Analytic Insight Net - FREE Online Tipiṭaka Research and Practice University and related NEWS through 
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org 
in
 105 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES
Paṭisambhidā Jāla-Abaddha Paripanti Tipiṭaka Anvesanā ca Paricaya Nikhilavijjālaya ca ñātibhūta Pavatti Nissāya 
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org anto 105 Seṭṭhaganthāyatta Bhāsā
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
January 2017
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
01/23/17
2117 Tue 24 Jan 2017 LESSONS http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mayawati-criticises-mohan-bhagwats-remarks-on-quota-regime-1220435 Mayawati Criticises Mohan Bhagwat’s Remarks on Quota Regime Mayawati Criticises Mohan Bhagwat’s Remarks on Quota RegimeEVIDENCE BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE ON FRANCHISE- Mohan Bagwat’s RSS is not a registered Political Party either. But puts only the 1% intolerant, volent, militant, shooting, lynching, lunatic, mentally retarded cannibal horrororist chitpawan brahmins as candidates in UP and all other states for his stealth,shadowy, discriminatory hindutva cult rashtra.
Filed under: General
Posted by: @ 10:08 pm





2117 Tue 24 Jan 2017


LESSONS



Mayawati Criticises Mohan Bhagwat’s Remarks on Quota Regime

New
Delhi: BSP supremo Ms Mayawati today attacked RSS chief Mohan
Bhagwat’s statement on review of quota regime and threatened a
nationwide protest against the Narendra Modi government if it “toed” the
line of the Sangh leader.

“If
the Narendra Modi government tries to toe the line of Bhagwat, if it
tries to tamper with the humanitarian provision of reservation as
enshrined in the Constitution, then BSP will launch a nation-wide mass
agitation which will prove costly to the government,” she said at a
press conference in New Delhi.

The
former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister said the RSS wants to push the
Dalits and the downtrodden back into the “dark ages of exploitation”
against which B R Ambedkar had to struggle and framed a Constitution
based on humanitarian considerations.

She
claimed Mr Bhagwat’s remarks have created a lot of anguish among the
Dalits and the backwards. “But so far neither the Narendra Modi
government nor the BJP have come out openly to reject the demand of the
RSS for which the BSP criticises them in strongest possible words.”

She “warned” the government of a nation-wide stir if it takes any step in favour of the RSS chief’s demand.

“We
did the same during the rule of Atal Bihari Vajpayee government when it
tried to end reservation in the garb of Constitution review. The then
government was forced to withdraw its agenda,” she said.

She
said BSP is concerned on the issue of review of the reservation policy
as the reins of the PM Modi government are in the hands of the RSS.

“The
government can any time definitely do something in one way or the other
to tamper with the arrangement of reservation. Therefore, we will keep a
vigil on the issue,” she said.

Dubbing
BJP and Congress as “extremely casteist”, Ms Mayawati said the two have
done little to improve the condition of the Dalits and the backwards in
the last several years.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement on review of quota regime.
Who
is he to poke his dirty nose in others dish. He is a dropout and not a
constitutional expert and has no business to talk of reservation
enshrined in the Modern Constitution of the Chief Architect Dr BR
Ambedkar who made reservations as a compromise for separate electorate.


https://drambedkarbooks.com/2015/01/27/27th-january-in-dalit-history-dr-ambedkar-before-southborough-commission-fight-for-separate-electorate/#more-2714


27th January in SC/ST History – Dr Ambedkar before Southborough Commission: Fight for separate electorate


27 January 1919: Dr. Ambedkar
submitted a memorandum and gave evidence before the Southborough
Commission. The memorandum was attached as a supplementary in the
commissions report.

In the examination of Dr. Ambedkar‘s
views the commission found that he had un-mistakenly presented the
division of Hindu society into touchables and untouchables. If a
particular community had a majority of votes in a constituency, there
was no need for that community to have separate communal representation.
If the untouchables had a majority of votes in a particular
constituency, he would not ask for communal representation. It was
because they were in a minority and would always remain so on a uniform
franchise that he asked for separate representation. He was opposed to
any system under which the representatives of the depressed classes were
drawn from other classes. His justification for asking for a low
qualification for franchise was that as a result of being untouchable,
the untouchables had no property; they could not trade because they
could not find customers. He remembered a case in which a
Mahar
caste woman was taken to the police court for selling watermelons. In
the mills in the Bombay Presidency the untouchables were not yet allowed
to work in the weaving department: in one case an untouchable did work
in the weaving department of a mill saying that he was a Mohammedan, and
when found out, he was severely beaten. The definition of an
“untouchable” as a person, who would cause pollution by his touch, was a
satisfactory one for electoral purposes. It was not the case that some
castes were considered to be untouchable in some districts and touchable
in others.

In the whole Bombay Presidency there was
one B.A. and 6 or 7 matriculates among the depressed classes. The
proportion of those who were literate in English was very small, but not
much smaller than in the case of the backward classes. The depressed
classes especially the Mahars and the Chamars, were fit to exercise the
vote. He would also give them the votes by way of education. He could
find at least 25 or more men amongst them who had passed the 6th or the
7th Standards of a High School, and, although the number was not large,
the 9 seats which he suggested for the depressed classes could be filled
from amongst them. Such a candidate in practical matters would be as
good as a graduate although the latter might be able to express himself
better.

He suggested large constituencies for the
depressed classes’; if such large constituencies had been accepted for
the Mohammedans he did not see why they were not practicable in the case
of the depressed classes.

In order to obtain the required number of
seats for the depressed classes he would reduce the number of seats
suggested by Government for the Mohammedans, from 38 to 10. This
reduction was justifiable, as on the population basis the Mohammedans
were only entitled to 20 per cent of the seats. He did not consider the
Congress League Pact as binding on all.

In the evidence he piointed out that
Untouchables were persons to whom certain rights of citizenship had been
denied. For instance, it was the right of every citizen to walk down
the street, and if a man were prevented from doing so, even temporarily,
it was an infringement of his right. Whether a man was prevented from
exercising his rights by law or social custom, made very little
difference to him. Government had recognised custom and persons
belonging to the untouchable classes were not employed in Government
service.

His view was that British rule in India
was meant to provide equal opportunities for all, and that in
transferring a large share of the power to popular assemblies,
arrangements should be made whereby the hardships and disabilities
entailed by the social system should not be reproduced and perpetuated
in political institutions. As regards the exact position at present, he
admitted that, for instance, at the Parel school which was meant for the
depressed classes, there were many higher-caste pupils, who came there
because it was a good school. Similarly as a professor he, being a
member of a depressed class, had pupils of all classes and found no
difficulty in dealing with his higher caste pupils. If the untouchable
classes were recognized by Government by the grant of seats, their
status would be raised and their powers would be stimulated. He was not
very particular about the number of their seats; all he wanted was
something adequate.

Dr. Ambedkar

British parliament had first passed the Government of India Act, 1919 on the recommendation of Southborough Commission to which Dr. Ambedkar submitted
the memorandum (glimpses above) and raised the issue of right to vote
and adequate representation. After this the British Government
constituted “Simon Commission” in the year 1928 and send to India to
review the provisions. Simon Commission promised to consider the demands
of the rights of this class sympathetically. M K Gandhi immediately
sensed that untouchables shall have their share in independent India,
which can destabilise the supremacy of Arya Brahmins. Gandhi and his
congress immediately gave a call of “Simon go Back” and Lathi Charge was
carried out under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai.

EVIDENCE BEFORE

THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE ON FRANCHISE

______________________________________________________________________

 

Examined
on: 27th January 1919

From
the Report of the Reforms Committee (Franchise) Vol. II, 1919
  

 

The
Committee was constituted as under: The Rt. Hon. Lord Southborough, G
.c.b., g.c.v.o., g.c.m.c.

(Chairman).

Sir
Frank G. Sly,
k.c.s.l, I.C.S. Sahibzada Aftab Ahmed Khan. The Hon’ble Babu Surendranath Banerjea. The Hon’ble Mr. M. N. Hogg. W. M. Hailey, Esq., c.s.I, c.i.e., I.C.S. The
Hon’ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri (Not present on 25-1-1919

and
27-1-1919). And the following added members : L. C. Crump, Esq., l.c.s. K. Natarajan, Esq. P. C. Tallents, Esq., l.c.s. (Secretary).

EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE

WRITTEN
STATEMENT

 


The most difficult and the most momentous question of Government (is) how to transmit the
force of individual opinion and preference into public action. This is the crux of popular
institutions.” So says Professor A. B. Hart. But this is only half the definition of popular
Government. It is therefore necessary to emphasize the other
half which is equal if not more in importance. As the
Government is the most important field for the exercise of individual capacities, it is in
the interest of the people that no person as such should be denied the opportunity of
actively participating in the process of Government. That is to say popular Government is
not only Government for the people but by the people. To express the same in a different way, representation of opinions by itself is not
sufficient to constitute popular Government. To cover its true meaning it requires personal representation as well. It is
because the former is often found without the latter that the Franchise Committee has to
see in devising the franchises and constituencies for a popular Government in India, it
provides for both, i.e., representation of opinions and representation of persons. Any
scheme of franchise and constituency that fails to bring this about fails to create a
popular Government.

2.
Success in this task will ultimately depend upon the accuracy of the de facto conception of the society which is to be given the
popular form of Government. De facto India was well portrayed by Lord Dufferin when he described it as a. .
.


Population composed of a large number of distinct
nationalities, professing various religions, practising diverse rites, speaking different languages, while many of them… still further separated from one another by discordant prejudices, by conflicting sources of usages, and
even antagonistic material interests. But perhaps the most patent characteristic of our
Indian cosmos is its division into two mighty political communities as distant from each other as the poles apart—On the one hand the
Hindus—with their elaborate caste distinctions—on the other hand, the Mohammedans—with their social equality. To
these must be added a host of minor nationalities most of them numbering
millions—almost as widely differentiated from one
another by ethnological or political distinctions as are the
Hindus from the Mohammedans, such as Sikhs, with their warlike habits and traditions and their enthusiastic religious beliefs, the Rohillas, the Pathans, the Assamese, the Baluchis and other
wild and martial tribes on our frontiers, the hill men dwelling in the folds of the
Himalayas, our subjects in Burma, Mongol in race and Buddhist
in religion, the Gonds, Mhars,
Bheels and other non-Aryan people in the centre and south of
India, and the enterprising Parsees, with their rapidly developing manufactures and commercial interests. Again, amongst these
numerous communities may be found, at one and the same moment, all the various stages of civilization through which mankind has passed from the pre-historic ages to the present
days.”

3.
Englishmen have all along insisted that India is unfit for representative Government
because of the division of her population into castes and creeds. This does not carry
conviction with the advanced wing of Indian politicians. When they say that there are also
social divisions in Europe as there are in India they are amply supported by facts. The
social divisions of India are equalled, if not outdone, in a country like the United
States of America. Corresponding to those in the former, we
have in the latter men bonded together in a criminal conspiracy and trust or combinations
that prey upon the public. Not only are there political sub-divisions but also industrial,
scientific, and religious associations, differing in their aims and their attitudes towards each other.
Apart from political parties
with diverse ends, social sets, cliques and gangs we find in the United States of America
more permanent divisions of the population such as the Poles, Dutch, Swedes, Germans,
Russians, etc., each with its own language, religious and moral codes and traditions. If
social divisions unfit a country for representative
Government, it should unfit the United States of America as much as India. But if with all
the social divisions, the United States of America is fit for representative Government, why not India ? Ask the
Indian politicians, so entrenched, it is difficult to
dislodge them, and show that the social divisions of India are of a different kind or
grant them their contention. Without these two there is no third alternative possible.

4.
In my opinion their contention cannot be granted for the social divisions of India do matter in politics. How they matter can be best
shown by understanding when they don’t matter. Men live in a community by virtue of the
things they have in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community are
aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge, a common understanding;
or to use the language of the Sociologists, they must be
like-minded. But how do they come to have these things in common or how do they become
like-minded? Certainly, rot by sharing with another, as one would do in the case of a piece of cake. To cultivate
an attitude similar to others or to be like-minded with others is to be in communication
with them or to participate in their activity. Persons do not become like-minded by merely
living in physical proximity, any more than they cease to be like-minded by being distant
from each other. Participation in a group is the only way of being like-minded with the
group. Each group tends to create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness,
but where there are more groups than one to be brought into political union, there would
be conflict among the differently like-minded. And so long
as the groups remain isolated the conflict is bound to continue and prevent the harmony of
action. It is the isolation of the groups that is the chief evil. Where the groups allow
of endosmosis they cease to be evil. For endosmosis among the groups makes
possible a resocialization of once socialized attitudes. In place of the old, it creates a
new like-mindedness, which is
representative of the interests, aims, and aspirations of all the various groups
concerned. Like-mindedness is essential for a harmonious life, social or political and, as
has just been shown, it depends upon the extent of communication, participation or
endosmosis. Applying this test to the divisions in India, we must pronounce upon them as
constituting an obstacle in the path of realizing a harmonious political life.

5.
The groups or divisions each with its set like-mindedness
that are sure to be in conflict may be given as follows :

(1)
Hindus ;

(2)
Mohammedans;

(3)
Christians;

(4)
Parsees,

(5)
Jews, etc.

Except
the Hindus the rest of the divisions are marked by such complete freedom of communication
from within that we may expect their members to be perfectly like-minded with respect to
one another. Regarding the Hindus, however, the analysis must be carried on a little
farther. The significant fact about the Hindus is that before they are Hindus they are
members of some caste. The castes are so exclusive and isolated that the consciousness of
being a Hindu would be the chief guide of a Hindu’s activity towards
non-Hindu. But as against a Hindu of a different caste his caste-consciousness would be
the chief guide of activity. From this, it is plain that as between
two Hindus, caste-like-mindedness is more powerful than the like-mindedness due to their both being Hindus. Thus
from within the Hindus, as from without, there is likely to be a conflict of like-minded
persons. There are some who argue that this conflict runs through
the whole gamut of the caste system.
But this is protesting too much. From the point of view of communication the Hindus, in spite of castes, divide themselves into two significant
groups—the touchables and the untouchables. The
           touchables have enough communication between them to enable us
to say that the conflict of like-mindedness
so far as they are concerned is not much to be dreaded. But there is a real difference and
consequent conflict between the like-mindedness of the
touchables and the untouchables. Untouchability is the
strongest ban on the endosmosis between them. Their complete isolation
accounts for the acuteness of the difference of like-mindedness.

The
real social divisions of India then are :

(1)
Touchable Hindus.

(2)
Untouchable Hindus.

(3)
Mohammedans.

(4)
Christians.

(5)
Parsees.

(6)
Jews.

6.
It will not do good to ignore these real divisions in devising a system of policy, if the
policy is to take the form of popular Government. But if the success of popular Government
depends upon how well the constituencies and franchises transmit the social forces and how well they secure personal
representation; we must first study the form which the
conflict between these groups will assume in an election.

7.
In a territorial constituency, which will group together voters
belonging to the above groups, a majority of votes will
declare a candidate to be a representative for the constituency in question. Now the
question arises : is such a candidate, a true representative
of the groups, covered by the territorial
constituency ? Is he a true mirror of the mind of the
constituency ? Is he a representative of all the interests
in the constituency ? To be concrete,
will a Hindu candidate represent Mohammedan interests ? At
this stage it must be recalled that the various divisions described above are held
together by a community of interests which are non-secular
or purely religious. We cannot say that each division is held together by a community of
interests which are secular or material. If so, then for secular purposes the groups will
be broken up. From the point of view of material interests, there are no such people as
Mohammedans, Parsees, Hindus, etc. There will be in each of these groups landlords,
labourers, capitalists, free traders, protectionists, etc., each of the groups having
community of interests which are material will be composed of Hindus, Mohammedans, Parsees, etc. Consequently, a Hindu
candidate can very well represent the material interests of the Mohammedans and vice versa. There is thus no conflict of material
interest in the main among the communities as such. If we suppose that religious interests
in future will occupy a subordinate place in the affairs of men, the secular interests of
a group can be well represented by a candidate from another group.

8.
From this point of view a territorial constituency will be sufficient for a popular Government. A little more
consideration will show that it will be sufficient for only one-half the definition of
popular Government. How true it is, will be shown presently.
In an electoral fight between the various groups in a territorial constituency the voters
will discriminate in favour of a candidate with whom they are in sympathy. But with whom
they will be in sympathy is determined for them in advance. Given two candidates belonging
to different groups but purporting to represent the same interest, the voters will mart their votes on the person belonging to the same community.
Any group yielding a large number of electors will have its own candidate elected. This
discrimination on the part of the voters, though it may not leave unrepresented the
interests of the members of the minor groups, leaves them without any chance of personal
representation.

9.
To those who are busy in devising schemes for the proper and
adequate representation of interests and opinions dilating
on the importance of personal representation is likely to seem idle. But personal
representation is not therefore unimportant. In recent times
Government for the people has claimed more attention
than Government by the people “. In fact there are instances to show that Government for the people
can exist in the best sense of the phrase without there being a Government by the people.”.
Yet all political theorists will unanimously condemn such a form of Government. And the
why of it is important to know. It will be granted that each kind of association, as it is an educative environment, exercises a formative
influence on the active dispositions of its members. Consequently, what one is as a person
is what one is as associated with others. A Government for the people, but not by the
people, is sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects; because it is by the reflex effects of association that one
can feel and measure the growth of personality. The growth of personality
is the highest aim of society. Social arrangement must
secure free initiative and opportunity to every individual
to assume any role he is capable of assuming provided it is socially desirable. A new rule
is a renewal and growth of personality. But when an association—and a Government is after all an association—is such that in it
every role cannot be assumed by all, it tends to develop the personality of the few at the
cost of the many—a result scrupulously to be avoided in
the interest of Democracy. To be specific, it is not enough to be electors only. It is
necessary to be lawmakers; otherwise who can be lawmakers
will be masters of those who can only be electors.

10.
Territorial constituencies are therefore objected to, and rightly,
on the ground that they do nothing to prevent this absurd
outcome. They erroneously suppose that electors will vote on
the programmes of the candidates without any regard for their persona. As a matter of
fact, the electors before they are electors are primarily members of a group. The persona
of the candidates does matter with them. Naturally,
therefore, as members of a group they prefer the candidate who belongs to their group to
another candidate who does not belong to their group though both of them claim to
represent the same interest. As a result of this preference the electors of a large group are destined to rise to a higher position of becoming
eventual lawmakers, while the electors of a smaller group for no fault of theirs are
doomed to a lower position of remaining electors. One crux of popular Government is the
representation of interests and opinions. The other crux is
personal representation. Territorial constituencies fail to create popular Government
because they fail to secure personal representation to members of minor groups.

11. If this is a correct analysis
as to how the social divisions operate to the prejudice of the political life of some
communities, never was a more improper remedy advocated to meet the situation than
proportional representation. Proportional representation is
intended to give proportionate representation to views. It presupposes that voters vote
for a candidate because of his views and not because of his persona. Proportional
representation is ill suited for the purpose in hand.

12.
We have therefore two possible methods of meeting the situation:
either to reserve seats in plural constituencies for those
minorities that cannot otherwise secure personal representation or grant communal
electorates. Both have their usefulness. So far as the representation of the Mohammedans
is concerned, it is highly desirable that they should participate in a general election
with seats reserved for them in plural constituencies. The angularity of the division that separates the Hindus and Mohammedans is already sharp and
communal representation, it may be urged, sharpens it the
more. Communal election, however, seems to be a settled fact, so far as the Mohammedans
are concerned and nothing is likely to alter it, even though alteration is likely to be
beneficial.

13.
But this argument is mainly intended to concern itself with the representation of the
Hindus in general, and of the untouchable Hindus in particular. The discussion of the
representation of the Hindus may be best introduced by a quotation which expresses the newer consciousness that has arisen in the
various Hindu groups. It is said :

“A
community may claim representation only on the ground of separate interests which require
protection. In India, such interests are of three kinds only :
either they arise out of religious antipathies which are pretty strong in India, or out of
the backward state of a community in educational matters, or out of the socio-religious disabilities to which a community may be
subject. Confining ourselves to the Hindu communities there are certain communities who,
besides being very backward,
are suffering under a great social tyranny. The untouchable
classes must have their own men in the Council
Hall to fight for the redress of their grievances. The non-Brahmins
as a class are subjected to the social and intellectual domination
of the Brahmin priesthood and may therefore rightly advocate separate
representation.”

14.
From this it will be seen that the-
new consciousness among the Hindus while acknowledging the separate interests of the
untouchables does not accept the position that the touchable
Hindus form a group by themselves. The new consciousness insists on dividing the touchable
group into Brahmins and non-Brahmins each with its own
separate interests. Separate electorates or reserved seats
in mixed electorates are demanded for the three groups in which the Hindus are divided.
Before dealing with the problems of the representation of the untouchables something will be said on the question of the Brahmins
and non-Brahmins.

15.
That the non-Brahmins are backward in educational
matters cannot be said in any way to be their special
interest. It is the general interest of all even of those
Brahmins who are educationally backward. “The intellectual and social domination of
the Brahmins is not a matter that affects the non-Brahmins alone. It affects all and it is therefore the interest of all. What remains then
as a special interest for the non-Brahmins to require their protection ?

The
case for separate representation for non-Brahmins fails because they cannot prove to have
a common non-Brahmin interest.

16.
But do they fail to secure personal representation ? This
can be best shown by reference to figures—

 

Group
1

 

 

Group
11

 

Caste
of Local Board voters

No.
of voters for the Local Boards of the districts of Belgaum, Bijapur and Dharwar

Total
population of the three districts

No.
of voters for the Local Boards of the districts of Ratnagiri
and Kolaba

Total
population of the two districts

1

2

3

4

5

Brahmins

4,600

85,739

4,477

89,786

Lingayats

12,730

933,123

….

,…

Marathas

1,074

255,526

3,667

446,077

Mahars

22

196,751

33

138,738

Mohammedans

661

295,838

1,169

106,273

Others
Total ..

4,241

1,065,821

2,837

1,016,930

 

23,328

2,832,798

12,183

1,797,804

 

Reducing
the above figures to the basis of a thousand we have the following interesting result:

 

Group
1

Group
11

Names
of Castes

Proportion
of population of a caste to every thousand of the population covered

Proportion
of
  voters of a caste to every thousand of the
population of the same caste

Proportion
of voters of a caste to every thousand of voters

Proportion
of population of a caste to every thousand of the population covered

Proportion
of voters of a caste to every thousand of the population of the same caste

Proportion
of voters of a caste to every thousand of voters

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Brahmins

 30.2

53.7

197-2

50-8

49-8

367-4

Lingayats

 329.4

13-6

545-7

 

 

 

Marathas

 90.2

4-2

46-0

248-8

8-2

300-9

Mahars

 69.5

0-1

0-9

74-5

0-2

2-7

Mohammedans

 104.4

2-2

28-3

59-2

10-9

95-9

Others

 376.2

3-9

181-3

562-2

2.,8

232-8

So
arranged, the conclusions to be drawn from these figures are highly important.

(1)
The Brahmins, given a uniform franchise for all, though a small minority so far as numbers are concerned becomes a majority so far as the total of
voters is concerned as is the case in Group II.

(2)
Though with an uniform franchise the non-Brahmin communities
like the Lingayats and Marathas do not fail to figure on the voters’ list, the proportion
of their voters to their population is insignificant as compared with the proportion which
the Brahmin voters bear to the Brahmin population.

17.
The proportion of the Brahmins to their voters is really extravagant. It is justified
neither by faith in them nor by their own numbers. The Lingayats though they can
legitimately complain that the proportion of their voters is small will succeed in securing personal representation. The Marathas though larger in
numbers than the Brahmins, besides the very small proportion of their voters suffer on the
voters’ list and very likely will fail to secure personal representation for themselves.

So
argued, the case for special provision of the Marathas can be sustained and should
be admitted.

18.
The question is in what form the provision should take. In my opinion such provision instead of taking the form of separate electorates of
reserved seats should take the form of a low-pitched franchise. The franchise for the non-Brahmin should be lower than that for the Brahmin. By this
arrangement the Marathas would
improve their position on the voters’ list and the altogether favoured position of the
Brahmin would be equalized. It is in the interest of all that the Brahmin should not play
such a preponderant part in politics as he has been doing hitherto. He has exerted a
pernicious influence on the social life of the country and it is in the interest of all
that his pernicious influence should be kept at a minimum in politics. As he is the most
exclusive he is most anti-social.

19.
Even the authors of the report on constitutional reforms are not in favour of a limited or
uniform franchise. They say, We consider that the
limitations of the franchise, which it is obviously desirable to make as broad as
possible, should be determined rather with reference to practical difficulties than to any
prior considerations as to the degree of education or amount
of income which may be held to constitute a qualification. It is possible that owing to
unequal distribution of population and wealth it may be necessary to differentiate the
qualifications for a vote not merely between provinces, but between different parts of the
same province (P. 147)
To this I should like to add that we should differentiate the qualifications for a vote
not merely between provinces or parts thereof but between communities of the same
province. Without this differentiation some communities with a small but wealthy or
educated population will secure more votes than a large community consisting of poor and
uneducated members. Uniformity in franchise should be dispensed with. An important result
will be that communal representation or reservation of seats for some non-Brahmin
communities who are now clamouring for it would be avoided.

20.
The untouchables are usually regarded as objects of pity but they are ignored in any
political scheme on the score that they have no interests lo protect. And yet their
interests are the greatest. Not that they have large property to protect from
confiscation. But they have their very persona
confiscated. The socio religious disabilities have
dehumanised the untouchables and their interests at stake are therefore the interests of
humanity. The interests of property are nothing before such primary interests.

21.
If one agrees with the definition of slave as given by Plato, who defines him as one who
accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct,
the untouchables are really slaves. The untouchables are so socialized as never to
complain of their low estate. Still less do they ever dream of trying to improve their
lot, by forcing the other classes to treat them with that common respect which one man
owes to another. The idea that they have been born to their lot is so ingrained in their
mind that it never occurs to them to think that their fate is anything but irrevocable.
Nothing will ever persuade them that men are all made of the same clay, or that they have
the right to insist on better treatment than that meted out to them.

22.
The exact description of the treatment cannot be attempted. The word untouchable is an
epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has untouchability
arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in the way of their material
well being. It has also deprived them of certain civil rights. For instance, in Konkan the untouchables are prohibited from using the public
road. If some high caste man happens to cross him, he has to be out of the way and stand
at such a distance that his shadow will not fall on the high caste man. The untouchable is
not even a citizen. Citizenship is a bundle of rights such as (1) personal liberty, (2)
personal security, (3) rights to hold private property, (4) equality before law, (5) liberty of conscience, (6) freedom of opinion and
speech, (7) right of assembly, (8) right of representation in a country’s Government and (9) right to hold office under the State. The
British Government by gradual growth may be said to have conceded these rights at least in
theory to its Indian subjects. The right of representation and the right to hold office
under the State are the two most important rights that make up citizenship. But the untouchability of
the untouchables puts these rights far beyond their reach. In a few places they do not
even possess such insignificant rights as personal liberty
and personal security, and equality before law is not always assured to them. These are
the interests of the untouchables. And as can be easily seen they can be represented by
the untouchables alone. They are distinctively their own interests and none else can truly
voice them. A free trade interest can be voiced by a Brahmin, a Mohammedan or a Maratha equally well. But none of
these can speak for the interests of the untouchables because they are not untouchables.
Untouchability constitutes a definite set of interests which the untouchables alone can
speak for. Hence it is evident that we must find the untouchables to represent their
grievances which are their interests and, secondly, we must find them in such numbers as
will constitute a force sufficient to claim redress.

23.
Now, will a general territorial electorate provided for the
adequate return of the untouchables to the law-making body ?
Referring back to the figures we find that the untouchables (represented in the table by the Mahars), though they formed
69.4 in every thousand of the population, did not claim even a voter from their class.
Under such circumstances it is impossible for them to elect their
own man in a general
electorate. On the other hand they must despair of any votes being cast by the touchable Hindus for
an untouchable candidate. The gradation of castes produces a
certain theological basis which cuts the untouchables both ways : in
the minds of the lower orders it creates a preference for the higher orders while it creates a contempt for the lower orders in the minds of the higher
orders. Thus the ascending scale of preference and the descending scale of hatred and
contempt beggars the untouchables both ways. Without giving a single vole to the
untouchables the touchables are sure to make a large draft
on the already meagre voting strength of the untouchables.

24.
So situated, the untouchables with the largest interests at stake will be the greatest
sufferers in a general territorial electorate. To give them an opening, special provision
shall have to be made for their adequate representation. But before a scheme can be outlined it is necessary to see how much is the untouchable population in the Bombay Presidency. The Census Report for the Bombay
Presidency for the year 1911 gives the following figures for
castes which cause pollution “:

 

Bhungis

93,691

Chamars,
Mochis, Machigars

306,478

Sochis,
Mhars, Holiyas Dheds

1,470,992

Mangs,
Madigs

274,037

Total

2,145,193

To
this must be added the Dhors amounting to

13,506

TOTAL
UNTOUCHABLES

2,158,699

 

 The following figures give the distribution of the
untouchables by districts:

 

District

Total
population 1911

Total
Hindu population

Total
untouchable Population

Percentage of untouchables to the total population

Percentage of untouchables to the
Hindu population

1

2

3

4

5

6

British
Districts (exclu ding Aden).-

19.628,477

14,920,267

1,627,980

8

10.9

1.
Bombay City

979,445

664,042

89,052

9

11.6

Northern
Division ..

3,685,383

3,117,263

245,050

6.6

7.8

2.
Ahmadabad

827,809

693,155

78,869

10

11.4

3.
Broach

306,717

192,935

22,390

7

11.6

4.
Kaira

691,744

598,164

41,497

5.9

6.9

5.
Panch Mahals

332,695

274,339

14,410

4

5

6.
Surat

654,109

571,745

36,509

5.6

6

7.
Thana

882,309

786,925

50,010

5.6

6

Central
Division ..

6,387,064

5,998.828

7,73,184

12

13

8.
Ahmednagar

945,305

855,676

116,929

12

13.6

9.
Khandesh (East) . .

1,034,886

902,131

112,391

10.8

.12

10.
Khandesh (West) . .

580,723

474,200

36,809

6

7.7

11.
Nasik

905,030

843,705

97,740

10.7

11

12.
Poona

1,071,512

991,725

113,118

12.4

13.3

13.
Satara

1,081,278

1,028,176

144,688

13

14

14.
Sholapur

768,330

703,215

125,063

16.7

18

Southern
Division..

5,061,150

4,502,708

385,470

7.6

8.5

15.
Belgaum

943,320

817,797

83,199

8.8

10.1

16.
Bijapur

862,973

757,542

80,501,

9

10.6

17.
Dharwar

1,026,005

872,885

52.540

5

6

18.
Kanara

430,548

383,624

10,767

2.4

2.9

19.
Kolaba

594,156

560,266

51,108

8.5

91

20.
Ratnagiri

1,203,638

1,110,594

107,354

8.9

9.7

Sind (British
Districts)

3,513,435

837,426

135,224

3.8

16

 

25. The total population of the Bombay
Presidency by the Census of 1911 (British districts only) is
19,626,477. Of this the untouchable population is 1,627,980 or 8 per
cent of the total. Assuming for the present the Bombay Legislative Council to consist of
100 elected members, the untouchables should have 8
representatives to represent them in the Council. If we
distribute one representative to every 200,000 of the people
(which is just the ratio of 100 representatives to the 20 millions of the population), then the untouchables can by right claim 8 representatives to
themselves. But the untouchables
of the Bombay Presidency may be allowed to elect 9 members in all. The election of one
additional member will be justified later on.

26.
Allowing them to elect 9 members, the constituencies which
are to elect them should be as follows:

The
various districts of the Presidency except the City of
Bombay and the Province of Sind
should be grouped together on a linguistic basis as follows:

 

 

I. Gujarathi-speaking districts II. Marathi-speaking
districts III. Kaparese-speaking districts

 

 

 

 

 

1. Ahmedabad

 78,969 1. Thana

 50,010 1. Dharwar   52.540

 

2. Broach

 22,390 2. Kolaba

 51,108 2. Bijapur   80,503

 

3. Kaira

 41,497 3. Ratnagiri

 107,354  3.
Belgaum   83,199

 

4. Panch Mahals

 14,410 4. Ahmednagar

 116,929  4.
Kanara   10,758

 

5. Surat

 36,509 5. KhandeshWest

 36,809

 

 

6. Khandesh East.

 112,391

 

 

7. Satara

 144,738

 

 

8. Poona

 148,118

 

 

9. Nasik

 96,740

 

 

10. Sholapur

 129,063

 

should elect:

 

 

 

Language District

Population in
each district

Population in  Number of constitency     the
constituency

Number of representatives to be elected by the constituency

1 2

3

4 5

6

 

 

 

 

Bombay City

89,052

89,052 1

1

 1. Ahmedabad

78,869

 

 

2. Broach I. Gujarathi  3. Kaira

22,390 41,497

193,675 11

1

1 4. Panch Mahals

14,410

 

 

 5. Surat

36,509.1

 

 

 1. Thana

50,010

 

 

 

2. Kolaba

51,108

 

208,472 III

1

 

3. Ratnagiri

107,354

 

 

 

 

4. Ahmednagar

116,929

 

 

 

11. Marathi

5. Khandesh East 6. Khandesh West

112,391 36,809

 

363,869 IV

2

 

7. Nasik

97,740

 

 

 

 

8. Satara

144,688

 

 

 

 

9. Poona

133,118

 

406,869 V

2

 

10. Sholapur

129,063

 

 

 

 

1. Belgaum

83,199

 

 

III. Kanarese

2. Bijapur 3. Dharwar

80,501  52,540

227,007 VI

 

 

4. Kanara

10,767

 

 

Sind

135,224

135,224 VII

1

Total number
of representatives to be elected by the untouchables

of the Presidency.

 

                   

 

 

These
9 elected members should form a constituency to elect one member from among themselves to represent the untouchables of this
Presidency in the Imperial Legislative Council.

28.
It may be objected that though 8 representatives are not in excess to the untouchable
population it may be in excess to the voting strength of untouchables. That the
untouchables are a poor community and that under the same franchise they yield per
thousand a smaller proportion of voters than other communities is a fact. But if the grave
position of the untouchables is admitted instead of
restricting their number of representatives, the aim should be to increase the number of
their voters, i.e., we must aim at lowering the franchise so
far as the untouchables are concerned.

29.
What the franchise should be is a very important question. There is a line of argument which urges that franchise should be given to those only who can be expected to make an intelligent use
of it. As against this view it can be said in the words of Prof.
L. T. Hobhouse that it is true that
the success of democracy depends on the response of voters to the opportunities given
them. But conversely the opportunities must be given in order to call forth the response.
The exercise of popular Government is itself all education.
enfranchisement itself may precisely be the stimulus needed
to awaken interest
   The ballot alone
effectively liberates the quiet citizen from the tyranny of the shouter
and the wire-puller. An impression of existing inertness alone is not a sufficient reason
for with-holding responsible
Government or restricting the area of suffrage.” Taking into consideration that
suffrage is an education and that there are groups with unequal distribution of wealth and
education among them and that these groups are not sympathetically
like-minded, the authors of the reports rightly argue that the case for uniformity of
franchise cannot be sustained.

30.
But in the case of the untouchables there are as few reasons
for curtailing the number of their representatives, as the reasons for widening their
electorate are many. If under a given franchise the untouchables do not muster strong as
electors, it is not their fault. The very untouchability attached
to their person is a bar to their moral and material progress. The principal modes of
acquiring wealth are trade, industry or service. The untouchables can engage in none of
these because of their untouchability. From an untouchable trader no Hindu will buy. An
untouchable cannot be engaged in lucrative service. Military service had been the monopoly
of the untouchables since the days of the East India
Company. They had joined the Army in such large numbers that the Marquis Tweedledale in his note which he submitted to the Indian Army
Commission of 1859 wrote.
  It should never be forgotten that India was conquered
with the help of the low-caste men.”. But after the
mutiny when the British were able to secure soldiers from the ranks of
the Marathas, the position of the low-caste men who had been
the prop of the Bombay Army became precarious, not because the Marathas
were better soldiers but because their theological bias prevented them from serving under
low-caste officers. The prejudice was so strong that even the non-caste British had to
stop recruitment from the untouchable classes. In like manner, the untouchables are
refused service in the Police Force. In a great many of the
Government offices it is impossible for an untouchable to get a place. Even in the mills a
distinction is observed. The untouchables are not admitted in Weaving Departments of the
Cotton Mills though many of them are professional weavers. An instance at hand may be
cited from the school system of the Bombay Municipality. This most cosmopolitan city ruled
by a Corporation with a greater freedom than any other Corporation in India has two
different sets of schools . one for the children of touchables
and the other for those of the untouchables., This in itself is a point worthy of note. But there is something yet more
noteworthy. Following the division of schools it has divided its teaching staff into untouchables and touchables. As the untouchable teachers
are short of the demand, some of the untouchable schools are manned by teachers from the touchable class. The heart-killing fun of it is that if there
is a higher grade open in untouchable school service, as there is bound to be because of a
few untouchable trained teachers, a touchable teacher can be thrust into the grade. But if
a higher grade is open in the touchable school service, no untouchable teacher can be
thrust into that grade. He must wait till a vacancy occurs
in the untouchable service !!! Such is the ethics of the
Hindu social life. Under it if the untouchables are poor,
the committee, it may be hoped, will not deny them representation because of their small
electoral roll but will see its way to grant them adequate representation to enable the
untouchables to remove the evil conditions that bring about their poverty. At present when
all the avenues of acquiring wealth are closed, it is unwise to require from the
untouchables a high property qualification. To deny them the opportunities of acquiring
wealth and then to ask from them a property qualification is to add insult to injury. Just
what sort of franchise and just what pitch are required to produce sufficient voting
strength from the untouchables ? In absence of data, I leave
it to the Committee to decide. It would be better to pitch the franchise so low as to
educate into political life as many untouchables as possible. They are too degraded to be
conscious of themselves. I only wish to emphasize that in deciding upon the representation of the untouchables the
Committee looking to their interests at stake will not let the extent of the electorate
govern the number of representatives, but will rather let the number
of representatives govern the extension of the electorate.

31.
In this connection it would not be improper to remind the Committee of Lord Morley who is reported to have said that the object of Government
was that the Legislative Councils should represent truly and effectively with reasonable
approach to the balance of real social forces, the wishes and needs of the communities
concerned. This could not be done by Algebra, Arithmetic,
Geometry or Logic, but by a wide outlook. He saw no harm as
to a compromise that while numbers should be the main factor
in determining the extent of representation modifying causes might influence the number of
representatives” It is therefore proposed that the untouchables
of the Bombay Presidency should be allowed to elect 9 members through the constituencies made up as above.
These 9 members will further form a constituency to elect one member from among themselves
to represent the untouchables in the Imperial Legislative Council leaving 8 members to
represent the untouchables in the Bombay Legislative
Council.

32.
Besides communal electorates there are other schemes in the field for the representation of the
untouchables. It would not be proper to close this statement without a word of comment on
those Schemes.

33.
The Congress has denied communal representation except in
the case of Mohammedans and it also denies the extensive use
of nomination ‘, the only way then left open to the
untouchables is to fight in a general electorate. Now this is as it should be if all were
equally free to fight. To educate the untouchables by Shahtras into pro-touchables and
the touchables into anti-untouchables and then to propose
that the two should fight out at an open poll is to betray signs of mental aberration or a
mentality fed on cunning. But it must never be forgotten
that the Congress is largely composed of men who are by
design political Radicals and social Tories. Their chant is that the social
and the political are two distinct things having no bearing on each other. To them the
social and the political are two suits and can be worn one
at a time as the season demands. Such a psychology has to be laughed at because it is too
interested to be seriously taken into consideration either for acceptance or for
rejection. As it pays to believe in it, it will die a hard
death. Starting from this unnatural premise the Congress activities have been quite
natural. Those who attend the Congress do not care to attend the National Social
Conference held in the same pandal. In fact those who attend
the Congress had once started a campaign to refuse the use of the pandal to the Conference
which was once refused the pandal in the city of Poona, the roosting place of the intelligentsia of our
Presidency, As the Congress is a non-national or antinational body, its views on communal
electorates are worthy of no serious consideration.

34.
The moderates in their separate meeting have been more kindly than just. They proposed the reservation of seats for
backward communities in plural constituencies. They have not specified the number of seats
for the untouchables. But the general sense of many enlightened moderates and others
kindly inclined is that one or two representatives of the untouchables in the Legislative Council would suffice. It is impossible
to agree with these gentlemen though they are entitled to gratitude for this much
sympathy. One or two representatives of the untouchables are as good as having none.

A
Legislative Council is not an old curiosity shop. It will be
a Council with powers to make or mar the fortunes of society. How can one or two
untouchables carry a legislative measure to improve their
condition or prevent a legislative measure worsening their
state ? To be frank, the untouchables cannot expect much
good from the political power to be given over to the high
caste Hindus. Though the power may not be used against the untouchables and one cannot be altogether sure of this, it may not be used for their
betterment. A Legislative Council may be sovereign to do anything it likes, but what it
will like to do depends upon its own character. The English Parliament, we may be certain,
though it is sovereign to do anything, will not make the
preservation of blue-eyed babies illegal. The Sultan will
not, though he can, change the religion of Mohammed just as the Pope will not, though he
can, overthrow the religion of Christ. In the same way legislature, mainly composed of
high caste men, will not pass a law removing untouchability,
sanctioning inter-marriages,
removing the ban on the use of public streets, public temples, public schools; in short, cleansing the person of the untouchables. This is
not because they cannot, but chiefly because they will not. A legislature is the product
of a certain social condition and its power is determined by
whatever determines society. This is too obvious to be denied. What may happen in future
can be guessed from what has happened in the past. The high caste men in the Council do
not like any social question being brought before the legislature, as may be seen from the fact of the Resolution introduced by the
Honourable Mr. Dadabhoy in 1916 in the Imperial Legislative
Council. That it was adversely criticized by many who claimed to evince some interest in
the untouchables is too well known to need repetition. But what is not well known is that
though the resolution was lost the mover was not pardoned; for
the very moving of such a nasty resolution was regarded as a sin. At a subsequent election
the mover had to make room for the Honourable Mr. Khaparde,
who once wrote in an article : “Those who work for the
elevation of the untouchables are themselves degraded.”.

Isn’t
this sympathy of the higher castes for the untouchables, sympathy with a vengeance ?

35.
Those who tell that one or two members would suffice for the untouchables fail to grasp
the true import of political right. The chief import of a political
right though technically summed up in the power to vote does
lie either in voting upon for laws or for those who make
laws; neither does it consist in the right to speak for or
against a certain measure nor in being able to say
yea or nay upon roll-call;
to be able to put into a ballot-box a piece of paper with a number
of names written thereon is an act which, like those mentioned above, of itself possesses no value which stamps it as inherently superior to many of the most ordinary
transactions of daily life. They
are educative but as much as any transaction is. The chief significance of suffrage or a political
right consists in a chance for active and direct participation in the regulation of the
terms upon which associated life shall be sustained. Now the terms upon which the
associated life between the touchables
and untouchables is carried on today are the most ignominious to the former and highly detrimental
to the latter. To make effective the capacities of a people there must be the power to fix the social conditions
of their exercise. If the conditions are too obdurate. it is in the interest of the untouchables as well as of the touchables that the conditions should
be revised. The untouchables must be in a position to influence the revision. Looking to
the gravity of their interests, they should get their representation as proposed in
proportion to their population. One or two is only kind but neither just nor sufficient.
As Lord Morley says in an earlier quotation, needs not
numbers should govern the extent of representations.’.

36.
Recently there is brought into the forefront a rival scheme for the representation of the
untouchables by the Depressed Class Mission. The scheme is known as co-option. The scheme
proposes that the representatives of the untouchables should be nominated by the co-option
of the elected members of the Council. Whether one should laugh or cry at the solicitude
of the Mission for the untouchables it is rather difficult to decide. To cry is to believe
that such a silly scheme would ever be adopted. The best way is to laugh it out. From the
scheme can be easily seen that what is sometimes called benevolent interest in others may
be an unwilling mask for an attempt to dictate to them what their good shall be, instead
of an endeavour to agree with them so that they may seek and find the good of their own
choice. The Mission, it must be said, was started with the intention of improving the
condition of the Depressed Classes by emancipating them from the social tyranny of their high caste masters. But the Mission has fallen on such
bad times that it is forced to advocate a scheme by which its wards or their representatives will be bounden slaves of their
past masters. The masters and the mission have thus met and evolved
a scheme which will keep the Depressed classes eternally depressed without any hope of
deliverance. Such tactics do not deceive the untouchables
ignorant as they are; much less will they deceive the
Franchise Committee. From another point of view the scheme
of the Mission is unacceptable. It is aggravating to see the Mission proposing a scheme
for the representation of the untouchables while persistently refusing to admit an
untouchable in its governing council. Interested and
officious as it is. its scheme must be rejected.

37.
Nomination even though by Government in itself to be preferred to the former kind of
nomination, is to be objected to from the standpoint of the untouchables. Apart from
restricting the freedom of the representatives it fails to give political education which
is the urgent need of all communities, much more of the
untouchables.

38.
At this stage we must consider the argument against communal representation. The first
argument raised by the authors of the report is to the
effect that the history of self-government among the
nations who have developed it is decisively against
communal representation. But on an earlier page the authors say that the difference of
caste and creeds must be taken into account as
presenting a feature of Indian Society which is out of harmony with the ideas on which
elsewhere in the world representative institutions rest” (page 97). In writing the
former the later analysis of the situation must have vanished from their minds, else we
must say that the authors could hold two opposing views at the same time. Presented in
juxtaposition, the authors must be expected to agree to communal representation on the score of an exceptional remedy required to meet an
exceptional situation.

39.
Another and chief argument against communal representation is that it will perpetuate social divisions. The fun of it is that those who uphold the social divisions are the loudest in their
expression of this adverse argument. The committee will
please note that those who are the opponents of communal representation on this score are
also the staunchest opponents of Mr. Patel’s Inter-Caste Marriage Bill
as a caste-breaking bill. The sincerity of those who bring forward this argument is
seriously to be doubted. But as even the authors of the report have put it as a second
count against communal representation, this particular argument must be met if possible.

Does
communal representation perpetuate social divisions ? If you
look upon communal representation as making electoral Colleges
of social divisions, the criticism may be said to be valid.
This is true only if it is presupposed that the divisions are no real divisions and that they don’t matter. This is as false a pre-supposition
as that of inviting India which is made when it is said that Englishmen are unsocial.
Communal Representation is a device to ward off the evil effects of the divisions. To those who, while agreeing to this
particular benefit of communal representation, object to it on the score that it perpetuates the
divisions it can be shown that there is another perspective from which it can be said that communal representation instead of perpetuating the social divisions is one of
the ways of dissolving them.

40.
While communal electorates will be co-terminus
with social divisions their chief effect will be to bring together men from diverse castes
who would not otherwise mix together into the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council will thus become a new cycle of participation in which the
representatives of various castes who were erstwhile isolated and therefore anti-social will be thrown into an associated life. An active participation
in an associated life, in its turn, will not leave unaffected the dispositions and
attitudes of those who participate. A caste or a religious group to day is a certain
attitude. So long as each caste or a group remains isolated its attitude remains
fossilized. But the moment the several castes and groups begin to have contact and co-operation with one another the resocialization
of the fossilized attitude is bound to be the result. If the Hindus become resocialized with regard to their attitude towards Mohammedans, Christians, etc., and the Mohammedans,
Christians, etc., become resocialized with regard to their attitudes towards the Hindus,
or the touchable Hindus with regard to the untouchables,
caste and divisions will vanish. If caste is an attitude and it is nothing else, it must
be said to be dissolved when that particular attitude symbolizing the caste is dissolved.
But the existing set attitude representing the diverse
castes and groups will be dissolved only if the diverse groups meet together and take part in a common activity. Such changes of disposition and
attitudes will not be ephemeral but will, in their turn influence
associated life outside the Council Hall. The more opportunities are created for such conjoint
activities the better. The resocialization will
then be on a larger scale and bring about a speedier end of caste and groups. Thus those
who condemn communal representation on the score of perpetuating the existing divisions
will welcome it, on reflection, as a potent solvent for
dissolving them.

41.
The importance and necessity of communal and adequate representation of untouchables is beyond question. The depth of emotion with which the untouchables speak on this topic must have been easily gauged when the untouchables of
the Madras Presidency told Mr. Montague that there would be
bloodshed if Home Rule for India was not accompanied by
communal representation to the untouchables. The authors of the Report however are actuated
by a faith in the intelligentsia
to effect all reforms for the elevation of the untouchables from permanent degradation and ostracism. They say they find the educated Indian organizing effort not for
political ends alone but for various forms of public and social service.” As the authors have connived at the demands of the untouchables on this score it is but proper to investigate
whether their faith is well grounded. On education and its social value the words of Joseph Addison are not too stale to be
recalled. He said, There can be no greater injury to
human society than that good Talents among men should be held Honourable to those who are
endowed with them without any regard how they are applied. The Gifts of Nature and the
Accomplishments of Art are valuable
but as they are exerted in the interest of virtue or governed by the Rules of Honour, we
ought to abstract our minds from the observation of an excellence in those we converse
with, till we have taken some notice or received some good information of the Disposition
of their Minds, otherwise they make us fond of those whom our reason and judgment will tell us we ought to abhor.”

42.
Statistics will show that the intelligentsia and the Brahmin caste are exchangeable terms.
The disposition of the intelligentsia is a Brahmin disposition. Its outlook is a Brahmin
outlook. Though he has learned to speak in the name of all,
the Brahmin leader is in no sense a leader of the people. He is a leader of his caste at
best, for he feels them as he does for no other people. It is not intended to say that
there are no Brahmins who feel for the untouchables. To be
just, there are a few more moderate and rational Brahmins who admit the frightful nature
of the institution of untouchability in the abstract and
perceive the dangers to society with which it is fraught. But the great majority of the
Brahmins are those who doggedly deny the horrors of the
system in the teeth of such a mass of evidence as never was brought to bear on any other
subject and to which the experience of every day contributes its immense amount; who, when they speak of freedom, mean the freedom to oppress
their kind and to be savage, merciless and cruel, and whose inalienable rights can only
have their growth in the wrongs of the untouchables Their delicate gentility will neither
bear the Englishmen as superior nor will it brook the untouchables as equal. I will not tolerate a man above me, and of those below
none must approach too near sums up the true spirit
of their social as well as political creed. Those who speak against the anti-social spirit
of the Brahmin leaders are often cautioned that in their denunciation they do not pay
sufficient regard to the existence of the first class of Brahmin leaders. This is no doubt
the case. Noble but very rare instances of personal and pecuniary sacrifice may be found
among them just as may be found to be tender in the exercise of their unnatural power.
Still it is to be feared that this injustice is inseparable from the state of things with
which humanity and truth are invoked to deal. The miserable state of the untouchables is
not a bit more tolerable because some tender hearts are bound to show sympathy, nor can
the indignant tide of honest wrath stand still because in its course it overwhelms a few who are comparatively innocent among a host of guilty.

43.
The trend of nationalism in India does not warrant us to believe that the few who are
sympathetic will grow in volume. On the other hand it is the host of guilty that time is
sure to multiply. With the growth of political agitation, the agitation for social reform
has subsided and has even vanished The Prarthana Samaj, the Brahmo Samaj with their elevating influence have become things of the
past. The future has few things like these in store. The
growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessarily lead to
liberalism. It may lead to the justification and conservation of class interest; and instead of creating the liberators of the down-trodden,
it may create champions of the past and the supporters of the status quo. Isn’t
this the effect of education so far? That it will take a new course in future ceteris paribus, there is no ground to believe. Therefore, instead
of leaving the untouchables to the mercy of the higher castes, the wiser policy would be to give power to the untouchables themselves who are anxious,
not like others, to usurp power but only to assert their natural place in society.

44.
This gigantic world war however motivated, has yielded what
is known us the principle of self-determination which is to govern international relations
of the future. It is happy to note that the pronouncement of the 20th August 1917 declared
the application of the principle to India—a principle which enunciates the rule that every people must be free to
determine the conditions under which it is to live. It would be a sign of imperfect
realization of the significance of this principle if its application were restricted to
international relations, because discord does not exist between nations alone, but there is also discord between classes from within a nation.
Wittingly our Indian politicians in their political speeches and harangues hold to the de jure conception of
the Indian people. By the de jure conception
they conceive of the Indian people as by nature one and emphasize the qualities such as
praiseworthy community of purpose and welfare, loyalty to public ends and mutuality of sympathy which accompany this unity. How the de jure and de facto conceptions conflict, it is hoped, the
committee will not fail to realize. As an instance the
following may be noted. The moral evil to the Indian people of their conquest and
subjugation by the British is a theme which is very attractive to the Brahmin politicians,
who never fail to make capital out of it. The moral evils were once portrayed by John
Shore in his “Notes on Indian Affairs” written in
1832. The late Honourable Mr. Gokhale once voiced the same
feeling when speaking about the excessive costliness
of the foreign agency “. He said :

“There
is a moral evil which, if anything, is even greater. A kind of
dwarfing or stunting of the Indian race is going on under the present system. We must live
all the days of our life in an atmosphere of inferiority and the tallest of us must bend, in order that the exigencies of the existing system may be satisfied. The upward impulse, if
I may use such an expression, which every schoolboy at Eton and Harrow may feel, that he
may one day be a Gladstone or Napoleon or a Wellington, and which may draw forth the best
efforts of which he is capable is denied to us. The full height to which our manhood is capable of rising can never be reached by us
under the present system. The moral elevation which every self-governing people feel cannot be felt by us. Our administrative and
military talents must gradually disappear, owing to sheer disuse till at last our lot as
hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own country. is stereotyped.”.

45.
I beg to invite the attention of the Committee whether these sentiments which have been
voiced by a Brahmin (a noble Brahmin to be sure) to the disgrace of the British
bureaucracy cannot be more fittingly voiced by the untouchables to the disgrace of the
Brahmin oligarchy ? May it be said to the credit of the
bureaucracy, that it has disproved the charge of being wooden and shown itself susceptible
to feeling by proposing changes in the system of the Government which has dwarfed the
personality of those for whom it was devised. But can the
oligarchy claim anything half as noble? Their belief is that the Hindu social system has
been perfected for all time by their ancestors who had the superhuman vision of all eternity
and supernatural power for making infinite provision for
future ages. This deep ingrained ethnocentrism has prevented
a reconstruction of Hindu Society and stood in the way of a
revision of vested rights for the common good. A farce of a
conference for the removal of untouchability
was enacted in March 1918 in Bombay. Doctor Kurtakoti, the Shankaracharya of Karvir fame,
though promised to attend, left for Northern India just a
day or two before the conference met, on some urgent business. Mr. Tilak is credited with a short speech at the
conference which has for the good luck
of Mr. Tilak remained unreported. But this was only lip sympathy shown to hoodwink the untouchables for when the draft of the proclamation
removing untouchability was presented to Mr. Tilak. It is
known on creditable evidence that he
refused to honour it with his signature.

46.
Here is disclosed a patent disharmony within a nation and therefore
a proper field for the application of the principle of
self-determination, if the advanced classes are clamouring for its application to India and if the powers
that be have sanctioned it, however partially, to ward off
the future stunting and dwarfing of the Indian people, may not the untouchables with justice claim its benefit in their
own interest? Admitting the necessity or self-determination for the
untouchables communal representation cannot be withheld from them, for communal representation and self-determination are but two different, phrases
which express the same notion.

Supplementary Written Statement of Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar.

1.         
The
object of this supplement is primarily, to show how the scheme of representation which I have recommended for the untouchables “of the Bombay Presidency in my previous statement can be fitted into the scheme of representation proposed by
the Government of Bombay for the
composition of the Legislative Council.

  1. First
    I wish to propose certain changes in number of seats assigned by the Government to the various main constituencies. The several changes proposed
    are indicated in the following table :

 

 

Distribution
of Seats among

By
Govt

By
me

(1)
Zamindars and Jahagirdas of Sind

1

1

(2)
Sardars of Gujarat

1

1

(3)
Sardars of Deccan

1

1

(4)
Bombay University

2

2

(5)
Europeans

4

4

(6)
Sindh Hindus

3

4

(7)
Mohammedans

18

10

(8)
Six cities

18

17

(9)
Twenty-six Districts of the Presidency

52

60

Total

100

100

 

2.    
As regards the method of election proposed for I, II,
III, IV & V of the above constituencies, I agree with
the Government.

  1. The
    Government has reserved 3 seats for the Sindh Hindus. I have
    proposed 4 for them, one of
    which should be earmarked for the untouchables of Sind to be
    filled by a communal electorate.
  2. For
    the 6 cities I have reserved 17 seats. Of this I propose
    that Bombay should be given 10. Of the 10 seats the untouchables of the
    city should be given I seat, also to be filled by a communal
    electorate.
  3. So
    far it is shown how the Sind untouchables and their fellows
    in Bombay can be provided for. In addition to these two seats the untouchables of the
    Presidency proper, excluding the city of Bombay, should be given 7 seats. The
    constituencies among which these 7 seats are to be distributed, I have indicated on page 7 of my previous statement. It is in this
    fashion that the 9 seats for the untouchables
    of the Presidency should be carved out. The Government of Bombay finds difficulty in
    defining the Depressed Classes.

The
difficulty is not a real difficulty, for, for all practical purposes the untouchables
and the Depressed classes are
the same. Knowing full well the degradation
of the untouchables, the callousness of the Bombay Government is appalling. By refusing to make
provision for the representation of the Depressed classes the Government have deliberately thrown
the gravest of interests into the greatest of perils—a calamity which I am sure the Committee will avert.

6.     Having taken out 7 seats from the 60, I propose to distribute the remaining 53 among
the touchable population of the 26 districts as follows:

I
allow, though cannot quite agree with the Government, that
the 7 districts of Sind should elect 14 members on
the basis of 2 per district. But in the case of the 19 districts which are outside Sind
£ feel that a two-member constituency
will not suffice, principally because the touchable Hindu
population is not homogeneous. In. order to satisfy the aspirations of the.
subdivisions of the touchable Hindus
we must at least in some cases give up the principle of a
two-member constituency. [91 (2)] To distribute the 39 seats
among the 19 districts in
question I should first group
the districts on linguistic basis as follows :
   

 

       Districts 

 

Touchable Hindu Population

(1)
Ahmedabad

614,286

(2)
Broach
                                                             

170,545

(3)
Kaira
                                                            
    

556,667

(4)
Panch Mahals
                                        

259,929

(5)
Surat
                                                     

535,236

Total

21,36,663

                                   

II
marathi

 

Touchable
Hindu Population

(1)
Thana

736,915

(2)
Kolaba

509,158

(3)
Ratnagiri

1,003,240

(4)
Ahmednagar

738,747

(5)
Khandesh East

789,740

(6)
Khandesh West

437,391

(7)
Nasik

745,965

(8)
Satara

883,488

(9)
Poona

858,607

(10)
Sholapur

574,152

Total

72,77,403

 

III
kanarese

 

Touchable
Hindu Population

(1)
Belgaum

734,598

(2)
Bijapur

677,041

(3)
Dharwar

820,345

(4)
Kanara

372,857

Total

26,04,841

                                       

Grand
total of touchable Hindus in the 19 Districts concerned 12,018,907.

 

Of
the 39 seats to be distributed I should give 8 seats to the Gujarati
23 to the Marathi and 8 to
the Kanarese districts.

The
actual constituencies may be as under:

Language
District

Population in each constituency

 

Number
of the constituency

Number
of representatives to be elected by the constituency

1

2

3

4

I
Gujarathi

  1. Ahmednagar

614,286

I

2

  1. Broach 

727,212

II

3

  1. Kaira
  1. Panch Mahals

614,286

III

3

  1. Surat

II
Marathi

1.
Thana

1,246,073

IV

4

2.
Kolaba

3.
Ratnagiri

1,003,240

V

2

4.
Ahmednagar

1,484,712

VI

3

5.
Nashik

6.
Khandesh East

1,227,131

VII

3

7.
Khandesh West

8.
Satara

883,488

VIII

*

9.
Poona

858,607

IX

3

10.Sholapur

574,152

X

3

III
Kanarese

1.
Belgaum

1,411,639

XI

4

2.
Bijapur

3.
Dharwar

1,193,202

XII

4

4.
Kanara

 * No Figure is shown against the Satara district in
the original.

 

Total
number of representatives for the 19 districts 39.

The Principal advantage of such a grouping is that the demand of the Marathas and the Lingayats
can be satisfied without resorting to communal representation. There is no sacredness
about a district that can plead against transcending its
boundaries for political purposes when such a transcending enables us to minimise the
field for communal representation.

8.
I have differed from the Government of Bombay on the number
of representatives to be given to the Mohamedans. Of the
two bases, population and the Congress Scheme, the Government of Bombay have preferred the
latter without even making a show of reasoning. In doing so they
have contravened the most considered opinion of the authors of the Reforms Scheme who say
that there is no basis other than that of negotiation for
the proportion of Mohammedan representation fixed in the
Congress League Scheme. It must be urged that looking to
its composition the Congress is a body whose vicarious
promises can never be binding on the vast population who have played no part in its
deliberations.

9.
The Mohammedans of
this presidency form 20 per cent of the total population. On the basis of population
therefore, they are entitled only to 20 seats out of the 100 elective seats. But tempering
population by need I think 24 seats ought to satisfy them. Any excess over this cannot be
tolerated, as it will be at the cost of the other
communities. Of these 24, the 7 districts of Sind on the basis of 2 per
district will return 14 Mohammedans. The other 10 seats may be distributed as follows:

 

 

Population

 

No.
of Representatives

(1)
Bombay City

 

179,246

 

2

(2)
Northern Division

 

342,696

 

2

(3)
Central Division

 

367,509

 

3

(4)
Southern Division

 

457,997

 

3

 

 

 

Total

10

 

I
should prefer linguistic grouping to divisional grouping
even in the case of the Mohammedans. I fail to see how a
Mohammedan from Thana can have any
affiliation with a Mohammedan of Surat
though both the districts come under the same division. To group together for political
purposes people who are ethnically different is absurd

Mr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar called and examined

Sir
Frank Sly: He was a professor in the Sydenham College of Commerce.
He graduated from the Elphinstone College, Bombay and was an M.A. of the Columbia University, New York. He was a Mahar
by caste and his statement dealt largely with the depressed classes.

So
far as the Hindu community was concerned, he divided them into two
classes, touchables and
untouchables; a distinction which was unmistakable in
practice and more convenient than a division by castes. He recognised also a distinction
between Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but this was of less
importance. The distinction between Brahmin and non-Brahmin
would not make much difference as regards the attitude of
voter to a candidate, but the distinction between touchable
and untouchable would make a very great difference.

He
did not think there was any necessity for communal electorates for non-Brahmins as, if three-member constituencies were granted
according to his supplementary statement, non-Brahmins
would get some seats. From the figures in Para 16 of his
written statement he intended to
show that on a uniform property qualification, a community
which might be in a minority with regard to population might be in
a majority in respect of voting strength;
some of the communities that he had mentioned might be minorities in the whole province, but
majorities in particular districts. They should try to
reduce the fever for communal representation as much as possible, and he therefore recommended three-member constituencies.

He
wanted a variation of the franchise for the untouchables; but, if constituencies with more than two members were adopted, the lowering of the franchise became a matter of
less importance. In the case of a small constituency, for instance, the Marathas,
it might be desirable to group
them.

If
a particular community had a majority of votes in a constituency,
there was no need for that
community to have separate communal representation. If the untouchables had a majority of votes in
a particular constituency, he would not ask for communal representation. It was because they were in a minority and would always remain so on a
uniform franchise that he asked for separate representation. His justification for asking
for a low franchise was that as a result of being untouchable, the untouchables had no
property; they could not trade because they could not find
customers. He remembered a case in which a Mahar woman was taken to the police court for
selling watermelons. He was not aware of the conditions outside the Bombay Presidency. In
the mills in the Bombay Presidency the untouchables were
not yet allowed to work in the weaving department: in one
case an untouchable did work in the weaving department of a mill saying that he was a Mohammedan, and when found out, he was severely
beaten. The definition of an
untouchable as a
person, who would cause pollution by his touch, was a
satisfactory one for electoral purposes. It was not the case that some castes were considered to be untouchable in some districts
and touchable in others.

According
to his classification the untouchables amounted to about 8 per
cent of the population, but he had proposed 9 seats which would make about 9 per cent. These seats should be filled by separate communal election.

He
was aware that the untouchable in his present state of development was in no way qualified to give a
responsible vote. In the whole Bombay Presidency there were one B.A.
and 6 or 7 matriculates among the
depressed classes. The proportion of those who were literate in English was very small,
but not much smaller than in the case of the backward classes. The depressed classes especially the Mahars and the Chamars, were fit to exercise
the vote. He would also give them the votes by way of education. He could find at least 25 or more men amongst them who had passed
the 6th or the 7th Standards
of a High School, and, although the number was not large, the 9 seats which he suggested for the
depressed classes could be filled from amongst them. Such a candidate
in practical matters would be as good as a graduate although the latter might be
able to express himself better.

He
was opposed to any system under which the representatives
of the depressed classes were drawn from other classes. Representation by missionaries, for
instance, would not be representation in any real sense of the word.

He
suggested large constituencies for the depressed classes’; if such large constituencies had been accepted for the Mohammedans he did not see why
they were not practicable in
the case of the depressed classes.

In
order to obtain the required number of seats for the
depressed classes he would reduce the number of seats
suggested by Government for
the Mohammedans, from 38 to
10. This reduction was justifiable,
as on the population basis the Mohammedans were only entitled to 20 per cent of the seats. He did not consider the Congress League
Pact as binding on all.

Mr.
Hailey: Untouchables were persons to whom certain
rights of citizenship had been denied.
For instance, it was the right of every citizen to walk
down the street, and if a man were prevented from doing so, even temporarily, it was an infringement of his right. Whether a man was prevented from exercising his
rights by law or social custom, made very little difference
to him. Government had recognised custom and persons belonging io the untouchable classes
were not employed in Government service.

He
suggested the lowering of the franchise qualification in. She case of the depressed
classes, as it should be the object of the Government to
improve the lot of the community.

From
an examination of the Census Report he would say that the
problem of touchable and non-touchable
existed in Sind, as although the greater proportion of the
population there were Mohammedans, there were also Hindus. If special provision was going
to be made for the Hindus in Sind, he did not see why special
provision should not be made for the depressed classes also.

Mr.
Banerjee: The depressed classes would be able to find 9 men
who were able to speak English and who could represent their cause in the Council. The 6th standard was the class below the
matriculation, and a man who
had passed the 6th standard would be able to follow the debates in the Council. They had
about 25 persons who had passed that standard.

For
political purposes there would be no difficulty in defining the
depressed classes, who were the same as the untouchables. No one who was not a member of a
depressed class would think of trying to make himself out to be such, though such a thing
might occur in the case of the backward classes.

He
would accept 8 representatives as the minimum for the depressed classes, and they should
be elected. Nominated representative would not be in a position adequately to represent
their interests.

Mr.
Crump: He had no experience of the problem and conditions
of the untouchable classes in Sind, and could not say anything with regard to the
statement that there was only one such class, viz., the Bhangis, there- His information
was that the total Hindu population in Sind was 837,426, and the total of the untouchable
classes was 135,224.

Mr.
Natarajan: His view was that
British rule in India was meant to provide equal opportunities
for all, and that in transferring a large share of the
power to popular assemblies, arrangements should be made
whereby the hardships and disabilities entailed by the social system should not be
reproduced and perpetuated in political institutions. As regards the exact position at
present, he admitted that, for instance, at the Parel school which was meant for the depressed classes, there
were many higher-caste pupils, who came there because it was a good school. Similarly as a
professor he, being a member of a depressed class, had pupils of all classes and found no
difficulty in dealing with his higher caste pupils. If the untouchable classes were recognized by Government by the grant of
seats, their status would be raised and their powers would be stimulated. He was not very
particular about the number of their seats; all he wanted
was something adequate.

 

The
following persons were called and examined at Bombay
between 24 January 1919 and 31 January 1919:

(1) L. C. Crump, Esq., I.C.S. representing the
Government of Bombay (24 January 1919).

(2)
The Hon’ble Major C. Fernandez,
M. D. I. M. S. (Temporary) (24 January
1919).

(3)
The Rev. Cannon D. L. Joshi, representing the Bombay Indian
Christian (Protestant) Association (24 January 1919).

(4)
Lieut. Colonel H.A.J. Gidney, I.M.S. (Retired),
representing the Anglo-Indian
Empire League (Bombay Branch) (25 January 1919).

(5)
Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy,
BART (25 January 1919).

(6)
W. A. Haig Brown, Esq.,
representing the Bombay Branch of the European Association
(25 January 1919).

(7)
Mr. D. D. Sathaye, representing the Bombay National Union
(25 January 1919).

(8)
The Hon’ble Mr. M. A. Jinnah (25 January 1919).

(9)
Mr. C. N. Wadia,
representing the Bombay Millowners’ Association (27 January
1919).

(10)
Mr. V. R. Shinde (27 January
1919).

(11)
Mr. K.R. Koregawkar, representing the Maratha
Aikyecchu Sabha (27 January
1919).

(12)
The Hon’ble Mr. M. A. Jinnah (27 January 1919).

(13)
Mirza Ali Muhamad Khan (27 January 1919).

(14)
Bhimrao R. Ambedkar Esq. (27
January 1919).

(15)
The Hon’ble Mr. V. J. Patel
(28) January 1919).

(16)
The Hon’ble Sahib Hiralal Desaibhai
Desai (28 January 1919).

(17)
The Hon’ble Mr. Chunilal V. Mehta
(28 January 1919).

(18)
A. B. Latthe, Esq. (28
January 1919).

(19)
The Hon’ble Mr. R. P. Paranjpye (28 January 1919).

(20)
Mr. V. R. Kothari, representing the Deccan Ryots’ Association (28 January 1919).

(21) Messrs. Umar Sobhani and S. G. Banker,
representing the Bombay Home Rule League (29 January 1919).

(22)
H. N. Apte Esq.,
representing the Deccan Sabhn, Poona
(23 January 1919).

(23)
N. C. Kelkar Esq. (29 January 1919).

(24)
The Hon’ble Mr. D. V. Belvi (29 January 1919).

(25)
Rao Bahadur Thakorram Kapilram (29 January
1919).

(26)
N. M. Joshi Esq., Member of the Servants of India Society (30 January 1919).

(27)
The Hon’ble Rao Bahadur Venkatesh Srinivas Naik (30 January
1919).

(28)
Pandit R. Chikodi (30 January 1919).

(29)
The Hon’ble Mr. S. J. Gillum and Sir Thomas Birkett, Kt., representing the Bombay Chamber of Commerce (30 January
1919).

(30)
Mr. Ambalal Sarabhai with
Mr. Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Dalpatbhai representing the Ahmadabad Millowners’
Association (30 January 1919).

(31)
Devidas Madhavji Thakersey, Esq., representing the Bombay
Native Piece-goods Merchants Association (30 January 1919)

(32)
The Hon’ble Mr. Ghulam Hussain
Hidayatulla (31 January 1919).

(33)
Mr. B. V. Jadhav (31 January
1919).

(34)
The Hon’ble Sir Pazulbhoy Currimbhoy, Kt., C.I.E. (31 January 1919).

(35)
H. P. Mody Esq. (31 January
1919).

(36)
Sardar V. N. Mutalik representing the Inamdars’
Central Association, Sarara (31 January 1919).





27 January 1948: Sixth session for one day of consituent assembly on 27 Jan 1948.

 

27 January 1967: With the
facilitation of Nanak Chand Rattu (Personal Secretary of Dr. Ambedkar)
Savita Ambedkar (wife of Dr. Ambedkar) got the help from then Home
Minister Shri Y B Chavan, Lt Governor and Deputy Commissioner and then
she was permitted to enter the Bunglow at 26 Alipore Road, New Delhi
(currently Parinirvan Bhoomi) – the residence of Dr. Ambedkar
[1].

After the death of Dr. Ambedkar
on the intervening night of 5th and 6th December 1956, Savita Ambedkar
had stayed in the Bunglow at 26 Alipore road where her husband (Dr.
Ambedkar) breathed the last till 1967. One Madan Lal Jain had purchased
the bunglow in 1966 and allowed her to stay in the rooms already in her
possession. Madan Lal quietly moved an application in the court to evict
her. And on 20 January 1967 when she went to Alwar district, Madan Lal
Jain and his son-in-law entered the premises with three bailiffs and 20
muslce men and forcilbly opened the rooms and a big store room taking
bunch of keys from Mohan Singh, her servant, who was listening, at ease,
the radio programme.

On 27 January 1967 with the facilitation
of Nanak Chand Rattu she got the help from Home Minister Shri Y B
Chavan, Lt Governor and Deputy Commissioner. Consequently she was
permitted to enter the premises and have access to rooms in her
possession. The worst was that Madan Lal Jain and his the men had
removed countless precious documents and important parpers, nicely kept
in several racks of the big store room and recklessly dumped in an open
yard opposite the shed in a shameful manner, not realizing the
importance of these. In addition the store room had contained
manuscripts of Dr. Ambedkar’s  several wirtings which at that time were
unpublished. But many of them were destroyed and reduced to waste paper
due to the reckless handling and rain the same night.

Subsequently the papers were taken into
the custody by the custodian of the High Court of Delhi. Then these were
transferred to the Administrative General of the Government of
Maharashtra. Later Shri J B Bansod, an Advocate from Nagpur, filed a
suit against the Government in the High Court at Nagpur making a simple
request seeking permission from court to allow him to publish the
unpublished writings of Dr. Ambedkar or to direct the Government to
publish the same. Government then formed a committee called as Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee and appointed
Vasant Moon as the Officer on Special Duty. The work of Dr. Ambedkar
then got publilshed due to the unrelenting hard work of Vasant Moon. But
alas! much of the work cannot see the light of the day as it was lost
between 20 and 27 January 1967.

 

27 January 2000: The then President of India K R Narayanan praised the Constitution of India.

In an address in the central hall of the
parliament to mark the golden jubilee of the Indian republic and the
constitution, asked whether “it is the constitution that has failed us
or we who have failed the constitution”. The president was responsing
criciallty to the appointment of a commission “to comprehensively review
the Constitution of India in the light of the experience of the past 50
years and to make suitable recommendations.” Unlike the presidential
speech at the opening of parliament, President Narayanan’s golden
jubilee address as not written for him by the government of the day. It
represented an autonomous presidential perspecgive. Widely reported and
much discussed in print and the electronic media, the speech deepened
and accelerated a national debate on the constitution that the NDA
government’s action had provoked.  In his address, The President praised
the work of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
on the Indian constitution and cautioned against attempts to change its
basic structure, concurring with Dr. Ambedkar’s preference for
accountability and responsibility over the stability of the
government[2].

The context of the above incident is that
the then NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajapyee considering to
appoint a commission to review the Consitution of India.

[1] Nanak Chand Rattu, Last Few Years of Dr. Ambedkar,  book

[2] Full text of the President’s golden
jubilee speech is given in Seminar, magazine issue 487, March 2000, pg
88-90. Accounts of debate surrounding the speech are given, inter alia,
in Asian Age, newspaper, 28 January 2000.


Mohan Bagwat’s RSS is not a registered Political Party either. But
puts only the 1% intolerant, volent, militant, shooting, lynching,
lunatic, mentally retarded cannibal horrororist chitpawan brahmins as
candidates in UP and all other states for his stealth,shadowy,
discriminatory hindutva cult rashtra.

For violating the
Constitution he and his avathars must be booked and treated in mental
asylum for their hatred, anger, jealousy, delusion which are defilement
of mind and madness till they are totally treated with Vipassana
Mediatation.

They are attempting to instigate SC/STs/Minorities
of the Sarvajan Samaj as they are terrorists having belief in violence
to win elections.

A US-based risk management and consulting
company has put the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its category of
‘Threat Group’ and called it “a shadowy, discriminatory group that
seeks to establish a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu Nation.”

Terrorism
Watch & Warning provides intelligence, research, analysis, watch and
warning on international terrorism and domestic terrorism related
issues; and is operated by OODA Group LLC that helps clients identify,
manage, and respond to global risks and uncertainties while exploring
emerging opportunities and developing robust and adaptive strategies for
the future

http://www.hindustantimes.com/…/story-EqYMsbzYbhDOtNgocROfN…

Ban RSS, India’s no 1 terror organisation: Former Maharashtra cop

comments (0)