Vol. 5 · pages 341–345
Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability
This text was extracted automatically from the official PDF of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, so it may contain small errors. Always check the original page before quoting.
PDF page 341 (printed page 326)
326 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
“If we understand perfectly well before we start that this
committee will not merely concern itself with the question of the
Hindus and the Muhammadans, of the Hindus and the Sikhs, but
will also take upon itself the responsibility of considering the case of
the Depressed Classes, the Anglo-Indians and the Christians, I am
perfectly willing to allow this adjournment resolution to be passed
without any objection. But I do want to say this, that if I am to be
left out in the cold and if this interval is going to be utilised for the
purposes of solving the Hindu-Muslim question, I would press that
the Minorities Committee should itself grapple with the question
and consider it, rather than allow the question to be dealt with by
some other informal Committee for arriving at a solution of the
communal question in respect of some minorities only.”
The Prime Minister as Chairman of the Committee called upon
Mr. Gandhi to explain his position and Mr. Gandhi made the following
statement in reply 1:
“Prime Minister and friends, I see that there is some kind of
misunderstanding with reference to the scope of the work that some
of us have set before ourselves. I fear that Dr. Ambedkar, Colonel
Gidney and other friends are unnecessarily nervous about what is
going to happen. Who am I to deny political status to any single
interest or class or even individual in India ? As a representative
of the Congress I should be unworthy of the trust that has been
reposed in me by the Congress if I were guilty of sacrificing a single
national interest. I have undoubtedly given expression to my own
views on these points. I must confess that I hold to those views
also. But there are ways and ways of guaranteeing protection to
every single interest. It will be for those of us who will be putting
our heads together to try to evolve a scheme. Nobody would be
hampered in pressing his own views on the members of this very
informal conference or meeting.
“I do not think, therefore, that anybody need be afraid as to
being able to express his opinion or carrying his opinion also. Mine
will be there equal to that of every one of us; it will carry no greater
weight; I have no authority behind me to carry my opinion against
the opinion of anybody. I have simply given expression to my views
in the national interest, and I shall give expression to these views
whenever they are opportune. It will be for you, it is for you to
reject or accept these opinions. Therefore please disburse your
minds, to everyone of us, of the idea that there is going to be any
1 See “What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables”, p. 62.
(both the above extracts are not mentioned in the MS.). —Ed.
PDF page 342
327
UNDER THE PROVIDENCE OF MR. GANDHI
steam-rolling in the Conference and the informal meetings that I
have adumbrated. But if you think that this is one way of coming
closer together than by sitting stiffly at this table, you will not
carry this adjournment motion but give your whole-hearted cooperation to the proposal that I have made in connection with
these informal meetings.”
***
I then withdrew my objection.
Now here is a definite word given by Mr. Gandhi in open
Conference—namely that if all others agreed to recognize the claim
of the Untouchables he would not object. And after having given this
word Mr. Gandhi went about inducing the Musalmans not to recognize
the claim of the Untouchables and to bribe them to resile and take
back their plighted word!! Is this good faith or is this treachery ? If
this is not treachery I wonder what else could be called treachery.
I was pilloried because I signed what is called the Minorities
Pact. I was depicted as a traitor. I have never been ashamed of my
signature to the pact. I only pity the ignorance of my critics. They
forget that the minorities could have taken the same attitude that
Ulster took towards Irish Home Rule. Redmond was prepared to offer
any safeguard to Ulstermen. The Ulstermen’s reply was, “Damn your
safeguards we don’t wish to be ruled by you”. The Hindus ought to
thank the minorities that they did not take any such attitude. All
the Pact contained were safeguards and nothing more. Instead of
thanking them Mr. Gandhi poured his vials of wrath upon the pact
and its authors. He said :
“Coming to this document 1, I accept the thanks that have been
given to me by Sir Hubert Carr. Had it not been for the remarks
that I made when I shouldered that burden, and had it not been for
my utter failure to bring about a solution, Sir Hubert Carr rightly
says he would not have found the very admirable solution that he
has been able, in common with the other minorities, to present to
this Committee for consideration and finally for the consideration
and approval of His Majesty’s Government.”
“I will not deprive Sir Hubert Carr and his associates of the
feeling of satisfaction that evidently actuates them, but, in my
opinion, what they have done is to sit by the carcass, and they
have performed the laudable feat of dissecting that carcass.”
1 Reference is to the Minorities Pact.
PDF page 343 (printed page 328)
328 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Had Mr. Gandhi any right to be indignant ? Had he any right to feel
morally offended ? Was he entitled to throw stones at the Minorities ?
Mr. Gandhi forgot that he was as much a sinner as the Minorities and
worse he was a sinner without a sense of justice. For if the Minorities
were dividing the carcass what was Mr. Gandhi himself doing ? He
too was busy in dividing the carcass. The only difference between
Mr. Gandhi and the Minorities was this—Mr. Gandhi wanted that the
carcass should be divided among three only, Hindus, Musalmans and
Sikhs. The Minorities wanted that others also should be given a share,
and which of these two can claim to have justice on its side, Mr. Gandhi
who wanted that the division of the carcass should be to strong sturdy
well-nourished wolves or the minorities who pressed that the lean and
hungry lambs should also be given a morsel ? Surely in this controversy
justice was not on the side of Mr. Gandhi.
Mr. Gandhi was the man who claimed to be the Champion of the
Untouchables better than those who belonged to the Untouchables
themselves. Claiming to be their champion he refused without any regard
to morality, justice and necessity, their claim to representation which
could be their only way to protection against social tyranny and social
oppression while he was prepared to give to the Musalmans, the Hindus
and the Sikhs a goodly share of political power. When others far better
placed were claiming for power, Mr. Gandhi wanted the Untouchables
to live under his providence and that of the Congress without any
means of protection knowing full well that their lives were exposed to
danger and humiliation every moment and when he came to know that
the Untouchables were seeking outside aid in support of their claim
Mr. Gandhi resorted to a terrible act of treachery. Were the Untouchables
unjustified in presenting to the world their charge sheet against
Mr. Gandhi when he arrived in Bombay from the Round Table Conference ?
zz
PDF page 344 (printed page 25)
CHAPTER 25
GANDHI AND HIS FAST
I. Poona Pact. II. Harijan Sevak Sangh. III. Temples and
Untouchables. IV. The Gandhian Way.
I
The Communal question was the rock on which the Indian Round
Table Conference suffered a shipwreck. The Conference broke up
as there could be no agreement between the majority and minority
communities. The minorities in India insisted that their position under
Swaraj should be safeguarded by allowing them special representation
in the Legislatures. Mr. Gandhi as representative of the Congress was
not prepared to recognize such a claim except in the case of the Muslims
and the Sikhs. Even in the case of the Muslims and Sikhs, no agreement
was reached either on the question of the number of seats or the nature
of the electorates.
There was a complete deadlock. As there was no possibility of an
agreement, the hope lay in arbitration. On this everybody was agreed
except myself and it was left to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the Prime
Minister to decide upon the issue.
When at the first Round Table Conference, the Indian delegates
did not agree upon a solution of the Communal question, followers of
Mr. Gandhi said that nothing better could be expected from them. It
was said that they were unrepresentative and responsible to nobody
and were deliberately creating disunity by playing into the hands of
the British whose tools and nominees they were. The world was told to
await the arrival of Mr. Gandhi, whose statesmanship it was promised
would be quite adequate to settle the dispute. It was therefore a matter
of great humiliation for the friends of Mr. Gandhi that he should have
acknowledged his bankruptcy and joined in the request to the Prime
Minister to arbitrate.
But if the Conference failed the fault is entirely of Mr. Gandhi. A
more ignorant and more tactless representative could not have been
PDF page 345 (printed page 330)
330 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
sent to a Conference which was convened to forge a constitution
which was to reconcile the diverse interests of India. Mr. Gandhi was
thoroughly ignorant of Constitutional Law or Finance. He does not
believe in intellectual equipment. Indeed he has a supreme contempt
for it and his contributions to the solutions of the many difficulties
is therefore nil. He was tactless because he annoyed almost all the
delegates by constantly telling them that they were nonentities and
he was the only man who counted and who could deliver the goods.
At the first Round Table Conference the delegates did not agree upon
a solution of the communal problem. But it is equally true that they
were very near agreeing to it and when they departed they had not
given up hope of agreeing. But at the end of the second Round Table
Conference, so much bad blood was created by Mr. Gandhi that there
was no chance of reconciliation left and there was no way except
arbitration.
The Prime Minister’s decision on the communal question was
announced on 17th August 1932. The terms of the decision in so far
as they related to the Untouchables were as follows : 1
COMMUNAL D ECISION BY H IS M AJESTY ’S G OVERNMENT 1932
In the statement made by the Prime Minister on 1st December
last on behalf of His Majesty’s Government at the close of the second
session of the Round Table Conference, which was immediately
afterwards endorsed by both Houses of Parliament, it was made
plain that if the communities in India were unable to reach a
settlement acceptable to all parties on the communal questions
which the Conference had failed to solve, His Majesty’s Government
were determined that India’s constitutional advance should not
on that account be frustrated, and that they would remove this
obstacle by divising and applying themselves a provisional scheme.
2. On the 19th March last His Majesty’s Government, having
been informed that the continued failure of the communities to
reach agreement was blocking the progress of the plans for the
framing of a new Constitution, stated that they were engaged upon
a careful re-examination of the difficult and controversial question
The following text of the Communal Award is not typed in the MS. This is reproduced
from ‘What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables’ by the author. (Thacker
and Co. Ltd. . 1st Ed. June 1945, pp. 80-82 ).—Ed.