MR.

GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE

UNTOUCHABLES
__________________________________________________________________
__________________
Contents
 
Preface
Chapter I : Total Population Of The Untouchables
Chapter II : The Importance Of The Untouchables
Chapter III : The Political Demands Of The Untouchables
Chapter IV : Hindu Opposition
Chapter V : Joint v/s Separate Electorates
Chapter VI : The Executive
Chapter VII : Public Services
Chapter VIII : Separate Settlements
Chapter IX : Caste and Constitution
Chapter X : Some Questions To The Hindus and Their Friends
 
PREFACE
In response to the invitation of the Chairman of the Indian section of the Institute of
Pacific Relations, I wrote in August last year a Paper on the Problem of the
Untouchables of India for the Session of the Conference which was due to be held
on December 1942 at Mont' Tramblant in Quebec in Canada. The Paper is printed in
the proceedings of the Conference. Ever since it became known that I had written
such a Paper, the leaders of the Untouchables and Americans interested in their
problem have been pressing me to issue it separately in the form of a book and
make it available to the general public. It was not possible to refuse the demand. At
the same time I could not without breach of etiquette publish the paper until the
proceedings of the Conference were made public. I am now told by the Secretary of
the Pacific Relations Conference that the proceedings have been made public and
there can be no objection to the publication of my Paper if I desired it. This will
explain why the Paper is published nearly 10 months after it was written.
Except for a few verbal alterations the Paper is printed as it was presented to the
Conference. The Paper will speak for itself. There is only one thing I would like to
add. It is generally agreed among the thoughtful part of humanity that there are three
problems which the Peace Conference is expected to tackle. They are (1)
Imperialism,(2) Racialism, (3) Anti-semitism and (4) Free Traffic in that merchandise
of death popularly called munitions. There is no doubt these are the plague glands in
which nation's cruelty to nation and man's inhumanity to man have their origin. There
is no doubt that these problems must be tackled if a new and a better world is to
emerge from the ashes of this terrible and devastating war. What my fear is that the
problem of the Untouchables may be forgotten as it has been so far. That would
indeed be a calamity. For the ills which the Untouchables are suffering if they are not
as much advertised as those of the Jews, are not less real. Nor are the means and
the methods of suppression used by the Hindus against the Untouchables less
effective because they are less bloody than the ways which the Nazis have adopted
against the Jews. The Anti-semitism of the Nazis against the Jews is in no way
different in ideology and in effect from the Sanatanism of the Hindus against the
Untouchables .
The world owes a duty to the Untouchables as it does to all suppressed people to
break their shackles and to set them free. I accepted the invitation to write this Paper
because I felt that it was the best opportunity to draw the attention of the world to
this problem in comparison to which the problem of the Slaves, the Negroes and the
Jews is nothing. I hope the publication of this Paper will serve as a notice to the
Peace Conference that this problem will be on the Board of Causes which it will
have to bear and decide and also to the Hindus that they will have to answer for it
before the bar of the world.
 

22, Prithviraj Road,

New Delhi. B.R.AMBEDKAR
1st September 1943.
 
 
CHAPTER I
 
TOTAL POPULATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES

THE Decennial Census in India was at one time a very simple and innocent
operation which interested only the Malthusians. None else took interest in it. Today
the Census is a matter of a first rate concern to everybody. Not only the professional
politician but the general public in India regards it as a matter of very grave concern.
This is so because Politics in India has become a matter of numbers. It is numbers
which give political advantage, to one community over another which does not
happen anywhere else in the world. The result is that the Census in India is
deliberately cooked for securing political advantages which numbers give. In this
cooking of the Census the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs have played their part
as the chief chefs of the kitchen. The Untouchables and the Christians, who are also
interested in their numbers, have no hand in the cooking of the Census, for the
simple reason that they have no place in the administrative services of the country
which deal with the operations of the Census. On the other hand the Untouchables
are the people who are quartered, cooked and served by the Hindus, Muslims and
the Sikhs at every Decennial Census. This has happened particularly in the last
Census of 1940. The Untouchables of certain parts of the Punjab were subjected to
systematic tyranny and oppression by the Sikhs. The object was to compel them to
declare in the Census returns that they are Sikhs even though they are not. This
reduced the number of the Untouchables and swelled the number of the Sikhs. The
Hindus on their part carried on a campaign that nobody should declare his or her
caste in the Census return. A particular appeal was made to the Untouchables. It
was suggested to them that it is the name of the Caste that proclaims to the world
that they are Untouchables and if they did not declare their caste name but merely
said that they were Hindus, they would be treated just like other Hindus and nobody
would know that they were really Untouchables. The Untouchables fell a victim to
this stratagem and decided not to declare themselves as Untouchables in the
Census return but to call themselves merely as Hindus. The result was obvious. It
reduced the number of Untouchables and swelled the ranks of the Hindus. To what
extent the cooking of the Census has taken place it is difficult to say. But there can
be no doubt that the degree to which cooking was resorted to was considerable. The
Census has been cooked all over. But it is the Untouchables who have suffered
most from the cooking of the Census. That being so, the Census figure regarding the
total population of the Untouchables in British India cannot be accepted as giving a
correct total. But one cannot be far wrong if it was said that the present number of
the Untouchables to British India is round about 60 million people.
CHAPTER II
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UNTOUCHABLES

MOST parts of the world have had their type of what Ward calls the lowly. The
Romans had their slaves, the Spartans their helots, the British their villeins, the
Americans their Negroes and the Germans their Jews. So the Hindus have their
Untouchables. But none of these can be said to have been called upon to face a fate
which is worse than the fate which pursues the Untouchables. Slavery, serfdom,
villeinage have all vanished. But Untouchability still exists and bids fair to last as
long as Hinduism will last. The Untouchable is worse off than a Jew. The sufferings
of the Jew are of his own creation. Not so are the sufferings of the Untouchables.
They are the result of a cold calculating Hinduism which is not less sure in its effect
in producing misery than brute force is. The Jew is despised but is not denied
opportunities to grow. The Untouchable is not merely despised but is denied all
opportunities to rise. Yet nobody seems to take any notice of the Untouchables-
some 60 millions of souls-much less espouse their cause.
If there is any cause of freedom in this Indian turmoil for independence it is the
cause of the Untouchables. The cause of the Hindus and the cause of the
Musalmans is not the cause of freedom. Theirs is a struggle for power as
distinguished from freedom. Consequently it has always been a matter of surprise to
me that no party and no organisation devoted to the cause of freedom has so far
interested itself in the Untouchables. There is the American Weekly called "The
Nation". There is the British Weekly called "Statesman". Both are powerful. Both are
friends of India's freedom. I would mention the American Labour and British Labour
among organised bodies among the supporters of India's freedom. So far as I know
none of these have ever championed the cause of the Untouchables. Indeed what
they have done is what no lover of freedom would do. They have just identified
themselves with the Hindu body calling itself the Indian National Congress. Now
everybody in India, outside the Hindus, knows that whatever may be its title it is
beyond question that the Congress is a body of middle class Hindus supplied by the
Hindu Capitalists whose object is not to make Indians free but to be independent of
British control and to occupy places of power now occupied by the British. If the kind
of Freedom which the Congress wants was achieved there is no doubt that the
Hindus would do to the Untouchables exactly what they have been doing in the past
In the light of this apathy the Indian branch of the Institute of International Affairs
may well be congratulated for having invited a paper for submission to the Institute
of Pacific Relations, discussing the position of the Untouchables in India in the New
Constitution. I must confess that this invitation for a statement on the position of the
Untouchables under the new constitution came to me as an agreeable surprise and
a great relief and it is because of this, that notwithstanding the many things with
which lam preoccupied, I agreed to find time to prepare this paper.
 
CHAPTER III
THE POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE UNTOUCHABLES

The problem of the Untouchables is an enormous problem. As a matter of fact I

have been for sometime engaged on a work dealing with this problem which will run
into several hundred pages. All that I can do within the limits of this paper is to set
out in a brief compass what the nature of the problem is and the solution which the
Untouchables have themselves propounded. It seems to me that I cannot do better
than begin by drawing attention to the following Resolutions which were passed at
the All-India Scheduled Castes 1[f.1] Conference held in the city of Nagpur on the
18th and 19th July 1942 :-

Resolution No. II

CONSENT ESSENTIAL TO
 CONSTITUTION
"This Conference declares that no constitution will be acceptable to the Scheduled
Castes unless,
(i) (i)              it has the consent of the Scheduled Castes,
(ii) (ii)             it recognises the fact that the Scheduled Castes are distinct and
separate from the Hindus and constitute an important element in the
national life of India, and
(iii) (iii)            contains within itself provisions which will give to the Scheduled
Castes a real sense of security under the new constitution and which are
set out in the following resolutions."
 
Resolution No. Ill
ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS IN THE
NEW CONSTITUTION
"For creating this sense of security in the Scheduled Castes: this Conference
demands that the following provisions shall be made in the new Constitution:-
(1) (1)  That in the budget of every provincial Government an annual sum as may
be determined upon by agreement be set apart for promoting the primary
education among the children of the Scheduled Castes and another annual
sum for promoting advanced education among them, and such sums shall be
declared to be the first charge on the revenues of the Province.
(2) (2)  That provision shall be made by law for securing representation to the
Scheduled Castes in all Executive Governments-Central and Provincial-the
proportion of which shall be determined in accordance with their number, their
needs and their importance.
(3) (3)  That provision shall be made by law for securing representation to the
Scheduled Castes in the Public Services the proportion of which shall be fixed
in accordance with their number, their needs and their importance. This
Conference further insists that in the case of security services such as
Judiciary, Police and Revenue, provision shall be made that the proportion
fixed for the Scheduled Castes shall, subject to the rule of minimum
qualification, be realised within a period of ten years.
(4) (4)  That provision shall be made by law for guaranteeing to the Scheduled
Castes representation in all Legislatures and Local bodies in accordance with
their number, needs and importance.
(5) (5)  That provision shall be made by law whereby the representation of the
Scheduled Castes in all Legislatures and Local Bodies shall be by the method
of Separate Electorates.
(6) (6)  That provision shall be made by law for the representation of the Scheduled
 Castes on all Public Service Commissions, Central and Provincial."
Resolution no. lV.
SEPARATE SETTLEMENTS
"It is the considered opinion of this conference,
(a) (a)  that so long as the Scheduled Castes continue to live on the outskirts of the
Hindu village, with no source of livelihood and in small number as compared to
Hindus, they will continue to remain Untouchables and subject to the tyranny
and oppression of the Hindus and will not be able to enjoy free and full life.
(b) (b)  That for the better protection of the Scheduled Castes from the tyranny and
oppression of the Caste Hindus, which may take a worse form under Swaraj
which cannot but be a Hindu Raj, and
(c) (c)  to enable the Scheduled Castes to develop to their fullest manhood, to give
them economical and social security as also to pave the way for the removal of
untouchability.
This Conference has after long and mature deliberation come to the conclusion
that a radical change must be made in the village system now prevalent in India and
which is the parent of all the ills from which the Scheduled Castes are suffering for
so many centuries at the hands of the Hindus. Realising the necessity of these
changes this conference holds that along with the Constitutional changes in the
system of Government there must be a change in the village system now prevalent,
made along the following lines:
(1) (1)   The constitution should provide for the transfer of the Scheduled Castes
from their present habitation and form separate Scheduled Caste villages away
from and independent of Hindu village.
(2) (2)   For the settlement of the Scheduled Castes in new villages a provision
shall be made by the constitution for the establishment of a Settlement
Commission.
(3) (3)   All Government land which is cultivable and which is not occupied shall be
handed over to the Commission to be held in trust for the purpose of making
new settlements of the Scheduled Castes.
(4) (4)   The Commission shall be empowered to purchase new land under the
Land Acquisition Act from private owners to complete the scheme of settlement
of Scheduled Castes,
(5) (5)   The constitution shall provide that the Central Government shall grant to
the settlement commission a minimum sum of Rupees five crores per annum to
enable the Commission to carry out their duty to this behalf.

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) (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) (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) (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) (1)   The Legislature to be elected by Constituencies which are to be purely
territorial.
(2) (2)   The Executive to be drawn solely from the Majority party in the Legislature.
(3) (3)   The Administration to be run by a public service based entirely upon
considerations of efficiency.
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 so called 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 7 It is round this issue that the controversy
has centred.
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) (1)  It assumes that the majority of voters in a constituency represents the will of
the constituency as a whole.
(2) (2)  that it is enough to take stock of the general will of the constituency as
expressed by the majority and that 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.
(3) (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
interplay between than. 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
minority 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 (he 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 and the
constituency is a shut 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 replaced 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 effect on the
result of voting. By the Hindu Social system the Communities are placed in an
ascending scale of reverence and a descending scale of contempt. It needs no
prophet to predict what effect these social attitudes will have cm 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. l 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 became 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.
 
CHAPTER V
JOINT V/S SEPARATE ELECTORATES

The Hindus have after a long struggle accepted the view that a purely territorial
constituency will not do in a country like India. In the previous discussion regarding
the controversy between territorial constituency and communal constituency as two
rival methods of bringing about a truly representative legislature was unnecessary.
But I stated the case for and against because I felt that the foreigners who are not
aware of Indian Political conditions ought to know the basic conceptions underlying
that controversy. Unfortunately, however, the fact is that although the Hindus have
accepted the basic argument in favour of communal scheme of representation they
have not accepted all what the Untouchables are demanding. The Untouchables
demand that their representation shall be by separate electorates. A separate
electorate means an electorate composed exclusively of Untouchable voters who
are to elect an Untouchable as their representative to the legislature. The Hindus
agree that certain number of seats are to be reserved for Untouchables to be filled
only by Untouchables. But they insist that the Untouchables who is to be the
representative of the Untouchables in the Legislature should be elected by a mixed
electorate consisting both of the Hindus as well as of the Untouchables and not by
an electorate exclusively of the Untouchables. In other words there is still a
controversy over the question of joint versus separate electorates. Here again I want
to set out the pros and cons of this controversy. The objection to separate electorate
raised by the Hindus is that separate electorate means the fragmentation of the
nation. The reply is obvious. First of all, there is no nation of Indians in the real
sense of the word. The nation does not exist, it is to be created, and I think it will be
admitted that the suppression of a distinct and a separate community is not the
method of creating a nation. Secondly, it is conceded - as the Hindus have done -
that Untouchables should be represented in that Legislature by Untouchable then it
cannot be denied that the Untouchable must be a true representative of the
Untouchable voters. If this is a correct position then separate electorate is the only
mechanism by which real representation can be guaranteed to the Untouchables.
The Hindu argument against separate electorate is insubstantial and unsupportable.
The premises on which the political demands of the Untouchables are based are
admitted by the Hindus. Separate electorate is only a consequence which logically
follows from those premises. How can you admit the premise and deny the
conclusion? Special electorates are devised as a means of protecting the minorities.
Why not permit a minority like the Untouchables to determine what kind of electorate
is necessary for its protection? If the Untouchables decide to have separate
electorates why should their choice not prevail ? These are questions to which the
Hindus can give no answer. The reason is that the real objection to separate
electorates by the Hindus is different from this ostensible objection raised in the
name of a nation. The real objection is that separate electorate does not permit the
Hindus to capture the seats reserved for the Untouchables. On the Other hand the
joint electorate does. Let me illustrate the point by a few examples of how joint and
separate electorate would work in the constituency. Take the following
constituencies from the Madras Presidency.

 
 
Name of the Seat Total no of Total no of Ratio of
Total
Constituency reserved for Hindu Untouchabl Hindu
number
the voters e voters voters to
  of
Untouchable Untouchabl
Seats
s. e voters
for
Hindus

1. Madras City 2 1 40,626 2,577 16 to 1

South

2.Chicacole 2 1 83,456 5,125 16 to I

3.Vijayanagra  
2 1 47,594 996
m 49 to 1
4.
1 1 52,805 7,760 7 to 1
Amalapuram

5. Ellore 1 1 51,795 5,155 9 to 1

6. Bandar
1 1 84,191 8,723 10 to 1

7. Tenali 2 1 1,32,107 5,732 24 to 1

 

The figures of the voting strength given in the above table for the seven
constituencies taken at random in the Madras Presidency are illuminating. A scrutiny
of the above figures is sufficient to show any disinterested person that if there is a
separate electorate for the Untouchables in these seven constituencies they would
be in a position to elect a man in whom they had complete confidence and who
would be independent to fight the battle of the Untouchables on the floor of the
Legislature against the representatives of the Hindus. If, on the other hand, there is
a joint electorate in these constituencies the representative of the Untouchables
would be only a nominal representative and not a real representative, for no
Untouchable who did not AGree to be a nominee of the Hindus and a tool in their
hands could be elected in a joint electorate in which the Untouchable voter was out
numbered in ratio of I to 24 or in some cases 1 to 49..The joint electorate is from the
point of the Hindus to use a familiar phrase a "rotten borough" in which the Hindus
get the right to nominate an Untouchable to set nominally as a representative of the
Untouchables but really as a tool of the Hindus. It will be noticed that the Hindu in
opposing the so-called communal Scheme of the Untouchables with his so-called
National Scheme is not fighting for a principle nor is be fighting for the nation. He is
simply fighting for his own interests. He is fighting to have in his hands the undivided
control over political power. His first line of defence is not to allow any shares to be
drawn up so that like the Manager of the Hindu joint family he can use the whole for
his benefit. That is why he fought for purely territorial constituencies. Failing that he
takes his second line of defence. He wants that if he is made to concede power he
must not lose control over it. This is secured by joint electorates and frustrated by
separate electorates. That is why the Hindu objects to separate electorates and
insists on joint electorates.
The end of the so-called National Scheme may not be communal but the result
undoubtedly is.
 
CHAPTER VI
THE EXECUTIVE

THE SECOND political demand of the Untouchables is that they must not only be
represented to the Legislature but they must also be represented in the executive.
This demand is also opposed by the Hindus. The argument of the Hindus takes two
forms. One is that the executive must represent the majority of the Legislature and
secondly the men in the Executive must be competent to hold places in the
executive. I propose to deal with the second argument first.
It is an argument which is fundamentally sound. But it is equally necessary to
realise that in a representative Government this argument cannot be carried too far.
For as Professor Dicey has argued, "It has never been a primary object of
constitutional arrangement to get together the best possible parliament in intellectual
capacity. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the idea of representative
Government to attempt to form a parliament far superior in intelligence to the mass
of the nation."
The stress upon competency is needless. Nobody has said that ignorant people
should be made Ministers simply because they are Untouchables. Given the right to
representation in the cabinet the Untouchables, there is no doubt, will elect the most
competent people amongst them- there are a number of than in every province- to
fill those places. Again why apply this limiting condition to the Untouchables only ?
Like the Untouchables the Muslims are also claiming the right to be represented in
the cabinet. Why have the Hindus not insisted upon such a limiting condition against
the Muslims' claim? This shows that the objection of the Hindus is not based on
reason. It is an excuse.
Coming to the second argument the Hindus are simply misusing the words majority
and minority. They seem to forget that majority and minority are political categories.
As political categories there is no fixed majority or a fixed minority. Political
majorities and political minorities are fluid bodies and what is a majority today may
become a minority tomorrow, and what is a minority today may become a majority
tomorrow. The difference between the Hindus and the Untouchables cannot be said
to be a difference of this sort. There is no endosmosis between the Untouchables
and Hindus as there is between the Majority and Minority. There is another
characteristic of a majority and minority relationship, which would make them
inapplicable to the relationship which subsists between the Hindus and the
Untouchables. The majority and minority are divided by a difference only- difference
in the point of views. They are not separated by a fundamental and deadly
antagonism as the Hindus are from the Untouchables. There is a third characteristic
of Majority and Minority relationship which is not to be found in the relationship that
subsists between the Hindus and the Untouchables. A minority grows into a minority
and a majority in becoming a majority absorbs so much of the sentiment of the
minority that the minority is satisfied with the result and does not feel the urge of
fighting out the issue with the majority. Now all these considerations are quite foreign
to the relationship between the Hindu Majority and the Untouchable minority. They
are fixed as permanent communities. They are not merely different but they are
antagonistic. To speak of them as majority and minority would be as true and as
useful as would be to speak of the Germans being a majority and the French being a
minority.
 
CHAPTER VII
PUBLIC SERVICES

The Untouchables demand that a certain proportion of posts in the public services
of the country shall be reserved for them, subject to the rule of minimum
qualification. The Hindus object to this demand as they do to the other demands of
the Untouchables. The stand they take is that the interests of the State require that
capacity, efficiency and character should be the only consideration and that caste
and creed should have no place in making appointment to public offices. There is no
dispute regarding character as a necessary qualification. Nor is there any dispute
regarding capacity and efficiency. The only point of dispute, and it is a very important
point, is whether caste and creed should form a consideration which must be taken
into account in the recruitment for public services. Relying upon the educational
qualification as the only test of efficiency, the Hindus insist that public offices should
be filled on the basis of competitive examination open to persons of all Castes and
Creeds. They argue that such a system serves both purposes. It serves the purpose
of efficiency. Secondly it does not prohibit the entry of the Untouchables in the Public
Services of the country.
The Hindus seek to give to their opposition to the demand of the Untouchable an
appearance of fairness by relying upon efficiency and competitive examination. Here
again the argument is quite beside the point. The question is not whether the
competitive system of Examination is or is not the proper method of getting efficient
persons in public services. The question is whether the competitive system simply
because it is open to all castes and creeds will enable the Untouchables to get a
footing in the Public Service. That depends upon the educational system of the
State. Is it sufficiently democratic? Are the facilities for education sufficiently
widespread and sufficiently used to permit persons from all classes to come forth to
compete? Otherwise, even with the system of open competition large classes are
sure to be left out in the cold. This basic condition is conspicuous by its absence in
India. Higher education in India is the monopoly of Hindus and particularly of high
Caste Hindus. By reason of Untouchability the Untouchables are denied the
opportunity for Education. By reason of their poverty higher education necessary for
higher posts in the public service- and higher posts in the public service are the only
things that matter because they have a strategic value- is not within their reach. The
State will not take the financial responsibility of giving them higher education- they
are demanding it by their resolution and the Hindus will not extend the benefit of
their charities to the Untouchables- Hindu Charity being shamefully communal-so
that to ask the Untouchables to rely upon the results of competitive examination for
entry into the public services is to practise a fraud upon than. The position taken up
by the Untouchables is in no sense unreasonable. They admit the necessity for
maintaining efficiency. That is why in their resolution they themselves say that their
demand shall be subject to the rule of minimum qualification. In other words what the
Untouchables demand is that a minimum qualification should be prescribed for every
post in the public service and if two persons apply for such a post and the
Untouchables has the minimum qualification he should be preferred to a Hindu even
though the Hindu may have a qualification higher than the minimum qualification. It,
of course, does mean that the basis for appointment should be minimum
qualification and not the higher qualification. This may sound queer to those who do
not mind if their test of efficiency gives certain communities a monopoly of public
service. But did not Campbell-Bannerman say that self-government was better than
good government? What else are the Untouchables demanding? They are prepared
to recognise the need of having an efficient Government. That is why they are ready
to accept the requirement of minimum qualifications for entry in the public services of
the country. What the untouchables are not prepared to do is to forego self-
government for good government Good Government based on highest qualification
will be a communal government, for the Hindus alone can claim qualifications higher
than minimum qualifications. This is what they do not want. What they say is that
minimum qualifications are enough for efficient government and since it makes self-
government possible, minimum qualification should be the rule for entry in Public
Service. It ensures self-government as well as efficient government.
 
CHAPTER VIII

SEPARATE SETTLEMENTS

Resolution No. IV Referred to in the foregoing part of this paper is to my mind quite
self-explanatory and not much detailed comment is necessary to explain its purport.
Nor is it possible in the compass of this short paper to deal with it in more than
general terms. The demand for separate settlements is the result of what might be
called "The New Life Movement" among the Untouchables. The object of the
movement is to free the Untouchables from the thraldom of the Hindus. So long as
the present arrangement continues it is impossible for the Untouchables either to
free themselves from the yoke of the Hindus or to get rid of their Untouchability. It is
the close-knit association of the Untouchables with the Hindus living in the same
villages which marks them out as Untouchables and which enables the Hindus to
identify them as being Untouchables. India is admittedly a land of villages and so
long as the village system provides an easy method of marking out and identifying
the Untouchable, the Untouchable has no escape from Untouchability. It is the
village system which perpetuates untouchability and the Untouchables therefore
demand that it should be broken and the Untouchables who are as a matter of fact
socially separate should be made separate geographically and territorially also, and
be grouped into separate villages exclusively of Untouchables in which the
distinction of the high and the low and of Touchable and Untouchable will find no
place.
The second reason for demanding separate settlements arises out of the
economic position of the Untouchables in the village. That their condition is most
pitiable no one will deny. They are a body of landless labourers who are entirely
dependent upon such employment as the Hindus may choose to give them and on
such wages as the Hindus may find it profitable to pay. In the villages in which they
live they cannot engage in any trade or occupation, for owing to untouchability no
Hindu will deal with them. It is therefore obvious that there is no way of earning a
living which is open to the Untouchables so long as they live as a dependent part of
the Hindu village. This economic dependence has also other consequences besides
the condition of poverty and degradation which proceeds from it. The Hindu has a
code of life, which is part of his religion. This code of life gives him many privileges
and heaps upon the Untouchable many indignities which are incompatible with the
sanctity of human life. By the New Life Movement which has taken hold of the
Untouchables, the Untouchables all over India are fighting against the indignities and
injustices which the Hindus in the name of their religion have heaped upon them. A
perpetual war is going on every day in every village between the Hindus and the
Untouchables. It does not see the light of the day. The Hindu Press is not prepared
to advertise it lest it should injure the cause of their freedom in the eyes of the world.
The silent struggle is however a fact. Under the village system the Untouchable has
found himself greatly handicapped in his struggle for free and honourable life. It is a
contest between the economically and socially strong Hindus and an economically
poor and socially small group of Untouchables. That the Hindus most often succeed
in pulling down Untouchables is largely due to many causes. The Hindu has the
Police and the Magistracy on his side. In a quarrel between the Untouchables and
the Hindus the Untouchables will never get protection from the Police or justice from
the Magistrate. The Police and the Magistracy are Hindus, and they love their class
more than their duty. But the chief weapon in the armoury of the Hindus is economic
power which they possess Over the poor Untouchables living in the village. The
economic processes by which the Hindus can hold down the Untouchables in their
struggle for equality are well described in the Report made by a Committee
appointed by the Government of Bombay in 1928 to investigate into the grievances
of the Depressed Classes [f.2] and from which the following extracts are made. It
illuminates the situation in a manner so simple that even foreigners who do not know
the mysteries of the Hindu social system may understand what tyranny the Hindus
can practise upon the Untouchables. The committee said -
"Although we have recommended various remedies to secure to the Depressed
Classes their rights to all public utilities we fear that there will be difficulties in the
way of their exercising them for a long time to come. The first difficulty is the fear of
open violence against them by the orthodox classes, It must be noted that the
Depressed Classes form a small minority in every village, opposed to which is a
great majority of the orthodox who are bent on protecting their interests and dignity
from any supposed invasion by the Depressed Classes at any cost. The danger of
prosecution by the Police has put a limitation upon the use of violence by the
orthodox classes and consequently such cases axe rare.
"The second difficulty arises from the economic position in which the Depressed
Classes are found today. The Depressed Classes have no economic
independence in most parts of the Presidency. Some cultivate the lands of the
orthodox classes as their tenants at will Others live on their earnings as farm
labourers employed by the orthodox classes and the rest subsist on the food or
grain given to them by the orthodox classes in lieu of service rendered to them as
village servants. We have heard of numerous instance where the orthodox classes
have used their economic power as a weapon against those Depressed Classes in
their villages, when the latter have dared to exercise their rights, and have evicted
them from their land, and stopped their employment and discontinued their
remuneration as village servants. This boycott is often planned on such an
extensive scale as to include the prevention of the Depressed Classes from using
the commonly used paths and the stoppage of sale of the necessaries of life by the
village Bania. According to the evidence, sometimes small causes suffice for the
proclamation of a social boycott against the Depressed Classes. Frequently it
follows on the exercise by the Depressed Classes of their right to the use of the
common well, but cases have been by no means rare where a stringent boycott
has been proclaimed simply because a Depressed Class man has put on the
sacred thread, has bought a piece of land, has put on good clothes or ornaments,
or has carried a marriage procession with the bride-groom on the horse through
the public street."
This demand for separate settlements is a new demand which has been put forth
by the Untouchables for the first time. It is not possible to say as yet as to what
attitude the Hindus will take to this demand. But there is no doubt that this is the
most vital demand made by the Untouchables, and I am sure that whatever may
happen with regard to the other demands they are not likely to yield on this. The
Hindus are prone to think that they and the Untouchables are joined together by the
will of God as the Bible says the husband is joined to his wife and they will say in the
language of the Bible that those whom God is pleased to join let no man put
asunder. The Untouchables are determined to repudiate any such view of their
relations with the Hindus. They want the link to be broken and a complete divorce
from the Hindus effected without delay.
The only questions that arise are those of the cost it will involve in and time it will
take. As to cost, the Untouchables say it should be financed by Government It will no
doubt fall for the most part on the Hindus. But there is no reason why the Hindus
should not bear the same. The Hindus own everything. They own the land in this
country. They control trade, and they also own the State. Every source of revenue
and profit is controlled by them. Other communities and particularly the
Untouchables are just hewers of wood and drawers of water. The social system
helps the Hindus to have a monopoly of everything. There is no reason why they
should not be asked to pay the cost of this scheme when they practically own the
country.
As to time, it matters very little even if the transplantation of the Untouchables to
new settlements takes 20 years. Those who have been the bounded slaves of the
Hindus for a thousand years may well be happy with the prospect of getting their
freedom by the end of 20 years.
 
CHAPTER IX
CASTE AND CONSTITUTION

IT might well be asked why should such questions as are raised by these demands
of the Untouchables find a place in the Constitution ? Nowhere in the world have the
makers of constitution been compelled to deal with such matters. This is an
important question and I admit that an answer is required on the part of those who
raise such questions and insist that they are of constitutional importance. The
answer to this question is to my mind quite obvious. It is the character of the Indian
Society which invests this question with constitutional importance. It is the Caste
system and the Religious system of the Hindus which is solely responsible for this.
This short statement may not suffice to give an adequate explanation to foreigners of
the social and political repercussions of the Hindu Caste and Religious systems. But
it is equally true that in the brief compass of this paper it is impossible to deal
exhaustively with the repercussion of the caste system on the constitution. I would
refer for a full and complete exposition of the subject to my book on the Annihilation
of Castes which I wrote some time ago. For I believe it will shed sufficient light on
the social and economical ramification of the Caste and Religious system of the
Hindus In this Paper I will content myself with making the following general
observations. In framing a constitution the Social structure must always be kept in
mind. The political structure must be related to the social structure. The operation of
the social forces is not confined to the social field. They pervade the political field
also. This is the view point of the Untouchables and I am sure this is incontrovertible.
The Hindus are quite conscious of this argument and also of its strength. But what
they do is to deny that the structure of the Hindu Society is in any way different from
the structure of European society. They attempt to meet the argument by saying that
there is no difference between the Caste system of the Hindus and the Class system
in Western Society. This is of course palpably false and discloses a gross ignorance
both of the Caste system as well as of the Class system. The Caste system is a
system which is infested with the spirit of isolation and in fact it makes isolation of
one Caste from another a matter of virtue. There is isolation in the Class system but
it does not make isolation a virtue nor does it prohibit social intercourse. The Class
system it is true produces groups. But they are not akin to Caste groups. The groups
in the Class System are only non-social while the Castes in the Caste system are in
their mutual relations definitely and positively anti-social. If this analysis is true then
there can be no denying the fact that the social structure of Hindu Society is different
and consequently its political structure must be different. What the Untouchables are
asking, to put it in general terms, is a proper correlation of means to ends. End may
be the same. But because the end is the same it does not follow that the means
must also be the same. Indeed ends may remain the same and yet means must vary
according to time and circumstances. Those who are true to their ends must admit
this fact and must agree to adopt different means if they wish that the end they have
in view is not stultified.
In this connection there is another thing which I would like to mention. As I have
said, it is the Caste basis of Hindu society which requires that its political structure
should be different and suited to its social structure. There are people who admit this
but argue that caste can be abolished from Hindu society. I deny that. Those who
advocate such a view think that caste is an institution like a Club or a Municipality or
a County Council. This is a gross error. Caste is Religion, and religion is anything
but an institution. It may be institutionalised but it is not the same as the institution in
which it is embedded. Religion is an influence or force suffused through the life of
each individual moulding his character, determining his actions and reactions, his
likes and dislikes. These likes and dislikes, actions and reactions are not institutions
which can be lopped off. They are forces and influences which can be dealt with by
controlling them or counteracting them. If the social forces are to be prevented from
contaminating politics and perverting it to the aggrandisement of the few and the
degradation of the many then it follows that the political structure must be so framed
that it will contain mechanisms which will bottle the prejudices and nullify the
injustice which the social forces are likely to cause if they were let loose.
So far I have explained in a general way why the peculiar social structure of the
Hindu Society calls for a peculiar political structure and why the marker of the Indian
Constitution cannot escape problems which did not plague the makers of
Constitution in other countries. Let me now take the specific question, namely why it
is necessary that in the Indian Constitution the Communal Scheme must find its
place and why in the Public Services for the Untouchables should be specified and
should be assigned to them as their separate possession. The justification for these
demands is easy and obvious. It arises from the undeniable fact that what divides
the Untouchables from the Hindus is not mere matter of difference on non-
essentials. It is a case of fundamental antagonism and antipathy. No evidence of this
antipathy and antagonism is necessary. The system of Untouchability is enough
evidence of the inherent antagonism between the Hindus and the Untouchables.
Given this antagonism it is simply impossible to ask the Untouchables to depend
upon and trust the Hindus to do them justice when the Hindu get their freedom and
independence from the British. Who can say that the Untouchable is not right in
saying that he will not trust the Hindu ? The Hindu is as alien to him as a European
is and what is worse the European alien is neutral but the Hindu is most shamefully
partial to his own class and antagonistic to the Untouchables. There can be no doubt
that the Hindus have all these ages despised, disregarded and disowned the
Untouchables as belonging to a different and contemptible strata of Society if not to
a different race. By their own code of conduct the Hindus behave as the most
exclusive class steeped in their own prejudices and never sharing the aspirations of
the Untouchables with whom they have nothing to do and whose interests are
opposed to theirs. Why should the Untouchables entrust their fate to such people ?
How could the Untouchables be legitimately asked to leave their interest into the
hands of a people who as a matter of fact are opposed to them in their motives and
interests, who do not sympathise with the living forces operating among the
Untouchables, who are themselves not charged with their wants, cravings and
desires, who are inimical to their aspirations, who in all certainty will deny justice to
them and to discriminate against them and who by reason of the sanction of their
religion have not been and will not be ashamed to practise against the Untouchables
any kind of inhumanity. The only safety against such people is to have the political
rights which the Untouchables claim as safeguards against the tyranny of the Hindu
Majority defined in the Constitution. Are the Untouchables extravagant in demanding
this safety ?
 
CHAPTER X

SOME QUESTIONS TO THE HINDUS AND THEIR FRIENDS

IN the midst of this political controversy one notices that the Hindus are behaving
differently towards different communities. The Untouchables are not the only people
in India who are demanding political safeguards. Like the Untouchables the Muslims
and the Sikhs have also presented their political demands to the Hindus. Both the
Mussulmans and the Sikhs can in no sense be called helpless minorities. On the
contrary they are the two most powerful communities in India. They are
educationally quite advanced and economically well placed. By their social standing
they are quite as high as the Hindus. Their organisation is a solid structure and no
Hindu will dare to take any liberties with them much less cause any harm to them.
What are the political demands of the Muslims and the Sikhs? It is not possible to
set them out here. But the general opinion is that they are very extravagant and the
Hindus resent them very much. In contrast with this the condition and the demands
of the Untouchables are just the opposite of the condition of the Muslims and the
Sikhs. They are a weak, helpless and despised minority. They are at the mercy of all
and there are not a few occasions when Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs combine to
oppress them. Of all the Minorities they need the greatest protection and the
strongest safeguards. Their demands are of the modest kind and there is nothing in
them of that over-insurance which may be said to characterise the demands of the
Muslims and the Sikhs. What is the reaction of the Hindus to the demands of the
Muslims, the Sikhs and the Untouchables? Notwithstanding the extravagance of
their demands the Hindus are ever ready to conciliate the Mussalmans and the
Sikhs, particularly the former. They not only want to be correct in their relationship
with the Mussalmans, they are prepared to be considerate and even 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 attitude 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 ignore 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 recognise 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? 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 post-dated 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 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 Hinduism a
form of I 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 7 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 7 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 arid Hindus establish a New
Older 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 71
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 fratemity 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
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 equality. 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 become 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 immoralises 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 along 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 one day bust 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 today 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 sit) 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 7 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 Hanjan 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 laws 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 7 not as partners but as poor relations of the Hindus. Mr.
Gandhi is kind to the Untouchables. But for what ? Only because he wants to kill, by
kindness, them and their movement for separation and independence from Hindus.
The Harijan Sevak Sangh is one of the many techniques which has enabled Mr.
Gandhi to be a successful humbug.
Turn to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. He draws his inspiration from the Jeffersonian
Declaration; but has he ever expressed any shame or any remorse about the
condition of the 60 millions of Untouchables ? Has he anywhere referred to them in
the torrent of literature which comes out from his pen ? Go to the youth of India, if
you want. The youths who fill the Universities and who follow the Pandit's lead are
ever ready to fight the political battle of India against the British. But what do these
children of the leisured class Hindus have done to redress the wrongs their
forefathers have done to the Untouchables ? You can get thousands of Hindu youths
to join political propaganda but you cannot get one single youth to take up the cause
of breaking the caste system or of removing Untouchability. Democracy and
democratic life, justice and conscience which are sustained by a belief in democratic
principle are foreign to the Hindu mind. To leave democracy and freedom in such
Tory hands would be the greatest mistake democrats could commit It is therefore
very necessary for the American friends of the Hindus to ask Mr. Gandhi and the
Hindus to declare their War aims, so that they may be sure that the fight of the
Hindus against British is really and truly a fight for freedom. The Congress and the
Hindus will no doubt refer their inquiring foreign friends to the Congress Resolutions
regarding minority rights. But I would like to warn the American friends of the Hindus
not to be content with the "glittering generalities" contained in congress declaration
of Minority Rights. To declare the rights of the minority is one thing and to have them
implemented is another. And why should the friends of the Hindus if they are really
friends of freedom, not insist on implementation straight away? Are not the Hindus
saying that they would not be satisfied with mere declaration of freedom from the
British ? Are they not asking for immediate implementation ? If they want the British
to implement their War aims, why should the Hindus be not prepared to implement
their war aims ? American friends of the Hindus, I am sure, will not be misled by the
Hindu propaganda that this war of the Hindus against the British is a War for
freedom. Before helping the Hindus they must get themselves satisfied that the
Hindus who are urging that their war against the British is a war for freedom will not
turn out to be the enemies of the freedom of millions of Indians like the
Untouchables. That is the plea I am making on behalf of the 60 millions of the
Untouchables of India. And above all let not the American friends think that checks
and balances in a Constitution-the demand for checks and balances suited to Indian
conditions-are not necessary because the struggle is carried on by a people and is
carried on in the name of freedom. Friends of democracy and freedom cannot afford
to forget the words of John Adams when he said-
 
"We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for
proof irrefragable that the people when they have been unchecked, have
been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous , and cruel as any king or Senate
possessed of uncontrollable power : the majority has eternally and without
one exception usurped over the rights of the minority."
If all Majorities must be subjected to checks and balances how much more must it
be so in the case of the Hindus ?