Vol. 9 · pages 41–45

12 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES between sub-divisions of the same caste should form the subjects for discussion and determination. As to sanctions it was thought there should be different SubCommittees appointed for dealing with different social questions. The Sub-Committees were to be left to evolve certain fundamental principles and penalties for breach of these principles, to be carried out and enforced as regards the members of Social Reform Party who might agree to be bound by such penalties, (1) by the Sub-Committees themselves, or (2) through their spiritual heads, whenever it was possible to do so, or (3) through Civil Courts, or failing all (4) by application to Government for enabling the Committees to enforce the rules in respect of their own pledged members. While the Social Reform Party had formed a separate organization of its own to discuss the many social evils which festered Hindu Society, they were not satisfied with the Congress attitude of completely dissociating itself from questions of social reform. Some of them were anxious to make it an issue whether Social Reform should not precede Political Reform and press for a decision. In this they had many friends to support them. Among them was to be found the Government of India. Sir Aukland Colvin, a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, very clearly and very emphatically stated that Indians ought to turn their attention to Social Reform in preference to endeavours they were making “to teach the British what their duties were in regard to the Government of India.” The reference to Social Reform in the addresses of the Congress Presidents referred to above can now be easily understood. They are a reply to the criticism by the Social Reform Party against the Congress dissociating itself from the problem of removing social evils. Turning to the second question as to why no Congress President has referred to the question of Social Reform in his presidential address after 1895, the answer is that before 1895 there were two schools among Congressmen on the issue of social reform versus political reform. The viewpoint of one school was that expressed by Mr. Dadabhoy Naoroji, Mr. Budruddin Tyabji and Mr. Surrendranath Bannerjee. The viewpoint of the other school was that expressed by Mr. W. C.

13 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A STRANGE EVENT Banerjee. The former did recognize the need of social reform but thought that the Congress Session was not the proper platform for it. The latter denied that there was need for social reform and challenged the view that there cannot be political reform without social reform. Though the two schools within the Congress were fundamentally opposed to each other, they had not upto 1895 developed a spirit of antagonism and intolerance towards each other. The former school was in a dominant position and the result was that the Indian National Congress and the Social Conference functioned as two parallel organizations each devoting itself to its own particular aims and objects. So great was the spirit of co-operation and good will between the two that the annual sessions of the National Congress and Social Conference were held in immediate succession in the same pandal and a large majority of those who came to attend the Congress Session also attended the Social Conference. The Social Conference was, however, an eyesore to the Congressmen who belonged to the Anti-social Reform Section. This section was evidently getting restive at the kindly disposition and the accommodating spirit which the dominant section in the Congress was showing to the Social Conference particularly in the matter of allowing it to use the Congress pandal for holding its session. In 1895 when the Congress met in Poona, this Anti-Social Reform section rebelled and threatened to burn the Congress pandal if the Congress allowed it to be used by the Social Conference. This opposition to the Social Conference was headed by no other person than the late Mr. Tilak one of those social tories and political radicals with which India abounds and who was the father of the slogan “Swaraj is my birthright” which is now seen blazoned on Congress banners. The rebellion succeeded largely because the Pro-Social Reform Party in the Congress was not prepared to fight its opponents. 1 This rebellion had one effect. It settled that the Congress was not to entertain any question of social reform 1 That the Pro-Social Reform Party in the Congress did not like to take up the challenge is evident from the letter which Mr. Surrendranath Bannerjee wrote to Mr. Ranade over the question raised by Mr. Tilak’s Party regarding the use of the Congress pandal by the Social Conference in which he said “The raison d’etre for excluding social questions from our deliberations is that were we to take up such questions it might lead to serious differences ultimately culminating in a schism, and it is a matter of the first importance that we should prevent a split. The request of the other side is very unreasonable; but we have sometimes to submit to unreasonable demands to avert greater evils.”

14 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES no matter how urgent. 1 This is the explanation why no Congress President after 1895 has referred to the question of social reform in his presidential address. The Congress by its action in 1895 had become a purely political body with no interest and no concern in the removal or mitigation of social wrongs. III Against this background the resolution passed by the Congress about the Depressed Classes in 1917 is obviously a strange event. The Congress had never done such a thing before although it had functioned for thirty-two years. It was even contrary to its declared policy. Why did the Congress think it necessary to pass such a resolution in the year 1917 ? What made it take cognizance of the Untouchables ? What did it want to gain ? Whom did it want to deceive ? Was it because of a change in its angle of vision or was it because of some ulterior motive ? For an answer to these questions one must turn to the following resolutions passed by the Depressed Classes in the year 1917 at two separate meetings held in the City of Bombay under two different Presidents. The first of these meetings was held on the 11th November 1917 under the Chairmanship of the late Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. In that meeting the following resolutions 2 were passed :— “First Resolution —Loyalty to British Government and prayer for victory to the Allies.” “Second Resolution carried at the meeting by an overwhelming majority, the dissentients being about a dozen, expressed approval of the scheme of reform in the administration of India recommended by the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League.” “Third Resolution carried unanimously was : ‘As the population of the Depressed Classes in India considered Untouchable and treated as such, is very large, as their condition is very 1 Some of the leading Social Reformers welcomed this rebellion by the AntiSocial Reform Party in the Congress against the Conference. Dewan Bahadur R. Raghunath Rao wrote to Mr. Ranade that he “was glad that the panda was not allowed to be used by the Social Conference, for the deception that used to be practised by the Congress upon the English people that it worked in conjunction with the Social Conference was unveiled, and the English people would now clearly understand that the Congress really did not mean to work with the Social Conference.” 2 Addresses presented to the Viceroy in India and the Right Hon’ble the Secretary of State for India (1918). Parliamentary Paper Cd. 9178 pages 74-75.

15 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A STRANGE EVENT degraded owing to that treatment and as they are behind the rest of the people in point of education, being unable to secure fair opportunities for their improvement, this public meeting of the Depressed Classes strongly feels that in the scheme of reform and reconstitution of the Legislative Councils which Government may be pleased to adopt, due regard be paid to the interests of the said classes. This meeting therefore prays the British Government to be so gracious as to protect those interests by granting to those classes the right to elect their own representatives to the said Councils in proportion to their numbers.” “Fourth Resolution unanimously carried at the meeting was : ‘That the Government be prayed for the adoption, with all convenient speed, of a compulsory and free system of education rendered necessary by the fact that the social elevation of any community depends upon the universal spread of education among its members and that degradation of the Depressed Classes is due to their illiteracy and ignorance.” “Fifth Resolution carried unanimously was as follows:— ‘That the Chairman of this public meeting be authorised to request the Indian National Congress to pass at its forthcoming session a distinct and independent resolution declaring to the people of India at large the necessity, justice, and righteousness of removing all the disabilities imposed by religion and custom upon the Depressed Classes, those disabilities being of a most vexatious and oppressive character, subjecting those classes to considerable hardship and inconvenience by prohibiting them from admission into public schools, hospitals, courts of justice and public offices, and the use of public wells, etc. These disabilities social in origin, amount in law and practice to political disabilities and as such fall legitimately within the political mission and propaganda of the Indian National Congress.” “Sixth Resolution prays all Hindus of the castes other than the Untouchables and Depressed, especially those of the higher castes, who claim political rights, to take steps for the purpose of removing the blot of degradation from the Depressed Classes, which has subjected those classes to the worst, of treatment in their own country.” The second meeting was also held in November 1917 a week or so after the first meeting. The Chairman was one Bapuji Namdeo Bagade a leader of the Non-Brahmin Party. At this meeting the following resolutions1 were unanimously adopted :— “(1) Resolution of loyalty to the British throne.” 1 Ibid p. 75.

16 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “(2) That this meeting cannot give its support to the Congress-League Scheme in spite of its having been declared to have been passed at the meeting of 11th November 1917 by an overwhelming majority.” “(3) That it is the sense of this meeting that the administration of India should be largely under the control of the British till all classes and specially the Depressed Classes, rise up to a condition to effectually participate in the administration of the country.” “(4) That if the British Government have decided to give political concession to the Indian Public, this meeting prays that Government should grant the Untouchables their own representatives in the various legislative bodies to ensure to them their civil and political rights.” “(5) That this meeting approves of the objects of the Bahiskrit Bharat Samaj (Depressed India Association) and supports the deputation to be sent on its behalf to Mr. Montagu.” “(6) That this meeting prays that Government looking to the special needs of the Depressed Classes, should make primary education both free and compulsory. That the meeting also requests the Government to give special facilities by way of scholarships to the students of the Depressed Classes.” “(7) That the meeting authorises the President to forward the above resolutions to the Viceroy and the Government of Bombay.” It is obvious that there is a close inter-connection between the resolution passed by the Depressed Classes at their meeting in Bombay under the chairmanship of Sir Narayan Chandavarkar and the Congress resolution of 1917 on the elevation of the Depressed Classes. This inter-connection will be easily understood by adverting to the political events of the year 1917. It will be recalled that it was in 1917 or to be precise, on the 20th August 1917 the late Mr. Montagu the then Secretary of State for India announced in the House of Commons the new policy of His Majesty’s Government towards India, namely, the policy of “gradual development of selfgoverning institutions with a view to progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.” Leading Indian politicians were expecting some such declaration of policy on the part of His Majesty’s Government and were preparing schemes for changes in the constitutional structure of India in anticipation of such a policy. Of the many schemes