Vol. 9 · pages 306–310

277 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : GANDHISM In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925 :— “I gave support to caste because it stands for restraint. But at present caste does not mean restraint, it means limitations. Restraint is glorious and helps to achieve freedom. But limitation is like chain. It binds. There is nothing commendable in castes as they exist today. They are contrary to the tenets of the shastras. The number of castes is infinite and there is a bar against intermarriage. This is not a condition of elevation. It is a state of fall.” In reply to the question : What is the way out Mr. Gandhi said : “The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four such big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four varnas.” In short, in 1925 Mr. Gandhi became an upholder of the Varna system. The old Varna system prevalent in ancient India had society divided into four orders : (1) Brahmins, whose occupation was learning; (2) Kshatriyas whose occupation was warfare; (3) Vaishyas, whose occupation was trade and (4) Shudras, whose occupation was service of the other classes. Is Mr. Gandhi’s Varna System the same as this old Varna system of the orthodx Hindus ? Mr. Gandhi explained his Varna system in the following terms 1 : “1. I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth. “2. There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offence or defence. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will riot make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of earning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of earning his living.] 1. The extracts are taken from an article by Mr. Gandhi on the subject and is reproduced in the Varna Vayavastha—a book which contains Mr. Gandhi’s writings in original Gujarathi.

278 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “3. The varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers. “4. The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons. “5. Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. “6. In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.” Turning to the field of economic life, Mr. Gandhi stands for two ideals : One of these is the opposition to machinery. As early as 1921 Mr. Gandhi gave vent to his dislike for machinery. Writing in the Young India of 19th January 1921, Mr. Gandhi said : “Do I want to put back the hand of the clock of progress ? Do I want to replace the mills by hand-spinning and handweaving ? Do I want to replace the railway by the countrycart ? Do I want to destroy machinery altogether ? These questions have been asked by some journalists and public men. My answer is: I would not weep over the disappearance of machinery or consider it a calamity.” His opposition to machinery is well evidenced by his idolization of charkha (the spinning wheel) and by insistence upon handspinning and hand-weaving. This opposition to machinery and his love for charkha is not a matter of accident. It is a matter of philosophy. This philosophy Mr. Gandhi took special occasion to propound in his presidential address at the Kathiawad Political Conference held on 8th January 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said : “Nations are tired of the worship of lifeless machines multi-plied ad infinitum. We are destroying the matchless living machines viz., our own bodies by leaving them to rust and trying to substitute lifeless machinery for them. It is a law of God that the body must be fully worked and utilised. We dare not ignore it. The spinning wheel is the auspicious symbol of Sharir Yajna—body labour. He who eats his food without

279 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : GANDHISM offering this sacrifice steals it. By giving up this sacrifice we became traitors to the country, and banged the door in the face of the Goddess of Fortune.” Anyone who has read Mr. Gandhi’s booklet on Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule) will know that Mr. Gandhi is against modern civilization. The book was first published in 1908. But there has been no change in his ideology. Writing in 1921 Mr. Gandhi said 1: “The booklet is a severe condemnation of ‘modern civilization.’ It was written in 1908. My conviction is deeper today than ever. I feel that, if India would discard ‘Modern civilization’ she can only gain by doing so.” In Mr. Gandhi’s view 2 : “Western civilization is the creation of satan.” The second ideal of Mr. Gandhi is the elimination of class-war and even class struggle in the relationship between employers and employees and between landlords and tenants. Mr. Gandhi’s views on the relationship between employers and employees were, set forth by him in an article on the subject which appeared in the Nava-Jivan of the 8th June 1921 from which the following is an extract : “Two paths are open before India, either to introduce the Western principle of ‘Might is right’ or to uphold the Eastern principle that truth alone conquers, that truth knows no mishap, that the strong and the weak have alike a right to secure justice. The choice is to begin with the labouring class. Should the labourers obtain an increment in their wages by violence ? Even if that be possible, they cannot resort to anything like violence, howsoever legitimate may be their claims. To use violence for securing rights may seem an easy path, but it proves to be thorny in the long run. Those who live by sword die also by sword. The swimmer often dies by drowning. Look at Europe. No one seems to be happy there, for not one is contented. The labourer does not trust the capitalist and the capitalist has no faith in the labourer. Both have a sort of vigour and strength but even the bulls have it. They fight to the very bitter end. All motion is not progress. We have got no reason to believe, that the people of Europe are progressing. Their possession of wealth does not argue the possession of any moral or spiritual qualities. * * * 1.Young India, 26th January 1921. 2. Dharma Manthan, p. 65.

280 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “What shall we do then ? The labourers in Bombay made a fine stand. I was not in a position to know all the facts. But this much I could see that they could fight in a better way. The millowner may be wholly in the wrong. In the struggle between capital and labour, it may be generally said that more often than not the capitalists are in the wrong box. But when labour comes fully to realise its strength, I know it can become more tyrannical than capital. The millowners will have to work on the terms dictated by labour, if the latter could command intelligence of the former. It is clear, however, that labour will never attain to that intelligence. If it does, labour will cease to be labour and become itself the master. The capitalists do not fight on the strength of money alone. They do possess intelligence and tact. “The question before us is this: When the labourers, remaining what they are, develop a certain consciousness, what should be their course ? It would be suicidal if the labourers rely upon their numbers or brute-force, i.e., violence. By so doing, they will do harm to industries in the country. If, on the other hand, they take their stand on pure justice and suffer in their person to secure it, not only will they always succeed but they will reform their masters, develop industries and both master and men will be as members of one and the same family.” Referring to the same theme on another occasion Mr. Gandhi said1: “Nor was it otherwise before. India’s history is not one of strained relations between capital and labour.” Particularly noteworthy are the views of Mr. Gandhi on strike as a weapon in the hand of the workers to improve their economic condition. Mr. Gandhi says 2 : “Speaking, therefore, as one having handled large successful strikes, I repeat the following maxims, already stated in these pages, for the guidance of all strike leaders : (1) There should be no strike without a real grievance. (2) There should be no strike, if the persons concerned are not able to support themselves out of their own savings or by engaging in some temporary occupation, such as carding, spinning and weaving. Strikers should never depend upon public subscriptions or other charity. (3) Strikers must fix an unalterable minimum demand, and declare it before embarking upon their strike. 1.Young India, February 23, 1922. 2. Young India, 11th August, 1921. Italics not in the original.

281 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : GANDHISM “A strike may fail in spite of a just grievance and the ability of strikers to hold out indefinitely, if there are workers to replace them. A wise man, therefore, will not strike for increase of wages or other comforts, if he feels that he can be easily replaced. But a philanthropic or patriotic man will strike in spite of supply being greater than the demand, when he feels for and wishes to associate himself with his neighbour’s distress. Needless to say, there is no room in a civil strike of the nature described by me for violence in the shape of intimidation, incendiarism or otherwise.....Judged by the tests suggested by me, it is clear that friends of the strikers could never have advised them to apply for or receive Congress or any other public funds for their support. The value of the strikers’ sympathy was diminished to the extent, that they received or accepted financial aid. The merit of a sympathetic strike lies in the inconvenience and the loss suffered by the sympathisers.” Mr. Gandhi’s view on the relationship between landlords and tenants were expounded by him in the Young India of 18th May 1921 in the form of instructions 1 to the tenants of U.P. who had risen against their landlords. Mr. Gandhi said: “Whilst the U. P. Government is crossing the bounds of propriety, and intimidating people, there is little doubt that the Kisans too are not making wise use of their newly found power. In several Zamindaries, they are said to have overstepped the mark, taken the law into their own hands and to have become impatient of anybody who would not do as they wish. They are abusing social boycott and are turning it into an instrument of violence. They are reported to have stopped the supply of water, barber and other paid services to their Zamindars in some instances and even suspended payment of the rent due to them. The Kisan movement has received an impetus from Non-co-operation but it is anterior to and independent of it. Whilst we will not hesitate to advise the Kisans when the moment comes, to suspend payment of taxes to Government, it is not contemplated that at any stage of Non-cooperation we would seek to deprive the Zamindars of their rent. The Kisan movement must be confined to the improvement of status of the Kisans and the betterment of the relations between the Zamindars and them. The Kisans must be advised scrupulously to abide by the terms of their agreement with the Zamindars, whether such is written or inferred from custom. Where a custom or even a written contract is bad, they may not try 1. Italics are not in the original. Kisan means a tenant and zamindar means landlord.