Vol. 2 · pages 751–755

730 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (14) Mr. M. K. Acharya, Mr. L. M. Deshpande, and Mr. J. L. Bannerjee, on behalf of the All-India Varnashram Swarajya Sangha *10,753. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Acharya, do I understand you correctly, when I say that what you want is that the Legislature should not have competence to pass laws affecting what you call the fundamentals of religion ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes. 10,754; Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: And that before any such law is introduced you want a sort of previous sanction obtained from heads of religious institutions ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes. 10,755. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: And, thirdly, that after it is introduced it should not become law until it is passed by a two-thirds majority ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes. 10,756. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to ask you this : This two-thirds majority is to be two-thirds majority of the Hindu members of the Legislature or two-thirds majority of the total Legislature ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Of each community sought to be affected. If it is only the Hindu community it would be only the Hindu members. If it is the Muslim community there would be the Muslim members also. 10,757. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Are you able to tell us in a defined form what you regard to be the fundamentals of your religion so that it may be possible for this Committee to know to what extent the Legislature can interfere and to what extent it cannot ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: I am willing to give a very humble lecture on the fundamentals of religion if the Committee will hear me for three hours. 10,758. Sir Austen Chamberlain: You could not give us a formula that we could get into a reasonable number of words for the section of the Act? Mr. M. K. Acharya: That is what I said. Dr. Ambedkar is now trying to heckle me into some kind of answer in three words. I cannot. 10,759. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am not trying to heckle you ; I am trying to understand. For legislative purposes you must give the Committee some formula which could be put into the Act so that it would be possible, both for the Speaker of the House or the Governor, or whoever may be the deciding authority, and the Courts, to find out exactly whether a particular law passed by the Legislature is ultra vires of that Legislature ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: I have suggested, I thought, a formula which is very workable and which I have in fact taken from some — 10,760. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You merely said they are fundamentals. You leave the whole matter undecided. What are the fundamentals ? *Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-C, 2nd August 1933, pp. 1605-08.

731EVIDENCE : MR. M.K. ACHARYA AND OTHERS Mr. M. K. Acharya: The formula I suggested was this : Before a measure affecting religion is introduced the Governor or the Governor-General should refer it to the opinion of the recognised religious heads of organisations in that Province, and after getting their opinions, and probably after modifying them so as to bring it in accordance with their opinions, it might be introduced, and all that it is for the Governor or the Governor-General to decide. 10,761. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I take from you that whether a certain piece of legislation affects the fundamentals of your religion or not is a matter which is to be decided by the heads of the religious institutions ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Certainly so. They are the competent judges to decide. 10,762. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Acharya, you are a Brahmin by caste ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes. 10,763. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Deshpande, you are a Brahmin by caste ? Mr. Deshpande: Yes. 10,764. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Bannerjee, are you a Brahmin by caste ? Mr. J. Bannerjee : Yes. 10,765. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Acharya, is not it a fact that in the Hindu religion nobody can be a priest unless he is a Brahmin by birth ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: It is not a fact. 10,766. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You mean any Hindu in practice can officiate as a priest at any Hindu ceremony ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: No, it does not mean that. 10,767. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is my question? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Please put it properly. 10,768. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Whether anyone who is not a Brahmin can officiate and perform any religious ceremony ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: A very simple question. Every community, subcommunity or class has got its priest from that community or sub-community. A Brahmin will not go to certain communities. 10,769. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: 1 am telling you most respectfully that that is not a correct statement ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: That is the truth, as far as I know. 10,770. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Does Mr. Deshpande know ? Mr. Deshpande: It is so now. Mr. M. K. Acharya: A Brahmin will not officiate for certain things. 10,771. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The heads of all religious institutions are Brahmins, are they not ? Mr. Deshpande: No. In Bombay Presidency there is a very huge Mutt

732 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES which has property and all that is purely non-Brahmin. 10,772. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: In the main? Mr. Deshpande: Some are Brahmins ; some are non-Brahmins. 10,773. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Is it not a fact in Bombay Presidency? Mr. Deshpande: There are others also, Lingayats. 10,774. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I do not want to confuse the issue. My question is this : As distinct from the Lingayats, the Jains, or the Buddhists (I am talking purely of the Hindus) is it not a fact that all these institutions are controlled by Brahmins ? Mr. Deshpande: There are some which are controlled by non-Brahmins even in Bombay Presidency. 10,775. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There are very few ? Mr. Deshpande : Yes, that would be accepted; but not that the whole of them belong to Brahmins. 10,776. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now if your proposition was accepted, that the heads of these institutions should have the right to give previous sanction, it would simply mean that the whole of the destiny of the Hindu community would be in the hands of the Brahmins in charge of these institutions ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: It will not mean that at all. 10,777. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Let me ask you a question or two about your representative character. Mr. Deshpande, in the Satara district there is a non-Brahmin party, is there not ? Mr. Deshpande: Yes. 10,778. Dr. B. JR. Ambedkar: The non-Brahmins of Satara district would cover almost 90 per cent. of the population ? Mr. Deshpande: Yes. 10,779. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is a very strong antagonism between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins in the Satara district ? Mr. Deshpande: On certain points ; not on all. 10,780. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But on points of politics and social reform ? Mr. Deshpande: On points of politics. 10,781. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: On point of social reform ? Mr. Deshpande: Not so much. 10,782. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Is it not true that the Brahmins and nonBrahmins have been struggling as to the equality in temples, so far as officiating is concerned? Mr. Deshpande: In some districts they may have, but not in all. 10,783. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But is there not a strong cleavage between the two ? Mr. Deshpande: Not so far as I know. 10,784. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But they are, anyhow, a separate entity, carrying on a separate political life ?

733EVIDENCE : MR. M.K. ACHARYA AND OTHERS Mr. Deshpande: Yes, everybody has his own. 10,785. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: And you still think a few Brahmins in the Satara district would represent the non-Brahmins ? Mr. Deshpande: So far as I am concerned. 10,786. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Do you think that you and Mr. Jadhav, the leader of the non-Brahmins, would go together on most of these points in the Memorandum ? Mr. Deshpande: I do not know about Mr. Jadhav; I know about mine. 10,787. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Do you dine together ? Mr. Deshpande: Mr. Jadhav and myself, no. 10,788. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: In the Madras Presidency there is a Justice party consisting of the non-Brahmins ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: There was a party some years ago. I do not know if it is as active now. 10,789. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But it did exist for a year or two ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: It existed for seven or eight years. 10,790. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is again a very strong cleavage between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins in the Madras Presidency ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Not a very strong cleavage upon what might be called religious questions at all. 10,791. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: They have a separate organisation of their own ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: I believe in the Justice party Brahmins are being admitted now. 10,792. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But hitherto they were not admitted ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: They are admitting even Brahmins now and, therefore, they are changing. 10,793. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Would it be correct to say that you are only representing the views of the Brahmins ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Quite incorrect 10,794. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now I want to ask you a question, Mr. Deshpande. In your Memorandum No. 64, I do not find any comment on the Poona Pact : Is that so ? Mr. Deshpande: There is none. 10,795. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Is that true ? Mr. Deshpande: It is true. 10,796. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mr. Acharya, in your Memorandum No. 65, apart from this one line on page 3 : “It is upon its merits we condemn the Poona Pact,” there is no reference to it ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: That was quite enough, I thought. 10,797. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This joint production of yours is the latest thought, is it not ?

734 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes, it has come later than the others. 10,798. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: After the evidence of the Hindu Mahasabha was given ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: No, much before that. 10,799. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why did not Mr. Deshpande put it before in your Memorandum, if as it is stated here, you had a mandate from your clients to condemn it ? Mr. Deshpande: I did not think that it was necessary. 10,800. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: There is just one other question I want to ask. You ask in your joint production, No. 72, full Provincial autonomy and Central responsibility ; I need not read that. Now, under paragraph 4. Franchise for Lower Chambers, you say : “The bulk of our countrymen are yet untrained in the habit of working representative institutions.” The question that I want to ask you is this : For whose benefit do you ask for Provincial autonomy and Central responsibility, if you say your “country men are yet untrained in the habit of working representative institutions” ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: I would ask the Honourable Gentleman to read the paragraph more carefully. The answer is there already. 10,801. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What is the answer? Mr. M. K. Acharya: The answer is there, if you read it. 10,802. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What is the answer ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: We say we are against the indiscriminate lowering of the franchise in the immediate future ; the indiscriminate lowering we condemn ; but making the lowering more discriminate, we are taking the next step immediately to urge Provincial autonomy and Central responsibility. 10,803. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But how can indiscriminate lowering of the franchise make your countrymen trained in the habit of working representative institutions ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: That is what we say. Indiscriminate lowering will not train them. 10,804. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Therefore, raise it higher up ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: No, the opposite of indiscriminate lowering is discriminate lowering. 10,805. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Confining it only to the Brahmins and the higher classes ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Discriminate lowering does not mean that. The White Paper says 38,000,000, I would be content with 20,000,000 or 28,000,000. That is not for confining them to this class and that class. 10,806. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: You know in Malabar, there is a community called the Naiyadis ? Mr. M. K. Acharya: Yes. 10,807. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I understand that under the social customs