Vol. 17, Part III · pages 161–165

132 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES as long as they are unaware of their castes. They exchange betels, bidis, cigarettes, fruits etc. But as soon as the Hindu comes to know that the person with whom he is talking is an Untouchable, a sense of hatred germinates in his mind. He thinks that he has been deceived. He gets angry and ultimately this temporary friendship ends in abuses and quarrels. I am sure that you have gone through such experiences. You must be knowing why this happens. The names that depict your caste are considered so filthy that even their utterence is enough to create a vomiting sensation in the heart of Hindus. Thus, by calling yourself a Chokhamela instead of a Mahar, you try to deceive people. But, you know, people are not deceived. Whether you call yourself a Chokhamela or a Harijan, people understand what you are. By your actions, you have proved, the necessity of a change in name. Then I would like to ask you, if you feel the need of change in your name, what objection should there be for the change of religion ? Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of a religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you. To call oneself a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Sikkh is not merely a change of religion but is also a change of name. That is a real change of name. This new name will have no filth attached to it. It is a drastic change. None will search the origin of it. The change of name as Chokhamela, Harijan has no meaning at all. In this case, all the hatred, contempt etc. attached to the original name passes on to the new name. So long as you remain in the Hindu religion, you will have to change your name. To call oneself a Hindu is not enough. Nobody recognises that there is anyone called a Hindu. So also, by calling oneself a Mahar, will not serve the purpose. As soon as you utter this name, nobody will come near to you. Instead of changing one name today and another tomorrow, and thus remaining in a state of pendulum, I ask you, therefore, why you should not change your name permanently by changing your religion. The role of opponents Since the beginning of this movement of conversion, many people have raised many objections to it. Let us now examine the truth, if any, in such objections. Some Hindus, pretending to be religious, advise you saying, “A religion is not a matter of

133WHAT WAY EMANCIPATION ? enjoyment. A religion cannot be changed as we change our clothes every day. You wish to leave this Hindu religion and embrace another one. Do you then think that your ancestors who clung to this religion for a long period were fools ?” Some so called wise men have raised this question. I do not find any substance in this objection. A foolish alone will say that one has to adhere to ones religion because it is that of his ancestors. No wise man will accept such a proposition. Those who argue that the ancestral religion should not be changed, seem that they have not read the history at all. The ancient Aryan religion was called Vedic Religion, in which three distinct characteristics— beef eating, drinking and merry-making—were the pan of the religion of the day. Thousands of people followed it in India and even now some Brahmins dream of going back to it. If the ancient religion alone is to be adhered to why did the people of India renounce the Hinduism and accept the Buddhism ? Why did they renounce the Vedic religion and accept the Jain religion ? It cannot be denied that our ancestors lived in the ancient religion, but I cannot say that they remained there voluntarily. The Chaturvarna System prevailed in this country for a fairly long time. In this System, the Brahmins were permitted to learn, Kshatriyas to fight, Vaishyas to earn property and the Shudras to serve; this way of life was the rule of the day. In this way of life, the Shudras had no education, no property and no arms. Those your ancestors who were thus forced to live in impoverish and defence less conditions, no man with sense will say that they accepted this religion voluntarily. Here it is also necessary to consider whether it was possible for your ancestors to revolt against this religion. Had it been possible for them to revolt and they had still not acted upon, then only we could have said that they had accepted this Religion voluntarily. But if we look into the real conditions, it will be clear to us that our ancestors were compelled to live in that religion. Thus this Hindu Religion is not the Religion of our ancestors, but it was slavery thrusted upon them. Our ancestors had no means to fight this slavery and hence they could not revolt. They were compelled to

134 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES live in this Religion. Nobody can blame them for this helplessness. Rather anyone will pity them. But now nobody can force any type of slavery upon the present generation. They have all sorts of freedom. By availing of such freedom, if they do not free themselves, one will have to call them, most regretfully, as being most mean, slavish and dependent people to have lived on earth. Difference between man and animal it is fitted for a fool only to say that one should cling to ones own Religion only because it is ancestral. No wise person can have such an argument. This will be a worthy advice for animals, and not for man to tell him, to live in the same circumstances in which he is living. The difference between a man and an animal is that—a man can make progress while an animal cannot. Our progress is not possible without change. The Conversion is a sort of change. And if no progress is possible without the conversion, the conversion becomes essential. The only being a matter of ancestral religion can never occur as a hindrance in the path of a progressive man. There is still one more argument against the Conversion. It is, ‘the Conversion is a sort of escapism.’ Today, a number of Hindus are bent upon improving the Hindu Religion. They claim that the Untouchability and the casteism can be eradicated with the help of these people. It is, therefore, not proper to change the Religion at this juncture. Whatever opinion anybody may possess about the Hindu Social Reformers, I personally have a nausea for them. I have much experience of them and I feel disgust about these half-witted people. It is really astonishing that those people, who want to live in their own caste, die in their own caste, marry in their own caste, are able to fool people with false slogans, like saying they will break the caste and if the Untouchables do not believe them, they get annoyed with them. When I hear such slogans shouted by these Hindu Social Reformers, I recollect the efforts made by the American white people for the emancipation of the American Negroes. Years ago, the condition of the Negroes in

135WHAT WAY EMANCIPATION ? America was just the same as those of the Untouchables in India. The difference between the two was that the slavery of Negroes had the sanction of the Law while your slavery is a creation of the Religion. Some American reformers were trying for the abolition of slavery of the Negroes. But can the Hindu Social Reformers be compared with those White Social Reformers in America, who emancipated the Negroes ? The White American Reformers fought battles in war with kith and kin for the emancipation of the Negroes. They killed thousands of Whites who defended the slavery, and also sacrificed their own blood for this cause. When we read these incidents through the pages of history, we are compelled to say that, the social reformers in America and in India are incomparable. (dgk¡ jktk dgk¡ iksrjktk ) These so called benefactors of the Untouchables of India called reformers need to be asked— Are you prepared to fight a Civil war with your Hindu Brethren like the Whites in America who fought with their white brothers for the cause of the Negroes ? And if not, what are these tall talks of reforms for ? The greatest of the Hindus who claims to fight for the cause of the Untouchables is Mahatma Gandhi. To what extent can he go? Mahatma Gandhi who pilots the non-violent agitation against the British Government is not prepared even to hurt the feelings of the Hindus, the oppressors of the Untouchables. He is not willing to launch a Satyagraha against them. He is not even prepared to take legal action against the Hindus. I do not see any good of such reformers. The fault lies with the touchables alone Some Hindus attend the meetings of the Untouchables and rebuke the Caste Hindus. Some will advise the Untouchables from their stage saying, “Brothers, live clean, educate yourselves, stand on your own feet, etc.” Really speaking, if anybody is to be blamed, it is the Caste Hindus alone. It is the Caste Hindus who commit this wrong. Yet none will try to gather these Caste Hindus and reprimand them. To those who preach to the Untouchables to continue their agitation with the help of the Hindus and by remaining in the Hindu fold, I would like to remind

136 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES them of a couple of illustrations from history. I remember to have read about a conversation between an American and an English soldier during the last World War. I find it most appropriate at this juncture. For how long the war should be continued, was the subject of their discussion. In reply to a question of the American, the Englishman said with great pride, “We shall fight the war till the last Frenchman is killed”. When the Hindu Social Reformers proclaim that they shall fight to the last for the cause of the Untcuchables, it means that they propose to fight till the last Untouchable dies. This is the meaning as I understand of their proclamation. It should not be difficult for you to decide that one who fights for the cause at the cost of the lives of others cannot be expected to win the battle. If we are to die in our struggle for freedom, what is the use of fighting at wrong place ? To reform the Hindu Society is neither our aim nor our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom for us. We have nothing to do with anything else. If we can gain our freedom by the Conversion, why should we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu Society ? And why should we sacrifice our vitality, strength and wealth for that ? None should misunderstand the main object of our movement as being Hindu Social Reform. The principal object of our movement is only to achieve the social freedom for the Untouchables; it is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion. I do accept that the Untouchables need equality as well and to secure equality is also one of the objectives of our movement. But nobody can say that this equality can be achieved only by remaining in Hindu religion otherwise equality will not be achieved. Before me, there are two ways of achieving the equality. The equality will be achieved either by remaining in the Hindu fold or by the conversion. If the equality is to be achieved by remaining in the Hindu fold, mere removal of the polluting contact will not serve the purpose. The equality can be achieved only when intercaste dinners and marriages take place. This means that the Chaturvarna must be abolished and the Brahminic Religion must be uprooted. Is it possible ? And if not, will it be wise to expect the treatment of equality by remaining in the Hindu religion ? And can you be successful in