INTRODUCTION
Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts as reflected in his writings
and speeches have significant importance in tracing the history and growth of
social thought in India. In the course of time so many of his publications are
not even available in the market. In some cases the authentic editions are
getting out of print. Besides, as time passes, many of his observations in
matters social, economic and political are coming true. Social tensions and
caste conflicts are continuously on the increase. Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts have
therefore, assumed more relevance today. If his solutions and remedies on
various socio economic problems are understood and followed, it may help us to
steer through the present turmoil and guide us for the future. It was therefore
very apt on the part of the Government of Maharashtra to have appointed an
Advisory Committee to compile all the material available on Dr. Ambedkar for
publishing the same in a suitable form. All efforts are therefore being made to
collect what the learned Doctor wrote and spoke. In the present volume, besides
Castes in India. Annihilation of versus Caste, his address on Justice Ranade.
Federation Freedom and other publications, some of his articles not easily
available such as Small Holdings in India, Review on Russell’s book etc. ; have
also been included. The salient features of the contents of this volume are
presented below :
Castes in India
Dr. Ambedkar read this paper, before the
Anthropology Seminar of Dr. Goldenweizer during his stay at the Columbia
University XIV for the Doctoral studies. Naturally he deals with the subject of
Caste system from the Anthropological point of view. He observes that the
population of India is mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians.
Ethrically all people are heterogeneous. According to him, it is the unity of
culture that binds the people of Indian Peninsula from one end to the other.
After evaluating the theories of various authorities on Caste, Dr. Ambedkar
observes that the superimposition of endogamy over exogamy is the main cause of
formation of caste groups. Regarding endogamy, he states that the customs of
‘Sati’,enforced widow-hood for life and child-marriage are the outcome of
endogamy. To Dr. Ambedkar, sub-division of a society is a natural phenomenon
and these groups become castes through ex-communication and imitation.
Annihilation of Caste
This famous address invited attention of no less a
person than Mahatma Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar observes that the reformers among the
high-caste Hindus were enlightened intellectuals who confined their activities
to abolish the enforced widow-hood, child-marriage, etc., but they did not feel
the necessity for agitating for the abolition of castes nor did they have
courage to agitate against it. According to him, the political revolutions in
India were preceded by the social and religious reforms led by saints. But
during the British rule, issue of political independence got precedence over
the social reform and therefore social reform continued to remain neglected.
Pointing to the. Socialists, he remarked that the Socialists will have to fight
against the monster of caste either before or after the revolution. He asserts
that caste is not based on division of labour. It is a division of labourers.
As an economic organisation also, caste is a harmful institution. He calls upon
the Hindus to annihilate the caste which is a great hindrance to social
solidarity and to set up a new social order ‘Shastras’, cleanse their minds of
the pernicious notions founded on the ‘Shastras’ and he or she will interdine
and intermarry”. According to him, the society must be bused on reason and not
on atrocious traditions of caste system.
Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province
Part II includes Dr. Ambedkar’s major writings on
linguistic States. Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province is his first statement
on the creation of linguistic provinces. It is a memorandum submitted in 1948
to the Linguistic Provinces Commission. While acknowledging the danger to the
Unity of India inherent in the creation of linguistic provinces with their
pride in race, language and literature developing into mentalities of being
separate nations, Dr. Ambedkar sees certain definite political advantages in
the reconstitution of provinces on linguistic basis. With the proviso that the
official language of the State shall be the official language of the Central
Government, Dr. Ambedkar maintains that a linguistic province with a
homogeneous population is more suitable for the working of democracy than a
heterogeneous population can ever be. Since six provinces in India exist as
linguistic provinces the question of the reconstitution of Bombay, Madras and Central
Provinces as unilingual provinces cannot be postponed in view of the new democratic
constitution of free India. Dr. Ambedkar next pleads for the creation of an
unilingual Maharashtra as a province with a single legislature and single
executive by merging with it all the contiguous Marathi-speaking districts of
the Central Province and Berar with the City of Bombay as its capital. Dr.
Ambedkar refutes on historical, geographical, demographical, commercial,
economic and other grounds with solid documentary proof, the arguments which
are advanced in support of the separation of the city of Bombay from
Maharashtra and its constitution into a separate province. Spurning the
proposal of settling the problem of Bombay by arbitration he asserts that
Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent but that they are really
one and integral.
Need for Checks and Balances
In this article published in the ‘Times of India’
after tracing the history and growth of the concept of linguistic States Dr.
Ambedkar based on the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in consonance with
the principles of Democracy. He advocates inter-caste marriage as one of the
solutions to the problem. But he stresses that the belief in the ‘Shastras’ is
the root cause of maintaining castes. He therefore suggests, “Make every man
and woman free from the thraldom of the examines their viability and communal
set-up. The State of Andhra,according to him will not be viable if the other
Telugu-speaking area from the State of Hyderabad remains excluded from it. The
caste set up, he observes, within the linguistic areas like PEPSU, Andhra and
Maharashtra will be of one or two major castes large in number and a few minor
castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes. He questions the
propriety of consolidating in one huge State all people who speak the same language.
Consolidation which creates separate consciousness may lead to animosity
between State and State. Accepting however the fact that there is a case for
linguistic provinces he advocates that there should be checks and balances to
ensure that caste majority does not abuse its power under the garb of
linguistic State.
Thoughts on Linguistic States
‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ is Dr. Ambedkar’s
final statement on the formation of linguistic States that came as a critique
of the report of the States Reorganization Commission. What the Commission has
created, according to him, is not a mere disparity between the States by
leaving U.P. and Bihar as they are, but by adding to them a new and bigger
Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan. It creates a new political problem of the
consolidated Hindi-speaking North the versus balkanized South. Considering the
vast cultural differences between the two sectors and the apprehensions of
dominance of the North articulated by the leaders of the South Dr. Ambedkar
predicts the danger of a conflict between the two in course of time. He
observes that the Commission should have followed the principle of “one State
one language” and not “one language one State” He favours formation of
unilingual States as against multi lingual States for the very sound reasons
that the former fosters the fellow-feeling which is the foundation of a stable
and democratic State, while the latter with its enforced juxtaposition of two
different linguistic groups leads to faction fights for leadership and
discrimination in administration factors which-- are incompatible with
democracy. His support for unilingual States is however qualified by the
condition that its official language shall be Hindi and until India becomes fit
for this purpose, English shall continue. He foresees the danger of a
unilingual Stale developing an independent nationality if its regional language
is raised to the status of official language. To remove the disparity between
the large States of the North and the small States of the South which has been
accentuated by the absence of the provision for equal representation of the
States in the central legislature irrespective of their areas and popula tions,
Dr.Ambedkar’s remedy is to divide the larger States into units with a population
not exceeding two crores. He suggests tentatively division of Bihar and Madhya
Pradesh into two States each and of United Provinces into three States. Each of
these States being unilingual the division will not affect the concept of a
linguistic State. His proposal for Maharashtra is to divide it, as in ancient
times, into three States of Western, Central and Eastern Maharashtra with
Bombay City as a separate city State of Maharashtra. Such smaller States, in
his opinion, will meet the requirements of efficient administration and the
special needs of different areas. It will also satisfy their sentiments. In a
smaller State the proportion of majority to minority which in India is not
political but communal and unchangeable, decreases and the danger of the majority
practising tyranny over the minority is also minimised. To give further
protection to minorities against such tyranny, Dr. Ambedkar suggests amendment
of the constitution that will provide a system of plural-member constituencies
(two or three) with cumulative voting. Dr. Ambedkar advocate’s also the
creation of a second capital for India and locating it in the South preferably
in the city of Hyderabad to ease the tension and political polarization of the
North and the South.
Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah
Dr. Ambedkar delivered this important address on the
101st birth anniversary of Justice Ranade, one of India’s foremost political
and social thinkers. At the beginning of his address, Dr. Ambedkar discusses
the role of man as a maker of history. According to him, the theory of Buckle
that the history is created by Geography and Physics, and that of Marx that it
is the result of economic forces, both speak the half truth. They do not give
any place to man. But Dr. Ambedkar asserts that man is a factor in the making
of history and that environmental forces alone are not the makers of history.
Dr. Ambedkar further proceeds to discuss the tests of a great man as propounded
by Carlyle the apostle of Hero Worship, and also of other political thinkers.
After exhaustive discussion, he observes that sincerity and intellect the
combination of which are necessary to make a man great. But these
qualifications are not alone sufficient. A man possessed of these two qualities
must be motivated by the dynamics of a social purpose and must act as a
scavenger of society. According to Dr. Ambedkar, Ranade was a great man by any
standard. He wanted to vitalize the Hindu society to create social democracy.
Ranade lived in times when social and religious customs, however unmoral, were
regarded as sacrosanct. What appeared to Ranade to be shames and wrongs of the
Hindu society, were considered by the people to be most sacred injunctions of
their religion. Ranade wanted to vitalize the conscience of the Hindu society
which became moribund as well as morbid. Ranade aimed to create a real social
democracy. without which there could be no sure and stable politics. Dr.
Ambedkar points out that Ranade’s aim was to cleanse the old order and improve
the moral tone of the Hindu society. Concluding his address, Dr. Ambedkar
cautions against despotism. He says, “ Despotism does not cease to be despotism
because it is elective. Nor does despotism become agreeable because the Despots
belong to our own kindred ………….. The real guarantee against despotism is to
confront it with the possibility of its dethronement ………………….of its being
superseded by a rival party.”
Evidence before the Southborough Committee
Dr. Ambedkar’s evidence before the Southborough
Committee was his first assay in political writings. The evidence comprises of
a written statement submitted to the Franchise Committeeunder the Chairmanship
of Rt. Hon’ble Lord Southborough and also of the oral evidence before the same
Committee on January 27, 1919. After arguing theoretically that any scheme of
franchise and constituency that fails to bring about representation of opinions
as well as representation of persons falls short of creating a popular
Government. He shows how very relevant the two factors are in the context of
the Indian society which is ridden into castes and religious communities. Each
caste group tends to create its own distinctive type of like-mindedness which
depends upon the extent of communication, participation or endosmosis. Absence
of this endosmosis is most pronounced between touchable and untouchable Hindus,
more than between the religious communities such as Hindus, Muslims, Parsees
etc. These communities have on secular plane common material interests. There
will be in such groups landlords, labourers and capitalists. The untouchables
are, however, isolated by the Hindus from any kind of social participation.
They have been dehumanised by socio-religious disabilities almost to the status
of slaves. They are denied the universally accepted rights of citizenship. Their
interests are distinctively their own interests and none else can truly voice
them. On the population basis, Dr. Ambedkar demands for the untouchables of the
Presidency of Bombay, eight to nine representatives in the Bombay Legislative
Council with franchise pitched as low for them as to muster a sizable
electorate. While reviewing the various schemes proposed by different organiza
tions he criticises the Congress scheme which offers communal representation
only to the Muslims and leaves untouchables to seek representation in general
electorate as typical of the ideology of its leaders who are political radicals
and social tories. He does not agree with the proposals of moderates to reserve
only one or two seats for the untouchables in plural constituencies as this
does not give them effective representation. He brushes aside the proposal of
the Depressed Class Mission for nomination by co-option by the elected members
of the Council as an attempt to dictate to the untouchables what their good
shall be, instead of an endeavour to agree with them so that they may seek to
find the good of their own choice. The communal representation with reserved
seats for the most depressed community, he holds out, will not perpetuate
social divisions, but will act as a potent solvent for dissolving them by
providing opportunities for contact, co-operation and re-socialisation of
fossilised attitudes. Moreover it was the demand of the untouchables for
self-determination which the major communities too were claiming from the
British bureaucracy.
Federation versus Freedom
Dr. Ambedkar’s two addresses, “Federation Freedom”
and vs. “Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” were delivered by him before
the Gokhale Institute of Economics. Pune on January 29, 1939 and at the session
of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945
respectively. They are in the nature of tracts of the time. In 1939 all major
political parties of India had accepted and some were even implementing that
part of the Government of India Act, 1935 which related to provincial autonomy.
The question of accepting the Federal structure at the Centre was however,
looming large on the political horizon of India. Dr. Ambedkar who till then had
not expressed in public his views on the subject took the opportunity to do so
before the learned body of the Gokhale Institute of Economics. In the address
he sets out briefly the outline of the scheme of Federation and examines it in
the light of accepted tests of democratic federations in operation. The
examination reveals that the scheme granted only a limited responsibility at
the centre; it has the potentiality to evolve into a dominion status. There is
inequality of status between the two sets of federating units viz. the
Provinces and the Princely States. Federation is a natural corollary of
autonomous provinces. They join the Federation as a natural course, while
accession of the princely States is governed by the various conditions of their
historical treaties with the British crown and the instrument of accession they
would sign. Accession of the States and not only of the autonomous provinces,
is the precondition for the implementation of the Federation. The
representation of the provinces to the two Federal Houses is by election but
the State representatives are the nominees of their autocratic rulers and owe
their allegiance to the rulers. These representatives will always be at the
beck and call of the British bureaucracy which yields paramountcy over the
rulers. Instead of fostering one all India nationalism, the Indian Princely
States being treated under the Federation as foreign territories will encourage
separatist tendencies. The scheme also does not permit the Federal Legislature
to discuss the conduct of the ruler nor the administration of his State, though
his nominees can participate in the debate pertaining to a province and vote on
the issue. As in the matter of representation so too in that of taxation,
administration, legislation etc, there is, in the scheme discrimination in favour
of the princes. The princes thus become arbiters of the destiny of the British
India. On these and several other counts Dr. Ambedkar rejects the Federal
structure as envisaged by the Government of India Act of 1935. His solution of
the problem of the States is, to regard it not as a political one but as an
administrative one. To tackle it legally is to pension off princes and annexe
their territories as is done under the Land Acquisition Act which allows
private rights and properties to be acquired for political purposes.According
to Dr. Ambedkar, excepting the Princes, and the Hindu Mahasabha which felt that
the accession of the Princes was an accretion to the Hindu strength, no major
political party was happy with the scheme of the Federation. The view of the
freeman and of the poor man of whom the Federation does not seem to take any
account says Dr. Ambedkar, will be a similar one. If the Federation comes the
autocracy of the Princes will be a menace to the freedom of a freeman and
obstacle to the poor man who wants constitution to enable him to have old
values revalued and to have vested rights devastated.
Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It
“Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It” is yet
another tract of the time included in this volume. It purports to be a
constructive proposal put forth on behalf of the Scheduled Castes for the
future constitution of India. This plan was one of the many advanced by Dr.
Ambedkar’s contemporaries to explore the possibility of solving the communal
problem in the eventful year of 1945. Earlier, in 1941. Dr. Ambedkar had
advocated creation of Pakistan on the principle of self-determination’ and also
as a historical necessity. The present tract sets out an alternative plan which
in his opinion would ensure a United India, where with proper checks and
balances interests of all minorities would be safeguarded.He is wholly opposed
to the setting of a Constituent Assembly before the communal problem is solved.
Moreover India has already constitutional ideas and constitutional forms ready
at hand in the Government of India Act of 1935. All that is necessary is to
delete those sections of the Act, which are inconsistent with Dominion status. If
at all there is to be a Constituent Assembly, says Dr. Ambedkar. the communal
question should not form a part of it. After examining the two schemes for
Constituent Assembly one each by Sir Stafford Cripps and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru,
Dr. Ambedkar concludes that both the schemes leave the communal question
unsolved. In his opinion all such schemes and plans advocated so far fail
because of their wrong approach. They proceed by a method instead of by a principle.
The ultimate result is constant appeasement of ever-growing demands of communal
minorities. The principle he enunciates is that in India majority being
communal majority and not a convertible political majority, the majority rule
is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. The major community should
be content with relative majority. Even this should not be so large as to
enable it to secure an absolute majority by coalition with a smaller minority
to establish its rule. In the same way the major minority should also not have
the possibility to secure a majority by similar combination. The combination of
all minorities should however have an absolute majority in the legislature. Dr.
Ambedkar has set out in detail how the application of these principles would
reflect community-wise in the central and provincial legislatures. Dr.
Ambedkar’s proposal is mainly for a United India; but even if the partition of
India eventuates, he expects, the Muslims of Pakistan not to deny the benefit
of these principles to non-Muslim residents of their country. Their co-religionists,
who otherwise would be a helpless minority in India, will have their interests
safeguarded by the acceptance of these principles. Abandonment of the principle
of majority rule in politics cannot, in the opinion of Dr. Ambedkar, affect the
Hindus in other walks of life such as social and economic.
States and Minorities
States and minorities is a memorandum on the
safeguards for the minorities in general and the Scheduled Castes in particular
drafted by Dr. Ambedkar and submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of
the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation in the year 1946. It is in the form
of draft articles of a constitution, followed by explanatory notes and other
statistics. The memorandum sets out in specific terms fundamental rights of
citizens, safeguards of the rights of minorities and Scheduled Castes to
representation in the legislatures, local bodies, executive and services. It
also provides for special provisions for education and new settlement of the
Scheduled Castes in separate villages. The very first article is allotted to
the admission of Indian States into the Union which are here classified as
Qualified and Unqualified on admission to the Union. The qualified State has an
obligation to have an internal government which is in consonance with the
principles Underlying the Constitution of the Union. The territory of the
Unqualified states will be treated as the territory of the Union. The
memorandum not only prescribes the rights and privileges of the Scheduled
Castes but also lays down the remedies in the event of encroachment upon them.
For this the author draws heavily from his own memorandum submitted to the
minorities of the Round Table Conference in 1931. They are derived from the
United States statutes and amendments passed in the interest of the Negroes
after their emancipation and from the Burma Anti-boycott Act. One of the novel
features of the memorandum is the provision for the election of the Prime
Minister Union and provincial — by the whole house —of the legislature, of the
representatives of the different minorities in the cabinet by members of each
minority in the house and of the representatives of the majority community in
the executive again by the whole house. Another unique feature is the provision
of remedies against invasion of the fundamental rights of citizens of freedom
from economic exploitation and from want and fear. This is sought to be
accomplished by constitutional provision enforceable within ten years of the
passing of the constitution for alteration of the economic structure of the
country. In short by adopting state socialism, it envisages state ownership and
management of all key and basic industries and insurance. Agriculture which is
included in the key industries is to be organised on collectivized method.
Owners of the nationalised industries and land are to be compensated in the
form of debentures. The debenture-holders are entitled to receive interest at
such rates as defined by the law.
Small Holdings in India
The subjects of Dr. Ambedkar’s Doctoral thesis were
in the disciplines of economics only. The present paper was one of his articles
dealing with the problem of agricultural economy of the Country. Amongst
several problems of agricultural economy dealing with agricultural production, Dr.
Ambedkar chose the subject of the size of holdings as it affects the
productivity of agriculture. Dr. Ambedkar in his paper points out that the
holdings of land in India are not small but they are also scattered. This
feature of Indian agriculture has caused great anxiety regarding agriculture
which Dr. Ambedkar designates as an industry. The problems of these holdings
are two-fold—(1) How to con solidate the holdings and (2) after consolidation,
how to perpe - tuate the said consolidation. The heirs of deceased in India
desire to secure share from each survey number of the deceased rather than
distributing complete holdings amongst themselves. This has resulted into
rendering the farming most inefficient and causing several problems. Dr.
Ambedkar discusses methods for consolidation e.g., restripping, restricted sale
of the occupancy of the fragmented land to the contagious holder and the right
of pre-emption. In this connection Dr. Ambedkar discusses the report of the
Baroda Committee and the proposals of Prof. Jevons and Mr. Keatinge, and points
out that the consolidation may obviate the evils of scattered holdings, but it
will not obviate the evils of small holdings unless the consolidated holding
becomes an economic holdings. While discussing the terms of economic holding,
Dr. Ambedkar observes, “Mere size of land is empty of all economic
connotation………….It is the right or wrong proportion of other factors of
production to a suit of land that renders the latter economic or uneconomic”.
Thus a small farm may be economic as well as a large farm. Verifying the
statistics at length, he concludes that “the existing holdings are uneconomic,
not, however, in the sense that they are too small but that they are too large”
as against the inadequacy of other factors of production. He therefore suggests
that the remedy lies in not enlarging the holding but in the matter of
increasing capital and capital goods. According to Dr. Ambedkar, the evil of
small holding is the product of mal-adjustment of the Indian social economy. A
large part of population of superfluous and idle labour exerts high pressure on
agriculture. He tries to analyse how to remedy the ills of agriculture and
suggests that industrialization of India is the soundest remedy for the
agricultural problems of India.
Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society
While reviewing the book “Principles of Social
Reconstruction” by the Honourable Mr. Bertrand Russell, Dr. Ambedkar deals only
with the analysis of the institution of Property and the modifications it is
alleged to produce in human nature. Commenting on the observations of Mr.
Russell on the philosophy of war, Dr. Ambedkar opines that Mr. Russell is
against war but is not for quieticism. Quieticism is another name of death.
Activity leads to growth. He suggests that to achieve anything we must use force
; only we must use it constructively as energy and not destructively as
violence. The pacifist Mr. Russell, according to Dr. Ambedkar, thinks that even
war is an activity leading to the growth of the individual and condemns it only
because it results in death and destruction. He therefore thinks that Russell
would welcome milder forms of war. Dr. Ambedkar further discusses the analysis
of effects of property as propounded by Mr. Russell. Regarding the mental
effects of property, he finds that Russell’s discussion on this aspect is
marked by certain misconceptions. Criticising the statement about “love of
money” as interpreted by Mr. Russell, Dr. Ambedkar points out that there is
genuine difference in the outlook of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Hence their
attitude about money will be different. According to him, Mr. Russell failed to
inquire into the purpose of the love of money which has given rise to wrong
conception. Dr. Ambedkar feels that this thesis is shaky from the production
side of our life. He further proceeds to discuss and prove how the above
proposition is also untenable from the consumption side of life. Here the
learned Doctor enters into a psychological discussion of the desires and pleasures.
We leave this interesting discussion to be read by the readers in original
without taking their much time. The editors do not claim to have covered all
the main features of the closely reasoned arguments of the learned Doctor in
the present volume. Members of the Editorial Board are deeply indebted to the
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra State, Shri Sharad Pawar and Hon’ble
Minister for Education, Shri Sadanand Varde, for their valuable help, guidance
and co-operation in bringing out this volume. We are also grateful to Shri
Sapre, the Director of Government Printing and Stationery, and his staff for
having helped us in bringing out this book in record time.
