Vol. 12 · pages 71–75

50 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES into fine goods, indigo and other dyestuffs, aromatic woods and gums, narcotics and other drugs, pearls, rubies, diamonds, sapphires, turquoises, and other precious stones, gold and silver, and above all the edible spices, pepper, ginger cinnamon, cloves, and all-spice, could be obtained only in Asia.”1 Thus the commerce between Asia and Europe formed a regular living system and was fed by various channel. But this system was early disturbed by the rise of Islam. When we imagine that trade was carried on by land Caravans with all the cumbersomeness we can imagine the hinderances it must have underwent owing to the rapid military movements of the Saracens We will recall that there were four principal trade routes from Asia to Europe and they all lay through the dominions of the Saracens. “During the Crusades, so long as the avenue by the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea were controlled by hostile Mohomedan powers, it became necessary to adopt another more expensive and circuitous route, requiring much land-carriage and several transfers of freight. This route led up the Indus, across the mountains on beasts of burden, thence by the Oxus, and so to the Caspian Sea. This, which was ancient route, was now adopted by Venice and Genoa. From the Caspian it took especially the direction of the Volga, to a place called Zarizn, thence through the country to the Don, where, at the river’s mouth, in the town of Tana, now Azor, both Venice and Genoa had commercial privileges, and the former had a consul from the end of the 12th century. Afterwards an important entrepot for Genoa was Theodosia, now Jatta, in the Crimea.” 2 “Islam had hemmed Christendom on every side. On the East as on the South, the Crescentraised a barrier against the advance of the Cross.”3 But in this mighty struggle of the Cresent and the Cross commerce suffered immensely. “The Ottoman seizure or obstruction of the Indian trade routes brought disaster not alone to the mediterranean republics. The blow fell first on Genoa and Venice, but it sent a shock through the whole system of 1 Edward Slow P.Cheney : Social and Industrial History of England p. 86. 2 J. of Am. O.S. 3 W.M. Cunnigham—“Western Civilization” (Modern Times) p. 130 The original spelling of some words have been retained as they were found in the MS, such as, ‘hinderances’ ‘propogate’, ‘ninety’, ‘truely’, ‘merchantile’, etc. The variations in the spellings of the proper nouns used by Dr. Ambedkar are also left untouched

51COMMERCIAL RELATIONS IN THE MIDDLE AGES European commerce. The chief channel by which the products of Asia reached the central and northern nations of Christendom was the Hanseatic League.”1 The Hanseatic had profited mainly owing to its control of Oriental wares coming through Italian Republics. From very early times “Germany and the north Italian upland were dependent on the Republic (Venice) for the products of the east, and when 1017 of (* ) ships laden with spices suffered shipwreck, the event is noticed by a (* ) chronicler as a serious misfortune.” 2 “The Indian trade formed an important contributory to this Hanseatic commerce. When the eastern traffic began to dry up, its European emporiums declined.”3 In this blocade of old trade routes lies the (* ) expansion of western Europe. The whole situation is well summed up by Prof. A. F. Poland when (* ) as to why America was discovered towards the end of the fifteenth century, he says, (* ) would be the paradoxical assertion that Columbus discovered America in 1492 or thereabouts because the Turks are an obstructive people. The connection is not quite obvious, but obvious connections are always superficial, and this is more profound. The Germans have a proverb Dermensch est was arisst—man is what he eats. It might be (* ) for a motto by those people. (This seems to be incomplete—ed.) zz * (Illegible and erased words are left out and space is shown blank in bracked—Ed.) 1. W. W. Hunter, A History of British India. Vol. I, p. 52. 2. Breasely, Vol. II, p. 405. 3. W. W. Hunter, op. Cit. Vol. I, p. 53.

CHAPTER III* INDIA ON THE EVE OF THE CROWN GOVERNMENT More than anything else in the world, Imperialism stands in greater need of defence and Imperialists have not been wanting in their duty. Unlike the Greeks who did not have even a word for imperialism nor knew the idea of the federation of city states, the Romans were the world’s first and greatest imperial people and they coined a justification for imperialism that became the heritage of their successor. They proclaimed that they were a people of superior race with a culture too high to be compared with any other, that they had better system of administration, that they were versed in the arts of life. They also proclaimed that the rest were people of inferior race with a very low culture and were absolutely devoid of the arts of life, and that their administration was very despotic. As a logical consequence of this the Romans argued that it was their divine mission to civilize their low lying brethern, nay to conquer them and superimpose their culture in the name of humanity. The British have justified their imperial policy in India by similar argumentation. The British historian of India have a kind of Leues Boswelliana—disease of admiration. Their optical vision somehow or other has magnified the vices, not the virtues, of the predecessors of the British in India. Not only have they been loud in their denunciation of the Moghul and the Maratha rulers as despots or brigands, they cast slur on the morale of the entire population and their civilization. This is but natural for individuals as well as states can raise themselves only by lowering the merits of others. Historians of British India have often committed the fallacy of comparing the Rule of the British with their immediate or remote predecessors. In deference to historical methodology. They * In the MS., this Chapter No. is V. Chapter III and IV are not forthcoming—ed.

54 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ought to compare the rulers of India with the contemporaries in England. Much of historical error will vanish if we closely follow this plan. It would no longer be a matter of contemptuous pity to read perhaps the abject condition of. the Hindoos under the conquest of the Mohommedans when we will remember the pitiful condition of the Anglo-Saxons under their Norman conquerors when “to be called an Englishman was considered as a reproach—when those who were appointed to administer justice were the fountains of all iniquity—when magistrates, whose duty it was to pronounce righteous judgements were the most cruel of all tyrants, and great plunderers than common thieves and robbers .... ; when the great men were inflamed with such a rage of money that they cared not by what means it was acquired ; when the licentiousness was so great that a Princess of Scotland found it necessary to wear a religious habit in order to preserve her person from violation.” The much spoken of Mohomedan cruelty could hardly exceed that committed by the first Crusaders on their conquest of Jerusalem. The garrison of 40,000 men “was put to the sword without distinction ; arms protected not the brave, nor submission the timid; no age or sex received mercy ; infants perished by the same sword that pierced their mothers. The streets of Jerusalem were covered with heaps of slain, and the shrieks of agony and dispair resounded from every house.” If we thus run down through the history of India and history of England and compare contemporary events we will find that for every Native Rowland we have an English Oliver. We must therefore repeat the warning of Sir Thomas Munro to English Historians of India, who said, “When we compare other countries with England, we usually speak of England as she now is, we scarcely ever think of going back beyond the Reformation and we are apt to regard every foreign country as ignorant and uncivilized, whose state of improvement does not in some degree approximate to our own, even though it should be higher than our own as at no distant period.” Let us, therefore, turn to the “Despots and Brigands” who ruled India before the British and let us review their deeds and the condition of the people during their respective rulers