian States which compels certain

subjects to be treated as reserved ? To be able to answer this question I

must first draw your attention to section 180 of the Government of India

Act. Section 180 says —

“Any contact made before the commencement of Part III of this

Act by or on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council solely in

333

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

connection with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations

with Indian States, shall, as from the commencement of Part III of this Act.

have effect as if it had been made on behalf of His Majesty and references

in any such contract to the Secretary of State in Council shall be construed

accordingly.”

This section gives statutory form to the contention put forward by

the Princes before the Butler Committee and accepted by them, that the

treaties of the Indian States were with the Crown of England as such and

not with the Government of India.

The next step is to note what follows from this theory. Now what follows

from this theory is very crucial, but has been unfortunately allowed to

pass without due care and attention. The Princes have contended that as

treaty relations of the Indian States are with the Crown of England, the

duty and responsibility of fulfilling the obligations arising under those

treaties lay solely upon the Crown of England and the Crown of England

must at all times maintain itself in a position to fulfil those obligations.

What is the obligation which the treaties with the Princes impose upon

the Crown of England ? The Principle of obligation imposed upon the Crown

of England and which the Crown of England has undertaken by the treaties

is to protect the Princes from internal commotion and external aggression.

How can the Crown fulfil this obligation ? The only way, it is argued,

that the Crown can fulfil this obligation is to reserve external affairs and

the Army under its exclusive control.

You can now understand why I say that the necessity of reserved

subjects is due to a legal necessity. That legal necessity flows from the

treaty obligations of the Crown and so long as the basis of the treaty

relations remains what Section 180 says it is, the reserved subjects cannot

become transferred subjects. And as the reserved subjects cannot become

transferred, there is no scope even for Responsible Government much less

for Dominion Status.

From the analysis I have made of the Constitution, from the stand-

point of the ultimate goal, few, I believe, will have any hesitation to say

that this Constitution is a fixed and rigid constitution. It cannot change

and therefore it cannot progress. It is a constitution which is striken at

the very base and it is for the people of India to consider whether they

will accept it.

I have examined the Constitution from the stand-point of our goal at

so considerable a length that I feel I owe you an apology for tiring you.

But the attitude of some people towards this question must be my excuse

334

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

for entering into this subject at such great length. I realize that no Constitution

is a perfect constitution. Imperfections there are bound to be. But I think a

distinction must be drawn between imperfections and inherent and congenital

deficiencies. Imperfections can be removed. But congenital deficiencies cannot

be supplied. The demands made in the resolutions of the Congress or of

the Liberal Federation, even if granted, will remove the imperfections. But

will they remove the deficiencies ? I would not mind the imperfections if I

was assured that there are no deficiencies. The greatest deficiency in the

Constitution is that it will not lead to Dominion Status. Neither the Congress

nor the Liberal Federation seems to be aware that this deficiency exists. Their

demands have no relation to the goal of India’s political evolution. They do

not even mention it. It is surprising that Congressmen should have become

so enamoured of the prospect of seizing political power that their demands

against the British Government should not even contain a declaration from

the British Government in this behalf. But if Congress forget, the people

of India cannot and should not. To do so would be fatal. It would be fatal

as much for an individual as for a people to forget that a stage on the way

is not the home and to follow the way without knowing whether it leads

homewards or not is to misdirect one-self and fall into a ditch.

You must not misunderstand me. I am not an impatient idealist. I am

not condemning the gradualist, who is prepared to wait and take thing by

instalments, although the gradualist, who has a valid claim for a rupee,

demands an anna and proclaims a great victory when he gets a pie, must

become an object of pity. All I want is that if circumstances force us to be

gradualists we must not fail to be realists. Before accepting an instalment

we should examine it carefully and satisfy ourselves that it contains an

acknowledgement of the whole claim. Otherwise, as often happens what is

good for the moment turns out to be the enemy of the better.

Some of you will ask, how can India secure Dominion Status. My answer

is India will get Dominion Status only if the Princes who join the Federation,

consent to its being granted. If the Princes object to the grant of Dominion

Status to India, then India cannot get Dominion Status. The Federation

places the strings of India’s political evolution in the hands of the Princes.

The destiny of India will be controlled by the Princes.

This view of the future will strike as very strange to a great many of

you. We are all saturated with Dicey’s dictum regarding the Sovereignty

of Parliament. We all have learned from him that Parliament is supreme,

that it is so supreme that it can do anything except make man a woman

and woman a man. It would not be unnatural if some of you ask how can

the Princes stand in the way when the British Parliament is supreme. It

will take some effort on your part to accept the proposition that the British

Parliament has no supremacy over the Indian Federation. Its authority to

change the Federal Constitution now embodied in the government of India

Act is strictly limited.

335

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Indian politicians have expressed their sense of sorrow and resentment

over the fact that the Indian Legislatures have not been given by the Act

any constituent powers.

Under the Government of India Act neither the Federal Legislature, nor

the Provincial Legislature have any powers of altering or amending the

constitution. The only thing, which the Act by virtue of section 308 does. is to

permit the Federal Legislature and Provincial Legislature to pass a resolution

recommending any change in the constitution, and make it obligatory upon

the Secretary of State to place it before both Houses of Parliament. This

is contrary to the provisions contained in the Constitutions of the United

States, Australia, the German Federation and Switzerland. There is no reason

why constituent power should not have been given within certain defined

limits to the Legislatures in India when they were fully representative of

all sections and of all interests. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the

Indian Legislatures cannot make any changes in constitution, not even in

the franchise, much less in making the reserved subjects transferred. The

only authority which can change the Constitution is of course the British

Parliament. But very few seem to be aware of the fact that even Parliament

has no powers to alter the Federal Constitution. This, however, is the truth

and the sooner we all realize it the better.

From this point of view the importance of Schedule II cannot be

overestimated. I am sorry, it has not received the attention which it

deserves. Schedule II is not only a charter but is also a chart along which

the Constitution can move. The whole Schedule is worth careful study.

What does Schedule II say ? Schedule II says that certain provisions of the

Government of India Act may be amended by Parliament and that certain

other provisions of the Act shall not be amended by Parliament. That is

simply another way of saying that Parliament is not supreme and that its

right to alter the Constitution is limited.

What would happen if Parliament did amend those provisions of the Act

which Schedule II says shall not be amended by Parliament ? The answer,

which Schedule II gives, is that such an Act will have the effect of ‘affecting’

the accession of the States to the Federation, which means it will have the

effect of destroying the binding character of the Instrument of Accession. In

other words, if Parliament amended any of the provisions of the Act, which

Schedule II says shall not be amended, the Princes would get the right to

secede from the Federation. I am aware that some eminent lawyers have

taken a different view. They hold that the Princes, once they come into the

Federation, cannot go out of it. I have mentioned my view for what it is

worth and I will say that my view is not altogether baseless.

At any rate the Solicitor-General and Secretary of State gave the

same interpretation, as I am giving, in the House of Commons, when the

Government of India Bill was being discussed.

336

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The Solicitor-General said:

“The States will not agree to federate in a structure which within

limits, is definite and certain and obviously we could not completely alter

the structure afterwards. The purpose of this clause is to lay down those

matters which can be altered without being regarded as fundamental or as

impinging on the Instrument of Accession.” ...... “If the structure were to

be altered in fundamental respects, of course the States would clearly have

the right to say “This is not the Federation to which we have acceded.”

The Secretary of State said :

“If you amend the parts of the Bill which affect the States, obviously

you would be altering the conditions on which they have acceded and

that would certainly create a situation in which the Princes could rightly

claim that their Instrument of Accession had been altered. It certainly

means that we cannot amend any part of the Bill which affects what is

virtually the treaties under which the Princes come in. If we make a

change in the Bill as to strike at the basis of their Instrument of Accession

then obviously, the agreement has been broken between the Princes and

Parliament and the Princes are free.”

“It will be accepted by every one that under the general scheme of the

Bill the States, when they are asked to federate are entitled to know with

certainty certain aspects at any rate, of the Federation to which they are

to accede. It would be an absurd position if having said to a State this

month, “Will you accede to a Federation,” it was possible next month for

this House to alter in some fundamental respects the provisions of the

Federation to which the State was held to have acceded. Therefore, some

schedule of this kind is necessary. It is a sorting out of the various parts

of the Bill which should be capable of amendment without in any sense

altering from the point of view of the States the constitutional machinery

to which they have acceded. The scheme of the Schedule is to set out the

provisions of the Act, the amendment whereof is not to affect the validity

of the Instrument of Accession of a State.”

“One sees set out those parts of the Bill the amendment of which is not

to affect the validity of the Instrument of Accession of a State, and on the

opposite side there are set out those subjects the amendment of which,

would affect the validity of accession. In drawing up a schedule of this

kind one has to proceed with great care in defining what are the legitimate

matters on which the Rulers of a State are entitled to ask that there shall

be no amendment without their consent. Of course there will be border-line

cases. There could be minor amendments, which would not really make any

great difference to the existing position, and it would be very unreasonable

337

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

if the States took objection to such amendments and said, “We are going to

stand on our rights on this point as affecting the validity of our Instrument

of Accession.” It is right that any matter which really affects what I may call

the general balance of powers, the questions of the reservation of subjects of

executive control and of matters which can be dealt with by the Governor-

General in his discretion, matters which are vital to the architecture of the

Federation to which the States are asked to accede, should not be amended

without their assent.

“The whole area of the special powers vested in the Governor-General is one

of the essential features of the Federation. That is one part where the States are

entitled to say ‘That is a change’ or ‘That is altered’. But this does not in any

way check for all time the development of India. These are to be the subject-

matter of negotiations with the States, because, in effect, they will produce a

Federation of a different kind from that to which the State has acceded.”

Therefore to the question what would happen if Parliament did make

such changes which by virtue of Schedule II are treated as changes which

will affect the Instrument of Accession the answer is that the Princes will

get a right to walk out of the Federation. In other words, the consequence

of any such change would be to break up the Federation.

What are the changes which cannot be made without affecting the

Instrument of Accession ? I will draw your attention to some of the provisions

which Schedule II says cannot be amended by Parliament without affecting

the Instrument of Accession. According to Schedule II no changes in the

Constitution can be made which relate to (1) the exercise by the Governor-

General of the executive authority of the Federation ; (2) the definition of

the functions of the Governor-General ; (3) the executive authority of the

Federation ; (4) the functions of the Council of Ministers and the choosing

and summoning of ministers and their tenure of office ; (5) the power of the

Governor-General to decide whether he is entitled to act in his discretion or

exercise his individual judgment ; (6) the functions of the Governor-General

with respect to external affairs and defence ; (7) the special responsibilities

of the Governor-General relating to the peace and tranquility of India or any

part thereof ; (8) the financial stability and credit of the Federal Government;

(9) the rights of the Indian States and the rights and dignity of their Rulers;

(10) the discharge of his functions by or under the Act in his discretion or

in the exercise of his individual judgment ; (11) His Majesty’s Instrument

of Instructions to the Governor-General ; and (12) the superintendence of

the Secretary of State in the making of the rules for the Governor-General

in his discretion for the transaction of and the securing of transmission to

him of information with respect to, the business of the Federal Government.

338

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Schedule II is a very extensive collection of constitutional don’ts. I have

given just a few of them. They will however be sufficient to show how limited

is the authority of Parliament to make changes in the Constitution.

Why is the authority of Parliament limited ? To understand this it is

necessary to note the exact limits of the authority of Parliament. According

to law the authority of the Parliament to legislate extends only to countries

which are the Dominions of the King. The States did not form part of the

Dominions of the King and none of them not even the finest of them was

subject to the legislative authority of Parliament. The Government of India

Act makes no change in this status of the States. The States remain foreign

territories inspite of the Federation, and as they were before Federation.

This is the most extraordinary state about the Indian Federation, namely

that the different units are as between themselves foreign states. As the

Act does not make the States Dominions of the King, Parliament gets no

right to legislate about them. Parliament derives its authority over the

States from the Instrument of Accession. That being so, the authority of

Parliament cannot but be limited to what is transferred to it by the States

through their instruments. To use the language of the Privy Council itself,

as the stream can rise no higher than its source, similarly, Parliament

cannot have powers over the States greater than those given to them by

the Instrument of Accession. This explains why the authority of Parliament

to amend the Constitution is limited.

The analysis made so far shows that the authority of Parliament 10

change is limited by the Instrument of Accession and that for any excess

of authority, there must be prior consent given by the Princes. As a legal

effect of the provisions of the Act it may not be shocking. But consider the

fact that the provisions in regard to which Parliament has no power to

change include those that relate to the transposition of such subjects as

Defence and External affairs from the category of Reserved to that of the

Transferred and that it will not have that power unless the Princes consent

expressly to confer that authority on Parliament and permit it to do so. You

will be in a position to realize how grave are going to be the consequences

of this Federation. The establishment of the Federation means that the

mastery has gone from the hands of Parliament into the hands of Princes.

This Federation makes the Princes the arbiters of destiny. Without their

consent India cannot politically advance.

Other consequences of this Federation might also be noted. I will just

refer to one. It is that this federation, if accepted will weaken the position

of British Indians in their struggle for change. Hitherto, in the struggle

between the Indian people and the British Parliament the latter was

always the weaker party. It had nothing to oppose the right of the people

to change except its will. After the Federation the position is bound to be

reversed. The Indian people would be in a weaker position and Parliament

339

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

would be in a stronger position. After the Federation, Parliament would be in

a position to say that it is willing to grant the demand for change but that

its authority to change is limited and that before making any demand for

change. Indians should obtain the consent of the Princes. There is nothing

to prevent Parliament from taking this stand.

What reply would Indians be able to give if they once accept the Federation

and thereby admit the implications underlying it ?

VIII

THE FATALITY OF FEDERATION

What shall we do with the Indian States ? That is a question that is

often asked. Some people with Republican faith in them desire their total

abolition. Those who do not care for forms of Government will reject this

view. But even they must abide by the consideration that what works best

is best. Can the Indian States be said to work best ? I do not know that

there is anybody, who will be prepared to give an affirmative answer, at

any rate an affirmative answer which will apply to all States. The internal

administration of the States is a bye-word for mismanagement and mal-

administration. Very few States will escape this charge.

The people are always asking as to why there should be this mismanagement

and maladministration in the States. The usual answer is that it is the

consequence of Personal Rule. Everywhere the demand made is that Personal

Rule should be replaced by Popular Government. I have grave doubts about

the efficacy of this demand. I do not think that in a large majority of cases

the substitution of Popular Government will be any cure for the ills of the

State subjects. For, I am sure that the evils arise as much from the misrule

of the Ruler as they arise from want of resources. Few have any idea as to

how scanty are the resources of the Indian States.

Let me give you a few facts. Out of the total of 627 States there are

only ten with an annual revenue above 1 crore. Of these ten, five have just

about a crore, three have between 2 and 2¼ crores. One has just about 3¼

crores and only one has a revenue just about 8 crores. There are nine with a

revenue ranging between 1 crore and 50 lakhs. About twelve have a revenue

ranging between 50 to 25 lakhs. Thirty have a revenue varying between

25 lakhs and 10 lakhs. The rest of the 566 have an annual revenue which

is less than 10 lakhs. This does not, however, give an idea of how small

are some of the States which fall below 10 lakhs. A few illustrations may

therefore be given. Among these 565 States there is one with a revenue of

Rs. 500 and a population of 206 souls. Another with a revenue of Rs. 165

and a population of 125 : another with a revenue of Rs. 136 and a population

of 239, another with a revenue of 128 and a population of 147 and another

340

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

with a revenue of Rs. 80 and a population of 27. Each one of these is an

Autonomous State, even the one with a revenue of Rs. 80 and a population

of 27 !

The Autonomy of these States means that each one must take upon itself

the responsibility to supply to its subjects all the services which relate to

matters falling under law and order such as revenue, executive and judicial

and all the services which affect public welfare such as education, sanitation,

roads etc. We in Bombay with our 12 crores of revenue are finding it difficult

to maintain a civilized standard of administration. Other Provinces with

equally large revenue are finding the same difficulty. How then can these

small tiny states with a revenue of few hundreds and a population of few

thousands cater to any of the wants which a civilized man must have his

Government satisfy in full measure ? With the best of motives and given

an ideal Prince the task is hopeless.

The only way out is to reorganize the whole area occupied by the Indian

States. The proper solution would be to fix an area of a certain size and of

certain revenue and to constitute it into a New Province and to pension off

the rulers now holding any territory in that area. Only such States should

be retained in whose case by measure of area and revenue it can be said

that they by reason of their resources are in a position to provide a decent

standard of administration. Those which cannot satisfy the test must go.

There is no other way. This is not merely what might be done. I say, to do

this is our duty and a sacred duty.

I know some will think of the hereditary right of the Prince to rule over

his territory. But I ask, what is more important, the right of the Prince

or the welfare of the people ? I am sure that even the best friends of the

States will not say that the rights of the Prince are more important than

the welfare of the people. Which should give way, if the two are in conflict ?

There again, I am sure that even the best friends of the States will not say

that the welfare of the people should be sacrificed for the sake of maintaining

the rights of the Prince.

The question of the reorganization of the Indian States is not a political

question. As I look at it, is a purely administrative question. It is also an

inevitable question. Because, not to tackle it is to condemn the people of

the States—and there are millions of them—perpetually to a life of misery

and security. The way I suggest is not a revolutionary way. To pension off

a Prince and to annex his territory is a legal way and can fall under the

principles with which we are familiar under the Land Acquisition Act which

allows private rights and properties to be acquired for public purposes.

Unfortunately, the question of the Indian States has not been tackled

from this point of view so far. The question that I want to place before

341

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

you is, and it is a very important question, “Will it be open to you to tackle

this question after the Federation is established ?” I say no. You will perhaps

ask why. How does this conclusion follow ?

I have already pointed out that with regard to the entry into the Federation,

the Provinces and the States stand on a different footing. The Provinces have

no choice. They must agree to be the units of the Federation. The States

have a choice. They may join the Federation or they may refuse to join the

Federation. That is so from the standpoint of the Provinces and from the

standpoint of the States. What is the position from the standpoint of the

Federation ? Has the Federation any choice in the matter of the admission of

the States ? Can the Federation refuse to admit a State into the Federation ?

The answer is no. The Federation has no right to refuse. The State has a

right to enter the Federation. But the Federation has no right to refuse

admission at any rate for the first 20 years. That is the position. Now what

does the admission of a State into the Federation mean ? In my view the

admission of a State into the Federation means recognition of the sovereign

status of the State. Recognition of its sovereign status means the recognition

of its indestructibility which means its right to the integrity of its territory

and to guaranteeing of its powers of internal administration. This would

apply even to the State with a population of 27 and revenue of Rs. 80. These

being the implications of the admission of a State in the Federation, I am

perfectly justified in suggesting that the territorial reorganisation of the

Indian States will not be possible after the establishment of the Federation

and the people of the Indian States will be forever doomed to misrule and

mal-administration.

Can British India do anything in the matter now ? I think British India

is not in a position to do anything in the matter. If British India could have

secured Responsible Government for itself, it might have been in a position

to dictate which State should be admitted and on what terms. It would

have been in a position to make the reorganization of the States territory

into tolerably big units as a condition precedent for their entry into the

Federation. Unfortunately British India has no Responsible Government.

Indeed its right to Responsible Government at the Centre is denied and is

made dependent upon the entry of the States. “No States, no responsibility”

has now become the fate of British India. That being the position of British

India, British India is not in a position to make terms with the States as

she would have been able to do if she had Responsible Government. That

is why I have said and that is why I have always maintained that British

Indians should first ask for a Federation and Responsibility confined to

British India. Once that is obtained, the path for an All India Federation

on the basis of freedom and good government all round will become possible.

That possibility will be gone if this Federation comes into being.

342

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

I have already drawn your attention to some of the deformities of the

Federal Scheme. What I have now drawn attention to is more than a

deformity. It is a fatality of the Federation. So far as the States’ people are

concerned, it is a decree of fate. It is something which they will never be

able to escape once it is executed.

The State’s problem is one which, I believe could be solved by the Paramount

Power along the lines I have suggested or along any other line consistently

with the welfare of the people, if it wishes to do so. Paramountcy is like

the Trimurti of Hindu Theology. It is Brahma because it has created the

States. It is Vishnu because it preserves them. It is Shiva because it can

destroy them. Paramountcy has played all these parts in different times in

relation to the States. At one time, it played the part of Shiva. It has now

been playing the part of Vishnu. To play the part of Vishnu with regard to

the States is from the point of view of the good of the people the crudest

act. Should British India be a party to it ? It is for you to consider.

FEDERATION WITHOUT THE STATES

There is another point of view from which the case for Federation is

argued. I must now proceed to examine that argument.

It is argued that the constitution creates Autonomous Provinces. The

Autonomy of the Provinces means independence and therefore disruption of

the Unity of British India. This must be counteracted. Some binding force

must be provided so that the Provinces may be held together and unity

and uniformity built up for the last hundred years as a result of British

administration is preserved intact in fundamentals if not in details.

The argument is quite sound, if it only means that the creation of

Autonomous Provinces makes the creation of a Central Government a

necessity. This proposition I am sure will command universal assent. In

all the Round Table Conferences the late Sir Mahomad Iqbal was the only

delegate who was against the establishment of a Central Government.

Every other delegate irrespective of caste or creed differed from him. They

asserted that with the creation of Autonomous Provinces the establishment

of a Central Government was a categorial imperative and that without it

autonomy would result in anarchy.

But the argument goes beyond its legitimate scope. It seeks to justify the

establishment of a Central Government for All India. The argument which

can justify the establishment of a Central Government for British India

is used to justify a Central Government for the whole of India. And the

question that you have to consider is whether the creation of Autonomous

Provinces in British India can justify a Central Government for the whole

343

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

of India including the Indian States. My contention is that the creation of

Autonomous Provinces does not require the creation of a Central Government

for the whole of India.

The establishment of Autonomous Provinces in British India will call for

two things; (1) That there shall be a Central Government for British India and

(2) that the form of that Central Government must be federal and not unitary.

The essence of Federation lies in the division or allocation of Legislative and

Executive Powers between the Central Government and the Units by law.

The powers of the Units and the Centre are defined and demarcated and

the one is not entitled to invade the domain of the other. Autonomy of the

Provinces means that their powers are defined and vested in them. To make

Provincial Autonomy real the Powers of the Central Government must also

be limited, otherwise it would be in a position to invade the domain of the

Provinces. To put it simply, autonomy means definition and delimitation of

Powers by law and wherever there is definition and delimitation of powers

between two Political Bodies there is and there must be Federation. You

will now understand why I said that all that Provincial Autonomy demands

is that the Central Government for British India shall be Federal in form.

It does not justify all India Federation. Why is it necessary to bring in the

States still remains to be answered and those who plead for this All-India

Federation as distinct from British India Federation must answer this

question.

As I said all that is necessary is that Central Government for British

India shall be Federal in form and this fact has been recognized by the

Constitution.

Many seemed to have failed to notice that the Government of India Act,

1935 establishes two distinct Federations. One is a federation which is a

federation of the Provinces of British India another which is a Federation

of British Indian Provinces and the Indian States. It is surprising that so

many should have missed so important a fact. That the Government of India

Act establishes two federations is beyond dispute. To those who have any

doubt they should read Parts III and XIII together and Part II and Part III

together. Part II and Part III reveal that there is an All-India Federation

and lay down the constitution of that Federation. Part III and Part XIII

reveal that there is a Federation of British India Provinces apart from the

States and lay down the Constitution of that Federation. That Part XIII

relates to provisions which are called transitional does not make the British

India Scheme any the less a Federation, because the law is law whether it

is for a limited period or for all times.

That the Act establishes a Federation for British India Provinces and

also an All-India Federation cannot be denied. What is the difference

between these two Federations ? Is there any difference in the Legislative

344

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Powers of the Federation ? The answer is no. The Federal Legislative List

remains the same whether the Federation that is in operation is British India

Federation or the All-India Federation. The Concurrent list also remains the

same whether the Federation in operation is one or the other.

Is there any difference in Financial Powers ? The answer again is no.

The Powers of taxation remain the same whether it is an All-India

Federation or British India Federation.

Is there any change in the Judicial organization of the Federation ? There

is none. Federal Court is as much necessary for the All-India Federation as

for British India Federation.

How do these two Federations differ ? The two differ in one respect only.

To find out this difference you should compare section 313 with section 8.

The comparison will show that if the Federation is a British India Federation

the Executive Authority of the Federation will be the Governor-General

in Council and if the federation is an All-India Federation the Executive

Authority in transferred matters to be the Governor-General acting on the

advice of Ministers responsible to the Legislature. In other words while there

is British India Federation only there is no responsibility at the Centre so

long as there is no All-India Federation.

This means that the entry of the States is a condition precedent for the

grant of responsibility to British India. You will therefore ask, why is the

entry of the States so essential ?

All Federations have come into existence as a result of some danger from

outside affecting the safety and integrity of the Units. The States of North

America federated because of the fear of subjugation of the States by British

Imperialism. The Provinces of Canada federated because of the danger

of invasion or absorption by the United States. The Australian Colonies

federated because of the danger of invasion by Japan. It is obvious that

the Indian Federation is not the result of any such circumstance. There is

no new invader on the border of India waiting to pounce upon both British

India and the Indian States. Nor is this Federation necessary for bringing

about peace between British India and the Indian States. It matters not

that British India is under the sovereignty of the Crown and the Indian

States are under the suzerainty of the Crown. So far as foreign relations

are concerned, and they include peace and war, the two are subordinate

to one and the same authority namely the crown. That is the reason why

the two have been at peace. That is the reason why they will not be and

cannot be at war. Prevention of external aggression or the maintenance of

internal peace cannot be the motive for this All India Federation. What

then can be the motive of this Federation ? Why are the States invited to

enter into this Federation ? Why is their entry made a condition precedent

for responsibility at the Centre ? To put it bluntly,

345

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

the motive is to use the Princes to support imperial interests and to curb

the rising tide of democracy in British India. I should like to have another

explanation, if there is any. I see none. That the Princes are wanted in the

Federation to serve ends of the British Imperialism is beyond question. The

Secretary of State for India speaking in Parliament during the course of the

debate on the Government of India Bill admitted that “we should all welcome

the entry into the Central Government of India of a great force of stability

and imperial feeling represented by the Princes”. While the suppression of

democracy in British India may not be the motive I am sure that that will

be the consequence of the entry of the Princes in the Federation.

What a price has been paid for the entry of the Federation ! I do not wish

to repeat what I have said. If you will re-call what I have said regarding the

discrimination which has been made in favour of the Princes in the matter

of representation, taxation, administration, legislation etc., you will know

what benefits have been conferred, what rights have been surrendered and

what immunities have been granted by British India to induce the Princes

to come into the Federation. And what has British India got in return ?

If the Federal Constitution had provided full responsible Government,

there would have been some compensation to British India for the price it

has paid to the Princes for their joining the Federation. But British India

has not got any responsibility worth the name. What British India has got

is a system of responsibility halved in part and mutilated in substance by

conditions and restraints. Not only British India has not been able to secure

responsibility at the Centre commensurate with the sacrifices it has made

for making the Federation easy for the Princes, but it has lost its claim for

Dominion Status in its own right and independently of the Princes. Many

people do not know what British India has lost and stands to lose in this

business of an All India Federation. The new Constitution is the result

of the struggle of the people of British India. It is the agitation and the

sufferings of the people of British India which was the compelling force

behind this constitution. What was the right which the people of British

India were claiming for themselves ? As I have said, their first claim was

good government in British India. Next they claimed self-government, that

is responsible government for British India. Lastly, they claimed Dominion

Status for British India. Each one of these claims have been accepted by

the British Parliament. In 1917 the British Parliament accepted the goal of

Responsible Government. In 1929 the English Nation accepted the goal of

Dominion Status, Now it must be emphasised that each time the claim was

made, it was made in the name of the people of British India. Each time it

was accepted in relation to the people of British India. What is going to be

the position of British India as a result of the Federation ?

346

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The position of British India is that they can never get any responsibility

at the Centre unless the Princes come into the Scheme. That means that

British India has lost its right to claim Responsible Government for itself

in its own name and independently of the Princes. This right was a vested

right because it was the result of a claim made and accepted. That right has

been lost because British India is made dependent for the realization of its

destiny upon the wishes of the States. Of the two parts of this Federation.

British India is the progressive part and the States form the unprogressive

part. That the progressive part should be tied up to the chariot of the

unprogressive and its path and destiny should be made dependent upon

the unprogressive part constitutes the most tragic side of this Federation.

For this tragedy you have to blame your own national leaders. Fortunately

for me I am not one of your national leaders. The utmost rank to which I

have risen is that of a leader of the Untouchables. I find even that rank has

been denied to me. Thakkar Bapa, the left hand man of Mahatma Gandhi.

I call him left hand man only because Vallabhbhai Patel is the right hand

man—very recently said that I was only the leader of the Mahars. He

would not even allow me the leadership of the Untouchables of the Bombay

Presidency. Whether what Thakkar Bapa said was said by him out of malice

or out of love of truth does not worry me. For politics is not my first love nor

is national leaderhip the goal of my life. On the other hand, when I see what

disasters your national leaders have brought upon this country I feel relieved

to know that I am not included in that august crowd. Believe me when I say

that some of your national leaders were thoroughly unprepared for the job

of constitution-making. They went to the Round Table Conference without

any comparative study of constitutions and could propound no solutions to

problems with which they were presented. Others who were undoubtedly

competent to tackle the problem were like little children so charged with

the ideal of Federation that they never cared to see whether what they

were shaping was a real federation or a fraud in the name of Federation.

This tragedy is entirely due to wrong leadership. I do not know if the steps

taken can be retraced and whether the lost ground can be regained. But I

think it is a right thing that the people of British India should know what

they have lost. They have a federation of their own and they have right to

demand responsibility for their federation.

There is another reason why it would be desirable to have a Federation

of British India only. A Federation of British India and of the Indian States

cannot work harmoniously. There are two elements which I am sure will

produce a conflict between British India and the Indian States. The first

element arises out of the difference in the position of the representatives

of British India and those of the Indian States. The representatives of

British India will be free men. The representatives of the Indian States

347

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

will be bondmen of the Political Department. The sources of mandate of those

two sets of representatives in the Federal Legislature will be different. The

British India representatives will be engaged in extending the authority of

the Ministers. The States representatives are sure to act and will be made

to act so as to lend support to the authority of the Governor-General as

against the Ministers. This conflict is inevitable and it is sure to embitter

the feelings of British India towards the Indian States. This was precisely

what happened in the last regime in the Provinces. The feelings of the elected

members towards the nominated members in the old Provincial Councils

were certainly unfriendly. This experience I am sure will be repeated in the

Federal Legislature. That it should be so is very natural when one section

of the House feels that the other section has been brought in to thwart

its wishes and is acting as the tool of some power outside the control of

the Legislature. This is one element of disharmony. The other element of

disharmony is the disparity in the position of British Indian States under

the Federation. Equality before law is a precious thing. But not all people

value it for the same reason. Most cherish it an ideal. Few realize why it is

crucial. Equality before the law compels men to make common cause with

all others similarly affected. Whereas if there is no equality, if some are

favoured and others are burdened, those specially favoured not only refuse

to join those who are burdened in the struggle for equality but actually

take sides against them. A Dictator might, as the kings did in the olden

times, pull out one by one the teeth of a few without necessarily exciting

the resentment of the other people. On the contrary, the others will join in

the raid. But suppose a law was made that all must contribute as much

money as the dictators ask for under penalty of their teeth being drawn out

all would rise in opposition. There is no equality between British India and

the Indian States under the Federation. Indian States enjoy many benefits

and many exemptions which are denied to British India. This is particularly

so in the matter of taxation. There is bound to be great acrimony between

the representatives of British India and those of the Indian States as to

who should bear the load of taxation first. Patriotism vanishes when you

touch a man’s pocket and I am sure that the States representatives will

prefer their own financial interest to the necessities of a common front to

make the executive responsible to the Legislature.

What is the use of housing British India and the Indian States under one

edifice if the result is to make them quarrel with each other ?

There is a complete dissimilarity between the forms of Government

prevalent in British India and the Indian States and the principles underlying

the two. These dissimilarities need not produce any antagonism between the

Indian States and British India if the two continue to evolve in their separate

spheres. So long as the form of Government in the Indian States does not

become a factor in the decision of affairs which affects British India, British

348

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

India can tolerate those forms of Government however antiquated they

may be. But the Federation makes them a factor and a powerful factor

and British India cannot remain indifferent to them. Indeed the forging

of the Federation will compel British India to launch a compaign in sheer

self-interest for revolutionising the forms of Government prevalent in the

Indian States.

This will be the inevitable result of this Federation. Is this a consummation

which the States devoutly wish for ? This is a question they will have to

consider.

Does British India welcome this prospect ? Speaking for myself I will

not. It would be impossible to wage war on so vast a front. The States are

too numerous to allow concentrated attack. The States being a part of the

structure, you cannot attack them and justify your attack as a Constitutional

Act. Secondly, why put yourself in this difficulty ? Sometimes it turns out

that a man thinks that he is buying property when as a matter of fact he is

buying litigation. For British India to accept this Federation is like buying

trouble. Thirdly, this Constitution is a settlement from which Dominion

Status is most rigidly excluded not only for the present but also for the

future as well.

Looked at from any point of view, the wisest course seems to me that

leaving the States where they are, British India should proceed on its own

evolution and Federation for itself.

FEDERATION FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW

Different people are looking at this Federation from different points of

view. There is the point of view of the Princes. There is the point of view

of the Hindus and the Muslims and the Congress. There is also the point

of view of the Merchant and the Trader. The point of view of each one of

these is of course the result of their particular interests.

What is the interest of the Princes in this Federation? To understand

the motives of the Princes you must go back to the Butler Committee. The

Princes had been complaining of the encroachment of the Political Department

of the Government of India upon their treaty rights under the Doctrine of

Paramountcy. The Princes were insisting that the Political Department had

no greater right against the States except those that were given by the

treaties subsisting between them and the British Government. The Political

Department on the other hand claimed that in addition to the rights referable

to the treaties, the Crown had also rights which were referable to political

usages and customs. To adjudicate upon this dispute, the Secretary of State

agreed to appoint the Butler Committee. The Princes had hoped that the

Butler Committee would accept their contentions and limit the scope of

349

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

Paramountcy to the rights referable to the treaties. Unfortunately for the

Princes they were disappointed, because the Butler Committee reported that

the Paramountcy was paramount and that there could be no definition or

delimitation of it. This decision of the Butler Committee meant a complete

subordination of the Princes to the Political Department of the Government

of India and the Princes were in search of an escape from this unfortunate

position in which they were placed and they found, and quite rightly, that

the only solution which can enable them to esape the tyranny of the Political

Department was the Federation; because to the extent to which the Federal

authority prevailed, the authority of the Political Department would vanish

and as the Federal authority could only be exercised by a Federal Legislature

and a Federal Executive and as they would have sufficient voice in the

Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive they thought of federation.

The federal solution of their problem offered two advantages to the Princes.

The first was that it would secure to the States internal autonomy which

they were very anxious to have, for it is of the essence of federating units

to remain in their own hands all powers save those which they themselves

have willingly delegated to a common centre and over which they themselves

possess a share in the control. The second advantage of the Federation was

that Paramountcy would disappear to the extent of the Federal authority. The

motive of the Princes, therefore, was selfish and their primary aim was to get

rid as much as possible of the authority of the Political Department of the

Government of India. This was one of the primary interests of the Princes.

The Princes had another interests to safeguard. That was to preserve their

powers of civil and military government as much as possible. They wanted

to make the Federation as thin as possible so that it might not impinge

upon them very hard. The interest of the Princes is two-fold. They wanted

to escape Paramountcy. Secondly, they did not want to subject themselves

too much to the authority of the Federation. In looking at the Federation,

the Princes keep two questions before them. How far will this Federation

enable them to escape the tyranny of Paramountcy ? Secondly, how far does

this scheme of Federation take away their sovereignty and their powers of

internal government ? They want to draw more under the former and give

less under the latter.

The Muslims had an interest which not only coloured their whole vision

but made it so limited that they did not care to look at anything else.

That interest was their interest as a minority. They knew only one means

of protecting themselves against the Hindu majority. That was to ask for

reservation of seats with separate electorates and weightage in representation.

In 1930 they discovered that there was another and a more efficacious

method of protecting the Muslim minorities. That was to carve out new

Provinces in which Muslims would be in a majority and Hindus in a minority

as a counterblast to Provinces with Hindus as a majority and Muslims as

350

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a minority. They hit upon this system because they felt such as a system

of balance of Provinces would permit the Muslims in the Muslim majority

Provinces to hold the Hindu minorities in their Provinces as hostage for

the good behaviour of the Hindu Majorities in the Provinces in which the

Muslims were in minority. The creation of Muslim majority Provinces and to

make them strong and powerful was their dominant interest. To accomplish

this they demanded the separation of Sindh and the grant of responsible

government to the North West Frontier Provinces so that the Muslims could

have a command of four Provinces. To make the Provinces strong they

insisted on making the Centre weak. As a means to this end the Muslims

demanded that residuary powers should be given to the Provinces and the

Hindu representation in the Centre should be reduced by giving the Muslims

not only 1/3 of seats from the total fixed for British India but also 1/3 from

the total assigned to the Princes.

The Hindus as represented by the Hindu Mahasabha were concerned

with only one thing. How to meet what they called the menace of the

Musalmans ? The Hindu Mahasabha felt that the accession of the Princes

was an accretion to the Hindu strength. Everything else was to them of no

consequence. Its point of view was Federation at any cost.

The next class whose point of view is worthy of consideration is the Indian

Commercial Community. The commercial community is no doubt a small

community in a vast country like India, but there can be no doubt about it

that the point of view of this community is really more decisive than the

point of view of any other community. This community has been behind

the Congress. It is this community which has supplied the Congress the

sinews of war and it knows that having paid the piper it can call for the

tune. The commercial community is primarily interested in what is called

commercial discrimination and the lowering of the exchange Ratio. It was a

very narrow and limited point of view. The Indian Commercial Community

is out to displace Europeans from Trade and Commerce and take their place.

This it claims to do in the name of nationalism. It wants the right to lower

the exchange rate and make profit in its foreign trade. This also it claims

to do in the name of nationalism. Beyond getting profits to themselves the

Merchants and Traders have no other consideration.

What shall I say about the Congress? What was its point of view? I

am sure I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting facts when I say that

the Congress point of view at the Round Table Conference was that the

Congress was the only party in India and that no body else counted and

that the British should settle with the Congress only. This was the burden

of Mr. Gandhi’s song at the Round Table Conference, He was so busy in

establishing his own claim to recognition by the British as the dictator of

India that he forgot altogether that the important question was not, with

351

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

whom the settlement should be made but what were to be the terms of

that settlement. As to the terms of the settlement, Mr. Gandhi was quite

unequal to the task. When he went to London he had forgotten that he

would have before him not those who go to him to obtain his advice and

return with his blessings but persons who would treat him as a lawyer

treats a witness in the box. Mr. Gandhi also forgot that he was going to a

political conference. He went there as though he was going to a Vaishnava

Shrine singing the Narsi Mehta’s Songs. When I think of the whole affair I

am wondering if any nation had ever sent a representative to negotiate the

terms of a national settlement who was more unfit than Mr. Gandhi. How

unfit Mr. Gandhi was to negotiate a settlement becomes evident when one

realizes that this Ambassador of India was ready to return to India with

only Provincial Autonomy when as a matter of fact he was sent to negotiate

on the basis of Independence. No man has brought greater disasters to the,

interests of India than did Mr. Gandhi at the Round Table Conference. Less

one speaks of him the better.

How far each of these interests feel satisfied with the Federal Scheme

such as it is, it is not for me to say. The question one may however ask

is, are these the only points of view that must be taken into consideration

in deciding as to what we shall do with this Federation ? I protest that

there are other points of view besides those mentioned above which-must

receive attention. There is the point of view of the Free man. There is also

the point of view of the Poor man. What have they to say of Federation ?

The Federation does not seem to take any account of them. Yet they are

the people who are most deeply concerned. Can the free man hope that the

Federal Constitution will not be a menace to his freedom? Can the poor

man feel that the constitution will enable him to have old values revalued,

to have vested rights devested? I have no doubt that this Federation if it

comes into being will be a standing menace to the free man and an obstacle

in the way of the poor man. What freedom can there be when you are made

subject to the autocracy of the Princes? What economic betterment can there

be when you get Second Chambers with vested rights entrenched in Ml and

when legislation affecting property is subject to sanction by the Government

both before introducing and after it has passed ?

CONCLUSION

I have perhaps detained you longer than I should have done. You will

allow that it is not altogether my fault. The vastness of the subject is one

reason for the length of this address.

I must, however, confess that there is also another reason which has

persuaded me not to cut too short. We are standing today at the point of

352

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

time where the old age ends and the new begins. The old age was the

age of Ranade, Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sic Pherozeshah Mehta,

Surendranath Bannerjee. The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this

generation is said to be Gandhi generation. As one who knows something of

the old age and also something of the new I see some very definite marks

of difference between the two. The type of leadership has undergone a

profound change. In the age of Ranade the leaders struggled to modernize

India. In the age of Gandhi the leaders are making her a living specimen

of antiquity. In the age of Ranade leaders depended upon experience as

a corrective method of their thoughts and their deeds. The leaders of the

present age depend upon their inner voice as their guide. Not only is there

a difference in their mental make up there is a difference even in their view

point regarding external appearance. The leaders of the old age took care

to be well clad while the leaders of the present age take pride in being half

clad. The leaders of the Gandhi age are of course aware of these differences.

But far from blushing for their views and their appearance they claim

that the India of Gandhi is superior to India of Ranade. They say that the

age of Mr. Gandhi is an agitated and an expectant age, which the age of

Mr. Ranade was not.

Those who have lived both in the age of Ranade and the age of Gandhi

will admit that there is this difference between the two. At the same time

they will be able to insist that if the India of Ranade was less agitated it was

more honest and that if it was less expectant it was more enlightened. The

age of Ranade was an age in which men and women did engage themselves

seriously in studying and examining the facts of their life, and what is

more important is that in the face of the opposition of the orthodox mass

they tried to mould their lives and their character in accordance with the

light they found as a result of their research. In the age of Ranade there

was not the same divorce between a politician and a student which one

sees in the Gandhi age. In the age of Ranade a politician, who was not a

student, was treated as an intolerable nuisance, if not a danger. In the age

of Mr. Gandhi learning, if it is not despised, is certainly not deemed to be

a necessary qualification of a politician.

To my mind there is no doubt that this Gandhi age is the dark age of

India. It is an age in which people instead of looking for their ideals in

the future are returning to antiquity. It is an age in which people have

ceased to think for themselves and as they have ceased to think they

have ceased to read and examine the facts of their lives. The fate of an

ignorant democracy which refuses to follow the way shown by learning

and experience and chooses to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and

the megalomaniacs is a sad thing to contemplate. Such an age I thought

needed something more than a mere descriptive sketch of the Federal

Scheme, It needed a treatment which was complete though not exhaustive

353

FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM

and pointed without being dogmatic in order to make it alive to the dangers

arising from the inauguration of the Federal Scheme. This is the task I

had set before myself in preparing this address. Whether I have failed

or succeeded, it is for you to say. If this address has length which is not

compensated by depth, all I can say is that I have tried to do my duty

according to my lights.

I am not opposed to a Federal Form of Government. I confess I have a

partiality for a Unitary form of Government. I think India needs it. But I

also realize that a Federal Form of Government is inevitable if there is to be

Provincial Autonomy, But I am in dead horror the Federal Scheme contained

in the Government of India Act. I think I have justified my antipathy by

giving adequate reasons, I want all to examine them and come to their owe

conclusions. Let us however realize that the case of Provincial Autonomy

is very different from that of the Federal Scheme. To those who think that

the Federation should become acceptable if the Governor-General gave an

assurance along the same lines as was supposed to be done by the Governors

that he will not exercise his powers under his special responsibilities I

want to say two things. First I am sure the Governor-General cannot give

such an assurance because he is exercising these powers not merely in

the interest of the Crown but also in the interest of the States. Secondly,

even if he did, that cannot alter the nature of the Federal Scheme. To

those who think that a change in the system of State representation from

nomination to election will make the Federation less objectionable, I want

to say that they are treating a matter of detail as though it was a matter

of fundamental. Let us note what is fundamental and what is not. Let there

be no mistake, let there be no fooling as to this. We have had enough of

both. The real question is the extension and the growth of responsibility.

Is that possible ? That is the crux. Let us also realize that there is no use

hugging to Provincial Autonomy and leaving responsibility in the Centre

hanging in the air. I am convinced that without real responsibility at the

Centre, Provincial Autonomy is an empty shell.

What we should do to force our point of view, this is no place to discuss.

It is enough if I have succeeded in giving you an adequate idea of what are

the dangers of this Federal Scheme.



COMMUNAL DEADLOCK

AND

A WAY TO SOLVE IT

Address delivered at the Session

the All India Scheduled Castes Federation

held in

Bombay on May 6,1945

Published: 1945

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND

A WAY TO SOLVE IT

Mr. President,

I am indeed very grateful for your kind invitation to address the Annual

Session of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation. I am happy to see this

great gathering of the Scheduled Castes. Having regard to the very short

time which has elapsed since its establishment, the growth of the Federation

appears by all evidence to be phenomenal. That the Scheduled Castes all

over India have rallied round the Federation and are determined to make

the Federation their only representative organization is beyond question. The

growth of the Federation within so short a time will not be fully appreciated

unless the tremendous difficulties in the way of our organization have been

fully appreciated. There are agents of other political organizations which

decoy our people by false blandishments, by false promises and by false

propaganda. There is the ignorance of our own people, who do not know the

critical nature of the times we are living in and who do not know the value

of organization for achieving our political objects. There is a lamentable lack

of resources at our command. We have no money. We have no press. The

cruelest of tyrannies and oppressions, to which our people are subjected,

day in and day out all over India, are never reported by the Press. Even

our views on social and political questions are systematically suppressed

by an organized conspiracy on the part of the Press. We have no funds to

maintain a machinery, to render help to our people and to educate, agitate

and organize them.

These are the odds we have to contend against. That the Federation,

notwithstanding these difficulties, should have grown to this dimension is

entirely due to our men who have been ceaselessly and unselfishly devoting

themselves to the building up of this organization. I am sure you would

like me to pay Mr. Ganpat Mahadev Jadhav, the President of the Bombay

City Scheduled Castes Federation, our tribute for the work he has done. As

everyone knows, he possesses remarkable degree of organizing capacity and

I am sure the success of this Session is due to a great extent to his efforts

and to those who have been his co-workers.

358

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Ordinarily, at a gathering such as this I would have spoken—and our

people would expect me to speak—on any one of the social and political

problems of the Scheduled Castes. But I do not propose to engage myself

in a discourse on so sectarian a subject. Instead, I propose to speak on a

topic, which is general and has a wider appeal, namely the shape and form

of the future Constitution of India.

It may be as well for me to explain the reasons for my decision. For

the moment, the responsibility for leading the movement of the Scheduled

Castes and facing its day-to-day problems does not lie on my shoulders. On

account of my office I am out of it and I have no desire to take it up. That

is one reason why I do not propose to take up a sectarian subject which is

related only to the Scheduled Castes.

The Scheduled Castes are often charged as being selfish, interested only

in themselves ; that they have no constructive suggestions to make for the

solution of the country’s political problem. The charge is entirely untrue ; and

if it is true, the Untouchables will not be the only ones who will be found

guilty of it. Most people in India do not make constructive suggestions. The

reason is not that there are not people capable of constructive thought. The

reason why all constructive thought remains bottled up is because a long

and continuous propaganda has inculcated upon the minds of the generality

of the people that nothing should be respected and nothing should be

accepted unless it emanates from the Congress. It is this which has killed

all constructive thought in this country. At the same time, I believe this

charge against the Scheduled Castes should be repelled in a positive way by

showing that the Scheduled Castes are capable of putting forth constructive

proposals for the general political advancement of the country which the

country, if it cares to, may consider. This is the second reason why I have

on this occasion chosen this subject of general interest.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION

Before I set out in concrete terms the constitutional proposals I have in

mind, I wish to raise two preliminary issues. First is : Who should frame a

Constitution for India ? It is necessary to raise this question because there

are quite a lot of people in India who are hoping, if not asking, the British

Government to resolve the deadlock and to frame a Constitution for India.

I think there is a gross fallacy in such a view which needs to be exposed. A

Constitution, framed by the British Government and imposed upon Indians,

sufficed in the past. But if the nature of the future Constitution Indians are

clamouring for, is borne in mind it will be clear that an imposed Constitution

will not do.

The difference between the past Constitutions and the future Constitution

of India is fundamental, and those, who still rely on the British for framing

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

359

a Constitution for India, do not seem to have realized this difference. The

difference lies in this that the past Constitutions contained a breakdown

clause. But the future Constitution of India cannot contain such a breakdown

clause. People in India decry the breakdown clause—by now the notorious

section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. That is because they do

not know the why and the how of its place in the Act. Its importance will

become apparent if two important considerations governing the political life

of a community are borne in mind. First of these considerations is that Law

and Order is the medicine of the body politic, and when the body politic

goes sick this medicine must be administered. Indeed, so important is this

consideration that failure to administer it must be deemed to be a crime

against society and civilization. The second consideration is that though it

is true that no government has a vested right to govern, it is equally true

that there must always be a government to govern—which I mean maintain

Law and Order—until it is displaced by a better government. The breakdown

clause serves these two purposes. As such, it is of the highest value for the

peace and tranquillity of the people. It is the one and only means which can

save the country from anarchy. For, when Constitutional Government fails,

the breakdown clause has at least the merit of maintaining Government.

In the past this distinction between Constitutional Government

and Government with the provision for Government stepping in when

Constitutional Government failed, was a feasible proposition. It was

feasible because while the British Government gave Indians the right to

a Constitutional Government, it kept to itself the right to govern, should

Constitutional Government fail. In the future Constitution of India, it

would not be possible to maintain this distinction. It would not be possible

for the British Government to give the Indians the right to Constitutional

Government and also to keep to itself the right to govern in case there was

a breakdown in the Constitutional Government. The reason is quite obvious.

The past Constitutions of India did not treat India as a Dominion. The future

Constitution will proceed on the assumption that India will be a Dominion.

The breakdown clause or the possibility of Government stepping in, when

Constitutional Government has failed, can be reconciled in the case of a

country, which has no Dominion Status. But the two are irreconcilable in

the case of a Dominion. In the case of a Dominion or for the matter of that

in the case of any free country, there is either a Constitutional Government

or a Rebellion.

What does this mean ? It means that it is impossible to frame a Constitution

for an Indian Dominion with a possibility of a breakdown. To put the same

thing in a different language the Constitution must be so made that it will

not only command the obedience but also the respect of all ; and all or if

not all, at any rate, all important elements in the national life of India shall

be prepared to uphold it and to give it their support. This can happen only

360

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

if the Constitution is framed by Indians for Indians and with the voluntary

consent of Indians. If the Constitution is imposed by the British Government

and is not accepted by one section and is opposed by another, there will

arise in the country an element, hostile to the Constitution, and which will

devote its energies not to working the Constitution but to breaking it. The

anti-Constitution party may look upon destroying the Constitution as its

only duty and may engage itself in “pronouncing” against a party working

the Constitution in the real Latin American fashion.

It is useless for the British to frame a Constitution for India which they

will not remain to enforce. The same result will ensue if the Constitution is

imposed by one powerful section or a combination of such sections on other

sections. I am, therefore, firmly of opinion that if Indians want Dominion

Status, they cannot escape the responsibility of framing their own Constitution.

The position is thus inescapable.

III

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The second question that I wish to raise is : Should there be a Constituent

Assembly, charged with the function of making a Constitution ? Constituent

Assembly is on the lips of everybody. The Congress parties in their

resolutions, passed before the Congress ministries resigned, demanded

that the Constitution for India should be made by a Constituent Assembly

composed of Indians. A Constituent Assembly was included in the Cripps

proposals. The Sapru Committee has followed suit.

I must state that I am wholly opposed to the proposals of a Constituent

Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it as a most dangerous

project, which may involve this country in a Civil War. In the first place,

I do not see why a Constituent Assembly is at all necessary. Indians are

not in the same position as the Fathers of the American Constitution

were, when they framed the Constitution of the United States. They had

to evolve ideas, suitable for the constitution for a free people. They had

no constitutional patterns before them to draw upon. This cannot however

be the case for Indians. Constitutional ideas and constitutional forms are

ready at hand. Again, room for variety is very small. There are not more

than two or three constitutional patterns to choose from. Thirdly, there are

hardly any big and purely constitutional questions about which there can be

said to be much dispute among Indians. It is agreed that the future Indian

Constitution should be Federal. It is also more or less settled what subjects

should go to the Centre and what to the Provinces. There is no quarrel

over the division of Revenues between the Centre and the Provinces, none

on Franchise and none on the relation of the Judiciary to the Legislature

and the Executive. The only point of dispute, which is outstanding, centres

round the question of the residuary powers—whether they should be

with the Centre or with the Provinces. But that is hardly a matter worth

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

361

bothering about Indeed, the provision contained in the present Government

of India Act could be adopted as the best compromise.

Having regard to this I cannot see why a Constituent Assembly is necessary

to incubate a constitution. So much of the Constitution of India has already

been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935, that it seems to be

an act of supererogation to appoint a Constituent Assembly to do the thing

ever again. All that is necessary is to delete those sections of the Government

of India Act, 1935, which are inconsistent with Dominion Status.

The only function which could be left to a Constituent Assembly is to find

a solution of the Communal Problem. I am quite positive that whatever be

the terms of reference of the Constituent Assembly, the Communal Question

should not form a part of them. Consider the composition of the Constituent

Assembly as suggested by the Sapru Committee. The total membership is

fixed at 160. The election is by joint electorates by members of the Provincial

Legislative Assemblies under a system of proportional representation and the

decision is to be by three-fourths of the members present and voting. Can a

minority accept this Constituent Assembly as a safe body, in the impartiality

of which it can place implicit confidence ? The answer to this question must

depend upon what answers one can give to two other questions : Does it

guarantee that the representatives of a minority elected to the Assembly will

be its true representatives ? Secondly, does it guarantee that the decision of

the Assembly with regard to the claims of any particular minority will not

in fact be an imposition on the minority ? On neither of these two questions

can I confidently say that a minority need have no cause for fear.

Before taking up these questions, let me point out what differences there

are between the Cripps Constituent Assembly and the Sapru Constituent

Assembly. They may be stated as follows :

(i) The total number for the Constituent Assembly fixed by the Sapru

Committee is 160. Sir Stafford Cripps had not fixed any number. But

the provision contained in his proposal that the Constituent Assembly

shall consist of ten per cent of the total number of members of the

Provincial Legislatures virtually fixed the number to about 158—a

difference of only 2.

(ii) The method of election to the Constituent Assembly by the Sapru

Committee is by joint electorate under the system of proportional

representation. In this there is no difference between the Cripps plan

and the Sapru plan for the composition of the Constituent Assembly.

(iii) Under the Cripps plan, there was no communal reservation. The

Sapru plan departs from the Cripps plan in this respect, in as

much as it reserves seats for particular communities in prescribed

362

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

proportions. This difference is only normal. For, though the Cripps

plan did not in terms fix the number, the scheme of proportional

representation would have in fact resulted in such reservation. The

difference in the quota of representation under the two schemes

will be seen from the following table :

Communities and Interests Quota of seats in the Constituent

Assembly

Under Cripps’ Under Sapru’s

Hindus .. .. .. 77 51

Muslims .. .. .. 50 51

Scheduled Castes .. .. 15 20

Sikhs .. .. .. 3 8

Indian Christians .. .. 2 7

Anglo-Indians .. .. 1 2

Europeans .. .. .. 6 1

Aboriginal Tribes .. .. 2 3

Special Interests .. .. .... 16

Others .. .. .. 2 1

158 160

The Sapru Committee has not only fixed the numbers for each

Community in the composition of the Constituent Assembly but it

has offered the Muslims equality with the Hindus. For this departure

the Committee’s plea is that in consideration for this offer it has

demanded joint electorate as a basis for election to the Constituent

Assembly. In this, the Committee must be said to have entirely

misunderstood the Cripps proposals. Joint-Electorates were already

provided for in the Cripps proposals one clause of which reads—“The

members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures are

to form a single Electoral College”. This is simply another way of

saying that the election shall be by joint-electorate. It has given

something for nothing to one element and thereby put the other

Communities in a hazard.

(iv) Under the Cripps proposal the decision of the Assembly was to be

by majority of those present and voting, Under the Sapru proposal

the decision is to be by a majority of 3/4th of those present and

voting.

Now to revert to the two questions. How does the position stands with

regard to the first question ? To give one’s opinion on it, it is first necessary

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

363

to know the communal distribution of the membership of the Provincial

Legislative Assemblies. The following table sums up the position :

Distribution of Seats by Communities in the Provincial

Legislative Assemblies*

Communities General Women University Trade

Unions

Com-

merce

Land

lords

Total

12345678

1. Hindus .. 651 26 7 33 31 22 770

2. Muslims .. 482 10 1 5 6 13 517

3. Scheduled Castes. 151 .. .. .. .. .. 151

4. Indian Christians. 20 1 .. .. .. .. 21

5. Anglo-Indians .. 11 1 .. .. .. .. 12

6. Sikhs .. 34 1 .. .. .. 1 36

7. Europeans .. 26 .. .. .. 19 1 46

8. Aboriginals .. 24 .. .. .. .. .. 24

Total .. 1,399 39 8 38 56 37 1,577

Has the communal reservation made by the Sapru proposal, and which

is not to be found in the Cripps proposal, any value ? That depends upon

how far one community will be able to influence the election of the members

of the other communities ? What are the prospects in this regard ? Let me

give another table :

Voting strength in relation to seats

Communities Voters for

Constituent

Assembly

Quota of

seats in the

Constituent

Assembly

Number of

votes required

for electing

the quota

(+)Excess of

voters over

(–)Deficiency

of voters

below

requirement

1. Hindus .. 778 51 561 + 217

2. Muslims .. 561 51 517 + 44

3. Scheduled Castes .. 151 20 220 – 69

4. Indian Christians .. 21 7 77 – 56

5. Sikhs .. 36

88 – 52

6. Europeans .. 46 1 11 + 35

From this table the following conclusions emerge :

(i) Taking the total votes to be 1577 and the total number to be elected

160, the quota under the proportional system of representation would

roughly come to 10 + 1 = 11.

*The distribution of seats for (1) Universities; (2) Trade Unions, (3) Commerce and (4)

Landlords among the communities does not stand for an exact figure. It is based on guess as

to how they may be divided among the communities having regard to the relative position.

364

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(ii) Taking 11 as the quota, the Hindus will have 217, the Muslims 44

and the Europeans 35 votes to spare, while the Scheduled Castes

will be short by 69, the Indian Christians by 56 and the Sikhs by

52 votes.

To put the same thing in a different way :

(i) The Hindus with their excess of 217 votes can elect 20 non-Hindus,

who would be dependent upon them ; the Muslims with their excess

of 44 votes can elect 4 non-Muslims, who would be dependent upon

them and the Europeans with their excess of 35 votes would be able

to elect 3 non-Europeans, who would be dependent upon them.

(ii) The Scheduled Castes with a shortage of 69 votes will be able

to elect only 13 members on the stock of their own votes and for

7 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or European

voters. The Indian Christians with a shortage of 56 votes will be

able to elect only 2 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the

rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim or

European voters. Similarly the Sikhs with a shortage of 52 will be

able to elect only 3 seats on the stock of their own voters. For the

rest of the 5 seats they will have to depend upon Hindu, Muslim

or European voters

Such is the position. It is evident that the excess representation granted

to the smaller minorities is only an eye-wash. Their representation is made

so dependent that in no sense can it be called a real representation.

Let me now take the second question. Is the rule of decision adopted

by the Sapru Committee for the Constituent Assembly a safe rule ? The

Cripps proposal had adopted the rule of bare majority. This was an absurd

proposition which no sensible man could have proposed. I know of no case

where questions relating to the constitution were left to be decided by a

simple majority.

The Cripps proposals sought to excuse the adoption of the majority rule

on the ground that there was to be a further provision for safeguarding

the interest of the minorities. The provision was to take the form of a

Treaty between the British Crown and the Indian Constituent Assembly,

before Parliament was to relinquish its sovereignty and make India free.

The proposal of a Treaty would have had some sense, if the Treaty was

to override the constitution. But the proposal was impossible as under the

Cripps scheme India was free to become a Dominion or an Independent

country as she pleased. For once India became a Dominion it would ipso

facto acquire all the legal power necessary to pass an enactment declaring

that the Treaty shall not override the constitution. In that case the

Treaty would have been no better than a calendar which members of the

minorities might, if they wished, hang on the walls of their houses. This

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

365

was exactly what happened to the Irish Treaty. The Irish Treaty continued

to override the Irish Constitution so long as Ireland was not a Dominion.

But the moment Ireland became a Dominion the over riding power of the

Treaty was taken away by a short and simple enactment of the Parliament

of the Irish Free State and the British Parliament did nothing, for it knew

that Ireland was a Dominion and therefore it could do nothing. How so

absurd a provision came to be put forth by so eminent a person to assure

the minorities, I am unable to understand.

The provisions contained in the Sapru proposals appear to be an

improvement. But are they really an improvement ? I am sure they are not.

A three-fourths majority of 160 means that a view to prevail must have the

support of 120 members. Before accepting this as an improvement, one has

to have some idea as to how this group of 120 is likely to be formed. If the

Hindus and the Muslims combine they will together make up 102 and will

need only 18 more to make up 120. Most of the special seats and a few more

from others may easily fall into the hands of this combine. If this happens the

decision of the Assembly will obviously be an imposition upon the Scheduled

Castes, the Sikhs, the Indian Christians etc. Similarly, if the Muslims are

isolated the decision will not be a joint decision but an imposition upon the

Muslims by non-Muslims. These possibilities of permutation and combination

for the purpose of check-mating or out-manouvering of some communities

by others, I am sorry to say, have not been taken into consideration by

the Sapru Committee. There would have been some safety, if the Sapru

Committee had provided that the three-fourths majority shall at least include

50 per cent of each element.

Following upon the procedure adopted in the making of the constitution of

the United States, the Sapru Committee could have added a further provision

for the ratification at any rate of the communal part of the decision of the

Assembly by the representatives of the minorities outside the Assembly. None

of these provisions finds a place in the plan of the Constituent Assembly as

has become a snare.

There are many other arguments against the plan of a Constituent

Assembly. I may mention one, which I confess has influenced me greatly.

When I read the history of the Union between Scotland and England, I was

shocked at the corruption and bribery that was practised to win the consent

of the Scottish Parliament. The whole of the Scottish Parliament was bought.

The chances of corruption and bribery being used in the Indian Constituent

Assembly to buy over members to support decisions desired by interested

groups are very real. Their effects, I am sure, cannot be overlooked. If this

happens, it will not only make mockery of the Constituent Assembly but I

feel quite certain that any attempt made to enforce its decisions will result

in a civil war. It is my considered opinion that the proposal of Constituent

Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should not be entertained.

366

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

NECESSITY OF A NEW APPROACH

I shall be asked that if the Constituent Assembly is not the correct

approach, what is the alternative ? I know I shall be confronted with such

a question. But I am confident in my view that if the Communal Question

has become difficult of solution it is not because it is insoluble, nor because

we had not yet employed the machinery of Constituent Assembly. It has

become insoluble because the approach to it is fundamentally wrong. The

defect in the present approach is that it proceeds by methods instead of

by principles. The principle is that there is no principle. There is only a

series of methods. If one method fails another is tried. It is this swing from

one method to another which has made the Communal Problem a jig-saw

puzzle. There being no principle there is no guide to tell why a particular

method has failed. There being no principle there is no assurance that the

new method will succeed.

The attempts at the solution of the Communal Problem are either in the

nature of a coward’s plan to cow tow to the bully or of bully’s plan to dictate

to the weak. Whenever a community grows powerful and demands certain

political advantages, concessions are made to it to win its goodwill. There is

no judicial examination of its claim ; no judgement on merits. The result is

that there are no limits to demands and there are no limits to concessions.

A start is made with a demand for separate electorate for a minority. It is

granted. It is followed by a demand for a separate electorate for a community

irrespective of the fact whether it is a minority or majority. That is granted.

A demand is made for separate representation on a population basis. That

is conceded. Next, a claim is made for weightage in representation. That

is granted. It is followed by a demand for statutory majority over other

minorities with the right for the majority to retain separate electorates. This

is granted. This is followed by a demand that the majority rule of another

community is intolerable, and therefore without prejudice to its rights to

maintain majority rule over other minorities, the majority of the offending

community should be reduced to equality. Nothing can be more absurd than

this policy of eternal appeasement, it is a policy of limitless demand followed

by endless appeasement.

Frankly, I don’t blame the community that indulges in this strategy.

It indulges in it because it has found that it pays, it pursues it because

there are no principles to fix the limits and it believes that more could be

legitimately asked and would be easily given. On the other hand, there is a

community economically poor, socially degraded, educationally backward and

which is exploited, oppressed and tyrannized without shame and without

remorse, disowned by society, unowned by Government and which has no

security for protection and no guarantee for justice, fair play and equal

opportunity. Such a community is told that it can have no safeguards, not

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

367

because it has no case for safeguards but only because the bully on whom the

bill of rights is presented thinks that because the community is not politically

organized to have sanctions behind its demand he can successfully bluff.

All this differential treatment is due to the fact, that there are no principles,

which are accepted as authoritative and binding on those who are parties to the

Communal Question. The absence of principles has another deleterious effect. It

has made impossible for public opinion to play its part. The public only knows

methods and notes that one method has failed another is being suggested. It

does not know why one method has failed and why another is said to be likely

to succeed. The result is that the public, instead of being mobilized to force

obstinate and recalcitrant parties to see sense and reason, are only witnessing

the discussions of Communal Questions whenever they take place is mere shows.

The approach I am making for the solution of the Communal Problem is

therefore based upon two considerations :

(1) That in proceeding to solve the Communal Problem it is essential to

define the governing principles which should be invoked for determining

the final solution, and

(2) That whatever the governing principles they must be applied to all

parties equally without fear or favour.

PROPOSALS FOR SOLUTION OF THE COMMUNAL PROBLEM

Having made my position clear on certain preliminary points, I will now

proceed to deal with the subject.

The Communal Problem raises three questions :

(A) The question of representation in the Legislature ;

(B) The question of representation in the Executive; and

A. R

EPRESENTATION IN PUBLIC SERVICES

To take the last question first. This can hardly be said to be a subject of

controversy. The principle that all communities should be represented in the

Public Services in a prescribed proportion and no single community should be

allowed to have a monopoly has been accepted by the Government of India. This

principle has been embodied in the Government of India Resolutions of 1934

and 1943 and rules to carry it out have been laid down. It has even prescribed

that any appointment made contrary to the rules shall be deemed to be null and

void. All that is necessary is to convert administrative practice into statutory

obligation. This can be done by adding a Schedule to the Government of India

Act, which will include the provisions contained in these Resolutions and similar

provisions for the different provinces and make the Schedule a part of the Law

of the Constitution.

368

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

B. REPRESENTATION IN THE EXECUTIVE

This question raises three points :

(i) The quantum of representation in the Executive;

(ii) The nature of the Executive ;

(iii) The method of filling the places in the Executive.

(i) Quantum of Representation

For the solution of this question, the principle which should be adopted is that

the representation of the Hindus, the Muslims and the Scheduled Castes should

be equal to the quantum of their representation in the Legislature.

With regard to the other minorities such as the Sikhs, Indian Christians and

Anglo-Indians, it is difficult to give them representation in the Executive in

strict proportion to their representation in the Legislature. This difficulty arises

largely from the smallness of their numbers. If they are to get representation in

the Executive in exact proportion to their numbers, the Executive would have to

be enlarged to a fantastic degree. All that can be done, therefore, is to reserve

a seat or two for them in the Cabinet for their representation and to establish

a convention that they will get a fail portion of representation in the corps of

Parliamentary Secretaries that will have to be raised, when the new Constitution

comes into existence.

(ii) Nature of the Executive

In the Constitution of the Executive, I would propose the adoption of following

principles :

(1) It must be recognised that in a country like India where there is a

perpetual antipathy between the majority and the minorities and on

which account the danger of communal discrimination by majority against

minorities forms an ever-present menace to the minorities, the executive

power assumes far greater importance than the legislative power.

(2) In view of (1) above, the system under which a party which has secured

a majority at the poll is deemed entitled to form a Government on the

presumption that it has the confidence of the majority is untenable in

Indian conditions. The majority in India is a communal majority and not

a political majority. That being the difference, the presumption that arises

in England cannot be regarded as a valid presumption in the conditions

of India.

(3) The Executive should cease to be a Committee of the majority party in

the Legislature. It should be so constituted that it will have its mandate

not only from the majority but also from the minorities in the Legislature.

(4) The Executive should be non-Parliamentary in the sense that it shall

not be removeable before the term of the Legislature.

(5) The Executive should be Parliamentary in the sense that the

members of the Executive shall be chosen from the members of the

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

369

Legislature and shall have the right to sit in the House, speak, vote

and answer questions.

(iii) Method of Filling Places

In this connection, I would propose the adoption of the following principles :

(a) The Prime Minister as the executive head of the Government should

have the confidence of the whole House.

(b) The person representating a particular minority in the Cabinet

should have the confidence of the members of his community in the

Legislature.

impeachment by the House on the ground of corruption or treason.

Following those principles, my proposal is that the Prime Minister and the

members of the Cabinet from the majority community should be elected by the

whole House by a single transferable vote and that the representatives of the

different Minorities in the Cabinet should be elected by a single transferable

vote of the members of each minority community in the Legislature.

C. R

EPRESENTATION IN THE LEGISLATURE

This is the most difficult question. All other questions depend upon the

solution of this question. It raises two points :

(i) The quantum of representation; and

(ii) The nature of the electorate.

(i) Quantum of Representation

I would first put forth my proposals and then explain the principles on

which they are based. The proposals are worked out in the following tables,

which show the scale of representation for the different communities in British

India in the Central Legislature as well as in the Provincial Legislature :

Proposed Ratio of Representation in the Legislatures

N.B.—The percentages of population in the following Tables differ from

the census figures as they have been taken after deducting the population

of Aboriginal Tribes :

1. CENTRAL ASSEMBLY

Community Percentage of

population to total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 54.68 40

Muslims .. .. .. 28.50 32

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 14.30 20

Indian Christians .. .. .. 1.16 3

Sikhs .. .. .. 1.49 4

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. 0.05 1

370

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

2. BOMBAY

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 76.42 40

Muslims .. .. .. 9.98 28

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 9.64 28

Indian Christians .. .. .. 1.75 2

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. 0.07 1

Parsees .. .. .. 0.44 1

3. MADRAS

Community Percentage of

population to total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. .. 71.20 40

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 16.53 30

Muslims .. .. .. .. 7.98 24

Indian Christians .. .. .. 4.10 5

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. 0.06 1

4. BENGAL

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Muslims .. .. .. 56.50 40

Hindus .. .. .. 30.03 33

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 12.63 25

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.19 1

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. 0.05 1

5. UNITED PROVINCES

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 62.29 40

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 21.40 29

Muslims .. .. .. 15.30 29

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.24 1

Anglo-Indians .. .. .. 0.03 1

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

371

6. PUNJAB

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Muslims .. .. .. 57.06 40

Hindus .. .. .. 22.17 28

Sikhs .. .. .. 13.22 21

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 4.39 9

Indian Christians .. .. .. 1.71 2

7. C.P. & BERAR

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 72.20 40

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 20.23 34

Muslims .. .. .. 5.70 25

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.36 1

8. BIHAR

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 70.76 40

Muslims .. .. .. 15.05 30

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 13.80 28

Indian Christians .. .. .. 1.71 2

9. ASSAM

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 45.60 40

Muslims .. .. .. 44.59 39

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 8.76 19

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.48 2

10. ORISSA

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 70.80 40

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 17.66 36

Muslims .. .. .. 2.07 22

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.37 2

372

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

11. SIND

Community Percentage of

population to

total

Percentage of

Representation

Hindus .. .. .. 23.08 40

Muslims .. .. .. 71.30 40

Scheduled Castes .. .. .. 4.26 19

Indian Christians .. .. .. 0.29 1

EFFECT ON MINORITIES

It may be desirable to set out in a tabular form the changes in the

representation of the different minorities as prescribed in the Government

of India Act, 1935, and as laid down in the proposals—

EFFECT ON MUSLIMS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature Population

Ratio

Under the

Government of

India Act, 1935

Under the

proposed

scheme

Central .. .. 28.50 32.00 32

Madras .. .. 8.00 13.49 24

Bombay .. .. 10.00 17.40 28

U.P. .. .. 15.30 28.95 29

C.P. .. .. 5.70 12.50 25

Bihar .. .. 15.00 26.32 28

Assam .. .. 44.60 31.48 38

Orissa .. .. 2.00 6.66 22

EFFECT ON SCHEDULED CASTES

Ratio of Representation

Legislature Population

Ratio

Under the

Government of

India Act, 1935

Under the

proposed

scheme

Central .. .. 14.30 7.60 20

Madras .. .. 16.50 13.90 30

Bombay .. .. 9.60 8.50 28

Bengal .. .. 12.60 12.00 25

U.P. .. .. 21.40 8.70 29

Punjab .. .. 4.40 4.50 9

C.P. .. .. 20.20 17.80 34

Bihar .. .. 13.80 9.80 28

Assam .. .. 8.70 6.50 20

Orissa .. .. 17.60 10.00 36

Sind .. .. 4.20 Nil. 19

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

373

EFFECT ON INDIAN CHRISTIANS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature Population

Ratio

Under the

Government of

India Act, 1935

Under the

proposed

scheme

Central .. .. 1.16 3.00 3

Madras .. .. 4.10 4.20 5

Bombay .. .. 1.70 1.70 2

Bengal .. .. 0.19 0.80 1

U.P. .. .. 0.24 0.90 1

Punjab .. .. 1.70 1.14 2

C.P. .. .. 0.35 Nil 1

Bihar .. .. 1.70 0.66 2

Assam .. .. 0.48 0.90 2

Orissa .. .. 0.37 0.16 2

Sind .. .. 0.29 Nil 1

EFFECT ON SIKHS

Ratio of Representation

Legislature Population

Ratio

Under the

Government of

India Act, 1935

Under the

proposed

scheme

Centre .. .. 1.50 2.40 4

Punjab .. .. 13.20 18.29 21

EFFECT ON HINDUS

Population Ratio of Representation

Legislature Ratio Under the

Government of

India Act, 1935

Under the

proposed

scheme

Bengal 30.00 20.00 33

Punjab 22.10 20.00 28

Sind 23.80 31.60 40

VII

PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PROPOSALS

I may now proceed to state the principles on which this distribution has

been made. They are :

(1) Majority Rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice.

A majority community may be conceded a relative majority of

representation but it can never claim an absolute majority.*

*I have not framed any scheme of representation for the North-West Frontier province as the

minority is so small that even the Principle of relative majority cannot help it.

374

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(2) The relative majority of representation given to a majority community

in the legislature should not be so large as to enable the majority

to establish its rule with the help of the smallest minorities.

(3) The distribution of seats should be so made that a combination of

the majority and one of the major minorities should not give the

combine such a majority as to make them impervious to the interest

of the minorities.

(4) The distribution should be so made that if all the minorities combine

they could, without depending on the majority, form a government

of their own.

(5) The weightage taken from the majority should be distributed among

the minorities in inverse proportion to their social standing, economic

position and educational condition so that a minority which is large

and which has a better social, educational and economic standing gets

a lesser amount of weightage than a minority whose numbers are

less and whose educational, economic and social position is inferior

to that of the others.

If I may say so, the representation is a balanced representation. No

one community is placed in a position to dominate others by reason of its

numbers. The Muslim objection to the Hindu majority and the Hindu and

Sikh objections to the Muslim majority are completely eliminated, both in

the Central as well as in the Provinces.

VIII

NATURE OF THE ELECTORATE

With regard to the question of electorates the following propositions

should be accepted :

(1) Joint electorate or separate electorate is a matter of machinery for

achieving a given purpose. It is not a matter of principle.

(2) The purpose is to enable a minority to select candidates to the

Legislature who will be real and not nominal representatives of the

minority.

(3) While separate electorate gives an absolute guarantee to the minority,

that its representatives will be no others except those who enjoy

its confidence, a system of joint electorates which will give equal

protection to the minorities should not be overlooked.

(4) A Four-member constituency, with a right to the minorities to have

a double vote and requiring a minimum percentage of minority votes,

may be considered as a possible substitute.

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

375

MATTERS NOT COVERED

(i) Q

UESTION OF SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS

There are other demands made on behalf of particular minorities such as :

(1) Provision of a Statutory Officer to report on the condition of minorities.

(2) Statutory provision of State aid for education, and

(3) Statutory provision for land settlement. But they are not of a communal

character, I do not therefore wish to enlarge upon them here.

(ii) A

BORIGINAL TRIBES

It will be obvious that my proposals do not cover the Aboriginal Tribes

although they are larger in number than the Sikhs, Anglo Indians, Indian

Christians and Parsees. I may state the reasons why I have omitted them

from my scheme. The Aboriginal Tribes have not as yet developed any political

sense to make the best use of their political opportunities and they may easily

become mere instruments in the hands either of a majority or a minority and

thereby disturb the balance without doing any good to themselves. In the

present stage of their development it seems to me that the proper thing to

do for these backward communities is to establish a Statutory Commission to

administer what are now called the ‘excluded areas’ on the same basis as was

done in the case of the South African Constitution. Every Province in which

these excluded areas are situated should be compelled to make an annual

contribution of a prescribed amount for the administration of these areas.

(iii) I

NDIAN STATES

It will also be noticed that my proposals do not include the Indian States.

I am not opposed to the inclusion of the Indian States, provided the terms

and conditions of inclusion are such—

(1) that the dichotomy of divided sovereignty between British India and

Indian States is completely done away with,

(2) that the judicial and political boundaries which separate British India

from Indian States will disappear, that there will be no such entities

as British India or Indian States and in their place there will be only

one entity namely India, and

(3) that the terms and conditions of inclusion do not prevent India from

having full and plenary powers of a Dominion. I have worked out a

scheme for the fusion of the Indian States and British India, which

will permit the realization of these objects. I do not wish to overburden

this address with the details of the plan. For the moment, it is better

if British India marches to her goal without complicating its progress

by an entanglement with the Indian States.

376

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

PAKISTAN IN THE LIGHT OF PROPOSALS

My proposals are for an United India. They are made in the hope that the

Muslims will accept them in preference to Pakistan as providing better security

than Pakistan does. I am not against Pakistan, I believe it is founded on principle

of self-determination, which it is now too late to question. I am prepared to

give them the benefit of the principle, on condition that the Muslims do not

deny the benefit of the principles to the Non-Muslim residents of the Area.

But I believe, I am entitled to draw the attention of the Muslims to another

and a better plan of security. I claim that my plan is better than the plan of

Pakistan. Let me state the points which tell in favour of my plan. They are :

(i) Under my proposal the danger of a communal majority, which is the

basis of Pakistan is removed,

(ii) Under my proposal the weightage at present enjoyed by the Muslims

is not disturbed.

(iii) The position of Muslims in the Non-Pakistan Provinces is greatly

strengthened by an increase in their representation, which they may

not get if Pakistan comes and which will leave them in a more helpless

condition than they are in at present.

A WORD TO HINDUS

Much of the difficulty over the Communal Question is due to the insistance

of the Hindus that the rule of majority is sacrosanct and that it must be

maintained at all costs. The Hindu does not seem to be aware of the fact that

there is another rule, which is also operative in fields where important disputes

between individual and nations arise and that rule is a rule of unanimity. If he

will take the trouble to examine the position he will realise that such a rule is

not a fiction, but it does exist. Let him take the Jury System. In the jury trial

the principle is unanimity. The decision is binding upon the judge only if the

verdict of the jury is unanimous. Let him take another illustration that of the

League of Nations. What was the rule for decisions in the League of Nations ?

The rule was a rule of unanimity. It is obvious that if the principle of unanimity

was accepted by the Hindus as a rule of decision in the Legislature and in

the Executive there would be no such thing as a Communal Problem in India.

One may well ask the Hindu that if he is not prepared to concede constitutional

safeguards to the minorities, is he prepared to agree to the rule of unanimity ?

Unfortunately he is not prepared to accept either.

About the rule of majority the Hindu is not prepared to admit any

limitations. The majority he wants is an absolute majority. He will not be

satisfied with relative majority. He should consider whether his insistance

on absolute majority is fair proposition, which political philosophers can

accept. He is not aware that even the constitution of the United States does

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

377

not lend support to the absolutistic rule of majority rule on which the Hindu

has been insisting upon.

Let me illustrate the point from the constitution of the United States.

Take the clause embodying Fundamental Rights. What does that clause

mean ? It means that, matters included in Fundamental Rights are of such

supreme concern that a mere majority rule is not enough to interfere with

them. Take another illustration also from the Constitution of the United

States. The Constitution says that no part of the Constitution shall be altered

unless the proposition is carried by three-fourths majority and ratified by the

States. What does this show ? It shows that the United States Constitution

recognizes for certain purposes mere majority rule is not competent.

All these cases are of course familiar to many a Hindu. The pity of it is,

he does not read from them the correct lesson. If he did, he would realize

that the rule of the majority rule is not as sacrosanct a principle as he thinks

it is. The majority rule is not accepted as a principle but is tolerated as a

rule. I might also state why it is tolerated. It is tolerated for two reasons;

(1) because the majority is always a political majority and (2) because the

decision of a political majority accepts and absorbs so much of the point of

view of the minority that the minority does not care to rebel against the

decision.

In India, the majority is not a political majority. In India the majority is

born ; it is not made. That is the difference between a communal majority

and a political majority. A political majority is not a fixed or a permanent

majority. It is a majority which is always made, unmade and remade. A

communal majority is a permanent majority fixed in its attitude. One can

destroy it, but one cannot transform it. If there is so much objection to

a political majority, how very fatal must be the objection to a communal

majority ?

It may be open to the Hindus to ask Mr. Jinnah, why in 1930 when he

formulated his fourteen points he insisted upon the principle of majority

rule to such an extent that one of the fourteen points stipulated that in

granting weightage, limits should be placed whereby a majority shall not

be reduced to a minority or equality. It may be open to the Hindus to ask

Mr. Jinnah, if he is in favour of a Muslim majority in Muslim Provinces,

why he is opposed to a Hindu Majority in the Centre ? The Hindu

must however realize that these posers may lead to the conclusion, that

Mr. Jinnah’s position is inconsistent. They cannot lead to the affirmation of

the principle of majority rule.

The abandonment of the principle of majority rule in politics cannot affect

the Hindus very much in other walks of life. As an element in social life they

will remain a majority. They will have the monopoly of trade and business

which they enjoy. They will have the monopoly of the property which they

378

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

have. My proposals do not ask the Hindus to accept the principle of unanimity.

My proposals do not ask the Hindus to abandon the principle of majority

rule. All I am asking them is to be satisfied with a relative majority. Is it

too much for them to concede this ?

Without marking any such sacrifice the Hindu majority is not justified in

representing to the outside world that the minorities are holding up India’s

Freedom. This false propaganda will not pay. For the minorities are doing

nothing of the kind. They are prepared to accept freedom and the dangers

in which they likely to be involved; provided they granted satisfactory

safeguards. This gesture of the minorities is not to be treated as a matter

for which Hindus need not be grateful. It may well be contrasted with what

happened in Ireland. Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalists once

told Carson, the leader of Ulster; “Consent to United Ireland, Ask for any

safeguard and they shall be granted to you”. He is reported to have turned

round and said : “Damn your safeguards ; we don’t want to be ruled by you”.

The minorities in India have not said that. They are ready to be satisfied

with safeguards. I ask the Hindus Is this not worth a mass ? I am sure it is.

XII

CONCLUSION

These are some of the proposals I have had in mind for the solution of

the Communal Problem. They do not commit the All-India Scheduled Castes

Federation. They do not even commit me. In putting them forth, I am

doing nothing more than exploring a new way. My emphasis is more on the

principle, I have enunciated, than on the actual proposals. If the principles

are accepted then I am sure the solution of the Communal Question will

not be as baffling as it has been in the past.

The problem of solving the Indian deadlock is not easy. I remember reading

a historian describing the condition of Germany before the Confederation

of 1867 as one of ‘ Divinely Ordained Confusion’. Whether that was true of

Germany or not, it seems to me that they form a very accurate description

of the present conditions of India. Germany did get out of this confusion,

if not at one stroke at least by successive stages until just before the war

she became a unified people, unified in mind, unified in outlook and unified

by belief in a common destiny. India has not so far succeeded in evolving

order out of her confusion. It is not that she had no opportunities to do

so. In fact, there have been quite a number. The first opportunity came in

1927, when Lord Birkenhead gave a challenge to Indians asking them to

produce a constitution for India. That challenge was taken up. A committee

was formed to frame a constitution. A constitution was produced and was

known as ‘The Nehru Constitution’. It was, however, not accepted by Indians

and was buried without remorse. A second opportunity presented itself to

Indians in 1930, when they assembled at the Round Table Conference.

There again, Indians failed to play their part and write out their own

COMMUNAL DEADLOCK AND A WAY TO SOLVE IT

379

Constitution. A third attempt is the one recently made by the Sapru

Committee. The proposals of this committee too have fallen flat.

There is neither enthusiasm nor optimism left to indulge in another

attempt. One is persued by a sense of fatality, which suggests that as

every attempt is doomed to failure, none need be made. At the same time

I feel that no Indian ought to be so down hearted or so callous as to let the

deadlock stink, as though it was a dead dog, and say that he is prepared

to do nothing more than be a mere witness to the political dog-fight that is

going on in this country. The failures of the past need not daunt any body.

They do not daunt me. For, I have a feeling that though it is true that all

attempts to reach an agreement on the communal question have failed, the

failure have been due not so much to any inherent fault of the Indians as

they have been due to a wrong approach. I feel confident that my proposals,

if considered dispassionately, should be found acceptable. They constitute a

new approach and as such I commend them to my countrymen.

Before I conclude, I must, however, warn my critics that they may be

able to amend my proposals in some respects ; but it will not be easy to

reject them. If they do reject them, the first thing they shall have to do is

to controvert the principles on which they are based.



STATES AND MINORITIES

What are Their Rights and How to

Secure Them in the Constitution of

Free India

Memorandum on the Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes

submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of

the All India Scheduled Castes Federation

Published: 1947

STATES AND MINORITIES

PREFACE

Soon after it became definite that the framing of the future

Constitution of India was to be entrusted to a Constituent Assembly,

the Working Committee of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation

asked me to prepare a Memorandum on the Safeguards for the

Scheduled Castes for being submitted to the Constituent Assembly,

on behalf of the Federation. I very gladly undertook the task. The

results of my labour are contained in this brochure.

The Memorandum defines Fundamental Rights, Minority Rights

and Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes. Those who hold the view

that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority might say that in this

matter I have gone beyond prescribed bounds. The view that the

Scheduled Castes are not a minority is a new dispensation issued on

behalf of the High and Mighty Hindu Majority which the Scheduled

Castes are asked to submit to. The spokesmen of the Majority have

not cared to define its scope and its meaning. Anyone with a fresh

and free mind, reading it as a general proposition, would be justified

in saying that it is capable of double interpretation. I interpret

it to mean that the Scheduled Castes are more than a minority

and that any protection given to the citizens and to the minorities

will not be adequate for the Scheduled Castes. In other words it

means that their social, economic and educational condition is so

much worse than that of the citizens and other minorities that in

addition to protection they would get as citizens and as minorities

the Scheduled Castes would require special safeguards against

384

PREFACE

the tyranny and discrimination of the majority. The other

interpretation is that the Scheduled Castes differ from a minority

and therefore they are not entitled to the protection which can

be claimed by a minority. This interpretation appears to be such

unmitigated nonsense that no sane man need pay any attention to

it. The Scheduled Castes must be excused if they ignore it. Those

who accept my interpretation of the view that the Scheduled Castes

are not a minority will, I am sure, agree with me that I am justified

in demanding for the Scheduled Castes, all the benefit of the

Fundamental Rights of citizens, all the benefit of the Provisions for

the Protection of the minorities and in addition special Safeguards.

The memorandum was intended to be submitted to the Constituent

Assembly. There was no intention to issue it to the public. But

my caste Hindu friends who have had the opportunity to read the

typescript have pressed me to give it a wider circulation. Although

it is meant for members of the Constituent Assembly, I do not see

any breach of decorum in making it available to the general public.

I have therefore agreed to fall in line with their wishes.

Instead of setting out my ideas in general terms, I have drafted

the Memorandum in the form of Articles of the Constitution. I am

sure that for the sake of giving point and precision this method

will be found to be more helpful. For the benefit of the Working

Committee of the Scheduled Castes Federation, I had prepared certain

explanatory notes and other statistical material. As the notes and

the statistical material are likely to be useful to the general reader,

I have thought it better to print them along with the Memorandum

rather than keep them back.

Among the many problems the Constituent Assembly has to

face, there are two which are admittedly most difficult. One is

the problem of the Minorities and the other is the problem of

the Indian States. I have been a student of the problem of the

Indian States and I hold some very definite and distinct views

on the subject. It was my hope that the Constituent Assembly

would elect me to the States Committee Evidently, it has found

men of superior calibre for the work. It may also be because I

am one of those who are outside the tabernacle and therefore

undesirable. I am not sorry to find myself left out. My only regret

is that I have lost an opportunity to which I was looking forward

PREFACE

385

for placing my views for the consideration of the Committee. I have

therefore chosen to do the next best thing—namely, to incorporate

them in this brochure along with the Rights of Citizens, of Minorities

and of the Scheduled Castes so that a wider public may know what

they are, may value them for what they are worth and may make

such use of them as it may deem fit.

“Raja Graha” B. R. AMBEDKAR

Dadar, Bombay-14

15-3-47

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF INDIA

PROPOSED PREAMBLE

We the people of the territories of British India distributed into

administrative units called Provinces and Centrally

Administered Areas and of the territories of the Indian

States with a view to form a more perfect union of these territories do—

ordain that the Provinces and the Centrally Administered Areas (to be

hereafter designated as States) and the Indian States shall be joined

together into a Body Politic for Legislative, Executive and Administrative

purposes under the style The United States of India and that the union

so formed shall be indissoluble

and that with a view :

(i) to secure the blessings both of self-government and good government

throughout the united States of India to ourselves and to our

posterity,

(ii) to maintain the right of every subject to life, liberty and pursuit

of happiness and to free speech and free exercise of religion,

(iii) to remove social, political and economic inequality by providing

better opportunities to the submerged classes,

(iv) to make it possible for every subject to enjoy freedom from want

and freedom from fear, and

(v) to provide against internal disorder and external aggression,

establish this Constitution for the United States of India.

(For explanation,

see page 405)

388

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

PROPOSED ARTICLE I

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Article I, Section I—Admission of Indian States into the Union :

Clause 1. Qualified Indian States and their admission into the Union.

Clause 2. Relation of Qualified Indian States which have not entered

the Union and of the Disqualified Indian States to the

United States of India.

Clause 3. Power of the United States of India to reorganise the

territory of the Disqualified Indian States into suitable

Administrative Units with a view to qualify them for

admission into the Union as States of the Union.

Clause 4. Formation of new States within the Union.

Article I, Section II—United States of India and New Territory :

Clause 1. Incorporation of Foreign States into the Union.

Clause 2. Acquisition of new territory by the United States of India

and its retention as unincorporated territory of the Union.

STATES AND MINORITIES

389

ARTICLE I—Section I

ADMISSION OF INDIAN STATES INTO THE UNION

Clause I

The United States of India may, on application and on fulfilment of

the terms prescribed by an Enabling Act of the Union

Legislature laying down the form of the Constitution

admit an Indian State into the Union provided the Indian

State seeking admission is a Qualified State.

For the purposes of this clause a list of Qualified Indian States shall be

drawn up. A State shall not be deemed to be a Qualified State unless it is

proved that it is of a standard size prescribed by the Union Legislature and

is endowed with natural resources capable of supporting a descent standard

of living for its people and can, by reason of its revenues and population

function as an autonomous State, protect itself against external aggression,

maintain Law and Order against internal disturbance and guarantee to

its subjects minimum standards of administration and welfare which are

expected from a modern State.

Clause 2

The territory of an Indian State which is a Qualified State but which

has not entered the Union and the territory of the Indian States which

are disqualified shall be treated as incorporated territories of the United

States of India and shall at all times form integral parts thereof and shall

be subject to such parts of the Constitution of the United States of India

as may be prescribed by the Union Legislature.

Clause 3

The United States of India shall have power to reform, rearrange,

redistribute and amalgamate the territories of Disqualified Indian States

into suitable Administrative Units for admission into the Union as States

of the Union.

Clause 4

After a State has been admitted into the Union as a State no new State

shall be formed or created within its jurisdiction nor any new State shall

be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without

the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the

Union Legislature.

ARTICLE I—Section II

Clause 1

The United States of India may admit into the Union any territory which

forms a natural part of India or which is on the border of India on terms

For explanation,

see page 405

390

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and conditions mutually agreed upon. Provided that the terms shall not

be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United

States of India and the admission is recommended by

the Legislatures of one half of the States comprising the

United States of India in the form of a resolution.

Clause 2

The United States of India may acquire territory and may treat it as

unincorporated territory. The provisions of the Constitution of the United

States of India shall not apply to the unincorporated territory unless a

provision to the contrary is made by the Legislature of the United States

of India.

(For explanation,

see page 406)

STATES AND MINORITIES

391

PROPOSED ARTICLE II

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Article II, Section I—Fundamental Rights of Citizens.

Article II, Section II—Remedies against Invasion of Fundamental Rights:

Clause 1. Judicial Protection.

Clause 2. Protection against Unequal Treatment.

Clause 3 Protection against Discrimination.

Clause 4. Protection against Economic Exploitation.

Article II, Section III—Provisions for the Protection of Minorities:

Clause 1. Protection against Communal Executive.

Clause 2. Protection against Social and Official Tyranny.

Clause 3. Protection against Social Boycott.

Clause 4. Authority and obligation of the Union and State

Governments to spend money for public purposes including

purposes beneficial to Minorities.

Article II, Section IV—Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes.

Part I—Guarantees:

Clause 1. Right to Representation in the Legislature and in the Local

Bodies,

Clause 2. Right to Representation in the Executive.

Clause 3. Right to Representation in Services.

Part II—Special Responsibilities;

Clause 1. For Higher Education.

Clause 2. For Separate Settlements.

Part III—Sanction for Safeguards and Amendment of Safeguards :

Clause 1. Safeguards to be embodied in the Constitution.

Clause 2. Amendment of Safeguards.

Part IV—Protection of Scheduled Castes in Indian States.

Part V—Interpretation.

392

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE II—Section I

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

The Constitution of the United States of India shall recognize the

following as Fundamental Rights of citizenship :

1. All persons born or naturalized within its territories are citizens of

the United States of India and of the State wherein

they reside. Any privilege or disability arising out

of rank, birth, person, family, religion or religious

usage and custom is abolished.

2. No State shall make or enforce any law or custom which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens ; nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty and property without due process of law; nor deny

to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of law.

3. All citizens are equal before the law and possess equal civic rights.

Any existing enactment, regulation, order, custom or interpretation of law

by which any penalty, disadvantage or disability is imposed upon or any

discrimination is made against any citizen shall, as from the day on which

this Constitution comes into operation, cease to have any effect.

4. Whoever denies to any person, except for reasons by law applicable

to persons of all classes and regardless of their social status, the full

enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges

of inns, educational institutions, roads, paths, streets, tanks, wells and

other watering places, public conveyances on land, air or water, theatres

or other places of public amusement, resort or convenience, whether they

are dedicated to or maintained or licensed for the use of the public, shall

be guilty of an offence.

5. All citizens shall have equal access to all institutions, conveniences

and amenities maintained by or for the public.

6. No citizen shall be disqualified to hold any public office or exercise

any trade or calling by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed, sex or

social status.

7. (i) Every citizen has the right to reside in any part of India. No

law shall be made abridging the right of a citizen to reside except for

consideration of public order and morality.

(ii) Every citizen has the right to settle in any part of India, subject to

the production of a certificate of citizenship from the State of his origin.

The permission to settle shall not be refused or withdrawn except on

grounds specified in sub-clause (iv) of this clause.

Fundamental Rights.

(For explanation, see

page 406)

STATES AND MINORITIES

393

(iii) The State in which a citizen wishes to settle may not impose any

special charge upon him in respect of such settlement other than the charge

imposed upon its own inhabitants. The maximum fees chargeable in respect

of permits for settlement shall be determined by laws made by the Union

Legislature.

(iv) The permission to settle may be refused or withdrawn by a State

from persons—

(a) who have been habitual criminals ;

(b) whose intention to settle is to alter the communal balance of the

State ;

to settle that they have an assured means of subsistence and who

are likely to become or have become a permanent burden upon public

charity;

(d) whose State of origin refuses to provide adequate assistance for them

when requested to do so,

(v) Permission to settle may be made conditional upon the applicant being

capable of work and not having been a permanent charge upon public charity

in the place of his origin, and able to give security against unemployment.

(vi) Every expulsion must be confirmed by the Union Government.

(vii) Union Legislature shall define the difference between settlement and

residence and at the same time, prescribe regulations governing the political

and civil rights of persons during their residence.

8. The Union Government shall guarantee protection against persecution

of a community as well as against internal disorder or violence arising in

any part of India.

9. Subjecting a person to forced labour or to involuntary servitude shall

be an offence.

10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers

and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

11. The right of a citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged on any

account other than immaturity, imprisonment and insanity.

12. No law shall be made abridging the freedom of Speech, of the Press,

of Association and of Assembly except for consideration of public order and

morality.

394

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

13. No Bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

14. The State shall guarantee to every Indian citizen liberty of conscience

and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach

and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality.

15. No person shall be compelled to become a member of any religious

association, submit to any religious instruction or perform any act of religion.

Subject to the foregoing provision, parents and guardians shall be entitled

to determine the religious education of children up to the age of 16 years.

16. No person shall incur any penalties of any kind whatsoever by reason

of his caste, creed or religion nor shall any person be permitted to refuse to

fulfil any obligation of citizenship on the ground of caste, creed or religion.

17. The State shall not recognise any religion as State religion.

18. Persons following a religion shall be guaranteed freedom of association

and shall have, if they so desire, the right to call upon the State to pass

legislation in terms approved by them making them into a body corporate.

19. Every religious association shall be free to regulate and administer

its affairs, within the limits of the laws applicable to all.

20. Religious associations shall be entitled to levy contributions on their

members who are willing to pay them if their law of incorporation permits

them to do so. No person may be compelled to pay taxes the proceeds of

which are specifically appropriated for the use of any religious community

of which he is not a member.

21. All offences under this section shall be deemed to be cognizable offences.

The Union Legislature shall make laws to give effect to such provisions as

require legislation for that purpose and to prescribe punishment for those

acts which are declared to be offences.

STATES AND MINORITIES

395

ARTICLE II—Section II

REMEDIES AGAINST INVASION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The United States of India shall provide :

Clause 1

(1) That the Judicial Power of India shall be vested in a Supreme Court.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power of

superintendence over all other Courts or officers

exercising the powers of a Court, whether or not

such Courts or officers are subject to its appellate or

revisional jurisdiction.

(3) The Supreme Court shall have the power on the application of an

aggrieved party to issue what are called prerogative writs such as Hebeas

Corpus, Quo Warranto Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus, etc. For

purposes of such writs the Supreme Court shall be a Court of general

jurisdiction throughout India.

(4) The right to apply for a writ shall not be abridged or suspended unless

when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Clause 2

That the Authority of the Legislature and the Executive of the Union

as well as of every State throughout India shall be

subject to the following limitations :

It shall not be competent for any Legislature or Executive in India to

pass a law or issue an order, rule or regulation so as to violate the following

rights of the subjects of the State :

(1) to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence,

to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.

(2) to be eligible for entry into the civil and military employ and to all

educational institutions except for such conditions and limitations as may be

necessary to provide for the due and adequate representation of all classes

of the subjects of the State.

(3) to be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,

advantages, facilities, educational institutions, privileges of inns, rivers,

streams, wells, tanks, roads, paths, streets, public conveyances on land, air

and water, theatres and other places of public resort or amusement except

for such conditions and limitations applicable alike to all subjects of every

race, class, caste, colour or creed.

(4) to be deemed fit for and capable of sharing without distinction the

benefits of any religious or charitable trust dedicated to or created, maintained

or licensed for the general public or for persons of the same faith and religion.

Judicial Protection

against Executive

Tyranny.

(For explanation, see

page 406)

Protection against

Unequal Treatment.

(For explanation, see

pages 406-8)

396

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(5) to claim full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security

of persons and property as is enjoyed by other subjects regardless of any usage or

custom or usage or custom based on religion and be subject to like punishment,

pains and penalties and to none other.

Clause 3

(1) Discrimination against citizens by Government officers in Public

administration or by private employers in factories and

commercial concerns on the ground of race or creed or social

status shall be treated as an offence. The jurisdiction to try

such cases shall be vested in a tribunal to be created for

the purpose.

(2) The Union Legislature shall have the right as well as the obligation to

give effect to this provision by appropriate legislation.

Clause 4

The United States of India shall declare as a part of the law of its constitution—

(1) That industries which are key industries or which may be declared to be

key industries shall be owned and run by the State ;

(2) That industries which are not key industries but

which are basic industries shall be owned by the State and

shall be run by the State or by Corporations established

by the State ;

(3) That Insurance shall be a monopoly of the State and that the State shall

compel every adult citizen to take out a life insurance policy commensurate with

his wages as may be prescribed by the Legislature ;

(4) That agriculture shall be State Industry;

(5) That State shall acquire the subsisting rights in such industries, insurance

and agricultural land held by private individuals, whether as owners, tenants or

mortgagees and pay them compensation in the form of debenture equal to the

value of his or her right in the land. Provided that in reckoning the value of land,

plant or security no account shall be taken of any rise therein due to emergency,

of any potential or unearned value or any value for compulsory acquisition;

(6) The State shall determine how and when the debenture holder shall be

entitled to claim cash payment;

(7) The debenture shall be transferable and inheritable property but neither

the debenture holder nor the transferee from the original holder nor his heir shall

be entitled to claim the return of the land or interest in any industrial concern

acquired by the State or be entitled to deal with it in any way ;

(8) The debenture-holder shall be entitled to interest on his debenture at such

rate as may be defined by law, to be paid by the State in cash or in kind as the

State may deem fit;

Protection against

Discrimination.

(For explanation,

see page 408)

Protection

against Economic

Exploitation.

(For explanation,

see pages 408-12)

STATES AND MINORITIES

397

(9) Agricultural industry shall be organized on the following basis :

(i) The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size

and let out the farms for cultivation to residents of the village as

tenants (made up of group of families) to cultivate on the following

conditions :

(a) The farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm ;

(b) The farm shall be cultivated in accordance with rules and

directions issued by Government;

prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of

charges properly leviable on the farm ;

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or

creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant

and no landless labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the

collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements,

manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to—

(a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm :

(i) a portion for land revenue ;

(ii) a portion to pay the debenture-holders ; and

(iii) a portion to pay for the use of capital goods supplied ; and

(b) to prescribe penalties against tenants who break the conditions

of tenancy or wilfully neglect to make the best use of the means

of cultivation offered by the State or otherwise act prejudicially

to the scheme of collective farming ;

(10) The scheme shall be brought into operation as early as possible but

in no case shall the period extend beyond the tenth year from the date of

the Constitution coming into operation.

398

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

ARTICLE II—Section III

PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES

The Constitution of the United States of India shall provide :

Clause 1

(1) That the Executive—Union or State—shall be non-Parliamentary in

the sense that it shall not be removable before the

term of the Legislature.

(2) Members of the Executive if they are not members of the Legislature

shall have the right to sit in the Legislature, speak, vote and answer questions.

(3) The Prime Minister shall be elected by the whole House by single

transferable vote.

(4) The representatives of the different minorities in the Cabinet shall

be elected by members of each minority community in the Legislature by

single transferable vote.

(5) The representatives of the majority community in the Executive shall

be elected by the whole House by single transferable vote.

(6) A member of the Cabinet may resign his post on a censure motion or

otherwise but shall not be liable to be removed except on impeachment by

the House on the ground of corruption or treason.

Clause 2

(1) That there shall be appointed an Officer to be called the Superintendent

of Minority Affairs.

(2) His status shall be similar to that of the

Auditor-General appointed under section 166 of the

Government of India Act of 1935 and removable in

like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court,

(3) It shall be the duty of the Superintendent to prepare an annual report

on the treatment of minorities by the public, as well as by the Governments,

Union and State and of any transgressions of safeguards or any miscarriage

of justice due to communal bias by Governments or their Officers.

(4) The Annual Report of the Superintendent shall be placed on the

Table of the Legislatures—Union and State, and the Governments—Union

and State, shall be bound to provide time for the discussion of the Report.

Clause 3

That Social Boycott, Promoting or Instigating a Social Boycott or

Threatening a Social Boycott as defined below shall be

declared to be an offence :

Protection against

Communal Executive.

(For explanation, see

pages 412-15)

Protection against

social and official

tyranny.

(For explanation, see

page 416)

Protection against

social boycott.

(For explanation,

see pages 416-18)

STATES AND MINORITIES

399

(i) Boycott Defined.—A person shall be deemed to boycott another who—

(a) refuses to let or use or occupy any house or land, or to deal with,

work for hire, or do business with another person, or to render to

him or receive from him any service, or refuses to do any of the said

things on the terms on which such things should commonly be done

in the ordinary course of business, or

(b) abstains from such social, professional or business relations as he

would, having regard to such existing customs in the community

which are not inconsistent with any fundamental right or other rights

of citizenship declared in the Constitution, ordinarily maintain with

such person, or

the exercise of his lawful rights.

(ii) Offence of Boycotting.—Whoever, in consequence of any person having

done any act which he was legally entitled to do or of his having omitted to

do any act which he was legally entitled to omit to do, or with intent to cause

any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to

do any act which be is legally entitled to do, or with intent to cause harm

to such person in body, mind, reputation or property, or in his business or

means of living, boycotts such person or any person in whom such person is

interested, shall be guilty of offence of boycotting.

Provided that no offence shall be deemed to have been committed under

this Section, if the Court is satisfied that the accused person has not acted

at the instigation of or in collusion with any other person or in pursuance of

any conspiracy or of any agreement or combination to boycott.

(iii) Offence of Instigating or Promoting a Boycott—

Whoever—

(a) publicly makes or publishes or circulates a proposal for, or

(b) makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with

intent to, or which he has reason to believe to be likely to cause, or

or class of persons, shall be guilty of the offence of instigating or

promoting a boycott.

Explanation—An offence under this clause shall be deemed to have been

committed although the person affected or likely to be affected by any action

of the nature referred to herein is not designated by name or class but only

by his acting or abstaining from acting in some specified manner.

(iv) Offence of Threatening a Boycott.—Whoever, in consequence of any

person having done any act which he was legally entitled to do or of his

having omitted to do any act which he was legally entitled to omit to do,

or with intent to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally

bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do,

400

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

threatens to cause such person or any person in whom such person is

interested, to be boycotted shall be guilty of the offence threatening a boycott.

Exception.—It is not boycott—

(i) to do any act in furtherance of a bona fide labour dispute ;

(ii) to do any act in the ordinary course of business competition.

(2) All these offences shall be deemed to be cognizable offences. The Union

Legislature shall make laws prescribing punishment for these offences.

Clause 4

That the Power of the Central and Provincial Governments to make grants

for any purpose, notwithstanding that the purpose

is not one for which the Union or State Legislature

as the case may be may make laws, shall not be

abridged or taken away.

Power of Governments

to spend money for any

purposes connected

with the Government

of India including

purposes beneficial to

the Minorities.

(For explanation,

see page 418)

STATES AND MINORITIES

401

ARTICLE II—Section IV

SAFEGUARDS FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES

PART I—G

UARANTEES

The Constitution of the United States of India shall guarantee to the Scheduled

Castes the following Rights:

Clause 1

Right to Representation in the Legislature

(1) Quantum of Representation.—(a) (i) The Scheduled Castes shall have

minimum representation in the Legislature—Union and State—and if there be

a group Constitution then in the group Legislature equal to the ratio of their

population to the total population. Provided that no other minority is allowed to

claim more representation than what is due to it on the basis of its population.

(ii) The Scheduled Castes of Sind and N.W.F. Provinces shall be given their

due share of representation.

(iii) Weightage where it becomes necessary to reduce a huge communal

majority to reasonable dimensions shall come out of the share of the majority.

In no case shall it be at the cost of another minority community.

(iv) Weightage carved out from the share of majority shall not be assigned

to one community only. But the same shall be divided among all minority

communities equally or in inverse proportion to their—

(1) economic position,

(2) social status, and

(3) educational advance.

(b) There should be no representation to special interests. But if the same

is allowed it must be taken out of the share of representation given to that

community to which the special interest belongs.

(2) Method of Election—

(A) For Legislative Bodies

(a) The system of election introduced by the Poona Pact shall be abolished.

(b) In its place, the system of Separate Electorates shall be substituted.

(d) The system of voting shall be cumulative.

(B) For Local Bodies

The principles for determining the quantum of representation and the Method

of election for Municipalities and Local Boards shall be the same as that adopted

for the Union and State Legislatures.

Right to

Representation in

the Legislature.

(For explanation,

see pages 419-24)

402

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

(1) The Scheduled Castes shall have minimum representation in the

Executive—Union and State—and if there be a group

Constitution then in the group Executive equal to the

ratio of their population to the total population. Provided

that no minority community is allowed to claim more

than its population ratio.

(2) Weightage where it becomes necessary to reduce a huge majority to

reasonable dimensions shall come out of the share of the majority community.

In no case shall it be at the cost of another minority community,

(3) Weightage carved out from the share of the majority shall not be

assigned to one community only But the same shall be divided among all

minorities equally or in inverse proportion to :

(i) their economic position.

(ii) social status, and

(iii) educational advance.

Clause 3

Right to Representation in the Services

(a) The quantum of representation of the Scheduled Castes in the Services

shall be as follows :

(i) In the Union Services.—In proportion to the ratio of their population

to the total population in India or British India as the case may be.

(ii) In the State and Group Services.—In proportion to their population

in the State or Union.

(iii) In the Municipal and Local Board Services.—In proportion to their

population in the Municipal and Local Boards areas :

Provided that no minority community is allowed to claim more than

its population ratio of representation in the Services.

(b) Their right to representation in the Services shall not be curtailed

except by conditions relating to minimum qualifications, education, age, etc.

of the concessions given to the Scheduled Castes by the Government of India

in their Resolutions of 1942 and 1945.

(d) The method of filling up the vacancies shall conform to the rules

prescribed in the Government of India Resolutions of 1942 and 1946.

(e) On every Public Services Commission or a Committee constituted for

filling vacancies, the Scheduled Castes shall have at least one representative.

PART II—S

PECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

That the United States of India shall undertake the following special

responsibilities for the betterment of the Scheduled Castes :

Right to

Representation in the

Executive.

(For explanation, see

pages 424-25)

Right to Representation

in services.

(For explanation, see

page 425)

Provisions for

Higher Education

(For explanation,

see page 425)

STATES AND MINORITIES

403

Clause 1

(1) Governments—Union and State—shall be required to assume financial

responsibility for the higher education of the Scheduled Castes and shall

be required to make adequate provisions in their budgets. Such Provisions

shall form the first charge on the Education Budget of the Union and State

Government.

(2) The responsibility for finding money for secondary and college education

of the Scheduled Castes in India shall be upon the State Governments and

the different States shall make a provision in their annual budgets for the

said purpose in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes to the

total budget of the States.

(3) The responsibility for finding money for foreign education of the

Scheduled Castes shall be the responsibility of the Union Government and

the Union Government shall make a provision of rupees 10 lakhs per year

in its annual budget in that behalf.

(4) These special grants shall be without prejudice to the right of

the Scheduled Castes to share in the expenditure incurred by the State

Government for the advancement of primary education for the people of

the State.

Clause 2

1. The following provision shall be made in the Constitution of the Union

Government :

(i) There shall be a Settlement Commission under the new Constitution to

hold uncultivated lands belonging to the State in trust for Settlement

of the Scheduled Castes in separate villages.

(ii) The Union Government shall set apart annually a fund of Rs. 5

crores for the purpose of promoting the scheme of settlement.

(iii) That the Commission shall have the power to purchase any land

offered for sale and use it for the said purpose.

2. The Union Government shall from time to time pass such legislation

as may be necessary for the Commission to carry out its functions.

PART III—S

ANCTION FOR SAFEGUARDS AND AMENDMENT OF SAFEGUARDS

Clause 1

The Constitution of the United States shall provide that—

The United States of India undertakes to give the safeguards contained

in Article II Section IV a place in the Constitution and

make them a part of the Constitutional Law of India.

Provision for New

Settlements.

(For explanation.

see pages 425-26)

Sanction for

safeguards.

(For explanation,

see pages 426-28)

404

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

The provisions for the Scheduled Castes shall not be altered, amended or

abrogated except in the following manner :

Any amendment or abrogation of Section IV of Article II or any part thereof

relating to the Scheduled Castes shall only be made by a Resolution passed in the

manner prescribed below by the more Popular Chamber of the Union Legislature :

(i) Any proposal for amendment or abrogation shall be initiated in the form

of a Resolution in the more Popular Chamber of the Union Legislature.

(ii) No such Resolution shall be moved—

(a) unless 25 years have elapsed after the Constitution has come

into operation and has been worked ; and

(b) unless six months’ notice has been given to the House by the

mover of his intention to move such a Resolution.

(iii) On the passing of such a Resolution, the Legislature shall be dissolved and

a new election held.

(iv) The original Resolution in the form in which it was passed by the previous

Legislature shall be moved afresh in the same House of the newly elected

Union Legislature.

(v) The Resolution shall not be deemed to have been carried unless it is

passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House and also

two-thirds of members of the Scheduled Castes who have been returned

through separate electorates.

PART IV—P

ROTECTION OF SCHEDULED CASTES IN THE INDIAN STATES

The Constitution of the United States shall provide that

the admission of the Indian States into the Union shall be

subject to the following condition :

“All provisions relating to the Scheduled Castes contained in Section IV of Article II

of the Constitution of the United States of India shall be extended to the Scheduled

Castes in the Indian States. Such a provision in the Constitution of an Indian States

shall be a condition precedent for its admission into the Union.”

PART V—INTERPRETATION

I. For the purposes of Article II the Scheduled Castes, as defined in the Government

of India Scheduled Caste Order, 1936, issued under the Government

of India Act, 1935, shall be deemed to be a minority.

II. For the purposes of Article II a Caste which is a Scheduled Caste in one

State shall be treated as Scheduled Caste in all States of

the Union.

Mode of Amendment

of safeguards.

(For explanation, see

page 428).

Safeguards for

Scheduled Castes in

Indian States.

(For explanation,

see page 428)

Scheduled Castes

a Minority.

(For explanation,

see page 428)

Scheduled Castes and

change of Domicile.

(For explanation, see

page 428)

STATES AND MINORITIES

405

Appendix I

EXPLANATORY NOTES

Preamble

The Preamble gives constitutional shape and form to the Resolution on

objectives passed by the Constituent Assembly on Wednesday the 22nd

January 1947.

ARTICLE I—Section I

Clauses 1 to 4

The admission of the six hundred and odd Indian States into the Union

raises many difficult questions. The most difficult of them is the one which

relates to their admission into the Union. Every Indian State is claiming

to be a Sovereign State and is demanding to be admitted into the Union

in its own right. The Indian States fall into different classes from the view

of size, population, revenue and resources. It is obvious that every State

admitted into the Union as a State must have the capacity to bear the

burden of modern administration to maintain peace within its own borders

and to possess the resources necessary for the economic advancement of its

people. Otherwise, the United States of India is likely to be encumbered

with a large number of weak States which, instead of being a help to the

Central Government, will be a burden upon it. The Union Government with

such small and weak States as its units will never be able to pull its full

weight in an emergency. It is therefore obvious that it would be a grave

danger to the future safety of India if every Indian State were admitted into

the Union without any scrutiny of its capacity to bear the burden of modern

administration and maintaining internal peace. To avoid this danger, the

Article proceeds to divide the Indian States into two classes: (1) Qualified

Indian States and (2) Unqualified Indian States. It proposes that a list of

Qualified Indian States should be drawn up as a first step in the procedure

to be followed for the admission of the Indian States into the Union. A

Qualified Indian State will be admitted into the Union on an application

for admission and the fulfilment of the provisions of the Enabling Act which

the Union Legislature is authorized to pass for the purpose of requiring

an appropriate form of internal Government set up within the State which

will be in consonance to the principles underlying the Constitution of the

United States of India. The territory in the occupation of the Unqualified

Indian States will be treated as the territory of the United States of India

and will be reorganized into States of suitable sizes by the United States of

India. In the meantime those who are rulers of the territory shall continue to

administer the territory under the supervision of the United States of India.

The Act also declares that the Indian territory whether in the occupation

of British Indian Provinces or of the Indian States is one and integral and

will be so even though an Indian State has not entered into the Union.

406

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 4 provides that once a State is admitted into the Union, its

integrity shall be maintained and it shall not be liable to sub-division except

in accordance with the provisions contained in the clause.

ARTICLE I—Section II

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 permits the United States of India to incorporate States which are

independent but which are on the border and which desire to join the Union.

Clause 2 enables the United States of India to acquire territory and to

incorporate it or to treat it as separate territory.

ARTICLE II—Section I

The inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution requires no

justification. The necessity of Fundamental Rights is recognized in all

Constitutions old and new. The Fundamental Rights included in the Article are

borrowed from the Constitutions of various countries particularly from those

wherein the conditions are more or less analogous to those existing in India.

ARTICLE II—Section II

Clause 1

Rights are real only if they are accompanied by remedies. It is no use

giving rights if the aggrieved person has no legal remedy to which he can

resort when his rights are invaded. Consequently when the Constitution

guarantees rights it also becomes necessary to make provision to prevent the

Legislature and the Executive from overriding them. This function has been

usually assigned to the judiciary and the Courts have been made the special

guardians of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The clause does no

more than this. The clause proposes to give protection to the citizen against

Executive tyranny by investing the Judiciary with certain powers of inquisition

against the abuse of authority by the Executive. This power takes the form

of issue of writs. The High Courts in India possess these powers under the

Government of India and under their letters patent. These powers are however

subject to two limitations. In the first place the powers given by the Letters

Patent are available only to the High Courts in the Presidency Towns and

not to all. Secondly these powers are subject to laws made by the Indian

Legislature. Thirdly the powers given by the Government of India Act, 1935

are restricted and may prove insufficient for the protection of the aggrieved

person. The clause achieves two objectives : (1) to give the fullest power to

the Judiciary to issue what under the English Law are called Prerogative

Writs and (2) to prevent the Legislature from curtailing these powers in any

manner whatsoever.

Clause 2

It is difficult to expect that in a country like India where most persons

are communally minded those in authority will give equal treatment to those

STATES AND MINORITIES

407

who do not belong to their community. Unequal treatment has been the

inescapable fate of the Untouchables in India. The following extract from the

Proceedings of the Board of Revenue of the Government of Madras No. 723

dated 5th November, 1892. illustrates the sort of unequal treatment which

is meted out to the Scheduled Castes by Hindu Officers. Says the report :

“134. There are forms of oppression only hitherto hinted at which must be at

least cursorily mentioned. To punish disobedience of Pariahs, their masters—

(a) bring false cases in the village Court or in the criminal Courts;

(b) obtain, on application, from Government, waste lands lying all round

the paracheri, so as to impound the Pariahs’ cattle or obstruct the

way to their temple;

against the paracheri;

(d) pull down the huts and destroy the growth in the backyards;

(e) deny occupancy right in immemorial sub-tenancies;

(f) forcibly cut the Pariahs’ crops, and on being resisted charge them with

theft and rioting;

(g) under misrepresentations, get them to execute documents by which

they are afterwards ruined;

(h) cut off the flow of water from their fields;

(i) without legal notice, have the property of sub-tenants attached for the

landlords’ arrears of revenue.”

“135. It will be said there are civil and criminal Courts for the redress of

any of these injuries. There are the Courts indeed; but India does not breed

village Hampdens. One must have courage to go to the Courts; money to

employ legal knowledge, and meet legal expenses; and means to live during

the case and the appeals. Further most cases depend upon the decision of the

first Court; and these Courts are presided over by officials who are sometimes

corrupt and who generally for other reasons, sympathize with the wealthy

and landed classes to which they belong.”.

“136. The influence of these classes with the official world can hardly be

exaggerated. It is extreme with natives and great even with Europeans. Every

office, from the highest to the lowest, is stocked with their representatives,

and there is no proposal affecting their interests but they can bring a score

of influence to bear upon it in its course from inception to execution.”

The Punjab Land Alienation Act is another illustration of unequal treatment

of the Untouchables by the Legislature.

Many other minority communities may be suffering from similar treatment

at the hands of the majority community. It is therefore necessary to have

408

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

such a provision to ensure that all citizens shall have equal benefit of Laws,

Rules and Regulations.

The provisions of Clause 2 are borrowed from Civil Rights Protection Act,

1866, and of March 1st, 1875 passed by the Congress of the United States

of America to protect the Negroes against unequal treatment.

Clause 3

Discrimination is another menace which must be guarded against if the

Fundamental Rights are to be real rights. In a country like India where

it is possible for discrimination to be practised on a vast scale and in a

relentless manner Fundamental Rights can have no meaning. The Remedy

follows the lines adopted in the Bill which was recently introduced in the

Congress of the U.S.A. the aim of which is to prevent discrimination being

practised against the Negroes.

Clause 4

The main purpose behind the clause is to put an obligation on the State

to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest

point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise,

and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out

in the clause proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised

method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field

of industry. It places squarely on the shoulders of the State the obligation

to supply capital necessary for agriculture as well as for industry. Without

the supply of capital by the State neither land nor industry can be made to

yield better results. It also proposes to nationalize insurance with a double

objective. Nationalized Insurance gives the individual greater security than

a private Insurance Firm does inasmuch as it pledges the resources of the

State as a security for the ultimate payment of his insurance money. It also

gives the State the resources necessary for financing its economic planning

in the absence of which it would have to resort to borrowing from the money

market at a high rate of interest. State Socialism is essential for the rapid

industrialization of India. Private enterprize cannot do it and if it did it

would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has

produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. Consolidation

of Holdings and Tenancy Legislation are worse than useless. They cannot

bring about prosperity in agriculture. Neither Consolidation nor Tenancy

Legislation can be of any help to the 60 millions of Untouchables who

are just landless labourers. Neither Consolidation nor Tenancy Legislation

can solve their problem. Only collective farms on the lines set out in the

proposal can help them. There is no expropriation of the interests concerned.

Consequently there ought to be no objection to the proposal on that account.

The plan has two special features. One is that it proposes State Socialism

in important fields of economic life. The second special feature of the

STATES AND MINORITIES

409

plan is that it does not leave the establishment of State Socialism to the

will of the Legislature. It establishes State Socialism by the Law of the

Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the Legislature

and the Executive.

Students of Constitutional Law will at once raise a protest. They are

sure to ask : Does not the proposal go beyond the scope of the usual type

of Fundamental Rights ? My answer is that it does not. If it appears to go

beyond it is only because the conception of Fundamental Rights on which

such criticism is based is a narrow conception. One may go further and say

that even from the narrow conception of the scope of the Constitutional

Law as comprising no more than Fundamental Rights the proposal can find

ample justification. For what is the purpose of prescribing by law the shape

and form of the economic structure of society ? The purpose is to protect

the liberty of the individual from invasion by other individuals which is the

object of enacting Fundamental Rights. The connection between individual

liberty and the shape and form of the economic structure of society may not

be apparent to everyone. None the less the connection between the two is

real. It will be apparent if the following considerations are borne in mind.

Political Democracy rests on four premises which may be set out in the

following terms :

(i) The individual is an end in himself.

(ii) That the individual has certain inalienable rights which must be

guaranteed to him by the Constitution.

(iii) That the individual shall not be required to relinquish any of his

constitutional rights as a condition precedent to the receipt of a

privilege.

(iv) That the State shall not delegate powers to private persons to govern

others.

Anyone who studies the working of the system of social economy based

on private enterprise and pursuit of personal gain will realize how it

undermines, if it does not actually violate, the last two premises on which

Democracy rests. How many have to relinquish their constitutional rights

in order to gain their living ? How many have to subject themselves to be

governed by private employers?

Ask those who are unemployed whether what are called Fundamental

Rights are of any value to them. If a person who is unemployed is offered

a choice between a job of some sort, with some sort of wages, with no fixed

hours of labour and with an interdict on joining a union and the exercise

of his right to freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., can there be

any doubt as to what his choice will be. How can it be otherwise ? The

fear of starvation, the fear of losing a house, the fear of losing savings if

any, the fear of being compelled to take children away from school, the fear

410

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of having to be a burden on public charity, the fear of having to be burned

or buried at public cost are factors too strong to permit a man to stand

out for his Fundamental Rights. The unemployed are thus compelled to

relinquish their Fundamental Rights for the sake of securing the privilege

to work and to subsist.

What about those who are employed? Constitutional Lawyers assume that

the enactment of Fundamental Rights is enough to safeguard their liberty and

that nothing more is called for. They argue that where the State refrains from

intervention in private affairs—economic and social—the residue is liberty.

What is necessary is to make the residue as large as possible and State

intervention as small as possible. It is true that where the State refrains

from intervention what remains is liberty. But this does not dispose of the

matter. One more question remains to be answered. To whom and for whom

is this liberty ? Obviously this liberty is liberty to the landlords to increase

rents, for capitalists to increase hours of work and reduce rate of wages. This

must be so. It cannot be otherwise. For in an economic system employing

armies of workers, producing goods en masse at regular intervals some one

must make rules so that workers will work and the wheels of industry run

on. If the State does not do it the private employer will. Life otherwise will

become impossible. In other words what is called liberty from the control

of the State is another name for the dictatorship of the private employer.

How to prevent such a thing happening ? How to protect the unemployed

as well as the employed from being cheated out of their Fundamental

Rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ? The useful remedy

adopted by Democratic countries is to limit the power of Government to

impose arbitrary restraints in political domain and to invoke the ordinary

power of the Legislature to restrain the more powerful individual from

imposing arbitrary restraints on the less powerful in the economic field.

The inadequacy may the futility of the plan has been well-established. The

successful invocation by the less powerful of the authority of the Legislature

is a doubtful proposition. Having regard to the fact that even under adult

suffrage all Legislatures and Governments are controlled by the more

powerful an appeal to the Legislature to intervene is a very precarious

safeguard against the invasion of the liberty of the less powerful. The plan

follows quite a different method. It seeks to limit not only the power of

Government to impose arbitrary restraints but also of the more powerful

individuals or to be more precise to eliminate the possibility of the more

powerful having the power to impose arbitrary restraints on the less powerful

by withdrawing from the control he has over the economic life of people.

There cannot be slightest doubt that of the two remedies against the invasion

by the more powerful of the rights and liberties of the less powerful the

one contained in the proposal is undoubtedly the more effective. Considered

STATES AND MINORITIES

411

in the light of these observations the proposal is essentially a proposal for

safeguarding the liberty of the individual. No Constitutional Lawyer can

therefore object to it on the ground that it goes beyond the usual scope of

Constitutional Law.

So far as the plan has been considered purely as a means of safeguarding

individual liberty. But there is also another aspect of the plan which is worthy

of note. It is an attempt to establish State Socialism without abrogating

Parliamentary Democracy and without leaving its establishment to the will

of a Parliamentary Democracy. Critics of State Socialism even its friends

are bound to ask why make it a part of the Constitutional Law of the land?

Why not leave it to the Legislature to bring it into being by the ordinary

process of Law. The reason why it cannot be left to the ordinary Law is not

difficult to understand. One essential condition for the success of a planned

economy is that it must not be liable to suspension or abadonment. It must be

permanent. The question is how this permanence can be secured. Obviously

it cannot be secured under the form of Government called Parliamentary

Democracy under the system of Parliamentary Democracy, the policy of the

Legislature and of the Executive is the policy of the majority for the time

being. Under the system of Parliamentary Democracy the majority in one

election may be in favour of State Socialism in Industry and in Agriculture.

At the next election the majority may be against it. The anti-State Socialism

majority will use its Law-making power to undoing the work of the pro-State

Socialism majority and the pro-State Socialism majority will use its Law-

making power to doing over again what has been undone by their opponents.

Those who want the economic structure of society to be modelled on State

Socialism must realize that they cannot leave the fulfilment of so fundamental

a purpose to the exigencies of ordinary Law which simple majorities—whose

political fortunes are never determined by rational causes—have a right

to make and unmake. For these reasons Political Democracy seems to be

unsuited for the purpose.

What is the alternative ? The alternative is Dictatorship. There is no

doubt that Dictatorship can give the permanence which State Socialism

requires as an essential condition for its fructification. There is however

one fact against Dictatorship which must be faced. Those who believe

in individual freedom strongly object to Dictatorship and insists upon

Parliamentary Democracy as a proper form of Government for a Free

Society. For they feel that freedom of the individual is possible only under

Parliamentary Democracy and not under Dictatorship. Consequently those

who want freedom are not prepared to give up Parliamentary Democracy as

a form of Government. However, much they may be anxious to have State

Socialism they will not be ready to exchange Parliamentary Democracy for

Dictatorship eventhough the gain by such an exchange is the achievement

of State Socialism. The problem therefore is to have State Socialism

412

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

without Dictatorship, to have State Socialism with Parliamentary

Democracy. The way out seems to be to retain Parliamentary Democracy

and to prescribe State Socialism by the Law of the Constitution so that it

will be beyond the reach of a Parliamentary majority to suspend, amend

or abrogate it. It is only by this that one can achieve the triple object,

namely, to establish socialism, retain Parliamentary Democracy and avoid

Dictatorship.

The proposal marks a departure from the existing Constitutions whose

aim is merely to prescribe the form of the political structure of society

leaving the economic structure untouched. The result is that the political

structure is completely set at naught by the forces which emerge from

the economic structure which is at variance with the political structure.

Those who want socialism with Parliamentary Democracy and without

Dictatorship should welcome the proposal.

The soul of Democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value. Unfortunately,

Democracy has attempted to give effect to this doctrine only so far as the

political structure is concerned by adopting the rule of one man, one vote

which is supposed to translate into fact the doctrine of one man, one

value. It has left the economic structure to take the shape given to it

by those who are in a position to mould it. This has happened because

Constitutional Laywers have been dominated by the antiquated conception

that all that is necessary for a perfect Constitution for Democracy was to

frame a Constitutional Law which would make Government responsible

to the people and to prevent tyranny of the people by the Government.

Consequently, almost all Laws of Constitution which relate to countries

which are called Democratic stop with Adult Suffrage and Fundamental

Right. They have never advanced to the conception that the Constitutional

Law of Democracy must go beyond Adult Suffrage and Fundamental Rights.

In other words, old time Constitutional Lawyers believed that the scope

and function of Constitutional Law was to prescribe the shape and form of

the political structure of society. They never realized that it was equally

essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic structure of

society, if Democracy is to live up to its principle of one man, one value.

Time has come to take a bold step and define both the economic structure

as well as the political structure of society by the Law of the Constitution.

All countries like India which are late-comers in the field of Constitution-

making should not copy the faults of other countries. They should profit

by the experience of their predecessors.

ARTICLE II—Section III

Clause 1

In the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 the model that was

adopted for framing the structure of the Executive in the Provinces and

STATES AND MINORITIES

413

in the Centre was of the British type or what is called by Constitutional

Lawyers Parliamentary Executive as opposed to the American type of

Executive which in contradistinction of the British type is called Non-

Parliamentary Executive. The question is whether the pattern for the

Executive adopted in the two Acts should be retained or whether it should

be abandoned and if so what model should be adopted in its place. Before

giving final opinion on this issue it would be desirable to set out the special

features of the British type of the Executive and the consequences that are

likely to follow if it was applied to India.

The following may be taken to be the special features of British or the

Parliamentary Executive :

(1) It gives a party which has secured a majority in the Legislature the

right to form a Government.

(2) It gives the majority party the right to exclude from Government

persons who do not belong to the Party.

(3) The Government so formed continues in office only so long as it can

command a majority in the Legislature. If it ceases to command a

majority it is bound to resign either in favour of another Government

formed out of the existing Legislature or in favour of a new

Government formed out of a newly elected Legislature.

As to the consequences that would follow if the British System was applied

to India the situation can be summed up in the following proposition :

(1) The British System of Government by a Cabinet of the majority

party rests on the premise that the majority is a political majority.

In India the majority is a communal majority. No matter what social

and political programme it may have the majority will retain its

character of being a communal majority. Nothing can alter this fact.

Given this fact it is clear that if the British System was copied it

would result in permanently vesting Executive power in a Communal

majority.

(2) The British System of Government imposes no obligation upon the

Majority Party to include in its cabinet the representatives of Minority

Party. If applied to India the consequence will be obvious. It would

make the majority community a governing class and the minority

community a subject race. It would mean that a communal majority

will be free to run the administration according to its own ideas of

what is good for the minorities. Such a state of affairs could not be

called democracy. It will have to be called imperialism.

In the light of these consequences it is obvious that the introduction of British

type of the Executive will be full of menace to the life, liberty and pursuit of

happiness of the minorities in general and of the Untouchables in particular.

414

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The problem of the Untouchables is a formidable one for the Untouchables

to face. The Untouchables are surrounded by a vast mass of Hindu population

which is hostile to them and which is not ashamed of committing any

inequity or atrocity against them. For a redress of these wrongs which

are matters of daily occurrence, the Untouchables have to call in the

aid of the administration. What is the character and composition of this

administration ? To be brief, the administration in India is completely

in the bauds of the Hindus. It is their monopoly. From top to bottom it

is controlled by them. There is no Department which is not dominated

by them. They dominate the Police, the Magistracy and the Revenue

Services, indeed any and every branch of the administration. The next

point to remember is that the Hindus in the administration have the same

positive anti-social and inimical attitude to the Untouchables which the

Hindus outside the administration have. Their one aim is to discriminate

against the Untouchables and to deny and deprive them not only of the

benefits of Law, but also of the protection of the Law against tyranny and

oppression. The result is that the Untouchables are placed between the

Hindu population and the Hindu-ridden administration, the one committing

wrong against them and the other protecting the wrong-doer, instead of

helping the victims.

Against this background, what can Swaraj mean to the Untouchables ? It

can only mean one thing, namely, that while today it is only the administration

that is in the hands of the Hindus, under Swaraj the Legislature and

Executive will also be in the hands of the Hindus. It goes without, saying

that such a Swaraj would aggravate the sufferings of the Untouchables.

For, in addition to an hostile administration, there will be an indifferent

Legislature and a callous Executive. The result will be that the administration

unbridled in venom and in harshness, uncontrolled by the Legislature and

the Executive, may pursue its policy of inequity towards the Untouchables

without any curb. To put it differently, under Swaraj the Untouchables

will have no way of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus

and Hinduism have fixed for them.

These are special considerations against the introduction of the British

System of Executive which have their origin in the interests of the minorities

and the Scheduled Castes. But there is one general consideration which

can be urged against the introduction of the British Cabinet System in

India. The British Cabinet System has undoubtedly given the British

people a very stable system of Government. Question is will it produce

a stable Government in India ? The chances are very slender. In view of

the clashes of castes and creeds there is bound to be a plethora of parties

and groups in the Legislature in India. If this happens it is possible, nay

certain, that under the system of Parliamentary Executive like the one that

prevails in England under which the Executive is bound to resign upon an

STATES AND MINORITIES

415

adverse vote in the Legislature, India may suffer from instability of the

Executive. For it is the easiest thing for groups to align and realign themselves

at frequent intervals and for petty purposes and bring about the downfall

of Government. The present solidarity of what are called the Major Parties

cannot be expected to continue. Indeed as soon as the Problem of the British

in India is solved the cement that holds these parties together will fall away.

Constant overthrow of Government is nothing short of anarchy. The present

Constitution has in it Section 93 which provides a remedy against it. But

Section 93 would be out of place in the Constitution of a free India, Some

substitute must therefore be found for Section 93.

Taking all these considerations together there is no doubt that the British

type of the Executive is entirely unsuited to India.

The form of the Executive proposed in the clause is intended to serve

the following purposes :

(i) To prevent the majority from forming a Government without giving

any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.

(ii) To prevent the majority from having exclusive control over

administration and thereby make the tyranny of the minority by

the majority possible.

(iii) To prevent the inclusion by the Majority Party in the Executive

representatives of the minorities who have no confidence of the

minorities.

(iv) To provide a stable Executive necessary for good and efficient

administration.

The clause takes the American form of Executive as a model and adapts it

to Indian conditions especially to the requirements of minorities. The form of

the Executive suggested in the proposal cannot be objected to on the ground

that it is against the principle of responsible government. Indians who are

used to the English form of Executive forget that this is not the only form of

democratic and responsible Government. The American form of Executive is an

equally good type of democratic and responsible form of Government. There is

also nothing objectionable in the proposal that a person should not be qualified

to become a Minister merely because he is elected to the Legislature. The

principle that a member of the Legislature before he is made a Minister should

be chosen by his constituents was fully recognized by the British Constitution

for over hundred years. A member of Parliament who was appointed a

Minister had to submit himself for election before taking up his appointment.

It was only lately given up. There ought therefore to be no objection to

it on the ground that the proposals are not compatible with responsible

Governments. The actual proposal is an improved edition of the American

form of Government, for the reason that under it members of the Executive

can sit in the Legislature and have a right to speak and answer questions.

416

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Clause 2

The proposal cannot be controversial. The best remedy against tyranny

and oppression by a majority against the minority is inquiry, publicity and

discussion. This is what the safeguard provides for. A similar proposal

was also recommended by the Sapru Committee.

Clause 3

Social boycott is always held over the heads of the Untouchables by

the Caste Hindus as a sword of Democles. Only the Untouchables know

what a terrible weapon it is in the hands of the Hindus. Its effects and

forms are well described in the Report made by a Committee appointed

by the Government of Bombay in 1928 to investigate the grievances of

the Depressed Classes and from which the following extracts are made.

It illuminates the situation in a manner so simple that everybody can

understand what tyranny the Hindus are able to practise upon the

Untouchables. The Committee said:

“Although we have recommended various remedies to secure to the

Depressed Classes their rights to all public utilities we fear that there will

be difficulties in the way of their exercising them for a long time to come.

The first difficulty is the fear of open violence against them by the orthodox

classes. It must be noted that the Depressed Classes form a small minority

in every village, oppose to which is a great majority of the orthodox who are

bent on protecting their interests and dignity from any supposed invasion by

the Depressed Classes at any cost. The danger of prosecution by the Police

has put a limitation upon the use of violence by the orthodox classes and

consequently such cases are rare.

The second difficulty arises from the economic position in which the

Depressed Classes are found today. The Depressed Classes have no economic

independence in most parts of the Presidency. Some cultivate the lands of

the orthodox classes as their tenants at will. Others live on their earnings as

farm labourers employed by the orthodox classes and the rest subsist on the

food or grain given to them by the orthodox classes in lieu of service rendered

to them as village servants. We have heard of numerous instances where the

orthodox classes have used their economic power as a weapon against those

Depressed Classes in their villages, when the latter have dared to exercise their

rights, and have evicted them from their land, and stopped their employment

and discontinued their remuneration as village servants. This boycott is

often planned on such an extensive scale as to include the prevention of the

Depressed Classes from using the commonly used paths and the stoppage of

sale of the necessaries of life by the village Bania. According to the evidence,

STATES AND MINORITIES

417

sometimes small causes suffice for the proclamation of a social boycott against

the Depressed Classes. Frequently it follows on the exercise by the Depressed

Classes of their right to use the common well, but cases have been by no

mean rare where a stringent boycott has been proclaimed simply because

a Depressed Class man has put on the sacred thread, has bought a piece

of land, has put on good clothes or ornaments, or has carried a marriage

procession with a bridegroom on the horse through the public street”.

This was said in 1928. Lest it should be regarded as a phase which has

now ended I reproduce below a copy of a petition by the Untouchables

of the village Kheri Jessore in the Punjab addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner of the Rohtak District in February 1947 and a copy of

which was sent to me. It reads as follows :

“From

The Scheduled Caste People (Chamars),

Village Kheri Jessore, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

The Deputy Commissioner,

Rohtak District, Rohtak.

Sir,

We, the following Scheduled Caste (Chamars) of the Village Kheri Jessore,

beg to invite your kind attention to the hard plight, we are put to, due to

the undue pressure and merciless treatment by the Caste Hindu Jats of

this village.

It was about four months back that the Jats of the village assembled

in the Chopal and told us to work in the fields on a wage in kind of one

bundle of crops, containing only about one seer of grains per day per man

instead of food at both times and a load of crops, and annas 8 in addition

which we used to get before above announcement was made. As it was

too little and insufficient to meet both ends, we refused to go to work. At

this they were enraged and declared a Social Boycott on us. They made a

rule that our cattle would not be allowed to graze in the jungle unless we

would agree to pay a tax not leviable under Government for the animals,

which they call as “Poochhi” They even do not allow our cattle to drink

water in the village pool and have prevented the sweepers from cleaning

the streets where we live so that heaps of dust and dirt are lying there

which may cause some disease if left unattended to. We are forced to lead

a shameful life and they are always ready to beat us and to tear down our

honour by behaving indecently towards our wives, sisters and daughters.

We are experiencing a lot of trouble of the worst type. While going to the

418

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

school, the children were even beaten severely and in a merciless

manner.

We submitted an application detailing the above facts to yourself but we are

sorry that no action has been taken as yet.

It is also for your kind consideration that the Inspector of Police and Tehsildar

of Rohtak, whom we approached in this connection, made a careless investigation

and in our opinion, no attention was paid to redress the difficulties of the poor

and innocent persons.

We, therefore, request your good self to consider over the matter and make

some arrangement to stop the merciless treatment and threats which the Jats

give us in different ways. We have no other approach except to knock at your

kind door and hope your honour will take immediate steps to enable us to lead

an honourable and peaceful life which is humanity’s birth-right.

We beg to remain,

Sir,

Your most obedient servants,

Scheduled Caste People

(Chamars),

of Village Kheri Jessore,

Tehsil and District Rohtak.

Thumb Impressions.

* * * * *

Copy forwarded to the Hon’ble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,

Western Court, New Delhi.

Received on 1st February 1947.”

This shows that what was true in 1928 is true even today. What is true

of Bombay is true of the whole of India. For evidence of the general use of

boycott by the Hindus against the Untouchables one has only to refer to

the events that occurred all over India in the last elections to the Provincial

Legislatures. Only when boycott is made criminal will the Untouchables be

free from being the slaves of the Hindus.

The weapon of boycott is nowadays used against other communities

besides the Scheduled Castes. It is therefore in the interests of all minor

communities to have this protection.

The provisions relating to boycott are taken bodily from the Burma Anti-

Boycott Act, 1922.

Clause 4

Such a provision already exists in Section 150 of the Government of India

Act, 1935.

STATES AND MINORITIES

419

ARTICLE II—Section IV

PART I—C

LAUSE I

There is nothing new in this clause. The right to representation in the

Legislature is conceded by the Poona Pact. The only points that require to

be reconsidered relate to (1) Quantum of Representation, (2) Weightage and

(3) The System of Electorates.

(1) Quantum

The quantum of representation allowed to the Scheduled Castes by the

Poona Pact is set out in Clause I of the Pact. The proportion set out in

the Pact was fixed out of the balance of seats which remained after (i) the

share of the other communities had been taken out; (ii) after weightage to

other communities had been allotted, and (iii) after seats had been allocated

to special interests. This allotment of seats to the Scheduled Castes has

resulted in great injustice. The loss due to seats taken out as weightage

and seats given to special interests ought not to have been thrown upon

the Scheduled Castes. The allotment of those seats had already been made

by the Communal Award long before the Poona Pact. It was therefore not

possible then to rectify this injustice.

(2) Weightage

There is another injustice from which the Scheduled Castes have been

suffering. It relates to their right to a share in weightage.

As one can see the right to weightage has become a matter of double

controversy. One controversy is between the majority and the minorities,

the other is a matter of controversy between the different minorities.

The first controversy relates to the principle of weightage. The majority

insists that the minority has no right to representation in excess of the ratio

of its population to the total population. Why this rule is insisted upon by

the majority it is difficult to understand. Is it because the majority wants

to establish its own claim to population ratio so that it may always remain

as a majority and act as a majority ? Or is it because of the fact that a

minority no matter how much weightage was given to it must remain a

minority and cannot alter the fact that the majority will always be able

to impose its will upon it. The first ground leads to a complete negation

of the basic conception of majority rule which if rightly understood means

nothing more than a decision of the majority to which the minority has

reconciled itself. This cannot be the intention of the majority. One must

put a more charitable construction and assume that the argument on which

the contention of the majority rests is the second and not the first. That

a minority even with weightage will remain a minority has to be accepted

in view of the insistence of a Communal Majority to remain a majority

420

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

and to claim the privileges of a political majority which it is not. But

surely there is a difference between a defeat which is a complete rout and

a defeat which is almost victory though not a victory. Cricketers know what

difference there is between the defeat of a team by a few runs, a defeat by

a few wickets and a defeat by one whole innings. The defeat by one whole

innings is a complete frustration which a defeat by a few runs is not. Such

a frustration when it comes about in the political life of a minority depresses

and demoralizes and crushes the spirit of the minority. This must be avoided

at any price. Looked at from this point of view there is no doubt that the

rule of population—ratio—representation insisted upon by the majority

is wrong. What a minority needs is not more representation but effective

representation.

And what is effective representation? Obviously the effectiveness of

representation depends upon its being large enough to give the minority

the sense of not being entirely overwhelmed by the majority. Representation

according to population to a minority or to the minorities combined may be

effective by reason of the fact that the population of a minority where there

is only one or of the combined minorities where there are many is large

enough to secure effective minority representation. But there may be cases

where the population of a minority or of the minorities combined is too small

to secure such effective representation if the population ratio of a minority is

taken as an inflexible standard to determine its quantum of representation.

To insist upon such a standard is to make mockery of the protection to the

minority which is the purpose behind the right to representation which is

accepted as the legitimate claim of a minority. In such cases weightage

which is another name for deduction from the quantum of representation

which is due to the majority on the basis of its population becomes essential

and the majority if it wishes to be fair and honest must concede it. There

can therefore be no quarrel over the principle of weightage. On this footing

the controversy becomes restricted to the question, how is the magnitude

of weightage to be determined ? This obviously is a question of adjustment

and not of principle.

There can therefore be no manner of objection to the principle of weightage.

The demand for weightage is however a general demand of all the minorities

and the Scheduled Castes must join them in it where the majority is too big.

What is however wrong with the existing weightage is unequal distribution

among the various minorities. At present, some minorities have secured a

lion’s share and some like the Untouchables have none. This wrong must be

rectified by a distribution of the weightage on some intelligible principles.

(3) Electorates

1. The method of election to the seals allotted to the Scheduled Castes

is set out in clauses (2) to (4) of the Poona Pact. It provides for two

STATES AND MINORITIES

421

elections : (1) Primary election and (2) Final election. The Primary election

is by a separate electorate of the Scheduled Castes. It is only a qualifying

election and determines who is entitled to stand in the Final election on

behalf of the Scheduled Castes for the seats reserved to them. The Final

election is by a joint electorate in which both caste Hindus and the Scheduled

Castes can vote and the final result is determined by their joint vote.

2. Clause 5 of the Poona Pact has limited the system of Primary election

to ten years which means that any election taking place after 1947 will

be by a system of joint electorates and reserved seats pure and simple.

3. Even if the Hindus agreed to extend the system of double election

for a further period it will not satisfy the Scheduled Castes. There are

two objections to the retention of the Primary election. Firstly, it does

not help the Scheduled Castes to elect a man who is their best choice. As

will be seen from Appendix III, the Scheduled Caste candidate who tops

the poll in the Primary election fails to succeed in the Final election and

the Scheduled Caste candidate who fails in the Primary election tops the

poll in the Final election. Secondly, the Primary election is for the most

part a fiction and not a fact. In the last election, out of 151 seats reserved

for the Scheduled Castes there were Primary elections only in 43. This is

because it is impossible for the Scheduled Castes to bear the expenses of

two elections—Primary and Final. To retain such a system is worse than

useless.

4. Things will be much worse under the system of joint electorates and

reserved seats which will hereafter become operative under the terms of the

Poona Pact. This is no mere speculation. The last election has conclusively

proved that the Scheduled Castes can be completely disfranchised in a

joint electorate. As will be seen from the figures given in Appendix III,

the Scheduled Caste candidates have not only been elected by Hindu votes

when the intention was that they should be elected by Scheduled Caste

votes but what is more the Hindus have elected those Scheduled Caste

candidates who had failed in the Primary election. This is a complete

disfranchisement of the Scheduled Castes. The main reason is to be found

in the enormous disparity between the voting strength of the Scheduled

Castes and the caste Hindus in most of the constituencies as may be seen

from figures given in Appendix III. As the Simon Commission has observed,

the device of the reserved seats ceases to be workable where the protected

community constitutes an exceedingly small fraction of any manageable

constituency. This is exactly the case of the Scheduled Castes. This disparity

cannot be ignored. It will remain even under adult suffrage. That being

the case, a fool-proof and a knave-proof method must be found to ensure

real representation to the Scheduled Castes. Such a method must involve

the abolition of—

(i) the Primary election as a needless and heavy encumbrance; and

422

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(ii) the substitution of separate electorates.

5. One of the issues which has embittered the relations between the Hindus

and the Scheduled Castes in the political field is the issue of electorate. The

Scheduled Castes are insisting upon separate electorates. The Hindus are

equally insistent on opposing the demand. To arrive at a settlement on this

issue—without which there can be no peace and amity between the Hindus

and the Scheduled Castes—it is necessary to determine who is right and who

is wrong and whether the opposition is based on rational grounds or is based

on mere prejudice.

6. The grounds which are generally urged against the demand of the Scheduled

Castes for separate electorates are :

(i) that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority;

(ii) that the Scheduled Castes are Hindus and therefore they cannot have

separate electorates;

(iii) that separate electorates will perpetuate untouchability;

(iv) that separate electorates are anti-national; and

(v) that separate electorates enables British Imperialism to influence the

communities having separate electorates to act against the interests of

the country.

7. Are these arguments valid ?

(i) To say that the Scheduled Castes are not a minority is to misunderstand

the meaning of the word ‘minority’. Separation in religion is not the only

test of a minority. Nor is it a good and efficient test. Social discrimination

constitutes the real test for determining whether a social group is or

is not a minority. Even Mr. Gandhi thought it logical and practical to

adopt this test in preference to that of religious separation. Following

this test, Mr. Gandhi in an editorial under the heading. ‘The Fiction of

Majority’ in the Harijan dated 21st October 1939 has given his opinion

that the Scheduled Castes are the only real minority in India.

(ii) To argue that the Scheduled Castes are Hindus and therefore

cannot demand separate electorates is to put the same argument

in a different form. To make religious affiliation the determining

factor for constitutional safeguards is to overlook the fact that the

religious affiliation may be accompanied by an intense degree of social

separation and discrimination. The belief that separate electorates go

with separation in religion arises from the fact that those minorities

who have been given separate electorates happen to be religious

minorities. This, however, is not correct. Muslims are given separate

electorates not because they are different from Hindus in point of

religion. They are given separate electorates because—and this is the

fundamental fact—the social relations between the Hindus and the

STATES AND MINORITIES

423

Musalmans are marked by social discrimination. To put the point

in a somewhat different manner, the nature of the electorates is

determined not by reference to religion but by reference to social

considerations. That it is social considerations and not religious

affiliation or disaffiliation which is accepted as the basis of

determining the nature of the electorates is best illustrated by the

arrangements made under the Government of India Act (1935) for

the Christian community in India. The Christian community is

divided into three sections—Europeans, Anglo-Indians and Indian

Christians. In spite of the fact that they all belong to the same

religion, each section has a separate electorate. This shows that

what is decisive is not religious affiliation but social separation.

(iii) To urge that separate electorates prevent solidarity between the

Untouchables and the Caste Hindus is the result of confused

thinking. Elections take place once in five years. Assuming there were

joint electorates, it is difficult to understand how social solidarity

between the Hindus and the Untouchables can be promoted by

their devoting one day for voting together when out of the rest of

the five years they are leading severally separate lives ? Similarly,

assuming that there were separate electorates it is difficult to

understand how one day devoted to separate voting in the course

of five years can make for greater separation than what already

exist ? Or contrarywise, how can one day in five years devoted to

separate voting prevent those who wish to work for their union

from carrying out heir purposes. To make it concrete, how can

separate electorate for the Untouchables prevent inter-marriage or

inter-dining being introduced between them and the Hindus ? It is

therefore futile to say that separate electorates for the Untouchables

will perpetuate separation between them and the Hindus.

(iv) To insist that separate electorates create anti-national spirit is

contrary to experience. The Sikh have separate electorates. But no

one can say that the Sikhs are anti-national. The Muslims have

had separate electorates right from 1909. Mr. Jinnah had been

elected by separate electorates. Yet, Mr. Jinnah was the apostle

of Indian Nationalism up to 1935. The Indian Christians have

separate electorates. Nonetheless a good lot of them have shown

their partiality to the Congress if they have not been actually

returned on the Congress ticket. Obviously, nationalism and anti-

nationalism have nothing to do with the electoral system. They are

the result of extra electoral forces.

(v) This argument has no force. It is nothing but escapism. Be that as it

may, with free India any objection to separate electorates on such

a ground must vanish.

424

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

8. The reason why the arguments advanced by the opponents of separate

electorates do not stand the scrutiny of logic and experience is due entirely

to the fact that their approach to the subject is fundamentally wrong. It is

wrong in two respects :

(i) They fail to realize that the system of electorates has nothing to

do with the religious nexus or communal nexus. It is nothing but a

mechanism to enable a minority to return its true representative to

the Legislature. Being a mechanism for the protection of a minority

it follows that whether the electorate should be joint or separate

must be left to be determined by the minority.

(ii) They fail to make any distinction between the demand for separate

electorates by a majority community and a similar demand made

by a minority community. A majority community has no right to

demand separate electorates. The reason is simple. A right by a

majority community to demand separate electorates is tantamount

to a right to establish the Government of the majority community

over the minority community without the consent of the minority.

This is contrary to the well-established doctrine of democracy that

government must be with the consent of the governed. No such

evil consequence follows from the opposite principle namely that

a minority community is entitled to determine the nature of the

electorates suited to its interests, because there is no possibility of

the minority being placed in a position to govern the majority.

9. A correct attitude towards the whole question rests on the following

axioms :

(i) The system of electorates being a devise for the protection of the

minority, the issue whether the electoral system should be the joint

electorate or separate electorate must be left to the wishes of the

minority. If it is large enough to influence the majority it will choose

joint electorates. If it is too small for the purpose, it will prefer

separate electorates for fear of being submerged.

(ii) The majority, being in a position to rule can have no voice in the

determination of the system of electorates. If the minority wants joint

electorates, the majority must submit itself to joint electorates. If the

minority decides to have separate electorates for itself the majority

cannot refuse to grant them. In other words, the majority must look

to the decision of the minority and abide by it.

PART I—C

LAUSE 2

This demand may appear to be outside the Poona Pact in as much as

the Poona Pact made no provision for it. This would not be correct. As

a matter of fact, if no provision was made, it was because there was no

need to make such a provision. This was due to two reasons : Firstly, it

STATES AND MINORITIES

425

was due to the fact that at the time when the Poona Pact was made no

community was guaranteed by Law a specific quantum of representation in

Executive, Secondly, the representation of the communities in the Executive

was left to a convention which the Governor by his instrument of instructions

was required to see observed. Experience has shown that the quantum of

representation of the Scheduled Castes in the Executive should now be fixed.

PART I—C

LAUSE 3

This is not a new demand. Clause 8 of the Poona Pact guarantees to the

Scheduled Castes fair representation in Public Services. It does not, however,

define the quantum of representation. The demand has been admitted by the

Government of India as legitimate and even the quantum of representation

has been defined. All that remains is to give it a statutory basis.

PART II—C

LAUSE 1

This is not a new demand. Clause 9 of Poona Pact guarantees that an

adequate sum shall be earmarked for the education of the Scheduled Castes.

It does not define the quantum. All that the demand does is to define the

quantum of liability the State should take. In this connection reference may

be made to Section 83 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which relates

to the education of the Anglo-Indians and Europeans and to the grants made

to the Aligarh and Benaras Hindu Universities by the Central Government.

PART II—C

LAUSE 2

This a new demand but is justified by circumstances. At present, the

Hindus live in the village and the Untouchables live in the Ghettoes. The

object is to free the Untouchables from the thraldom of the Hindus. So long

as the present arrangement continues it is impossible for the Untouchables

either to free themselves from the yoke of the Hindus or to get rid of their

Untouchability. It is the close knit association of the Untouchables with the

Hindus living in the same villages which marks them out as Untouchables

and which enables the Hindus to identify them as being Untouchables.

India is admittedly a land of villages and so long as the village system

provides an easy method of marking out and identifying the Untouchables,

the Untouchable has no escape from Untouchability. It is the system of

the Village plus the Ghetto which perpetuates Untouchability and the

Untouchables therefore demand that the nexus should be broken and the

Untouchables who are as a matter of fact socially separate should be made

separate geographically and territorially also, and be settled into separate

villages exclusively of Untouchables in which the distinction of the high and

the low and of Touchable and Untouchable will find no place.

The second reason for demanding separate settlements arises out of the

economic position of the Untouchables in the villages. That their condition

is most pitiable no one will deny. They are a body of landless labourers

426

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who are entirely dependent upon such employment as the Hindus may

choose to give them and on such wages as the Hindus may find it profitable

to pay. In the villages in which they five they cannot engage in any trade

or occupation, for owing to Untouchability no Hindu will deal with them. It

is therefore obvious that there is no way of earning a living which is open

to the Untouchables so long as they live in a Ghetto as a dependent part of

the Hindu village.

This economic dependence has also other consequences besides the condition

of poverty and degradation which proceeds from it. The Hindu has a Code of

life, which is part of his religion. This Code of life gives him many privileges

and heaps upon the Untouchable many indignities which are incompatible with

the dignity and sanctity of human life. The Untouchables all over India are

fighting against the indignities and injustices which the Hindus in the name

of their religion have heaped upon them. A perpetual war is going on every

day in every village between the Hindus and the Untouchables. It does not

see the light of the day. The Hindu Press is not prepared to give it publicity

lest it should injure the cause of their freedom in the eyes of the world. The

existence of a grim struggle between the Touchables and the Untouchables

is however a fact. Under the village system the Untouchables has found

himself greatly handicapped in his struggle for free and honourable life. It is

a contest between the Hindus who are economically and socially strong and

the Untouchables who are economically poor and numerically small. That the

Hindus most often succeed in suppressing the Untouchables is due to many

causes. The Hindus have the Police and the Magistracy on their side. In a

quarrel between the Untouchables and the Hindus the Untouchables will never

get protection from the Police and justice from the Magistrate. The Police and

the Magistracy naturally love their class more than their duty. But the chief

weapon in the armoury of the Hindus is economic power which they possess

over the poor Untouchables living in the village. The proposal may be dubbed

escapism. But the only alternative is perpetual slavery.

PART III—C

LAUSE 1

No country which has the problem of Communal majority and Communal

minority is without some kind of an arrangement whereby they agree to share

political power. South Africa has such an understanding. So has Canada. The

arrangement for sharing political power between the English and the French

in Canada is carried to the minutes office. In referring to this fact Mr. Porritt

in his book on the Evolution of the Dominion of Canada says :

“Conditions at Ottawa, partly due to race and language, and partly to

long-prevailing ideas as to the distribution of all government patronage,

have militated against the Westminster precedent of continuing a member

in the chair for two or three parliaments, regardless of the fortunes of

political parties at general elections. There is a new speaker at Ottawa

STATES AND MINORITIES

427

for each new House of Commons; and it has long been a custom that when

one political party continues in power for two or three parliaments, if the

speaker in one parliament is of British extraction the next one shall be a

French-Canadian.

“It is a rule also that the offices of speaker and of deputy speaker can

at no time be held by men of the same race. If the speaker is a French-

Canadian, the deputy speaker, who is also Chairman of committees, must

be an English-speaking Canadian ; for the rule of the House is that the

member elected to serve as deputy speaker shall be required to possess

the full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the

speaker for the time being.

The clerkship and the assistant clerkship of the House, and the offices of

sergeant-at-arms and deputy sergeant-at-arms—all appointive as distinct from

elective offices—are, by usage, also similarly divided between the two races.

Nearly all the offices, important and unimportant, connected with

parliament, with the Senate as well as with the House, are distributed in

accordance with these rules or usages. A roll call of the staffs of the two

Houses, including even the boys in knicker-bockers who act as pages, would

contain the names of almost as many French-Canadians as Canadians of

British ancestry.

The rules and usages by virtue of which this distribution of offices is

made are older than Confederation. They date back to the early years of

the United Provinces, when Quebec and Ontario elected exactly the same

number of members to the Legislature, and when these were the only

provinces in the union.

Quebec today elects only 65 of the 234 members of the House of Commons.

Its population is not one-fourth of the population of the Dominion. Its

contribution to Dominion revenues does not exceed one-sixth. But an equal

division of the offices of the House of Commons is regarded by Quebec as

necessary to the preservation of its rights and privileges ; and so long as each

political party, when it is in power, is dependent on support from French-

Canada, it will be nearly as difficult to ignore the claim of Quebec to these

parliamentary honours and offices as it would be to repeal the clause in the

British North America Act that safeguards the separate schools system.”.

Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian Nationalism has

developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the

Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any

claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while

the monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism.

Guided by such a political philosophy the majority is not prepared to

428

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

allow the minorities to share political power nor is it willing to respect any

convention made in that behalf as is evident from their repudiation of the

obligation (to include representatives of the minorities in the cabinet) contained

in the Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governors in the Government

of India Act of 1935. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to

have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution.

PART III—C

LAUSE 2

This is not a new demand. It replaces Clause 6 of the Poona Pact which

provides that the system of representation for the Scheduled Castes by

reserved seats shall continue until determined by mutual consent between

the communities concerned in the settlement. Since there is no safe method

of ascertaining the will of the Scheduled Castes as to how to amend and alter

the safeguards provided for them it is necessary to formulate a plan which will

take the place of Clause 6 of the Pact. Provisions having similar objectives to

those contained in the proposal exist in the Constitution of Australia, America

and South Africa.

In dealing with a matter of this sort two considerations have to be borne

in mind. One is that it is not desirable to rule out the possibility of a change

in the safeguards being made in the future by the parties concerned. On

the other hand it is by no means desirable to incessant struggle over their

revision. If the new Union and State Legislatures are to address themselves

successfully to their responsibilities set out in the preamble it is desirable

that they should not be distracted by the acute contentions between religions

and classes which questions of change in the safeguards are bound to raise.

Hence a period of twenty-five years has been laid down before any change

could be considered.

PART IV

The object of this prevision is to see that whatever safeguards are provided

for the Scheduled Castes in British India are also provided for the Scheduled

Castes in the Indian States. The provision lays down that an Indian State

seeking admission to the Union shall have to satisfy that its Constitution

contains these safeguards.

PART V—I

NTERPRETATION

Whether the Scheduled Castes are a minority or not has become a matter of

controversy. The purpose of First Provision to set this controversy at rest. The

Scheduled Castes are in a worst position as compared to any other minority

in India. As such they required and deserve much more protection than any

other minority does. The least one can do is to treat them as a minority.

The purpose of Second Provision is to remove the provincial bar. There is

no reason why a person who belongs to Scheduled Castes in one Province

should lose the benefit of political privileges given by the Constitution merely

because he happens to change his domicile.

STATES AND MINORITIES

429

Appendix II

TEXT OF THE POONA PACT

(1) There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of the

general electorates seats in the Provincial Legislatures as follows :

Madras .. .. .. 30

Bombay with Sind .. .. .. 15

Punjab .. .. .. 8

Bihar and Orissa .. .. .. 18

Central Provinces .. .. .. 20

Assam .. .. .. 7

Bengal .. .. .. 30

United Provinces .. .. .. 20

Total 148

These figures are based on total strength of the Provincial councils

announced in the Prime Minister’s decision.

(2) Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates, subject however,

to the following procedure :

All the members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general

electoral roll in a constituency will form an electoral college, which will

elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for

each of such reserved seats, by the method of the single vote ; the four

getting the highest number of votes in such Primary election, shall be

candidates for election by the general electorate.

(3) Representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature

shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats

by the method of Primary election in the manner provided for in clause

(2) above, for their representation in the Provincial Legislatures.

(4) In the Central Legislature, eighteen per cent of seats allotted to the

general electorate for British India in the said Legislature shall be reserved

for the Depressed Classes.

(5) The system of Primary election to a pannel of Candidates for election

to the Central and Provincial Legislature, as hereinbefore mentioned, shall

come to an end after the first ten years, unless terminated sooner by mutual

agreement under the provision of clause (6) below.

(6) The system of representation of the Depressed Classes by reserved

seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided for in clauses

(1) and (4) shall continue until determined by mutual agreement between

the communities concerned in the settlement.

(7) Franchise for the Central and Provincial Legislatures, for the Depressed

Classes shall be as indicated in the Lothian Committee Report.

430

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

(8) There shall be no disabilities attaching to anyone on the ground of

his being a member of the Depressed Class in regard to any elections to

local bodies or appointment to the Public Services. Every endeavour shall

be made to secure fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these

respects, subject to such educational qualifications as may be laid down for

appointment to the Public Service.

(9) In every Province out of the educational grant an adequate sum shall

be earmarked for providing educational facilities to the Members of the

Depressed Classes.

STATES AND MINORITIES

431

Appendix III

DISADVANTAGES OF THE POONA PACT

1. The Poona Pact was intended to devise a method whereby the Scheduled

Castes would be able to return to the Legislature representatives of their

choice. This intention has been completely nullified as will be seen from

the following series of statistics. The series have been constructed from the

results of the last elections which took place in February 1946.

2. The statistical data is arranged in four series of tables :

First series show the votes secured by the successful Caste Hindu

candidate and the successful Scheduled Caste candidate in the Final

election.

Second series show in how many cases did reliance on reservation clause

become necessary for the success of the Scheduled Caste candidate

in the Final election and in how many he succeeded without the

benefit of reservation.

Third series show the relative voting strength of the Caste Hindus and

the Scheduled Castes in constituencies in which seats are reserved

for the Scheduled Castes.

Fourth series show the position in the Primary election of the Scheduled

Caste Candidates who became successful in the Final elections.

3. The conclusions that follow from these figures will not escape those

who care to examine them. The figures prove the following propositions :

(i) That every of the Scheduled Caste candidate who became successful

in the Final election owed his success to the votes of the caste Hindus

and not of the Scheduled Castes. A great many of them came to the

top of the poll and secured votes equal to and in some cases larger

than those obtained by Caste Hindu candidates (See Tables in the

First Series). Secondly, in very few constituencies was the successful

Scheduled Caste candidate required to rely on reservation (See Tables

in the Second Series). This is a most unexpected phenomenon. Anyone

who compares the voting strength of the Scheduled Castes with the

voting strength of the Caste Hindus in the different constituencies

(See Tables in the Third Series) would realize that the voting strength

of the Scheduled Castes is so small that such a phenomenon could

never have occurred if only the Scheduled Castes voters had voted

for the Scheduled Caste candidates. That they have occurred is proof

positive that the success of the Scheduled Caste candidate in the

Final election is conditioned by the Caste Hindu votes.

(ii) That comparing the results of the Primary election with those of

the Final election (See Tables in the Fourth series) the Scheduled

Caste candidate who was elected in the Final election was one

432

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

who had failed in the Primary election (if the Primary election be

treated as a Final election and the constituency be treated as a

single-member constituency).

(iii) Owing to the extreme disparity between the voting strength of the

Hindus and the Scheduled Castes—disparity which will not disappear

even under adult suffrage—a system of joint electorates will not

succeed in giving the Scheduled Castes the chance of returning their

true representatives.

(iv) The Poona Pact has completely disfranchised the Scheduled Castes

inasmuch as candidates whom they rejected in the Primary elections—

which is a true index of their will—have been returned in the Final

election by the votes of the Caste Hindus.

The Poona Pact is thus fraught with mischief. It was accepted because

of the coercive fast of Mr. Gandhi and because of the assurance given at

the time that the Hindus will not interfere in the election of the Scheduled

Castes.

FIRST SERIES

Votes obtained by the successful Scheduled Caste candidates as compared

with the votes secured by the successful Caste Hindu candidates.

Page Nos.

Part I—Madras . . . . . . 433

Part II—Bengal . . . . . . 433-34

Part III—Bombay . . . . . . 434

Part IV—U.P. . . . . . . 435

Part V—C.P. . . . . . . 435

Part VI—Assam . . . . . . 436

Part VII—Orissa . . . . . . 436

STATES AND MINORITIES

433

First Series

I. MADRAS

Name of the Constituency Seats Votes polled by

successful Hindu

candidates

Votes polled by

successful Scheduled

Caste candidates

1234

1. Coconada .. .. 2 32,607 28,544

2. Ellore .. .. 2 37,618 38,195

3. Bandar .. .. 2 69,319 70,931

4. Ongole .. .. 2 50,906 49,992

5. Penukonda .. .. 2 17,406 18,125

6. Kurnool .. .. 2 32,756 32,294

7. Chingleput .. .. 2 13,865 15,129

8. Thiruvalur .. .. 2 17,225 17,818

9. Ranipet .. .. 2 21,249 21,059

10. Tiruvannamalai .. .. 2 31,476 32,132

11. Tindivanam .. .. 2 25,626 25,442

12. Chidambaram .. .. 2 15,272 14,874

13. Tanjore .. .. 2 26,904 16,133

14. Mannargudi .. .. 2 29,932 30,116

15. Ariyalur .. .. 2 22,656 20,520

16. Sattur .. .. 2 30,988 29,530

17. Malapuram .. .. 2 28,229 28,085

18. Namakkal .. .. 2 15,433 15,085

II. BENGAL

Name of the Constituency Seats Votes polled

by successful

Hindu

candidates

Votes polled

by successful

Scheduled Caste

candidates

12345

1. Burdwan Central .. 2 42,858 33,903 . . . .

2. Burdwan, North-West .. 2 32,270 25,723 . . . .

3. Birbhum .. .. 2 24,629 20,252 . . . .

4. Bankura, West .. 2 30,388 21,266 . . . .

5. Thurgram-cum-Ghatal .. 2 40,900 19,060 . . . .

6. Hooghly, North-East .. 2 26,132 18,768 . . . .

7. Howrah .. .. 2 40,608 36,099 . . . .

8. 24 Parganas, South-East .. 2 50,345 38,459 . . . .

9. 24 Parganas, North-West .. 2 45,339 48,272 . . . .

10. Nadia .. .. 2 30,489 28,054 . . . .

11. Murshidabad .. .. 2 32,386 26,958 . . . .

12. Jessore .. .. 2 38,665 41,434 . . . .

434

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

II. BENGAL

Name of the Constituency Seats Votes polled

by successful

Hindu

candidates

Votes polled

by successful

Scheduled Caste

candidates

12345

13. Khulna .. .. 3 79,218 57,724 44,043

14. Malda .. .. 2 32,728 12,796 . . . .

15. Dinajpur .. .. 3 46,146 35,127 30,839

16. Jalpaiguri-cum-Siliguri .. 3 30,950 26,109 13,829

17. Rangpur .. .. 3 46,869 29,657 23,237

18. Bogra-cum-Pabna .. 2 43,249 31,515 . . . .

19. Dacca, East .. .. 2 51,808 31,392 . . . .

20. Mymensingh, West .. 2 37,983 32,782 . . . .

21. Mymensingh, East .. 2 43,678 32,207 . . . .

22. Faridpur .. .. 2 70,115 51,450 29,503

23. Bakargunj .. .. 2 48,560 28,560 . . . .

24. Tippera .. .. 2 60,146 59,051 . . . .

III. BOMBAY

Name of the Constituency Seats

Votes secured by

successful

Hindu candidates

Votes

secured by

successful

Scheduled

Caste

candidates

123456

1. Bombay City (Suburban) 3 57,182 47,835 . . . . 59,646

2. Bombay City (Byculla) .. 3 42,143 41,795 . . . . 43,251

3. Kaira District .. .. 4 68,044 63,422 57,394 69,807

4. Surat District .. .. 4 40,232 39,985 39,610 39,849

5. Thana, South .. .. 3 30,581 27,587 . . . . 11,630

6. Ahmednagar, South .. 3 25,747 20,948 . . . . 20,908

7. East Khandesh, East .. 4 38,721 34,349 33,960 36,136

8. Nasik, West .. .. 4 37,218 36,794 36,555 42,604

9. Poona, West .. .. 3 23,758 23,454 . . . . 24,709

10. Satara, North .. 4 44,315 42,727 41,474 43,961

11. Sholapur, North-East .. 3 19,380 16,705 . . . . 18,264

12. Belgaum, North .. 4 55,787 50,759 49,867 27,682

13. Bijapur, North .. 3 23,083 20,838 . . . . 16,059

14. Kolaba District .. 4 41,012 38,864 35,633 17,676

15. Ratnagiri, North .. 4 13,640 10,985 10,372 11,734

STATES AND MINORITIES

435

IV. UNITED PROVINCES

Name of the Constituency

Seats Votes polled by

successful Hindu

candidates

Votes polled by

successful Scheduled

Caste candidates

123 4

1. Lucknow City .. 2 24,614 14,110

2. Cawnpore City .. 2 34,550 34,782

3. Agra City .. 2 17,446 16,343

4. Allahabad City .. 2 19,870 10,308

5. Badaun District .. 2 6,716 14,037

6. Jalaun District .. 2 21,692 15,363

7. Basti District .. 2 14,450 15,447

8. Almora District .. 2 36,371 20,605

9. Rai Bareilli .. 2 15,917 1,889

10. Sitapur District .. 2 28,665 20,204

11. Gonda District .. 2 17,949 13,447

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES

Name of the Constituency Seats Votes polled by

successful Hindu

candidates

Votes polled by

successful Scheduled

Caste candidates

1234

1. Nagpur City .. 2 21,905 23,595

2. Nagpur-Umred .. 2 8,330 7,847

3. Hinganghat-Wardha .. 2 11,677 10,781

4. Chanda-Brahmapuri .. 2 10,208 8,144

5. Chindwara-Sansad .. 2 16,365 6,190

6. Saugor-Khurai .. 2 7,829 5,162

7. Raipur .. 2 8,183 6,112

8. Baloda Bazar .. 2 21,861 9,659

9. Bilaspur .. 2 13,109 6,030

10. Mungeli .. 2 9,600 6,418

11. Tanjgir .. 2 11,914 7,419

12. Drug .. 2 5,975 5,593

13. Bhandara-Sakoli .. 2 16,824 10,491

14. Yeotmal-Daresha .. 2 10,915 4,719

15. Ellichpur .. 2 16,298 4,592

16. Chikhli-Mehkar .. 2 16,397 2,748

17. Akola-Balapur .. 2 6,455 5,567

436

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

VI. ASSAM

Name of the Constituency Seat Votes polled by

successful Hindu

candidates

Votes polled by

successful

Scheduled

Caste candidates

12345

1. Kamrup-Saor, South .. 3 15,890 14,971 13,693

2. Nowgong .. 1 .... .... 14,560

3. Jorhat, North .. 2 17,429 .... 5,809

4. Habibganj .. 2 10,985 .... 9,770

5. Karimganj .. 2 12,562 .... 11,676

6. Silchar .. 3 17,340 .... 7,081

VII. ORISSA

Name of the Constituency Seats Votes obtained by

successful Hindu

candidates

Votes obtained by

successful Scheduled

Caste candidates

123 4

1. East Tajpur .. 2 8,427 8,712

2. East Burgarh .. 2 4,195 937

STATES AND MINORITIES

437

Second Series

NUMBER OR CONSTITUENCIES IN WHICH RESERVATION BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE

SCHEDULED CASTE CANDIDATES TO SUCCEED IN ELECTION

Province Number of

Constituencies

in which seats

are reserved for

the Scheduled

Castes

Number of

Constituencies

in which there

was a conflict

Number of

Constituencies

in which the

contest was

due

to excess of

Hindu

candidates

Number of

Constituencies

in which the

contest was

due to excess

Scheduled

Caste

candidates

Number of

Constituencies

in which the

contest was due

to excess of

both

Number of

Constituencies

in which reliance

on reservation

became necessary

for the Scheduled

Caste candidates

to succeed

1236567

1. Madras .. 30 18 14 17 .... None

2. Bengal .. 30 24 19 24 19 None

3. Bombay .. 15 15 15 15 15 2

4. C.P. .. 22 17 14 17 14 2

5. U.P. .. 15 11 5 11 6 None

6. Assam .. .... .... .... .... .... 2

7. Orissa .. .... 2 .... 2 .... None

8. Punjab .. 8 .... .... .... .... ....

438

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Third Series

RELATIVE VOTING STRENGTH OF CASTE HINDUS AND

SCHEDULED CASTES

I. MADRAS

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

1. Madras City,

South-Central

26,922 4,082 1 : 6.6

2. Chicacole .. 90,496 8,070 1 :11.2

3. Amalapuram .. 95,954 28,282 1 : 3.4

4. Cocanada .. 86,932 17,616 1 : 4.9

5. Ellore .. 88,249 16,835 1 : 5.24

6. Ongole .. 1,10,152 11,233 1 : 9.8

7. Gudur .. 52,415 10,263 1 : 5.1

8. Cuddapah .. 92,572 10,842 1 : 8.5

9. Penukonda .. 74,952 11,896 1 : 6.3

10. Bellary .. 85,928 10,146 1 : 8.5

11. Kurnool .. 72,753 11,679 1 : 6.2

12. Tirutanni .. 77,337 15,243 1 : 5.07

13. Chingleput .. 73,554 22.182 1 : 3.3

14. Tiruvallur .. 81,814 21,287 1 : 3.8

15. Ranipet .. 24,403 11,271 1 : 2.1

16. Tiruvannamalai .. 97,259 15,536 1 : 6.2

17. Tindivanam .. 85,514 19,221 1 : 4.4

18. Chidambaram .. 96,086 16,762 1 : 5.7

19. Tirukoyilur .. 1,02,482 21,733 1 : 4.7

20. Tanjore .. 99,496 13,198 1 : 7.5

21. Manaargudi .. 69,579 11,547 1 : 5.8

22. Ariyalur .. 1,13,630 16,772 1 : 6.7

23. Palani .. 92,655 13,521 1 : 6.8

24. Sattur .. 84,169 8,033 1 :10.5

25. Koilpatti .. 1,00,521 20,907 1 : 4.8

26. Pollachi .. 63,821 12,808 1 : 4.9

27. Namakkal .. 51,860 11,407 1 : 4.5

28. Coondapur .. 46,032 8,030 1 : 5.7

29. Malapuram .. 70,346 10,808 1 : 6.5

STATES AND MINORITIES

439

II. BOMBAY

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

General Urban

1. Bombay City

North and Bombay

Suburban District

.. 1,67,002 34,266 1 : 4.8

2. Bombay City—

Byculla and Parel .. 1,52,991 28,520 1 : 5.3

General Rural

3. Kaira District .. 1,39,508 7,318 1 : 19.06

4. Surat District .. 85,670 4,765 1 : 18.8

5. Thana, South .. 67,749 4,668 1 : 14.5

6. Ahmednagar, South 73,162 7,382 1 : 9.9

7. East Khandesh, East 91,377 10,109 1 : 9.35

8. Nasik, West .. 99,274 12,698 1 : 7.7

9. Poona, West .. 73,551 13,055 1 : 5.6

10. Satara, North .. 95,459 11,152 1 : 8.5

11. Sholapur, North-East .. 64,583 9,713 1 : 6.6

12. Belgaum, North .. 79,422 18,303 1 : 4.3

13. Bijapur, North .. 60,655 8,993 1 : 6.7

14. Kolaba District .. 1,03,828 5,001 1 : 20.7

15. Ratnagiri, North 32,606 3,529 1 : 9.2

III. BENGAL

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

General Rural

1. Burdwan, Central 74,306 24,610 1 : 3.01

2. Burdwan, North-West .. 80,035 16,830 1 : 4.8

3. Birbhum .. 1,03,231 37,637 1 : 2.7

4. Bankura, West .. 84,128 25,487 1 : 3.3

5. Midnapore, Central 99,961 20,167 1 : 4.95

6. Jhargam-cum-Ghatal 64,031 13,091 1 : 4.85

7. Hooghly, North-East. 67,697 20,318 1 : 3.33

8. Howrah .. 1,03,346 22,990 1 : 4.5

9. 24 Parganas, South-

West.

82,366 47,378 1 : 1.7

440

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

III. BENGAL—contd.

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

10. 24 Parganas, North-

East

85,477 30,607 1 : 2.78

11. Nadia .. 90,092 25,605 1 : 3.5

12. Murshidabad .. 81,083 17,176 1 : 4.8

13. Jessore .. 1,21,760 55,052 1 : 2.2

14. Khulna .. 1,45,335 76,848 1 : 1.87

15. Malda .. 73,664 29,010 1 : 2.54

16. Dinajpur .. 1,48,804 1,18,454 1 : 1.25

17. Jalpaiguri-cum-

Siliguri

78,552 65,679 1 : 1.2

18. Rangpur .. 29,437 65,679 1 : 0.44

19. Bogra-cum-Patna .. 87,704 33,873 1 : 2.58

20. Dacca, East .. 94,858 40,238 1 : 2.35

21. Myroensingh, West 98,795 38,046 1 : 2.59

22. Mymensingh, East 68,360 29,588 1 : 2.3

23. Faridpur .. 1,72,683 96,319 1 : 1.7

24. Bakarganj, South-

West.

78,796 49,014 1 : 1.6

25. Tippera .. 1,27,097 34,813 1 : 3.61

IV. UNITED PROVINCES

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

General Urban

1. Lucknow City .. 89,412 9,079 1 : 9.8

2. Cawnpore City .. 1,31,599 22,515 1 : 5.8

3. Agra City .. 47,505 10,105 1 : 4.7

4. Allahabad City .. 55,379 6,854 1 : 8.07

General Rural

5. Charanpur District,

South-East.

47,773 7,256 1 : 6.5

6. Bulandshah District,

South-East.

49,699 7,506 1 : 6.6

7. Agra District, North-

East.

61,515 8,290 1 : 7.4

8. Manipuri District North-

East.

51,406 5,878 1 : 8.7

STATES AND MINORITIES

441

IV. UNITED PROVINCES—Contd.

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

9. Budaun District, East 46,966 7,087 1 : 6.6

10. Jalaun District .

68,815 14,611 1 : 4.7

11.

Mirzapur District, North.

43,648 4,045 1 : 10.7

12.

Gorakhpur District, North.

43,441 5,626 1 : 7.7

13. Basti District, South 37,084 4,194 1 : 8.8

14.

Azamgarh District, West.

51,194 8,127 1 : 6.2

15. Almora District .

1,39,217 20,671 1 : 6.7

16. Rai Bareilli District,

North-East.

48,697 10,488 1 : 4.6

17. Sitapur District, North-

East.

76,682 22,913 1 : 3.3

18. Fyzabad District, East. 57,154 9,988 1 : 5.7

19. Gonda District, North-

East.

64,225 8,274 1 : 7.7

20. Bara Banki District,

North.

68,285 16,303 1 : 4.18

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

General Urban

1. Nagpur City .. 72,329 14,388 1 : 5.02

General Rural

2. Nagpur-Umrer .. 29,267 6,037 1 : 4.8

3. Hinghanghat-Wardha 35,201 4,011 1 : 9.02

4. Chanda-Brahmapuri 30,132 5,229 1 : 5.7

5. Chindwara-Sausar 37,942 3,914 1 : 9.7

6. Jubulpure-Patan .. 20,587 1,186 1 : 17.5

7. Saugor-Khurai .. 30,660 5,224 1 : 5.8

8. Damoh-Hatta .. 33,284 3,608 1 : 9.2

9. Narsinghpur-

Gadarwara.

35,781 2,019 1 : 17.6

10. Raipur .. 33,053 11,041 1 : 2.9

442

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

V. CENTRAL PROVINCES—contd.

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

11. Baloda Bazar .. 46,943 15,636 1 : 3.06

12. Bilaspur . . 33,260 10,547 1 : 3.1

13. Mungeli . . 28,028 10,067 1 : 2.7

14. Janjgir . . 42,763 13,558 1 : 3.15

15. Drug . . 34,883 8,942 1 : 3.19

16. Bhandara-Sakoli . . 47,047 10,399 1 : 4.5

17. Ellichpur-Dartapur-

Nelghat

30,094 2,885 1 : 13.8

18. Akola-Belapur . . 25,912 3,233 1 : 9.81

19. Yeotmal-Darwha . . 20,327 2,020 1 : 10.06

20. Chikhli-Mehkar . . 37,936 3,468 1 : 1.09

VI. BIHAR

Constituency Total number

of voters in

the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

1. East Bihar .. 35,631 4,618 1 : 7.7

2. South Gaya .. 49,363 10,360 1 : 4.7

3. Nawada .. 41,432 7,684 1 : 5.3

4. East Central Shahabad. .. 41,707 5,984 1 : 6.9

5. West Gopalganj .. 33,395 3,415 1 : 9.7

6. North Bettiah .. 25,760 2,831 1 : 9.09

East Muzaffarpur-Sadr.

27,271 3,133 1 : 8.7

8. Darbhanga Sadr .. 26,864 2,116 1 : 12.6

9. South-East Samastipur 37,291 2,672 1 : 13.9

10. South Sadr-Monghyr 54,229 6,465 1 : 8.5

11. Madhipura .. 26,523 1,284 1 : 20.6

12. South-West Purnea 44,232 2,938 1 : 15.05

13. Giridih-cum-Ghatra 55,246 4,667 1 : 11.8

14. North-East Palamnu 23,072 4,237 1 : 5.3

15. Central Manbhum 39,626 5,617 1 : 7.05

STATES AND MINORITIES

443

VII. ASSAM

Constituency Total number of

voters in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled

Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

1. Nowgong, North-

East

26,618 3,569 1 : 7.2

2. Kamrup Sadr, South 33,234 2,117 1 : 15.6

3. Silchar .. 38,647 4,201 1 : 9.2

4. Karimganj, East .. 25,701 10,132 1 : 2.5

5. Jorhat, North .. 26,733 1,360 1 : 19.6

6. Jonamganj .. 39,045 11,603 1 : 3.3

7. Habibganj, North 31,511 9,996 1 : 3.1

VIII. PUNJAB

Constituency Total number

of voters

in the

Constituency

Total number of

Scheduled Caste

voters in the

Constituency

Relative

proportion

of columns

2 and 3

1234

1. South-East Gurgaon 37,815 6,049 1 : 6.2

2. Karnal, North 31,967 5,120 1 : 6.2

3. Ambala and Simla 47,403 17,507 1 : 3.27

4. Hoshiarpur, West 51,084 7,281 1 : 7.0

5. Jullundur 36,570 20,521 1 : 1.8

6. Ludhiana and Ferozepur 52,009 27,354 1 : 1.8

7. Amritsar and Sialkot 38,046 10,328 1 : 3.68

8. Lyallpur and Jhang 32,703 7,602 1 : 4.2

444

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Fourth Series

COMPARISON OF PRIMARY ELECTION AND FINAL ELECTION

I. MADRAS

Constituency Scheduled Caste candidate who was

successful in Final election

His rank among

candidates who

fought the general

election

His position in

the Primary

election treating

the Constituency

as a single

member

Constituency

Votes

obtained

in the

Primary

election

What his success

Primary election

due to bare or

absolute majority

or split vote

His name His

party

affiliation

Number

of votes

secured

12345678

1. Amalapuram .. Pandu Lakshmana-

swami.

Congress 48,524 1st among 3 3rd (failed) 2,683 ....

2. Cocanada .. B. S. Murthy Congress 28,544 2nd among 4

(beating 2 Hindus)

4th (failed) 1,411 ....

3. Bandar .. Vemula Kurmayya Congress 70,931 1st among 6

(beating 4 Hindus)

2nd (failed) 4,914 ....

4. Cuddapah .. Swarna Nagayya Congress .... .... 1st 3,482 Absolute

majority.

5. Penukonda .. D. Kadrippa Congress 18,125 1st among 4

(beating 1 Hindu

and 2 Sch. Caste)

1st 2,564 Bare majority.

6. Tiruvannamali R. Thangavelu Congress 32,132 1st among 5

(beating 2 Hindus

and 2 Sch. Caste)

1st 1,960 Bare majority.

7. Tindivanam .. K. Kulashekhardas Congress 25,442 2nd among 4

(beating 2 Hindus)

1st 2,785 Split vote.

8. Mannargudi Thiagoo Voikarar Congress 30,116 1st among 5

(beating 5 Hindus)

1st 2,895 Split vote.

9. Pollachi .. C. Krishna Kudumban Congress .... .... 1st 2,430 Absolute majority.

10. Namakkal .. M. P. Periyaswami Congress 15,085 2nd among 5

(beating 2 Hindus

and 1 Sch. Caste)

1st 2,355 Bare majority.

STATES AND MINORITIES

445

II. BOMBAY

Constituency Scheduled Caste candidate who was

successful in Final election

His rank among

candidates who

fought the general

election

His position in

the Primary

election treating

the Constituency

as a single

member

Constituency

Votes

obtained

in the

Primary

election

Was his success

Primary election

due to bare or

absolute majority

or split vote

His name His

party

affiliation

Number

of votes

secured

12345 678

1. Bombay City,

North.

Savlaram Gundaji

Songaoker.

Congress 59,646 1st among 3

(standing above 2

Hindus)

2nd (failed) 2,038 ....

2. Bombay City,

Byculla and

Parel.

N. S. Kajrolkar Congress 43,251 1st among 3

(standing above 2

general candidates)

2nd (failed) 2,098 ....

3. East Khandesh,

East.

Hiralal Kalyani Congress 36,136 2nd among 4

(beating 2)

2nd (failed) 1,147 ....

III. CENTRAL PROVINCES

Constituency Scheduled Caste candidate who was

successful in Final election

His rank among

candidates who

fought the general

election

His position in

the Primary

election treating

the Constituency

as a single

member

Constituency

Votes

obtained

in the

Primary

election

Was his success in

Primary election

due to bare or

absolute majority

or split vote

His name His

party

affiliation

Number

of votes

secured

12345 678

1. Nagpur-Umrer L e l e n d r a R a m -

chandra.

Congress 7,847 2nd 3rd (failed) 112 ....

2. Hinghanghat-

Wardha.

Shanker Vithal Congress 10,781 2nd 4th (failed) 56 ....

3. Bhandra-Sakoli Harnuji Isram Congress 10,491 2nd 3rd (failed) 471 ....

4. Yeotmal-Darwha Daulat-Luxman Congress 4,719 2nd 3rd (failed) 126 ....

446

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

IV. UNITED PROVINCES

Constituency

Scheduled Caste candidate who was

successful in Final election

His rank among

candidates who

fought the general

election

His position in

the Primary

election treating

the Constituency

as a single

member

Constituency

Votes

obtained

in the

Primary

election

Was his success

in Primary election

due to hare or

absolute majority

or split vote

His name His

party

affiliation

Number

of votes

secured

12345 6 7 8

1. Agra City .. Ram Chand Congress 16,343 2nd 1st 836 Bare majority

and split vote.

2. Allahabad City Masuria Din Congress 10,308 2nd 1st 1,701 Bare majority

and split vote.

3. Almora .. Khushi Ram Congress 20,605 2nd 2nd (failed) 937 ....

V. PUNJAB

Constituency

Scheduled Caste candidate who was

successful in Final election

His rank among

candidates who

fought the general

election

His position in

the Primary

election treating

the Constituency

as a single

member

Constituency

Votes

obtained

in the

Primary

election

Was his success in

Primary election

due to bare or

absolute majority

or split vote

His name His

party

affiliation

Number

of votes

secured

12345678

1. South-East

Gurgaon.

Prem Singh Unionist 7,706 2nd 1st 1,353 Split vote

2. Karnal, North Sunder Congress 3,136 2nd 1st 519 Bare majority

3. Ambala-Simla .. Prithivi Singh Azad Congress 10,503 2nd 3rd (failed) 1,392 . . . .

4. Hoshiarpur, West Mehr Chand Congress 16,307 2nd 3rd (failed) 641 . . . .

5. Jullundur .. Gurbanta Singh Congress 21,476 1st 1st . . . . . . . .

6. Ludhiana-

Ferozepur.

Matu Ram Congress 24,352 1st 4th (failed) 812 . . . .

7. Lyallpur and Jhang Harbhaj Ram . . . . 8,312 2nd 2nd (failed) 1,166 . . . .

STATES AND MINORITIES

447

Appendix IV

STATISTICS OF POPULATION

The population of the Scheduled Caste in 1941 is estimated at 48,793,180.

Can this figure be accepted as accurate ?

In coming to a definite conclusion on this issue the following points must

be borne in mind : —

(i) The population of the Scheduled Castes in 1941 as compared with

their population in 1931 shows a decline.

(ii) The population of all other communities during the same period

shows an increase of 15 per cent.

The question is whether there is any special reason why the population

of the Scheduled Castes should have declined.

Was the basis for computation of the population of the Scheduled Castes

in 1931 the same as in 1941 ? The answer is in the affirmative. The figures

given for 1931 are the result of recasting of the Census of 1931 in the

light of the definition of “Untouchables” given by the Lothian Committee.

The same basis was adopted in 1941. It cannot therefore be said that the

decline in the population of the Scheduled Castes in 1941 was due to an

over-estimate made in 1931.

It is true that the Census for 1941 does not give any figures for the

Scheduled Castes for Ajmer-Merwara and Gwalior State. But even adding to

the total for 1941 the figures for these two areas as they stood in 1931 the

population comes to only 49,538,145 which still shows a comparative decline.

The want of any proper explanation for the decline of the Scheduled Caste

population and an increase in the population of all other communities during

the same decade only reinforces the impression which every honest student

of Indian census has formed namely that the Census of India has over a

number of decades ceased to be an operation in demography. It has become

a political affair. Every community seems to be attempting to artificially

augment its numbers at the cost of some other community for the sake of

capturing greater and greater degree of political power in its own hands.

The Scheduled Castes seem to have been made a common victim for the

satisfaction of the combined greed of the other communities who through

their propagandists or enumerators are able to control the operation and

the results of the Census.

In the light of these circumstances it is fair to demand that an accurate

figure for the population of the Scheduled Castes would be the Census

figure as corrected by the inclusion of the population for Ajmer-Merwara

and Gwalior State plus an increase of 15 per cent to give them the benefit

of the general rise in the population.

448

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Appendix IV

POPULATION FIGURES

Table 1

POPULATION OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 1941

Hindus

Scheduled

Castes

Muslims Sikhs

Indian

Christians

Anglo-

Indians

Parsis

1234567

Provinces .. .. 150,890,146 39,920,807 79,398,503 4,165,097 3,245,706 1,13,936 1,01,968

Ajmer-Merwara .. .. 376,481 ? 89,899 867 3,895 1,005 . . . .

Assam* .. .. 3,586,932 676,291 3,442,479 3,464 37,750 634 2

Baluchistan .. .. 39,521 5,102 438,930 11,918 2,633 263 75

Bengal .. .. 17,680,054 7,378,970 33,005,434 16,281 110,923 31,619 86,270

Bihar .. .. 22,173,890 4,340,379 4,716,314 13,213 24,693 5,963 547

Orissa .. .. 5,594,535 1,238,171 146,301 232 26,584 789 13

Bombay .. .. 14,700,242 1,855,148 1,920,368 6,044 338,812 14,034 43,467

Sind .. .. 1,038,292 191,634 3,208,325 31,011 13,232 2,731 1,936

Central Provinces and Berar .. 9.880,583 3,051,413 783,697 14,996 48,260 4,538 2,014

Coorg .. .. 105,013 25,740 14,730

Nil

3,309 80 12

Delhi .. .. 444,532 122,693 304,971 16,157 10,494 3,408 284

Madras .. .. 34,731,330 8,068,492 8,896,452 418 2,001,032 28,661 369

N.W.F.P. .. .. 180,321 ? 2,788,797 57,939 5,426 837 24

Punjab .. .. 6,301,737 1,248,635 16,217,242 3,757,401 486,038 5,891 4,327

United States .. 34,094,511 11,717,158 8,416,308 232,445 131,327 13 383 1,375

States and Agencies .. 55,227,180 8,892,373 12,659,593 1,526,350 2,794,959 26,468 12,922

INDIA .. .. 206,117,326 48,813,180 92,058,096 5,691,447 6,040,665 140,422 114,490

* Tribes 6,484,996.

TRIBES

Provinces .. .. 16,713,256

States and Agencies .. .. 8,728,233

INDIA .. .. 25,441,489

STATES AND MINORITIES

449

Table II

ARIATION IN POPULATION BY COMMUNITIES, 1931-1941

Increase (+)

Decrease (–)

Provinces States and

agencies

Total India Provinces States and

agencies

Total India Total

percentage

123 456 7

Hindus .. 139,319,979 50,335,391 189,654,370 150,890,146 55,227,180 206,117,326 + 26,462,956

Scheduled Castes .. 38,409,009 11,131,761 49,540,770 39,920,807 8,892,373 48,793,180 – 747,590

Muslims .. 67,020,443 10,657,102 77,677,545 79,398,503 12,659,598 92,058,096 + 14,381,551

Sikhs .. 3,220,997 1,114,774 4,335,771 4,165,097 1,526,350 5,691,447 + 1,355,676

Christians .. 3,860,660 2,430,103 6,296,763 3,471,430 2,834,119 6,316,119 + 19,786

Parsis .. 96,549 13,203 109,752 101,968 12,922 114,890 + 5,138



PART V

ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA

AND

THEIR REMEDIES

Published : Journal of the Indian Economic Society

Vol. I, 1918

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND

THEIR REMEDIES

IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE

A study of the economic ways of getting a living will ever remain important.

These ways generally take the form of industries or services. Confining

ourselves to industries, they may be divided into primary and secondary.

The primary industries are concerned with extracting useful material from

the earth, the soil or water and take the form of hunting, fishing, stock-

raising, lumbering and mining. These primary or extractive industries are

fundamental in two ways : (1) They extract from the physical world useful

materials which become the original sources of man’s subsistence. (2) They

provide raw materials for the secondary or manufacturing industries, for,

manufactures, in the language of Dr. Franklin, are simply, “substance

metamorphosed”. From a national point of view as well, the importance

of primary industries is beyond question. But important as are the

primary industries, farming is by far the most important of them all. It is

most ancient and abiding of all industries, primary or secondary : while the

fact that it is concerned with the production of food is enough to make its

problems demand our most serious thought. But when a country, like India,

depends almost wholly upon farming its importance cannot be exaggerated.

The problems of agricultural economy dealing directly with agricultural

production are what to produce, the proper proportion of the factors of

production, the size of holdings, the tenures of land etc. In this paper it is

attempted to deal only with the problem of the size of holdings as it affects

the productivity of agriculture.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA

It may be said that some countries are predominantly countries of small

holdings while in others it is the large holdings that prevail. According to

456

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Adam Smith it is the adoption of the law of primogeniture chiefly due to

the exigencies of a military life that leads to the creation and preservation

of large holdings. While it is the adoption of the law of equal sub-division

necessitated by the comparatively peaceful career of a nation that gives rise

to small holdings. He says : —

“When land like moveables is considered as the means only of subsistence

and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides it like them among all

the children of the family ; of all of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may

be aupposed equally dear to the father, [thus tending to have small holdings].

But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of

power and protection it was thought better that it should descend undivided

to one. In those disorderly times……. to divide it was to ruin it, and to expose

every part of it to be opposed and swallowed up by its neighbours. The law of

primogeniture, therefore came to take place in the succession of landed estates

[thus tending to preserve large holdings]”

England is, therefore, a country of large holdings. Post-Revolutionary

France is a country of small holdings. So are Holland and Denmark. Turning

to India, we find holdings of the following size held separate and direct for

the years 1896-97 and 1900-01 :

Average area of holdings in acres

Years Assam Bombay Central Provinces Madras

1896-97 .. 3.37 24.07 17 7

1900-01 .. 3.02 23.9 48 7

Data, more recent, more exact, though from more restricted area, is

available from the Baroda State.

Statistics of land holdings in the State

are summarised in bighas in the following table :

Name of the

District

Total

Agricul-

tural

land

Survey No.

into which

it is divided

Number

Khatedars

Average

under

Khatedar

Average

area per

Survey

No.

Baroda .. 17,17,319 4,30,601 107,638 15—19—2 4

Kadi .. 25,13,982 5,89,687 141,145 17—16—5 4¼

Naosari .. 10,46,176 2,16,748 52,652 19—17—8 4

Amveli .. 9,72,040 55,635 17,214 36—9—7 3¼

Total .. 82,49,517 12,92,671 318,649 17—10—10 3

(8 bighas = 5 acres)

1.Wealth of Nations. Bk. III Ch. 11.

2.Report of the Committee appointed to make proposals on the Consolidation of Small and

Scattered holdings in the Baroda State, 1917. This will be throughout referred to as R.B.C.

3. ibid., p. 3

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

457

Another investigation conducted by Dr. H. S. Mann and his colleagues

indicates more specifically the fact of small holdings in the village of Pimpala

Saudagar near Poona. The size of holdings in that village is indicated by

the table below

Over 20 acres

10 to 20 acres

5 to 10 acres

3 to 5 acres

2 to 3 acres

1 to 2 acres

30 to 40 gunthas

20 to 30 gunthas

15 to 20 gunthas

10 to 15 gunthas

5 to 10 gunthas

Below 5 gunthas

Number of

plots of each

size.

1 7 21 25 67 164 75 116 71 57 59 25

(40 Gunthas = 1 acre)

In this table the model holding is between 1 and 2 acres. A mode is a statistical average

indicating the point of largest frequency in an array of instances.

From these tables it can be easily seen that the average size of holdings

varies from 25.9 acres in the Bombay Presidency to an acre or two in

Pimpala Saudagar.

This diminutive size of holdings is said to be greatly harmful to Indian

Agriculture. The evils of small holdings no doubt, are many. But it would

have been no slight mitigation of them if the small holdings were compact

holdings. Unfortunately they are not. A holding of a farmer though compact

for purposes of revenue is for purposes of tillage composed of various

small strips of land scattered all over the village and interspersed by

those belonging to others. How the fields are scattered can only be shown

graphically by a map. Herein we shall have to remain content, since we

cannot give a map, with knowing how many separate plots are contained

in a holding. The number of separate plots in each holding will show how

greatly fragmented it is. We have no figures at all for the whole of India

bearing on this aspect of the question. But the Hon’ble Mr. G. F. Keatinge

in his note

submitted to Government in 1916 has collected figures of typical

4. Land and Labour in a Deccan Village 1927, p. 48.

5. The author is thankful to him for a copy of this valuable note.

458

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

cases from all the districts of the Bombay Presidency. The following table

is constructed to present his data in an intelligible form :

Case II

V. Shirgaon

T. Ratnagiri

D. Ratnagiri

Case V

V. Badlapur

T. Kalyan

D. Thana

Case VI

V. Kara

T. Mawal

D. Poona

Case VII

V. Althan

T. Ghorssi

D. Surat

Case IX

Surat

District

Case X

Kairs

District

Case XII

V. Lhasurna

T. Koregaon

D. Satara

Area of a holding

No. of separate

plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate

plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate plots

Area of a holding

No. of separate plots

A. g. A g. A. g. A. g. A. g. A. g. A. g.

34½ 3 48 6 53 60 0 27 0 9 1 0 14 62 13 27 38 6

33 2 67 0 38 2 27 8 85 0 8 13 0 18. 65 34 23 23 7

20 3 1 9 6 2 31 5 26 9 8 22 0 20 36 16 16 36 3

1 14 5 6 30 8 16 6 7 .. .. 3 6 4 7 9 5 22 10

1 30 5 24 0 17 2 35 6 .. .. 5 0 7 5 26 5 .. ..

1 10¾ 4 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 26 9 13 16 6 .. ..

6 33 9 .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 26 9 28 4 15 .. ..

3 29¾ 7 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 10 8 .. ..

2 20½ 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 7 3 .. ..

35¾ 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 26 5 .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 34 5 .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 39 3 .. ..

(A = acre g = guntha V = village T = taluka D = district)

These small and scattered holdings have given a real cause for anxiety

regarding our great national industry. Comparative Statistics go to swell this

feeling by laying bare two very noteworthy but equally sad facts regarding

economic life in India; (1) that it is largely an agricultural country ;* and

(2) that its agricultural productivity is the lowest†—

* (1) Occupational Statistics

England and

Wales

Ireland

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Denmark

France

Germany

Holland

Hungary

Italy

Russia

Switzerland

India

U.S.A

Percentage of Agricul-

tural Population.

15.3 44.7 60.9 20.7 82.6 48.2 42.7 35.2 30.7 69.7 59.4 58.3 30.9 71.5 33.3

†(2) Produce in Lbs. per acre

U.K

Canada

New Zealand

Austria

Egypt

France

Germany

Hungary

Japan

U.S. A.

Turkey

Indian Provinces

UP.

N.WP.

Punjab

Bombay

U Burma

Wheat .. 1973 1054 1723 1150 1634 1172 1796 1056 1176 .. 1318 850 555 555 510 322

Maize .. .. 3487 3191 1135 2059 1097 .. 1489 1525 .. 1372 1100 735 766 .. ..

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

459

Both these truths are painful enough to have startled many people into

inquiring the causes of this low productivity. As a result, attention has

now been concentrated on the excessive sub-division and fragmentation of

agricultural holdings. Enlarge and consolidate the holdings, it is confidently

argued, and the increase in agricultural productivity will follow in its wake!!

III

CONSOLIDATION

Consolidation of holdings is a practical problem while the enlargement of

them is a theoretical one, demanding a discussion of the principle which can

be said to govern their size. Postponing the consideration of the theoretical

question of enlargement, we find that the problem of consolidation raises the

following two issues:—(1) how to unite such small and scattered holdings as

the existing ones, and (2) once consolidated how to perpetuate them at that

size. Let us consider them each in turn. Sub-division of land need not involve

what is called the fragmentation of land. But unfortunately it does, for, every

heir desires to secure a share from each of the survey numbers composing

the entire lands of the deceased instead of so arranging the distribution that

each may get as many whole numbers as possible, i.e. the heirs instead of

sharing the lands by survey numbers, claim to share in each survey number,

thus causing fragmentation. Though fragmentation does subserve the ends

of distributive justice it renders farming in India considerably inefficient

as it once did in Europe. It involves waste of labour and cattle power,

waste in hedges and boundary marks, and waste of manure. It renders

impracticable the watching of crops, sinking of wells and the use of labour

saving implements. It makes difficult changes in cultivation, the making of

roads, water channels, etc., and it increases the cost of production. These

disadvantages of fragmentation arc to be recounted only to lend their support

to the process of restripping or consolidation. The methods of “restripping” are

many, though all are not equally efficacious. Voluntary exchanges can hardly

be relied upon for much. But a restricted sale of the right of occupancy may

be expected to go a good deal. For, under it, when survey numbers are put

to auction on account of their being relinquished by the holders or taken in

attachment for arrears of assessments, only those may be allowed to bid in

the auction for the sale of the right of occupancy whose lands are contiguous

to the land hammered out. Again as further helping the process of reunion,

the right of pre-emption may be given to farmers whose neighbour wishes to

sell his land. These methods, it must be admitted, can achieve the desired

result in a very small measure. The evils of fragmentation are very great

and must be met by a comprehensive scheme of consolidation. It is, therefore,

advocated* that if two-thirds of the Khiatedars, dealing more than half of

*RBC, p. 38.

460

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the village lands, apply, Government, should undertake compulsorily to

restrip the scattered fields of the village. This compulsory restripping

is to be executed on two principles, (1) of “Economic Unit” and (2) of

“Original Ownership”. Regarding the merits of these two principles the

Baroda Committee observes.

“In the first the value of each holding is ascertained, then the

original boundaries are removed, roads are marked out, lands required

for public purposes are set apart, and the rest of the land is parcelled

out into new plots. Each of these new plots must be of such a size

as, having regard to the local conditions of soil, tillage etc. to form an

economic field, i.e., a parcel of land necessary to keep fully engaged

and support one family. These new plots may be sold by auction among

the old occupants, restriction being placed on purchase so as to prevent

a large number of cultivators from being ousted. The purchase, money

may then be divided in a certain proportion among the original owners

of pieces, a portion being reserved for expenses, in which Government

would also contribute a share. Another mode would be to acquire all

the land of the village then to sell it in newly constituted plots by

auction as is done by City Improvement Trusts or by Government

when laying out new roads in Cities or when extending a town. But

we do not recommend its adoption in the improvement of agricultural

land. It may result in land speculation and the small holders may be

ousted in such numbers as to cause a real hardship.’’

“According to the second method when the restripping has been

decided, a list of Khatedars and their holdings is made and the

latter are valued at their market price by Panchas. Then the land is

redistributed and each Khatedar is given new land in proportion to his

original holding and as far as possible of the same value, difference to

be adjusted by cash payment. In this method no Khatedar is deprived

of his land. Each is accommodated and in the place of his original

small and scattered fields gets one plot of almost their aggregate size.

It is only a few people whose holding may be very small and whom it

would not be expedient to keep on as farmers, that may have to lose

their small pieces. But they too would benefit as they would get their

full value in money.”

The Baroda Committee prefers the second method because:

“It takes as its starting principle, that nobody (except perhaps a few,

holding plots of insignificant sizes) is going to be driven off the land. It

will give even the smallest man, chance to better his condition. Each

land holder receives a new compact piece of land proportionate to the

6. R. B. C, p. 35

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

461

value of his old small and scattered field. In this way the previous sub-

divisions together with their attendant evils totally disappear.”

Regarding consolidation, Prof. H. S. Jevons says:

“The principles which should guide the choice of a method of carrying

out the re-organization of villages on the lines above described are the

following. In the first place compulsion should be avoided as far as

possible and the principle adopted that no charge should be imposed

upon any area unless the owners of more than one-half of that area

desire the change. Should this condition be satisfied for an area……. .it

would seem expedient that legal power should be taken to compel the

minority to accept the redistribution of holdings under the supervision

of Government. In the second place………….the expense of the operation

should be kept as low as possible………In the third place considerable

elasticity should be permitted in the methods of carrying through

the re-organization in the different places during the first few years,

as the whole undertaking would be in an experimental stage so that

different methods might be tried, and the best be ultimately selected

for a permanent set of regulations. Fourthly, the possible necessity for

a considerable change of the existing tenancy law in the re-organised

villages must be faced………. .. .For the sake of completeness I may

add as a fifth principle the obvious condition that redistribution of land

must be made upon the most equitable basis possible, and that liberal

compensation should be given to those, if any, who may be excluded

from a former cultivating ownership.”

As for procedure in the compulsory consolidation of holdings both

Prof. Jevons and the Baroda Committee propose the appointment of

Commissioners to hear applications for consolidation and to carry it out,

leaving to any objector the right to petition the Court to stay the proceedings

in case he felt that an injustice was being done to him.

The problem of perpetuating such a consolidated holding will next demand

the care of the legislator. It is accepted without question by many that the

law of inheritance that prevails among the Hindus and the Mohomedans

is responsible for the sub-division of land. On the death of a Hindu or a

Mahomedan his heirs are entitled without let or hindrance to equal shares

in the property of the deceased. Now a consolidated holding subject to the

operation of such a law of inheritance will certainly not endure for long.

It will be the task of Sisyphus over again if, after consolidation, the law

of inheritance were to remain unaltered.

7. R. B.C. . p. 35.

8. The Consolidation of Agicultural Holdings in the United Provinces, 1918, pp. 45-46.

The author is grateful to Prof. Jevons for a copy.

462

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

But how is the existing law of inheritance to be changed ? If it is not to

be the law of equal sub-division shall we have the law of primogeniture.

The Baroda Committee thanks that,—

“It is not necessary that it should be introduced. All that it wanted

is, that there should not be sub-divisions of land beyond a certain

limit, which may be fixed for the sake of good agriculture. There is no

objection to a holding being sub-divided, so long as by so doing each

of the parts does not become less than the limit fixed for the sub-

division of land. But when a holding reaches a stage to render further

sub-division uneconomic, the other members of the family may not be

allowed to force further sub-division of the holding. Instead of being

sub-divided, it may be either cultivated in common or be given to one

of the members of the family as a whole, and that member made to

pay amounts equal to the value of their shares as compensation to the

other members.”

The principle of not dividing immovable property among the heirs, when

division would result in inconveniently small shares, but of giving to the

highest bidder among the sharers or in case none of them is willing to

have it, to outside bidders, and dividing the money realized in proportion

to the recognized shares, has been accepted in the Indian Partition Act,

No. 4 of 1893, section 2 of which runs thus :

“Whenever in any suit for partition, in which, if instituted prior to

the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been

made, it appears to the Court that, by reason of the nature of the

property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders

therein or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property

cannot reasonably or conveniently be made and that a sale of the

property and distribution of proceeds would be more beneficial for

all the share-holders, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the request

of any such share-holder interested individually or collectively to the

extent of one moiety or upwards direct a sale of the property and a

distribution of the proceeds.”

Granting the advisability of thus changing the law of inheritance it only

requires to amend the Civil Procedure Code so as to make it obligatory

on the Courts to refuse partition whenever it would reduce a field beyond

the economic limit fixed in advance.

9. Besides these two systems of inheritance there is a third which allows a father liberty to do

as he likes with a part of his estate provided he leaves sufficient for his heir to constitute what

is called pars legitima. Under it the Germans have enacted a permissive law of Anerbenrecht

designed to obviate the effects of the law of inheritance in causing unnecessary sub-division of

land. In some aspects it anticipates the proposals of the Baroda Committee; in others those of

the Hon. Mr. Keatings. For a description of it see Prof. N. G. Pierson’s Principles of Economics,

Vol. II, pp. 286-90.

10. R.B.C., p. 26.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

463

Another method of dealing with the problem is advocated by the Hon.

Mr. G. F. Keatinge, Director of Agriculture, Bombay Presidency. In the

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to his draft bill he says :

“4………………. . The object of this bill is to enable such landowners

as may wish to do so to check the further sub-division of their lands

and to enable them, when it is otherwise possible, to effect a permanent

consolidation of their holdings; and also to enable the executive

government to secure the same results in respect of unoccupied land.

The legislation proposed is purely enabling, and it will be operative

in the case of any holding only upon the expressed wish of any person

possessing an interest in that holding.

“5. The scheme embodied in this bill for securing these objects is

briefly as follows. In order to be constituted an economic holding a plot

of land must be entered as such in a register prescribed by rules. If

the land is occupied, it will rest with some person having an interest

in the land to make an application to the Collector to have the land

registered as an economic holding…………. . Unless the Collector

considers that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting the application,

he holds a careful enquiry in which he follows a procedure similar to

that prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If the proceedings

show that all persons interested agree, the land is registered. Land

vesting absolutely in Government may be registered without inquiry.

The holding must in any case be registered in one name only, and the

act of registration annuls all the interest of all other persons, except

the registered owner, in the holding. Thereafter the owner cannot

divide the plot but must so long as he owns it, keep it entire. He

may sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of it as an entire unit, but

not dispose of part of it or do anything that might result in splitting

up the holding. On the death of the holder, if he has not disposed of

the land by will it will devolve upon a single heir. If the provisions of

the bill are contravened (for instance if the holder mortgages a part

of his holding and the mortgagee obtains a decree for possession), the

Collector is empowered to send a certificate to the Court, and the

Court will set aside its decree or order. The Collector may also evict a

person in wrongful possession. When a plot has been once constituted

an economic holding, the registration cannot be cancelled except with

the consent of the Collector; the grounds on which cancellation will

be allowed, will be laid down by rule and it is proposed that it shall

be permitted chiefly in cases where economic considerations indicate

that it is expedient.”

Summing up this discussion of the two issues of consolidation, it must be

said that the problem has not been viewed as a whole by all its advocates.

The Baroda Committee alone endeavours to consolidate as well as to preserve

464

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the consolidated holding. Prof. Jevons makes no provision to conserve the

results of consolidation. Mr. Keatinge does not deal with consolidation at

all. He is concerned only with the prevention of further fragmentation.

But fragmentation, there will be in a holding even after it is entered as

an economic holding. By his measure he will only succeed in preserving

the holdings as they will be found at the time of registration, i.e., he will

not allow them to be reduced in size. But they will be small and scattered

all the same. Mr. Keatinge, notwithstanding his legislation, leaves the

situation more or less as it exists. Real consolidation is, however, aimed at

by Prof. Jevons and the Baroda Committee. The principles they advocate

for the purpose are almost the same ; and so are their procedures for

carrying it out.

As for the preservation of consolidated holdings Mr. Keatinge as well

as the Baroda Committee establish the one-man rule of succession. The

Baroda Committee would adopt this rule only when division of land would

result in uneconomic holdings and then too would compel the successor

to buy off the claims of the other dispossessed heirs. Mr. Keatinge would

let the dispossessed heirs off without compensation.

A more serious criticism against these projects of consolidation consists

in the fact they have failed to recognize that a consolidated holding must

be an enlarged holding as well. If it is said that Indian agriculture suffers

from small and scattered holdings we must not only consolidate, but also

enlarge them. It must be borne in mind that consolidation may obviate

the evils of scattered holdings, but it will not obviate the evils of small

holdings unless the consolidated holding is an economic, i.e. an enlarged

holding. The Committee as well as Mr. Keatinge have entirely lost sight

of this aspect of the question. Prof. Jevons, alone of the advocates, keeps

it constantly before his mind that consolidation must bring about in its

train the enlargement of holdings.

ENLARGEMENT

Granted that enlargement of holdings is as important as their

consolidation we will now turn to the discussion of regulating their

size. It is desired by all interested in our agriculture that our holdings

should be economic holdings. We would have been more thankful to the

inventors of this new, precise and scientific terminology had they given

us a precise and scientific definition of an economic holding. On the

other hand, it is believed that a large holding is somehow an economic

holding. It may be said that even Prof. Jevons has fallen a victim to

this notion. For when discussing what the size of a holding should

be he dogmatically states that in the consolidated village the mode

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

465

should be between 29 and 30 acres.

But why should the mode be at this

point and not at 100 or say 200 ? We might imagine Prof. Jevons to reply

that his model point is placed at that particular acreage because it would

produce enough for a farmer to sustain a higher standard of living. Raising

the general standard of living in India is the one string on which Prof. Jevons

harps even to weariness throughout his pamphlet.

The error underlying

this doctrine we shall consider later on. It is enough to say that he does

not give any sound economic reason for his model farm.

The case with the Baroda Committee is much worse, Prof. Jevons at least

sticks to one definition of an ideal economic holding; but the Report of the

Baroda Committee suffers from a plurality of definitions. While comenting

on the size of an average holding in the state as is summarized in the above

table, it should be noted that the Committee, though it desired consolidation,

was perfectly satisfied with the existing size of the holding as is clear, from

the following:

“If the average holding of a Khatedar was a .compact field of those figures,

the situation would be an ideal one and would not leave much to be desired.”

But absent-minded as it were, the Committee, without any searching

analysis of the question it was appointed to investigate and report upon,

lays down that:

“An ideal economic holding would consist of 30 to 50 bighas of fair land in

one block with at least one good irrigation well and a house situated in the

holding.”

If the size of existing holdings is an ideal size why should they be

enlarged ? To this, the Committee gives no answer. But this is not all. The

Committee does not even adhere to the quantitative limit it has already set

down to its ideal economic holding. When it comes to discuss the project

of re-arrangement of the scattered fields of the village on the principle of

“Economic unit” it presents a third ideal of an economic holding. To realize

this ideal it says :

“Each of these new plots must be of such a size, as having regard to the

local conditions of soil, tillage, etc., to form an Economic field, i.e., a parcel of

land necessary to keep fully engaged and support one family.”

Thus with perfect equanimiy (1) the Baroda Committee holds, not too

fast, to three notions of an ideal economic holding. No wonder then that

the Report of the Committee is a model of confused reasoning though it is

a valuable repository of facts bearing on the subject.

11. Opt. Cit. chart on p. 38.

12. Opt. Cit. Introduction.

13. Ibid., p. 4.

14. R.B.C., p. 31.

15. Ibid., p. 53.

466

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

According to the Hon. Mr. Keatinge an economic holding is :—

“a holding which allows a man chance of producing sufficient to support

himself and his family in reasonable comfort, after paying his necessary

expenses.”

His definition of an economic holding will be accepted, we may expect,

by the Baroda Committee; for, it does not differ from its own, given above

as third in order. Assuming they agree, we may now proceed to see how

far tenable this definition is.

It is plain that these definitions including that of Professor Jevons

view an economic holding from the stand-point of consumption rather

than of production. In this lies their error; for consumption is not the

correct standard by which to judge the economic character of a holding.

It would be perverse accounting to condemn a farm as not paying because

its total output does not support the family of the farmer though as a

pro-rata return for each of his investments it is the highest. The family

of a farmer can only be looked upon in the light of so much labour corps

at his disposal. It may well be that some portion of this labour corps is

superfluous, though it has to be supported merely in obedience to social

custom as is the case in India. But if our social custom compels a farmer

to support some of his family members even when he cannot effectively

make any use of them on his farm we must be careful not to find fault

with the produce of the farm because it does not suffice to provide for the

workers as well as the dependants that may happen to compose the family.

The adoption of such an accounting system will declare many enterprises

as failures when they will be the most successful. There can be no true

economic relation between the family of the entrepreneur and the total

out-turn of his farm or industry. True economic relation can subsist only

between the total out-turn and the investments. If the total out-turn pays

for all the investments no producer in his senses will ever contemplate

closing his industry because the total out-turn does not support his family.

This is evident; for though production is for the purpose of consumption it

is for the consumption only of those who help to produce. It follows, then,

that if the relation between out-turn and investments is a true economic

relation, we can only speak of a farm as economic, i.e., paying in the

sense of production and not in the sense of consumption. Any definition,

therefore, that leans on consumption mistakes the nature of an economic

holding which is essentially an enterprise in production.

Before going further, we must clear the ground by a few preliminary

remarks to facilitate the understanding of an economic holding from the

standpoint of production.

16. Rural Economy in the Bombay Deccan, p. 51.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

467

It must be premised at the outset that in a competitive society the daily

transactions of its members, as consumers or producers, are controlled by

a price regime. It is production, then, in a price regime that we have to

analyse here for our purpose. In the main the modern process of production

is captained by the entrepreneur, is guided and supervised by him and is

worked out through him. All employers of labour or hirers of instrumental

goods are entrepreneurs. His computations run, as they must, in a

pecuniary society, in terms of price-outlay as over against price-product,

no matter whether the prospective product is offered for sale or not. The

entrepreneur, in producing for gain, apportions his outlays in varieties of

investments. These investments, the same as factors of production or costs

to the entrepreneur, have by tradition been confined to wages (labour)

profits, rent (land) and interest (capital). Industrial facts do not support this

classification. There are many other factors, it is contended, which as they

share in the distributive process must have functioned in the productive

process, in some way immediate or remote. But it is immaterial how

many factors there are and whether they differ in kind or degree. What is

important for the purpose of production is the process of combining them.

This combination of necessary factors of production is governed by a law

called the law of proportion. It lays down that disadvantage is bound to

attend upon a wrong proportion among the various factors of production

employed in a concern. Enlarged, the principle means that as a certain

volume of one factor has the capacity to work only with a certain volume

of another to give maximum efficiency to both, an excess or defect in

the volume of one in comparison with those of the others will tell on

the total output by curtailing the efficiency of all. Having regard then to

this interdependence of factors, an economically efficient combination of

them compels the producer if he were to vary the one to vary the rest

correspondingly. Neither can it be otherwise. For, the chief object of an

efficient production consists in making every factor in the concern contribute

its highest; and it can do that only when it can co-operate with its fellow

of the required capacity. Thus, there is an ideal of proportions that ought

to subsist among the various factors combined, though the ideal will vary

with the changes in the proportions.

These proportions it must be acknowledged are affected by the principle

of substitution chiefly brought into play owing to variations in the prices

of the factors. But this principle of substitution is too limited in its

application to invalidate the law of proportion which is the law governing all

17. This description of the process of production is pieced together from the remarks of

Prof. H. J. Davenport in his masterly treatise “The Economics of Enterprize” New York.

Macmilian, 1913, In this connection see also the able paper by Prof. Henry C. Taylor on

“Two Dimensions of Productivity” read before the 29th Annual Meeting of the American

Economic Association held in December 1916 and the remarks on the same by Prof. A.

A. Young. Both these will be found in the American Economic Review for March 1917.

468

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

economic production and which no producer can hope to ignore with

impunity.

Bringing to bear the above remarks regarding production on the definition

of an economic holding, we can postulate that if agriculture is to be treated

as an economic enterprise, then, by itself, there could be no such thing as

a large or a small holding. To a farmer a holding is too small or too large

for the other factors of production at his disposal necessary for carrying on

the cultivation of his holding as an economic enterprise. Mere size of land

is empty of all economic connotation. Consequently, it cannot possibly be the

language of economic science to say that a large holding is economic while

a small holding is uneconomic. It is the right or wrong proportion of other

factors of production to a unit of land that renders the latter economic or

uneconomic. Thus a small farm may be economic as well as a large farm ;

for, economic or uneconomic does not depend upon the size of land but upon

the due proportion among all the factors including land.

An economic holding, therefore, if it is not to be a hollow concept, consists

in a combination of land, capital and labour, etc., in a proportion such that

the pro rata contribution of each in conjunction with the rest is the highest.

In other words to create an economic holding it will not do for a farmer solely

to manipulate his piece of land. He must also have the other instruments

of production required for the efficient cultivation of his holding and must

maintain a due proportion of all the factors for, without it, there can be no

efficient production. If his equipment shrinks, his holding must also shrink.

If his equipment augments, his holding must also augment. The point is

that his equipment and his holding must not be out of proportion to each

other. They must be in proportion and must vary, if need be, in proportion.

The line of argument followed above is not without support from actual

practice. It is happy from an economist’s point of view, to find it recognized

and adopted in India itself by the fathers of the Survey and Settlement

System in the Bombay Presidency. The famous Joint Report (1840) contains

an illuminating discussion of the problem. The question before the officers

deputed to introduce the Survey System in the Deccan was how to levy

the assessment. Was it to be a field assessment or an assessment to

be placed on the whole lands of the village or on the entire holdings of

individuals or co-parceners, whether proprietors or occupants. That after

18. Some economists who hold that it is the law of Diminishing Returns that governs

agricultural production will demur to the universal applicability that is claimed for the

Law of Proportion. Briefly stated the Law of Dininishing Returns asserts that additional

‘doses’ of capital and labour administered to a given piece of land will be responded to

by a less and less yield. This means that if only the non-land expense of production is

doubled there results less than a doubled product. But if this is the fact that is intended

to be generallised by the Law of Diminishing Returns then there is nothing in it that is

peculiar to agricultural production. If’ the expense to the land be doubled but the land not

doubled it is certain that the extra return will fall short of the increased expense. This

is simply another way of saying that if the returns are to grow all the factors must be

increased in proportion. But so stated is not the Law of Diminishing Returns a confused

version of the Law of Proportion?

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

469

much deliberation the system of field assessment was finally adopted

is known to many. But as the reasons that led to its adoption are

known only to a few the following explanatory parts from the Joint

report will be found to be both interesting and instructive:

“Para 6. That one manifest advantage of breaking up the

assessment of a village into portions so minute [as indicated by

a survey number] is the facility it affords to the cultivators of

contracting or enlarging his farm from year to year, according

to the fluctuating amount of agricultural capital at their

disposal which is of incalculable importance to farmers possessed

of so limited resources as those of the cultivating classes throughout

India.

“Para 7. The loss of a few bullocks by disease or other causes

may quite incapacitate a ryot from cultivating profitably the extent

of land he had previously in village and, without the privilege of

contracting his farm, and consequent liabilities on occassion of such

loss, his ruin would be very shortly consummated.”

Judging in the light of this conclusion the proposal to regulate the

size of holdings appears ill-considered and futile. For as Prof. Richard

T. Ely observes

“Obviously no simple answer can be given to the question [as to

what should be the size of a farm]. The value of land or the rent it will

bring is perhaps the most important factor…………………In addition

to the factor of rent the amount of capital that he can command,

the kind of fanning in which he is most skilled, the character of the

labour he can secure, the proximity of markets, and the adequacy

of transportation facilities, all must be taken into account by the

farmer in determining how large a farm he will attempt to manage

and how intensively he will farm it.

“This question is primarily one of private profit which the individual

must decide for himself, but the legislator and the scientific student

can be of some assistance in helping to develope that most difficult

branch of commercial science—farm accounting—and in keeping the

farmer alive to those charges in prices, wages, and transportation

charges to which the farm organization must adjust itself.”

To those who have the temerity to fix the size of a holding Prof. Ely’s

well-considered opinion will bring home that in spite of good intentions

their vicarious mission will end in disaster; for none but the cultivator

can decide what should be the size of his holding. They would do well to

remember that the size of his holdings will vary in time. Consequent to

19. Survey Settlement Manual Bombay Presidency, 1882. p. 3.

20. Outlines of Economics, pp. 531-32 (Italics ours).

470

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the changes in his equipment with which he has to adjust the size

of his farm, at one point in time he will decide in favour of a small,

as at another he will decide in favour of a large holding. He would

therefore be a poor economist who would legally fix the size of the

holding which in the interest of economic production must be left to

vary when variation is demanded. By fixing the size of a holding he

can only make it a large holding but not an economic holding. For an

economic holding is not a matter of the size of land alone but is a

matter of the adjustment of a piece of land to the necessary equipment

for its efficient cultivation.

CRITIQUE OF THE REMEDIES

The proposal to enlarge the existing holdings which is brought

forward as a cure to the ills of our agriculture can be entertained only

if it is shown that farms have diminshed in size while the agricultural

stock has increased in amount. Facts regarding the size of farms have

already been recorded. It only remains to see if the agricultural stock

has increased- Mr. K. L. Datta in his exhaustive survey says

“178. Most of the Indian witnesses, whom we examined, appeared

to be under the belief that there has been a decrease in the supply of

agricultural products, owing to the inefficient tillage of land. It was said

that land is not now cultivated as carefully and efficiently as before,

owing to the scarcity and dearness of plough, cattle and labour. In order

to effect, a saving in the cost of cultivation, cultivators do not also plough

their lands as often as they did before, and manuring and weeding, as

also the amount of irrigating where wells are used for the purpose, have

all been reduced.”

“179. As regards the scarcity of plough cattle………… (the) figures bear

testimony to the deplorable effects of famine, the inevitable result of which

has always been to reduce the number of cattle, though the deficiency is

generally made good in a few years if otherwise favourable. The number

of plough cattle in the latest year (1908-09) included in the statement

was lower than in the commencement (1893-94), in some of the circles

namely Assam, Bundelkhund. Agra Provinces—North and West, Gujarat,

Deccan, Berar, Madras-North and Madras-West. Although great reliance

cannot be placed on these statistics, they can be accepted as showing

that in some areas at any rate there has been a dearth of plough cattle.”

Regarding the existence of capital Mr. Elliot James says :

“The ryots have a keen eye to the results of a good system of farming

as exhibited on model farms, but they cannot derive much good from

21. Report on the Enquiry into the Rise of Prices in India, 1914, Vol. 1, pp. 66-67, (Italics ours).

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

471

the knowledge though they may take it in and thoroughly understand that

superior tillage and proper manuring mean a greater out turn in crops.

Their great want is capital.”

The farmer knows, says the same author, that his agricultural

equipment is inefficient and antiquated but he cannot substitute better

ones in its place for :

“A superior class of cattle and superior farm implements mean to him

so much outlay of what he has not—Money.”

Similar facts for the Baroda State have been collected in another

connection by Mr. M. B. Nanavali, Director of Commerce and Industry.

But unfortunately he did not bring his knowledge of such facts to bear

upon the conclusions of the Committee for the consolidation of holdings

in the State of which he was also a member, apparently thinking that

the size of a holding bore no relation to the instruments of production.

He bemoans that:

“The farmers are not fully equipped with draught-cattle. They have

today (1913) 8,34,901 bullocks, etc., for use on farms, that is one pair for

36 bighas of land. On an average a pair of good bullocks can cultivate 25

bighas of land. But the present breed has much deteriorated and one pair

is supposed to cultivate 20 bighas at the most, while the present actual

averages comes to about 36 bighas. Under the circumstances it is not

likely that ploughing can be deep. It must be like scratching the surface.

The small cultivators do not possess any draught-cattle or at the most a

single one and cultivate land in co-operation with their friends similarly

situated. As for farm implements there are 1,54,364 ploughs in the State,

i.e., one for two Khatedars. It must be understood here that the number

of cultivators and tenants is much more than three lakhs. Every one of

them needs full equipment. Therefore actually the average must be much

smaller than shown above.”

In fact the equipment for agricultural production in the State has

considerably deteriorated since 1898 as shown by the table below :

Year Plough Carts Plough Cattle Other Domestics

1898 .. 1,75,989 .... 4,15,089 5,70,517

1910 .. 1,51,664 68,946 3,34,801 5,09,416

Given, this state of affairs can we not say with more propriety that not

only the existing equipment is inadequate for the enlarged holdings but

22 Indian Industries, p. 6.

23. Report on Agricultural Indebtedness in the Baroda State, 1913, para. 35.

472

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

that the existing holdings, small as they are, are too big for the available

instruments of production other than land ? Facts such as these interpreted

in the light of our theory force upon us the conclusion that the existing

holdings are uneconomic, not, however, in the sense that they are too small

but that they are too large. Shall we therefore argue that the existing

holdings should be further reduced in size with a view to render them

economic in the sense in which we have used the term ? Unwary readers

might suppose that this is the only logical and inevitable conclusion— a

conclusion that is in strange contrast with the main trend of opinion

in this country. Contrary, no doubt, the conclusion is ; but it is by no

means inevitable. For, from our premises we can with perfect logic and

even with more cogency argue for increase in agricultural stock and

implements which in turn will necessitate enlarged holdings which will

be economic holdings as well.

Consequently the remedy for the ills of agriculture in India does not

lie primarily in the matter of enlarging holdings but in the matter of

increasing capital and capital goods. That capital arises from saving

and that saving is possible where there is surplus is a commonplace of

political economy.

Does our agriculture—the main stay of our population—give us any

surplus ? We agree with the answer which is unanimously in the negative.

We also approve of the remedies that are advocated for turning the deficit

economy into a surplus economy, namely by enlarging and consolidating

the holdings. What we demur to is the method of realizing this object.

For we most strongly hold that the evil of small holdings in India is not

fundamental but is derived from the parent evil of the mal-adjustment in

her social economy. Consequently if we wish to effect a permanent cure

we must go to the parent malady.

But before doing that we will show how we suffer by a bad social

economy. It has become a tried statement that India is largely an

agicultural country. But what is scarcely known is that notwithstanding

the vastness of land under tillage, so little land is cultivated in proportion

to her population.

Mulhall’s figures for the year 1895 clearly demonstrate the point.

Acres per inhabitant in 1895

Great

Britain

Ireland France Germany Russia Austria Italy Spain

and

Portugal

U.S.A. India

0.91 3.30 2.30 1.70 5.60 2.05 1.75 2.90 8.90 1.0

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

473

That since 1895 the situation, however, has gone from bad to worse figures

eloquently bear out:

1881 1891 1901 1911

Bengal .. .. .. 1.5 0.8 1.12 ....

Bombay .. .. .. 1.7 1.6 1.41 1.3

Madras .. .. .. 1.3 0.3 .68 .79

Assam .. .. .. ... 0.5 .78 .85

Punjab .. .. .. 1.2 1.3 1.05 1.11

Oudh .. .. .. .81 0.7 .73 .75

N. W. P. .. .. .. .... 0.8

Burmah .. .. .. .... 1.5 1.08 1.09

Central P. .. .. .. 1.67 2.4 1.8 1.79

B. India .. .. .. 1.04 1.0 0.86 0.88

Now, what does this extraordinary phenomenon mean ? A large agricultural

population with the lowest proportion of land in actual cultivation means that

a large part of the agricultural population is superfluous and idle. How much

idle labour there is on Indian farms it is not possible to know accurately.

Sir James Caird who was the first to notice the existence of this idle labour

estimated in 1884 that,

“A square mile of land in England cultivated highly gives employment to 50

persons, in the proportion 25 men, young and old, and 25 women and boys. If

four times that number, or 200, were allowed for each square mile of cultivated

land in India, it would take up only one-third of the population.”

Out of the total population of 254 millions in 1881 nearly two-thirds were

returned as agricultural. Allowing, as per estimate, one-third to be taken up,

we can safely say that a population of equal magnitude was lying idle instead

of performing any sort of productive labour. With the increasing ruralization

of India and a continually decreasing proportion of land under cultivation,

the volume of idle labour must have increased to an enormous extent.

The economic effects of this idle labour are two-fold. Firstly, it adds to

the tremendous amount of pressure that our agricultural population exerts

on land. A quantitative statement will serve to bring home to our mind how

high the pressure is:

Mean density per square mile in 1911

Oudh and

N. W. P

Bengal

Madras

Punjab

Bombay

Assam

Berar and

C. P.

Coorg

British

Burma

of Total Area

427 551 291 177 145 115 122 111 53

of Cultivated Area

829 1162 785 453 444 766 360 792 575

24. India, the Land and the People, p. 225.

474

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Such high pressure of population on land is probably unknown in any

other part of the world. The effect of it is, of course, obvious.

Notwithstanding what others have said, this enormous pressure is the

chief cause of the subdivision of land. It is the failure to grasp the working

of this pressure on land that makes the law of inheritance such a great

grievance. To say that the law of inheritance causes sub-division of land is

to give a false view by inverting the real situation. The mere existence of

the law cannot be complained of as a grievance. The grievance consists in

the fact that it is invoked. But why is it invoked even when it is injurious ?

Simply because it is profitable. There is nothing strange in this. When

farming is the only occupation, to get a small piece of land is better than

to have none. Thus the grievance lies in the circumstances which put a

premium on these small pieces of land. The premium, is no doubt, due to

the large population depending solely on agriculture to eke out its living.

Naturally a population that has little else to prefer to agriculture will try to

invoke every possible cause to get a piece of land however small. It is not

therefore the law of inheritance that is the evil, but it is the high pressure

on land which brings it into operation. People cultivate the small (piece not

because their standard of living is low as Prof. Jevons seems to think

but

because it is the only profitable thing for them to do at present. If they had

something more profitable to do they would never prefer the small piece. It

is therefore easy to understand how the universal prevalance of the small

farms or petit culture is due to this enormous pressure on land.

In spite of the vehement struggle that our agricultural population

maintains in trying to engage itself productively as cultivators of a farm

however small, it is true that judged by the standard of Sir James Caird

a large portion of it is bound to remain idle. Idle labour and idle capital

differ in a very important particular. Capital exists, but labour lives. That

is to say capital when idle does not earn, but does not also consume much

to keep itself. But labour, earning or not consumes in order to live. Idle

25. Opt. cit. Introduction. The Impression that Prof. Jevons leaves on his readers is that

agriculture suffers in India because of the low standard of living. That a higher standard of

life once established will necessitate a large holding because people with a high standard of life

will prefer to migrate rather than accept a small holding. As his argument that holdings and

standard of life are related is likely to mislead his less thoughtful readers, a word of comment

is necessary. A standard of living is merely a level of consumption fixed in habit. But what

determines the depth of a particular level of consumption? Undoubtedly the level of production.

We may grant the truth of the statement that a rise in the standard of living works as a

stimulus to higher production but it is foolish to expect mere wish to be father to the deed. It

is actual production alone that can support rise in the standard and not wish, generated though

it be either by “travel or education”. If Prof. Jevons means that an opportunity for increased

production, leading to a higher standard of life, will disfavour small holdings we are one with

him. But he can make himself more intelligible by dropping standard of living and only arguing

for increased production; that increased production leads to a rise in standard will be granted by

all; but the reverse cannot be maintained Prof. Jevons seems to do, for it may lead to production

or predation. To speak of raising the standard of life without speaking of increased production

is to give expression to a pious wish, if it does not lead to mischief.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

475

labour is, therefore, a calamity ; for if it cannot live by production as it

should, it will live by predation as it must. This idle labour has been the

canker of India gnawing at its vitals. Instead of contributing to our national

dividend it is eating up what little there is of it. Thus the depression of

our national dividend is another important effect of this idle labour. The

income of a society as of an individual proceeds (1) from the efforts made,

and (2) from possessions used. It may be safely asserted that the aggregate

income of any individual or society must be derived either from the proceeds

of the current labour or from productive possession already acquired. All

that society can have today it must acquire today or must take out of its

past product. Judging by this criterion a large portion of our society makes

very little current effort; nor does it have any very extensive possessions

from which to derive its sustenance. No doubt then that our economic

organization is conspicuous by want of capital. Capital is but crystallized

surplus ; and surplus depends upon the proceeds of effort. But where there

is no effort there is no earning, no surplus, and no capital.

We have thus shown how our bad social economy is responsible for the

ills of our agriculture. We have also proved how our entire dependence

on agriculture leads to small and scattered farms. How a large portion

of our population which our agriculture cannot productively employ is

obliged to remain idle has been made clear. We have also shown how the

existence of this idle labour makes ours a country without capital. This

being our analysis of the problem, it will be easy to see why the remedies

for consolidation and enlargement under the existing social economy are

bound to fail.

Those who look on small holdings as the fundamental evil naturally

advocate their enlargement. This, however, is a faulty political economy

and as Thomas Arnold once said “a faulty political economy is the fruitful

parent of crime”. Apart from the fact that merely to enlarge the holding

is not to make it economic, this project of artificial enlargement is fraught

with many social ills. The future in the shape of an army of landless and

dispossessed men that it is bound to give rise to is neither cheerful from

the individual, nor agreeable from the national, point of view. But even if

we enlarged the existing holdings and procured enough capital and capital

goods to make them economic, we will not only be not advocating the proper

remedy but will end in aggravating the evils by adding to our stock of idle

labour; for capitalistic agriculture will not need as many hands as are now

required by our present day methods of cultivation.

But if enlargement is not possible, can we not have consolidation? It

can be shown that under the existing social economy even consolidation

is not possible. The remedy for preventing sub-division and fragmentation

476

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

of consolidated holdings cannot be expected to bring real relief. Instead it

will only serve to be a legal eyewash. This becomes easy of comprehension

if we realize at the start what the one man rule of succession means in

actual practice. For this we shall have to note the changes it will introduce

in the survey records. At present according to the Bombay Land Revenue

Code Chapter I, Section 3, clause (6).

“Survey Number” means a portion of land of which the area and other

particulars are separately entered, under an indicative number in the survey

records of the village, town or city in which it is situated, and includes a

recognized share of a survey number. Again by clause (7).

“Recognized share of a survey number” means a sub-division of a survey

number separately assessed and registered.

After the adoption of the one man rule of succession a survey number

will be made to cover a piece of land which will be of the size fixed for an

ideal economic holding. Secondly, it will be necessary to refuse separate

registration to any sub-division of such a survey number ; i.e., in order that

a piece of land should be registered with a separate and a distinct survey

number it must not be below the economic limit. Then too this survey

number covering a piece of land large enough to be styled economic will be

registered in the name of one person. This is precisely what will happen

if we put into practice the project of the Baroda Committee. Mr. Keatinge

instead of having one survey number covering a large and compact holding

will have in the name of one person many survey numbers covering a unit

of land composed of small and scattered fields. Abandoning Mr. Keatinge’s

scheme as serving no practical purpose the one man rule of succession

to a consolidated holding means in practice refusal to recognize legally a

piece of land if it were below a certain size. Now this refusal to recognize

smaller pieces of land, it is claimed, will prevent the sub-division of a

consolidated holding. Sub-division of land may be due to many causes the

operation of which is rendered economic or uneconomic by the nature of the

occasion which evokes it. Not to allow sub-division on any ground, as does

Mr. Keatinge, is to cause a serious depreciation of the value of land. But if

sub-division is needed as when the stock has depleted, not to grant it is to

create an uneconomic situation—a result just opposite of what is intended

to be achieved, apart from this to prevent sub-division legally is not to

prevent it actually, if necessitated by the weight of economic circumstances.

Granting the pressure of population on land and the scanty agricultural

equipment—evils to which the authors of consolidation and enlargement

have paid no attention—we must look forward to the sub-division of

holdings. If we legislate in the face of this inevitable tendency and refuse

to record on our survey roll holdings below a certain limit required for a

separate survey number we will not only fail to cure what we must know

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

477

we cannot, atleast by this means, but will help to create a register that will

be false to the true situation.

This being our criticism of the means for preventing sub-division and

fragmentation it will not take us long to state our view as regards the

project of consolidation. Consolidation and its conservation are so intimately

connected that the one cannot be thought of without the other. Now if we

cannot conserve a consolidated holding, is it worth our while to consolidate,

however feasible the project may be ? This work of Sysiphus will not fail

to fall to our lot unless we make effective changes in our social economy.

As the evils of this surplus and idle labour which will be added on to

by the consolidation and enlargement of holdings are likely to outweigh

their advantages’, the proposals do not find much favour at the hands of

Prof. Gilbert Slater.

As against Prof. Slater we hold that the evils are avoidable and it is because

we are anxious to avoid them that we wish to advocate different remedies

for bringing about the enlargement of holdings. Consequently, we maintain

that our efforts should be primarily directed towards this idle labour.

If we succeed in sponging off this labour in non-agricultural channels of

production we will at one stroke lessen the pressure and destroy the premium

that at present weighs heavily on land in India. Besides, this labour when

productively employed will cease to live by predation as it does to-day, and

will not only earn its keep but will give us surplus; and more surplus is more

capital. In short, strange though it may seem, industrialization of India is

the soundest remedy for the agricultural problems of India. The cumulative

effects of industralization, namely, a lessening pressure and an increasing

amount of capital and capital goods will forcibly create the economic necessity

of enlarging the holding. Not only this, but industralization by destroying

the premium on land will give rise to few occasions for its sub-division and

fragmentation. Industrialization is a natural and powerful remedy and is to

be preferred to such ill-conceived projects as we have considered above. By

legislation we will get a sham economic holding at the cost of many social

ills. But by industrialization a large economic holding will force itself upon

us as a pure gain.

26. “The village in the Melting Pot” Journal of the Indian Economic Society. Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 10.

27. Prof. Jevons does speak of removing the surplus agricultural population to towns. The

author is happy to note that Prof. Jevons had recognised that there is the evil of surplus

population. What he has failed to recognize is that this evil is the faithful parent of all other

evils that affect our agriculture. When it is recalled that industrialization of India is the

one theme against which Prof. Jevons never fails to argue with all the aid of his knowledge

and influence, his remedy of removing the surplus population to towns sounds starnge; for

migration to towns is simply euphemism for the industrialization of India. On the other

hand Prof. Jevons has forgotten that there are few towns in India. If we believe, as does

Prof. Jevons, that there is the evil of surplus population the only logical and inevitable

conclusion, however unplatable it be, is the creations of more towns i.e,, industrialization.

478

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Our remedy for the enlargement as for the consolidation of holdings as

well as the preservation of consolidated holdings reduces itself to this: We

prefer to cure agriculture by the reflex effects of industrialization. Lest this

might be deemed visionary we proceed to give evidence in support of our

view. How agriculture improves by the reflex effects of industrialization

has been studied in the United States in the year 1883. We shall quote

in extenso the summary given by the London Times:

“The statistician of the Agricultural Department of the United States has

shown in a recent report that the value of farm lands decreases in exact

proportion as the ratio of agriculture to other industries increases. That is,

where all the labour is devoted to agriculture, the land is worth less than

where only half of the people are farm labourers ; and where only a quarter

of them are so engaged the farms and their product are still more valuable. It

is, in fact, proved by statistics that diversified industries are of the greatest

value to a Stale, and that the presence of a manufactory near a farm increases

the value of the farm and its crops. It is further established that, dividing

the United States into four sections or classes, with reference to the ratio of

agricultural workers to the whole population, and putting those States having

less than 30 per cent of agriculture and of agricultural labourers in the first

class, all having over 30 and less than 50 in the second, those between 50

and 70 in the third, and those having 70 or more in the fourth, the value

of farms is in inverse ratio to the agricultural population, and that where

as in the purely agricultural section, the fourth class, the value of farms

per acre is only $ 5.28, in the next class it is $ 13.03, in the third $ 22.21,

and in manufacturing districts $ 40.91. This shows an enormous advantage

for a mixed district. Yet not only is the land more valuable the production

per acre is greater, and the wages paid to farm hands larger. Manufactures

and varied industries thus not only benefit the manufacturers, but are of

equal benefit and advantage to the farmers as well.”

This will show that ours is a proven remedy. It can be laid

down without fear of challenge that industrialization will foster the

enlargement of holdings and that it will be the most effective barrier

against sub-division and fragmentation. Agreeing in this, it may be

observed that industrialization will not be a sufficient remedy for

consolidation. That it will require direct remedies may be true. But

it is also true that industrialization, though it may not bring about

consolidation, will facilitate consolidation. It is an incontrovertible

truth that so long as there is the premium on land consolidation will

not be easy, no matter on how equitable principles it is proposed to

be carried out. Is it a small service if industrialization lessens the

premium as it inevitably must ? Certainly not. Consideration of another

aspect of consolidation as well points to the same conclusion : That

SMALL HOLDINGS IN INDIA AND THEIR REMEDIES

479

industrialization must precede consolidation. It should never be forgotten

that unless we have constructed an effective barrier against the future sub-

division and fragmentation of a consolidated holding it is idle to lay out plans

for consolidation. Such a barrier can only be found in industrialization ; for it

alone can reduce the extreme pressure which, as we have shown, causes sub-

division of land. Thus, if small and scattered holdings are the ills from which

our agriculture is suffering to cure it of them is undeniably to industrialize.

But just where does India stand as an industrial country ? :

England and

Wales

Germany U. S. A. France India

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

1790 .. .. .. .. 87.5 .. .. . . . . . .

1840 .. .. .. .. 77.5 .. 75.6 24.4 . . . .

1851 49.92 50.08 .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .

1871 38.20 61.80 .. 36 47.6 .. .. . . . . . .

1881 32.1 67.9 .. 41 44.3 29.5 .. . . . . . .

1891 27.95 72.05 .. 47 39.2 36 1 .. . . 64.4 . .

1901 23.00 77.00 .. 54 35.7 40.5 .. . . 67.5 . .

1911 19.9 78.1 .. .. 33.3 46.3 57.9 42.1 71.5 . .

(The figures for the various countries do not correspond with the years. The range of variation

is 3 years),

Sir Robert Giffen after a survey of the economic tendencies of various

countries concludes that;

“The wants of men increasing with their resources the proportion of people

engaged in agiculture and mining and analogous pursuits, in every country is

destined to decline, and that of people engaged in miscellaneous industry—in

other words in manufactures using the latter phrase in a wide sense to increase.”

Figures for India, however, run counter to this dictum illustrating a universal

tendency observed by an expert. While other countries like the U.S.A. starting

as agricultural are progressively becoming industrial, India has been gradually

undergoing the woeful process of de-urbanization and swelling the volume

of her rural population beyond all needs. The earlier we stem this ominous

tide, the better. For notwithstanding what interested persons might say

truer and more wholesome words of caution were ever uttered regarding our

national economy than those by Sir Henry Cotton when he said “There is

danger of too much agriculture in India.”



28. “Essays in Finance” 2nd Series, p. 240.

29. Prof. Jevons in his paper on the “Capitalistic Development of Agriculture” read

before the Indian Industrial Conference, held at Bombay in December 1915 argues

against industrialisation. It can however be maintained against Prof. Jevons that it

is industrialisation only that can make capitalistic agriculture possible. As a needful

corrective to his paper cf. Sir Robert Giffen’s Essay IV in his Essays in Finance, 1st

Series.

MR. RUSSELL AND

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF

SOCIETY

Review on

the “ Principles of Social Reconstruction”

the Hon’ble Mr. Bertrand Russell

Published : Journal of the Indian Economic Society

Vol. I, 1918

MR. RUSSELL AND

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

The “Principles of Social Reconstruction”

by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand

Russell is a war book. Bellicose literature, on the whole, is either propagandist

or preventive. Mr. Russell’s book, though it falls under the latter, must be

distinguished from the rest of the same class. Of the preventive books some

argue against the unnatural geographical barriers within which have been

impounded some unwilling nations by their masterful conquerors : others like

Mr. Angell’s Great Illusion, attempt to show that in the calculus of war loss

prevails over gain even to the victor. Mr. Russell’s however, is a diagnosis,

altogether different. Wars, he believes, cannot be banished by rationalistic

appeals such as above, “It is not by reason alone” he says “that wars can

be prevented but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to

those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed,

not only the life of conscious thought”.

As his diagnosis is different so is

his social philosophy. To him, “the chief thing to be learned through the

war has been a certain view of the springs of human action what they are,

and what we may legitimately hope that they will become. This view, if

it is true, seems to afford a basis for political philosophy more capable of

standing erect in a time of crisis than the philosophy of traditional liberalism

has shown itself to be.”

In consonance with this attitude he adopts the standpoint of the

behaviouristic psychology.

A most important contribution of this new

development in the Science of Psychology consists in a novel view of the

springs of human action. It has overthrown the doctrine that external

1. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 1917, 6/—net.

2. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 13.

3. Ibid:, p. 9.

4. Readers of Mr. Russell will do well to aquaint themselves with Prof. E. L. Thorndike’s

“Educational Psychology”, Vol. I, “On the Original Nature of Man”.

484

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

circumstances are responsible for man’s activity If it were so, contends the

behaviourist, it would presuppose a quiescent being which is a biological

untruth. Man, it propounds, has the springs of action within him for he

is born with certain tendencies to act. External circumstances do not

induce activity. They only re-direct it. These tendencies to act, further

says the behaviourist, in their working, become modified by the effect of

the Social milieu in which they function. The modifications which these

original tendencies undergo are of the highest importance, They constitute

Education in the broadest sense of the word. All modifications, however,

are not equally valuable and it is the business of the reformer to eliminate

the circumstances and institutions that modify these tendencies for the

socially worse and preserve and introduce those that will modify them

for the socially better. Whatever that may be, it is of immense social

value that these tendencies are capable of indefinite modifications. This

is possible only because as Mr. Russell says “ Man’s impulses are not

fixed from the beginning by his native dispositions. Within certain limits,

they are profoundly modified by his circumstances and his way of life.

The nature of these modifications ought to be studied, and the results

of his study ought to be taken account of in judging the good or harm

that is done by political and social institutions.”

In six illuminating chapters Mr. Russell studies the modifications

that human nature has undergone under the institutions of State, War,

Property, Education, Marriage and Religion. It is impossible to give an

adequate idea of Mr. Russell’s social philosophy by summarizing the

contents of each one of these chapters. They are living contributions to

the literature of the several subjects they deal with. Full of suggestions,

they provoke thought and ought therefore to be read from the original.

This might be unconventional so far as reviewing is concerned but is

justified by the fact that this review is meant for an economic journal

for the purposes of which, we need only attend to the analysis of the

institution of Property and the modifications it is alleged by Mr. Russell

to produce in human nature.

Before, however, proceeding to the task, it may be worth while discussing

how the philosophy of war is related to the principles of growth as

expounded by Mr. Russell.

At the outset it must be said that, because his is an anti-war book, those

who read in him the philosophy of quieticism will have read him all wrong.

For, though Mr. Russell is anxious for the abolition of war, he explicitly

states that “in spite of all the destruction which is wrought by the impulses

that lead to war, there is more hope for a nation which has these impulses

5. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

485

than for a nation in which all impulse is dead. Impulse is the expression of

life and while it exists, there is hope of its turning towards life instead of

towards death ; but lack of impulse is death, and out of death no new life

will come.”

He further acknowledges that “a great many of the impulses

which now lead nations to go to war are themselves essential to any

vigorous or progressive life. Without imagination and love of adventure a

society becomes stagnant and begins to decay. Conflict, provided it is not

destructive and brutal, is necessary in order to stimulate men’s activities

and to secure the victory of what is living over what is dead and merely

traditional. The wish for the triumph of one’s cause, the sense of solidarity

with large bodies of men, are not things which a wise man will wish to

destroy. It is only the outcome in death and destruction and hatred that

is evil. The problem is to keep these impulses without making war the

outlet for them.”

The gist of it all is that activity is the condition of growth. Mr. Russell,

it must be emphasized, is against war but is not for quieticism ; for,

according to him, activity leads to growth and quieticism is but another

name for death. To express it in the language of Professor Dewey he is

only against “force as violence” but is all for “force as energy.” It must

be remembered by those who are opposed to force that without the use

of it all ideals will remain empty just as without some ideal or purpose

(conscious or otherwise) all activity will be no more than mere fruitless

fooling. Ends and means (= force in operation) are therefore concomitants

and the common adage that the end justifies the means contains a profound

truth which is perverted simply because it is misunderstood. For if the

end does not justify the means what else will? The difficulty is that we

do not sufficiently control the operations of the means once employed for

the achieving of some end. For a means when once employed liberates

many ends—a fact scarcely recognised—and not the one only we wish it to

produce. However, in our fanaticism for achievement we attach the article

“the” to the end we cherish and pay no heed to the ends simultaneously

liberated. Of course for the exigencies of an eminently practical life we

must set an absolute value on some one end. But in doing this we must

take precaution that the other ends involved are not sacrificed. Thus, the

problem is that if we are to use force, as we must, to achieve something,

we must see that while working for one end we do not destroy, in the

process, other ends equally worthy of maintenance. Applying this to the

present war, no justification. I think, is needed for the use of force. What

needs to the justified is the destructive violence. The justification must

satisfy the world that the ends given prominence to by one or other of

6. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 21.

7. Ibid., p. 93.

486

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the combatants could not be achieved otherwise than by violence, i.e., without

involving the sacrifice of other ends equally valuable for the stability of

the world. True enough that violence cannot always be avoided and non-

resistance can be adopted only when it is a better way of resistance. But

the responsibility for an intelligent control of force rests on us all. In short,

the point is that to achieve anything we must use force : only we must

use it constructively as energy and not destructively as violence.

The length of this discussion of the philosophy of war as related to

the principles of growth can be justified, if need be, by more extenuating

circumstances than one. The present European war has brought into

unmeasured and even thoughtless censure the philosophy of force and

has ushered to the forefront the gospel of quieticism and the doctrine

of non-resistance. The fact that Mr. Russell’s is an anti-war book, the

author of which was sentenced to six months’ goal, not for writing the

book under review but for being a pacifist crank, will be construed to lend

its support to the lurking desire in many a mind for a passive life as a

natural reaction from the turmoil of war. It was therefore necessary to

know how far Mr. Russell shared in this condemnation of force. A second

justifying circumstance is furnished by the bias in the minds of the Indian

readers of Mr. Russell. It will be realized that what is advocated to take

the place of the philosophy of force is essentially an Eastern philosophy or

to be specific, Indian philosophy. It was therefore much more important to

present Indian readers of Mr. Russell with a correct interpretation of his

attitude. Their innate craving for a pacific life and their philosophic bias

for the doctrine of non-resistance, I am afraid, might lead them to read

in Mr. Russell a justification of their view of life, if not guarded against.

Is the Indian view of life a practicable view ? Nietzsche in his cynical

mood said of Christianity that there was only one Christian and he was

crucified-implying the impracticability of the Christian view of life. This

remark, if it is true of the Christian, must be true, in a larger degree,

of the Eastern view of life as well: for, though regionally Western yet

Christianity in its origin as well in its content is essentially Eastern.

Equally condemnatory, though not so severely, as shown above, is the

attitude of Mr. Russell towards this philosophy of quieticism. One cannot

however, fail to notice with dismay the persistence of this attitude towards

life on the part of Indians notwithstanding its theoretical impossibility and

the many vissicitudes through which the country has passed. Nay, in the

present days of Indian Nationalism—which sadly enough is tantamount

to justifying everything Indian—the attitude is likely to be upheld and

continued. Note, that of the stock contrasts between the East and the West,

thrown in relief by the war, the East is ever eager to give prominence in

terms of self-glorification to one—that of its being free from the extreme

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

487

materialism of the West leading to war and devastation. There is

however no justification for setting the West in such a cruel contrast.

The East is too prone to forget that materialist we all are ; even the

East in spite of itself. Regarding the war, perhaps, the West may

be blamed. But it can retort and say, “not to act is to be dead. Life

consists in activity: It is better to act even violently as in war than

not at all for only when we act that we may hope to act well.” Thus,

surprising as it may be, the pacifist Mr. Russell thinks even war as

an activity leading to the growth of the individual and condemns it

only because it results in death and destruction. He would welcome

milder forms of war for according to him, “Every man needs some kind

of contest, some sense of resistance overcome, in order to feel that he

is exercising his faculties”,

in other words to feel that he is growing.

Of the many reasons urged in support the Indian view of life one

is that it is chiefly owing to its influence that India alone of all the

oldest countries has survived to this day. This is a statement that

is often heard and even from persons whose opinions cannot be too

easily set aside. With the proof or disproof however of this statement

I do not wish to concern myself. Granting the fact of survival I mean

to make a statement yet more important. It is this; there are many

modes of survival and not all are equally commendable. For instance,

mobility to beat a timely retreat may allow weaker varieties of people

to survive. So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the

power of rising to the occasion be the condition of the survival of a

people. Consequently, it cannot be granted—as is usually supposed—

that because a people have survived through ages that therefore they

have been growing and improving through ages. Thus it is not survival

but the quality, the plane of survival, that is important. If the Indian

readers of Mr. Russell probe into the quality of their survival and

not remain contented merely with having survived I feel confident

that they will be convinced of the necessity of a revaluation of their

values of life.

This much for Mr. Russell’s outlook towards the philosophy of war.

We will now turn to his analysis of the effects of property. Mr. Russell

passes in review the various existing economic organizations of society,

the social ills they produce and the remedies put forth. His critique is

summarized by himself as follows:

“The evils of present system result from the separation between the

several interests of consumer, producer and capitalist. No one of these

three has the same interests as the community or as either of the other

two. The co-operative system amalgamates the interests of consumer and

8. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 96.

488

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

capitalist; syndicalism would amalgamate the interests of producer

and capitalists. Neither amalgamates all three, or makes the

interests of those who direct industry quite identical with those of

the community. Neither, therefore, would wholly prevent industrial

strife or obviate the need of the State as arbitrator. But either would

be better than the present system, and probably a mixture of both

would cure most of the evils of industrialism as it exists now. It is

surprising that, while men and women have struggled to achieve

political democracy, so little has been done to introduce democracy in

industry. I believe incalculable benefits might result from industrial

democracy either on the co-operative model or with recognition of a

trade or industry as a unit for purposes of Government, with some

kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism aims at securing. There is

no reason why all Governmental units should be geographical. The

system was necessary in the past because of the slowness of means

of communication, but it is not necessary now. By some such system

many men might come to feel again a pride in their work and to

find again that outlet for the creative impulse which is now denied

to all but a fortunate few. Such a system requires the abolition of

the land owner and the restriction of the Capitalist, but does not

entail equality of earnings. And unlike Socialism, it is not a static

or final system; it is hardly more than a frame-work for energy and

initiative. It is only by some such method, I believe that the free

growth of the individual can be reconciled with the huge technical

organizations which have been rendered necessary by industrialism”.

It is a common place criticism of the industrial system that

it gives rise to compartmental ethics, dwarfs the personality

and makes slaves of the workers. To obviate such a result Mr.

Russell approaches with a cautious spirit, a breadth of outlook and

philosophic grasp of the social effects of the Economic Institutions.

I wish the same could be said of his analysis of the mental effects

of property. On the other hand his discussion of this aspect of

property is marked by certain misconceptions which it is necessary

to expose.

The first misconception is embodied in a statement about

the “love of money” in which he says “it leads men to mutilate

their own nature from a mistaken theory of what constitutes

success and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing

to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character

and purpose, a diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and

strain which leaves whole communities weary, discouraged, and

disillusioned.”

This is a sentiment that smacks of the antique and

9. Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp, 141-42.

10. Ibid,. p. 113.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

489

once served as a basic philosophy of life, probably with justification. The

economic life and the philosophic outlook of a society are more intimately

connected than is commonly supposed

and chipped off its exaggerations,

the Economical Interpretation of History holds true. This time-honoured

complaint of the moralists against “love of money” is only a part of their

general complaint against the goods of the world and finds its justification

in the economic circumstances which gave rise to this particular belief.

Bearing this in mind, it becomes easy to understand why the philosophy

of sour grapes, of the have-nots, is the most human of all beliefs and why

it so largely pervades our values about things which we can and things

which we cannot possess in spite of our efforts to have them. When we

cannot have a thing we argue that it is not worth having. There is thus

a genuine difference between the outlooks of the “haves” and the “have-

nots” towards worldly goods as there is between the religions of the down-

cast and the successful. Each one in obedience to its profoundly moral

nature—moral even in its immorality in that it seeks justification for

everything it does—idealises its own attitude. At a time when the whole

world was living in “pain economy” as did the ancient world and when

the productivity of human labour was extremely low and when no efforts

could augment its return, in short, when the whole world was living in

poverty it is but natural that moralists should have preached the gospel of

poverty and renunciation of worldly pleasures only because they were not

to be had. The belief of a society of “pain economy” is that a thing must

be bad if it cannot be had just as a society of “pleasure economy” addicted

to “ conspicuous consumption “ believes that a thing must be nasty if it

is cheap. Neither does the re-statement of the evils of “love of money” by

Mr. Russell add any philosophic weight to its historic value. The

misconception arises from the fact that he criticises the love of money

without inquiring into the purpose of it. In a healthy mind, it may be

urged, there is no such thing as a love of money in the abstract. Love of

money is always for something and it is the purpose embodied in that “for

something” that will endow it with credit or cover it with shame. Having

regard to this, there can be no “dead uniformity of character” among the

individual for, though actuated by love of money, their purposes on different

occasions are likely to be different. Thus even love of money as a pursuit

may result in a variety of character.

If Mr. Russell’s thesis is shaky when looked at from the production

side of our life, it entirely falls to the ground when looked at from the

consumption side. Really to prove that human nature mutilates itself by

feeding, exclusively, some one appetite we shall have to find our support

by scrutinizing not the production but the consumption side of life. Now

11. Cf James Bonar “Philosophy in its Relation to Political Economy”, more particularly,

Achille Lorla, “Economic Foundations of Society”.

490

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

knowing as we do the laws of consumption

is there a possibility of such

mutilation? The answer, as we shall see, is in the negative.

The laws of consumption, it may be noted, are simply certain deductions

from the economic doctrine of the utility theory of value Formulated, as a

reaction to the classical theory by Cournot, Gossen, Walres Menger and

Jevons, it no longer thinks of utility as a quality inherent in the objective

thing or condition but as dependent upon the capacity it possesses to satisfy

human wants. This being so, the utility of an object varies according to the

varying condition of the organism needing satisfaction. Even an object of our

strongest desire like food may please or disgust, according as we are hungry

or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus utility diminishes as satisfaction

increases. In other words as satisfaction is the pleasurable activity of a

particular organ or a group of them, the curve representing the relation of

the organ to the object of its satisfaction varies inversely with the condition

of the organ.

If Mr. Russell had carefully gone into the implications of this psychological

analysis, he would certainly have avoided the misconception in question. For

what does the psychological analysis really mean ? Why does the utility of an

object tend to be zero or even negative ? This takes place it may be argued

either (1) because at some point in the process of satisfaction the particular

organ irritated ceases to derive any further satisfaction by feeding itself on

the object of its craving or (2) because other organs needing a different kind

of satisfaction clamour against the over-indulgence of some one organ at their

expense. Prof. Giddings holding the latter view says “ if the cravings of a

particular organ or a group of organs are being liberally met with appropriate

satisfactions, while other organs suffer deprivation, the neglected organs

set up a protest, which is usually sufficiently importunate to compel us to

attempt their appeasing. The hunger of the neglected parts of our nature

normally takes possession of consciousness, and diverts our attention and

our efforts from the organ which is receiving more than its due share of

indulgence”.

Of the two alternative explanations that of Prof. Giddings is

probably the more correct. Having regard to the behaviouristic hypothesis, of

the organism as an active entity, it is but proper to suppose that there does

exist this hunger of the entire organism for a varied satisfaction appropriate

to each of its organ which would engender such a protest. It is this protest

that compels obedience to what is called the law of variety in consumption.

If this is a fact it is difficult to understand how one organ by perpetual

dominance can mutilate the whole organism. On the other hand, though

one at a time, all the appetites have their turn. Human nature is, thus,

fortunately, provided by its very make-up against a one-sided development

leaving no doubt as to its promise for an all-round development in a

congenial environment. Whether it will be able to obtain the miscellaneous

12. For a brilliant discussion of them C/o. Prof. S. N. Patten’s “A Theory of Consumption”.

13. Democracy and Empire, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY

491

food-material, intellectual or spiritual it craves for is a matter beyond its

control. If it is mutilated by the lack of variety of food, it will be through

social default and not its own.

Another allegations of Mr. Russell is that property as the embodient of

the possessive instinct leads to war. One may agree with Mr. Russell and

yet say that Fredric Nietzsche understood the effects of property better than

Mr. Russell. This effect is well summed up in a story which Thucydides

relates somewhere. He depicts a farmer who having gathered his harvest

was sitting by the side of the heap brooding over the market and the gains

of his business; while deeply engrossed in his reverie he was surprised by a

robber. Thus aroused, the farmer, without even uttering a word of protest,

at once consented to share his pile and thanked heavens for having escaped

with the loss only of a half. Whether the above is a fact or a fable, it contains

a kernel of truth not always perceived. How much man is tamed of his wild

nature by his acquisitions through the course of time it is not possible to

measure. But that it is so is beyond doubt. Nietzsche was perfectly aware

of this and would not therefore let his Superman hold any property lest he

(the Superman) might not play the havoc Nietzsche wanted him to play for

the fear of losing his acquisitions in the bargain. The trouble therefore one

might say, is not with property but with the unequal distribution of it; for

those who have none of it are prone to perpetrate more destruction for its

possession than, those who have. An industrial dispute of the modern time

is another illustration and that workers, in a strike, use more violence than

their employers can only be understood in the light of the above remarks.

It is the existence of the stake that blunts the sword and it is the non-

existence thereof that sharpens it. Thus property may be aggressive. Yet it

is not without its compensating effects.

It would be unjust to pass over silently a most fundamental notion that

pervades the whole outlook of Mr. Russell. He says that “men’s impulses

and desires may be divided into those that are creative and those that are

possessive. Some of our activities are directed to creating what would not

otherwise exist, others towards acquiring or retaining what exists already.

The best life is that in which creative impulses play the largest part and

possessive impulses the smallest.

Is it possible so to divide the impulses ?

Is there such a thing as an impulse to appropriate? It is beyond the scope

of this review to discuss this large question. I simply intend to raise a query

because I feel, that by making the distinction as one of instinct, Mr. Russell

is not quite on safe ground. Every impulse if uninhibited, will lead to some

creative act. Whether the product will be appropriated or not is a matter

wholly different from any act of impulse or instinct. It depends, I submit,

upon the method of its production—whether individualistic or otherwise—and

upon the nature of its use—whether communal or otherwise. No one sets

14. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 234.

492

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

up a right of appropriation to anything that is produced by common efforts

nor to anything that is of joint use. Of the former one may cite the game

of a communal hunt of the primitive folks. For an example of the latter

the situation in a family presents a happy illustration, No member, it can

be said without fear of being challenged, will ever set up a right of private

appropriation to the articles of the Table or to the articles of decoration just

as nobody will ever set up a right of exclusive ownership regarding public

monuments. They are of the house. But every one of the family will surely

set up a right to the exclusive use of his or her clothes. They are of the

Individual. It is therefore, just a question of production and use and not of

impulse that a thing is appropriated. Thus the creative and the possessive

are on different levels and the methods of augmenting the former as of

diminishing the latter are bound to be different. The more of one will not

ensure the less of the latter.

With this we must close the review of Mr. Russell’s book. There is much in

it that can be laid at the foundation of the future reconstruction of Society.

Mr. Russell deserves full credit for having emphasized the psychic basis of

social life. Social reconstruction depends upon the right understanding of

the relation of individual to society—a problem which has eluded the grasp

of many sociologists. Mr. Russell’s conception of the relation—as being of

impulse to institution is, beyond doubt the truest. However, to understand

this and many other problems the book touches I will strongly recommend

the reader to go to the original. I have confined myself to putting Mr.

Russell in his right place where I thought he was likely to be misunderstood

and to guarding his uncritical readers against certain misconceptions that

may pass off unnoticed. In both cases I have attempted to do my duty to

Mr. Russell and to his readers.



Aborigines: 46-52.

Act: Burmah Anti Boycott: 417-18.

Civil Rights Protection: 408.

Govt. of India, 1919: 322-24, 331.

Govt. of India, 1935: 283, 285-86, 292, 295, 308,

314, 322, 329, 331-32, 335, 343.

Acton, Lord: 122-24, 168.

Addison, Joseph: 267.

Agarkar, G. C.: 352.

Agra: 470.

Ahimsa: 93.

Alexander: 43, 213.

Allah: 91.

Ambedkar, B. R.: 31-33, 81-85.

America: 248, 284-85, 293, 295, 300.

American Economic Association: 467.

American Indians: 8.

Amritsar: 29.

Anandacharya, P.: 224.

Anaryas: 53.

Andhras: 105-06, 109,133.

Angell: 483.

Anglo Indians: 368-75.

Anvil Brahmin: 123.

Arabs: 44.

Arnold Mathew: 17, 95.

Arnold Thomus: 475.

Aryans: 6, 21.

Arya Samajists: 58-59, 63, 77, 92.

Ashoka: 159.

Ashtadhikar: 72.

Asia: 64.

Assam:, 103, 121, 470.

Attila: 213.

Aungier, Governor: 114.

Austria: 124.

Austro-Hungarian Empire: 104

Bagehot, Walter: 18,231.

Balais: 39-40, 114-16.

Balfour: 231-32.

Baluchis: 248.

Banias: 67, 90. 115-16.

Baroda Committee: 460, 462-66, 476.

Baroda State: 456, 471.

Bateson, Prof,: 49

Benaras: 44

Benaras Hindu University: 425.

Bengal: 103, 121, 126, 131, 135.

Bengalis: 106, 126.

Berar: 109, 470.

Berkenhead, Lord: 110, 378.

Bhagwat: 64.

Bhai Parmanand: 29.

Bhandarkar, D. R.: 48.

Bhils: 248.

Bhimji Parakh: 114.

Bhishma: 240.

Bhopal: 131,152.

Bhungis: 11, 30.

Bible: 220.

Bicholi Hapsi: 39, 131, 135.

Bihar: 103. 109. 120-21, 148, 150-51.

Bismark: 231-32.

Blue Ridge: 234.

Bombay: 27-28. 34. 37, 109-14, 118-21, 125-27,

144-45, 155-58, 165, 258,417.

Bombay Army: 261.

Bonnerjee, Surendranath: 276, 352.

Bonnerjee, W. C: 38-39,41.

Brahma: 91, 342.

Brahmins: 15-16, 18-20, 37, 49, 52-53, 59, 61-62,

64, 70-71, 74, 83, 90, 95, 115-16, 134, 158, 162,

218-21, 253-56, 267-69, 274 of Ver; : 115-16.

INDEX

Brahminism: 31, 77.

Brahmo Samaj: 268.

Brihaspati: 73.

British, the; 113-14, 131

Bryce, James: 143, 236-38, 316-17.

Buckle: 212.

Buddha: 44, 69, 91, 219, 240.

Buddhists: 248.

Bundelkhand: 470.

Burke, Edmand: 76, 79, 222.

Burmah: 248.

Caesar: 213.

Caird, Sir James: 473-74.

Calcutta: 102, 104, 121, 124, 126, 156, 171.

Cambridge: 39.

Canada: 144, 284-86, 295, 301, 307, 309, 344, 426.

Carlyle: 65, 90, 213-15, 224, 230.

Carson: 378.

Carver: 78.

Caste and Caste System: 5, 7-22, 27-28, 31, 33, 41,

47-58, 60, 62, 64-74, 83-84, 87-93.

Catholies: 42.

Cawnpore: 151.

C. P. & Berar: 103, 109, 111, 148, 150, 151.

Chaitanya: 83, 88-89.

Chakwara: 40.

Chalukyas: 112.

Chamars: 49, 257, 275.

Chandragupta: 44.

Chaturvarnya: 58-64, 86, 89.

China: 234-35.

Chiplunkar, Vishnushastri: 218.

Christ: 244, 264.

Christians: 16, 20, 45, 54, 80, 85, 94, 115, 116,

134, 249-50, 267, 365, 368-71, 373, 375, 423.

Church, American Protestant Episcopal; 143, 317.

Clemenceau: 214.

Clement: 294.

Coleridge : 222.

Columbia University: 274.

Communal Award: 42-43.

Congress : 38-39, 131, 145, 217, 219, 224-25, 228,

236-37, 263, 297, 329-30 334, 348, 350, 358.

Consent Bill: 225.

Constituent Assembly: 360-61, 364, 366.

Constitution of America: 360, 377;

Canada: 294, India: 358-60, 367;

South Africa: 375.

Cotton, Sir Henry: 479.

Cournot: 490.

Cripps Committee: 361-65.

Crito: 235.

Cromwelllan war; 52

Crump: 276.

Dadabhoy Naoroji: 264.

Daman: 112.

Dantwala: 111, 119, 122-23.

Dashodh: 37.

Datta, K.L. 470.

Davenport, H. J,: 467.

Dayanand Saraswati: 92.

Deccan Sabha: 207.

Delaware: 108.

Delhi: 170.

Democles: 416.

Democracy: 251.

Denmark: 456

494

INDEX

Depressed Classes: 34, 37, 84.

Depressed Class Mission: 34, 265.

Desai, Morarji: 155,162.

Dewey, John: 79.

Dhar: 132.

Dheds: 257.

Dicey: 70, 302, 334.

Dictatorship: 411-12.

Diu, city of: 115.

Dnyaneshwar: 83, 88.

Dominion Status: 330, 331, 333-34, 345-48, 359.

Dravidians: 6, 21.

Dufferin, Lord: 247.

Dutch: 114, 248.

East India Company: 53, 114-18, 220, 261.

Education: 484.

Eknath: 87.

Elphinston: 274.

Ely: 469.

Endogamy: 8-12, 14.

England 44, 300, 365, 368, 456, 473.

English People: 114-15.

Ethnology: 5.

Eton: 269.

Eugenics 49, 50.

Europe: 44-45, 63-64, 102, 112, 120, 248.

Europeans: 119-20, 364.

Exogamy: 9-10.

Falcon, the: 114.

France: 456.

Franklin, Doctor: 455.

French: 114, 118, 143.

French Revolution: 168.

Fundamental Rights: 377.

Gadgil, D. R.: 113,125, 281-83.

Gandhi, Mahatma: 37, 68, 86-96, 131, 134,

208-09, 226, 228-29, 346, 350-52, 422.

Gardiner: 227.

Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island: 114.

Germans: 462

Germany: 143, 147, 284-285, 311, 325, 378.

Gheewala: 111, 113,123-25.

Giddings: 490.

Giffen Robert: 479.

Girdhar Moody: 117.

Gladstone: 269.

Gokhale, G. K.: 269, 283, 352.

Gonds: 248.

Gotra: 9.

Gujarat: 470.

Gujaratis, the: 67, 110, 111-15, 119-120, 122-24.

Gujars: 134.

Great Man: 212-17, 224, 226, 230, 232.

Hailey: 270.

Hansraj, Mahatma: 28.

Har Bhagwan: 29-30, 32.

Harijan ((Community): 27.

Harijan (Journal): 27, 82, 86.

Haripura: 329.

Harrow: 249.

Hart, A. B.: 247.

Hindus; 6, 13, 15-22, 25, 28-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, 50-

57, 59, 63-66, 72-74, 76-79, 84-85, 88-89, 91-92,

94-96,112, 134, 146, 167, 169, 209, 224, 248-50,

252, 256, 261-62, 264, 267, 270, 274, 276-79,

348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-71, 373-74 376-78,414,

416-17, 420-23, 425-56, 431, 461.

Hindu Maha Sabha: 28, 146, 350.

Hindu Raj: 37.

Hindu Religion: 31-34, 75-76, 83, 93, 135.

Hirey: 162.

Hobhouse, L. T.:261.

Holland: 456.

Home Rule: 267.

Ibbetson, Sir Denzil: 17.

India: 6, 8-9, 14, 16, 25, 45-47, 50, 111-13, 121, 126,

131, 456, 466, 479.

Indian Army Commission: 261.

Indian Merchants Chamber: 110.

Indore: 152.

Indra Singh: 27.

Instrument of Accession: 286-88, 292, 301-02, 306,

336-38.

Interdining: 67-68, 92.

Intermarriage: 67-68, 92.

Iqbal Mohomed: 342.

Ireland: 42-43, 365, 378.

Irish Home Rule: 42.

Italy: 143.

Jadhav, Ganpat Mahadev: 357.

Jaimini: 75.

Jains: 67.

James Elliot: 470.

Jan Sangh: 146.

Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal: 25, 27-37, 67, 81, 84-86.

Jats: 417-418.

Jat State: 134.

Jennings: 237.

Jevons, H. S.: 461, 464-66, 474-77, 479.

Jews: 20, 134, 222, 251.

Jinnah: 208-09, 226, 228-29, 337.

Jnyandeo: 83, 87.

Kabir: 74.

Kale, R. R.: 283.

Kali: 91.

Kammas, the: 134.

Kappus, the: 134.

Karnatak: 109,113.

Karwar: 112.

Kashmir: 133.

Kathiawar: 120.

Kaurava: 240.

Kavitha: 40.

Kayastha: 52,67.

Keatinge, G. M.: 457, 462-64, 466, 476.

Keralat:109.

Ketkar, S. V.: 7-8, 13, 21.

Khaparde Dadasaheb: 264.

Kheri Jessore: 417-18.

Kalis, the: 134.

Konkan: 110, 256.

Kranti: 27.

Krishna: 64.

Kshatriya: 17-18, 59, 61-62, 64, 91.

Kumarswami, A. K.: 13.

Kurtakoti, Shankaracharya: 270.

Labour and Caste System: 47-48, 61, 64.

Lahore: 28, 37.

Land Acquisition Act: 340, 463.

Land Revenue Code: 476.

Lassalle, Ferdinand: 42.

INDEX

495

League of Nations: 102, 376.

Lecky: 223.

Legislature: 393-95, 398, 404, 406.

Liberal Party of India: 236, 238-40.

Liberty; 57, 86,

Lincoln, Abraham: 215, 234.

Lingayats: 253-254, 273.

Linguistic Provinces: 101-03, 109, 121-22, 124-25, 132.

London Times: 478.

Lothian Committee: 429.

Luther, Martin: 44.

Macaulay: 324.

Machigars: 257.

Madig: 257.

Madras: 21, 103, 132, 144, 156, 470.

Mahabharata: 64, 73, 82.

Mahakoshal: 152.

Mahars: 211, 248, 253-54, 256-57, 274-75, 346.

Maharashtra: 102, 106, 108-13, 118-27, 132-34, 144-53.

Maharashtrians: 105-06, 110, 121-22, 134.

Mahavamsa: 159-61.

Maheswara: 13.

Maitland, Prof.: 233.

Malis: 134.

Mangs: 257.

Mann, H. S. 457.

Manu: 16-63, 71-74, 218-19.

Manusmruti: 61, 73.

Marathas: 113, 121, 123, 134, 161-63, 253, 256, 261,

273-74.

Marquis Tweedledale: 261.

Marwaris: 67.

Marx, Karl: 42, 72, 212.

Mathai, John: 165.

Mazzini: 239-40.

Mecca: 44.

Meerut: 151.

Mehta, Nani: 351.

Mehta, Phirozeshah: 352.

Menger: 490.

Mill, J. S.: 41.

Mochis: 257.

Moghuls: 170.

Mohammed, Prophet: 44, 264.

Mongolians: 6, 248.

Montague: 267.

Montague Chelmsford Retorm: 322.

Morley, Lord: 231-32, 262, 265.

Morris: 55.

Mourya Empire: 63,135.

Mulhall: 472.

Muslims: 20, 53-55, 64-65, 70, 80, 85, 93, 112, 115,

134. 146, 169, 248, 250, 252-54, 256,263, 267,

273-76, 348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-72, 374, 376-77,

422-423, ,461.

Muslim League: 228.

Nanak: 69.

Nanak, Guru: 44.

Nanavati. M. B.:471.

Nanga Sadhus: 149.

Napoleon, Bonaparte: 213-14, 234-35, 269.

Narang, Gokalchand: 28.

Narendranath, Raja: 28.

Natarajan: 276.

Nationality: 123-25.

National Liberation Federation: 329-330.

Negroes: 8, 222, 408.

Nehru, Jawaharlal: 131, 133, 145, 149, 152.

Nesfields: 7-8,17.

New York: 108,147.

Nietzsche, Fredric: 486,491.

Nima Parakh: 115-18.

Nizam: 162.

Non-Brahmins: 15-16, 19-20, 50, 253, 274.

North West Frontier Provinces: 401.

Ohio: 231.

Oracle of Delphi: 45.

Orissa: 103, 121, 131.

Oxford: 39.

Pakistan: 146, 376.

Pali: 159.

Pandava: 240.

Pannikar, K. M.: 147-48.

Pant, G. V.: 151.

Paramanand, Bhai: 28.

Pariah: 49,407.

Parliament: 69-70.

Parliamentary Democracy: 411-12.

Parsees: 20, 250, 370, 375.

Parsuram: 91.

Patel Vallabhbhai: 132.

Patel Vitthalbhai: 266.

Pathans: 248.

Patidars: 123.

Patricians: 43, 45.

Pax Britanica: 233.

Pendleton Herring: 239.

Peshwa: 39-54, 216.

Phuley, Mahatma: 225-26.

Pierson, N. G.: 462.

Pimpla Saudagar: 457.

Pius IX (Pope): 227.

Plebians: 43, 45.

Poles: 248.

Political Reform Party: 37,

Pompeii: 5.

Poona: 131, 263, 457.

Poona Pact: 401, 409, 421, 424-25, 429-3.

Pope: 264.

Poritt: 426.

Portuguese: 114-15.

Prabhus, Pathare: 53-54.

Prakasham T.: 132.

Prarthana Samaj: 268.

Protestants: 43.

Prussia: 42, 147.

Punjab: 19, 27, 30, 41, 103, 121.

Puranas: 64,76,82,92.

Puritanism: 44.

Quebec: 427.

Radhakrishnan, S.: 66.

Radicals: 263.

Raja, M. C: 82.

Rajasthan: 148.

Rajendra Prasad: 132.

Rajgopalachari, C.: 133, 149-50, 237.

Rama: 61, 69, 86.

Ramanuja: 74.

Ramayana: 82, 61.

Ramdas: 37.

Ramkrishna Paramhamsa: 83, 88.

Ranade, M. G.: 162, 207, 211-12, 215-16, 220-26,

230-40, 352.

Redmond: 42, 110, 378.

Risley, Sir H.: 7-8, 17.

Rohtak: 417-18.

R Roman Republic: 44.

496

Rome: 43, 45.

Roosevelt, Theodore: 212, 227.

Rosebery, Lord: 213.

Round Table Conference: 342, 350-51, 378.

Roy, Raja Ram Mohan: 83.

Russell, Bertrand: 483-84, 488-92; on

Impulse: 485-86; on property: 487;

on war: 483.

Sagotras: 9.

Sahara: 132.

Sahyadrikhand: 52.

Samson, the: 114.

Sangathan: 55.

Sankhya: 219.

Sanskrit: 12, 50.

Santram: 24, 27-28, 30, 32, 84-85, 93.

Sanyasa: 13.

Sapindas: 9,

Sapru Committee: 361-62, 364-65, 379, 416.

Sati: 13, 20.

Scheduled Castes: 37, 39-41, 74, 133, 157, 250,

252-58, 261-65, 268, 271, 274-76, 358, 365,

368-72, 401-04, 407, 414, 416-17, 419-23, 425-

26, 428-31.

Scheduled Caste Federation; 375.

Scotland: 300, 365.

Scythians: 6.

Secretary of State: 311, 332, 335-36, 345,

Senart: 6-7, 17.

Separate Electorates: 401.

Settlement Commission: 403.

Shambuka: 61.

Shankar or Shiva: 9,342.

Shastras: 16, 68-69, 73-76, 84, 87-88, 93, 95, 263.

Shastri, Srinivas: 211, 240.

Shilahars: 112.

Shivaji: 37, 44, 50, 52,

Shore, John: 269.

Shuddhi: 55.

Shudra: 18, 58, 61-62.

Sikhs: 44, 55, 64-65. 80, 248, 364-65, 368-71, 373,

375, 423.

Simla: 170.

Simon Commission; 332, 421.

Sind: 271, 276.

Slater. Gilbert: 457.

Sly, Sir Frank; 38.40-41, 274.

Smith, Adam: 456.

Smritis: 73-75, 82.

Social Conference: 217, 225, 263.

Socialism: 460. Socialists: 44-47.

Social Reform Party; 37-38, 41-42.

Socrates: 235.

Solicitor-General: 335-36.

Sonar: 53-54,

South Africa: 144, 426, 428.

Spencer, Sir, Herbert: 17.

Srinivasan, Diwan Bahadur: 82.

Sriramulu, Potti: 132.

States, Indian: 203-04. 286-88, 301-02, 308, 311-12,

317-21, 327, 332-33, 339-41, 343-47.

States Reorganisation Commission: 141-42.

State Socialism: 408-09, 411.

Stephen, Leslie: 71.

St. Helena: 235.

Sultan: 69,264.

Supreme Court; 395, 398.

Superintendent of Minority Affairs: 398.

Surat: 114, 274.

Surplus Man: 10-14

Surplus Woman: 10-14.

Swedes: 248.

Switzerland: 144, 284-85, 311, 335.

Sydenham College: 274.

Tagore, Devendranath: 83.

Tamerlane: 214.

Tamillants: 105-06.

Tamils: 132,

Tarde, Gabriel: 19-20.

Taylor, Henry C.: 467.

Telang, Justice: 221.

Texas; 108.

Thakkar Bappa: 346.

Thana: 272.

Thayer: 212.

Tibet: 371.

Tilak, B. G.: 38, 87, 162, 217-18, 229, 270, 352.

Times of India: 39.

Tiruvallur: 83, 88.

Toby, Sir: 237.

Tories: 263.

Thorndike, E L,: 483.

Tral Maharashtrikas; 159-60.

Tribes, Criminal: 219-20.

Trimurti: 342.

Tukaram: 83, 88.

Turkish Empire: 104,

Ulster: 43,

Uma: 13,

United Provinces: 103, 121, 148, 150-51.

United States of India: 143, 389-90, 392, 395-98,

402, 405-06.

Untouchables. see S. Cs.

Untouchability: 87-88.

Upanishads: 18, 82, 92.

U.S.A.: 8, 108, 143, 147, 478-79.

U.S.S.R.: 147, 408, 415, 428.

Vakil, N.C.: 111, 113, 119, 121-122.

Valshashlka: 219.

Vaishya: 18, 59, 61-62, 90.

Varna: 64, 73, 83-84, 86-87, 89, 91-92.

Veda: 17, 30-31, 63, 69, 72-76, 82, 92-93.

Vedanta: 219.

Vishnu: 90, 342.

Vivekanand: 83.

Walres: 490.

Wanchoo, Justice: 133.

War; 484.

Warangal: 133.

War or Roses: 52.

Washington City: 313-14.

Waterloo: 235.

Wellington: 269.

Wilson, Woodrow: 239.

Wiseman, Cardinal: 215.

Wyoming: 108.

Young, A.A.: 91, 467

Young India: 97.

Yuan Shih-K’ai : 235

Zanu: 40



496

INDEX