Vol. 12 · pages 106–110

85THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA always to have been more sepoys than Europeans on the side of the Company. And let us observe further that we do not hear of the sepoys as fighting ill, or of the English as bearing the whole brunt of the conflict. No one who has remarked the childish eagerness with which historians indulge their national vanity, will be surprized to find that our English writers in describing these battles seem unable to discern the sepoys. Read Macaulay’s Essay on Clive; everywhere it is ‘the imperial people,’ ‘the mighty children of the sea,’ ‘none could resist Clive and his Englishmen.’ But if once it is admitted that the sepoys always outnumbered the English, and that they kept pace with the English in efficiency as soldiers, the whole theory which attributes our successes to an immeasurable natural superiority in valour falls to the ground. In those battles in which our troops were to the enemy as one to ten, it will appear that if we may say that one Englishman showed himself equal to ten natives, we may also say that one sepoy did the same. It follows that, though no doubt there was a difference it was not so much a difference of race as a difference of discipline, of military science, and also no doubt in many cases on difference of leadership. Observe that Mill’s summary explanation of the conquest of India says nothing of any natural superiority on the part of the English. ‘The two important discoveries for conquering India were ; 1st the weakness of the native armies against European discipline, 2ndly the facility of imparting that discipline to natives in the European service’. He adds ; ‘Both discoveries were made by the French.’ And even if we should admit that the English fought better than the sepoys, and took more than their share in those achievements which both performed in common, it remains entirely incorrect to speak of the English nation as having conquered the nations of India. The nations of India have been conquered by an army of which on the average about a fifth part was English. But we do not only exaggerate our own share in the achievement; we at the same time entirely misconceive and misdescribe the achievement itself. From what race were the other four-fifths of the Army drawn ? From the Natives of India themselves! India can hardly be said to have been conquered at all by foreigners ; She has rather conquered herself.” 1 This explanation of Prof. Seely is correct as far as it goes. But it is not going far enough. India was conquered by the British with the help of an Army composed of Indians. It is well for Indians as well as for the British not to overlook this fact. But who were these Indians who joined the army of their foreigners ? That question Prof. Seely did not raise. But it is a very pertinent question. Who were these people who joined the army of the East 1. Seely, Expansion of England, p. 200—202.

86 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES India Company and helped the British to conquer India ? The answer that I can give—and it is based on a good deal of study—is that the people who joined the Army of the East India Company were the Untouchables of India. The men who fought with Clive in the battle of Plassey were the Dusads, and the Dusads are Untouchables. The men who fought in the battle of Koregaon were the Mahars, and the Mahars are Untouchables. Thus in the first battle and the last battle it was the Untouchables who fought on the side of the British and helped them to conquer India. The truth of this was admitted by the Marquess of Tweedledale in his note to the Peel Commission which was appointed in 1859 to report on the reorganization of the Indian Army. This is what he said— (Quotation not given in the MS.—ed.) There are many who look upon this conduct of the Untouchables in joining the British as an act of gross treason. Treason or no treason, this act of the Untouchables was quite natural. History abounds with illustrations showing how one section of people in a Country have shown sympathy with an invader, in the hope that the new comer will release them from the oppressions of their countrymen. Let those who blame the Untouchables read the following manifesto issued by the English Labouring Classes in 17 (Left incomplete). * * * (Extracts not given in MS.—ed.). Was the attitude of the Untouchables in any way singular ? After all, the tyranny under which the English Labourer lived was nothing as compared with the tyranny under which the Untouchables lived and if the English workmen had one ground to welcome a foreign invader the Untouchable had one hundred. (Space left blank in the MS.—ed.) Not only did the Untouchables enabled the British to conquer India, they enabled the British to retain. The Mutiny of 1857 was an attempt to destroy British Rule in India. It was an attempt to drive out the English and reconquer India. So far as the Army was concerned the Mutiny was headed by the Bengal Army.1 The Bombay Army and the Madras Army remained loyal and it was 1. The Bengal Army was so called because it was under the control of the Bengal Government and not because it was composed of Bengalees. As a matter of fact there were no Bengalees in it. It was formed mostly from up-countrymen.

87THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA with their help that the Mutiny was suppressed. What was the composition of the Bombay Army and the Madras Army ? They were mostly drawn from the Untouchables, the Mahars in Bombay and the Pariahs in Madras. It is therefore true to say that the Untouchables not only helped the British to conquer India they helped them to retain India. How have the British treated the Untouchables so far as service in the Army is concerned ? Strange as it may appear, the answer is that the British Government has since about 1890 placed a ban on the recruitment of the Untouchables in the Indian Army. The result was that, those who had already been recruited remained. It is a great mercy that they were not disbanded. But in course of time they died or went on pension and ultimately by about 1910 completely disappeared from the Army. Nothing can be more ungrateful than this exclusion of the Untouchables from the Army. Why did the British commit an act which appears to be an act of treachery and bad faith ? No reason has ever been given by the British Government for this ban on the recruitment of the Untouchables into the Army. It is often heard that this exclusion is not intentional but is the consequence of a policy initiated in the interest of the efficiency of the Army in about the year 1890. But is this so ? This policy is based on two principles, one relating to organization and the other relating to recruiting. The principle of organization that was introduced in 1890 is known as the principle of class composition as against the old principle of a mixed regiment. Under the new principle, the Indian Army was organized on the principle of class regiment or the class squadron or company system. This means, in the first case, that the whole regiment is composed of one class (or caste) and in the second case, that every squadron or company is formed entirely of one class. The old principle of recruiting was to take the best men available, no matter what his race or religion was. Under the new principle, race of the man became a more important factor than his physique or his intellect. For the purposes of recruitment, the different castes and communities of India are divided into categories, those belonging to the martial races and those

88 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES belonging to the non-martial races. The non-martial races are excluded from military service. Only the castes and communities which are included in the category of martial races are drawn upon for feeding the Army. It is difficult to approve of these two principles. The reasons which underlie the principle of class composition it is said, “are to a certain extent political, as tending to prevent any such formidable coalition” against the British, as occurred in the Mutiny. I should-have thought that the old system of a mixed regiment was safer.’ But assuming that the principle is sound, why should it come in the way of the recruitment of the untouchables ? If, under the system of class composition, there can be regiments of Sikhs, Dogras, Gurkhas, Rajputs etc., why can there not be regiment of Untouchables ? Again, assuming that recruitment from martial races only is in sound principle, why should it affect adversely (to) the untouchables unless they are to be treated as belonging to the non-martial races ? And what justification is there for classing the untouchables who formed the backbone of the Indian Army and who were the mainstay of the Indian fighting forces for over 150 years as non-martial ? That the British Government does not deem the Untouchables as belonging to non-martial classes is proved by the fact, that in the Great War, when more men were necessary for the Army, this ban on the recruitment of the Untouchables in the Army was lifted and one full battalion was raised and was known as the 111 Mahars. Its efficiency has been testified by no less a person than that (. . . .)*. When the need was over and the Battalion was disbanded much to the chagrin and resentment of the Untouchables. Sir said: (Quotation not given in the MS.—ed.) With this testimony who can say that the Untouchables are a non-martial race ? It is thus obvious that none of the two reasons supposed to be responsible for the exclusion of the Untouchables from the Army. What is then the real reason ? In my opinion, the real reason for the exclusion of Untouchables from the Army is their 1. See also the opinion of General Wilcox in his “ With Indians in France” p. (page No. not mentioned in MS.) * Left blank in MS.—ed.

89THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA Untouchability. Untouchables, were welcome in the Army so long as their entry did not create a problem. It was no problem in the early part of the British history, because the touchables were out of British Army. They continued to be outside the British Army so long as there were Indian Rulers. When, after the Indian Mutiny, the Race of Indian rulers shrivelled, the Hindus began to enter the British Army which was already filled with the Untouchables; then arose a problem—a problem of adjusting the relative position of the two groups—touchables and untouchables—and the British, who always, in cases of conflict between justice and convenience, prefer convenience, solved the problem by just turning out the Untouchables and without allowing any sense of gratitude to come in their way. Whatever the reasons of this exclusion, whatever the justice of this exclusion, the fact remains that the effect of this exclusion has proved most disastrous in its social consequences to the life of the Untouchables. The Military Service was the only service in which it was possible for the Untouchables to earn a living and also to have a career. It is a part of history that many untouchables had, done meritorious service in the field and hundreds had risen to the status of Jamadar, Subhedar and Subhedar Majors. The Military occupation had given them respectability in the eyes of the Hindus and had given them a sense of importance, by opening to them places of power, prestige and authority. Having been used to service in the Army for over 150 years, the Untouchables had come to regard it as a hereditary occupation and had not cared to qualify themselves for any other. Herein 1890—they were told that they were not wanted in the Army, without giving them any time to adjust themselves to the new circumstances—as was done in die case of the Anglo-Indians in 1935. When this service was closed, the Untouchables received a stunning blow and set-back from which they have not recovered. They were thrown from a precipice and without exaggeration, fell far below the level at which they had stood under the native Governments. So much for the entry of the Untouchables in the Military service. What is the position with regard to their entry in the civil service ?