Vol. 4 · pages 291–295

280 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 35. Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Prachetas, Vashishta, Bhrigu and Narada. 58. But he having composed these Institutes of the sacred law, himself taught them, according to rule, to me alone in the beginning: next I taught them to Marichi and the other sages. 59. Bhrigu will fully recite to you these Institutes; for that sage learned the whole in its entirety from me. From this it appears that the only Manu who made laws was the Swayambhu Manu. According to Vishnu Purana, each Manvantara had its own Manu. Why did they not make laws for their own Manvantara. Or was it the laws made by Swayambhu Manu were to be Eternal. If so, why did the Brahmins have separate Manvantara. zz

RIDDLE NO. 22 BRAHMA IS NOT DHARMA. WHAT GOOD IS BRAHMA? There are various forms of Government known to history—Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy to which may be added Dictatorship. The most prevalent form of Government at the present time is Democracy. There is however no unanimity as to what constitutes Democracy. When one examines the question one finds that there are two views about it. One view is that Democracy is a form of Government. According to this view where the Government is chosen by the people that is where Government is a representative Government there is Democracy. According to this view Democracy is just synonymous with Representative Government which means adult suffrage and periodical elections. According to another view a democracy is more than a form of Government. It is a form of the organization of Society. There are two essential conditions which characterize a democratically constituted society. First is the absence of stratification of society into classes. The Second is a social habit on the part of individuals and groups which is ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of reciprocity of interests. As to the first there can be no doubt that it is the most essential condition of Democracy. As Prof. Dewey 1 has observed: [Quotation referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS from ‘Democracy and Education’, by Dewey p. 98.] The second condition is equally necessary for a democratically constituted society. The results of this lack of reciprocity of interests This chapter consists about 20 pages out of which first two pages and the concluding six are in the handwriting of the author. The rest are typed pages with all necessary modifications by Dr. Ambedkar.—Ed. 1 Democracy & Education p. 98.

282 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES among groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results which have been well described by Prof. Dewey 1 when he says: [Quotation from ‘Democracy and Education’ of page 99 referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS.] Of the two views about democracy there is no doubt that the first one is very superficial if not erroneous. There cannot be democratic Government unless the society for which it functions is democratic in its form and structure. Those who hold that democracy need be no more than a mere matter of elections seem to make three mistakes. One mistake they make is to believe that Government is something which is quite distinct and separate from society. As a matter of fact Government is not something which is distinct and separate from Society. Government is one of the many institutions which Society rears and to which it assigns the function of carrying out some of the duties which are necessary for collective social life. The Second mistake they make lies in their failure to realize that a Government is to reflect the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and wishes of society and this can happen only where the society in which the Government is rooted is democratic. If society is not democratic, Government can never be. Where society is divided into two classes governing and the governed the Government is bound to be the Government of the governing class. The third mistake they make is to forget that whether Government would be good or bad democratic or undemocratic depends to a large extent up on the instrumentalities particularly the Civil Service on which every where Government has to depend for administering the Law. It all depends upon the social milieu in which civil servants are nurtured. If the social milieu is undemocratic the Government is bound to be undemocratic. There is one other mistake which is responsible for the view that for democracy to function it is enough to have a democratic form of Government. To realize this mistake it is necessary to have some idea of what is meant by good Government. Good Government means good laws and good administration. This is the essence of good Government. Nothing else can be. Now there cannot be good Government in this sense if those who are invested with ruling power seek the advantage of their own class instead of the advantage of the whole people or of those who are downtrodden. Whether the Democratic form of Government will result in good will depend upon the disposition of the individuals composing society. If the mental disposition of the individuals is democratic then the 1 Democracy & Education p. 99.

283 RIDDLE NO. 22 democratic form of Government can be expected to result in good Government. If not, democratic form of Government may easily become a dangerous form of Government. If the individuals in a society are separated into classes and the classes are isolated from one another and each individual feels that his loyalty to his class must come before his loyalty to every thing else and living in class compartments he becomes class conscious bound to place the interests of his class above the interests of others, uses his authority to pervert law and justice to promote the interests, of his class and for this purpose practises systematically discrimination against persons who do not belong to his caste in every sphere of life what can a democratic Government do. In a Society where classes clash and are charged with anti-social feelings and spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its task of governing with justice and fairplay. In such a society, Government even though it may in form be a government of the people and by the people it can never be a Government for the people. It will be a Government by a class for a class. A Government for the people can be had only where the attitude of each individual is democratic which means that each individual is prepared to treat every other individual as his equal and is prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims for himself. This democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the individual in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of a democratic Government. Democratic Governments have toppled down in largely due to the fact that the society for which they were set up was not democratic. Unfortunately to what extent the task of good Government depends upon the mental and moral disposition of its subjects has seldom been realized. Democracy is more than a political machine. It is even more than a social system. It is an attitude of mind or a philosophy of life. Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality and liberty are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important question is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it is the law of the state which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a true answer. What sustains equality and liberty is fellow-felling. What the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word fraternity is not an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called, Maitree. Without Fraternity Liberty would destroy equality and equality would destroy liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the basis of both there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.

284 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The foregoing discussion is merely a preliminary to the main question. That question is—wherein lie the roots of fraternity without which Democracy is not possible? Beyond dispute, it has its origin in Religion. In examining the possibilities of the origin of Democracy or its functioning successfully one must go to the Religion of the people and ask—does it teach fraternity or does it not? If it does, the chances for a democratic Government are great. If it does not, the chances are poor. Of course other factors may affect the possibilities. But if fraternity is not there, there is nothing to built democracy on. Why did Democracy not grow in India? That is the main question. The answer is quite simple. The Hindu Religion does not teach fraternity. Instead it teaches division of society into classes or varnas and the maintenance of separate class consciousness. In such a system where is the room for Democracy ? The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It is designed to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and of castes and outcastes are not theories but are decrees. They are all barricades raised against democracy. From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity was unknown to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion would not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought gave rise to an idea which had greater potentialities for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the doctrine of Brahmaism 1. It would not be surprising if some one asked what is this Brahmaism? It is something new even to Hindus. The Hindus are familiar with Vedanta. They are familar with Brahmanism. But they are certainly not familiar with Brahmaism. Before proceeding further a few words of explanation are necessary. There are three strands in the philosophic and religious thought of the Hindus. They may be designated as (1) Brahmaism (2) Vedanta and (3) Brahmanism. Although they are correlated they stand for three different and distinct ideologies. The essence of Brahmaism is summed up in a dogma which is stated in three different forms. They are— (i) Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma —All this is Brahma. (ii) Aham Brahmasmi —Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma. Therefore I am Brahma. (iii) Tattvamasi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma. Therefore thou art also Brahma. 1 have borrowed this word from Prof. Hopkin’s–The Epics of India.