Vol. 9 · pages 471–475

442 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Congress as a body carrying on a ‘Fight for Freedom’ in preference to other parties. This is quite natural. But a question arises which calls for attention. Is this partiality to the Congress the result of an infatuation for the ‘Fight for Freedom’ movement ? Or, is it the result of a conviction that this ‘Fight for Freedom’ is going to make the people of India free ? If it is the former, all I can do is to regret that what I have said in Chapter VII in explanation as to why the Untouchables have not joined with the Congress in this ‘Fight for Freedom’ has not produced the desired effect on the foreigner. But I cannot quarrel with him on that account. For it is quite understandable that many a foreigner on reading that chapter may say that while the reasons adduced by mc as to why the Untouchables refuse to join the ‘Fight for Freedom’ are valid and good, I have shown no ground why he should not support a body which is carrying on a fight for freedom. If the basis of his partiality to the Congress is of the latter sort then the matter stands on a different footing. It then becomes necessary to examine the rationale of his attitude and to save him from his error. Ordinarily, no one trusts the word of a person who is not prepared to place all his cards on the table and commit himself to something clear and definite, so as to prove his bona fides, to inspire confidence and secure the co-operation of those who have doubts about his motives. The same rule must apply to the Congress. But as I have shown in Chapter VII the Congress has not produced its blue print of the sort of democracy it aims to establish in India, showing what place the servile classes and particularly the Untouchables will have in it. Indeed, it has refused to produce such a blue print, notwithstanding the insistent demand of the Untouchables and the other minority communities. In the absence of such a pronouncement it appears to be a strange sort of credulity on the part of the foreigner to give support to the Congress on the ground that it stood for democracy. There is certainly no ground for thinking that the Congress is planning to establish democracy in India. The mere fact that the Congress is engaged in a ‘Fight for Freedom’ does not warrant such a conclusion. Before any such conclusion is drawn it is the duty of the foreigner to pursue the matter further and ask another question, namely, ‘For whose

443 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER freedom is the Congress fighting ?’ The question whether the Congress is fighting for freedom has very little importance as compared to the question, ‘for whose freedom is the Congress fighting ?’ This is a pertinent and necessary inquiry and it would be wrong for any lover of freedom to support the Congress without further pursuing the matter and finding out what the truth is. But the foreigner who takes the side of the Congress does not care even to raise such a question. One should have thought that he would very naturally raise such a question and if he did raise it and pursue it, I am confident, he will find abundant proof that the Congress far from planning for democracy is planning to resuscitate the ancient form of Hindu polity of a hereditary governing class ruling a hereditary servile class. The attitude of the foreigner to the cause of the servile classes and particularly to the cause of the Untouchables is a vital matter and no party can leave it out of consideration, as a case of idiosyncrasy. For any one representing the Untouchables it is necessary to take note of it and do his best to convince the foreigner that in supporting the Congress he is supporting a wrong party. III Apart from the question of likes and dislikes, the real explanation for this strange attitude of the foreigner towards the Congress seems to be in certain notions about freedom, self-government and democracy propounded by western writers on Political Science and which have become the stock-in-trade of the average foreigner. As to freedom, the foreigner does not stop to make a distinction between the freedom of a country and the freedom of the people in the country. He takes it for granted that the freedom of a country is the same as the freedom of the people in the country and once the freedom of the country is secured the freedom of the people is also thereby assured. As regards self-government he believes that all that is wanted in a people is a sense of constitutional morality, which Grote1 defined as habits of “paramount reverence for the form of 1. History of Greece, Vol. III, p. 347.

444 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the constitution, enforcing obedience to the authorities acting under and within those forms, yet combined with the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control, and unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts—combined, too, with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen, admits the bitterness of party contest, that the forms of constitution will be not less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than in his own.” If in a populace these habits are present, then according to the western writers on Politics, self-government can be a reality and nothing further need be considered. As to democracy he believes that what is necessary for achieving it is the establishment of universal adult suffrage. Other aids have been suggested such as recall, plebiscite and frequent elections and in some countries they have been brought into operation. But in a majority of countries nothing more than adult suffrage and frequent elections is deemed to be necessary for ensuring Government by the people, of the people and for the people. I have no hesitation in saying that all these notions are fallacious and grossly misleading. Not to make a distinction between the freedom of the country and the freedom of the people in the country is to allow oneself to be misled, if not deceived. For, words such as society, nation and country are just amorphous if not ambiguous terms. There is no gainsaying that ‘nation’ though one word means many classes. Philosophically, it may be possible to consider a nation as a unit but sociologically it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes and the freedom of the nation, if it is to be a reality, must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly of those who are treated as the servile classes. Habits of constitutional morality may be essential for the maintenance of a constitutional form of Government. But the maintenance of a constitutional form of Government is not the same thing as a self-government by the people. Similarly, it may be granted that adult suffrage can produce government of the people in the logical sense of the phrase, i.e., in contrast to the government of a king. But it cannot by itself be said to bring about a democratic government, in the sense of the government by the people and for the people. Anyone who knows the tragic fate of Parliamentary Democracy in Western Europe will not require more and

445 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER better evidence to prove the fallacy underlying such notions of democracy 1. If I may quote myself from what I have said in another place, the causes which have led to the failure of democracy in Western Europe may be summarized in the following words : “The Government of human society has undergone some very significant changes. There was a time when the government of human society had taken the form of autocracy by Despotic Sovereigns. This was replaced after a long and bloody struggle by a system of government known as Parliamentary Democracy. It was felt that this was the last word in the framework of government. It was believed to bring about the millennium in which every human being will have the right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. And there were good grounds for such high hopes. In parliamentary democracy there is the Legislature to express the voice of the people ; there is the executive which is subordinate to the Legislature and bound to obey the Legislature. Over and above the Legislature and the Executive there is the Judiciary to control both and keep them both within prescribed bounds. Parliamentary democracy has all the marks of a popular Government, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is therefore a matter of some surprise that there has been a revolt against parliamentary democracy although not even a century has elapsed since its universal acceptance and inauguration. There is revolt against it in Italy, in Germany, in Russia and in Spain, and there are very few countries in which there has not been discontent against parliamentary democracy. Why should there be this discontent and dissatisfaction against parliamentary democracy ? It is a question worth considering. There is no country in which the urgency of considering this question is greater than it is in India, India is negotiating to have parliamentary democracy. There is a great need of some one with sufficient courage to tell Indians: “Beware of parliamentary democracy, it is not the best product as it appears to be. Why has parliamentary democracy failed ? In the country of the dictators it has failed because it is a machine whose movements are very slow. It delays swift action. In a parliamentary democracy the Executive may be held up by the Legislature which may refuse to pass the laws which the Executive wants and if it is not held up by the Legislature it 1. Labour and Parliamentary Democracy—A lecture delivered on 17th September 1943 to the All-India Trade Union Workers’ Study Camp held in Delhi.

446 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES may be held up by the judiciary which may declare the laws as illegal. Parliamentary democracy gives no free hand to dictatorship and that is why it became a discredited institution in countries like Italy, Spain and Germany which readily welcomed dictatorships. If dictators alone were against parliamentary democracy it would not have mattered at all. Their testimony against parliamentary democracy would be welcomed for the reason that it can be an effective check upon dictatorship. But unfortunately there is a great deal of discontent against parliamentary democracy even in countries where people are opposed, to dictatorship. That is the most regrettable fact about Parliamentary democracy. This is all the more regrettable because parliamentary democracy has not been at a standstill. It has progressed in three directions. It began with equality of political rights in the form of equal suffrage. There are very few countries haying parliamentary democracy which have not adult suffrage. It has progressed by expanding the notion of equality of political rights to equality of social and: economic opportunity. It has recognised that the State cannot be held at bay by corporations which are anti-social in their purpose. With all this, there is immense discontent against parliamentary democracy even in countries pledged to democracy. The reasons for discontent in such countries must obviously be different from those assigned by the dictator countries. There is no time to go into details. But it can be ; said in general terms that the discontent against parliamentary democracy is due to the realization that it has failed to assure to the masses the right to liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness. If this is true, it is important to know the causes which bave brought about this failure. The causes for this failure may be found either in. wrong ideology or wrong organization or in both. I think the causes are to be found in both. Of the erroneous ideologies which have been responsible for the failure of parliamentary democracy I have no doubt that the idea of freedom of contract is one of them. The idea became sanctified and was upheld in the name of liberty. Parliamentary democracy took no notice of economic inequalities and did not care to examine the result of freedom of contract on the parties to the contract, in spite of the fact that they were unequal in their bargaining power. It did not mind if the freedom of contract gave the strong the opportunity to defraud the weak. The result is that parliamentary democracy in standing out as protagonist of liberty has continuously added to the economic wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the disinherited class.