Vol. 9 · pages 206–210

177 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A FALSE CHARGE more than follow the advice of Burke, who has said that it is better to be accused of timidity than to be ruined by overconfident security. The third argument is that there is no justification for the Congress to say that the “Fight for Freedom” must come first and the agreement about constitutional safeguards afterwards. The Untouchables feel that having regard to the attitude of the British Government to India’s right to freedom, this fight, which the Congress loves so much, is uncalled for, at any rate, it is putting the cart before the horse. The attitude of the British towards India’s claim for freedom has since the Mutiny of 1857 undergone a complete change. There was a time when the British Government held the view which was a complete negation of India’s claim for freedom. It was proclaimed by Lawrence whose statue in Calcutta has the motto : “The British conquered India by the sword and they will hold it by sword.” This attitude is dead and buried and it is no exaggeration to say that every Englishman today is ashamed of it. This stage was followed by another in which the argument of the British Government against India’s freedom was the alleged incapacity of Indians for Parliamentary institutions. It began with Lord Ripon’s regime which was followed by an attempt to give political training to Indians, first in the field of Local Self-Government, and then under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in the field of Provincial Government. We have now entered the third or the present stage. British Government is now ashamed to say that they will hold India by the sword. It no longer says that Indians have no capacity to run Parliamentary institutions. The British Government admits India’s right to freedom, even to independence, if Indians so desire. The British Government admits the right of Indians to frame their own constitution. There can be no greater proof of this new angle of vision than the Cripps Proposals. The condition precedent laid down by the British Government for India’s freedom is that Indians must produce a constitution which has the concurrence of the important elements in the national life of the country. Such is the stage we have reached. The Untouchables cannot therefore understand why the Congress, instead of trying to achieve agreement among Indians, should keep on talking in terms of a “Fight for Freedom” and maligning the Untouchables in not joining in it.

178 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES III Why does the Congress oppose the proposal of the British Government ? It seeks to justify its opposition on two grounds. It says that the condition prescribed by the British Government puts a veto on freedom of India in the hands of the Untouchables. This is a stupid argument and for two reasons. In the first place, the Untouchables in India have never made impossible demands. They have not even made unreasonable demands. They do not say as Carson did to Redmond: “Damn your safeguards. We don’t wish to be ruled by you.” The Untouchables are quite prepared to submit themselves to the rule of the Hindu Majority, notwithstanding the unsocial and the undemocratic character of its ethics, provided the constitution gives them reasonable safeguards. To say, that the Untouchables will exercise a veto on India’s freedom by raising impossible demands is thus a gross libel, for which there is not the slightest justification. Assuming the fear is well-founded, the Congress is not altogether without a remedy. For it is still open to the Congress to say that if there is no agreement between the Hindus and the Untouchables the dispute should be referred to an International Board of Arbitration. If the Congress took this stand, I am sure, neither the British Government nor the Untouchables will have the slightest objection to it. But when, instead of making an honest and sincere attempt to bring about an agreed constitution, the Congress goes on launching its campaigns for achieving freedom—not without occasional rests and retreats—the only conclusion, which the Untouchables can draw, is that the Congress wants to coerce the British Government to transfer its power or to use Mr. Gandhi’s phrase, “hand over the keys to the Congress,” without being obliged to agree to the safeguards demanded by the Untouchables. In short, what the Congress wants is a free India with full, unrestricted freedom to the Hindus in a free India to dispose of the Untouchables in any way they liked. No wonder the Untouchables have refused to take part in such a dishonest agitation, elevated though it may be by such high sounding name as “Fight for Freedom” ! The other ground urged by the Congress for not taking up the question of bringing about an agreement is that the British Government is not honest, and that notwithstanding its declarations it will not transfer power even if Indians agreed

179 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A FALSE CHARGE upon a constitution, and that ultimately Indians will have to struggle with the British in order to wrest power from their hands. The reply of the Untouchables is that they see no reason why Indians should start, with such complete distrust of the British intentions. After all, the British Government has moved in the direction of fulfilling Indian aspirations and is moving. If it is slow in moving it is due to Indians being content with small things. Right from the conquest of India by the British upto 1886, Indians never cared who ruled them nor how they were ruled. They were content to live without troubling themselves about these questions. In 1886 the Congress was organized and for the first time Indians began to take interest in the government of India. But even the Congress upto 1910 was content in agitating for good Government only. It was in 1910 that the Congress first demanded Self-Government. When in 1919 the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were on the anvil, Indians had an occasion to state the scope of their demand for Self-Government. What is known as the Memorandum of the Nineteen denned the aspirations of the Indians as they stood in 1917. Any one who knows it will remember that the best and the most radical Indians were content only with Dyarchy in the Provinces. Even this was regarded as a big jump by some Indian leaders such as Sir Dinshaw Watcha and Mr. Samarath 1. In 1930 notwithstanding the Congress Resolution insisting on Independence, Mr. Gandhi at the R. T. C. was prepared2 to be content with Provincial autonomy. The British granted more than that. If from 1939 there has been a halt, it is mainly because Indians are not agreed on the sort of constitution they want for their country. The Untouchables think that the stage, when the British were sitting upon the freedom of India, as the snake in the fable is said to sit on a treasure, not allowing anyone to come near it, is gone long past. India’s Freedom is like property held by a Receiver. The British Government has placed itself 1. Mr. Montagu in his Indian Diary records that when they waited on him to discuss the question of political reforms they said “Give us the power to pass resolutions, to influence Government; we will use it in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, but we are not fit for responsible Government.”—p. 147. 2. This part of the story of what happened at the Round Table Conference has not been told. But everybody present at the Round Table Conference knows how Mr. Gandhi was won over to agree to Provincial autonomy. If the 1935 Government of India Act contains some elements of responsibility at the centre the credit goes to the representatives of the Non-Congress parties at the R. T. C.

180 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the position of a Receiver. As soon as the dispute is over and the right kind of constitution is settled, it has bound it self to hand over the property to its rightful owners, namely, Indians. The Untouchables ask: why not take advantage of this ? why not adopt the straight and honest course of arriving at an agreement among the important elements in the country and then make a joint application for the release of the property ? That the Congress does not want to follow this line of action shows, say the Untouchables, that the Congress “Fight for Freedom” is nothing more than mere tactics, the object of which is to bypass the necessity of an agreed constitution demanded by the Untouchables and made a condition precedent by the British Government for the grant of freedom. The Untouchables do not say that they are out to underwrite the declarations made by the British Government, they do not say that if Indians are agreed it must necessarily be a case of “knock and it will open : ask and it shall be given unto you.” They admit that the British may not act up to the declarations they have made. It may be that even when an agreed constitution is produced, they may not act up to their promises, and a fight for freedom may become necessary. The Untouchables do not overlook these possibilities. But what they do say is that the Indians have not put the British to the test. They can’t be put to test unless they are presented with an agreed constitution. So long as the Congress does not adopt this course as the first—though it may not be last—line of action, the Untouchables feel that the Congress is not honest in its dealings with them, not even to the country. Who can say that the Untouchables have not sufficient justification for refusing to participate in the Congress “Fight for Freedom”? zz

CHAPTER VIII THE REAL ISSUE Aren’t The Untouchables A Separate Element? I WHAT is the fundamental issue in the controversy between the Congress and the Untouchables ? As I understand the matter, the fundamental issue is: Are the Untouchables a separate element in the national life of India or are they not ? This is the real issue in the controversy and it is on this issue that the Congress and the Untouchables have taken opposite sides. The answer of the Untouchables is yes. They say, they are distinct and separate from the Hindus. The Congress on the other hand says ‘No’ and asserts that the Untouchables are a chip of the Hindu block. This is the attitude of the parties to the issue. The attitude of the British Government was made clear by Lord Linlithgow 1 in his statements as Viceroy and Governor-General of India in which he declared in quite explicit terms that the Untouchables were a separate element in the national life of India. Many people who regard the issue of constitutional safeguards as the fundamental issue will feel surprised that I should regard as fundamental an issue so apparently different from what they regard as fundamental. Really speaking there is no difference. It all depends upon what one regards as the proximate and what as ultimate. Others regard the question of constitutional safeguards as ultimate. I regard as proximate. What I have stated as fundamental I regard as ultimate from which the proximate follows, as the conclusion does from the premise in a logical syllogism. It may be as well for me to state why I have thought it necessary to make this difference. The evolution of the Indian Constitution appears to me to have established a sort of a logical syllogism. The major premise in the syllogism is that where there exists an element in the national life of India, which is definable as a separate and distinct element it is entitled to constitutional safeguards. An element, making a claim for constitutional safeguards, must show that it is 1. See Appendix VI, Items 9 and 12.