Vol. 5 · pages 251–255

236 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES it was a problem, of ascertaining the population of the untouchables. Because unless the population was ascertained, the extent of representation in the legislature could not be settled. The Simon Commission had therefore to make a searching inquiry into the population of the untouchables. It called upon the various provincial governments to furnish returns showing the numbers of untouchables residing in their area and it is well known that the provincial governments took special care in preparing these returns. There can therefore be no question regarding the accuracy of the figure of the total population of the untouchables. The following table1 gives the figures for the population of the untouchables as found by the Southborough Committee and by the Simon Commission. IV It is thus clear that the population of the Untouchables has been estimated to be somewhere about 50 millions. That this is the population of the Untouchables had been found by the Census Commissioner of 1911 and confirmed by the Census Commissioner of 1921 and by the Simon Commission in 1929. This fact was never challenged by any Hindu during the twenty years it stood on the record. Indeed in so far as the Hindu view could be gauged from the reports of the different Committees appointed by the Provincial and Central Legislatures to cooperate with the Simon Commission, there can be no doubt that they accepted this figure without any demur. Suddenly however in 1932, when the Lothian Committee came and began its investigation, the Hindus adopted a challenging mood and refused to accept this figure as the correct one. In some provinces the Hindus went to the length of denying that there were any Untouchables there at all. This episode reveals the mentality of the Hindus and as such deserves to be told in some details. The Lothian Committee was appointed in consequence of the recommendations made by the Franchise Sub-Committee of the Indian Round Table Conference. The Committee toured the whole of India, visited all the Provinces except Central Provinces and Assam. To aid the Committee, there were constituted in each Province by the provincial Government, Provincial Committees comprising, so far as possible, spokesmen of the various schools of thought and of the various political interests existing in each Province. These Provincial Committees were in the main composed of members of the Provincial Councils with non-officials as Chairmen. With a view to concentrating discussion, the Indian Franchise Committee issued a questionnaire 1 Table not given in the Ms— Ed.

237 FROM MILLIONS TO FRACTIONS covering the field included in its terms of reference. The procedure laid down by the Franchise Committee was that Provincial Governments should formulate their own views on the points raised in the questionnaire and discuss them with the Committee and that the Provincial Committees who were regarded as the authoritative advisers should independently formulate their views and should at their discretion conduct a preliminary examination of witnesses on the basis of their written statements. The Report of the Indian Franchise Committee was therefore a thorough piece of work based upon detailed investigation. The letter of instruction sent by the Prime Minister to Lord Lothian as Chairman of the Indian Franchise Committee and which constituted the terms of reference of the Committee contained the following observation : “It is evident from the discussions which have occurred in various connections in the (Indian Round Table) Conference that the new constitution must make adequate provision for the representation of the depressed classes and that the method of representation by nomination is no longer regarded as appropriate. As you are aware, there is a difference of opinion whether the system of separate electorates should be instituted for the depressed classes and your committee’s investigation should contribute towards the decision of this question by indicating the extent to which the depressed classes would be likely, through such general extension of the Franchise as you may recommend, to secure the right to vote in ordinary electorates. On the other hand, should it be decided eventually to constitute separate electorates for the depressed classes, either generally or in those Provinces in which they form a distinct and separate element in the population, your Committee’s inquiry into the general problem of extending the franchise should place you in possession of facts which would facilitate the devising of a method of separate representation for the depressed classes”. Accordingly in the questionnaire that was issued by the Indian Franchise Committee there was included the following Question: “What communities would you include as belonging to Depressed Classes? Would you include classes other than Untouchables, and if so which”? I was a member of the Indian Franchise Committee. When I became a member of the Committee, I was aware that the principal question on which I should have to give battle with the Caste Hindus was the question of joint versus separate electorates for the Untouchables. I knew, that in the Indian Franchise Committee, the odds would be

238 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES heavily against them. I was to be the only representative of the Untouchables in the Committee as against half a dozen of the Caste Hindus. Against such an unequal fight I had prepared myself. Before accepting membership of the Indian Franchise Committee, I had stipulated that the decision of the question whether the Untouchables should have joint or separate electorates should not form part of the terms of reference to the Committee. This was accepted and the question was excluded from the purview of the Indian Franchise Committee. I had therefore no fear of being out voted on this issue in the Committee— a strategy for which the Hindu Members of the Committee did not forgive me. But there arose another problem of which I had not the faintest idea. I mean the problem of numbers. The problem of numbers having been examined between 1911 to 1929 by four different authorities, who found that the population of Untouchables was somewhere about 50 millions, I did not feel that there would be any contest over this issue before the Indian Franchise Committee. Strange as it may appear the issue of numbers was fought out most bitterly and accrimoniously before the Indian Franchise Committee. Committee after Committee and witness after witness came forward to deny the existence of the Untouchables. It was an astounding phenomenon with which I was confronted. It would be impossible to refer to the statement of individual witnesses who came forward to deny the existence of such a class as the Untouchables. It would be enough if I illustrate my point by referring to the views of the Provincial Franchise Committees and their members relating to the question of the population of the Untouchables. PUNJAB Opinion of the Punjab Government. “The Punjab Government is of opinion that the enfranchisement of the tenant will give the vote to a considerable number of the Depressed Classes and to that extent will give them influence in the election of representatives to the Council.” 1 “As regards the Depressed Classes, the Punjab Government has no reason to depart from the view which it has already expressed in para 25 of the Memorandum containing the opinions of the official members of the Government on the recommendations of the Indian 1 Memorandum by the Punjab Government to Indian Franchise Committee-I.F.C, Vol. 111. p. (not cited in the Ms)

239 FROM MILLIONS TO FRACTIONS Statutory Commission, that these classes are not a pressing problem in the Punjab and will get some representation as tenants.” 1 Opinion of the Punjab Provincial Franchise Committee. “K. B. Din Mahomed and Mr. Hansraj (who represented the Untouchables on the Committee) held that, while there are no depressed classes among the Musalmans, there exist depressed classes among the Hindus and Sikhs Their total number being 1,310,709. Mr. Hansraj considers this list incomplete.” “They held that provision should be made for separate representation by treating the depressed classes as a separate community. Mr. Nazir Husain, Rai Bahadur Chaudhri Chhotu Ram, Mr. Own Roberts, K. B. Muhammad Hayat, Mr. Qureshi, Mr. Chatterji, Sardar Bhuta Singh and Pandit Nanak Chand held that it is impossible to say that there are depressed classes in the Punjab in the sense that any person by reason of his religion suffers any diminution of civic rights......The Chairman, Pandit Nanak Chand and Sardar Bhuta Singh are of opinion that the depressed classes do not exist in the sense in which they exist in Southern India, and that, while there are in the villages certain classes who occupy a very definitely inferior economic and social position, it is not possible to differentiate the Hindu leather worker or Chamar who is claimed as a depressed class from the Musalman leather worker or Mochi who no one alleges belongs to a separate class.” 2 It will thus be seen that the Punjab Provincial Government avoided to answer the question. The Punjab Provincial Committee by a majority denied that there existed a class such as depressed or untouchable. UNITED PROVINCES Opinion of the Provincial Franchise Committee. “The United Provinces Franchise Committee is of opinion that only those classes should be called “depressed” which are untouchable. Judged by this test, the problem of untouchability is non-existent in these provinces except in the case of Bhangis, Doms and Dhanuks, whose total population, including those sections which are touchable is only 582,000.” 3 Babu Ram Sahai, a member of the United Provinces Pronvincial Franchise Committee representing the untouchable classes, in his minute of dissent gave the numbers 4 of the Untouchables in U. P. as 1 Supplementary Memorandum by the Punjab Government, I.F.C., Vol. III, p. 29. 2 Memorandum by the Punjab Provincial Franchise Committee, I.F.C., Vol. III, p. 35. 3 I.F.C. Vol. III, p. 398. 4 Ibid., p. 440.

240 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 11,435,417. Rai Sahib Babu Ramcharan another member of the United Provinces Provincial Franchise Committee representing the Depressed Classes in his minute of dissent gave the numbers 1 of the Depressed Classes in U.P. as 20 millions. The Government of the United Provinces reported2 that the maximum estimate amounts to 17 million persons; the minimum something less than one million. In its opinion the least number was 6,773,814. BENGAL The Bengal Provincial Franchise Committee in its first Report 3 said. “The Committee could come to no decision on this question and resolved to put it back for consideration along with the Central Committee.” In its final Report the same Committee said— “According to the criterion laid down viz, untouchability and unapproachability, as these terms are understood in other parts of India, the Committee consider that, except Bhuimalis only, there is no such class in Bengal.” 4 Mr. Mullick who was a representative of the Depressed Classes on the Bengal Provincial Franchise Committee in his minute of dissent gave a list of 86 castes as belonging to the Untouchable Classes. BIHAR AND ORISSA The population of the Depressed Classes in Bihar and Orissa according to the Census of 1911 was 9,300,000 5 and according to the Census of 1921 was 8,000,000 6. But the Bihar and Orissa Provincial Franchise Committee in its provincial memorandum 7 observed— “It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of the castes or sects who come under the definition of Depressed Classes. The only classes which can be called depressed are Mushahars, Dusadhs, Chamars, Doms and Mehtars. Their number is not sufficiently large to justify their being grouped in a separate electoral roll. The problem of Depressed Classes is not so acute in Bihar as in Bombay or South India. The Committee considers that there is no need for special representation of the Depressed Classes.” 1 I.F.C., Vol. III, p. 285. 2 Ibid., pp. 297-98. 3 Ibid., p. 189. 4 Ibid. p. 230. 5 Quoted from ‘Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches’. Vol. 2. p. 437—Ed. 6 Ibid., p. 431—Ed. 7 I.F.C., Vol. III, p. 129.