Vol. 17, Part III · pages 411–415

382 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES There was another political philosophy - the philosophy of Walter Bagehot. He described parliamentary government as a government of discussion, which I think is very true description of parliamentary government. In a parliamentary government nothing is done behind the certain, nothing is done as a result of the wishes of any particular individuals. Every subject is brought before the house either in the form of a bill or in the form of a resolution or some other motion. When it is placed before the house it can be debated upon. It is a pity, great pity that we have not followed the great parliamentary practice of accepting of what we call the motion known as “enclosure” (Here the Speaker narrated in brief how Parnell harrassed Gladstone and Lord Northbrook by making some of 48 hours, 36 hours and 24 hours and as a result of this how the practice of “enclosure” was brought into opposition). However, notwithstanding the fact that all the legislatures now do have such a rule that the debate be closed and the question be put, there is always enough time for discussion. Remember that the discussion that taken place in the parliament has relevance not merely to the decision of the issue which it undoubtedly has, but has far wider relevance and far wider significance. It the debate is on high level and is properly reported in the papers, obviously there cannot be a greater medium of political education for the people in general than a debate in the House of Commons. This, therefore, is a very important aspect. It has been said that the parliamentary government is a self-government. No doubt logically it is so. But the most important thing that you will most remember is that what the country needs is a good government and the question is how can you have a good government ? A very important question ! I do not wish to dogmatise. There are one or two observations which I would like to place for your consideration because they need serious consideration. In my judgment there can be no dogma as to what constitutes good government. Different people may draw different ideas of good government. The capitalists think that a capitalist form of

383THE MINORITY................TO government where there is a laissez faire is a good sort of government, the socialists, on the other hand, think that the socialistic form of government is a good government. There might be a variety of other people of their own brand. The fact is that there are a variety of opinions as to what constitutes good government. In a complex society, such as ours, with all its different ramifications, no sovereign remedy may be possible.” zz

111 ART OF PUBLIC SPEAKING COULD BE DEVELOPED “On 14th January 1948, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar addressed a meeting of the Elocution Prize Distribution Ceremony of the Dhobi Talao Night School, which held its function at the Siddharth College premises. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar impressed upon the boys that the art of speaking in public could be developed with great efforts. He told them how the great speaker G. K. Gokhale was disconcerted while making his maiden speech, how Phirozeshah Mehta developed his powers by reciting his speeches in a room fitted with mirrors where he could watch how his expressions changed and how his hands moved. He said that Mehta took great care to see that his dress and appearance were neat and impressive. He added that Churchill, the great orator, never delivered any speech without preparation.” 1 zz 1 : Keer, P. 401.

112 BECAUSE OF DIVINE LAW OF MANU OR YAJNAVALKYA, HINDU SOCIETY WAS NEVER ABLE TO REPAIR ITSELF Dr. B. R. Ambedkar delivered a speech in the Law College, Delhi University, Delhi on the 10th April 1948. He said, “The responsibility for this decay lay in the failure of ancient societies to take upon themselves the task of removing the defects in their structure. Instead of removing the defects they submitted to be governed by the law laid down by the law-makers like Manu. The true function of law consists in repairing the faults in society. Civilisation had never been a continuous process. There were states and societies which had at one time been civilized. In course of time something happened which made these societies stagnant and decayed. This could be illustrated by India’s history itself. There could be no doubt that one of the countries which could boast of a great ancient civilization was India. When inhabitants of Europe were living under almost barbaric and nomadic conditions this country had reached the highest peak of civilization. It had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads. It looked to the laymen as if our parliamentary institutions today had borrowed all parliamentary procedure from European Countries, particularly from Britain, but I think anyone who refers for instance, to the pages of the Vinay-pitaka will find that there is no ground for such a view. Some of the rules which are laid down in May’s parliamentary practise were known to the people of India as students of Vinay-pitaka. People seemed to think that the procedure that there could be no debate in parliament unless there was a motion and no vote could be taken unless a motion was put, was something new. But I think this was a popular fallacy. In Vinay-pitaka which regulated meetings of the Bhikkhus Sangh, there was the well-known rule that no debate could take place except on ‘Neti’ motion.

386 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES We today think that secret ballot is something which was invented by the British people. That again is a mistake. In Vinay-pitaka there is a definite provision for tellers to count votes. They were called ‘Salpatraka Grahaks’, Salpatraka (bark of tree) was used as ballot paper. There was also a system of secret ballot where the Bhikkhu himself could drop his ‘Salpatraka’ in the ballot box. I am referring to political matters because it has been said by many historians that wherever advancement they made in other branches of life the Indian people were politically very backward. I deny that proposition. I admit that we somehow, lost that political genius. We lost all parliamentary institutions and we became subject to the autocratic king. It marked the decline of civilisation and the Indian society has been declining from time to time as all other societies have done. Why is it that in modern times societies seem to progress continuously without many difficulties except those which wars give rise to ? Why was it not so in the ancient society ? The difference between ancient society and modern society lies in the fact that in ancient societies law-making was not the function of the people. Law was made by God or by the law-giver. The function of the Society was merely to obey law that was made either by the divine power or the law maker. This was the fundamental reason for ancient societies not having any continuous civilisation. The true function of law consists in repairing the faults of the society. Unfortunately ancient societies never dared to assume the function of repairing their own defects; consequently they decayed. One of the reasons for the decay of Hindu society is that it was governed by law which had either been made by Manu or Yajnavalkya. Law that has been laid down by these law-makers is divine law. The result was that Hindu society was never able to repair itself. In Europe after a course of time, jurisdiction of ecclesiastical law was challegned by secular law with the result that today law in the West was purely secular and the jurisdiction of the Church was confined merely to the priest.