Vol. 17, Part III · pages 156–160

127WHAT WAY EMANCIPATION ? Have you any freedom in Hindu religion ? Some people might say that you have a freedom of trade guaranteed by law like any other citizen. You are also said to have got the personal liberty like others. You will have to think deeply over such statement to see whether they really carry any meaning. What is good in saying, you have freedom of trade to a person who is not allowed by the society to do any other business rather than an ancestral one. What is the use of telling someone such words, you are at liberty to enjoy your property, nobody else will touch your money, when all doors of acquiring property are closed to him. To tell a person, who is treated as unfit for entry into any service due to the defilement attached to him by birth, and under whom working is most contemptuous for others, that he has a right to serve, is to make mockery of him. The Law may guarantee various rights, but only those can be called real rights which you are permitted by the society to exercise. The Law guarantees to the Untouchables the right to wear decent clothes but the Hindus do not allow them to put on these clothes, what is the use of this right ? The law guarantees to the Untouchables the right to fetch water in metal pots, the right to use the metalic utensils, the right to put tiles on their houses but the Hindu Society does not allow them to exercise these rights, what is the use of such rights ? The various instances of such violations can be cited. In short, that which is permitted by the society to be exercised can alone be called a right. The right which is guaranteed by law but is opposed by the society is of no use at all. The Untouchables are in more need of social liberty than that which is guaranteed by law. So long as you do not achieve social liberty, whatever freedom is provided by law to you, is of no avail. Some persons might advise you that you have physical freedom. Of course, you can go anywhere, can speak anything you wish, subject to the restrictions imposed by law. But what is the use of such freedom ? A man has a body as well as a mind. Mere physical freedom is of no use. Freedom of the mind is of prime importance. Really speaking, what is meant by the physical freedom to a man ? It means, he is free to act according to his own freewill. A prisoner is unchained and made free. What is the principle underlying this ? The principle is that he should be free to act according to his own free will and he should be able

128 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to make the maximum use of the abilities he possesses. But what is the use of such freedom of a man whose mind is not free ? The freedom of mind is the real freedom. A person whose mind is not free, though not in chains, is a slave. One whose mind is not free, though not in prison, is a prisoner. One whose mind is not free, though alive, is dead. Freedom of mind is proof of one’s existence. What is the proof, then to judge, that the flame of mental freedom is not extinguished from a person ? Of whom can we say that his mind is free ? I call him free, who with an awakened consciousness realises his rights, responsibilities and duties, he who is not a slave of circumstances, and is always bent upon changing them in his favour, I call him free. One who is not a slave of usage, customs arid traditions, or of teachings because they have come down from his ancestors, whose flame of reason is not extinguished, I call him a free man. He, who has not surrendered himself, who does not act on the teachings of others, who does not believe in anything unless it is examined critically in the light of the cause and effect theory, is a free man. Who is always prepared to protect his rights, who is not afraid of public criticism, who has enough intellect and self-respect so as not to become a tool in the hands of others, I call such a man as a free man. He, who does not lead his life under the directions of others, who carves out his own aim of life according to his own reasoning and decides for himself as to how, and in what way his life should be led, I call him a free man. In short, a man who is his own master, him alone, I consider a free man. In the light of the above observations are you free ? Have you any freedom to carve your own aims ? In my opinion, not only you have any freedom but you are worse than slaves. Your slavery has no parallel. In the Hindu religion, none can have freedom of speech. Everyone who lives in Hindu religion must surrender his freedom of speech. He must act according to the Vedas. If the Vedas do not support the actions, instructions must be sought from the Smritis, and if the Smritis fail to provide any instructions, he must follow the footsteps of great men. In Hinduism, conscience, reason, thoughts have neither any importance nor any scope. A Hindu must necessarily be a slave of either the Vedas or the Smritis or must imitate the great men. He is not supposed to use his reasoning. Hence, so long as you are a

129WHAT WAY EMANCIPATION ? part of the Hindu religion, you cannot expect to have freedom of thought. Some people might argue that the Hindu religion did not force you alone into mental slavery, but has snatched away the freedom of mind of all other communities. It is quite true that all the Hindus are living under a state of mental slavery. But from this nobody should conclude that the sufferings of all are alike. Everyone in the Hindu religion is not equally affected by the adverse effects that this mental slavery has produced. This mental slavery is in no way detrimental to the material happiness of the Caste Hindus. Though the Caste-Hindus are slaves of the above-mentioned trio viz. Vedas, Smritis and the Great men, they arc given a high position in the Hindu Social System. They are empowered to rule over others. It is an undisputed fact that the whole of the Hindu religion is the creation of the high Caste Hindus for the welfare and prosperity of the high-castes. To which they call a religion, has assigned you a role of the slave. Every arrangement is made in the religion itself, so that you may not be able to escape from this slavery. Therefore, to you there is more need of breaking the bondage of mental slavery of the Hindu religion, so far the Hindus do not need. In view of this, the Hinduism has marred your progress from two sides. It has sacked your mental freedom and made you slaves. In the outer world also, it has doomed you to the conditions of a slave. If you want freedom, you must change your religion. Untouchables’ organisations and conversion The present movement of eradication of the Untouchability has been criticised on the ground that the various castes in the Untouchable class practise casteism in their mutual dealings; ney they practise Untouchability. Mahars and Mangs do not dine together. Both these castes do not touch the scavengers and practice Untouchability against them. What right these people have to expect from the High Castes the non-observance of Untouchability, when they themselves practise casteism and Untouchability amongst themselves ? This question is always raised. The Untouchables are generally advised to abolish castes and Untouchability from amongst them and then come up for redress. We all have to accept that there is a truth in this argument.

130 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES But the allegation made in this is false. It cannot be denied that the castes included in the Untouchables practise casteism and some the Untouchability. But it is equally false to say that they are any way responsible for this crime. The Casteism and the Untouchability have originated not from the Untouchables but from the high-Caste Hindus. They have laid down the practice of the casteism and the Untouchability. The lesson of observing the casteism and the Untouchability has been put in the practice by the high Caste Hindus. And if this is true, the responsibility of this tradition of the casteism and the Untouchability falls on the Caste Hindus and not on the Untouchables. If this lesson is false, the burden of its being untruthful falls on those who taught it, and not on those who learnt it. Though this reply appears to be correct, it does not satisfy me. Though we are not responsible for the cause due to which castes and Untouchability has taken root among us, it will be good not to condemn it and allow it to continue as it is. Although we are not responsible for the introduction of the Untouchability and the castes among us, it is our responsibility to annihilate it. And I am glad that all of us have realised this responsibility. I am sure there is no leader among the Mahars who advocate the practice of the casteism. If comparison is to be made, it will have to be made among the leaders. If we compare the educated class of the Mahar community with that of the Brahmins and one will have to admit that the educated class from the Untouchables is more eager to abolish castes. This can well be proved by deeds also. Not only the educated class of Mahars but even the uneducated and illiterate Mahars are the protogonists of abolition of castes. This also can be proved. Today, there is not a single person in the Mahar community who is opposed to the inter-caste dinning among the Mahars and the Mangs. I feel greatly satisfied that you have realised the necessity of abolition of castes, for which I extend my the heartiest congratulations. But have you ever thought as to how the efforts towards abolition of castes in the Untouchables can be made successful ? Castes cannot be abolished by inter-caste dinners or stray instances of inter-caste marriages. The Caste is a state of mind. It is a disease of the mind. The teachings of the Hindu religion are the root cause of this disease. We practise the casteism, we observe the Untouchability, because we are asked to do so by the Hindu religion

131WHAT WAY EMANCIPATION ? in which we live. A bitter thing can be made sweet. The taste of salty and astringent things can be changed. But the poison cannot be made nectar (Amrit.!) To talk of annihilating castes while living in the Hinduism is like talking of changing the poison into nectar (Amrit.). In short, so long as we remain in the religion which teaches a man to treat other man as filthy, the sense of discrimination on account of caste which is deeply rooted in our minds, cannot be abolished. For annihilating the castes and the Untouchability from among the Untouchables, change of religion is the only antidote. ‘Change in name’ and ‘Change in religion’ So far, I have placed before you the points in favour of the conversion. I hope, this analysis will be thought provoking for you. For those who consider this discussion profound, I propose to put it before you in simple thoughts and in simple language. What is there in the conversion, which can be called novel ? Really speaking, what sort of social relations have you with the Caste Hindus ? You are as separate from the Hindus as Muslims and Christians are. As Hindus do not have interdinings and intermarriages with Muslims and Christians, so is their relation with you. Your society and that of the Hindus are two distinct groups. By the conversion, nobody can say or feel that one society has been split up. You will remain as separate from the Hindus as you are today. Nothing new will happen on account of this conversion. If this is true, then I do not understand why some people should be afraid of the conversion. Though you have not understood the importance of change of religion, you have undoubtedly under-stood the imporatance of a change of name. If any one from amongst you, is asked about his caste, he replies as being Chokhamela, Harijan etc. But he does not say that he is a Mahar. Nobody can change his name unless certain conditions demand it. There is a very simple reason for such a change of name. An unknown person cannot distinguish between the touchable and an Untouchable and so long as a Hindu does not come to know the caste of a person, he cannot bear in him hatred towards that person for being an Untouchable. The caste Hindus and the Untouchables behave in a very friendly fashion during a journey