Vol. 17, Part III · pages 346–350

317I AM...................BUT........... present, it does not. After all, the question is whether the New Government of India has done or will not do, the question to my mind which we all call National Government will do better. Let me humbly submit that it is a far more crucial question than the question which we are all thinking about. I am quite prepared to admit for the purpose of argument that the present Government of India may be taken as caretaker’s Government. We are all looking forward to a new Government and the quest of questions which worries me is, will this National Government do better? I also experss a certain degree of doubt. We are all saying that once we are given a power, adult suffrage, we will sweep all evils, make clearances, put everybody on the boulevards so that they can walk erect as human beings. I entertain grave doubts. I have studied sufficiently the history of European Government and I have been one of those who has been completely disillusioned of the allegation that has sometimes been made that all human evils will disappear once a parliamentary Government is established based upon adult suffrage. History gives no foundation and no support for a proposition of this kind. None whatever it seems to me that we are suffering from certain disillusionments or asking false questions ourselves. It is right to say that whether you have adult suffrage, or not, or a framework of a popular Government or a framework of any other Government, there is inherent in every society in every country, two classes— the Governing class and the subject class. Whether they come on the surface or whether they are hidden behind some kind of clouds, makes no matter. You give adult suffrage or any kind of power or election what happens is this. The Governing class is elected to govern, the subject class never gets a chance. Am I making a wide statement ? I do not think so. There is a foundation for what I say. Let us examine the results of the elections in 1937, we had the widest of suffrage, the results of elections and true votes. What happened in the seven Congress provinces ? I do not wish to speak about it — what I said then came to be true and the truth was that in this country, no matter what you do, you have got the Brahmin community as the Governing community (laughter). That came to surface. Nothing else did. In the seven provinces, we had Brahmin Prime Ministers. Half the

318 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Ministry was Brahmin in composition. I am not saying this as a matter of criticism, but I am only stating facts. If the elections proved anything, it proved only this that in the heart of this country there was one community that was destined to be the governing class. It has come as the governing class. I do not think we should ask the question whether every country is not entitled to self-government but we should ask whether the governing class in any country has a sense of responsibility so that the government of that country can be entrused to the community. We have forgotton the fact that the right to govern must be really decided in the light of the responsibility of the governing class. After all if the governing class is to govern, the question is, what is the outlook of that the governing class, what is philosophy, what does it believe in. If you have a governing class which believes in what you care graded inequality, one on the top of the other which does not believe in inequality, and believes that man is not man and he must not be touched and that a certain class alone is entitled to education and property and not the other and that the latter is born servile and must die in servility, the question that I ask is this. If a National Government was formed and if it went into the hands of the Governing class, do you really think that the Nation’s Government will do better than the present Government of India ? I am no opponent of a national Government, I am no opponent of Swaraj, I am no opponent of Independence. If I can be assured that I could have independence, education and welfare, which are promised to the nation, I certainly will fight for independence, for nationalism, for freedom (cheer & applause). But if all this long talk, tall philosophy is followed by nothing else then what we call “One step-dance” if it is confined to the Governing class and if political power is used to strengthen that community and to disfranchise the rights of others, then the present Government of India may not be criticised so much as it is being criticised now “(Loud applause) ...........”*l zz 1 : The Liberator, dated 24-9-1944. Dr. Ambedkar on Reforms undertaken by Central Government, Reply to Civic Address. * For comments of the Liberator in the Speech. See Appendix-III

92 UNITY IS OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE Dr. B.R. Ambedkar delivered a speech at a luncheon party given by Mr. P. Bala Subramaniya, Editor, Sunday Observor at Connemara Hotel, Madras on 23rd September 1944. Dr. Ambedkar said, As far as I have been able to study, the advent of the Non-Brahman party has been an event in the history of India. Many people had not even able to realize that the fundamental basis of the Non-Brahman party was not the communal aspect which the word Non-Brahman indicated. No matter who ran the Non-Brahman party, whether it was what they called the ‘Intermediate class’ which lay between the Brahmins at one end and the Untouchables at the other. The party could be nothing if it was not a party of democracy. Therefore everybody who believed in democracy had a deep concern in the interests and fortune of the party. The organisation of the Non-Brahmin party was an event in the history of the country. Its downfall was also equally an event to be remembered with a great deal of sorrow. Why the party crumbled in the 1937 elections was a question that the leaders of the party should ask themselves. After all in Madras they had the regime of the Non-Brahmin party for practically 24 years before the elections came. Then what was wrong for the Party to make it fall like a pack of cards notwithstanding the long period of office ? What was it that made the party unpopular with a large majority of Non-Brahmins themselves ? In my view two things were responsible for this downfall. Firstly, they had not been able to realize exactly what their differences were with Brahminical sections. Though they indulged in virulent criticism of Brahmins could any one of them say that those differences had been doctrinal ? How much Brahaminism had they in them ? They were ‘Nababs’ and regarded themselves as second class Brahmins. Instead of abandoning Brahminism they had been holding on to the spirit of it as being the ideal they ought to reach. And their anger against Brahmins was that they (the Brahmins) gave them only a second class degree.

320 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES How could a party take roots when its followers did not know in clear terms what were doctrinal differences between the party to which they belonged and the party to which they were asked to oppose. So the failure to enunciate the doctrine of differences between the Brahminical sections and the Non-Brahmins was one of the reasons for the downfall of the party. The second reason for the downfall of the party was, it had very narrow political programme. The party had been described by its opponents as a party of job-hunters. That was the term the ‘Hindu’ had often used. I do not attach much importance to this criticism; for “If we are jobhunters, then the other side are no less than we are.” One defect in the political programme of the Non- Brahmin Party had been that the party made it, its chief concern to secure a certain number of jobs for their youngmen. That was perfectly legitimate. But did Non-Brahmin youngmen for whom the party fought for twenty years to secure jobs in public services remember the Party after they had received emoluments for their jobs ? During the twenty years the party had been in office, it forgot the 90% of the Non-Brahmins living in the villages, leading an uneconomical life and getting into the clutches of the money-lenders. I have examined the legislations enacted during this period and except for one solitary measure of land reform, the Non-Brahmin Party never bothered about the tenants and the peasants. That was the “Congress fellows stole their clothes quietly.” I have been greatly pained by the turn of the events. One thing I would like to impress was that a party was the only thing that would save them. A party needed a good leader, a party needed an organisation, a party needed a political platform. But let us be too critical about leaders. Let us look at the Congress. Who would have accepted Mahatma Gandhi as a leader in any other country ? He was a man who had no vision, no knowledge, no judgement. He was a man who had been a failure all his life in public life. There was no important occassion when India was about to succeed when Mr. Gandhi had brought anything good. When Mr. Jinnah raised his Pakistan issue, two

321UNITY..............IMPORTANCE or three years age, Mr. Gandhi called it a sin and turned a deaf ear. Ultimately the frankincense grew. Mr. Gandhi got frightened. He was grappling with it now by making a complete somersault. Yet he continued to be the leader in this country, because the Congress did not put its leader on his trial. Let us take the case of Mr. Jinnah. He was an autocratic leader. You will be surprised to know that the league was entirely his show. But the Musalmans had rightly placed their faith in him. The Congress knew that any charge levelled against Mr. Gandhi would mean the disruption of the organisation and so tolerated a great deal of what was inconsistent with democracy. Therefore I would say to the Non-Brahmins, “Unity is of Supreme importance. Learn the Lesson before it is too late.” zz