Vol. 9 · pages 436–440
What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables; Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables
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 436
CHAPTER IV
HINDU OPPOSITION
THE demands set forth in those resolutions fall into three
categories (1) Political, (2) Educational and (3) Economic and Social.
Taking the political demands first it is obvious that they ask
for three safeguards :–
(1) That the Legislature shall not be merely representative
of the people but it shall be representative separately of
both categories Hindus as well as Untouchables.
(2) That the Executive shall not be merely responsible to
the Legislature, which means to the Hindus, but shall
also be responsible both to the Hindus as well as to the
Untouchables.
(3) That the administration shall not be merely efficient but
shall also be worthy of trust by all sections of the people
and also of the Untouchables and shall contain sufficient
number of representatives of the Untouchables holding key
positions so that the Untouchables may have confidence ,
in it.
These Political demands of the Untouchables have been the
subject matter of great controversy between the Untouchables
and the Hindus. Mr. Gandhi, the friend of the Untouchables,
preferred to fast unto death rather than consent to them and
although he yielded he is not reconciled to the justice underlying
these demands. It will be well if I set out at this stage what the
Hindu or the Congress Scheme of representative Government is.
It is as follows :–
(1) The Legislature to be elected by Constituencies which are
to be purely territorial.
(2) The Executive to be drawn solely from the Majority party
in the Legislature.
(3) The Administration to be run by a public service based
entirely upon considerations of efficiency.
PDF page 437
408
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR :
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Hindus of the Congress describe their own pet scheme
as a National Scheme and call the scheme put forth by the
Untouchables as the Communal Scheme. As I will show, there
is no substance in this distinction. It is a case of damning what
you do not like by the easy method of giving it a bad and a
repelling name. Such tactics can’t give strength to a case which
is inherently weak. To expose its weakness let me examine
the merits of the socalled National Scheme. Before proceeding
it might be desirable to note the points of agreement and the
points of difference between the two. Both have the same object,
inasmuch as both stand for a representative Legislature. The
point of difference lies in the method of devising a scheme which
will make the Legislature a truly representative Legislature.
The so-called national scheme insists upon the territorial
constituency as being both proper and sufficient for producing
a representative Legislature in India. What is called the
Communal Scheme denies that a territorial constitution can
produce a truly representative legislature in India in view of
the peculiar social structure of the Indian Society as it exists
today. The issue can a purely territorial constituency produce
a really representative legislature in India ? It is round this
issue that the controversy has centered.
The so-called National Scheme of the Hindus generally
appeals to the Westerner and he prefers it to the so-called
Communal Scheme. This is largely because the Westerner
knows and is accustomed only to the system of territorial
constituency. But there can be no doubt that this so-called
National Scheme is on merits quite unsound and on motives
worse than communal.
That it is unsound will be quite obvious to any one who
will stop to examine the assumptions which are involved in the
alleged efficacy and sufficiency of the territorial constituency.
What are these assumptions ? To mention only those which
are most important,
(1) It assumes that the majority of voters in a constituency
represents the will of the constituency as a whole.
(2) That it is enough to take stock of the general will of the
constituency as expressed by the majority and mat the
will of any particular section however much it may be
in conflict with the will of the majority may be ignored
without remorse and without being guilty of any inequity.
PDF page 438
409
MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES :
HINDU OPPOSITION
(3) That the representative who is elected by the voters will
represent the wishes and interests of the voters and that
there is not the danger of the representative allowing
the interest of his class to dominate and override the
interests and wishes of the voter who elects him.
Every one of these assumptions is a false assumption
unjustified by any theory and unsupported by experience.
The history of Parliamentary Government furnishes abundant
proof in support of this assertion and even the history of
England tells the same tale. It is wrong to suppose that the
majority in all circumstances can be trusted to represent the
will of all sections of people in the constituency. As a matter
of fact it can never do so to any satisfactory degree. If at all,
it can only give a very pale reflection of the general will and
even that capacity for pale reflection must depend upon how
numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously
shared by the different sections of the constituency and how
full and free is the intereplay between them. It is obvious that
where, as in India, there are no interest which are shared,
where there is no full and free interplay and where there are
no common cycles of participation for the different sections,
one section large or small cannot represent the will of the
other. The will of the majority is the will of the majority and
nothing more, and no amount of logical ingenuity can alter
the fact and to give effect to it is to allow full play to the
tyranny of the Majority.
Again it is wrong to suppose that the representative elected
to the Legislature will represent the wishes of the voters who
elect him and forget or subordinate the interests of the class
to which he belongs. The case of the representative is a case
of divided loyalties. He is confronted with two-rather with
three- conflicting duties (1) a duty to himself, (2) a duty to the
class to which he belongs, and (3) a duty to the voters who
have elected him. Omitting the first from our consideration
it is common experience that the representative prefers the
interests of his class to that of his voters. And why should
any one expect him to act otherwise ? It is in the nature of
things that a man’s self should be nearer to him than his
constituency. There is a homely saying that man’s skin sits
closer to him than his shirt. To the members of the Legislature
it is true more often than not that his class is his skin
PDF page 439
410
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR :
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
and the constituency is a shirt which it is unnecessary to say
is one degree removed than the skin.
The Hindu therefore in relying upon the territorial
constituency is seeking to base the political structure of India
upon foundations which all political architects have declared
to be unsound. The territorial constituency has long since been
regarded even in European countries as a discredited piece of
political mechanism. In great many European countries the
representative system based on territorial constituency has
been wound up and repalced by other systems of Government
largely because the territorial system of representation
produced neither good Government nor efficient Government.
In other countries where representative institutions have
survived there is an acute discontent with the result produced
by the system of territorial constituencies. The proposals for
occupational and functional representation, the proposals
for referendum and recall all furnish proof, if proof is really
wanted, that there is a great body of enlightened and intelligent
opinion which is definitely against the system of territorial
constituency.
In these circumstances the question as to why the Hindu
insists upon a political mechanism which is discredited
everywhere excites a certain amount of curiosity. The
reason he gives is that it is the only mechanism which is
consistent with nationalism. I am not convinced that this
is the real explanation. The real explanation to my mind is
very different. The Hindu prefers the territorial constituency
because he knows that it will enable him to collect and
concentrate all political power in the hands of the Hindus,
and who can deny that his calculation is incorrect ? In a
purely territorial constituency the contest, the Hindu knows,
will be between a huge majority of Hindu voters and a
small minority of Untouchable voters. Given this fact the
Hindu majority - if it is a purely territorial constituency - is
bound to win in all constituencies. But the Hindus besides
relying upon their majority can also rely upon other factors
which cannot but work to strengthen that majority. Those
factors have their origin in the peculiar nature of the Hindu
Society. The Hindu Social system which places communities
one above the other is a factor which is bound to have its
efect on the result of voting. By the Hindu Social system the
Communities are placed in an ascending scale of reverence
and a decending scale of contempt. It needs no prophet
PDF page 440
411
MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES :
HINDU OPPOSITION
to predict what effect these social attitudes will have on voting.
No Caste Hindu will cast a vote in favour of an Untouchable
candidate, for to him he is too contemptible a person to go to the
Legislature. On the other hand there will be found many voters
among the Untouchables who would willingly cast their votes for a
Hindu candidate in preference to an Untouchable candidate. That
is because he is taught to revere the former more than himself or
his Untouchable kinsmen. I am not mentioning the other means
which are often resorted to for catching votes of the poor, illiterate,
unconscious, unorganised body of voters which the Untouchables
are. A combination of all these circumstances is bound to work
in the direction of augmenting the representation of the Hindus.
Under a system of purely territorial constituencies it is quite
certain the Hindus will have assured to them a majority. They
can draw for their majority upon themselves as well as upon the
Untouchables. It is equally certain that the Untouchables will
lose all seats. They must; firstly because they are a minority,
and secondly because the Hindus can successfully exploit the
weaknesses of the Untouchables which makes them offer their
votes to the Hindus as one offers burnt meat to his gods.
Understood in the light of these forces which are sure to
make the territorial constituency profitable to the Hindus by
enabling them to loot the political power which the Untouchable
would become possessed of if the Communal Scheme came into
operation, there can be no doubt that the National Scheme is
from the result side, if not from the motive side, worse than the
Communal Scheme.
zz