Plea to the Foreigner
_____________________________________________
Note
on
the
Annexure to
'What
Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables'
Editorial
Note:
The present
volume of 'What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables', is the reprint of the
first edition published in 1945. Dr. Ambedkar brought out a second edition in 1946.
Certain changes by way of substantial additions and improvements are noticed. Chapter 9,
which contains these changes is therefore annexed to the Volume. No changes are noticed in
the remaining text.
The Editorial
Committee is grateful to Shri G. P. Mandavkar of Nagpur for bringing to our notice the
contents of the second edition.
_______________________________________________________________________
A PLEA TO THE FOREIGNER
Let not Tyranny Have Freedom to Enslave
I
'It is a matter of common experience that barring a
few exceptions, almost all foreigners, who show interest in Indian political affairs, take
the side of the Congress. This quite naturally puzzles and annoys the other political
parties in the country, such as the Muslim League, claiming to represent the Musalmans,
the Justice Party—now in a state of suspended animation but still—claiming to
speak in the name of the non-Brahmins and the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation,
claiming to represent the Untouchables, all of whom have been appealing to the foreigner
for support but to whom the foreigner's not even prepared to give a sympathetic hearing.
Why does the foreigner support the Congress and not the other political parties in India ?
Two reasons are usually assigned by the foreigner for his behaviour. One reason assigned
by him for supporting the Congress is that it is the only representative political
organisation of the Indians and can speak in the name of India and even for the
Untouchables. Is such a belief founded on facts ?
It must be admitted that there have been
circumstances which are responsible for creating such a belief. The first and foremost
circumstance for the spread of this view is the propaganda by the Indian Press in favour
of the Congress. The Press in India is an accomplice of the Congress, believes in the
dogma that the Congress is never wrong and acts on the principle of not giving any
publicity to any news, which is inconsistent with the Congress prestige or the Congress
ideology. To the foreigner the Press is the principal medium of information about the
Indian political affairs. The cry of the Indian Press being what it is, there is therefore
no wonder if the people in England and America know one thing and only one thing, namely,
that the Congress is the only representative body in India including even the
Untouchables.
The effect of this propaganda is considerably
heightened because of the absence of counter-propaganda on behalf of the Untouchables to
advertise their case against the Congress clam. There are various explanations for this
failure on the part of the Untouchables.
The Untouchables have no Press. The Congress
Press is closed to them and is determined not to give them the slightest publicity. They
cannot have their own Press and for obvious reasons. No paper can survive without
advertisement revenue. Advertisement revenue can come only from business and in India all business, both high and small, is
attached to the Congress and will not favour any Non-Congress organisation. The staff of
the Associated Press in India, which is the main news distributing agency in India, is
entirely drawn from the Madras Brahmins—indeed the whole of the Press in India is in
their hands and they, for well-known reasons, are entirely pro-Congress and will not allow
any news hostile to the Congress to get publicity. These are reasons beyond the control of
the Untouchables.
To a large extent the failure of the
Untouchables to do propaganda, it must be admitted, is also due to the absence of will to
do propaganda. This absence of will arises from a patriotic motive not to do anything,
which will damage the cause of the country in the eyes of the world outside. There are two
different aspects to the politics of India, which may be distinguished as foreign politics
and constitutional politics. India's foreign politics relate to India's freedom from
British Imperialism, while the constitutional politics of India centre round the nature of
a constitution for a free India. For a discriminating student the two issues are really
separate. But the Untouchables fear that though the two aspects of India's politics are
separable, the foreigner, who counts in this matter and whose misunderstanding has to be
guarded against, is not only incapable of separating them but is very likely to mistake a
quarrel over constitutional politics for a,
disagreement over the ultimate purposes of India's foreign politics. This is why the
Untouchables have preferred to remain silent and allowed the Congress propaganda to go
unchallenged.
The Congressmen will not admit the patriotic
motives of the Untouchables in keeping silent over Congress propaganda which is directed
against them. The fact, however, remains that the silence and the desire to avoid open
challenge on the part of the Untouchables have been materially responsible for the general
belief that the Congress represents all, even the Untouchables.
While, as explained above, there are
circumstances which are responsible for creating the belief that Congress represents all
including the Untouchables, such a belief is not warranted by the facts as disclosed by
the elections that took place in 1937. How the claim of the Congress to represent all has
been disproved by those elections, has already been described in an earlier part of this
book, both generally and also with particular regard to the claim of the Congress to
represent the Untouchables. If the foreigner will make a note of it he will see how wide
the propaganda is from the facts.
At a time when the representative character of
the Congress was not put to test in an election it was excusable for a foreigner to be
carried away by propaganda. But the matter has now been put to test in the elections that
took place in 1937. With the results of the elections available to check the position, it
may be hoped that the foreigners will revise their view that the Congress represents all,
including the Untouchables, and that they will realise that the other parties are equally
representative of elements in the social life of India which are outside the Congress and
have therefore the right to be heard.
II
There is another reason why the foreigner lends
his support to the Congress. It lies in the difference between the demonstrative
activities of the Congress and the other political parties in the country. While he
compares the activities of the different political parties, he sees Congressmen engaged in
a conflict with the British Government, launching campaigns of civil disobedience,
breaking laws made by a foreign Government, organizing movements for non-payment of taxes,
courting prison, preaching non-co-operation with Government, refusing offices and
exhibiting themselves in other ways as men out to sacrifice themselves for the freedom of
the country. On the other hand. he sees the other political parties uninterested, passive
and taking no part in such a struggle. From this, he concludes that the Congress is a body
struggling for the freedom of India, while the other parties are indifferent, if not
obstructive and as a lover of freedom feels bound to support the Congress as a body
carrying on a ' Fight for Freedom ' in preference to other parties.
This is quite natural. But a question arises
which calls for attention. Is this partiality to the Congress the result of an infatuation
for the ' Fight for Freedom ' movement ? Or, is it the result of a conviction that this '
Fight for Freedom ' is going to make the people of India free ? If it is the former, all I
can do is to regret that what I have said in Chapter VII in explanation as to why the
Untouchables have not joined with the Congress in this ' Fight for Freedom ' has not
produced the desired effect on the foreigner. But I cannot quarrel, with him on that
account. For it is quite understandable that many a foreigner on reading that chapter may
say that while the reasons adduced by me as to why the Untouchables refuse to join the '
Fight for Freedom ' arc valid and good, I have shown no ground why he should not support a
body which is carrying on a fight for freedom.
If the basis of his partiality to the Congress
is of the latter sort then the matter stands on a different footing. It then becomes
necessary to examine the rationale of his attitude and to save him from his error.
Ordinarily, no one trusts the word of a person
who is not prepared to place all his cards on the table and commit himself to something
clear and definite, so as to prove his bona fides, to
inspire confidence and secure the co-operation of those who have doubts about his motives.
The same rule must apply to the Congress. But as I have shown in Chapter VII the Congress
has not produced its blue print of the sort of democracy it aims to establish in India,
showing what place the servile classes and particularly the Untouchables will have in it.
Indeed, it has refused to produce such a blue print, not withstanding the insistent demand
of the Untouchables and the other minority communities. In the absence of such a
pronouncement it appears to be a strange sort of credulity on the part of the foreigner to
give support to the Congress on the ground that it stood for democracy.
There is certainly no ground for thinking that
the Congress is planning to establish democracy in India. The mere fact that the Congress
is engaged in a ' Fight for Freedom ' does not warrant such a conclusion. Before any such
conclusion is drawn it is the duty of the foreigner to pursue the matter further and ask
another question, namely, ' For whose freedom is the Congress fighting ? ' The question
whether the Congress is fighting for freedom has very little importance as compared to the
question, ' for whose freedom is the Congress fighting ? ' This is a pertinent and
necessary inquiry and it would be wrong for any lover of freedom to support the Congress
without further pursuing the matter and finding out what the truth is. But the foreigner
who takes the side of the Congress does not care even to raise such a question. One should
have thought that he would very naturally raise such a question and if he did raise it and
pursue it, I am confident, he will find abundant proof that the Congress far from planning
for democracy is planning to resuscitate the ancient form of Hindu polity of a hereditary
governing class ruling a hereditary servile class.
The attitude of the foreigner to the cause of
the servile classes and particularly to the cause of the Untouchables is a vital matter
and no party can leave it out of consideration, as a
case of idiosyncrasy. For any one representing the Untouchables it is necessary to take
note of it and do his best to convince the foreigner that in supporting the Congress he is
supporting a wrong party.
III
Apart from the question of likes and dislikes,
the real explanation for this strange attitude of the foreigner towards the Congress seems
to be in certain notions about freedom, self-government and democracy propounded by
western writers on Political Science and which have become the stock-in-trade of the
average foreigner.
As to freedom, the foreigner does not stop to
make a distinction between the freedom of a country and the freedom of the people in the
country. He takes it for granted that the freedom of a country is the same as the freedom
of the people in the country and once the freedom of the country is secured the freedom of
the people is also thereby assured.
As regards self-government he believes that all
that is wanted in a people is a sense of constitutional morality, which Grote [f.1] defined
as habits of " paramount reverence for the form of the constitution, enforcing
obedience to the authorities acting under and within those forms, yet combined with the
habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control, and unrestrained
censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts—combined, too, with a
perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen, admits the bitterness of party contest,
that the forms of constitution will be not less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than
in his own." If in a populace these habits are present, then according to the western
writers on Politics, self-government can be a reality and nothing further need be
considered. As to democracy he believes that what is necessary for achieving it is the
establishment of universal adult suffrage. Other aids have been suggested such as recall,
plebiscite and frequent elections and in some countries they have been brought into
operation. But in a majority of countries nothing more than adult suffrage and frequent
elections is deemed to be necessary for ensuring Government by the people, of the people
and for the people.
I have no hesitation in saying that all these
notions are fallacious and grossly misleading.
Not to make a distinction between the freedom
of the country and the freedom of the people in the country is to allow oneself to be
misled, if not deceived. For, words such as society, nation and country are just amorphous
if not ambiguous terms. There is no gainsaying that ' nation ' though one word means many
classes. Philosophically, it may be possible to consider a nation as a unit but
sociologically it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes and the freedom of
the nation, if it is to be a reality, must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes
comprised in it, particularly of those who are treated as the servile classes.
Habits of constitutional morality may be
essential for the maintenance of a constitutional form of Government. But the maintenance
of a constitutional form of Government is not the same thing as a self-government by the
people. Similarly, it may be granted that adult suffrage can produce government of the
people in the logical sense of the phrase, i.e., in contrast to the government of a king.
But it cannot by itself be said to bring about a democratic government, in the sense of
the government by the people and for the people.
Anyone who knows the tragic fate of
Parliamentary Democracy in Western Europe will not require more and better evidence to
prove the fallacy underlying such notions of democracy [f.2] . If I may quote myself from what I have said
in another place, the causes which have led to the failure of democracy in Western Europe
may be summarised in the following words;
" The Government of human society has
undergone some very significant changes. There was a time when the government of human
society had taken the form of autocracy by Despotic Sovereigns. This was replaced after a
long and bloody struggle by a system of government known as Parliamentary Democracy. It
was felt that this was the last word in the framework of government. It was believed to
bring about the millennium in which every human being will have the right to liberty,
property and pursuit of happiness. And there were good grounds for such high hopes. In
parliamentary democracy there is the Legislature to express the voice of the people; there
is the executive which is subordinate to the Legislature and bound to obey the
Legislature. Over and above the Legislature and the Executive there is the Judiciary to
control both and keep them both within prescribed bounds. Parliamentary democracy has all
the marks of a popular Government, a government of the people, by the people and for the
people. It is therefore a matter of some surprise that there has been a revolt against
parliamentary democracy although not even a century has elapsed since its universal
acceptance and inauguration. There is revolt against it in Italy, in Germany, in Russia
and in Spain, and there are very few countries in which there has not been discontent
against parliamentary democracy. Why should there be this discontent and dissatisfaction
against parliamentary democracy ? It is a question worth considering. There is no country
in which the urgency of considering this question is greater than it is in India. India is
negotiating to have parliamentary democracy. There is a great need of some one with
sufficient courage to tell Indians: " Beware of parliamentary democracy, it is not
the best product as it appears to be.
Why has parliamentary democracy failed ? In the
country of the dictators it has failed because it is a machine whose movements are very
slow. It delays swift action. In a parliamentary democracy the Executive may be held up by
the Legislature which may refuse to pass the laws which the Executive wants and if it is
not held up by the Legislature it may be held up by the judiciary which may declare the
laws as illegal. Parliamentary democracy gives no free hand to dictatorship and that is
why it became a discredited institution in countries like Italy, Spain and Germany which
readily welcomed dictatorships. If dictators alone were against parliamentary democracy it
would not have mattered at all. Their testimony against parliamentary democracy would be
welcomed for the reason that it can be an effective check upon dictatorship. But
unfortunately there is a great deal of discontent against parliamentary democracy even in
countries where people are opposed to dictatorship. That is the most regrettable fact
about Parliamentary democracy. This is all the more regrettable because parliamentary
democracy has not been at a standstill. It has progressed in three directions. It began
with equality of political rights in the form of equal suffrage. There are very few
countries having parliamentary democracy which have not adult suffrage. It has progressed
by expanding the notion of equality of political rights to equality of social and economic
opportunity. It has recognised that the State cannot be held at bay by corporations which
are anti-social in their purpose. With all this, there is immense discontent against
parliamentary democracy even in countries pledged to democracy. The reasons for discontent
in such countries must obviously be different from those assigned by the dictator
countries. There is no time to go into details. But it can be said in general terms that
the discontent against parliamentary democracy is due to the realisation that it has
failed to assure to the masses the right to liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.
If this is true, it is important to know the causes which have brought about this failure.
The causes for this failure may be found either in wrong ideology or wrong organisation or
in both. I think the causes are to be found in both.
Of the erroneous ideologies which have been
responsible for the failure of parliamentary democracy I have no doubt that the idea of
freedom of contract is one of them. The idea became sanctified and was upheld in the name
of liberty. Parliamentary democracy took no notice of economic inequalities and did not
care to examine the result of freedom of contract on the parties to the contract, in spite
of the fact that they were unequal in their bargaining power. It did not mind if the
freedom of contract gave the strong the opportunity to defraud the weak. The result is
that parliamentary democracy in standing out as protagonist of liberty has continuously
added to the economic wrongs of the poor. the downtrodden and the disinherited class.
The second wrong ideology which has vitiated
parliamentary democracy is the failure to realise 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 counter-question. 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 realise
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 judgement have been responsible for the failure of parliamentary democracy. But I am
equally certain that more than bad ideology it is bad organisation 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 organisation 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 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 realise
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 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 tit 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.
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 and 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 related 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 realisation 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 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 Nairs, regard it an honour to have their females kept as mistresses by the Brahmins. Even kings
invited Brahmins to deflower their queens on prima nortis. #
# The Traveller Ludovico Di Varthema who came to
India in the middle of the 16th century and visited Malabar saya :
" It is proper and at the
same time a pleasant thing to know who these Brahmins are. You rnust know that they are
the chief persons of the faith, as priesta are among us. And when the king takes a wife he
selects the moot worthy and the moat 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 Varthema
(Haklayat Society), Vol I, p. 141.
Other Travellers tell that the
practice was widespread. Hamilton in his Account
of the East Indus saya:
" When the Samorin
marries, he must 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 muat be a holy oblation to the God she worships and some of
the nobles are so complacent as to allow the olergy the same tribute; but 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 Narrativie
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 Nairs; but the sacred character of the Nambadries always procures them a
preference."— Pinkerton's Voyages,
Vol. VIII, p. 734.
Mr. C. A. Innea, I.C.S.,
Editor of the Gazetter of Malabar and Anjengo,
issued under the authority of the Government of Madras, says :
" Another institution
found amongst all the classes following the marukak-kaitayam
system, as well as amongst many of those who observe makkattayam,
is that known as •' Tali-tying wedding " which has been described as "
the moat 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 & 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 contracts sambandham. It seems to be
generally considered that the ceremony was intended to confer on the tali tier or manavaiiin (bridegroom) a right to cohabit with the
girl; and by some the origin of the ceremony ia found in the claim of the Bhu-deuas or " Earth-Gods." (that is the
Brahmins), and on a lower plane of Kshatriyas or ruling classes, to the first-fruits of
lower case womanhood, a night skin to the medixeval droit
de seigncies''--Vol. I, p. 101.
Under the British
Government and by reason of its equalitarian jurisprudence
these rights, immunities and privileges
of the Brahmins have ceased to exist. Nonetheless the advantages they gave still remain
and the Brahmin is still pre-eminent and sacred in the eyes
of the servile classes and is still addressed by them as "
Swami " which means ' Lord.'
The second test gives an equally positive result. To take
only the Madras Presidency by way of illustration. Consider
Table 18 (see page 218). It shows the distribution of
gazetted posts between the Brahmins and the other
communities in the year 1948. Similar data from the other provinces could also be adduced to support this conclusion. But it is unnecessary to
labour the point. Whether the Brahmins accept or deny the status the facts that they
control the State and that their supremacy is accepted by the servile classes, are enough
to prove that they form the governing class.
It is of course impossible for the Brahmins to
maintain their supremacy as a governing class without an
ally to help them on account of their being numerically very
small. Consequently, as history shows, the Brahmins have always had other
classes as their allies to whom they were ready to accord
the status of a governing class provided they were prepared
to work with them in subordinate co-operation. In ancient
and mediaeval times they made such an alliance with the Kshatriyas
or the warrior class and the two not merely ruled the
masses, but ground them down to atoms, pulverised them so to say—the Brahmin with his
pen and the Kshatriya with his sword. At present, Brahmins
have made an alliance with the Vaishya class called Banias. The shifting of this alliance from the Kshatriya to the
Bania is in the changed circumstances
quite inevitable. In these days of commerce money is more important than sword. That is
one reason for this change in
party alignment. The second reason is the need for money to
run the political machine. Money can come only from and is in fact coming from the Bania. If the Bania is
financing the Congress it is because he has realised—and Mr. Gandhi has taught him—that
money invested in politics gives large dividends. Those who have any doubt in the
matter might do well to read what Mr. Gandhi told Mr. Louis Fischer on
June 6, 1942. In his book A Week with Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Fischer
records very revealing answers
to some of his most interesting and pertinent questions.
Table 18 (1)1
Communities |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Over Rs. 100
Total No. 7,500 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
No. held by |
No. held by |
||
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
(9) |
Brahmins
... |
IS |
3 |
820 |
37 |
3,280 |
43.73 |
8,812 |
42.4 |
20 |
4 |
190 |
9 |
750 |
10 |
1.655 |
8.0 |
|
Mohammedans |
37 |
7 |
150 |
7 |
497 |
6.63 |
1,624 |
7.8 |
Depressed classes |
70 |
14 |
25 |
1.5 |
39 |
.52 |
144 |
.69 |
113 245 |
22 50 |
620 50 |
27 2 |
2,543 |
33.9 |
8,440 |
40.6 |
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
372 |
5.0 |
83 |
.4 |
|
— |
— |
— |
19 |
.5 |
24 |
.11 |
||
" I said I
had several questions to ask him (Mr. Gandhi) about the Congress Party. Very highly placed
Britishers, I recalled, bad told me that Congress was in the
hands of big business and that Mr. Gandhi was supported by the Bombay Mill owners who gave him as much money as he wanted. 'What truth is there in these assertions,' I asked, '
Unfortunately, they are true,' he declared simply. ' Congress hasn't enough money to conduct its work. We thought
in the beginning to collect four annas (about eight cents) from each member per year and operate on that. But it hasn't worked.' ' What proportion of the Congress budget,' I asked, ' is covered by rich Indians ? ' ' Practically all of it,' he
stated ' In this ashram, for
instance, we could live much more poorly than we do and spend less money. But we
do not and the money comes from our rich friends."'
Being dependent on his money, it is impossible for the Brahmin to exclude the Bania from the position of a governing
class. In fact, the Brahmin has established not merely a
working but a cordial alliance with the Bania. The result is that the governing class in
India to-day is a Brahmin-Bania instead of a Brahmin-Kshatriya combine as it used to be.
Enough has been
said to show who constitute the governing class in India.
The next inquiry must be directed to find out how the governing class fared in the
elections to the Provincial Legislatures that took place in
1937.
The elections
that took place in 1937 were based on a franchise which though it was neither universal
nor adult was wide enough to include classes other than the
governing class, certainly wider than any existing prior to 1937. The elections based on such a franchise may well be taken as a test to find out how the governing class fared as against the servile classes in this electoral contest.
Unfortunately, no Indian publicist has as yet undertaken to compile an Indian counterpart of Dodd's Parliamentary Manual. Consequently, it
is difficult to have precise particulars regarding the caste, occupation, education and
social status of members of the legislature elected on the Congress ticket. The matter is
so important that I thought of collecting the necessary information on these points relating to members of the Provincial Legislatures elected in 1937. I did not succeed in getting precise information about every member. There arc many whom I have had to leave as unclassified. But the information
I have been able to gather is I believe sufficient to warrant our drawing certain
definite conclusions.
As an answer to the question as to how the governing
class fared in the electoral contest of 1937, attention maybe drawn to Table 19 (see page 216) which shows
the proportion of Brahmins and Banias (landlords and
moneylenders) representing
the governing class and non-Brahmins and the Scheduled Castes representing the servile classes,
that were elected to the Provincial Legislative Assemblies on the Congress ticket.
Those, who do not know how small is the
proportion of the Brahmins to the
total population of Hindus, may not be able to realise the degree of over-representation which the Brahmins have
secured in the election. But there is no doubt that on comparison with their numbers the Brahmins have secured overwhelming representation.
Those, who "wish
to know what degree of representation the propertied classes, such as Banias,
businessmen and landlords obtained, may see the figures given in Table 20 (see page 217).
It shows how many Banias, businessmen and landlords were elected
on the Congress ticket. Here again the representation secured by the Banias, landlords and
businessmen is quite out of proportion to their numbers.
Such is the position of the governing class in
the legislatures constituted under the elections that took place in 1937. Some may say
that on the whole the governing classes were in a minority in the legislature. As against
this, it must be pointed out that the supremacy of the
governing class can be measured not by its position in the
legislature but by its ability to get possession of executive authority. An inquiry
into the class composition of the
Ministers is therefore very pertinent. Information on this point will be found in Tables 21 and 22 (see pages 218 and 219). A
glance at the tables [f.5] is enough to show that the Brahmins—the premier governing class— succeeded in capturing an overwhelming majority of seats in
the Cabinet.
Table 19
Classification
of Congress Members of Provincial Assemblies by Castes
|
|
||||||
Province |
Not Stated |
Total |
|||||
Assam ... |
6 |
21 |
1 |
5 |
33 |
||
Bengal ... |
15 |
27 |
6 |
6 |
54 |
||
31 |
39 |
16 |
12 |
98 |
|||
C. P.. ... |
28 |
85 |
7 |
- |
70 |
||
Madras... |
38 |
90 |
26 |
5 |
159 |
||
11 |
20 |
5 |
_ |
36 |
|||
39 |
54 |
16 |
24 |
133 |
|||
Table 20Classification
of the Congress Members of the
Provincial Legislatures in terms of Occuption |
Province |
Lawyers |
Land-lords |
Business-men |
Private Officials |
Money Lenders |
Nil |
Total |
||
Assam |
16 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
— |
— |
3 |
9 |
33 |
Bengal |
9 |
2 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
— |
16 |
4 |
54 |
Bihar |
14 |
4 |
56 |
6 |
3 |
— |
1 |
14 |
98 |
Central Provinces |
20 |
2 |
25 |
10 |
— |
— |
8 |
5 |
70 |
52 |
2 |
45 |
18 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
36 |
159 |
|
8 |
1 |
17 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
— |
36 |
Table 21
Composition of the Cabinets in the Congress Provinces [f.6]
Province |
Hindu
Ministers in the Cabinet |
||||||
|
|
|
Total |
Brahmins |
Scheduled
Castes |
|
|
Assam |
8 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
? |
Nil |
Brahmin |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
||
Bombay ... |
7 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Nil |
Brahmin |
Central Province |
5 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
Nil |
Brahmin |
Madras |
9 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
Brahmin |
Orissa |
3 |
Nil |
3 |
7 |
? |
? |
Brahmin |
6 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
Nit |
Nil |
Brahmin |
|
Table 22
Classification of Parliamentary Secretaries in Congress Provinces*
Province |
Total No. of Non-Hindu
Parliamentary Secretaries |
|
||||
|
|
|
Total |
Brahmins |
Non-Brahmins |
Scheduled Castes |
Assam |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Bihar |
8 |
Nil |
8 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
Bombay ... |
6 |
Nil |
6 |
1 |
5 |
Nil |
Central Provinces |
Nil |
Nit |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Madras |
8 |
1 |
9 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Nil |
3 |
1 |
? |
Nil |
|
United Province |
12 |
1 |
11 |
1 |
8 |
1 |
Compiled from Indian Information Issue of July 15, 1939. Question mark indicate inability to classify whether Brahmin or non-Brahmin.
In all the Hindu Provinces, the Prime Ministers were Brahmins. In all Hindu
provinces, if the non-Hindu
ministers were excluded, the majority of ministers were Brahmins and even parliamentary secretaries
were Brahmins.
What has been said so far makes two things as
clear as daylight. First is that there is in India a well
defined governing class, distinct and separate from the
servile class. Second is that the governing class is so powerful that though small in number in
the elections of 1987 it quite easily captured political
power and established its supremacy over the servile
classes. There remains only one more point for me to establish to be able to put my thesis
across. It is to show how far Congress was responsible for the victory of the governing
class in the elections of 1987. I know I must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
Congress is responsible for placing the governing class in
the position of supremacy over the servile class. For it
might be said that the Congress had nothing to do with
this, that even if the Congress was responsible for it the
result was an accident and that there was no intention on the part of the Congress to help the governing classes to win this position
of supremacy.
The first line of these suggested defences can be easily disposed of. It is probable that those who
raise this defence do not know the political colour of the
province to which the figures given in Tables 19,20,21 and
22 relate. If they knew it they would give up this line of defence. For they relate to what are called the Congress Provinces. In these provinces the majority
party was the Congress Party and the Cabinets were Congress
Cabinets. Obviously, if in these Congress provinces the governing classes succeeded in establishing their rule over the servile classes it is difficult to see how the Congress could
be absolved from responsibility for such a result. The
Congress is a well disciplined party. It had a plan for fighting the elections. In every
province there was established
a Parliamentary Board, the functions of which were (1) to
choose candidates for elections, (2) to decide upon the formation of Cabinets, and (8) to
control the actions of ministers. Over and above these Provincial Parliamentary
Boards there was a Central Parliamentary Board to superintend
and control the work of the Provincial Parliamentary Boards. It was an election which was
planned and controlled by the Congress. It is therefore
futile to argue that if the
governing classes captured power in the elections of 1987 in the Congress
Provinces the Congress is not responsible for the result.
The second line of defence is as fragile as the
first. Those who wish to argue that the dominance of the governing class in the Congress provinces is accidental and
not intentional should know that they are advancing an
argument which will not stand. I would invite the attention
of those who are inclined to treat it as an accident to consider the following
circumstances.
First let them consider the mentality of the
leading members of the Congress High Command who have guided the
destiny of the Congress in the past and who are at present running the affairs of the
Congress. It would be well to begin with Mr. Tilak. He is
dead. But while he was alive he was the most leading man in
the Congress and exercised
the greatest sway over it. Mr.
Tilak was a Brahmin and belonged to the governing class. Though he had acquired the
reputation of being the father of the Swaraj movement his antipathy to the servile classes
was quite well known. For want of space I will cite only one instance of his mentality towards
the servile classes. In 1918, when the non-Brahmins and the
Backward classes had started an agitation for separate representation in the legislature,
Mr. Tilak in a public meeting held in Sholapur said that he did not understand why the oil pressers, tobacco shopkeepers, washermen, etc.—that was
his description of the Non-Brahmins and the Backward classes—should want to go into
the legislature. In his opinion, their business was to obey
the laws and not to aspire for power to make laws.
Next after Tilak
I may take Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel. Here again, I will cite only
one instance to indicate Ins mentality. In 1942, Lord Linlithgow invited 52 important Indians
representing different sections of the people to discuss the steps that
might be taken to make the Central
Government more popular and thereby
enlist the sympathy and co-operation of all Indians in war
effort. Among those
that were invited were members belonging to
the Scheduled Castes. Mr.
Vallabhbhai Patcl could not bear the idea that the Viceroy should have invited such a crowd of mean men. Soon after the event, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel made a speech in Ahmedabad and said [f.7] :—
" The
Viceroy sent for the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha, he
sent for the leaders of the Muslim League and he sent for Ghanchis (oil pressers), Mochis (cobblers) and the rest."
Although Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel in his malicious and stinging words referred only to Ghanchis and Mochis his speech indicates
the general contempt in which he holds the servile classes
of his country.
It may be well
to know the reactions of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru is a Brahmin but he has the reputation of being non-communal in his outlook and secular in his beliefs. Facts do
not seem to justify the reputation he carries. A person
cannot be called secular if he, when his father dies,
performs the religious ceremonies prescribed by orthodox Hinduism at the hands of Brahmin priests on the
banks of the river Ganges as Pandit
Jawaharlal did when his father died in 1931. As to his being non-communal it is stated by no less a person than Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya that Pandit Nehru is very conscious of the fact
that he is a Brahmin.[f.8] This must come as a most astonishing fact to those who
believe the Pandit to have the reputation of being the most nationally minded Hindu leader in India. But Dr. Sitaramayya must be
knowing what he is talking about. More disturbing is the fact that in the United Provinces
from which he hails and over which he exercises complete
authority the ministers in the cabinet of the province were all Brahmins. Mrs. Vijaya Laxmi Pandit, the well-known sister of Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, also seems to be conscious of herself being Brahmin by caste. It is said
that at the All-India Women's Conference held in Delhi in December 1940, the question of
not declaring one's caste in the Census Return was discussed.
Mrs. Pandit disapproved [f.9] of the idea and said that she
did not see any reason why
she should not be proud of her Brahmin blood and declare
herself as a Brahmin at the Census. Who are these men ? What is their status ? Mr. Tilak has the reputation of being the father of the Swaraj movement. Mr. Patel and Pandit Nehru come
next in command in
the Congress hierarchy after
Mr. Gandhi.
Some might think
that these are the individual and private opinions of the members of the Congress High Command. But that would be an error.
Several cases could be pointed out in which such opinions
have been acted upon in election
campaigns run by the Congress.
'Ever since 1919
when Mr. Gandhi captured the Congress, Congressmen have looked upon the boycott of legislatures as one of the sanctions for making the British Government concede
the demand for Swaraj. Under this policy, every time there
was an election in which the Congress decided not to take part, the
Congress would not only refuse to put candidates on the Congress ticket but would carry on propaganda against any Hindu proposing
to stand for election as an independent candidate. One need not quarrel over the merits of such a policy. But what were the means adopted by the Congress
to prevent Hindus-standing on an independent ticket ? The means adopted were to make the legislatures objects of contempt. Accordingly, the Congress in
various Provinces started professions carrying placards
with these significant and telling words: " Who will
go in the legislatures ? Only
barbers, cobblers, potters and sweepers." In the processions
one man would utter the question as part of the slogan and the whole
Congress crowd would shout as answer the second part of the
slogan. When the Congressmen found that this was not enough to deter persons from standing
for the elections, they decided to adopt sterner measures.
Believing that respectable people would not be prepared to stand for election if
they felt certain that they would have to sit with barbers,
potters and sweepers, etc., in the legislatures, the Congress actually went to the extent
of putting up candidates from these despised communities on the Congress ticket and got them elected. A few illustrations of this outrageous
conduct of the Congress may be mentioned. In the 1920 election, the Congress elected a cobbler[f10] to the legislature of the Central Provinces. In the 1930
election they elected
in the Central Provinces two cobblers, [f.11] one milkman [f.12] and one barber, [f.13] and in the
Punjab one sweeper[f14]. In 1984, the Congress elected to the Central
Legislature a potter[f15]. It might be said that this is old history. Let me
correct such an impression by referring to what happened in
1948, in the Municipal elections in Andheri—a suburb of Bombay. The Congress put up a barber
to bring the Municipality in contempt.
What a mentality for a Governing class I What a
brazen facedness for a governing class to use the servile class for such an ignominious
purpose and yet claim to be fighting for their freedom! What a tragedy for the servile class to take pride in its
own disgrace and join in it voluntarily! The Sinn Fein Party in Ireland also
boycotted the British Parliament. But did they make such hideous use of their own
countrymen for effecting their purposes ? The campaign of
boycott of legislature which took place in 1980 is of particular interest. The elections
to the Provincial legislatures in 1980 in which these
instances occurred coincided with Mr. Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha champaign of 1930; I hope that the future (the official historian, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, has
failed to do so) historian of Congress while recording how Mr. Gandhi
decided to serve notice on the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, presenting him with a list of demands to be conceded before a
certain date and on failure by the Viceroy in
this behalf, how Mr. Gandhi selected Salt Act as a target for attack, how he selected Dandi as a scene of battle, how he decided to put himself at
the head of the campaign, how he marched out from his Ashram
in Ahmedabad with all pomp and ceremony, how the women of
Ahmedabad came out with Arthi
and applied tilak
(saffron mark) to his forehead wishing him victory, how Mr. Gandhi assured them that Gujarat alone would win Swaraj for India, how Mr. Gandhi proclaimed his determination by saying that he would
not return to Ahmedabad until he had won Swaraj, will not fail to record that while on the
one hand Congressmen were engaged in fighting for Swaraj, which they said they wanted to win in the name of and for the masses, on the other hand
and in the very year they were committing the worst outrages upon the
very masses by exhibiting them
publicly as objects of contempt to be shunned and avoided.
VI
This mentality of the Congress High Command
towards the servile classes is enough
to negative the theory that the supremacy of the governing classes in the
Congress Provinces was an
accident. There are other facts which also go to negative the
theory of accident and which arc set out in Table 23 (see
page 226). They relate to the educational qualifications of
the several classes of candidates selected by the Congress for fighting the elections. What does the table show ? It is crystal clear that in the case of the Brahmins the
relative proportion of graduates to non-graduates is far
higher than what it is in the case
of non-Brahmins and the Scheduled
Castes. Was this an accident or was this a matter of policy
? This sort of selection is marked by such a state of
uniformity that it could hardly be doubted that the Congress
High Command in selecting a candidate had a definite policy, namely, in the case of
Brahmins, to give preference
to & candidate who had the highest educational qualifications and in the case of the non-Brahmins and the Scheduled Castes, to give preference to a candidate who had the lowest educational qualifications.
The difference in terms of graduates and non-graduates does not really reveal the real
difference between the status and position of the Brahmin
candidates and non-Brahmin
candidates. The Brahmin candidates were not merely
graduates but they were seasoned politicians of high repute,
while the non-Brahmin graduates were raw graduates with nothing but the career
of second class politicians behind
them.
Why did the Congress select the best educated Brahmins as its candidates for election ?
Why did the Congress select
the least educated non-Brahmins and Scheduled Castes as its candidates for
election ? To this question
I can sec only one answer.
It was to prevent the non-Brahmins—the representatives
of the servile classes—from forming a ministry. It cannot
be that better educated
non-Brahmins were not
available. What the Congress seems to have done is deliberately to prefer an uneducated non-Brahmin to an
educated non-Brahmin.
Table 23
Clas
sification of Brahmin and Non-Brahmin Congress Partymen by Literaey
Castes |
Total |
Non-Graduates |
|||||
Assam |
6 |
5 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
15 |
2 |
— |
1 |
9 |
|
|
Brahmin |
15 |
14 |
1 |
|
|
|
Bengal |
27 |
21 |
4 |
— |
1 |
7 |
|
|
Scheduled
Castes |
6 |
3 |
— |
2 |
— |
|
|
Brahmin |
31 |
11 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
Non-Brahmin ... |
39 |
23 |
4 |
3 |
8 |
13 |
|
|
— |
1 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
— |
|
|
Brahmin |
39 |
15 |
|
2 |
2 |
|
54 |
15 |
— |
2 |
17 6 |
1 |
||
|
Brahmin |
38 |
16 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
13 |
Madras |
Non-Brahmin ... |
90 |
31 |
3 |
1 |
7 |
61 |
|
26 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
14 |
— |
|
|
Backward Class |
— |
— |
|
— |
||
|
Brahmin |
11 |
6 |
1 |
|
3 |
1 |
Orissa |
Non-Brahmin ... |
20 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
|
Scheduled Castes |
5 |
— |
- |
— |
5 |
|
And why ?
Because from the point of view of the governing class, the uneducated non-Brahmin has two
definite advantages over an educated
non-Brahmin. In the first place, he is likely to be more grateful to the Congress High
Command for having got him elected than an educated non-Brahmin is likely to be. In the
second place, the uneducated non-Brahmin is less likely to join hands with the educated non-Brahmins in the Congress Party and overturn the ministry
of the governing classes and form a non-Brahmin ministry. In the third place, the greater
the number of raw non-Brahmins in the Congress the lesser is the possibility of the
non-Brahmins in the Congress forming a competent and alternative
Ministry to the detriment of the governing class.
Given these circumstances, can there be any
doubt that the Congress " Fight for Freedom " is for the freedom of nobody except that of the
governing class ? Is there any doubt that the Congress is
the governing class and the governing class is the Congress ?
Is there any doubt that when Swaraj came in 1937 in the form of Provincial autonomy, the Congress deliberately and shamelessly put the governing
class in places of power and
authority ?
VII
The facts set out above prove beyond cavil that
the " Fight for Freedom "
launched by the Congress has ended in perverting the aim and object of Indian freedom and
that the Congress itself is a party to such a perversion. The
result is an enormity, the character of which it would not be possible for the foreigner
to realise unless he has an
adequate idea of the social outlook and social philosophy of the Governing Classes in India.
Starting with
the Brahmins who form a strong and powerful element in the governing class in India it is no exaggeration to say that
they have been the most inveterate enemies of the servile
classes, the Shudras (the old name for the non-Brahmins)
and the Untouchables who together constitute about 80 or 90 per cent. of the total Hindu
population of India. If the common man belonging to the servile clauses in India is to-day so fallen, so degraded, so devoid of
self-respect, hope or ambition, and so lifeless, it is
entirely due to the Brahmins and their philosophy. The cardinal principles of this philosophy of the Brahmins were six—to use a correct
expression, techniques of
suppression—(1) graded inequality
between the different classes; (2) complete disarmament of the Shudras And the
Untouchables; (8) complete
ban on the education of the Shudras and the Untouchables;
(4) total exclusion of the Shudras and the Untouchables
from places of power and authority; (5) complete prohibition against the Shudras and the
Untouchables acquiring property, and (6) complete
subjugation and suppression of women. Inequality is the official
doctrine of Brahmanism and the suppression of the lower classes aspiring to equality
has been looked upon by them and carried out by them,
without remorse as their bounded duty. There are countries where education did not spread beyond a few. But India is the only country where the intellectual class, namely, the
Brahmins not only made education their monopoly but declared acquisition of education by the lower classes, a crime punishable by cutting off of the tongue or by the pouring of molten lead in the ear of the
offender. The result is that for centuries the Brahmins
have denied the servile classes the right to education.
Even to-day the Brahmins exhibit the same hostility to
their education. Mr. Baines, the Census Commissioner for 1891 in discussing the
causes why education was not spreading among the masses
said :—
" The second influence antagonistic to a more general spread of literacy is the
long continued existence of a hereditary class whose object it has been to maintain their own monopoly of all book-learning as the chief
buttress of their social supremacy, Sacerdotalism knows that it can reign over none but an
ignorant populace. The opposition of the Brahmin to the
rise of the writer castes has been already mentioned, and the repugnance of both,
in the present day, to the diffusion of learning amongst the masses can only be
appreciated after long experience. It is true that the recognition by the British Government of the virtue and
necessity of primary education has met with some response on the part of the literate castes, but it is chiefly in the
direction of academic utterances,
which cannot, in the circumstances, be well avoided. It is welcome too, in its capacity
of affording the means of livelihood to many of these
castes, as they have to be engaged as teachers, and are bound accordingly to work up to
the State standard of efficient tuition. The real interest of the castes
in question is centred on secondary education, of which they almost exclusively are in a
position to reap the advantage."
The Congress politicians complain that the British
are ruling India by a wholesale
disarmament of the people of India. But they forget that disarmament of the Shudras and the Untouchables was the rule of law promulgated
by the Brahmins. Indeed, so strongly did the Brahmins
believe in the disarmament of the Shudras and the
Untouchables that when they revised the law to enable the Brahmins
to arm themselves for the protection of their own
privileges, they maintained the ban on the Shudras and the Untouchables as it was without lessening
its rigour. If the large
majority of people of India appear today to be thoroughly emasculated, spiritless, with no manliness, it is the result
of the Brahmanic policy of wholesale disarmament to which
they have been subjected for the untold ages. There is no social evil and no social wrong to which the Brahmin has not given his support. Man's inhumanity to man, such as
the feeling of caste, untouchability, unapproachability and unseeability
is a religion to him. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that only the wrongs of
man are a religion to him. The Brahmin has given his support
to some of the worst wrongs that women have suffered from in any part of the
world. In India widows were burnt alive as suttees and the Brahmin gave his fullest
support to the practice. Widows were not allowed to
remarry. The Brahmins upheld the doctrine. Girls were required to be married before 8 and the husbands were permitted to claim the right to
consummate the marriage at any time thereafter whether she
had reached puberty or not. The Brahmin defended the system. The record of the Brahmins as law givers for the Shudras, for the Untouchables and for women is the blackest as compared with the
record of the intellectual classes in other parts of the
world, For no intellectual class has prostituted its intelligence
for the sole purpose of inventing a philosophy to keep his
uneducated countrymen in a
perpetual state of servility, ignorance and poverty as the Brahmins have done in India.
Every Brahmin to-day believes in this philosophy of Brahmanism
propounded by his forefathers. He is an alien element in the Hindu Society. The Brahmin vis-a-vis the Shudras and the Untouchables is
as foreign as the German is to the French, as the Jew is to
the Gentile or as the White is to the Negro. There is a real gulf between him and the lower classes of Shudras
and Untouchables. He is not only alien to them but he is
also hostile to them. In relationship with them, there is in him no room for conscience and no call for justice.
The Bania is the worst parasitic class known to history. In him
the vice of money-making is unredeemed by culture or conscience. He is like an undertaker
who prospers when there is an epidemic. The only difference between the undertaker and the
Bania is that the undertaker does not create an epidemic
while the Bania does. He does not use his money for productive purposes. He uses it to
create poverty and more poverty by lending money for unproductive purposes. He lives on
interest and as he is told by his religion that
money-lending is the occupation prescribed to him by the divine Manu,
he looks upon money-lending as both right and righteous. With the help and assistance of
the Brahmin judge who is ready to decree his suits, the
Bania is able to carry on his trade with the greatest ease. Interest, interest on
interest, he adds on and on, and thereby draws millions of families perpetually into his net. Pay him as much as he may, the
debtor is always in debt. With no conscience to check him there is no fraud, and there is
no chicanery which he will not commit. His grip over the
nation is complete. The whole of poor, starving, illiterate
India is irredeemably mortgaged
to the Bania.
In every country there is a governing class. No country is free from it. But is there anywhere
in the world a governing class with such selfish, diseased and dangerous and perverse
mentality, with such a hideous and infamous philosophy of life which
advocates the trampling down of the servile classes to
sustain the power and glory of the governing class ? I know
of none. It is true that the governing classes in other countries do not readily admit
into their society those who do not belong to their class. But they do not refuse
admission to those who have risen to their level. Nor do they prevent any person from
rising to their level. In India the governing class is a
close corporation unwilling to admit anyone who does not belong to it by birth and ready
to use every means to prevent the servile classes from rising to their level.
VIII
There was a
governing class in France before the French Revolution. There was a governing class in Japan before the seventies of the nineteenth century when Japan decided to modernise
its constitution. In both countries the governing classes
realising that it was an hour of national crisis decided to shed
their ancient rights and
privileges in order to make the transition
from oligarchy to democracy smooth and easy.
In France, when the Revolution broke out and demanded equality the governing class in France voluntarily
came forward to give up its powers and its privileges and to merge itself in the mass of the nation, This is clear from what happened when the States-General was
called. The Commons got 600 representatives, while the
clergy and the Nobles got 300 each. The question arose how were
the 1,200 members to sit, debate and vote. The Commons
insisted upon the union of all the estates in one Chamber
and ' vote by head.' It was impossible to expect the clergy
and the Nobles to accept this position. For it meant the surrender of their most ancient
and valuable privileges. Yet a good part of them agreed to the demand of the Commons and gave France a constitution based upon liberty, equality and fraternity.
The attitude of
the governing classes in Japan during the period between
1855 to 1870, a period in which the Japanese people were transformed from a feudal society
into a modern nation—was even more self-sacrificing than the attitude of the
governing classes in France. As students of Japanese history know, there were four classes
in Japanese Society: (1) The Damiyos, (2) The Samurai, (3) The Hemin or the Common folk and (4) The Eta or the
outcasts, standing one above the other in an order of graded inequality. At the bottom were the Eta
numbering a good many thousands. Above the Eta
were the Hem in numbering about 25/30 millions.
Over them were the Samurai who numbered about 2 millions and who had the power
of life and death over the Hemin. At the apex were
the Damiyos or the Feudal
Barons who exercised sway over the rest of the three classes and
who numbered only 300. The Damiyos and the Samurai realised that it was impossible to transform this feudal
society with its class composition and class rights into a
modern nation with equality of citizenship. Accordingly the
Damiyos charged
with the spirit of nationalism and anxious not to stand in
the way of national unity,
came forward to surrender their privileges and to merge
themselves in the common mass of people. In a memorial submitted to the Emperor
on the 5th March 1869 they said [f.16] :—
" The Place where we live is the Emperor's land. The food that we
eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How then can we claim any property as our own ? We now reverently offer up our possessions and also our followers (Samurai as well as ' common folk ') with the prayer that the Emperor will take good measures for
rewarding those to whom reward is due, and for fining such
as do not deserve reward. Let imperial orders be issued for
altering and remodelling the territories of the various clans. Let
the civil and penal codes, the military laws down to the rules for uniform and for the
construction of engines of war, all proceed from the
Emperor. Let all affairs of the Empire, both great and small, be referred to him."
How does the
governing class in India compare in this behalf with the
governing class in Japan ? Just the opposite. Unfortunately,
the history of the struggle
of the servile classes in India against the governing class has not yet been written. But
those who know anything about it will know that the governing class in India has no
intention of making any sacrifice not even on the altar of Indian Freedom for which it is
thirsting. Instead, the governing class is using every means to retain them. For
this it is using two weapons. First is the weapon of
nationalism. Whenever the servile classes ask for reservations in the legislatures, in the Executive and in Public Services, the governing class raises
the cry of ' nationalism in danger.' What are these
reservations for ? To put it briefly they are intended to
provide floorings below which the governing class will not be able to push down the
servile classes in their struggle for existence. There, is
nothing sinister and nothing wrong in this demand for reservations. How does the governing
class react to them ? It loses no occasion to deprecate them and to ridicule them. People are led to believe
that if they are to achieve national freedom, they must maintain unity, that all questions
regarding reservations in the Legislatures, Executives and
the Public Services are inimical to national unity and that, therefore, for anyone interested in national freedom it is a sin to support-those
who ask for such reservation?. "That
is the attitude of the governing class in India. It stands
in glaring contrast with that of the governing class in Japan. It is a misuse of
nationalism. But the governing class does not feel any compunction for such misuse.
The second means employed by the governing
class is the writing of the lampoons and parodies calculated
to pour ridicule on the demand for reservations. Such lampoons are by no means few and far
between. Even the most respectable members of the governing
class do not mind indulging in such compositions, Even Dr. R. P. Paranjape, now India's High Commissioner for Australia, who
stands for an advanced type of liberalism, could not
withstand the temptation of trying his hand in writing such a parody#. Among the parodies
composed by members of the governing class his was the most colourful and had, when it
appeared, excited the greatest resentment among the servile classes.
#The parody written by Dr. R.
P. Paranjape appeared in a magazine called Gujarathi
Punch 1m May 1926 under the heading " A Peep into the Future." As a specimen
of this class of writing by members of the governing clam it is worth perusal. It is a
satire based on certain incidents which are imagined to have occurred under the principle
of communal reservation a. as the magazine if not easily available, I
reproduce it below with a view to rescue it from oblivion:—
' A PEEP INTO THE
FUTURE '
The following extracts are
taken from reports of Commissions, records of police courts cases, judicial trials.
Council Proceedings, Administration Reports, etc., issued between the year 1930-50 and are
published for the exclusive benefit of the reader of the Gujarati Punch.
I
Report of the
Royal Commission on the Goverment of India, 1930 :
We have given our closest consideration to the representations made on behalf of several communities in India. Taking the
figures of the last census
as our basis we can only give an approximate satisfaction
to all the claims made
before us, for it is not possible
to give an absolutely accurate solution to the problem of
constructing a machinery of Government unless every single person in the country
is made a member thereof, aa the numbers of the several
communities do not possess a
common measure. We lay down the number 2375 as the fundamental number in the
constitution and this number is divided into parts attached to the several communities as shown in
the schedule attached to our
report. The claims of each community will
henceforward be represented
by its proper number, and all appointments, memberships of various bodies, and in fact everything
in the country will be awarded according to the proportion given in the schedule wherever possible. The Viceroy's Executive Council will consist of 475
members selected as far as may be according to one-fifth the
numbers belonging to each community
and there members will hold office for one year so that each community will have attained its exact share of membership in five years. There will be 125
Judges in each High Court,
each judge holding office for one year, though according to
this arrangement, each section will have obtained its exact share only after the lapse of 19 years. The number of
other kinds of appointments will be determined on the same basis for the
accurate adjustment of all claims.
To allow for the proper
functioning of all bodies with these numbers as many existing Government buildings
as may be necessary may be pulled down and rebuilt so as to be of the proper size.
II
(Notification of the Government of India, 1932)
In accordance with the provisions of the Government of
India Act, 1931. His Majesty
the King Emperor has been
pleased to appoint the following 475 gentlemen as members
of the Executive Council of
the Governor-General :
267. Matadin Ramdin (caste Barber) member in charge
of the Surgical Branch of
the Medical Department.
372. Allabux Peerbux (Mahomedan Camel driver) in charge of the camel transport
division of the Army Department.
433. Ramaswamy (caste, Andhra Sweeper) in charge of the road cleaning branch of the P.W.D.
437. Jagannath Bhattacharya (Kulin Brahmin Priest) in charge
of the domestic section of the Registration Department.
(Letter to all Local Governments, 1934)
In response to a resolution
passed by the Legislative Assembly, with which the Government of India are in full agreement, I am directed to say that henceforward every appointment under
Government should go by rotation to each community
irrespective of the merits of the applicants.
(Notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, 1934)
The Government of Bombay will
proceed to make the following appointments in December. The applicants
for the several appointments should belong to the castes mentioned against each
according to the rotation fixed by Government Order No. , dated November 30th, 1934.
1. Chief
Engineer for Irrigation (Sind) :
Kunbi from North Kanara.
2. Professor of Sanskrit, Elphinstone
College, Bombay: Balachi Pathan from Sind.
3. Commandant of His Excellency's Bodyguard:
Marwari from North Gujarat.
4. Consulting Architect to Government: Wadari (wandering gypsy)
from the Deccan.
5. Director of Islamic Culture : Karhada Brabmin
6. Professor of Anatomy : (Grant Modical College) Mahomedan Butcher.
7. Superintendent of Yeravda. Jail : Ghantichor.
8. Two
organisers of prohibition: Dharala (Kaira District Bhil) (Panch Mahals).
VI
(Report of a Case from the High Court, 1935)
A.B.
(caate Teli) was charged with the
cold-blooded murder of his father
while he was asleep. The
judge summing up against the accused, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Before passing sentence
the judge asked the pleader for the accused if he had
to say anything. The pleader, Mr. Bomanji, said he agreed with the verdict but that according to Law the accused
could not be sentenced at all,
much lew sentenced to death, as during the current year seven Telis had already been
convicted and sentenced two of them with death, that
several other communities
bad not yet reached their
quota of convictions as given in the Government of India Act, who the Telis bad already reached theirs. His Lordship accepted the contention of
the defence pleader and acquitted the accused.
VII
(Extract from the ' Indian Daily Mail,' 1936)
Annaji
Ramchandra (Chitpavan Brahmin) was found wandering in the streets of
Poona with a long knife
attacking whomsoever he met. When brought up before the Magistrate
he was shown by the police to have been recently let off from the Mental Hospital. The Superintendent of
the Hospital in his evidence said that Annaji bad been in the hospital
as a dangerous insane for three years, but as there was the quota for the Chitpavanas and as the
inmates belonging to other
communities bad not finished
their year-quotas be could not keep him any
longer and show any special favouritism to the Chitpavans and he had therefore let him off according to Government Order No.
... in the Medical
Department. The Magistrate
ordered Annaji to be discharged.
VIII
( Extract from
the Report of the Administration of Jails in the Bombay Presidency, 1937)
In spite of every preeaution the numbers in the jails did not eorrespond to the quotas fixed for each community. The Superintendent had already asked for instructions from Government with a view to remedying
the discrepancy.
Resolution of Government: Government view with serious
displeasure this grave dereliction of duty on the part of the I. G. of prisons. Immediate steps should be taken to arrest and put in jail as many
members of the various com
munities as are required
to bring their quotas up to the proper level. If enough persons required cannot be caught, a sufficient number of in mates should be let off to bring down all to the
same level.
(Proceeding of the Legislative Council, 1940)
Mr. Chennappa
asked: Has the attention of Government
been called to the fact that class list of the recent M.A. Examination in Pali do not show the proper quota for mang-garudis ?
The Hon.
Mr. Damn Shroff (Minister of Education)
: The University Registrar reports that no candidate from among Mang-garudis offered himself for examination.
Mr. Chennappa: Will Government be pleased to atop this examination
until such a candidate offers
himself and if the University disobeys the order of Government to
take away the University grant and amend the University
Act ?
The Hon. Member: Government will be pleased to
consider the suggestion favourably.
(Cheers).
(Extract
from ' The Times of India,.' 1942)
The Coroner mr. . . . was suddenly called last evening to inquire into the death of Ramji Sonu at the J. J. Hospital as the result of a surgical operation. Dr. Tanu Pandav (caste Barber) deposed that lie had conducted the operation. He wished to open an abscess in the abdomen but his knife pierced the heart and the patient expired. Asked whether he had ever carried out any operation of this nature before, he said that he was appointed as the principal surgeon to the hospital only one day before as it was then the turn of his community and that he had never held a surgical instrument in his hand before except a razor for shaving. The jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure.
Th