Vol. 17, Part II · pages 86–90

63AND THE LORD SAID UNTO— expressed in the letter of the 3rd of October 1829, until they received orders from their superiors in England. After this reply, Mr. Justice Grant, on the 1st of April 1829, declared that the Court had ceased on all its sides, and that he would perform none of the functions of a Judge until the Court had received an assurance that its authority would be respected, and its process obeyed, and rendered effectual by the Government of the Presidency. Asiatic Register, vol. 28, p. 351, et seq. [The letter patent, under which the existing High Courts in India were constituted, and which were issued under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 (24 and 25Vict. c. 104), are dated severally as follows: Calcutta, 28th Dec. 1865; Madras, 28th Dec. 1865; Bombay, 28th Dec. 1865; North-Western Provinces, 17th March 1866. The letters patent are set out at length in Stat. R. and O. Rev. vol. iv. pp. 82-131. As to the jurisdiction of the High Courts, see Ilbert, Government of India, pp. 241-255. See also the same work, pp. 387-405 (application of English law to natives of India); pp. 406-463 (British jurisdiction in Native States).] zz

5 UNTOUCHABLE WORKERS OF BOMBAY CITY By G. R. Pradhan, Ph.D. With a Foreword by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar , M. A., Ph. D., D. Se., Bar-at-Law, J.P. FOREWORD This treatise is a thesis which the author wrote in fulfilment of the requirements prescribed by the University of Bombay for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Arts. That was as accepted by the University, should constitute sufficient recommendation in favour of its merits and no such thing as a Foreword from me should have been thought necessary by the Author. I do not know why the Author feels the necessity of a word from me. Probably, that I do from the community whose life has been the subject-matter of this investigation is the reason which has led him to call upon me to write a Foreword and I gladly respond to his invitation. The author has studied the life of the Untouchables in the City of Bombay under various heads and thus gives quantitative idea of the extent of the overcrowding, the earnings, employment, debts, etc. that prevails among the Untouchables. He has collected data which is certainly valuable. In any statistical investigation the question that arises is whether the cases studied are typical or not. The average to be normal, the cases investigated must be typical. There is no reason to suppose that his cases are not typical. It may, therefore, be taken that the picture of the life of the Untouchables he has given, is a true picture. This study would have been of greater value if it had been a comparative study contrasting the social condition of the Untouchables with that of the Caste-Hindus. But that it is not. Such a study was all the more necessary in view of the opinion on the one hand and caste Hindus on the other, if it is proved that the Untouchable does not suffer by reason of his Untouchability. But if on comparison it is found that the Untouchable suffers in his earning, in his employment and in other respects in a competitive

65UNTOUCHABLE . . . . . . BOMBAY CITY society as aganist a caste Hindu and if this disadvantage is attributable to no factor other than Untouchability, then it will have to be admitted that the case for conversion was strong. But all that must await as comparative study. Such a study will have to be undertaken some day either by the author of this book or by someone else if the present study is to be a useful guide for understanding why the conclusions drawn by the author are what they are; and whether the differences if any in the condition of the touchables and Untouchables is due to any such social factor as Untouchability. As a preliminary to such an effort the booklet must be welcomed. Rajgrih, Dadar B. R. Ambedkar 1 10-2-1938. zz 1.: Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay, 1938.

6 IS GANDHI A MAHATMA ? Is Gandhi a Mahatma ? I am sick of this question. There are two reasons why this question annoys me. Firstly, I hate all the Mahatmas and firmly believe that they should be done away with. I am of the opinion that their existence is a curse to the nation in which they are born. The reason why I say so is because they try to perpetuate blind faith in place of intelligence and reason. Secondly, I do not know what exactly people understand by the word Mahatma. Even then since the Editor of the ‘Chittra’ seems to be so adamant on getting a reply from me, I have decided to make earnest efforts to answer this question. Generally speaking according to an ordinary Hindu in order to pass as Mahatma a person must have three things, namely his robe, his character and his particular doctrine. If these qualities are taken as a criterion for judging a Mahatma then in the eyes of ignorant and uneducated persons who look towards other for salvation Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can be called a Mahatma. It is very easy for anybody to become a Mahatmas in India by merely changing his dress. If you are wearing an ordinary dress and leading an ordinary life even if you perform extraordinary noble deeds, nobody takes any notice of you. But, a person who does not behave in normal manner and shows some peculiar trends and abnormalities in his character, he becomes a saint or a Mahatma. If you put on a suit or ordinary dress and do something, people would not even like to look at you. But if the same person discards his clothes, run about naked, grows long hair, abuses people and drinks dirty water from the gutters, people fall at his feet and begin to worship him. In these circumstances if Gandhi becomes Mahatma in India there is nothing surprising. Had these things been practised in any other civilised country, people would have laughed at him. To a casual observer Gandhi’s teachings appear to be very sweet and appealing. Truth and Non-violence

67IS GANDHI A MAHATMA ? are very noble principles. Gandhi claims to preach ‘Satya’ (Truth) and ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence) and people have so much liked it that they flock around him in thousands. I fail to understand why do they do so. Is it not a fact that thousands of years ago Lord Buddha gave the message of truth and non-violence to the world. No body except an ignorant fool or congenital idiot would give credit to Gandhi for originality in this matter. There is nothing new in the pronouncement that ‘Truth and Non-violence’ are necessary for the preservation of human civilisation. There is nothing new that Gandhi has added to the maxim. As I have already stated earlier Lord Buddha taught these principles thousands of years ago. Had Gandhi thrown some light over the intricate problems arising from the experiment of ‘Truth and Nonviolence’ this would have added luster to his Mahatmaship and the world would have remained under gratitude for ever. World is anxiously waiting for the solution of the two riddles, namely how to uphold the noble principle, of ‘truth’ and under what circumstances should violence be considered a ‘right action’. Lord Buddha preached that attitude towards ‘Truth’ and ‘Nonviolence’ should be pragmatic. What answer Jesus Christ would have given to this question, unfortunately we have no means to know. Perhaps Pilate did not allow him time enough, to answer this question. Has Gandhi answered this question? I do not find it anywhere. If we study his teachings and sermons we find that he is trading on other pepole’s capital. ‘Truth’ and ‘Non-violence’ are not his original discoveries. When I seriously study Gandhi’s character, I become exceedingly convinced that cunningness is more evident in his character than the seriousness or sincerity. According to me his actions can be likened to a base coin. His politeness is like the politeness of Urea Heap, case of the characters in the famous English novel ‘David Copperfield’. He has managed to keep himself in the forefront by means of cunning and inherent shrewdness. A person who has faith in his capacity and character faces the realities of life in a bold and manly manner. He has no need to keep a dagger up his sleeve, Napolean always charged from the front. He did not believe in treachery and never attacked from behind. Treachery and deceit are the weapons of the weak. Gandhi has always used these weapons. For many years he had been declaring himself to be a humble disciple of Gokhale. Thereafter he had been admiring Tilak for many years. Afterwards he hated Tilak also. Everybody knows this. Everybody knows that unless he used the name Tilak for