Thus Spoke Ambedkar, Quotations of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs
propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Otherwise both will wither and
die.

The conception of secular state is derived from
the liberal democratic tradition of west. No institution which is maintained
wholly out of state funds shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction
irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the
state or any other body.

If you ask me, my ideal would be the society
based on liberty, equality and fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile and
full of channels of conveying a change taking place in one part to other
parts.

To idealise the real which more often than not
is full of inequities is a very selfish thing to do. It is only when a person
finds a personal advantage in things, as they are that he tries to idealise the
real. To proceed to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It
means perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is settled is settled
for all times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No society with ideal
conscience has ever accepted it. On the contrary whatever progress in improving
the terms of associated life between individuals and classes has been made in
the course of history, is due entirely to the recognition of the ethical
doctrine that whatever is wrongly settled is never settled and must be
resettled.

A historian ought to be exact, sincere and
impartial; free from passion, unbiased by interest, fear, resentment or
affection; and faithful to the truth, which is the mother of history the
preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion, the witness of the past, the
director of the future.

In every country the intellectual class is the
most influential class. This is the class which can foresee, advise and lead. In
no country does the mass of the people live the life for intelligent thought and
action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is no
exaggeration in saying that the entire destination of the country depends upon
its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest and independent, it
can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis
arises. It is true that the intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means
and the use of a means depends upon the ends which an intellectual person
pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he may easily be a rogue.
Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to
help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a gang of crooks
or a body of advocates of narrow clique from which it draws its
support.

My final words of advice to you are educate,
agitate and organize; have faith in yourself. With justice on our side I do not
see how we can loose our battle. The battle to me is a matter of joy. The battle
is in the fullest sense spiritual. There is nothing material or social in it.
For ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is battle for freedom. It
is the battle of reclamation of human personality.

You must abolish your slavery yourselves. Do not
depend for its abolition upon god or a superman. Remember that it is not enough
that a people are numerically in the majority. They must be always watchful,
strong and self-respecting to attain and maintain success. We must shape our
course ourselves and by ourselves.

Untouchability shuts all doors of opportunities
for betterment in life for Untouchables. It does not offer an Untouchable any
opportunity to move freely in society; it compels him to live in dungeons and
seclusion; it prevents him from educating himself and following a profession of
his choice.

Untouchability has ruined the Untouchables, the
Hindus and ultimately the nation as well. If the depressed classes gained their
self-respect and freedom, they would contribute not only to their own progress
and prosperity but by their industry intellect and courage would contribute also
to the strength and prosperity of the nation. If the tremendous energy
Untouchables are at present required to fritter away in combating the stigma of
Untouchability had been saved them, it would have been applied by them to the
promotion of education and development of resources of their nation as a whole.

There have been many Mahatmas in India whose
sole object was to remove Untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed
classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas
have gone but the Untouchables have remained as Untouchables.

From the point of view of annihilation of caste,
the struggle of the saints did not have any effects on society. The value of a
man is axiomatic and self-evident; it does not come to him from the gilding of
Bhakti. The saints did not struggle to establish this point. On the contrary
their struggle had very unhealthy effect on the depressed classes. It provided
the Brahmins with an excuse to silence them by telling them that they would be
respected if they attained the status of Chokhamela.

It is mischievously propagated by Hindu
scriptures that by serving the upper classes the Shudras achieve salvation.
Untouchability is another appellation of slavery. No race can be raised by
destroying its self-respect. So if you really want to uplift the Untouchables,
you must treat them in the social order as free citizens, free to carve out
their destiny.

What you have lost others have gained. Your
humiliations are a matter of pride with others. You are made to suffer wants,
privations and humiliations not because it was pre-ordained by the sins
committed in your previous birth, but because of the overpowering tyranny and
treachery of those who are above you. You have no lands because others have
usurped them; you have no posts because others have monopolised them. Do not
believe in fate; believe in your strength.

Learn to live in this world with self-respect.
You should always cherish some ambition of doing something in this world. But
remember that the age of selflessness has ended. A new epoch is set in. All
things are now possible because of your being able to participate in the
politics and legislature of your country.

Some people think that religion is not essential
to the society. I do not hold this view. I consider the foundations of religion
are essential to the society. At the roots of Hindu social system lies a Dharma
as prescribed in the Manusmriti. Such being the case I do not think it is
possible to abolish the inequality in the Hindu society unless foundations of
the Smriti-religion is removed and a better one laid in its place. I however,
despair of Hindu society, being able to reconstruct itself on such a better
foundation.

My religious conversion is not inspired by any
material motive. This is hardly anything I cannot achieve even while remaining
an Untouchable. There is no other feeling than that of a spiritual feeling
underlying my religious conversion. Hinduism does not appeal to my conscience.
My self-respect cannot assimilate Hinduism. In your case change of religion is
imperative for worldly as well as spiritual ends. Do not care for the opinion of
those who foolishly ridicule the idea of conversion for material ends. Why
should you live under the fold of that religion which has deprived you of honor,
money, food and shelter?

I tell you, religion is for man and not man for
religion. If you want to organise, consolidate and be successful in this world,
change this religion. The religion that does not recognise you as a human being,
or give you water to drink, or allow you to enter in temples is not worthy to be
called a religion. The religion that forbids you to receive education and comes
in the way of your material advancement is not worthy of the appellation
‘religion’. The religion that does not teach its followers to show humanity in
dealing with its co-religionists is nothing but a display of a force. The
religion that teaches its followers to suffer the touch of animals but not the
touch of human beings is not a religion but a mockery. The religion that compels
the ignorant to be ignorant and the poor to be poor is not a religion but a
visitation!

The basic idea underlying religion is to create
an atmosphere for the spiritual development of the individual. This being the
situation, it is clear that you cannot develop your personality at all in
Hinduism.

In Hinduism, conscience, reason and independent
thinking have no scope for development.

It is your claim to equality which hurts them.
They want to maintain the status quo. If you continue to accept your lowly
status ungrudgingly, continue to remain dirty, filthy, backward, ignorant, poor
and disunited, they will allow you to live in peace. The moment you start to
raise your level, the conflict starts. Untouchability is not transitory or
temporary feature; it is eternal, it is lasting. Frankly it can be said that the
struggle between the Hindus and the Untouchables is a never-ending conflict. It
is eternal because the religion which assigns you the lowest status in society
is itself divine and eternal according to the belief of the so-called high caste
Hindus. No change warranted by change of time and circumstances is
possible.

I have never claimed to be a universal leader of
suffering humanity. The problem of the untouchables is quite enough for my
slender strength. I do not say that other causes are not equally noble. But
knowing that life is short, one can only serve one cause and I have never
aspired to do more than serve the Untouchables.

Every man must have a philosophy of life, for
everyone must have a standard by which to measure his conduct. And philosophy is
nothing but a standard by which to measure.

Negatively I reject the Hindu social philosophy
propounded in Bhagvad Gita, based as it is on the Triguna of Sankhya Philosophy
which in my judgement is a cruel perversion of the philosophy of Kapila, and
which had made the caste system of graded inequality the law of Hindu social
life.

Positively, my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in
three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one however say that I
have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My
philosophy has its roots in religion and not in political science. I have
derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha.

Indians today are governed by two different
ideologies. Their political ideal set in the preamble of the Constitution
affirms a life of liberty, equality and fraternity. Their social ideal embodied
in their religion denies them.

Unlike a drop of water which loses its identity
when it joins the ocean, man does not lose his being in the society in which he
lives. Man’s life is independent. He is born not for the development of the
society alone, but for the development of his self.

Freedom of mind is the real freedom. A person
whose mind is not free though he may not be in chains, is a slave, not a free
man. One whose mind is not free, though he may not be in prison, is a prisoner
and not a free man. One whose mind is not free though alive, is no better than
dead. Freedom of mind is the proof of one’s existence.

What is the proof to judge that the flame of
mental freedom is not extinguished in the mind of person? To whom can we say
that his mind is free. I call him free who with his conscience awake realises
his rights, responsibilities and duties. He who is not a slave of circumstances
and is always ready and striving to change them in his flavor, I call him free.
One who is not a slave of usage, customs, of meaningless rituals and ceremonies,
of superstitions and traditions; whose flame of reason has not been
extinguished, I call him a free man. He who has not surrendered his free will
and abdicated his intelligence and independent thinking, who does not blindly
act on the teachings of others, who does not blindly accept anything without
critically analysing and examining its veracity and usefulness, who is always
prepared to protect his rights, who is not afraid of ridicule and unjust public
criticism, who has a sound conscience and self-respect so as not become a tool
in the hands of others, I call him a free man. He who does not lead his life
under the direction of others, who sets his own goal of life according to his
own reasoning and decides for himself as to how and in what way life should be
lead, is a free man. In short, who is a master of his own free will, him alone I
call a free man.

Caste cannot be abolished by inter caste dinners
or stray instances of inter caste marriages. Caste is a state of mind. It is a
disease of mind. The teachings of the Hindu religion are the root cause of this
disease. We practice casteism and we observe Untouchability because we are
enjoined to do so by the Hindu religion. A bitter thing cannot be made sweet.
The taste of anything can be changed. But poison cannot be changed into
nectar.

What struck me most was that my community still
continues to accept a position of humiliation only because caste Hindus persist
in dominating over them. You must rely on your own strength, shake off the
notion that you are in any way inferior to any community.

Constitutional morality is not a natural
sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to
learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil whish is
essentially undemocratic.

Majorities are of two sorts: (1) communal
majority and (2) political majority. A political majority is changeable in its
class composition. A political majority grows. A communal majority is born. The
admission to a political majority is open. The door to a communal majority is
closed. The politics of political majority are free to all to make and unmake.
The politics of communal majority are made by its own members born in
it.

The minorities in India have loyally accepted
the rule of the majority whish is basically a communal majority and not a
political majority. It is for the majority to realise its duty not to
discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities will continue or will
vanish must depend upon this habit of majority. The moment the majority looses
the habit of discriminating against the minority, the minorities can have no
ground to exist. They will vanish.

We want our own people, people who will fight
tooth and nail for our interest and secure privilege for the under-privileged;
people who will undo the wrongs done to our people ;people who will voice our
grievances fearlessly; people who can think, lead and act; people with
principles and character. Such people should be sent to the legislatures. We
must send such people to Legislatures who will be slaves to none but remain free
to their conscience and get our grievances redressed.

Why does a human body become deceased? The
reason is that as long as the human body is not free from suffering, mind cannot
be happy. If a man lacks enthusiasm, either his body or mind is in a deceased
condition…. Now what saps the enthusiasm in man? If there is no enthusiasm,
life becomes drudgery - a mere burden to be dragged. Nothing can be achieved if
there is no enthusiasm. The main reason for this lack of enthusiasm on the part
of a man is that an individual looses the hope of getting an opportunity to
elevate

himself. Hopelessness leads to lack of enthusiasm. The mind in
such cases becomes deceased…. When is enthusiasm created? When one breaths an
atmosphere where one is sure of getting the legitimate reward for one’s labor,
only then one feels enriched by enthusiasm and inspiration.

The fundamental principle of Buddhism is
equality… Buddhism was called the religion of Shudras. There was only one man
who raised his voice against separatism and Untouchability and that was Lord
Buddha.

The teachings of Buddha are eternal, but even
then Buddha did not proclaim them to be infallible. The religion of Buddha has
the capacity to change according to times, a quality which no other religion can
claim to have…Now what is the basis of Buddhism? If you study carefully, you
will see that Buddhism is based on reason. There is an element of flexibility
inherent in it, which is not found in any other religion.

I am myself a believer in Animas (non-violence).
But I make a distinction between Animas and meekness. Meekness is weakness and
weakness is voluntarily imposed upon oneself is not a virtue. I am believer in
Animas but in the sense defined by the saint Takuma. Takuma has quite rightly
said that Animas consisted of two things: (1) love and kindness towards all
creatures and (2) destruction of evil doers. The second part of this definition
is often lost sight of that the doctrine of Animas becomes so
ridiculous.

Religion must mainly be a matter of principles
only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules, it
ceases to be a religion, as it kills responsibility which is an essence of the
true religious act.

We must begin by acknowledging that there is a
complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On
the social plane we have an India based on the principles of graded inequality,
which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic plane
we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against
many who live in abject poverty.

The second thing we are wanting in is the
recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean?
Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians, all Indians being
one people. It is a principle that gives solidarity to social life. It is
difficult thing to achieve. It seems to me that there lies a heavy duty to see
that democracy does not vanish from the earth as a governing principle of human
relationship. If we believe in it, we must both be true and loyal to it. We must
not only be staunch in our faith in democracy but we must resolve to see that
whatever we do, we do not help the enemies of democracy to uproot the principles
of liberty, equality and fraternity. It follows that we must strive along with
other democratic countries to maintain the basis of democratic civilization. If
democracy lives we are sure to reap the benefit of it. If democracy dies it will
be our doom. On that there can be no doubt.

The basis of my politics lies in the proposition
that the Untouchables are not a sub-division or sub-section of Hindus, and that
they are a separate and distinct element in the national life of
India.

The true function of law consists in repairing
the faults in society. Unfortunately ancient societies never dared to assume the
function of repairing their own defects; consequently they decayed. This country
has seen the conflict between ecclesiastical law and secular law long before
Europeans sought to challenge the authority of the Pope. Kautilya’s Arthshastra
lays down the foundation of secular law. In India unfortunately ecclesiastical
law triumphed over secular law. In my opinion this was the one of the greatest
disasters in the country. The unprogressive nature of the Hindu society was due
to the notion that the law cannot be changed.

Civilization has never been a continuous
process. There were states and societies which at one time had been civilised.
In the course of time something happened which made these societies stagnant and
decayed. This could be illustrated by India’s history itself. There could be no
doubt that one of the countries which could boast of ancient civilization is
India. When the inhabitants of Europe were living under the barbaric conditions,
this country had reached the highest peak of civilization, it had parliamentary
institutions when the people of Europe were mere nomads.

I measure the progress of a community by the
degree of progress which women have achieved.

Justice has always evoked ideas of equality, of
proportion of compensation. Equity signifies equality. Rules and regulations,
right and righteousness are concerned with equality in value. If all men are
equal, then all men are of the same essence, and the common essence entitles
them of the same fundamental rights and equal liberty… In short justice is
another name of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Anyone who studies working of the system of
social economy based on private enterprise and pursuit of personal gain will
realise how it undermines, if it does not actually violate the individual rights
on which democracy rests. How many have to relinquish their rights in order to
gain their living? How many have to subject themselves to be governed by private
employers?

I hate injustice, tyranny, pompousness and
humbug, and my hatred embraces all those who are guilty of them. I want to tell
my critics that I regard my feelings of hatred as a real force. They are only
the reflexes of love I bear for the causes I believe in and I am in no wise
ashamed of it.

Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that
can affect people.

Political tyranny is nothing compared to the
social tyranny and a reformer who defies society is a more courageous man than a
politician who defies Government.

Every man who repeats the dogma of Mill that one
country is no fit to rule another country must admit that one class is not fit
to rule another class.

One cannot have any respect or regard for men
who take the position of the reformer and then refuse to see the logical
consequences of that position, let alone following them out in
action.

History shows that where ethics and economics
come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never
been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient
force to compel them.

Slavery does not merely mean a legalised form of
subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept
from others the purposes which control their conduct.

This condition obtains even where there is no
slavery in the legal sense. It is found where as in caste system, some persons
are forced to carry on the prescribed callings which are not their
choice.

India is a peculiar country and her nationalists
and patriots are a peculiar people. A patriot and a nationalist in India is one
who sees with open eyes his fellow men treated as being less than man. But his
humanity does not rise in protest. He knows that men and women for no cause are
denied their rights. But it does not prick his civil sense of helpful action. He
finds a whole class of people shut out from public employment. But it does not
rouse his sense of justice and fair play. Hundreds of evil practices that injure
man and society are perceived by him. But they do not sicken him with disgust.
The patriot’s one cry is power for him and his class. I am glad I do not belong
to that class of patriots. I belong to that class which takes its stand on
democracy and which seeks to destroy monopoly in every form. Our aim is to
realise in practice our ideal of one man one value in all walks of life -
political, economical and social.

There is no nation of Indians in the real sense
of the world, it is yet to be created. In believing we are a nation, we are
cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into thousand of castes be a
nation? The sooner we realise that we are not yet a nation, in a social and
psychological sense of the world, the better for us.

It is not enough to be electors only. It is
necessary to be law-makers; otherwise those who can be law-makers ill be the
masters of those who can only be electors.

Walter Bagehot defined democracy as ‘ Government
by discussion’. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as ‘ A Government of the
people, by the people and for the people’.

My definition of democracy is - A form and a method of
Government whereby revolutionary changes in the social life are brought about
without bloodshed. That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test. But
when you are judging the quality of the material you must put it to the severest
test.

Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It
is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.
It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow
men.

A democratic form of Government presupposes a
democratic form of a society, The formal framework of democracy is of no value
and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. It may not be
necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of
purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does
unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, and attitude
of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social
organisation free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and
inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness resulting in the distinction
between the privileged and the unprivileged.

Democracy is not a Form of Government, but a
form of social organisation.

What we must do is not to content ourselves with
mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social
democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there is at the base
of it, a social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of
life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of
life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated
as separate items. They form a union in the sense that, to divorce one from the
other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced
from equality, nor can liberty and equality be divorced from
fraternity.

Without social union, political unity is
difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious as a summer
sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of wind. With mere political unity,
India may be a state. But to be a state is not to be a nation and a state which
is not a nation has small prospects of survival in the struggle of existence.
This is especially true where nationalism - the most dynamic force of modern
times, is seeking everywhere to free itself by the destruction and disruption of
all mixed states. The danger to a mixed and composite state, therefore lies not
so much in external aggression as in the internal resurgence of nationalities
which are fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their
will.

The idea of fundamental rights has become a
familiar one since their enactment in the American Constitution and in the
Constitution framed by the Revolutionary France. The idea of making a gift of
fundamental rights to every individual is no doubt very laudable. The question
is how to make them effective? The prevalent view is that once the rights are
enacted in law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted
assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by social
and moral conscience of the society. If social conscience is such that it is
prepared to recognise the rights which law proposes to enact, rights will be
safe and secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no
Law, no Parliament, no Judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense of the
world. What is the use of Fundamental rights to the Untouchables in India? As
Burke said, there is no method found for punishing the multitude. Law can punish
a single solitary recalcitrant criminal. It can never operate against the whole
body of people who choose to defy it. Social conscience is the only safeguard of
all rights, fundamental or non-fundamental.

Rights are real only if they are accompanied by
remedies. It is no use giving rights if the aggrieved person has no legal remedy
to which he can resort when his rights are invaded.

Lost rights are never regained by appeals to the
conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggle…. Goats are used for
sacrificial offerings and not lions.

Life should be great rather than
long.

For a successful revolution it is not enough
that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction
of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social
rights.

I feel that the constitution is workable, it is
flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime
and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new
Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we
will have to say is that Man was vile.

Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one
must accept it as a governing principle.

What are we having this liberty for? We are
having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is full of
inequality, discrimination and other things, which conflict with our fundamental
rights.

Our object in framing the Constitution is rally
two-fold: (1) To lay down the form of political democracy, and (2) To lay down
that our ideal is economic democracy and also to prescribe that every Government
whatever is in power shall strive to bring about economic democracy. The
directive principles have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal is
economic democracy.

If I find the constitution being misused, I
shall be the first to burn it.

On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter
into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social
and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising
the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and
economic life, we shall by reason of our social and economic structure, continue
to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live
this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our
social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only
by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction
at the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow
up the structure of democracy which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously
built up.

There can be no gain saying that political power
in this country has too long been the monopoly of the few, and the many are not
beasts of burden but also beasts of prey.

The monopoly has not merely deprived them of
their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the
significance of life. Those downtrodden classes are tired of being governed.
They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge of self-realisation in the
downtrodden must not be allowed to devolve into class struggle or class war. It
would lead to the division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster.
For, as has been well-said by Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against cannot
stand very long”. Therefore the sooner room is made for realisation of their
aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for
the independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure.
This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all
walks of life.

It is disgraceful to live at the cost of one’s
self-respect. Self-respect is the most vital factor in life. Without it, man is
a cipher. To live worthily with self-respect, one has to overcome difficulties.
It is out of hard and ceaseless struggle alone that one derives strength,
confidence and recognition.

Cultivation of mind should be the ultimate aim
of human existence.

Sincerity is the sum of all moral
qualities.

Man is mortal. Everyone has to die some day or
the other. But one must resolve to lay down one’s life in enriching the noble
ideals of self-respect and in bettering one’s human life. We are not slaves.
Nothing is more disgraceful for a brave man than to live life devoid of
self-respect.

My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined
in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. My philosophy has roots in
religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of
my master, the Buddha.

Emerson has said that consistency is a virtue of
an ass. No thinking human being can be tied down to a view once expressed in the
name of consistency. More important than consistency is responsibility. A
responsible person must learn to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible
person must have the courage to rethink and change his thoughts. Of course there
must be good and sufficient reason for unlearning what he has learned and for
recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in rethinking.

John Dewey said: “Every society gets encumbered
with what is trivial, with what is dead wood from the past and what is
positively perverse. As a society becomes more enlightened, it realises that it
is responsible not to conserve and transmit the whole of its achievement, but
only such as makes a better future society”

There is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing
sanatan; everything is changing, change is the law of life for individuals as
well as for society. In a changing society there must be constant revolution of
old values.

No civilised society of today presents more
survivals of primitive times than does the Indian society. Its religion is
essentially primitive and its tribal code, in spite of the advance of time and
civilization, operates in all its pristine vigor even today. Indian society
still savors of the clan system, even though there are no clans.

An ideal society should be mobile, should be
full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts.
In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and
shared.

The strength of a society depends upon the
presence of points of contacts, possibilities of interaction between different
groups that exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls “Organic filaments”, i.e.
the elastic threads which helps to bring the disintegrating elements together
and to reunite them.

Heroes and hero-worship is a hard fact in
India’s political life. I agree that hero-worship is demoralising for the
devotee and dangerous to the country. I welcome the criticism so far as it
conveys the caution that you must know your man is really great before you start
worshipping him. This unfortunately is not an easy task. For in these days with
the Press in hand it is easy to manufacture Great Men. Carlyle used a happy
phrase when he described the Great Men of history as so many bank notes. Like
bank notes they represent gold. What we have to see that they are not forged
notes. I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship of Great Men.
For in this country we have arrived at such a stage when alongside the notice
boards saying “Beware of pickpockets”, we need to have notice boards saying
“Beware of Great Men”. Even Carlyle who defended the worship of Great Men warned
his readers how: “Multitudes of Great Men have figured in history who were false
and selfish “.

Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our
unbound admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a totally different kind of
worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a
most pernicious thing. The former is man’s respect for which is noble and of
which the great men are only an embodiment. The latter is the serf’s fealty to
his lord. The former is consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of
debasement. The former does not take away one’s intelligence to think and
independence to act. The latter makes one perfect fool. The former involves no
disaster to the state. The latter is a source of positive danger to
it.

In India, ‘Bhakti’ or what may be called the
path of devotion or hero-worship plays a part in politics unequalled in
magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other of the world.
‘Bhakti’ in religion may be a road to salvation of the soul. But in politics,
‘Bhakti’ or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual
dictatorship.

The questions which President Roosevelt
propounded for the American public to consider will arise here, if they have not
already arisen: Who shall rule - wealth or man? Which shall lead - money or
intellect? Who shall fill the public stations - educated and patriotic free men
or the feudal serf’s of the corporate capital? For the president, Indian
politics, at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of being spiritualised has
become grossly commercialised, so much so that it has become a byword for
corruption. Many men of culture are refusing to concern themselves in this
cesspool. Politics has become a kind of sewage system intolerably unsavory and
insanitary. To become a politician is like going to work in the
drain.

History bears out the proposition that political
revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.
Social reform in India has few friends and many critics.

Law and order are the medicine of the body
politic and when the body politic gets sick, medicine must be
administered.

The world owes much to rebels who would dare to
argue in the face of the pontiff (high priest) and insist that he is not
infallible.

A people and their religion must be judged by
social standards based on social ethics. No other standard would have any
meaning if religion is held to be necessary good for the well-being of the
people.

Ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure
race exist nowhere and that there has been admixture of all races in all parts
of the world - especially is this the case with the people if India. Mr. D.R.
Bhandarkar has stated: “There is hardly a class or caste in India which has not
a foreign strain in it. There is as an admixture of alien blood not only among
the warrior classes - the Rajputs and Marathas - but among the Brahmins who are
under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign
elements.

The question is not whether a community lives or
dies, the question is on what plane does it live. There are different modes of
survival. But all are not equally honorable. For an individual as well as a
society, there is a gulf between merely living and living worthily. To fight in
a battle and live in a glory is one mode. To beat a retreat to surrender and to
live the life of a captive is also a mode of survival.

The sovereignty of scriptures of all religions
must come to an end if we want to have a united integrated modern
India.

Law and religion are two forces which govern the
conduct of men. At times they act as handmaids to each other. At other times
they act as check and counter-check. Of the two forces, Law is personal while
religion is impersonal. Law being personal it is capable of being unjust and
iniquitous. But religion being impersonal, it can be impartial, it is capable of
defeating the inequity committed by law. Religion is believed to ennoble man and
not degrade him. Hinduism is an exception.

I like the religion that teaches liberty,
equality & fraternity.

To open or not to open the temples is a question
for you to consider & not for me to agitate. If u think it is bad manners
not to believe in the sanctity of human beings, then throw open the doors &
be a gentleman, but if u wish to remain a orthodox Hindu then shut the doors
& damn yourself, for I don’t care to come.

Given the time & circumstances, nothing under the sun
shall stop this country from becoming a super power.

Being grateful has limitations, no man can be grateful at
the cost of his dignity, no woman at the cost of her chastity & no country
at the cost of its freedom.

I hope that
Mr. Gandhi will not drive me to the necessity of making a choice between his
life & rights of my people, for I shall never consent to deliver my people
bound hand & foot to the orthodox for generations to come.

A great man is different from an eminent one in that he is
ready to be the servant of the society.

So long as you do not achieve social liberty,
whatever freedom is provided by the law is of no avail to you.

On 26th Jan. 1950,India will be an independent
country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain or will she
lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind.It is not that
India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the
independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which
makes makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact
that not only India has once beforelost her independence, but she lost it by
treachery of some of her own people…
Will history repeat itself ?It is this
thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realization
of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes
&creeds, we are going to have many political parties with diverse &
opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or
creed above their country? I do not know, But this much is certain that if the
parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a
second time & probably be lost forever. This eventuality we all must
resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with
the last drop of our blood!