Vol. 9 · pages 61–65

32 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 76. Rs. 10,000 for the Satyavadi Vidyalaya. 77. Rs. 5,000 Swavalamban Rashtriya Pathshala (xiv) . 78. Rs. 5,000 to Dr. Sathaye for carrying on such work as the Congress Labour Committee decides ( xxxiv).” IV. Grants voted by the Working Committee at its meeting held in Nagpur on 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th July 1923 :— “79. Rs. 20,000 to Sjt. Brajaraj, Secretary, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan for the work of teaching Hindustani in the Madras Presidency ( ix). 80. Rs. 2,000 to the C. P. Hindustani Provincial Congress Committee to be utilized for general Congress purposes with special regard to rendering help to Satyagraha in Nagpur ( xi).” The reader may not get a precise idea of the management or mismanagement of public funds by the Congress from this itemized account of expenditure. Was this expenditure regulated by any principle ? Was it distributed according to the needs of the Provinces ? Consider the following table:— Table 2 Provinces Amount Granted Population† Percentage Grant due on the basis of Popula- tion ratio to total Population Percentage of Grant actually paid Rs. General—All- India* ... 4,94,000 227,238,000 — 10 Bombay ... ... ... 26,90,381 16,012,623 8 54.3 Madras ... ... ... 5,05,000 42,319,000 18 10.1 Bihar and Orissa ... 5,65,000 33,820,000 15 11.3 U.P. ... ... ... 3,11,200 45,376,000 20 6.26 Sind ... ... ... 1,13,000 3,279,377 2.2 Assam ... ... ... 51,080 6,735,000 3 1.1 Bengal ... ... ... 50,000 46,241,000 20 1.0 C.P. ... ... ... 47,000 12,780,000 5 .95 Punjab ... ... ... ... 45,000 20,675,000 9 .9 Hyderabad ... ... ... 40,000 — — .81 Ajmer ... ... ... 25,000 — — .5 Foreign ... ... ... 14,000 — — .28 Total ... 49,50,661 *Excluding Burma and Native States. †These figures are taken from the Simon Commission Report, Vol. I and refer to the year 1921.

33WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A SHABBY SHOW Was it distributed on the basis of cultural units and their relative size ? Compare the following figures:— Table 3 Linguistic Areas Total Grant Amount of Grant Percentage of the Total Grant to the Province Percentage of Popula- tion of the Area to the Population of the Province Rs. Rs. Bombay Presidency ... ... 26,90,381 — — 100 Gujarath ... ... ... — 26,22,381 97.4 18 Maharashtra ... ... — 43,000 1.6 69 Karnatak ... ... ... — 25,000 0.93 13 Central Provinces ... ... 47,000 — — 100 Marathi Districts ... ... — 10,000 21.2 45 Hindustani Districts ... — 37,000 78.7 55 Madras Presidency ... ... 5,05.000 — — 100 Tamil Nad ... ... — 1,03,000 20.4 38 Andhra ... ... ... — 3,02,000 60.0 52 Kerala ... ... ... — 1,00,000 19.6 10 Bihar and Orissa ... ... 5,65,000 — — 100 Bihar ... ... ... — 5,15,000 91.0 73 Orissa ... ... ... — 50,000 0.9 27 From these figures it is clear that the distribution of these sums was not made on the basis of any intelligibly principle. There is no relation between the grants and the population, nor between the grants and the claims of the cultural units. A province like Bombay with a population of one and a half crores gets as much as 27 lakhs while U. P. and Madras with a population of about 4 crores each get no more than about five lakhs severally. Consider the grants in relation to cultural units. Take Bombay Presidency. It includes three cultural units, Maharashtra, Gujrath and Karnatak. Out of the 26 lakhs and 90 thousand given to the Bombay Presidency Gujrath with only 18 per cent, of the population of the Province got as much as 26 lakhs and 22 thousand i.e., 97.4 per cent. and Maharashtra with a population of 69 per cent got only Rs. 43,000 or 1.6 per cent and Karnatak. with a population of 13 per cent got Rs. 25,000 or .9 per cent of the grant. In C. P. out of a total grant of Rs. 47,000 the Hindustani districts having 55 per cent of the population got Rs. 37,000 or 78.7 per cent while the Marathi speaking districts having 45 per cent of the population got only Rs. 10,000 i.e., 21.2 per cent. In

34 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Bihar and Orissa out of the total grant of 5 lakhs and 65 thousand Bihar got 5 lakhs and 15 thousand or 91 per cent with a population of 73 per cent, and Orissa got only 50 thousand or 9 per cent while its population was as much as 27 per cent. The same inequity is noticeable in the distribution of grants in the three areas of the Madras Presidency. There was not only no principle, there was shameful favouritism in the distribution of the fund. Out of the total of 49½ lakhs which was distributed in the three years Gujrath— Mr. Gandhi’s province—got 26 1 4 lakhs while the rest of India got 23 lakhs. This means that a population numbering 29 1 4 lakhs got 26 1 4 lakhs while the rest of India numbering about 23 crores got 23 lakhs ! ! There was no check, no control, no knowing for what purpose money was voted and to whom it was granted. Note the following cases :— Table 4 Moneys allotted but kept at the Disposal of Individuals without Appropriating WKHPWRDQ\VSHFLÀHGSXUSRVH Moneys allotted without Appropri- ation to any purpose without naming the guarantee Rs. Rs. Moulvi Badrul Hasan ...... 40,000 To Gujrath ... ... 3,00,000 T. Prakasam ... ... ... 7,000 To Gujrath ... ... 18,00,000 C. Rajagopalachariar ... 1,000 To Gujrath ... ... 3,00,000 Barajaj ... ... ... 20,000 Mr. Gandhi ... ... ... 1,00,000 It is not known whether these huge sums kept at the disposal of the named payees were accounted for or who received the formidable amounts made payable to the nameless payees. Even if there were satisfactory answers to these questions there can be no doubt that a worse case of frenzied finance of extravagance and waste, it would be very difficult to find. It is a sad episode marked by a reckless plunder committed by the predatory leaders of the Congress of public money for nursing their own constituencies without any qualms of conscience. It is unnecessary to pursue the story of the organized and systematic loot by Congressmen of the balance of 1 crore and

35WHAT CONGRESS AND GANDHI HAVE DONE TO THE UNTOUCHABLES : A SHABBY SHOW 30 lakhs which was spent in subsequent years. It is enough to say that never was there such an organized loot of public money. The point of immediate interest however is that the scrutiny of this list of grants does not show the amelioration of the Untouchables, which has been one of the purposes for which money has been advanced from the Swaraj Fund. One would have expected the Congress to make the amelioration of the Untouchables as the first charge on the Swaraj Fund. It should have at least made it a charge if not the first charge especially when thousands of rupees were spent on feeding briefless lawyers who were alleged to have given up practice in the cause of the nation without even an inquiry whether they had any, when thousands of rupees were spent to feed toddy drawers who had given up their profession for living on alms from public fund and many other wild cat schemes carrying the marks of dishonesty on their faces. But it did nothing of the kind. Instead, the Congress proposed that a separate fund should be started for the amelioration of the Untouchables. And what was to be the dimension of this separate Untouchable Fund ? The All-India Congress Committee fixed it at five lakhs. The Working Committee felt it was too big an amount for so unimportant and so unprofitable a work as the amelioration of the Untouchables and reduced its total to Rs. two lakhs. Two lakhs for sixty millions Untouchables!! This was the grand sum that was fixed by the Congress for the salvage of the Untouchables. How much of this was actually appropriated ? Here are the figures :— Table 5 Purpose Amount Sanctioned Rs. Rajamuhendry Depressed Glass Mission ... ... ... ... 1,000 Antyaj Karyalaya, Ahmedabad ... ... ... ... ... 5,000 Antyaj Karyalaya, Ahmedabad ... ... ... ... ... 17,381 Depressed Classes Work in Andhra ... ... ... ... 7,000 National Social Conference for Depressed Classes Work ... ... 3,000 Tamil District P.C.C. for Depressed Classes Work ... ... ... 10,000 Total Rs. ... 43,381

36 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES To sum up, the Congress could find only Rs. 43,381 out of Rs. 49½ lakhs which it spent for carrying out the Constructive otherwise known as the Bardoli Programme in which the uplift of the Untouchables was given so much prominence. Can there be a grosser instance of insincerity than this ? Where is the love for the Untouchables which the Congress professed for the Untouchables ? Where is the desire of the Congress to undertake the uplift of the Untouchables ? Would it be wrong to say that the Bardoli resolution was a fraud in so far as it related to the Untouchables ? One is however bound to ask one question. Where was Mr. Gandhi when all this was happening to the cause of the Untouchables in the Congress Camp ? The question is very relevant because it was Mr. Gandhi who had laid stress, ever since he entered the Congress, upon the intimate relation between the winning of Swaraj and the abolition of Untouchability. In the Young India, which was Mr. Gandhi’s organ, of 3rd November 1921, Mr. Gandhi wrote :— “Untouchability cannot be given a secondary place on the programme. Without the removal of the taint Swaraj is a meaningless term. Workers should welcome social boycott and even public execration in the prosecution of their work. I consider the removal of untouchability as a most powerful factor in the process of attainment of Swaraj.” Accordingly, he had been exhorting the Untouchables not to join hands with the British against Swaraj but to make common cause with the Hindus and help to win Swaraj. In an article in Young India dated 20th October 1920, Mr. Gandhi addressed the Untouchables in the following terms :— “There are three courses open to these down-trodden members of the nation. For their impatience they may call in the assistance of the slave-owning Government. They will get it, but they will fall from the frying pan into the fire. Today they are slaves of slaves. By seeking Government aid, they will be used for suppressing their kith and kin. Instead of being sinned against, they will themselves be the sinners. The Musalmans tried it and failed. They found that they were worse than before. The Sikhs did it unwittingly and failed. Today there is no more discontented community in India than the Sikhs. Government aid is, therefore, no solution. The second is rejection of Hinduism and wholesale conversion to Islam or Christianity. And if a change of religion