VOL-1 Gist Dr. Ambedkar

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.