Vol. 9 · pages 456–460
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 456
427
MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES :
SOME QUESTIONS TO THE HINDUS AND THEIR FRIENDS
generous. Mr. Rajagopalachari’s political exploits are too fresh
to be forgotten. Suddenly he enrolled himself as a soldier of
the Muslim League and proclaimed a war on his own kin
and former friends and for what ? Not for their not failure
to grant the reasonable demands of the Muslim but for their
conceding the most extravagant one, namely Pakistan !! What is
Mr. Rajagopalachari’s response to the demands of the
Untouchables ? So far I am aware there is no response. He
does not even seem to be aware that there are 60 million
Untouchables in this country and that they too like the Muslims
are demanding political safeguards. This attitutde of studied
silence and cold indifference of Mr. Rajagopalachari is typical
of the whole body of Hindus. The Hindus have been opposing
the political demands of the Untouchables with the tenacity of
a bulldog and the perversity of a renegade. The Press is theirs
and they make a systematic attempt to ignore the Untouchables.
When they fail to ingnore them they buy their leaders; and where
they find a leader not open to purchase they systematically
abuse him, misrepresent him, blackmail him, and do everything
possible that lies in their power to suppress him and silence
him: Any such leader who is determined to fight for the cause
of the Untouchables he and his followers are condemned as
anti-National. So exasperated the Hindus become by the political
demands of the Untouchables that they in their rage refuse to
recognize how generous the Untouchables are in consenting to
be ruled by a Hindu Majority in return for nothing more than
a few political safeguards. The Hindus are not aware of what
Carson said to Redmond when the two were negotiating for a
United Ireland. The incident is worth recalling. Redmond said
to Carson “Ask any safeguards you like for the Protestant
Minority of Ulster, I am prepared to give them; but let us have
a United Ireland under one constitution.” Carson’s reply was
curt and brutal. He said without asking for time to consider
the offer “Damn your safeguards, I don’t want to be ruled by
you”. The Hindus ought to be thankful that the Untouchables
have not taken the attitude which Carson took. But far from
being thankful they are angry because the Untouchables are
daring to ask for political rights. In the opinion of the Hindus
the Untouchables have no right to ask for any rights. What
does this difference of attitude on the part of the Hindus to
the political demands of the different communities indicate?
PDF page 457
428
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR :
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
It indicates three things (1) They want to get all power to
themselves, (2) They are not prepared to base their political
institutions on the principle of justice, (3) Where they have to
surrender power they will surrender it to the forces of truculence
and the mailed first but never to the dictates of justice.
This attitude of the Hindus forms the tragic scene of Indian
politics. Unfortunately this is not the only tragic scene with
Indian Politics. There is another equally tragic in character.
It concerns the friends of the Hindus in foreign countries. The
Hindus have created many friends for themselves all over the
world by their clever propaganda, particularly in America, “the
land of liberty”. The tragedy is that these friends of the Hindus
are supporting a side without examining whether it is the side
which they in point of justice ought to support. No American
friends of the Hindus have, so far as I know, asked what do
the Hindus stand for ? Are they fighting for freedom or are they
fighting for power ? If the Hindus are fighting for power, are the
American friends justified in helping the Hindus ? If the Hindus
are engaged in a war for freedom, must they not be asked to
declare their war aims ? This is the least bit these American
friends could do. Since the American friends have thought it
fit to respond to the Hindu call for help it is necessary to tell
these American friends of the Hindus what wrong they will
be doing to the cause of freedom by their indiscriminate and
blind support to the Hindu side. What I want to say follows
the line of argument which the Hindus themselves have taken.
Since the war started the Hindus, both inside and outside the
Congress, demanded that the British should declare their war
aims. Day in and day out the British were told, “If you want
our help, tell us what you are fighting for ? If you are fighting
for freedom, tell us if you will give us freedom in the name of
which you are waging this war” There was a stage when the
Hindus were prepared to be satisfied with a promise from the
British that India will have the benefit of freedom for which
the British are waging. They have gone a stage further. They
are no longer content with a promise. Or to put it in the
language of a congressman, “They refuse to accept a postdated
cheque on a crashing Bank”. They wanted freedom to be given
right now, before the Hindus would consent to give their
voluntary support to the War effort. That is the significance of
Mr. Gandhi’s new slogan of “Quit India”. Mr. Churchill on whom the
PDF page 458
429
MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES :
SOME QUESTIONS TO THE HINDUS AND THEIR FRIENDS
responsibility of answering these questions fell replied, that
his war aim was victory over the enemy. The Hindus were
not satisfied. They questioned him further “What are you
going to do after you get that victory ? What social order
you propose to establish after the war ?” There was a storm
when Mr. Churchil replied that he hoped to restore traditional
Britain. These were legitimate questions I agree. But do not
the friends of Hindus think that if it is legitimate to ask the
very same questions to Mr. Churchill it is also legitimate to
ask the very same questions to Mr. Gandhi and the Hindus ?
The British had declared war against Hitler. Mr. Gandhi
has declared war against the British. The British have an
Empire. So have the Hindus. For is not Hindusm a form of
imperialism and are not the Untouchables a subject race,
owing there allegiance and their servitude to their Hindu
Master ? If Churchill must be asked to declare his war aims
how could anybody avoid asking Mr. Gandhi and the Hindus
to declare their war aims ? Both say their war is a war for
freedom. If that is so both have a duty to declare what their
war aims. are. What does Mr. Gandhi propose to do after
he gets his victory over the British ? Does he propose to use
the freedom he hopes to get to make the Untouchables free
or will he allow the freedom he gets to be used to endow
the Hindus with more power than they now possess, to hold
the Untouchables as their bondsmen ? Will Mr. Gandhi and
Hindus establish a New Order or will they be content with
rehabilitation of the traditional Hindu India, with its castes
and its untouchability, with its denial of Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity ? I should think that these questions should be
asked by those American friends to Mr. Gandhi and the Hindus
who are helping them in this so-called war for Freedom. These
questions are legitimate and pertinent. It is only answers to
such questions which will enable these American friends to
know whether Mr. Gandhi’s war is a war for freedom or a
war for power. These questions are not merely pertinent and
legitimate, they are also necessary. The reason is obvious to
those who know the Hindus. The Hindus have an innate and
inveterate conservatism and they have a religion which is
incompatible with liberty, equality and fraternity i. e. with
democracy. Inequality, no doubt, exists everywhere in the
world. It is largely to conditions and circumstances. But it
never has had the support of religion. With the Hindus it is
PDF page 459
430
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR :
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
different. There is not only inequality in Hindu Society but
inequality is the official doctrine of the Hindu religion. The
Hindu has no will to euqality. His inclination and his attitude
are opposed to the democratic doctrine of one man one value.
Every Hindu is a social Tory and political Radical. Mr Gandhi
is no exception to this rule. He presents himself to the world as
a liberal but his liberalism is only a very thin veneer which sits
very lightly on him as dust does on one’s boots. You scratch him
and you will find that underneath his liberalism he is a blue
blooded Tory. He stands for the cursed caste. He is a fanatic
Hindu upholding the Hindu religion. See how the Hindus read
the famous American Declaration of Independence of 1776. The
Hindu is mad with joy when he reads the Declaration to say–
‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organising its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.’
But he stops there. He never bothers about the earlier part
of that Declaration which says :–
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”
The implementation of this Declaration has no doubt been
a tragic episode in the history of the United States. There have
been two views about this document Some hold that it is a
great spiritual document. Others have held that it immortalizes
many untruths. In any case this charter of human Liberty
was not applied to the Negroes. What is however important to
note is the faith underlying the Declaration. There is no doubt
about it and certainly no doubt about the faith of Jefferson,
the author of this Declaration. He never forgot that while
enunciating a long principle, his country decided to take a
short step. He wrote, “I am sorry for my countrymen.” It may
be no recompense to the Negroes. But it is by no means small
comfort to know that the conscience of the country is not
altogether dead and the flame of righteous indignation may
PDF page 460
431
MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES :
SOME QUESTIONS TO THE HINDUS AND THEIR FRIENDS
one day burst forth. The Negroes may laugh at this. But the
fact is that even this much comfort the Untouchables cannot
hope to have from the Hindus. People to-day are proud of
the fact that the Hindus are a solid mass. But strange as
it may appear, to the Untouchables of India, this is more a
matter of dread than comfort–as the “Solid South” is to the
Negroes in the United States. Where could anyone find in
India among the Hindus any person with a sense of shame
and a sense of remorse such as was felt by Jefferson ? I
should have thought the Hindus would be too ashamed of
this stigma of Untouchability on them to appear before the
world with a demand for their freedom. That they do clamour
for freedom–the pity is that they get support–is evidence
that their conscience is dead, that they feel no righteous
indignation, and to them Untouchability is neither a moral
sin nor a civil wrong. It is just a sport as cricket or hockey is.
The friends of Mr. Gandhi will no doubt point to him and his
work. But what has Mr. Gandhi done to reform Hindu Society
that his work and life be cited by democrats as a witness
of hope and assurance ? His friends have been informed of
the Harijan Sevak Sangh and they continue to ask, “Is not
Mr. Gandhi working to uplift the Harijans ?” Is he ? What is
the object of this Harijan Sevak Sangh ? Is it to prepare the
Untouchables to win their freedom from their Hindu masters,
to make them their social and political equals ? Mr. Gandhi
had never had any such object before him and he never wants
to do this, and I say that he cannot do this. This is the task
of a democrat and a revolutionary. Mr. Gandhi is neither.
He is a Tory by birth as well as by faith. The work of the
Harijan Sevak Sangh is not to raise the Untouchables. His
main object, as every self-respecting Untouchable knows, is
to make India safe for Hindus and, Hinduism. He is certainly
not fighting the battle of the Untouchables. On the contrary
by distributing through the Harijan Sevak Sangh petty gifts
to petty Untouchables he is buying, benumbing and drawing
the claws of the opposition of the Untouchables which he
knows is the only force which will disrupt the caste system
and will establish real democracy in India. Mr. Gandhi wants
Hinduism and the Hindu caste system to remain intact. Mr.
Gandhi also wants the Untouchables to remain as Hindus.
But as what ? not as partners but as poor relations of the
Hindus. Mr. Gandhi is kind to the Untouchables. But for what ?