Vol. 12 · pages 161–165

140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 3. But Government are obliged to keep in mind that to interfere with the prejudices of ages in a summary manner, for the sake of one or few individuals, would probably do a great damage to the cause of education. The disadvantage under which the petitioner is not one which has originated with the Government, and it is one which Government cannot summarily remove by interfering in his favour, as he begs them to do.” This is of course an easy view of the duties of a Government. It is not a responsible view. It is certainly not a view which a civilized Government would take. A Government which is afraid to govern is not a Government. It is only a corporation formed to collect taxes. The British Government undoubtedly meant to be more than a mere tax gathering machinery. It claimed to be a civilized Government. Then why did it not act to prevent wrong and injustice ? Was it because it had no power or was it because it was afraid to use them or was it because it felt that there was nothing wrong in the social and religious system of India ? The answer is that it had the power, the amplest power. It did not use it because for a part of the period it did not think that there was anything wrong in the social system of the Hindus and during the period when it became convinced that things were wrong it was overpowered by sense of fear. It is notorious that the beginning of its career the British had a dread and a horror of the consequences of permitting the diffusion of “Christian truth”. But it is not quite as notorious that the British at the same time were showing a corresponding respect for native prejudices. Mr. Ward, a Missionary in Calcutta records in his journal for 1802 the following fact:— “Last week a deputation from the Government went in procession to Kali Ghat, and made a thank offering to this Goddess of the Hindoos, in the name of the Company, for the success which the English have lately obtained in this country. Five thousand rupees were offered. Several thousand natives witnessed the English presenting their offerings to this idol. We have been much grieved at this act, in which the natives exult over us.” 1 Another illustration of the same is furnished by Mr. Robert Lindsay who was a civilian in the employment of the East India 1 Quoted in History of Serampore Mission Vol. I, p. 157.

141THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA Company in the time of Warren Hastings. Describing his initiation into his new office of Resident at Sylhet he says — “I was now told that it was customary for the new Resident to pay his respects to the shrine of the tutelar saint, Shaw Jullol. Pilgrims of the Islam faith flock to this shrine from every part of India, and afterwards found that the fanatics attending the tomb were not a little dangerous. It was not my business to combat religious prejudices, and I therefore went in state, as others had done before me, left my shoes on the threshold, and deposited on the tomb five gold mohurs as an offering. Being thus purified I returned to my dwelling and received the homage of my subjects.” How much the British Government had become associated with and interested in supporting native prejudices can be seen from the following memorial which was submitted to the Government of Madras by Bishop Corrie in 1833. The instances cited in the Memorial were these :— “First, that it is now required of Christian servants of the Government, both civil and military, to attend to Heathen and Mahomedan religious festivals, with the view of showing them respect Second, that in some instances they are called upon to present offerings, and to do homage to idols. Third, that the impure and degrading services of the pagodas are now carried on under the supervision and control of the principal European, and therefore. Christian officers of the Government, and the management and regulation of the revenues and endowments, both of these pagodas and mosques, so vested in them, under the provision of regulation vii of 1817, that no important idolatrous ceremony can be performed, no attendant of the various idols, not even the prostitutes of the temple, be entertained or discharged, nor the least expense incurred. without me official concurrence and orders of the Christian functionary. Fourth, that British officers, with the troops of the Government, are also now employed in firing salutes and in otherwise rendering homage to Mahomedan and idolatrous ceremonies, even on the Sabbath day ; and Christians are thus not unfrequently compelled by the authority of Government to desecrate their own most sacred institutions and to take part in unholy and degrading superstitions.” This is enough to show that the British Government in India “not content with their exertions to suppress the diffusion of the saving truths of the Gospel was openly and authoritatively aiding and abetting the worst forms of devil-worship; that they were taking all the hideous indecencies and revolting cruelties of Hindooism under their especial patronage; sending their own masters-of-the-ceremonies to preside over the hellish orgies ; and with paternal tenderness managing the property of the idol temples pampering the priests, cherishing the dancing girls, and doing

142 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES such honour to heathen is generally as was best calculated to maintain it in a high state or exultant obesity.” It was not till 1841 that Government dissociated itself from actual participation in the Hindu and Mahomedan religions ceremonies and that too after a great deal of agitation by the Missionaries. “In a circular letter signed by the Military Secretary to the Government of Fort St. George, and addressed to the Commanderin-Chief, under date of July 6, 1841, it is intimated, “under instructions from the Court of Directors, conveyed through the Government of India”, that “the attendance of troops or of military bands at native festivals or ceremonies, and the firing of salutes on occasions of that nature,” were “in future to be discontinued, with the object of separating the Government and its officers, as far as possible, from all connexion with the ceremonies of the Hindoo and Mahomedan religions.” The ordinary marks of respect paid to native princes on the occasions of their going forth or returning from such festivals or religious observances were, however, to be paid; and the change was to be effected “in a manner calculated not to alarm the minds of the natives or to offend their feelings. “These orders were circulated by the Commander in-Chief to the Generals commanding divisions, and by them to the regiments under their several commands.” What reform could be expected from a Government which had become so steeped in native prejudices and which wasted such official resources to tend them and keep them up ? It was stricken and paralyzed by sympathy. When it ceased to sympathise with the prejudices it was overtaken by fear. This fear arose out of two considerations. The first consideration related to the promises it had made to the people of India. On assuming the Government of any new territory, previously under native rule, it was the practice of the British Government to announce to the people that they would be protected in the free exercise of their religions and that neither their institutions nor their usages would be assailed. Thus in 1801 a solemn declaration was made, in the following terms to the people of the Carnatic :— “Although the Right Honourable the Governor in Council trusts that the experience which the inhabitants of the Carnatic have already had, will have rendered it unnecessary for His Lordship to explain the general principles of moderation, justice, protection, and security, which form the characteristic features of the British Government, yet His Lordship in

143THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA accepting the sacred trust transferred to the Company by the present engagements, invites the people of the Carnatic to a ready and cheerful obedience to the authority of the Company, in a confident assurance of enjoying, under the protection of public and defined laws, every just and ascertained civil right, with a free exercise of the religious institutions and domestic usages of their ancestors”. In may 1834 the following proclamation was issued to the people of Coorg when it was conquered :— “Whereas it is the unanimous wish of the inhabitants of Coorg to be taken under the protection of the British Government, His Excellency the Right Honourable the Governor-General has been pleased to resolve that the territory heretofore governed by Veer Rajunder Woodyer shall be transferred to the Honourable Company. The inhabitants are hereby assured that they shall not again be subjected to native rule; that their civil rights and religious usages will be respected, and the greatest desire will invariably be shown by the British Government to augment their security, comfort, and happiness.” In 1849, on the annexation of the Punjab, the following assurance was given to the people :— “The British Government will leave to all the people whether Mussulman, Hindoo, or Sikh, the free exercise of their own religions; but it will not permit any man to interfere with the other in the observance of, such forms and customs as their respective religions may either enjoin or : permit.” Other similar proclamations may be cited. They were treated as pledges. Whether it was just and politic that such pledges should have been given, it was felt that it was unpolitic to ignore them once they were given. This was the general view. But there were always some who construed them literally and whose point of view was not to draw any distinction and make any reservations and who wished to interpret the pledges as amounting to saying to the Indians, “You have enjoyed it undisturbedly under the new” and who argued that “any departure from this would be a breach of faith.” Fear of breach of faith was one consideration. Fear of open rebellion was another. Fear of rebellion so far as the British Government in India was concerned was not a fear of the unknown. It was a fact of experience, There was one rebellion in 1801 which was known as the Vellore Mutiny. There was another rebellion in 1857. It was known as

144 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Sepoy Mutiny. The Vellore Mutiny was a small flame. But the Sepoy Mutiny was a conflagration. In both cases the cause alleged was an interference with the religious practices of the Hindus. Two rebellions are enough to teach a lesson and the lesson of these two rebellions was not lost upon the British Government. The Vellore Mutiny of 1801 had made the British Government cautious in the matter of social innovations. The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 made hostile to any kind of social reform. The British did not want to take any risk and from their point of view the risk was very great The Mutiny made them so panicky that they felt that loss of India was the surest consequence of social reform and as they were anxious to keep India they refused to look at any project of Social Reform. This attitude of the British Government to Social reform is quite understandable. However sovereign a Government may be its authority as pointed out by Prof. Dicey1 is circumscribed by two limitations :— “There is first of all the internal limitation which arises from the character, motives and interests of those who are in power. If the Sultan does not abolish Mahomedanism, Pope ban Catholicism, the Brahmin condemn caste, or the British Parliament declare the preservation of blue-eyed babies illegal, it is not because they “cannot” do things, but it is because they “will” not do those things. In the same way if the Executive in India did not do certain things most conducive to progress, it was because by reason of its being imperial and also by reason of its character, motives and interests, it could not sympathize with the living forces operating in the Indian Society, was not charged with its wants, its pains, its cravings and its desires, was inimical to its aspirations, did not advance Education, disfavoured Swadeshi or snapped at anything that smacked of nationalism it was because all these things went against its grain. But an irresponsible government is powerless to do even such things as it may like to do. For its authority is limited by the possibility of external resistance. There are things which it would do but dare not do for the fear of provoking thereby resistance to its authority. Ceaser dare not subvert the worship of the Roman people, a modem parliament dare not tax the Colonies, however much they would. For the same reason the Government of India dared not abolish the caste system, prescribe monogamy, alter the laws of succession, legalize intermarriage or venture to tax the tea planters. Progress involves interference with the existing code of social life and interference is likely to cause resistance. None the less a 1 Law of the Constitution 1915 pp. 74—82.