Vol. 9 · pages 476–480

447 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER The second wrong ideology which has vitiated parliamentary democracy is the failure to realize that political democracy cannot succeed where there is no social and economic democracy. Some may question this proposition. To those who are disposed to question it, I will ask a counterquestion. Why did parliamentary democracy collapse so easily in Italy, Germany and Russia ? Why did it not collapse so easily in England and the U.S.A. ? To my mind there is only one answer. It is that there was a greater degree of economic and social democracy in the latter countries than existed in the former. Social and economic democracy are the tissues and the fibre of a political democracy. The tougher the tissue and the fibre, the greater the strength of the body. Democracy is another name for equality. Parliamentary democracy developed a passion for liberty. It never made even a nodding acquaintance with equality. It failed to realize the significance of equality and did not even endeavour to strike a balance between liberty and equality with the result that liberty swallowed equality and has made democracy a name and a farce. I have referred to the wrong ideologies which in my judgment have been responsible for the failure of parliamentary democracy. But I am equally certain that more than bad ideology it is bad organization which has been responsible for the failure of democracy. All political societies get divided into two classes—the Rulers and the Ruled. This is an evil. If the evil stopped here it would not matter much. But the unfortunate part of it is that the division becomes so stereotyped and stratified that Rulers are always drawn from the ruling class and the class that is ruled never becomes the ruling class. This happens because generally people do not care to see that they govern themselves. They are content to establish a government and leave it to govern them. This explains why parliamentary democracy has never been a government of the people or by the people and why it has been in reality a government of a hereditary subject class by a hereditary ruling class. It is this vicious organization of political life which has made parliamentary democracy such a dismal failure. It is because of this that parliamentary democracy has not fulfilled the hope it held out to the common man of ensuring to him liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.” If this analysis of the causes which have led to the failure of democracy is correct, it must serve as a warning to the protagonists of democracy that there are certain fundamental considerations which go to the root of democracy and which

448 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES they cannot ignore without peril to democracy. For the sake of clarity these considerations may be set down in serial order. First is the recognition of the hard fact of history that in every country there exist two classes,—the governing class and the servile class between whom there is a continuous struggle for power. Second is that by reason of its power and prestige the governing class finds it easy to maintain its supremacy over the servile class. Third is that adult suffrage and frequent elections are no bar against governing class reaching places of power and authority. Fourth is that on account of their inferiority complex the members of the servile classes regard the members of the governing class as their natural leaders and the servile classes themselves volunteer to elect members of the governing classes as their rulers. Fifth is that the existence of a governing class is inconsistent with democracy and self-government and that given the fact that where the governing class retains its power to govern, it is wrong to believe that democracy and self-government have become realities of life. Sixth is that self-government and democracy become real not when a constitution based on adult suffrage comes into existence but when the governing class loses its power to capture the power to govern. Seventh is that while in some countries the servile classes may succeed in ousting the governing class from the seat of authority with nothing more than adult suffrage, in other countries the governing class may be so deeply entrenched that the servile classes will need other safeguards besides adult suffrage to achieve the same end. That there is great value in having these considerations drawn up and hung up, so to say on the wall, before every lover of democracy, so that he may see them and note them, goes without saying. For they will help, as nothing else can, to make him realize that in devising a constitution for democracy he must bear in mind : that the principal aim of such a constitution must be to dislodge the governing class from its position and to prevent it from remaining as a governing class for ever ; that the machinery for setting up a democratic government cannot be a matter of dogma ; that ousting the governing class from power being the main object the machinery for setting up a democratic government cannot be uniform and that variations in the machinery of Democracy must not merely be tolerated but accepted for the reason that

449 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER the processes by which the governing classes obtain their mastery over the servile classes vary from country to country, This is what democracy means and involves. But unfortunately Western writers on Politics from whom the foreigner draws his notions have failed to take such a realistic view of democracy. Instead, they have taken a very formal and a very superficial view of it by making constitutional morality, adult suffrage and frequent elections as the be-all and end-all of democracy. Those who propound the view that democracy need involve no more than these three devices are probably unaware of the fact that they are doing nothing more than and nothing different from expressing the point of view of the governing classes. The governing classes know by experience that such mechanisms have not proved fatal to their power and their position. Indeed, they have helped to give to their power and prestige the virtue of legality and made themselves less vulnerable to attack by the servile classes. Those who wish that democracy and self-government should come into their own, and should not remain as mere forms, cannot do better than start with the recognition of the crucial fact that the existence of a permanently settled governing class is the greatest danger to democracy. It is the only safe and realistic approach for a democrat to adopt. It is a fatal blunder to omit to take account of its existence in coming to a conclusion as to whether in a free country freedom will be the privilege of the governing class only or it will be the possession of all. In my view, therefore, what the foreigner who chooses to side with the Congress should ask is not whether the Congress is fighting for freedom. He should ask : For whose freedom is the Congress fighting ? Is it fighting for the freedom of the governing class in India or is it fighting for the freedom of the people of India ? If he finds that the Congress is fighting for the freedom of the governing class, he should ask Congressmen ; Is the governing class in India fit to govern ? This is the least he can do before siding with the Congress. What are the answers which Congressmen have to give to these questions ? I do not know. But I will give what I think are the only true answers to these questions.

450 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV I cannot say if the foreigner will be impressed by what has been said in the foregoing section of this chapter. If he is he will no doubt ask for proof in support of the statement that the Congress in fighting for the freedom of the country is really fighting not to establish democracy but is planning to resuscitate the ancient Hindu polity of a hereditary governing class ruling a hereditary servile class. I am not certain that the foreigner will be satisfied with the evidence. But I am prepared to place it before him for what it is worth. Who constitute the governing class in India ? For Indians such a question is unnecessary. But for the foreigner it is a necessary preliminary and it must therefore be dealt with. The governing class in India consists principally of the Brahmins. Strangely enough some present-day Brahmins repudiate the allegation that they belong to the governing class though at one time they described themselves as Bhudevas (Gods on earth). What can this volte face be due to ? The intellectual class in every community is charged by its moral code with one sacred duty, namely, to safeguard the interest of the community and not to sacrifice it to the interest of their own class. No intellectual class has so grossly violated this trust as have the Brahmins in India. When one finds the Brahmins repudiating their position as the governing class in India one begins to think whether it is due to a guilty conscience, born out of the realization that they have committed a criminal breach of this trust and therefore dare not stand before the bar of the world. Or is it due to their sense of modesty ? It is not necessary to speculate as to what the truth is. For, it is hardly open to question that in India the Brahmins are a governing class. If necessary there are two tests which one could apply for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. First is the sentiment of the people and the second is the Brahmin’s share in administration. Taking the attitude of the people towards the Brahmin, nobody can deny that the person of the Brahmin is regarded as sacred by every Hindu, high or low. He is the most “Worshipful Master” to whom everyone high and low must bow. In pre-British days he had immunities and privileges which were denied to the servile class. For instance he could not be hanged even if he committed murder. That was because he was a sacred

451 WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER person. There was a time when no person of the servile class could take his food without drinking the water in which the toes of the Brahmins were washed. Sir P. C. Ray once described how in his childhood, rows of children belonging to the servile classes used to stand for hours together in the morning on the roadside in Calcutta with cups of water in their hands waiting for a Brahmin to pass, ready to wash his feet and take the sacred liquid to their parents who would not take their food without having a sip of it first. He was entitled to first fruits. In Malabar, where the Sambandham form of marriage prevails, the servile classes, such as the Nairsy regard it an honour to have their females kept as mistresses by the Brahmins. Even kings invited Brahmins to deflower their queens on prima noctis.1 1. The Traveller Ludovico Di Varthema who came to India in the middle of the 16th century and visited Malabar says : “It ia proper and at the same time a pleasant thing to know who these Brahmins are. You must know that they are the chief persona of the faith, as priests are among us. And when the king takes a wife he selects the most worthy and the most honoured of these Brahmins and makes him sleep the first night with his wife, in order that he may deflower her. Do not imagine that the Brahmin goes willingly to perform this operation. The king is obliged to pay him four hundred to five hundred ducats. The king only and-no other person in Calicut adopts this practice.”— Voyages of Varthma (Hakluyat Society), Vol I, p 141. Other Travellers tell that the practice was widespread. Hamilton in his Account of the East Indies says : “When the Samorin marries, he most not cohabit with his bride till the Nambourie (Nambudri) or chief priest, has enjoyed her, and if he pleases he may have three nights of her company, because the first fruits of her nuptials most be a holy oblation to the God she worships and some of the nobles are so complacent as to allow the clergy the same tribute ; bat the common people cannot have that compliment paid to them, but are forced to supply the priests places themselves.”—Vol. I, p. 308. Buchanan in his Narrative refers to the practice in the following terms : “The ladies of the Tamuri family are generally impregnated by Nambudries ; although if they choose they may employ the higher ranks of Naire ; bus the sacred character of the Nambudries always procures them a preference.”— Pinkerton’s Voyages, Vol. VIII, p. 734. Mr. C. A. Innes, I.C.S., Editor of the Gazetteer of Malabar and Anjengo issued under the authority of the Government of Madras, says : “Another institution found amongst all the classes following the marukak-kattayam system, as well as amongst many of those who observe makkattayam, is that known as “Tali-tying wedding “which has been described as the most peculiar, distinctive and unique” among Malayali marriage customs. Its essence is the tying of a tali (a small piece of gold or other metal, like a locket on a string) on a girl’s neck before she attains the ago of puberty. This is done by a man of the same or of a higher caste (the usages of different classes differ), and it is only after it has been done that the girl is at liberty to contract, a sambandham. It seems to be generally considered that the ceremony was intended to confer on the tali tier or manavalan (bridegroom) a right to cohabit with the girl; and by some the origin of the ceremony is found in the claim of the Bhu-devas or “Earth-Gods,” (that is the Brahmins), and on a lower plane of Kshatriyas or ruling classes, to the first-fruits of lower caste womanhood, a right akin to the mediaeval droit de seigneurie”—Vol. I, p. 101.