Conversion 4th part




According to the Hindu theory of the order of

creation,  first  born Brahmin from the mouth  of

Brahma,  then Kshatriya from the arm, then Vaisha

from  his thighs and then the Sudra who was  born

last from his feet.  Therefore the Untouchable is

outside  the  scheme of creation.  The Shudra  is

Savarna.   As  against  him  the  Untouchable  is

Avarna.   i.e.   Outside the Varna  system.   The

Hindu theory of priority in creation does not and

cannot  apply to the Untouchable.  The word Antya

means not end of creation but end of the village.

It is the name given to those people who lived on

the outskirts  of  the village.  The word  Antaya

has,  therefore, a survival value.  In Past there

was a  time  when  some people lived  inside  the

village  and  some lived outside the village  and

that those who lived outside the village, i.e. on

the Antya of the village, were called Antyaja.


The  Untouchables  lived outside the  village

for the  same  reason for which the Fuidhirs  and

Alltudes  had  to  live outside  the  village  in

Ireland and Wales.1a


Who  were  the Shudras?  The answer  to  this

question  were searched by no less a person  than

Mr.Sherring in his Hindu Tribes and Castes vol-1,

p-xxi, that


“Whether   the   Shudras   were  Aryans,   or

aboriginal   inhabitants  of   India,  or  tribes

produced  by the union of the one with the other,

is of  little practical moment.  They were at  an

early period placed in a class by themselves, and

received  the fourth or last degree of rank,  yet

at a   considerable  distance   from  the   three

superior castes.  Even though it be admitted that

at the  outset  they were not Aryan,  still  from

their  extensive  intermarriages with  the  three

Aryan  Castes, they have become so far  Aryanized

that,  they have gained more than they have lost,

and certain  tribes now designated as Shudras are

in reality  more  Brahmins  and  Kshatriyas  than

anything  else.   In short, they have  become  as

much absorbed in other races as the Celtic tribes

of England  have become absorbed the  Anglo-Saxon

race;   and their own separate individuality,  if

they ever had any, has completely vanished.”1


The Aryans when they invaded India met with a

stubborn  resistance from these Dravidians.   For

“they  did  not  go beyond the frontiers  of  the

Punjab   till   the   fifteenth  century   before

Christ”.(BY E.J.Simcox).1c


The  word Shudra lost its original meaning of

being  the  name  of a particular  community  and

became  a  general  name for a  low-class  people

without  civilization,  without culture,  without

respect and without position.


There  is  a class of Hindus who  will  admit

that  the  Hindu social system is all wrong,  but

who hold that there is no necessity to attack it.

Their  argument  is  that   since  law  does  not

recognize  it,  it  is  a dying, if  not  a  dead

system.   But the system is still very much alive

as most  educated people are observe caste system

in their daily life.


They  are more selfish than any other set  of

beings  in the world, and are prostituting  their

intelligence  to support the vested interests  of

their class.2 As the system helps them to keep up

the superiority over the lower class of people.


To  idealize the real, which more often  than

not is  full  of  inequities, is a  very  selfish

thing to do.  Only when a person finds a personal

advantage  in things as they are that he tries to

idealize  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  once  settled is  settled  for  all

times.   Such a view is opposed to all  morality.

No society  with  a  social 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 what is

wrongly  settled  is  never settled and  must  be



Prof.Max   Muller   says   that   All   these

speculations  are  really the twiddles of  idiots

and ravings  of Madmen and as such they are of no

use to the student of history who is in search of

a natural explanation of a human problem.


One  can  do  nothing   with  the   Brahmanic

theories   except   to    call   them   senseless

ebullitions  of  a  silly mind.  They  leave  the

problem as it is.  With the modern theory, one is

at least on the road to recover one’s way.  Those

who are  the victim of the system will definitely

try to demolish it and no doubt one day they will

be success.


What is this Aryan race ?  Before we consider

the question  of Aryan race we must be sure as to

what  we  mean  by  the  word  “Race”  .   It  is

necessary  to  raise this question because it  is

not impossible to mistake a people for a race.


What  is a race ?  A race may be defined as a

body  of people possessing certain typical traits

which  are hereditary.  There was a time when  it

was believed  that the traits which constitute  a

race  are:   (1)  the form of the head,  (2)  the

colour  of  the hair and eyes, (3) the colour  of

the skin,  and  (4)  the   stature.   To-day  the

general view is that pigmentation and stature are

traits,  which  vary  according  to  climate  and

habitat,  and consequently they must be ruled out

as tests  for determining the race of the people.

The only  stable trait is the shape of the  human

head-  by which is meant the general  proportions

of length,  breadth  and height and that is  why

anthropologists and ethnologists regard it as the

best  available test of race.” Cephalic index and

Facial index is the mark of the race.


Due  to the amalgamations of different  stock

            of people  in Indian soil a new group was  formed

            under the banner of four caste Brahman, Khatriya,

            Vaish, and Sudra as higher castes and rest of the

            group called as lower caste and divided them into

            several  sub  caste to maintain the higher  caste

            monopoly  to rule over the mass of population  in



Here  is  an example to show how  the  people

were  tried  to gained the higher status  of  the

society  and  the  authority   denied  it.   When

Shivaji  was  became victorious then question  of

his status to become a king arises.  The question

was whether  he is Khatriya or Sudra.  If he is a

sudra  then he can not become a king.  His  claim

that  he  is a Kshatriya was turned down  by  the

Brahmins.   Shivaji’s claim was a direct conflict

with  the  well established thesis long  insisted

upon   by  the  Brahmins   that  there  were   no

Kshatriyas  in the Kali age.  Gogabhat a Brahmins

from  Benares,  learned  both in  the  Vedas  and

Sastras,   solved  the   problem  and   performed

Shivaji’s  coronation on 6th June 1674 at Raigad.

He took 1 lakh golden coin for this job.4


Why   have  the  Brahmins   not  produced   a

Voltaire?   The question can be answered only  by

another  question.  Why did the Sultan of  Turkey

not abolish the religion of the Mohammedan World?

Why has  no pope denounced Catholicism ?  Why has

the British  Parliament  not made a law  ordering

the killing of all blue-eyed babies?  The reasons

why the  Sultan  or  the   Pope  or  the  British

Parliament  has not done these things is the same

as why the Brahmins have not been able to produce

a Voltaire.   It  must  be  recognized  that  the

selfish  interest of a person or of the class  to

which  he  belongs  always acts  as  an  internal

limitation  which regulates the direction of  his

intellect.   The  power  and position  which  the

Brahmins  possess  is entirely due to  the  Hindu

Civilization  which  treats them as supermen  and

subjects  the  lower  classes  to  all  sorts  of

disabilities  so  that  they may never  rise  and

challenge  or  threaten  the superiority  of  the

Brahmins over them.  As is natural, every Brahmin

is interested  in  the maintenance  of  Brahmanic

supremacy  be he orthodox or unorthodox, be he  a

priest  or  a grahastha, be he a scholar or  not.

How can  the Brahmins afford to be Voltaires ?  A

Voltaire  among the Brahmins would be a  positive

danger to the maintenance of a civilization which

is contrived  to  maintain  Brahmanic  supremacy.

The point  is  that  the intellect of  a  Brahmin

scholar  is  severely  limited   by  anxiety   to

preserve  his  interest.   He suffers  from  this

internal  limitation as a result of which he does

not allow  his intellect full play which  honesty

and integrity demands.  For, he fears that it may

affect  the interests of his class and  therefore

his own.5


Who  were the Nagas?   How they scattered all

over  the India Undoubtedly they were non Aryans.

Nonetheless,   it  is  a   fact  that  the   term

Dravidians  and  Nagas are merely  two  different

names  for  the same people.  Their language  was



Therefore Tamil or Dravida was not merely the

language  of  South India but before  the  Aryans

came it was the language of the whole of India.


The  Nagas of North India gave up Tamil which

was their  mother  tongue and adopted Sanskrit  in

its place.   The  Nagas in South  India  retained

Tamil  as  their mother tongue and did not  adopt

sanskrit the language of the Aryans.7


When  the Untouchables were not  Untouchables

but were  only  Broken Men.  We must ask why  the

Brahmins  refused  to officiate at the  religious

ceremonies  of  the Broken Men?  Is it  the  case

that the Brahmins refused to officiate?  Or is it

that  the Broken Men refused to invite them?  Why

did the Brahmin regard Broken Men as impure?  Why

did the Broken Men regard the Brahmins as impure?

What is the basis of this antipathy?


This  antipathy  can  be   explained  on  one

hypothesis.   It  is  that the  Broken  Men  were

Buddhist.   As  such  they  did  not  revere  the

Brahmins,  did  not employ them as their  priests

and regarded  them as impure.  The Brahmin on the

other  hand disliked the Broken Men because  they

were Buddhists and preached against them contempt

and hatred  with  the result that the Broken  Men

came to be regarded as Untouchables.8


The  new approach in search for the origin of

Untouchability  has  brought to the  surface  two

sources  of the origin of Untouchability.  One is

the general  atmosphere  of  scorn  and  contempt

spread  by  the Brahmins against those  who  were

Buddhists   and  the  second  is  the  habit   of

beef-eating  kept  on by the Broken Men.  As  has

been  said  the first circumstance could  not  be

sufficient    to   account     for   stigma    of

Untouchability  attaching  itself to  the  Broken

Men.   For  the scorn and contempt for  Buddhists

and not  merely  the Broken Men.  The reason  why

Broken  Men only became Untouchables was  because

in addition  to  being  Buddhists  they  retained

their  habit of beef-eating which gave additional

ground for offence to the Brahmins to carry their

new-found  love  and reverence to the cow to  its

logical  conclusion.   We may therefore  conclude

that  the  Broken Men were exposed to  scorn  and

contempt  on the ground that they were  Buddhists

the main   cause  of   their  Untouchability  was



Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian ?  The

answer  is  that without becoming Vegetarian  the

Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they

had lost to their rival namely Buddhism.10


As observed by Mr.Kane;


“It  is  not that the cow was not  sacred  in

Vedic  times,  it was because of  her  sacredness

that  it  is ordained in the  Vajasaneyi  Samhita

that  beef  should be eaten.(Dharma Sutra  Vihar,

Marathi p180)


The  Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for

purposes of food and ate beef is abundantly clear

from  the  Rig Veda(X.86.14) Indra  says;   “They

cook  for  one  15  plus  twenty  oxen”.   Verses

X.91.14  says  that  for   Agni  were  sacrificed

horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams.


Manu  goes  further  and makes  eating  flesh

compulsory.  Note the following verse:-


“V.35.  But a man who, being duly engaged (to

officiate  or to dine at a sacred rite),  refuses

to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during

twenty-one existences.”12


The Buddhists rejected the Brahmanic religion

which  consisted  of Yajna and animal  sacrifice,

particularly of the cow.


After  examining all the pro and coins of the

history  it is found from the recorded views  and



” We can, therefore, say with some confidence

that  Untouchability was born some time about 400

A.D.   It  is  born  out   of  the  struggle  for

supremacy  between Buddhism and Brahmanism  which

has so  completely  molded the history of  India

and the  study of which is so woefully  neglected

by students of Indian history.”13





  1. Writings  &   Speeches  by  Dr.Ambedkar,

vol-7,  p279

1a.  ,, p283

1b.  ,, p9

1c. ,, v12 p14

  1. ,, p10
  2. ,, p32
  3. ,, p176
  4. ,, p240
  5. ,,  p292
  6. ,,  p300
  7. ,,  p315
  8. ,, p319-320
  9.    ,,  p346
  10. ,,  p324
  11. ,, p,324 & 343
  12. ,, p379
  13. A simple history  of Ancient India by

four Authors.



























The  relation between Hindus and Muslims were

not so  cordial in the past and at present it  is

very much necessary to improve for the betterment

of both the communities downtrodden section.  Are

there any common historical antecedents which the

Hindus  and Muslims can be said to share together

as matters  of  pride  or as matters  of  sorrow?

That  is  the crux of the question.  That is  the

question  which  the Hindus must answer, if  they

wish  to  maintain  that   Hindus  and  Musalmans

together form a nation.  So far as this aspect of

their  relationship is concerned, they have  been

just  two  armed battalions warring against  each

other.    There   was   no    common   cycle   of

participation  for  a common achievement.   Their

past  is a past of mutual destruction – a past of

mutual animosities, both in the political as well

as in the religious fields.


There  are many flaws in the Hindu  argument.

In the  first  place,  what are  pointed  out  as

common features are not the result of a conscious

attempt  to adopt and adapt to each other’s  ways

and manners to bring about social fusion.  On the

other  hand,  this  uniformity is the  result  of

certain  purely  mechanical   causes.   They  are

partly  due to incomplete conversions.  In a land

like  India,  where  the majority of  the  Muslim

population  has been recruited from caste and out

caste  Hindus,  the Muslimization of the  convert

was neither  complete nor effectual, either  from

fear  of  revolt  or  because of  the  method  of

persuasion  or insufficiency of preaching due  to

insufficiency  of  priests.  There is  therefore,

little  wonder  if great sections of  the  Muslim

community  here  and  there  reveal  their  Hindu

origin  in  their  religious   and  social  life.

Partly  it  is to be explained as the  effect  of

common  environment  to  which  both  Hindus  and

Muslims  have  been subjected for  centuries.   A

common  environment  is bound to  produce  common

reactions,  and  reacting constantly in the  same

way to the same environment is bound to produce a

common type.  Partly are these common features to

be explained  as  the  remnants of  a  period  of

religious  amalgamation between the Hindu and the

Muslim  inaugurated  by  the Emperor  Akbar,  the

result of a dead past which has no present and no



Thus  history  shows  that   the  theory   of

nationality  is imbedded in the democratic theory

of the sovereignty of the will of a people.  This

means  that  the  demand by a nationality  for  a

national  state does not require to be  supported

by any  list  of  grievances.  The  will  of  the

people is enough to justify it.


But,  if grievances must be cited in  support

of their  claim,  the Muslims say that they  have

them  in  plenty.  They may be summed up  in  one

sentence,  that  constitutional  safeguards  have

failed to save them from the tyranny of the Hindu



The  British  have done many good  things  in

India  for the Indians.  They have improved their

roads,  constructed  canals  on  more  scientific

principles,  effected  their transport  by  rail,

carried  their  letters  by penny  post,  flashed

their  messages  by   lightings,  improved  their

currency,  regulated their weights and  measures,

corrected  their notions of geography,  astronomy

and medicine, and stopped their internal quarrels

and effected  some advancement in their  material

conditions.   Because  of  this   acts  of   good

government,  did anybody ask the Indian people to

remain  grateful to the British and give up their

agitation  for  self government?  Or  because  of

these acts of social uplift, did the Indians give

up their  protest  against  being  treated  as  a

subject  race  by the British?  The  Indians  did

nothing   of  the  kind.    They  refused  to  be

satisfied  with these good deeds and continued to

agitate for their right to rule themselves.  This

is as  it should be.  For, as was said by Curran,

the Irish  patriot, no man can be grateful at the

            cost of his selfrespect, no woman can be grateful

            at the  cost of her chastity and no nation can be

            grateful  at  the  cost  of its  honour.   To  do

otherwise  is  to show that one’s  philosophy  of

life   is   just  what    Carlyle   called   “Pig



Men,  who  are conscious of their being,  are

not pigs  who care only for fattening food.  They

have  their pride which they will not yield  even

for gold.  In short “Life is more than the meat”.


Dr.Ambedkar  says  that It is no  use  saying

that  the  Congress in not a Hindu body.  A  body

which  is  Hindu in its composition is  bound  to

reflect   the  Hindu  mind   and  support   Hindu

aspirations.   The  only difference  between  the

            Congress  and  the  Hindu Mahasabha is  that  the

            latter  is crude in its utterances and brutal  in

            its actions  while  the  Congress is  polite  and

            politic.   Apart  from this difference  of  fact,

there is no other difference between the Congress

and the Hindu Maha Sabha.1


The British conquest of India brought about a

complete  political  revolution in  the  relative

position  of the two communities.  For 762 years,

the Musalmans had been the masters of the Hindus.

The British  occupation brought them down to  the

level  of  the  Hindus.  From masters  to  fellow

            subjects  was  degradation enough, but  a  change

            from  the  status of fellow subjects to  that  of

            subjects of the Hindus is really humiliation.  Is

it unnatural,  ask  the Muslims, if they seek  an

escape  from  so  intolerable a position  by  the

creation  of  separate national States, in  which

the Muslims can find a peaceful home and in which

the conflicts between a ruling race and a subject

race can find no place to plague their lives ?


Nationalists,  fighting  for   freedom   from

aggressive  imperialism, cannot well ask the help

of the  British imperialists to thwart the  right

of a  minority to freedom from the nationalism of

an aggressive   majority.   The    matter   must,

therefore, be decided upon by the Muslims and the

Hindus  alone.   The  British cannot  decide  the

issue  for  them.   This is the  first  important

point to note.


Before  partition of India, Dr.Ambedkar  says

It will  be the greatest folly to suppose that if

Pakistan  is buried for the moment, it will never

raise  its  head  again.   I  am  sure,   burying

Pakistan  is  not the same thing as  burying  the

ghost of Pakistan.2


The  area include Afganistan and Pakistan was

a part  of India.  Historically there is no doubt

about  it.   This area was a part of  India  when

Chandragupta was the ruler;  it continued to be a

part  of  India  when Hsuan  Tsang,  the  Chinese

pilgrim,  visited  India in the 7th century  A.D.

In his diary, Hsuan Tsang has recorded that India

was divided  into  five divisions or to  use  his

language,   there  were   ‘five  Indies’*:    (1)

Northern  India,  (2) Western India, (3)  Central

India,  (4) Eastern India and (5) Southern  India

and that   these  five   divisions  contained  80

kingdoms.   According  to   him,  Northern  India

comprised  the  Punjab proper, including  Kashmir

and the  adjoining hill States with the whole  of

Eastern  Afghanistan  beyond the Indus,  and  the

present  Cis-Satlaj  States  to the west  of  the

Sarasvati  river.  Thus, in Northern India  there

were included the districts of Kabul, Jallalabad,

Peshawar,  Ghazni  and  Bannu,   which  were  all

subject  to the ruler of Kapisa, who was a  Hindu

Kshatriya  and whose capital was most probably at

Charikar, 27 miles from Kabul.


In  the  Punjab proper, the  hilly  districts

taxila,  Singhapura,  Urasa, Punch  and  Rajoari,

were  subject to the Raja of Kashmir;  while  the

whole  of  the  plains,   including  Multan   and

Shorkot,  were dependent on the ruler of Taki  or

Sangala, near Lahore.  Such was the extent of the

northern boundary of India at the time when Hsuan

Tsang  came on his pilgrimage.  But  Prof.Toynbee

points out:


“We  must be on our guard against ‘historical

sentiment’,  that is against arguments taken from

conditions which once existed or were supposed to

exist,  but  which  are  no longer  real  at  the

present moment.  They are most easily illustrated

by extreme  examples.   Italian  newspapers  have

described the annexation of Tripoli as recovering

the soil  of the Fatherland because it was once a

province  of  the Roman Empier;  and  the  entire

region   of  Macedonea  is   claimed   by   Greek

Chauvinists  on the one hand, because it contains

the site  of  Pella, the cradle of Alexandar  the

Great  in  the  fourth   century  B.C.   and  the

Bulgarians  on the other, because Ochrida, in the

opposite corner, was the capital of the Bulgarian

Tzardom  in  the tenth century A.D., though  the

drift  of  time has buried the tradition  of  the

latter  almost as deep as the achievements of the

‘Emathian  Conqueror’  on which the modern  Greek

nationalists insist so strongly.”


The  same  logic  applies  here.   Here  also

arguments  are  taken from conditions which  once

existed  but  which are no longer real and  which

omit to take into consideration later facts which

history  has  to  record during  practically  one

thousand years-after the return of Hsuan Tsang.


It  is  true that when Hsuan Tsang came,  not

only  the Punjab but what is now Afghanistan  was

part  of  India  and further, the people  of  the

Punjab  and  Afghanistan  were  either  Vedic  or

Buddhist  by  religion.   But what  has  happened

            since Hsuan Tsang left India?


The most important thing that has happened is

the invasion  of India by the Muslim hordes  from

the north-west.   The  first Muslim  invasion  of

India  was by the Arabs who were led by  Mahommad

Bin Qasim.   It  took  place  in    711A.D.   and

resulted  in  the conquest of Sind.   This  first

Muslim  invasion  did not result in  a  permanent

occupation  of the country because the  Caliphate

of Baghdad,  by  whose  order   and  command  the

invasion  had  taken  place, was obliged  by  the

middle  of the 9th century A.D.  to withdraw(Sind

was reoccupied  by  Mahommed  Ghori)  its  direct

control from this distant province of Sind.  Soon

after  this  withdrawal, there began a series  of

terrible  invasions by Muhammad of Ghazni in 1001

A.D.   Muhammad died in 1030 A.D., but within the

short  span  of  30 years, he  invaded  India  17

times.   He  was followed by Mahommad  Ghori  who

began  his career as an invader in 1173.  He  was

killed in 1206.  For thirty years had Muhammad of

Ghazni  ravaged  India  and   for  thirty   years

Mahommad  Ghori  harried the same country in  the

same  way.   Then followed the incursions of  the

Moghul  hordes of Chenghiz Khan.  They first came

in 1221.   They then only wintered on the  border

of India  but  did  not enter it.   Twenty  years

after,  they marched on Lahore and sacked it.  Of

their inroads, the most terrible was under Taimur

in 1398.   Then comes on the scene a new  invader

in the person of Babar who invaded India in 1526.

The invasions  of India did not stop with that of

Babar.   There  occurred two more invasions.   In

1738  Nadirshan’s  invading host swept  over  the

Punjab  like  a  flooded river  “furious  as  the

ocean”.  He was followed by Ahmadshah Abdalli who

invaded  India in 1761, smashed the forces of the

Mahrattas  at  Panipat and crushed for  ever  the

attempt  of  the Hindus to gain the ground  which

they had lost to their Muslim invaders.


These  Muslim  invasions were not  undertaken

merely  out of lust for loot or conquest.   There

were  another object behind them.  The expedition

against Sind by Mahommad bin Qasim was a punitive

character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir

of Sind  who had refused to make restitution  for

the seizure  of an Arab ship at Debul, one of the

sea-port  towns of Sind.  But, there is no  doubt

that   striking  a  blow  at  the  idolatry   and

polytheism  of  Hindus and establishing Islam  in

India   was  also  one  of   the  aims  of   this

expedition.   In one of his despatches to hajjaj,

Mohommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said:


The  nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors  and

            principal  officers have been dispatched, and the

            infidels   converted  to   Islam  or   destroyed.

            instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places

            of worship have been created, the Kutbah is read,

            the call  to prayers is raised, so that  devotion

            are performed  at  stated hours.  The Takbir  and

            praise  to  the  Almighty God are  offered  every

            morning  and  evening.”(Indian Islam by  Dr.Titus



After receiving the above despatch, which had

been  forwarded with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj

sent the following reply to his general:


“Except  that  you  give protection  to  all,

great and small alike, make no difference between

enemy and friend.  God, says, ‘Give no quarter to

            infidels  but cut their throats’.  Then know that

            this  is the command of the great God.  You shall

not be  too ready to grant protection, because it

will  prolong  your  work.  After  this  give  no

quarter  to  any  enemy except those who  are  of

rank.”(Quoted by Dr.Titus Ibid p-10)


Muhammad  of  Ghazni  also  looked  upon  his

numerous  invasions  of India as the waging of  a

holy  war.  Al’ Utbi, the historian of  Muhammad,

describing his raids writes:


“He  demolished idol temples and  established

Islam.  He captured…cities, killed the polluted

wretches,   destroying    the    idolators,   and

gratifying  Muslims.  ‘He then returned home  and

            promulgated  accounts  of the victories  obtained

            for Islam…..and  vowed that every year he would

            undertake a holy war against Hind’.”(Ibid-p11)


Muhammed  Ghori was actuated by the same holy

zeal  in  his invasions of India.  Hasan  Nizami,

the historian,   describes   his   work  in   the

following terms:


He purged by his sword the land of Hind from

            the filth  of infidelity and vice, and freed  the

            whole   of  that  country   from  the  thorn   of

            God-plurality  and the impurity of  idol-worship,

            and by  his royal vigour and intrepidity left not

            one temple standing.”(Ibid p-11)


Taimur  has in his Memoir explained what  led

him to invade India.  He says:


My  object in the invasions of Hindustan  is

            to lead  a  campaign  against  the  infidels,  to

            convert  them to the true faith according to  the

            command  of  Muhammad (on whom and his family  be

            the blessing  and  peace of God), to  purify  the

            land  from  the  defilement   of  misbelief   and

            polytheism,  and overthrow the temples and idols,

            whereby   we  shall  be   Ghazis  and   Mujahids,

            companions  and  soldiers  of  the  faith  before

            God.”(Quoted  by  Lane Poole in  Medieval  India,



These  invasions of India by Muslims were  as

much  invasions of India as they were wars  among

the Muslims  themselves.  This fact has  remained

hidden  because  the  invaders   are  all  lumped

together  as Muslims without distinction.  But as

a matter  of fact, they were Tartar, Afghans  and

Mongols.   Muhommed  of  Gazni   was  a   Tartar,

Muhammed  of  Ghori was an Afghan, Taimur  was  a

Mongol,  Babar was a Tartar, while Nadirshah  and

Ahmadshah Abdalli were Afghans.


In  invading  India,  the Afghan was  out  of

destroy  the  Tartar  and the Mongal was  out  to

destroy  the Tartar as well as the Afghan.   They

            were  not a loving family cemented by the feeling

            of Islamic  brotherhood.  They were deadly rivals

            of one  another and their wars were often wars of

            mutual   extermination.    What    is,   however,

important  to bear in mind is that with all their

internecine conflicts they were all united by one

common  objective  and  that was to  destroy  the

Hindu faith.


The methods adopted by the Muslim invaders of

India are not less significant for the subsequent

history  of  India  than   the  object  of  their



Mohommad  bin Qasim’s first act of  religious

zeal  was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins  of

the captured  city of Debul;  but on  discovering

that they objected to this sort of conversion, he

proceeded  to  put  all above the age  of  17  to

death,  and  to order all others, with women  and

children,  to be led into slavery.  Temple of the

Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided

equally  among the soldiers, after one-fifth, the

legal  portion  for the government, had been  set



Muhammad  of  Ghazni from the  first  adopted

those  plans  that would strike terror  into  the

hearts  of the Hindus.  After the defeat of  Raja

Jaipal  in  A.D.1001,     Muhammad  ordered  that

Jaipal  “be paraded about in the streets so  that

            his sons  and  chieftains might see him  in  that

            condition of shame, bonds and disgrace;  and that

            fear  of  Islam  might  fly  abroad  through  the

            country of the infidels.”


“The  slaughtering of ‘infidels’ seemed to be

one thing that gave Muhammad particular pleasure.

In one  attack on Chand Raj, in A.D.1019,    many

infidels  were slain or taken prisoners, and  the

Muslims  paid  no regard to booty until they  had

satiated  themselves  with the slaughter  of  the

infidels  and  worshippers of the sun  and  fire.

The historian  naively adds that the elephants of

the Hindu  armies  came to Muhammad of their  own

accord,  leaving idols, preferring the service of

the religion of Islam.”*


Not infrequently, the slaughter of the Hindus

gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of

the Hindus,  as  in  the  conquest  of  Bihar  by

Muhammad   Bakhtyar   Khilji.    When   he   took

Nuddea(Bihar)  the  Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs  us



“great  plunder  fell into the hands  of  the

victors.   Most of the inhabitants were  Brahmins

with  shaven  heads.   They were  put  to  death.

Large  number  of  books were  found….but  none

could  explain their contents as all the men  had

been  killed,  the  whole fort and city  being  a

place of study.”3


Summing  up  the  evidence   on  the   point,

Dr.Titus concludes:


Of  the  destruction  of   temples  and  the

            desecration  of  idols  we have an  abundance  of

            evidence.   Mahommad  bin Qasim carried  out  his

            plan  of  destruction systematically in Sind,  we

            have seen, but he made an exception of the famous

            temple at Multan for purposes of revenue, as this

            temple  was  a place of resort for pilgrims,  who

            made  large  gifts  to the  idol.   Nevertheless,

            while  he  thus satisfied his avarice by  letting

            the temple  stand, he gave vent to his  malignity

            by having  a piece of cow’s flesh tied around the

            neck of the idol.


“Minhaj-as-Siraj  further tells how  Mahommad

became  widely known for having destroyed as many

as a  thousand temples, and of his great feat  in

destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off

its idol,  which he asserts was broken into  four

parts.   One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid

            of Ghazni,  one he placed at the entrance of  the

            royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the

            fourth to Medina.“(Ibid pp 22-23)


It  is  said by Lane Poole that  Muhammad  of

Ghazni  “who had vowed that every year should see

            him wage  a  holy  war against  the  infidels  of

            Hindustan”  could not rest from his idol-breaking

campaign  so  long  as   the  temple  of  Somnath

remained  inviolate.   It was for  this  specific

purpose that he, at the very close of his career,

undertook  his  arduous march across  the  desert

from  Multan to Anhalwara on the coast,  fighting

as he  went,  until  he saw at  last  the  famous



“There  a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont

to assemble,  a  thousand   Brahmins  served  the

temple and guarded its treasures, and hundreds of

dancers  and  singers  played before  its  gates.

Within  stood  the  famous linga, a  rude  pillar

stone  adorned with gems and lighted by  jewelled

candelabra which were reflected in rich hangings,

embroidered with precious stones like stars, that

docked  the shrine…  Its ramparts were  swarmed

with  incredulous  Brahmins,   mocking  the  vain

arrogance  of  foreign infidels whom the  God  of

Somnath would assuredly consume.  The foreigners,

nothing  daunted,  scaled  the  walls;   the  God

remained  dumb  to  the  urgent  appeals  of  his

servants;   fifty  thousand Hindus  suffered  for

their  faith and the sacred shrine was sacked  to

the joy  of the true believers.  The great  stone

was cast  down and its fragments were carried off

to grace  the  conqueror’s  palace.   The  temple

gates  were set up at Ghazni and a million pounds

worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast.”4


The  work done by Muhammad of Ghazni became a

pious  tradition  and was faithfully followed  by

those  who  came  after  him.  In  the  words  of



“Muhommad  Ghori,  one  of  the  enthusiastic

successors of Muhammad of Ghazni, in his conquest

of Ajmir destroyed pillars and foundations of the

idol-temples,  and  built in their stead  mosques

and colleges,  and the precepts of Islam and  the

customs of the law were divulged and established.

At Delhi,  the  city and its vicinity were  freed

from   idols  and  idol   worship,  and  in   the

sanctuaries  of  the images of the  Gods  mosques

were raised by the worshippers of the one God.


“Qutb-ud-Din  Aybak  also  is  said  to  have

destroyed  nearly  a thousand temples,  and  then

raised  mosques  on their foundations.  The  same

author  states  that  he build the  Jami  Masjid,

Delhi,  and  adorned it with the stones and  gold

obtained   from  the  temples   which  had   been

demolished  by  elephants,  and covered  it  with

inscriptions  (from  the  Quran)  containing  the

divine  commands.   We have further  evidence  of

this harrowing process having been systematically

employed  from  the inscription extant  over  the

eastern  gateway  of this same mosque  at  Delhi,

which  relates  that  the materials  of  27  idol

temples were used in its construction.


“Ala-ud-Din,  in  his zeal to build a  second

Minar  to the Jami Masjid, to rival the one built

by Qutb-ud-Din,  is said by Amir Khusru not  only

to have  dug stones out of the hills, but to have

demolished  temples of the infidels to furnish  a

supply.   In  his  conquests of South  India  the

destruction  of  temples  was   carried  out   by

Ala-ud-Din  as  it had been in the north  by  his



“The  Sultan  Firoz  Shah,  in  his  Futuhat,

graphically relates how he treated Hindus who had

dared  to build new temples.  ‘When they did this

in the   city(Delhi)   and   the   environs,   in

opposition  to  the  law of  the  Prophet,  which

declares that such are not to be tolerated, under

Divine  guidance  I destroyed these edifices.   I

killed  these leaders of infidelity and  punished

others  with  stripes,  until   this  abuse   was

entirely   abolished  and   where  infidels   and

idolaters  worshipped  idols,  Musalmans  now  by

God’s  mercy perform their devotions to the  true



Even  in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read  of

the destruction  of  the temples that the  Hindus

had started  to rebuild, and the account of  this

direct  attack on the piety of the Hindus is thus

solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah:


“It  had  been brought to the notice  of  His

Majesty, says the historian, that during the late

reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples had been begun

but remained  unfinished  at Benares,  the  great

stronghold  of infidelity.  The infidels were now

desirous  of  completing them.  His majesty,  the

defender  of  the  faith,  gave  orders  that  at

Benares and throughout all his dominions in every

place  all temples that had been begun should  be

cast  down.  It was reported from the Province of

Allahabad  and  76 temples had been destroyed  in

the district of Benares.”6


It  was  left  to Aurangzeb to make  a  final

attempt  to  overthrow idolatry.  The  author  of

‘Ma’ athir i-Alamgiri dilates upon his efforts to

put down  Hindu teaching, and his destruction  of

temples in the following terms:


“In April A.D.1669, Aurangzib learned that in

the provinces  of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but

especially in the latter, foolish.  Brahmins were

in the  habit  of expounding frivolous  books  in

their schools, and that learners, Muslims as well

as Hindus,  went there from long  distances…The

‘Director  of  the   Faith’  consequently  issued

orders  to  all  the governors  of  provinces  to

destroy  with  a  willing hand  the  schools  and

temples  of the infidels;  and they were enjoined

to put  an  entire  stop  to  the  teaching   and

practising  of idolatrous worship…Later it  was

reported  to  his  religious   Majesty  that  the

Government  officers had destroyed the temple  of

Bishnath at Benares.”7


As Dr.Titus observes,8


“Such  invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem to

have  been  more concerned with  iconoclasm,  the

collection  of booty, the enslaving of  captives,

and sending   of  infidels  to   hell  with   the

‘proselytizing  sword’  then they were  with  the

conversion  of  them  even by  force.   But  when

rulers  were permanently established the  winning

of converts  became a matter of supreme  urgency.

It was  a  part of the state policy to  establish

Islam as the religion of the whole land.


“Qutb-ud-Din, whose reputation for destroying

temples  was almost as great as that of Muhammad,

in the  latter  part of the twelfth  century  and

early   years  of  the   thirteenth,  must   have

frequently  resorted to force as an incentive  to

conversion.   One instance may be noted:  when he

approached  Koil(Aligarh) in A.D.1194, ‘those  of

the garrison  who  were  wise   and  acute   were

converted  to  Islam, but the others  were  slain

with the sword’.


“Further   examples  of    extreme   measures

employed  to effect a change of faith are all too

numerous.   One pathetic case is mentioned in the

time  of the reign of Firoz  Shah(A.D.1351-1388).

An old  Brahmin  of  Delhi had  been  accused  of

worshipping  idols  in  his house,  and  of  even

leading  Muslim women to become infidels.  He was

sent  for and his case placed before the  judges,

doctors,  elders  and lawyers.  Their  reply  was

that  the provisions of the law were clear.   The

Brahmin must either become a Muslim or be burned.

The true  faith was declared to him and the right

course  pointed out, but he refused to accept it.

Consequently  he  was burned by the order of  the

Sultan,  and  the commentator adds,  ‘Behold  the

Sultan’s  strict adherence to law and  rectitude,

how he  would  not deviate in the least from  its



Muhammad  not only destroyed temples but made

            it a  policy  to  make slaves of  the  Hindus  he

            conquered.  In the words of Dr.Titus:9


“Not  only was slaughter of the infidels  and

the destruction  of their temples resorted to  in

earlier period of Islam’s contact with India, but

as we  have seen, many of the vanquished were led

into  slavery.  The dividing up of booty was  one

of the  special  attractions, to the  leaders  as

well   as  to  the   common  soldiers  in   these

expeditions.   Muhammad  seems to have  made  the

slaughter  of infidels, the destruction of  their

temples,  the  capturing  of   slaves,  and   the

plundering   of  the  wealth   of   the   people,

particularly  of the temples and the priests, the

main object of his raids.  On the occasion of his

first  raid he is said to have taken much  booty;

and half  a  million Hindus, ‘beautiful  men  and

women’, were reduced to slavery and taken back to



When  Muhammad  later  took Kanauj,  in  A.D.

1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners

that’ the fingers of those who counted them would

have tired’.  Describing how common Indian slaves

had become  in Ghazni and Central Asia after  the

campaign  of  A.D.1019,    the Historian  of  the

times says(ibid-p26):


“The  number  of prisoners may  be  conceived

from  the fact that each was sold for from two to

ten dirhams.   These  were after wards  taken  to

Ghazni,  and  merchants  came  from  far  distant

cities to purchase them;,….and the fair and the

dark,  the  rich and the poor were commingled  in

one common slavery.


“In  the  year A.D.  1202,  when  Qutb-ud-Din

captured  Kalinjar,  after the temples  had  been

converted  into  mosques,  and the very  name  of

idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came

under  the collar of slavery and the plain became

black as pitch with Hindus.”


Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were

captured in the holy war.  But, when there was no

war the systematic abasement of the Hindus played

no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the

Muslim  invaders.   In the days of Ala-ud-Din  at

the beginning  of  the   fourteenth  century,  the

Hindus had in certain parts given the Sultan much

trouble.   So, he determined to impose such taxes

on them  that they would be prevented from rising

in rebellion.


“The  Hindus was to be left unable to keep  a

horse  to  ride on, to carry arms, to  wear  fine

clothes,  or  to  enjoy any of  the  luxuries  of



Speaking  of  the  levy  of  Jizyah  Dr.Titus

says(Ibid p30)


“The  payment  of  the Jizyah by  the  Hindus

continued   throughout  the   dominions  of   the

sultans,  emperors, and kings in various parts of

India with more or less regularity, though often,

the law  was  in force in theory only;  since  it

depended entirely on the ability of the sovereign

to enforce  his  demands.  But, finally,  it  was

abolished  throughout  the Moghul Empire  in  the

ninth  year  of  the   enlightened  Akbar’s  reign

(A.D.1665),  after  it  had been  accepted  as  a

fundamental  part of Muslim government policy  in

India for a period of more than eight centuries.”


Lane Poole says that


“the  Hindu  was taxed to the extent of  half

the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on

all his buffaloes, goats, and other milch-cattle.

The taxes  were to be levied equally on rich  and

poor,  at  so much per acre, so much per  animal.

Any collectors  or  officers taking  bribes  were

summarily  dismissed  and heavily  punished  with

sticks,  pincers,  the   rack,  imprisonment  and

chains.  The new rules were strictly carried out,

so that one revenue officer would string together

20 Hindu  notables and enforce payment by  blows.

No gold  or  silver,  not even the  betelnut,  so

cheering  and stimulative to pleasure, was to  be

seen  in  a  Hindu house, and the  wives  of  the

impoverished  native  officials were  reduced  to

taking  service  in   Muslim  families.   Revenue

officers  came to be regarded as more deadly than

the oplague;   and  to be a government clerk  was

disgrace  worse  than death, in so much  that  no

Hindu would marry his daughter to such a man.”11


These  edicts,  says  the  historian  of  the



“were  so  strictly  carried   out  that  the

chaukidars  and khuts and muqaddims were not able

to ride  on  horseback, to find weapon,  to  were

fine  clothes, or to indulge in betel….No Hindu

could  hold up his head….Blows, confinement  in

the stocks,  imprisonment  and  chains  were  all

employed to enforce payment.”


All  this was not the result of mere  caprice

or moral perversion.  On the other hand, what was

done  was in accordance with the ruling ideas  of

the leaders  of  Islam in the  broadest  aspects.

These  ideas  were well expressed by the Kazi  in

reply a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting

to know  the  legal position of the Hindus  under

Muslim law.  The Kazi said:-


“They  are called payers of tribute, and when

the revenue officer demands silver from them they

should  without  question, and with all  humility

and respect,  tender gold.  If the officer throws

dirt   in  their  mouths,   they   must   without

reluctance  open  their  mouths wide  to  receive

it…   The  due subordination of the  Dhimmi  is

exhibited  in  this humble payment, and  by  this

throwing   of  dirt  into   their  mouths.    The

glorification of Islam is a duty and contempt for

religion  is vain.  Gold holds them in  contempt,

for he  says, ‘keep them in subjection’.  To keep

the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious

duty,  because  they  are   the  most  inveterate

enemies  of the Prophet, and because the  Prophet

has commanded  us to slay them, plunder them, and

make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islam

or kill  them,  and make them slaves,  and  spoil

their  wealth  and property’.  No doctor but  the

great  doctor  (Hanifah),  to   whose  school  we

belong,  has assented to the imposition of  jizya

on Hindus;   doctors  of other schools  allow  no

other alternative but ‘Death or Islam’.12


Such is the story of this period of 762 years

which  elapsed between the advent of Muhammad  of

Ghazni and the return of Ahmadshah Abdalli.


How  far is it open to the Hindus to say that

Northern  India is part of Aryavarta?  How far is

it open  to  the  Hindus to say because  once  it

belonged  to them, therefore, it must remain  for

ever an integral part of India?  Those who oppose

separation  and hold to the ‘historic  sentiment’

arising  out  of  an ancient fact  that  Northern

India  including  Afghanistan  was once  part  of

India  and  that  the people of  that  area  were

either  Buddhist or Hindus, must be asked whether

the events of these 762 years of incessant Muslim

invasions,  the  object  with   which  they  were

launched  and  the  methods   adopted  by   these

invaders to give effect to their object are to be

treated  as  though  they   were  matters  of  no



Apart  from  other  consequences  which  have

flowed  from  them  these invasions have,  in  my

opinion,  so  profoundly altered the culture  and

character  of the northern areas, which it is not

proposed to be included in a Pakistan, that there

is not  only  no unity between that area and  the

rest  of  India but that there is as a matter  of

fact a real antipathy between the two.


The  first consequence of these invasions was

the breaking  up  of the unity of Northern  India

with  the  rest of India.  After his conquest  of

Northern  India,  Muhammad of Ghazni detached  it

from  India  and  ruled  it  from  Ghazni.   When

Mahommed  Ghori came in the field as a conqueror,

he again  attached it to India and ruled it  from

Lahore  and then from Delhi.  Hakim, the  brother

of Akbar,   detached  Kabul   and  Kandahar  from

Northern  India.   Akbar  again  attached  it  to

Northern  India.   They  were again  detached  by

Nadirshah in 1738 and the whole of Northern India

would  have  been severed from India had  it  not

been  for  the check provided by the rise of  the

Sikhs.   Northern India, therefore, has been like

a wagon  in  a  train, which can  be  coupled  or

uncoupled  according to the circumstances of  the



If   analogy   is  wanted,    the   case   of

Alsace-Lorraine  could be cited.  Alsace-Lorraine

was originally  part of Germany, like the rest of

Switzerland  and the Low Countries.  It continued

to be  so till 1680, when it was taken by  France

and incorporated  into  French   territory.    It

belonged  to  France  till   1871,  when  it  was

detached   by  Germany  and   made  part  of  her

territory.   In 1918, it was again detached  from

Germany  and made part of France, In 1940, it was

detached from France and made part of Germany.


The methods adopted by the invaders have left

behind  them  their aftermath.  One aftermath  is

the bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims

which they have caused.  This bitterness, between

the two,  is  so  deep-seated that a  century  of

political life has neither succeeded in assuaging

it, nor  in  making  people forget  it.   As  the

invasions  were  accompanied with destruction  of

temples  and forced conversions, with  spoliation

of property,  with  slaughter,   enslavement  and

abasement of men, women and children, what wonder

if the  memory  of  these   invasions  has   ever

remained  green,  as  a source of  pride  of  the

Muslims  and as a source of shame to the  Hindus?

But these things apart, this north-west corner of

India  has been a theatre in which a stern  drama

has been  played.   Muslim hordes, in wave  after

wave,  have  surged down into this area and  from

thence  scattered  themselves in spray  over  the

rest  of India.  These reached the rest of  India

in thin  currents.   In time, they  also  receded

from  their farthest limits;  while they  lasted,

they  left a deep deposit of Islamic culture over

the original  Aryan  culture in  this  north-west

corner  of  India  which has given it  a  totally

different colour, both in religious and political

out look.


The  Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India

singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus.  But ,

they  did not merely sing their hymn of hate  and

go back  burning a few temples on the way.   That

would  have  been  a  blessing.   They  were  not

content  with  so negative a result.  They did  a

positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam.

The growth  of  this plant is remarkable.  It  is

not a  summer  sapling.   It is as great  and  as

strong  as an oke.  Its growth is the thickest in

Northern  India.   The successive invasions  have

deposited  their ‘silt’ more there than  anywhere

else,  and  have served as watering exercises  of

devoted  gardeners.   Its growth is so  thick  in

Northern  India  that the remnants of  Hindu  and

Buddhist culture are just shrubs.


Referring to the Muslim religion, he said: “

If there  are  any  people  with  whom  religious

            sentiments  and practices make it extremely risky

            to interfere, they are the Muslims.”


There  isn’t  anything new in the  Gospel  of

            Mohomed who is the least original of the Prophet.

            His Koran  is  a compromise between Judaeism  and



Even  the  Sikh axe could not fell this  oak.

Sikhs,  no doubt, became the political masters of

Northern  India,  but  they  did  not  gain  back

Northern  India  to that spiritual  and  cultural

unity  by which it was bound to the rest of India

before Hsuan Tsang.  The Sikhs coupled it back to

India.   Still,  it remains like  Alsace-Lorraine

politically  detachable and spiritually alien  so

far as  the  rest of India is concerned.   It  is

only  an  unimaginative person who could fail  to

take  notice of these facts or insist in the face

of them  that Pakistan means breaking up into two

what is one whole.13


What  is  the  unity the Hindu  sees  between

Pakistan  and  Hindustan?  If it is  geographical

unity, then that is no unity.  Geographical unity

is unity  intended  by nature.  In building up  a

nationality  on  geographical unity, it  must  be

remembered  that  it  is  a  case  where   Nature

proposes  and  Man disposes.  If it is  unity  in

external things, such as ways and habits of life,

that  is  no unity.  Such unity is the result  of

exposure  to  a  common environment.   If  it  is

administrative  unity,  that again is  no  unity.

The instance  of  Burma is in point.  Arakan  and

Tenasserim  were annexed in 1826 by the treaty of

Yendubu.  Pegu and Martaban were annexed in 1852.

Upper   Burma   was  annexed    in   1886.    The

administrative  unity between India and Burma was

forged   in  1826.   For   over  110  years  that

administrative  unity  continued  to  exist.   In

1937,  the  knot that tided the two together  was

cut asunder  and nobody shed a tear over it.  The

unity  between  India  and  Burma  was  not  less

fundamental.   If  unity is to be of  an  abiding

character,  it  must  be founded on  a  sense  of

kinship,  in  the feeling of being  kindred.   In

short, it must be spiritual.  Judged in the light

of these   considerations,  the   unity   between

Pakistan  and Hindustan is a myth.  Indeed, there

is more  spiritual  unity between  Hindustan  and

Burma   than  there  is   between  Pakistan   and



It  must be admitted that after the  creation

of Pakistan,  India  is  not  freed  of  communal

question.   While Pakistan is a homogeneous state

by redrawing  its boundaries, India must remain a

composite state.  The Musalmans are scattered all

over  India though they are mostly congregated in

towns and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing

of boundaries  can make it homogeneous.  The only

            way to  make India homogeneous was to arrange for

            exchange  of population.  Until that is done,  it

            must  be admitted now that after the creation  of

            Pakistan,  the problem of majority vs.   minority

            still remain in India as before and will continue

            to produce  disharmony  in  the body  politic  of



The  Hindus can never be expected to  consent

to the  inclusion of the Hindus in a Muslim State

deliberately  created  for the  preservation  and

propagation  of Muslim faith and Muslim  culture.

The Hindus  will  no doubt oppose.  Muslims  must

not suppose  that it will take long to find  them



Unfortunately,  the high caste Hindus are bad

as leaders.  They have a trait of character which

often  leads the Hindus to disaster.  This  trait

is formed  by  their   acquisitive  instinct  and

aversion  to share with others the good things of

life.   They  have  a monopoly of  education  and

wealth,  and with wealth and education they  have

captured  the  State.  To keep this  monopoly  to

themselves  has  been  the ambition and  goal  of

their  life.   Charged with this selfish idea  of

class domination, they take every move to exclude

the lower   classes   of   Hindus  from   wealth,

education  and  power,  the surest and  the  most

effective  being  the preparation of  scriptures,

inculcating  upon the minds of the lower  classes

of Hindus the teaching that their duty in life in

only  to  serve the higher classes.   In  keeping

this  monopoly  in their own hands and  excluding

the lower  classes from any share in it, the high

caste  Hindus have succeeded for a long time  and

beyond  measure,  it is only recently that  lower

class Hindus rose in revolt against this monopoly

by starting  the  backward  communities  Parties.

Still  the  High caste Hindus  have  successfully

maintained  their  privileged   position.    This

attitude  of keeping education, wealth and  power

as a  close preserve for themselves and  refusing

to share  it,  which the high caste  Hindus  have

developed  in  their  relation   with  the  lower

classes  of  Hindus, is sought to be extended  by

them  to the Muslims.  They wanted to exclude the

Muslims  from place and power, as they have  done

to the  lower  class Hindus.  This trait  of  the

high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding

of their politics.14


At  the time of division of India, in  Punjab

the Muslim  population  was  13,332,460  and  the

Hindus,   with  Sikhs  and   the   rest,   number

11,392,732.   The difference was only  1,939,728.

This  means  that the Muslim majority was in  the

Punjab is only a majority of 8 p.c.


In  Bengal  Muslims were 27,496,6244 and  the

Hindus  number  21,570,407.  The  difference  was

only  of  5,927,217.  This means that the  Muslim

majority in Bengal was only a majority of 12 p.c.


As  Lincoln said, “it is not possible to fool

all people  for all times”.  If the Hindus choose

to live  under a Muslim majority the chances that

they  may  loose all.  It was a good decision  to

            divide  but it also should do the total  exchange

            of population  and thus rescue the whole body  of

            Hindus from the terrors and horrors of the Muslim



It  was  notorious fact that  many  prominent

Hindus   who   had     offended   the   religious

susceptibilities  of the Muslims either by  their

writings  or by their part in the Shudhi movement

have  been  murdered by some  fanatic  Musalmans.

First  to  suffer was Swami Shradhanand, who  was

shot  by Abdul Rashid on 23rd December 1926  when

he was  lying in his sick bed.  This was followed

by the  murder  of Lala Nanakchand,  a  prominent

Arya  Samajist  of Delhi.  Rajpal, the author  of

the Rangila Rasool, was stabbed by Ilamdin on 6th

April  1929  while  he was sitting in  his  shop.

Nathuramal  Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in

September  1934.  It was an act of great  daring.

For Sharma  was stabbed to death in the Court  of

the Judicial  Commissioner  of Sind where he  was

seated awaiting the hearing of his appeal against

his conviction under Section 195, I.P.C., for the

publication  of  a  pamphlet on  the  history  of

Islam.  Khanna, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha,

was severely  assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans

after the Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in

Ahmedabad  and very narrowly escaped death.   The

first Hindu Muslim riot took place in 1893.  This

was followed  by a long period of communal  peace

which lasted up to 1929.  But the years that have

followed  have an appalling story to tell.   From

February  1929  to  April 1938-a period  of  nine

years-there  were no less than 10 communal riots.

In 1929  there  were two communal riots.  In  the

first,  149 were killed and 739 were injured  and

it lasted  for  36 days.  In the second  riot  35

were  killed,  109 were injured and it  continued

for 22  days.   In  1930 there  were  two  riots.

Details  as to loss of life and its duration  are

not available.   In  1932  there were  again  two

riots.  The first was a small one.  In the second

217 were  killed, 2,713 were injured and it  went

on for  49  days.   In 1933 there was  one  riot,

details  about which are not available.  In  1936

there  was one riot in which 94 were killed,  632

were  injured  and  it continued to rage  for  65

days.   In  the riot of 1937, 11 were killed,  85

were  injured and it occupied 21 days.  The  riot

of 1938 lasted for 2&1/2 hours only but with that

time  12 were killed, and a little over 100  were

injured.   Taking the total period of 9 years and

2 months  from  February 1929 to April  1938  the

Hindus  and  Muslims of the City of Bombay  alone

were engaged in a sanguinary warfare for 210 days

during  which  period 550 were killed  and  4,500

were  wounded.  This does not of course take into

consideration  the  loss of property  which  took

place through arson and loot.  This is the record

of Hindu-Muslim relationship.


This  is,  of course, a very short  list  and

could be easily expanded.  But whether the number

of prominent  Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is

large  or small matters little.  What matters  is

the attitude  of  those who count  towards  these

murderers.  The murderers paid the penalty of law

where  law  is  enforced.  The  leading  Muslims,

however,  never condemned these Muslim  criminals

but On   the  contrary,  they   were  hailed   as

religious  martyrs  and agitation was carried  on

for clemency   being  shown  to   them.   As   an

illustration  of this attitude, one may refer  to

Mr.Barkat  Ali A Barrister of Lahore, who  argued

            the appeal of Abdul Qayum.  He went to the length

            of saying  that Qayum was not guilty of murder of

            Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the

            law of  the Koran.  This attitude of the  Moslems

            is quite    understandable.     What    is    not

understandable  is the attitude of Mr.Gandhi.  He

was kept silent over them.15


Once   a   prominent     Muslim   leader   of

pre-independent  day  namely Mr.Mohamed  Ali  was

speaking  at  Aligarh and Ajmere said:   “However

            pure Mr.Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear

            to me from the point of view of religion inferior

            to any  Musalman,  even  though   he  be  without



Further  in  his  statement   he  said  “Yes,

            according  to my religion and creed, I do hold an

            adulterous  and  a fallen Musalman to  be  better

            than  Mr.Gandhi.” Now question arise if the  same

claim   and  same  stand   taken  by  the   other

religionist  then  what will be the position,  it

will  be nothing short a civil war and  bloodshed

in the name of religion or on the name of God.


If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus

apart  in  the matter of their faith,  they  also

prevent their social assimilation.  That Hinduism

prohibits   intermarriage  between   Hindus   and

Muslims    is    quite     well   known.     This

narrow-mindedness  is  not the vice  of  Hinduism

only.   Islam  is  equally narrow in  its  social

            code.   It  also prohibits intermarriage  between

            Muslims  and Hindus.  With this social laws there

can be no social assimilation and consequently no

socialization  of  ways,  modes and  outlooks  no

blunting  of  the  edges  and  no  modulation  of

age-old angularities.


There  are  other defects in Hinduism and  in

Islam  which are responsible for keeping the sore

between  Hindus  and  Muslims open  and  running.

Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast

Islam  is said to bind people together.  This  is

only   a  half  truth.    For  Islam  divides  as

inexorably  as  it  binds.    Islam  is  a  close

corporation  and  the distinction that  it  makes

between  Muslims and non-Muslims is a very  real,

very  positive  and very alienating  distinction.

The brotherhood  of  Islam is not  the  universal

            brotherhood of man.  It is brotherhood of Muslims

            for Muslims only.  This is also not correct as we

see in  the  relation of Muslim countries.   They

are engaged  in internal clash for petty  things.

In the name of God, accept poverty etc.  There is

a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those

within  that  corporation.   For  those  who  are

outside  the  corporation, there is  nothing  but

contempt  and enmity.  The second defeat of Islam

is that  it is a system of social self-government

and is  incompatible with local  self-government,

because  the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest

on his  domicile in the country which is his  but

on the  faith to which he belongs.  To the Muslim

ibi bene  ibi  patria is  unthinkable.   Wherever

there  is  the  rule of Islam, there is  his  own

country.  In other words, Islam can never allow a

            true  Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and

            regard  a  Hindu  as his kith and kin.   That  is

            probably  the  reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali,  a

            great  Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to  be

buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.17


The political objections to Hindu Raj rest on

various  grounds.  The first ground is that Hindu

society is not a democratic society.  True, it is

not.   It  may  not be right to ask  whether  the

Muslims  have  taken  any  part  in  the  various

movements   for   reforming   Hindu  society   as

distinguished  from  proselytizing.   But  it  is

right  to  ask  if  the Musalmans  are  the  only

sufferers  from the evils that admittedly  result

from the undemocratic character of Hindu society.

Are not  the millions of Shudras and non Brahmins

or millions  of  the Untouchables, suffering  the

worst  consequences of the undemocratic character

of Hindu  society?  Who benefits from  education,

from  public  service and from political  reforms

except the Hindu governing class- composed of the

higher  Castes of the Hindus- which form not even

10 percent  of the total Hindu population ?   Has

not the  governing  class  of the  Hindus,  which

controls  Hindu  politics, shown more regard  for

safeguarding  the  rights  and interests  of  the

Musalmans  than  they have for  safeguarding  the

rights  and  interests  of the  Shudras  and  the

Untouchables?    Before  independent,   was   not

Mr.Gandhi,  who  was  determined  to  oppose  any

political  concession to the Untouchables,  ready

to sign  a blank cheque in favour of the Muslims?

Indeed, the Hindu governing class seems to be far

more  ready to share power with the Muslims  than

it is  to  share power with the Shudras  and  the

Untouchables.  Surely, the Muslims have the least

ground  to complain of the undemocratic character

of Hindu society.18


Mr.Jinnah  was the one person who had all the

chances of success on his side if he had tried to

form  such  a united non-communal party.  He  has

the ability  to organize.  He had the  reputation

of a  nationalist.   Even  many Hindus  who  were

opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him

if he had only sent out a call for a united party

of like  minded  Hindus  and Muslims.   What  did

Mr.Jinnah  do?  In 1937 Mr.Jinnah made his  entry

into  Muslim  politics  and strangely  enough  he

regenerated the Muslim League which was dying and

decaying  and  of which only a few years  ago  he

would  have  been  glad to witness  the  funeral.

However  regrettable  the  starting   of  such  a

communal political party may have been, there was

in it  one  relieving  feature.    That  was  the

leadership  of  Mr.Jinnah.  Everybody  felt  that

with the leadership of Mr.Jinnah the League could

never  become  a  merely   communal  party.   The

resolutions passed by the League during the first

two years  of  its new career indicated  that  it

would  develop  into a mixed political  party  of

Hindus and Muslims.


In  1939  Mr.Jinnah  took  a  somersault  and

outlined  the dangerous and disastrous policy  of

isolation  of  the  Musalmans   by  passing  some

notorious resolution in favour of Pakistan.  What

was the  reason for this isolation?  Nothing  but

the change  of  view  that the Musalmans  were  a

nation  and  not  a  community!!   One  need  not

quarrel over the question whether the Muslims are

a nation  or  a  community.   But  one  finds  it

extremely  difficult  to understand how the  mere

fact   that  the  Muslims   are  a  nation  makes

political  isolation  a  safe and  sound  policy?

Unfortunately   Muslims  do   not  realize   what

disservice  Mr.Jinnah  has done to them  by  this

policy.   But let Muslims consider what Mr.Jinnah

has achieved by making the Muslim League the only

organization  for the Musalmans.  It may be  that

it has  helped  him to avoid the  possibility  of

having  to play the second fiddle.  Can  Pakistan

prevent  the  establishment of Hindu Raj  at  the

centre over Muslim minorities that will remain in

Hindustan?   It  is plain that it  cannot.   What

good  was  Pakistan then?  Only to prevent  Hindu

Raj in  provinces  in which the Muslims are in  a

majority  and in which there could never be Hindu

Raj!!   To  put  it   differently  Pakistan   was

unnecessary  to  Muslims  where they  were  in  a

majority because there, there is no fear of Hindu

Raj.   It is worse than useless to Muslims  where

they  are in a minority, because they will face a

Hindu Raj.19


Mr.Jinnah’s  influence over the Muslim masses

has been  growing  day  by  day and  how  he  has

engaged  himself in mobilizing all his forces for

battle.  Never before was Mr.Jinnah a man for the

masses.   He  distrusted them.  To  exclude  them

from  political  power he was always for  a  high

franchise.   He  was  never known to  be  a  very

devout,  pious  or a professing Muslim.   Besides

kissing  the Holy Koran as and when he was  sworn

in as  an  M.L.A.,  he does not  appear  to  have

bothered  much about its contents or its  special

tenets.   It  was doubtful if he  frequented  any

mosque  either  out  of  curiosity  or  religious

fervour.   He  was  never found in the  midst  of

Muslim   mass    congregations,    religious   or

political.   Latter  he changed and was became  a

man of   the   masses  who   called   him   their

Qaid-e-Azam.   He was not only became a  believer

in Islam, but was prepared to die for Islam.


The  Nationalist  Musalman  leader  like  Sir

Sikandar  Hyat  Khan and Mr.Fazlul Huq, the  late

Premier  of Bengal, admited the truth of fact and

both were opposed to formation of branches of the

Muslim  League in their Provinces when  Mr.Jinnah

tried to revive it in 1937.  But latter both they

were compelled to joined it.


The  Hindus were in the grip of the  Congress

and the  Congress  was in the grip of  Mr.Gandhi.

It cannot  be  said that Mr.Gandhi has given  the

Congress  the right lead.  Mr.Gandhi first sought

to avoid facing the issue by taking refuge in two

things.   He started by saying that to  partition

India is a moral wrong and a sin to which he will

never  be  a party.  This is a strange  argument.

India  is  not  the only country faced  with  the

issue of partition or shifting of frontiers based

on natural  and historical factors to those based

on the   national  factors.    Poland  has   been

partitioned  three  times and no one can be  sure

that  there will be no more partition of  Poland.

There are very few countries in Europe which have

not undergone  partition  during   the  last  150

years.   This  shows  that  the  partition  of  a

country  is  neither  moral nor immoral.   It  is

unmoral.   It is a social, political or  military

question.  Sin has no place in it.20


The question of independence was first raised

in 1921  by  INC.   Then,  in  the  first  place,

C.R.Formula  tied  up the communal question  with

the political  question in an indissoluble  knot.

No political  settlement, no communal settlement,

is the  strategy  on which the formula  proceeds.

The formula did not offer a solution.  It invited

Mr.Jinnah  to  enter  into  a  deal.   It  was  a

bargain- “If you help us in getting independence,

we shall  be  glad to consider your proposal  for

Pakistan.”    I    don’t     know   from    where

Mr.Rajagopalachariar  got the idea that this  was

the best  means  of getting independence.  It  is

possible  that he borrowed it from the old  Hindu

kings   of  India  who   built  up  alliance  for

protecting  their  independence  against  foreign

enemies  by giving their daughters to neighboring

princes.   Mr.Rajagopalachariar forgot that  such

alliances  brought  neither a good husband nor  a

permanent  ally.   To  make  communal  settlement

depend upon help rendered in winning freedom is a

very unwise way of proceeding in a matter of this

kind.   It is a way of one party drawing  another

party   into  its  net   by   offering   communal

privileges  as  a  bait.   The  C.R.Formula  made

communal settlement an article for sale.21


To  reduce  the  share meant  to  reduce  the

population.    This  is  one   reason   why   the

            Mohammedans did not help the Untouchables in this

            struggle  for numbers.  The second reason why the

            Mohamedans  did not help the Untouchables was the

            fear  of exposure by the Hindus.  Although  Islam

is the  one religion which can transcend race and

colour  and  unite diverse people into a  compact

brotherhood, yet Islam in India has not succeeded

in uprooting   caste   from   among  the   Indian

Musalmans.   Caste feeling among the Musalmans is

not so  virulent as it is among the Hindus.   But

in fact  is  that,  it exists.  That  this  caste

feeling  among  the  Musalmans  leads  to  social

gradation,  a feature of the Muslim community  in

India, has been noticed by all those who have had

an occasion to study the subject.22


They  are even not interested to change their

social system which also not suit the upper class

Muslim.   In  the  name of God  the  lower  class

Muslims  are suffering, though those people  were

converted  for  better  treatment.  That  is  why

after  762 years of Muslim rules in entire  India

we find  that  their  masses  conditions  are  so






Islam  should  be  separated from  state  and

developed  as  a personal morality, President  of

the largest   Muslim   country  in   the   world,

Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid said in New Delhi on

9.2.2000.  He said he found it wrong that Islamic

law should  be codified in a country into a state

law.  Islam should be developed as a morality, as

a belief system, not as a state institution.”


An internationally recognized Islamic scholar

and a   former   Chairman    of   Nahdat-ul-ulema

(Religious  Teachers’  Organization, the  largest

such   body),  President  Wahid   told  a   media

conference  here this evening, on the eve of  his

departure  after  a two day visit to India,  that

there  should  be  reciprocal respect  for  every

religion in a country.








Women  in  Pakistan live in fear.  They  face

death  by shooting, burning or killing with  axes

if they  are deemed to have brought shame on  the

family.   They are killed for supposed  ‘illicit’

relationships,  for marrying men of their choice,

for divorcing  husbands.  They are even  murdered

by their  kin  if  they  are raped  as  they  are

thereby  deemed  to  have brought  shame  on  the

family.   The  truth  of the suspicion  does  not

matter-merely  the allegation is enough to  bring

dishonour  on the family and therefore  justifies

the slaying.


As  Amnesty  International   introduced   its

recent  report  on “honour-killing”  in  Pakistan

with  these lines, there were howls of protest in

the Pakistani  media,  dubbing the  International

Human  Rights Organisation as ‘biased’.  But  now

the Human  Rights  Commission  of  Pakistan(HRCP)

itself   has   described  a   similar   situation

prevailing  in the country.  It reveals that  266

women  were  murdered, 82 by brothers and  52  by

husbands,  in  “honour  killings” in  and  around

Lahore from Jan to Nov 1999.  As many as 163 died

in “stove-burst”  incidents,  reasons  for  which

included dowry-related disputes.  Fifteen percent

of those  killed  were young girls, mostly  newly

married,  in  the  case   of  unexplained   stove

explosions  the victims and their murderers  were

close  family  members.   Out of  the  675  women

killed,  85  were  minors, 241  were  killed  for

illicit   relations  outside   marriage  and  480

murders involved close relatives.  As many as 150

cases were not registered.


During these 11 months, 713 women were raped,

including  316  young girls and 40 were raped  in

police custody.  The HRCP remarks:  “Whenever the

police  get a chance, they engage in mass rape of

women”.   Honour  killings  and  stove  explosion

deaths  aren’t  restricted  to Lahore  or  Punjab

alone.   Between  Oct  1998 and  Sept  1999,  595

people  in Sindh were killed in “honour killings”



The  year 1999 was by no means  exceptionally

cruel for women in Pakistan.  The police take the

man’s  side  in “honour killings”.  When the  men

are convicted,  the  judiciary ensures that  they

receive  a light sentence.  Specific laws  hamper

redress  as  they   discriminate  against  women.

There  are few women’s shelters.  For many women,

suicide  appears to be the only means of  escape.

Often,  “honour killings” are carried out on  the

flimsiest of grounds.  State institutions-the law

enforcement apparatus and the judiciary-deal with

these  crimes  against women  with  extraordinary

leniency  and the law provides many loopholes for

murderers  in  the  name of the  honour  to  kill

without punishment.


The  methods  of “honour killings” very.   In

Sindh,  a  kari (literally a black woman)  and  a

karo  (a  black man) are hacked to  pieces  often

with the complicity of the community.  In Punjab,

the victims  are  shot.   In  most  cases,  close

relatives  of the woman commit the killings.   In

some cases, tribal councils decide that the woman

should  be  killed and send men to carry out  the



Ironically,  it  is the Islamic  laws,  which

confer  a number of privileges on women, which is

responsible for their killings.  Ownership rights

for instance,  are at stake when women are to  be

married.   A major consideration is the  property

that the woman has the right to inherit.  A woman

is handed over to her spouse against a payment to

her father.    Sometimes  this    “bride   price”

includes  another woman given to the father as  a

new wife.


Islam gives women the freedom to choose their

spouse.  But this privilege, itself, has become a

noose  around their neck in Pakistan.   Marriages

contracted  by women against the wishes of  their

fathers are perceived by many courts to challenge

the father’s  honour.   Fathers bring charges  of

zina   (unlawful   sexual    relations)   against

daughters  who have married men of their  choice.

Another  Islamic privilege conferred on the woman

that has created problems for her is her right to

divorce.   Seeking  divorce is seen as an act  of

public  defiance which calls for punitive  action

to restore  male  honour within  the  traditional



The  so called Islamisation of laws, too, has

adversely affected the plight of women.  The 1990

law of  Qisdas and Diyat covers offences relating

to physical  injury,  man-slaughter  and  murder.

The law  is now directed against the victim.   It

has sent  the  signal  that   murders  of  family

members are family affair.


“As  other  countries strive to better  their

record on human right,” a recent editorial in The

Dawn,  pointed out, “Pakistan seems to be  moving

backwards  by  condoning cold-blooded murders  in

the name  of honour and, at the same time,  being

overly  sensitive  to international criticism  of

the inhuman  practice.”  It  would   be  best  if

Islamists  in Pakistan were to look within before

embarking  on  their  venture   to  export  their



Write’s  Sultan  Shahin  HT  10.2.2000   from

Pakistan.  Which is a dream land of Muslim.





The horrible consequences of the partition of

India  gave terrible shocks to the whole  nation.

The disturbances  in Delhi, Ambedkar said in  one

of his letters to Kamalakant Chitre, could hardly

be described as riots.  It might be easily called

a rebellion.  “The number of wonded and murdered,

“he said,  “is  for a city like  Delhi  colossal.

There  was complete stoppage of life for the last

few days. ” Ambedkar had proposed partition  with

            complete  transfer  of population of the  Muslims

            and Hindus  from their respective zones in  order

            to avert a civil war and its attendant massacres.

Like  Lincoln,  Savarkar was prepared to  face  a

civil  war  for a while in order to preserve  the

unity  of  India.   But the Congress  leaders  in

whose hands the destiny of the country had fallen

ultimately  accepted partition plus massacres and

with  secular zest ridiculed the idea of transfer

of population  as they had done with the idea  of

Pakistan till the dawn of Pakistan.  Their policy

only  worsened, as usual, the fate of Hindus  who

were  in  the zone of Pakistan.  Thus  Ambedkar’s

prophecy  and  fears  were both borne  out  to  a



Millions  were  uprooted  in  the  holocaust;

lakhs  were  butchered, Children and  women  were

molested,  kidnapped  or  forcibly  converted  to

Islam.   Streets were flooded with broken  skulls

and mutilated  corpses, and they echoed with  the

agonies  of  dying men, children and women.   The

untouchables  being Hindus had to share the  same

fate.  Jogendranath Mondal, Law and labour member

of Pakistan,  who had asked the Scheduled  Castes

in Pakistan  to look upon Jinnah as their saviour

and had even asked them to wear a badge blatantly

suggestive  of  Islamic   associations,  was  now

rudely  shaken from his dream.  He grieved at the

way things  had shaped in Pakistan and latter  he

was forced to leave the Pakistan and took shelter

in India.   In  his  resignation  letter  he  had

mention the reason behind left the Pakistan.


Ambedkar  was terribly upset, and he issued a

statement denouncing the Pakistan Government.  He

complained  that  the Scheduled Castes  were  not

allowed  to come to Hindustan and that they  were

being  forcibly  converted to Islam.  He  further

said  that in the Hyderabad State, too, they were

being  forcibly  converted to Islam in  order  to

increase the strength of Muslim population in the

Hyderabad  State,  He,   therefore,  advised  his

people:   “I  would  like to tell  the  Scheduled

Castes  who  happen today to be impounded  inside

Pakistan  to come over to India by such means  as

may be  available  to them.  The second  thing  I

            want  to  say is that it would be fatal  for  the

            Scheduled  Castes,  whether  in  Pakistan  or  in

            Hyderabad,  to put their faith in Muslims or  the

            Muslim  League.   It has become a habit with  the

            Scheduled  Castes  to  look upon the  Muslims  as

            their  friends  simply because they  dislike  the

            Hindus.  This is a mistaken view.” 


He  further  asked  the Scheduled  Castes  in

Pakistan   and  Hyderabad  not   to  succumb   to

            conversion  to  Islam as an easy way  of  escape;

and to  all those who were forcibly converted  to

Islam  he pledged his word that he would see that

they were received back into the fold and treated

as brethren in the same manner in which they were

treated  before  their conversion.  Whatever  the

tyranny and oppression which the Hindus practised

on them,  he  asserted, it should not warp  their

vision  and  swerve  them from  their  duty.   He

warned  the Scheduled Castes in Hyderabad not  to

side  with the Nizam and bring disgrace upon  the

community by siding with one who was the enemy of

India.   He also appealed to Prime Minister Nehru

to take  speedy steps in evacuating the Scheduled

castes from Pakistan.23




On  26th  January  1950.  India  will  be  an

Independent  country(Cheers).  What would  happen

to her  independence  ?   Will she  maintain  her

independence 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 me most anxious for the

future.   What  perturbs me greatly is  the  fact

that  not  only  India has once before  lost  her

independence,  but she lost it by the  infidelity

and 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 and creeds, we are going to  have

many  political parties with diverse and opposing

political creeds.  Will Indians place the country

above  their creed or will they place creed above

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  and  probably be lost  for  ever.

This  eventuality  we must all  resolutely  guard

against.   We  must be determined to  defend  our

independence   with   the  last   drop   of   our

blood.(Cheers)  Dr.Ambedkar,  in the  constituent

Assembly on 25th November 1949.24





!.  The Free Press Journal 28Nov, 1917.


*Cunningham’s    Ancient Geography of

India(Ed.Majumdar), pp 13-14.  The

writers of the Puranas divided India

into nine  divisions.


  1. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar’s,  Writing &  Speeches,

vol-8 p47

  1. ,, p11
  2. Dr.Titus: Indian Islam, p22
  3. Lane Poole  :  Medieval India,  p26
  4. Dr.Titus:   Indian  Islam, p23-34
  5. ,, p24
  6. Ibid  p22
  7. Ibid p31-32
  8. Dr.Titus: Indian Islam,  p24
  9. Dr.Titus: Indian Islam, p29
  10. Lane Poole : Medieval India, p104
  11. Dr.Titus: Indian Islam, p29

12a.Writing & Speeches  vol12, p33

  1. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar’s, Writing & Speeches,

vol-8  p65

  1. ,, p123
  2.   ,,  p157
  3. ,, p301-302
  4. ,,  p330
  5. ,,  p356
  6. ,, p360-361
  7. ,, p365
  8. ,, p411
  9. ,, vol-5, p245
  10. ,, ,, p399
  11. v13 Back cover



































At  the  Round   Table  Conference  Mr.Gandhi

claimed   to   be  the   sole  champion  of   the

Untouchables  and was not even prepared to  share

the honour  with anyone else.  I remember what  a

scene  he  created when his claim was  contested.

Mr.Gandhi  does  not merely claim for himself  of

the championship  of the Untouchables.  He claims

similar  Championship  for   the  Congress.   The

Congress,  he  says, is fully pledged to  redress

the wrongs  done  to the Untouchables and  argues

that  any attempt to give political safeguards to

the Untouchables  is unnecessary and harmful.  It

is therefore  a great pity that no detailed study

of these claims by Mr.Gandhi and the Congress has

been undertaken so far.


With  the Hindus who have been blind devotees

of Mr.Gandhi this study, although it is the first

of its  kind, will not find favour;  indeed it is

sure  to  provoke  their wrath.  How  can  it  be

otherwise  when  the  conclusion  arrived  at  is

“Beware  of Gandhi”?  Looking at it from a  wider

point  of view, there is no reason for the Hindus

to be enraged about it.  The Untouchables are not

the only  community  in  India  which  thinks  of

Mr.Gandhi  in  these  terms.  The  same  view  of

Mr.Gandhi  is  entertained  by the  Muslims,  the

Sikhs  and the Indian Christians.  As a matter of

fact,  the  Hindus  should   cogitate  over   the

question  and  ask:   why   no  community  trusts

Mr.Gandhi  although he has been saying that he is

the friend   of  the  Muslims,   Sikhs  and   the

Scheduled  Castes and what is the reason for this

distrust?   In  my judgement, there cannot  be  a

greater  tragedy for a leader to be distrusted by

everybody  as  Mr.Gandhi is today.  I am  however

certain  that  this  is not how the  Hindus  will

react.  As usual, they will denounce the book and

call  me  names.  But as the proverb says:   “The

Caravan  must pass on, though the dogs bark.”  In

the same  way, I must do my duty, no matter  what

my adversaries  may have to say.  For as Voltaire

observed:  Who writes the history of his own time

must  expect to be attacked for everything he has

said,  and  for everything he has not said:   but

these  little  drawbacks should not discourage  a

man who loves truth and liberty, expects nothing,

fears  nothing,  asks  nothing   and  limits  his

ambition to the cultivation of letters.”1


Mr.Gandhi’s  attitude  to the demands of  the

Untouchables  at the second session of the  Round

Table  Conference furnishes the best illustration

of this  rather queer trait in his character.  On

15th September 1931 Mr.Gandhi said:-


“The    Congress   has,     from   its   very

commencement, taken up the cause of the so-called

‘Untouchables.”   There  was  a  time  when   the

Congress  had  at  every annual  session  as  its

adjunct  the Social Conference, to which the late

Ranade  dedicated  his energies, among  his  many

other  activities.  Headed by him you will  find,

in the programme of the Social Conference, reform

in connection  with  the ‘Untouchables’ taking  a

prominent place.  But, in 1920, the Congress took

a large  step and brought in the question of  the

removal  of  untouchability  as a  plank  on  the

political  platform, making it an important  item

of the political programme.  Just as the Congress

considered the Hindu-Muslim unity-thereby meaning

unity amongst all the classes-to be indispensable

for the  attainment  of Swaraj, so also  did  the

Congress  consider  the removal of the  curse  of

untouchability  as an indispensable condition for

the attainment of full freedom.  The position the

Congress  took up in 1920 remains the same today;

and so  you  will see the Congress has  attempted

from  its very beginning to be what it  described

itself  to be, namely, national in every sense of

the term.”2



Again  on  17th September 1931 he  said:   “I

come  to sub-head (v)- representation by  special

constituencies  of  special  interests.   I  here

speak  for  the  Congress.    The  Congress   has

reconciled  itself  to special treatment  of  the

Hindu-Muslim-Sikh   tangle.   There   are   sound

historical  reasons for it but the Congress  will

not extend that doctrine in any shape or form.  I

listened  to  the list of special interests.   So

far as the Untouchables are concerned, I have not

yet quite  grasped  what Dr.Ambedkar has to  say:

but of  course the Congress will share the honour

with Dr.Ambedkar of representing the interests of

the Untouchables.   They  are  as  clear  to  the

Congress as the interests of any other body or of

any other  individual through-out the length  and

breadth  of  India.   Therefore   I  would   most

strongly    resist     any     further    special



This  was nothing but a declaration of War by

Mr.Gandhi   and   the    Congress   against   the

Untouchables.   In any case it resulted in a  war

between  the  two.   With   this  declaration  by

Mr.Gandhi,  I knew what Mr.Gandhi would do in the

Minorities Committee which was the main forum for

the discussion  of this question.  He was  making

his plans to bypass the Untouchables and to close

the communal   problem   by   bringing  about   a

settlement between the three parties, the Hindus,

the Muslims and the Sikhs.


Mr.Gandhi  said:  Prime Minister and friends,

I see that there is some kind of misunderstanding

with reference to the scope of the work that some

of us  have  set before ourselves.  I  fear  that

Dr.Ambedkar, Colonel Gidney and other friends are

unnecessarily  nervous  about  what is  going  to

happen.  Who am I to deny political status to any

            single  interest  or class or even individual  in

            India?   As  a representative of the  Congress  I

should  be  unworthy of the trust that  has  been

reposed in me by the Congress if I were guilty of

sacrificing  a single national interest.  I  have

undoubtedly  given expression to my own views  on

these  points.   I  must confess that I  hold  to

those views also.  But there are ways and ways of

guaranteeing protection to every single interest.

It will  be  for those of us who will be  putting

our heads  together  to try to evolve  a  scheme.

Nobody  would  be  hampered in pressing  his  own

views  on  the  members  of  this  very  informal

conference or meeting.


“I do not think, therefore, that anybody need

be afraid as to being able to express his opinion

or carrying his opinion also.  Mine will be there

equal  to that of every one of us;  It will carry

no greater weight;  I have no authority behind me

to carry  my  opinion  against   the  opinion  of

anybody.   I  have simply given expression to  my

views  in the national interest, and I shall give

expression  to  these  views  whenever  they  are

opportune.   It will be for you, it is for you to

reject  or  accept   these  opinions.   Therefore

please disburse your minds, to everyone of us, of

the idea   that   there  is   going  to  be   any

steamrolling  in the Conference and the  informal

meetings  that  I  have adumbrated.  But  if  you

think  that  this  is one way  of  coming  closer

together  than by sitting stiffly at this  table,

you will  not  carry this adjournment motion  but

give  your  whole-hearted   co-operation  to  the

proposal  that  I  have made in  connection  with

these informal meetings.”


“The  Mahatma  has been always claiming  that

the Congress  stands  for the Depressed  Classes,

and that  the  Congress represents the  Depressed

Classes  more than I or my colleague can do.   To

that  claim I can only say that it is one of  the

many false claims which irresponsible people keep

on making,  although  the persons concerned  with

regard  to  those  claims  have  been  invariably

denying them.”


Mr.Gandhi  said,  I  am speaking with  a  due

sense of responsibility, and I say that it is not

a proper claim which is registered by Dr.Ambedkar

when  he  seeks  to speak for the  whole  of  the

Untouchables of India.  It will create a division

in Hinduism  which I cannot possibly look forward

to with  any  satisfaction whatsoever.  I do  not

            mind  Untouchables,  if  they  so  desire,  being

            converted  to  Islam or Christianity.   I  should

tolerate  that,  but I cannot  possibly  tolerate

what  is  in store for Hinduism if there are  two

divisions  set forth in the villages.  Those  who

speak  of the political right of Untouchables  do

not know how Indian Society is today constructed,

and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis

that  I can command that if I was the only person

to resist  this  thing I would resist it with  my



The  discussion  in the Minorities  Committee

threw Mr.Gandhi’s attitude to the untouchables in

relief.   Everybody  felt that Mr.Gandhi was  the

            most  determined  enemy of the Untouchables.   So

much  of  his energy and attention did  Mr.Gandhi

concentrate  on the question of the  Untouchables

that  it would not be unfair if it was said  that

the main  purpose for which Mr.Gandhi went to the

Round  Table Conference was to oppose the demands

of the Untouchables.


Those,  who were friends of Mr.Gandhi,  could

not understand his attitude to the demands of the

Untouchables.  To give recognition to the Muslims

and the   Sikhs   and  to   refuse  it   to   the

Untouchables  came  to them as a surprise  and  a

puzzle.   Whenever they asked for an explanation.

Mr.Gandhi  did  nothing  except   to  get  angry.

Mr.Gandhi  himself  could not give a logical  and

consistent  defence  of  his  opposition  to  the

Untouchables.   Inside the Round Table Conference

his defence  was  that the Hindus  had  seriously

taken  up the cause of the Untouchables and  that

therefore  there  was  no  reason  to  give  them

political  safeguards.   Outside the Round  Table

Conference he gave totally different reasons.  In

a speech  in  defence of his  position  Mr.Gandhi



“Muslims  and  Sikhs are all well  organized.

The ‘Untouchables’ are not.  There is very little

political  consciousness among them and they  are

so horribly  treated  that  I want to  save  them

against   themselves.   If   they  had   separate

electorates  their  lives would be  miserable  in

villages  which  are  the  strongholds  of  Hindu

orthodoxy.   It  is the superior class of  Hindus

who have  to do penance for having neglected  the

‘untouchables’  for  ages.  That penance  can  be

done  by  active social reform and by making  the

lot of  the ‘Untouchables’ more bearable by  acts

of service,  but  not  by   asking  for  separate

electorates  for  them.  By giving them  separate

electorates  you will throw the apple of  discord

between the ‘Untouchables’ and the orthodox.  You

must  understand I can tolerate the proposal  for

special  representation of the Musalmans and  the

Sikhs  only  as a necessary evil.  It would be  a

positive  danger  for the ‘Untouchables’.   I  am

certain that the question of separate electorates

for the ‘untouchables’ is a modern manufacture of




Mr.Gandhi planned to buy out the Musalmans by

giving  to the Musalmans their fourteen  demands,

which Mr.Gandhi was not in the beginning prepared

to agree.   When  he  found  the  Musalmans  were

lending   their  support  to  the   Untouchables.

Mr.Gandhi agreed to them their fourteen points on

condition  that they withdrew their support  from

the Untouchables.4


The  Hindus  had realized that to  admit  the

existence  of the Untouchables was detrimental to

their  interest.   They did not mind  sacrificing

truth and decency and decided to adopt the safest

course,  namely,  to  deny  that  there  are  any

Untouchables  in India at all, and there by knock

out the  bottom  of the political demands of  the

Untouchables  and  leave  no room  for  argument.

This shows how the Hindus can conspire in a cold,


calculated manner against the Untouchables out of

            pure  selfishness and do indirectly what they can

            not do directly.


11th  March  1932 Gandhi wrote to Sir  Samuel

Hoare,  the  then Secretary of State  for  India,

reminding  him of his opposition to the claim  of

the Untouchables.


“Dear Sir Samuel,


You will perhaps recollect that at the end of

my speech  at the Round Table Conference when the

Minorities’  claim was presented, I had said that

I should  resist  with  my   life  the  grant  of

separate  electorates  to the Depressed  Classes.

This  was not said in the heat of the moment  nor

by way of rhetoric.  It was meant to be a serious

statement.  In pursuance of that statement, I had

hoped  on  my return to India to mobilize  public

opinion  against  separate  electorates,  at  any

rate,  for the Depressed Classes.  But it was not

to be.5


Mr.Gandhi’s   fast  exposing   his   tactics.

Suffice  it  is  to say that  although  Mr.Gandhi

declared  a  fast unto death, he did not want  to

die.  He wanted very much to live.6


The  Untouchables  were worse off  under  the

Poona  Pact  than they would have been under  the

Prime  Minister’s  Award.  In point of  effective

representation,  the  Untouchables got less  than

what  the  Prime  Minister had given  them.   The

Congress  on  the other hand gained by the  Poona



The  Untouchables  can  never   hope  to  get

protection  from  the  police, justice  from  the

judiciary  or the benefit of a statutory law from

the administration,   so  long  as   the   Public

Services  continued  to be manned by the  Hindus.

The only  hope of making the Public Services less

malevolent  and more responsible to the needs  of

the Untouchables  is  to  have   members  of  the

Untouchables  in the higher Executive.  For these

reasons,  I  had  at the Round  Table  Conference

pressed  the  claim of the Untouchables  for  the

recognition  of their right to representation  in

the Cabinet  with the same emphasis as I had done

for the   recognition   of     their   right   to

representation  in  the Legislature.   The  Round

Table  Conference  accepted the validity  of  the

claim  and  considered ways and means  of  giving

effect  to  it.   There were two ways  of  giving

effect  to  this  proposal.  One was  to  have  a

statutory  provision  in the Government of  India

Act so  as to make it a binding obligation  which

it would be impossible to evade or to escape.8


Savarnas who were hungering for power and who

constitute  a most jealous crowd of  politicians,

were  shaken and felt that they were going to  be

deprived of the fruits of their labours.9


It  was a part of the Congress policy was not

to admit  the  right  of the Untouchables  to  be

represented  in the Cabinet and that this  policy

had the support of Mr.Gandhi.  Those who may have

any doubt as to the correctness of this statement

may well consider the evidence set out below.


The  first piece of evidence lies imbedded in

the story  of  the  expulsion   of  the   Hon’ble

Dr.Khare  from  the Congress.  As is  well-known,

Dr.khare  was the Prime Minister in the  Congress

Ministry  in  the  Central Provinces.   Owing  to

internal  quarrels  among  the   members  of  his

Cabinet,  Dr.Khere to get rid of those what  were

inconvenient  adopted the perfectly normal course

of tendering  his own resignation and that of the

other  ministers  to the Governor with a view  to

form  a new Cabinet.  Thereafter, the Governor in

full  conformity  with   constitutional  practice

recalled  Dr.Khare and asked him to form  another

Cabinet  with  himself as the Premier.   Dr.Khare

accepted  the invitation and formed a new Cabinet

dropping old and inconvenient hands and taking in

some new ones.


Dr.Khare’s new Cabinet was different from the

old in  one  important  respect namely,  that  it

included  Mr.Agnibhoj an Untouchable , who was  a

member  of the Central Provinces, who belonged to

the Congress  Party and who by his education well

qualified  to  be a minister.  On the  26th  July

1938,  the  Congress  Working  Committee  met  in

Wardha   and  passed  a   resolution   condemning

Dr.Khare  on  the  ground that in  tendering  the

resignation of his colleagues in the old ministry

he was  guilty  of a grave error of judgment  and

that  in forming a new ministry he was guilty  of

indiscipline.  In explaining what was behind this

charge of indiscipline in forming a new ministry,

Dr.Khare  openly said that according to Mr.Gandhi

the act   of   indiscipline   consisted  in   the

inclusion  of  an Untouchables in  the  Ministry.

Dr.Khare  also said that Mr.Gandhi told him  that

it was  wrong  on  his part to have  raised  such

aspirations and ambitions in the Untouchables and

it was such an act of bad Judgement that he would

never forgive him.  This statement was repeatedly

made  by Dr.Khare from platforms.  Mr.Gandhi  has

never contradicted it.10


In  Executive.  They could not ask a question

which  it  did not like.  They could not  move  a

resolution  which it did not permit.  They  could

not bring  in  legislation to which it  objected.

They  could not vote as they chose and could  not

speak  what  they felt.  They were there as  dumb

driven cattle.


One    of   the     objects   of    obtaining

representation   in  the   Legislature  for   the

Untouchables is to enable them to ventilate their

grievances  and  to  obtain   redress  for  their

wrongs.     The    Congress    successfully   and

effectively  prevented this from happened.  To end

this  long and sad story, the congress sucked the

juice out of the Poona pact and threw the rind in

the face of the untouchables.11


At  the time of British rule there used to be

boards  on  club doors and other  social  resorts

maintained  by  Europeans in India.   Which  said

“Dogs  and Indians” not allowed.  The Temples  of

Hindus  carry  similar  boards today,  the  only

difference  is  that  the  boards  on  the  Hindu

temples  practically  say:  “All Hindus  and  all

Animals   including  dogs   are  admitted,   only

Untouchables  not  admitted”.  The  situation  in

both  cases  is  on a parity.  But  Hindus  never

begged  for admission in those places from  which

the Europeans  in  their arrogance  had  excluded

them.    Why  should  an   Untouchable  beg   for

admission  in those places from which he has been

excluded by the arrogance of the Hindus?  This is

the reason  of  the  Depressed Class man  who  is

interested  in  his  material   welfare.   He  is

prepared to say to the Hindus, “to open or not to

open  your  temples  is  a question  for  you  to

consider  and  not  for me to  agitate.   If  you

think,  it  is  bad manners not  to  respect  the

sacredness   of  human   personality,  open  your

temples  and be a gentleman.  If you rather be  a

Hindu  than be gentleman, then shut the doors and

damn yourself for I don’t care to come.” 12


When  Babashaheb asked directly to  Mr.Gandhi

regarding  annihilation  of  caste he  said  that

though  he  was  against untouchability  but  not

against caste.  If at all, he was in favour of it

and that  he would not therefore carry his social

reform  beyond removing untouchability.  This was

enough for Dr.Ambedkar to settle his attitude and

he decided  to  take  no further part  in  Temple



Mr.Rajagopalachariar  is  apologizing to  the

public  for  his  betrayal of the  cause  of  the

Untouchables.   As  the principal  lieutenant  of

Mahatma  Gandhi,  his betrayal must be placed  on

record.  He says:


“The   question  has  been   asked  by   some

Sanatanists whether Congress candidates will give

an undertaking that Congress will not support any

legislative    interference     with    religious

observances.   Similar questions may be asked on a

variety   of  topics  by   persons   and   groups

interested  in  each  one  of  them.   That  such

questions   are  asked  only   of  the   Congress

candidates   and  similar   elucidation  is   not

attempted  in  respect  of   other  parties   and

independent candidates is a very great compliment

paid to the Congress.”


“So  says,  Sriman  Rajagopalachariar.   And,

instead  of  following  up   the  compliment  and

arousing  public opinion on an unpopular measure,

here is a great Congress leader who sat dharna at

our house  with  his son-in-law, Davidas  Gandhi,

who repeatedly called on me at Delhi and said ‘We

seek   joint   support   for   this   legislative

measure,’-here  is  a man who goes back  ‘like  a

crab,’  to  borrow the language  of  Shakespeare.

Political  parties,  explains this  subtle  brain

from  the  South,  have distinctive  policies  on

various questions covering a wide field:


‘Not  all  of  them, however, are  made  into

election issues at any one time.’


“Sir,  this  Congress  leader is  afraid  of

facing the public opinion which he has roused.


“Sir,  are the Congress people slaves?  ‘They

are slaves  who fear to speak, For the fallen and

the weak.’


“According  to  Milton, ‘To say and  straight

unsay argues no liar but a coward traced’….


Mr.Rajagopalachariar  unsays what he had been

saying following words:


‘The Congress candidates go to the electorate

in this   election  on   well-defined   political



The  silent  infiltration of  rational  ideas

among the ignorant mass of caste Hindus cannot, I

am sure,  work for the elevation of the Depressed

Classes.   First of all, the caste Hindu like all

human  beings  follows his customary  conduct  in

observing  untouchability  towards the  Depressed

Classes.   Ordinarily people do not give up their

customary  mode of behaviour because some body is

preaching  against  it.  But when that  customary

mode  of  behaviour  has or is believed  to  have

behind   it  the  sanction   of   religion   mere

preaching,  if  it is not resented and  resisted,

will  be  allowed to waft along the wind  without

creating  any effect on the mind.  The  salvation

of the  Depressed Classes will come only when the

Caste  Hindu  is made to think and is  forced  to

feel  that he must alter his ways.  For that  you

            must create a crisis by direct action against his

            customary  code  of  conduct.   The  crisis  will

            compel  him to think and once he begins to  think

            he will  be  more  ready  to change  than  he  is

            otherwise  likely to be.  The great defect in the

policy   of   least     resistance   and   silent

infiltration  of rational ideas lies in this that

they  do  not  compel thought, for  they  do  not

produce  crisis.  The direct action in respect of

Chawdar  Tank  in  Mahad, the Kalaram  Temple  in

Nasik and Gurwayur Temple in Malabar have done in

a few  days  what  million days of  preaching  by

reformers  would  never have done.   I  therefore

strongly recommend this campaign of direct action

for securing   civic  rights  of  the   depressed

classes  for adoption by the  Anti-Untouchability



Much  of  the  misery   and  poverty  of  the

Depressed  Classes  is  due  to  the  absence  of

equality  of opportunity which in its turn is due

to untouchability.   In the matter of  enjoyment,

his condition is the worst.  He is the last to be

employed  in days of prosperity and the first  to

be fired  in days of adversity.  And even when he

gets  a  foothold, what are his  prospects?   The

place  of  the  boss is reserved  for  the  caste

Hindus  while  the  Depressed Class  worker  must

slave  as  his underdog, no matter how senior  or

how efficient.13


For the explanation given by the Congress for

the non-participation by the Untouchables in what

is called  “the  Fight for Freedom” is an  absurd

explanation.   It is an explanation which only  a

knave  can venture to offer and which none but  a

fool  can be expected to accept as  satisfactory.

But as  it  is almost certain that in the  events

that  are  coming,  what foreigners  think  about

India’s  problems  will  be  a  matter  of   some

moment,I  think  it  necessary   to  explain  the

correct  situation  and  allow no room  for  such

erroneous  notions about the Untouchables to take

roots  in their mind especially when there can be

no difficulty  in  proving  that it  is  a  false

charge against the Untouchables and to prove that

if the  untouchables  have not joined the  “Fight

for Freedom” it is not because they are the tools

of the  British Imperialism but because they fear

that  freedom  of  India   will  establish  Hindu

domination which is sure to close to them and for

ever all prospect of life, liberty and pursuit of

happiness  and that they will be made the  hewers

of wood and drawers of water.


That  the Untouchables should have refused to

join  the Congress in the ‘Fight for Freedom’  is

in itself  a proof positive that their reason for

non-co-operation  with the congress cannot be the

puerile  one suggested by the Congress.  It  must

be something  real and substantial.  What is  it?

The reason  which  has  led the  Untouchables  to

non-co-operate   with  the   Congress  has   been

popularly  expressed  by them when they say  that

they  do not wish to be placed under Hindu Raj in

which  the governing class would be the Bania and

the Brahamin  with  low  class  Hindus  as  their

policemen,  all of whom have been the  hereditary


enemies  of  the Untouchables.  This language  is

held  to offend against good taste.  That may  be

  1. But  it must not be supposed  that  because

such slogans are offensive is their tone they are

devoid  of  sense or that the outlook which  they

typify  and the ideals which they embody have  no

compelling  force or that they cannot be made  to

wear the garb of a true and respectable political



Translated  in  the   language  of  political

science,  what do these slogans mean?  They  mean

that  the Untouchables are not opposed to freedom

from  British Imperialism.  But they refuse to be

content   with   mere    freedom   from   British

Imperialism.   What they insist upon is that free

India  is not enough.  Free India should be  made

safe for democracy.  Starting with this aim, they

say that  on  account  of   the  peculiar  social

formation in India there are minority communities

pitted against a Hindu Communal Majority, that if

no provisions are made in the constitution to cut

the fangs  of the Hindu Communal Majority,  India

will not be safe for democracy.  The Untouchables

therefore insist on devising a constitution which

will  take  note of the special circumstances  of

India  and contain safeguards which will  prevent

this  Hindu  Communal Majority in Indian  society

from  getting  possession of political  power  to

suppress  and oppress the Untouchables and  which

will  directly  invest the Untouchables  with  at

least  a  modicum of political power  to  prevent

their suppression and exploitation, and to enable

them  at  least  to  hold  their  own,  in  their

struggle  for  existence   against  the  Communal

Majority.   In short, what the untouchables  want

are safeguards  in the constitution itself  which

will  prevent  the  tyranny of a  Hindu  Communal

Majority from coming into being.


The  Untouchables refuse to accept this silly

sophism.  They say that Indian social life has to

be reckoned in terms of communities.  There is no


escape.   Communities  are  such  hard  facts  of

            Indian  social  life  that it would be  wrong  to

            accept   that  communal   impulse  and   communal

            prejudice  do  not dominate the relations of  the

            communities.   The social psychology of the Hindu

Communal Majority is dominated by the dogma which

recognizes  not  merely   inequality  but  graded

inequality    as   the     rule   governing   the

inter-relationship among the various communities.


This dogma of graded inequality is absolutely

inimical to liberty and fraternity.  It cannot be

believed  that this graded inequality will vanish

or that  the  Hindus will strive to  abolish  it.

That  is  impossible.  This graded inequality  is

            not accidental or incidental.  It is the religion

            of the  Hindus.   It is the official doctrine  of

Hinduism.  It is sacred and no Hindu can think of

doing  away with it.  The Hindu Communal Majority

with  its  religion of graded inequality  is  not

therefore  a  passing phase.  It is  a  permanent

fact  and  a  menace  for   ever.   In  making  a

constitution  for  India  the   existence  of   a

standing  Communal Majority cannot be ignored and

the problem  of  devising  safeguards  so  as  to

reconcile  it  with political democracy  must  be

faced.    That   is   the    reasoning   of   the



The  first reason is founded in common sense.

The Untouchables  say:   “What harm is  there  in

demanding  from  the  Congress  an  agreement  in

advance?” What is lost, if the guarantee is given

by the  Congress in advance?” They argue that  if

the Congress agreed to this demand for safeguards

in advance  it will have a double effect.  In the

first  place,  it will give an assurance  to  the

untouchables  who  entertain so much dread as  to

what  their lot would be under the Hindu Communal

Majority.  Secondly, such an assurance would go a

long   way  in  inducing   the  Untouchables   to

co-operate with the Congress.  After all, why are

the Untouchables non co-operating?  Because, they

are afraid  that  if this freedom is achieved  it

will  enable  the  Hindu Majority once  again  to

enslave them.  Why not remove this fear if it can

be done  at  so  small  a  cost,  namely,  by  an

agreement in advance?


The  second reason is founded in  experience.

The Untouchables  say that the experience of  the

world  does  not justify the hope that  when  the

“Fight  for Freedom” ends, the stronger  elements

have shown the generosity to give security to the

weaker elements.


Many  examples  of  this  betrayal  could  be

cited.   The  most notorious one relates  to  the

betrayal  of  the  Negroes in the  United  States

after the Civil War.15


The  Untouchables  cannot forget the fate  of

the Negroes.   It  is to prevent  such  treachery

that  the  Untouchables have taken  the  attitude

they   have  with  regard  to  this  “Fight   for

Freedom.”  What is wrong in this?  Are they doing

anything  more  than follow the advice of  Burke,

who has  said that it is better to be accused  of

timidity  than  to  be  ruined  by  overconfident



Why  does the Congress oppose the proposal of

the British  Government?  It seeks to justify its

opposition  on  two  grounds.  It says  that  the

condition  prescribed  by the British  Government

puts  a veto on freedom of India in the hands  of

the Untouchables.   This is a stupid argument and

for two  reasons.   In  the   first  place,   the

Untouchables  in India have never made impossible

demands.   They  have not even made  unreasonable

demands.  They do not say as In Ireland Mr.Carson

told  to  Mr.Redmond “Damn your  safeguards.   We

don’t  wish to be ruled by you.” The Untouchables

are quite  prepared  to submit themselves to  the

rule  of the Hindu Majority, notwithstanding  the

unsocial  and  the undemocratic character of  its

ethics,  provided  the  constitution  gives  them

reasonable   safeguards.    To   say,  that   the

Untouchables  will  exercise  a veto  on  India’s

freedom  by raising impossible demands is thus  a

gross libel, for which there is not the slightest

justification.     Assuming     the    fear    is

well-founded,  the  Congress  is  not  altogether

without  a  remedy.  For it is still open to  the

Congress  to  say that if there is  no  agreement

between  the  Hindus  and  the  Untouchables  the

dispute  should  be referred to an  International

Board of Arbitration.


In  short,  what the Congress wanted  a  free

            India  with  full,  unrestricted freedom  to  the

            Hindus  in  a  free  India   to  dispose  of  the

            Untouchables  in  any way they liked.  No  wonder

            the Untouchables  have  refused to take  part  in

            such  a  dishonest agitation, elevated though  it

            may be  by such high sounding name as “Fight  for



The grounds advanced by the Untouchables that

they  are  separate  from   the  Hindus  are  not

difficult  to comprehend.  Nor do they require  a

long  and an elaborate statement.  The  statement

of their  case  can be fully covered by a  simple

question.   In what sense are they Hindu?  In the

first  place, the word ‘Hindu’ is used in various

senses and one must know in what sense it is used

before  one  can  give  a proper  answer  to  the

question.   It  is used in a  territorial  sense.

“Everyone  who is an inhabitant of Hindustan is a

Hindu.” In that sense it can certainly be claimed

that the untouchables are Hindus.  But so are the

Muslims,  Christians,  Sikhs, Jews, Parsis,  etc.

The second  sense  in which the word  ‘Hindu’  is

used  is  in a religious sense.  Before  one  can

draw  any conclusion, it is necessary to separate

the dogmas   of  Hinduism  from   the  cults   of

Hinduism.  Whether the Untouchables are Hindus in

the religious  sense  of  the word  depends  upon

whether one adopts as his tests the dogmas or the

cults.   If the tests of Hinduism are the  dogmas

of Caste    and    Untouchability    then   every

Untouchable  would  repudiate  Hinduism  and  the

assertion  that  he  is  a Hindu.   If  the  test

applied  is the acceptance of a cult such as  the

worship  of  Rama, Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva  and

other  Gods and Goddesses recognized by  Hinduism

the Untouchables  may  be claimed to  be  Hindus.

The Congress  as usual maintains a body of agents

from among the Untouchables to shout when need be

that  the  untouchables are Hindus and that  they

will  die as Hindus.  But even these paid  agents

will  not  agree to be counted as Hindus if  they

are asked  to  proclaim themselves as Hindus,  if

Hinduism    means    belief    in    caste    and



One  more  point  must be stressed.   On  the

foregoing analysis the Untouchable may be classed

as a  Hindu  if  the word Hindu is  used  in  the

religious  but in the limited sense of a follower

of a  recognized  cult.   Even here, there  is  a

necessity for giving a warning against concluding

that  the Hindu and the Untouchable have a common

religion.   The fact is that even as followers of

recognized  cults  they cannot be said to have  a

common  religion.   The   exact  and  appropriate

expression  would  be  to say that  they  have  a

similar  religion.   A  common religion  means  a

            common  cycle  of  participation.   Now,  in  the

observances  of the cults there is no such common

cycle  of  participation.   The  Hindus  and  the

Untouchables  practise their cults in segregation

so that  not withstanding the similarity of their

cults  they remain as separate as two aliens  do.

Neither  of these two senses of the word  ‘Hindu’

can yield  any  result  which can be of  help  in

determining  the political question, which  alone

can justify the discussion.17


The  only  test  which can be of use  is  its

social  sense as indicating a member of the Hindu

Society.   Can an Untouchable be held to be  part

of the  Hindu  Society?  Is there any  human  tie

that binds them to the rest of the Hindus?  There

is none.   There  is no connubium.  There  is  no

commensalism.   There  is not even the  right  to


touch, much less to associate.  Instead, the mere

touch  is  enough to cause pollution to a  Hindu.

The whole tradition of the Hindus is to recognize

the Untouchable  as a separate element and insist

upon  it as a fact.  The traditional  terminology

of the   Hindus   to   distinguish   Hindus   and

Untouchables  furnishes  the   best  evidence  in

favour  of  the contention of  the  Untouchables.

According to this traditional terminology, Hindus

are called  Savarnas  and  the  Untouchables  are

called  Avarnas.   It  speaks of  the  Hindus  as

Chaturvarnikas   and  of   the  Untouchables   as

Panchamas.   Such  a terminology could  not  have

come  into existence if separation had not become

so prominent  and its observance so necessary  as

to require  coining  of  special  terms  to  give

expression to the fact.


There  is  thus hardly any substance  in  the

Congress  argument  that   the  Untouchables  are

Hindus  and that they cannot therefore demand the

same  political rights as the Muslims and  others

can.  While the argument from tradition is a good

and valid argument to prove that the Untouchables

are not  Hindus,  it may appear to some to  be  a

weak  one.   I  do not wish to  leave  the  field

without  directly meeting the Congress  argument.

For this   purpose,  I  will   grant   that   the

Untouchables  are  Hindus by religion.   But  the

question  is:  Does it matter if they are Hindus?

Can it  come in the way of their being recognized

as a  separate  element in the national  life  of

India?   It  is difficult to understand  how  the

mere  fact  that they might be called  Hindus  by

religion in such a limited sense can be the basis

of an  argument that they are an integral part of

the Hindu society.


Admitting  for the sake of argument that they

are Hindus by religion, can it mean anything more

than  what  I have said-namely that they  worship

the same  Gods  and Goddesses as the rest of  the

Hindus, they go to the same places of pilgrimage,

hold the same supernatural beliefs and regard the

same  stones,  tress, mountains as sacred as  the

rest  of  the  Hindus  do?   Is  this  enough  to

conclude that the Untouchables and the Hindus are

parts  of  one single community?  If that be  the

logic behind the contention of the Congress then,

what  about  the   Belgians,  Dutch,  Norwegians,

Swedes,  Germans, French, Italians, Slavs,  etc.?

Are they  not  all Christians?  Do they  not  all

worship  the  same God?  Do they not  all  accept

Jesus  as their Saviour?  Have they not the  same

religious   beliefs?   Obviously,   there  is   a

complete  religious unity between all of them  in

thought,  worship  and  beliefs.   Yet,  who  can

dispute that the French, Germans and Italians and

the rest   are  not  a  single  community?   Take

another  case, that of the Whites and the Negroes

in the  U.S.A.  They too have a common  religion.

Both  are  Christians.  Can any one say that  the

two on  that  account  form a  single  community?

Take a third case, that of the Indian Christians,

Europeans  and  Anglo-Indians.  They profess  and

follow  the  same religion.  Yet it  is  admitted

that  they  do  not  form  one  single  Christian

community.   Take  the case of the Sikhs.   There

are Sikhs,  Mazbi Sikhs and Ramdasia Sikhs.   All

profess Sikhism.  But it is accepted that they do

not form  one  community.  In the light of  these

illustration  it is obvious that the argument  of

the Congress is full of fallacies.


If  religion  was a circumstance  from  which

social  union  was  made   the  only  permissible

inference  then  the  fact   that  the  Italians,

French,  Germans and Slavs in Europe, the Negroes

and the  Whites  in  the U.S.A.  and  the  Indian

Christians,  Europeans, Anglo-Indians in India do

not form  a  single community although  they  all

profess  the same religion is enough to  negative

such  a  contention.  The pity of the  matter  is

that  the Congress is so completely enamoured  of

its argument  based  on religion as  an  unifying

factor,  that it has failed to realize that there

is no concomitance between the two and that there

are cases  where  there  is  separation  although

religions  are  separate,  that there  are  cases

where  separation  exists  in spite of  a  common

religion  and  what is worst,  separation  exists

because religion prescribes it.


To  give a quietus to the Hindu argument,  it

may be desirable to give one illustration of each

of these  cases.  Of the first case the best  and

the easiest  illustration I can think of is  that

of the  Sikhs  and  the Hindus.  They  differ  in

religion.   But  they are not socially  separate.

They  dine together;  they marry together;   they

live  together.  In a Hindu family one son may be

a Sikh,  another a Hindu.  Religious  differences

does  not break the social nexus.  Of the  second

the case  of  the  Italians, French,  Germany  in

Europe  and  White and Negroes in America are  as

good illustrations as one would want.


This  happens  where  religion is  a  binding

force  but  is not powerful enough  to  withstand

other  forces  tending  to  divide  such  as  the

sentiment  of race.  Hindus and Hinduism are  the

best  and  perhaps the only illustrations of  the

third  case,  where separation is the  effect  of

religion  itself.  That there can be such a case,

Hindus  at any rate need not require to be  told.

For,  it  is  well known that  Hinduism  preaches

separation instead of union.  To be a Hindu means

not to  mix,  to be separate in everything.   The

language  commonly  used  that  Hinduism  upholds

Caste  and  Untouchability perhaps disguises  and

conceals its genius.  The real genius of Hinduism

            is to divide.  This is beyond dispute.  For, what

            do Caste and Untouchability stand for?  Obviously

for separation.   For  Caste is another name  for

separation   and  untouchability   typifies   the

extremist  form  of separation of community  from

community.   It is also beyond dispute that Caste

and Untouchability are not innocuous dogmas to be

compared  with  other  dogmas   relation  to  the

condition  of  the  soul after death.   They  are

parts of the code of conduct which every Hindu is

bound to observe during his life on earth.  Caste

and Untouchability far from being mere dogmas are

among  the  foremost  observances  prescribed  by

Hinduism.   It  is  not  enough for  a  Hindu  to

believe    in   the    dogmas    of   Caste   and

Untouchability.   He must also observe Caste  and

Untouchability,  in  the  conduct  of  his  daily



The  separation,  which Hinduism has  brought

about, between the Hindus and the Untouchables by

its dogma  of  Untouchability  is   not  a   mere

imaginary  line  of separation, such as  the  one

which the Pope once drew in a quarrel between the

Portuguese   and   their   rivals  for   Colonial

possessions;   it  is  not like the  colour  line

which has length but no breadth and which one may

observe  or  one may not observed it is not  like

the race  line, which involves distinction but do

discrimination.   It  has both depth  and  width.

Factually  the  Hindus and the  Untouchables  are

divided   by  a  fence   made  of  barbed   wire.

Nationally  it  is  cordon   sanitary  which  the

Untouchables have never been allowed to cross and

can never hope to cross.


To  put the matter in general terms, Hinduism

and social  union are incompatible.  By Its  very

genius  Hinduism  believes in  social  separation

which  is  another name for social  disunity  and

even  creates social separation.  If Hindus  wish

to be  one  they will have do  discard  Hinduism.

They  cannot  be one without violation  Hinduism.

Hinduism is the greatest obstacle to Hindu Unity.

Hinduism  cannot  create that longing  to  belong

which  is the basis of all social unity.  On  the

contrary   Hinduism  creates  an   eagerness   to



The  Hindus does not seem to realize that the

argument  it  is using goes against itself.   Far

from  supporting the Hindus contention, it is the

best  and the most effective argument that can be

advanced   to  prove  the   contention   of   the

Untouchables.   For,  if any conclusion is to  be

drawn  from the hypothesis that the  Untouchbales

are Hindus  it  is  that   Hinduism  has   always

insisted  both in principle and in practice  that

the Untouchables  are not to be recognized a chip

of the  Hindu  block but are to be treated  as  a

separate element and segregated from the Hindus.


If  therefore the Untouchables say that  they

            are a separate element, nobody can accuse them of

            having  invented  a  new theory for the  sake  of

            political  advantages.  They are merely  pointing

            out what  the  facts are and how these facts  are

            the heritage  of  Hinduism  itself.   The  Hindus

cannot  honestly and convincingly use Hinduism as

an argument   for  refusing  to   recognize   the

Untouchables  as a separate element.  If it does,

it is  only  because  it is actuated  by  selfish

motives.   It  knows that the recognition of  the

Untouchables  as an element in the national  life

of India,  as  distinct  and  separate  from  the

Hindus,  must  relate  in  the  apportionment  of

places  in the Executive, the Legislature, and in

the Public  Services between the Untouchables and

the Hindus  and  thus  limit  the  share  of  the

Hindus.   Some  leaders  does not like  that  the

Hindus  should  be deprived of the share  of  the

Untouchables which the Hindus are in the habit of

appropriating  to  themselves.  That is the  real

reason  why the Hindus refuses to recognize  that

the Untouchables  are  a separate element in  the

national life of India.19


This    is   hardly    an   argument    worth

consideration.  It is the weakest of its kind and

shows  that  the  Hindus has  nothing  better  to

advance.   Besides  contradicting   its  previous

argument, it is entirely misconceived.


If  there  is a real separation  between  the

Hindus  and the Untouchables and if there is  the

danger  of discrimination being practised by  the

Hindus   against   the   Untouchables  then   the

Untouchables  must receive political  recognition

and must be given political safeguards to protect

themselves  against  the tyranny of  the  Hindus.

The possibility  of  the better future cannot  be

used  as an argument to prevent the  Untouchables

from  securing the means of protecting themselves

against the tyranny of the present.


In  the  second place, this argument  can  be

used  only  by  those who believe in  the  social

fusion of the Hindus and the Untouchables and are

actively  engaged  in pursuing means and  methods

which  will  bring about such a  fusion.   Hindus

have  often been heard to say that the problem of

the Untouchables  is  social and political.   But

the point  is,  are Hindus sincere when they  say

that  it is a social question?  Or do they use it

as an   excuse   with  a   view  to   avoid   the

consequences  of having to share political  power

with  the Untouchables?  And, if they are sincere

in holding  that  it is a social  question,  what

proof is there of their sincerity in this matter?

Have  Hindus  men sponsored social  Reform  among

Hindus?  Have they carried on a crusade in favour

of inter-dining  and intermarriages?  What is the

record of Hindus in the field of Social Reform?


The education received by the Untouchables in

the army  while it was open to them gave them one

advantage  which they never had before.  It  gave

them  a new vision and a new value.  They  became

conscious  that the low esteem in which they  had

been  held was not an inescapable destiny but was

a stigma  imposed  on  their personality  by  the

sunning contrivances of the priest.20


The caste in India is exclusive and isolated.

There  is  no interaction and no modification  of

aims  and objects.  What a caste or a combination

of castes  regard  “as  their  own  interest”  as

against  other  castes  remains   as  sacred  and

inviolate as ever.  The fact that they mingle and

co-operate  does not alter their character.   The

acts  of  co-operation  are  mechanical  and  not




In India the Caste are not merely non-social.

            Often they are anti-social.  This is particularly

true  of the Hindus towards the Untouchables.   A

few facts  will  suffice to show how  anti-social

the Hindus  are  towards the  Untouchables.   For

Instance,   The  Hindus  will   not   allow   the

Untouchables  to  take  water from a  well.   The

Hindus  will not allow the Untouchables entry  in

schools.    The  Hindus  will   not   allow   the

Untouchables to take travel in buses.  The Hindus

will  not allow the Untouchables to travel in the

same  railway  compartment.  The Hindus will  not

allow  the Untouchables to Wear clean cloth.  The

Hindus  will  not allow the Untouchables to  Wear

jewelry.    The  Hindus  will   not   allow   the

Untouchables  to put tiles on the roofs of  their

houses.    The   Hindus  will   not   allow   the

Untouchables  to  own land.  The Hindus will  not

allow  the  Untouchables  to  keep  cattle.   The

Hindus  will  not allow the Untouchables  to  sit

when  Hindu  is standing.  They are not  isolated

acts of a few bad men among the Hindus.  They are

the emanation   of  the   permanent   anti-social

attitude  of  the  Hindu  community  against  the



The  system of Untouchability is a gold  mine

for the  Hindus.   As Untouchables  serves  their

retinue to enable the Hindus to maintain pomp and

ceremony  and to cultivate a feeling of pride and

dignity  befitting a master class which cannot be

fostered and sustained unless there is beneath it

a servile    class    to     look   down    upon.

Untouchability  is more than a religious  system. 

            It is also an economic system which is worse than

            slavery.   In slavery the master at any rate  had

            the responsibility  to feed clothe and house  the

            slave  and  keep him in good condition  lest  the

            market  value of the slave should decrease.   But

in the  system of Untouchability the Hindu  takes

no responsibility  for  the  maintenance  of  the

Untouchable.   As  an economic system it  permits

exploitation  without obligation.  Untouchability

is not  only  a  system of  unmitigated  economic

exploitation,   but  it  is   also  a  system  of

uncontrolled  economic  exploitation.    That  is

because there is no independent public opinion to

condemn it and there is no impartial machinery of

administration  to  restrain  it.   There  is  no

appeal  to  public opinion, for  whatever  public

opinion  there is it is the opinion of the Hindus

who belong  to  the exploiting class and as  such

favour  exploitation.  There is no check from the

police  or  the judiciary for the  simple  reason

that  they are all drawn from the Hindus and take

the side of the Exploiters.


Those  who  believe that Untouchability  will

soon vanish do not seem to have paid attention to

the economic  advantages  which it gives  to  the

Hindus.   Untouchable  cannot do anything to  get

rid of his untouchability.  It does not arise out

of any    personal    fault    on    his    part.

untouchability  is an attitude of the Hindu.  For

Untouchability  to  vanish, it is the  Hindu  who

must change.  Will he change.


Has a Hindu any conscience?  Is he ever known

to have  been fired with a righteous  indignation

against  a moral wrong?  Assuming he does  change

so much  as  to  regard  Untouchability  a  moral

wrong,  assuming  he is awakened to the sense  of

putting  himself right with God and Man, will  he

agree   to  give  up   the  economic  and  social

advantages  which Untouchability gives?  History,

I am afraid, will not justify the conclusion that

a Hindu has a quick conscience or if he has it is

so active as to charge him with moral indignation

and drive him to undertake a crusade to eradicate

the wrong.


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.

The Untouchables  cannot  hope  to  generate  any

compelling  force.   They are poor and  they  are

scattered.   They can be easily suppressed should

they raise their head.23


On  this analysis, we find now the Hindus has

become   more  powerful   and  Untouchables  more

helpless  and  it is quite possible  that  having

regard  to the economic advantages which it gives

to the  Hindus, Independence, instead of  putting

an end  to  untouchability, may extend its  life.

That  Untouchability  is vanishing  is  therefore

only  wishful thinking and a calculated  untruth.

It would  be most stupid-if not criminal-to  take

it into account in considering the demands of the

Untouchables  for  fully  implementation  of  the

constitutional  provision  and  ignore  the  hard

facts  of  the  present and  their  certainty  to

continue in the indefinite future.


Historically  the Brahmins have been the most

inveterate  enemy of the servile classes (shudras

and the  untouchables)  who  together  constitute

about  80% of the total Hindu population.  If the

common  man  belonging to the servile classes  in

India  is today so fallen, so degraded, so devoid

of hope  and ambition, it is entirely due to  the

Brahmins  and  their  philosophy.   The  cardinal

principles  of this philosophy of Brahmanism  are



(1)  graded inequality between the  different

classes;  (2) complete disarmament of the Shudras

and the  Untouchables;  (3) complete  prohibition

of the   education  of  the   Shudras   and   the

Untouchables;   (4)  ban on the Shudras  and  the

Untouchables  occupying  places of the power  and

authority;   (5)  ban  on  the  Shudras  and  the

Untouchables  acquiring  property;  (6)  complete

subjugation and suppression of women.


Inequality   is  the   official  doctrine  of

Brahmanism  and  the  suppression  of  the  lower

classes aspiring to equality has been looked upon

by them  and carried out by them, without remorse

as their bounden duty.  There are countries where

education did not spread beyond a few.  But India

is the only country where the intellectual class,

namely,  the  Brahmins  not only  made  education

their   monopoly  but   declared  acquisition  of

education   by  the  lower   classes,   a   crime

punishable by cutting off of the tongue or by the

pouring  of  molten  lead  in   the  ear  of  the



In other words all the social evils are based

on religion.   A Hindu man or woman, whatever  he

does, he does as a religious observance.  A Hindu

eats  religiously,  drinks   religiously,  bathes

religiously,   dresses  religiously,    is   born

religiously, is married religiously and is burned

religiously.   His  acts  are   all  pious  acts.

However  evil they may be form a secular point of

view,  to  him, they are not sinful because  they

are sanctioned  and enjoined by his religion.  If

any one accuses a Hindu of Sin, his reply is, “If

I sin, I am sinning religiously.24


The  Savarna  politicians complain  that  the

British   were  ruling  India   by  a   wholesale

disarmament  of  the people of India.   But  they

forget  that  disarmament of the Shudras and  the

Untouchables  was the rule of law promulgated  by

the Brahmins.    Indeed,  so   strongly  did  the

Brahmins  believe  in  the   disarmament  of  the

Shudras  and  the  Untouchables  that  when  they

revised  the  law to enable the Brahmins  to  arm

themselves  for  the  protection   of  their  own

privileges,  they  maintained  the   ban  on  the

Shudras  and  the Untouchables as it was  without

lessening  its rigour.  If the large majority  of

the people of India appear today to be thoroughly

emasculated, spiritless, with no manliness, it is

the result  of the Brahmanic policy of  wholesale

disarmament to which they have been subjected for

the untold  ages.  There is no social evil and no

social  wrong to which the Brahmins does not give

his support.   Man’s  inhumanity to man, such  as

the feeling    of       caste,    untouchability,

unapproachability  and unseeability is a religion

to him.   It  would,  however, be  a  mistake  to

suppose  that  only  the  wrongs  of  man  are  a

religion to him.


For  the Brahmin has given his support to the

worst wrongs that women have suffered from in any

part  of  the world.  Widows were burnt alive  as

sattees.  The Brahmin gave his fullest support to

Sattee,  the  burning alive of a  widow.   Widows

were  not allowed to remarry.  The Brahmin upheld

the doctrine.   Girls were required to be married

before  8  and  the  husband  had  the  right  to

consummate  the marriage at any time  thereafter,

whether  she  had reached puberty or not did  not

matter.   The  Brahmin  gave   the  doctrine  his

strongest support.


The  record of the Brahmins as law givers for

the Shudras,  for the Untouchables and for  women

is the  blackest  as compared with the record  of

the intellectual  classes  in other parts of  the

world.  For no intellectual class has prostituted

            its intelligence  to invent a philosophy to  keep

            his uneducated countrymen in a perpetual state of

            ignorance  and poverty as the Brahmins have  done

            in India. 


Every   Brahmin   today   believes  in   this

philosophy   of  Brahminism   propounded  by  his

forefathers.  he is an alien element in the Hindu

Society.   The Brahmin vis-s-vis Shudras and  the

Untouchables  as foreign as the German is to  the

French,  as  the Jew is to the Gentile or as  the

White  is  to  the Negro.  There is a  real  gulf

between  him and the lower classes of Shudras and

Untouchables.   He is not only alien to them  but

he is also hostile to them.  In relationship with

them,  there is no room for conscience and  there

is no call for justice.


The  Bania is the worst parasitic class known

            to history.   In him the vice of money making  is


unredeemed  by culture or conscience.  He is like

an undertaker  who  prospers  when  there  is  an

epidemic.    The  only   difference  between  the

undertaker  and the Bania is that the  undertaker

does not create an epidemic while the Bania does.

he does  not  use his money for  production.   He

uses  it  to create poverty and more  poverty  by

lending  money  for  unproductive  purposes.   He

lives  on  interest  and  as he is  told  by  his

religion  that  money lending is  the  occupation

prescribed  to  him by Manu, he looks upon it  as

both  right  and  righteous.  With the  help  and

assistance  of the Brahmin judge who is ready  to

decree  his  suits,  he is able to carry  on  his

trade.   Interest, interest on interest, he  adds

on and  on and thereby draws families perpetually

into  his net.  Pay him as much as a debtor  may,

he is  always in debt.  With no conscience, there

is no  fraud,  and no chicanery that he will  not

commit.   His  grip over the nation is  complete.

The whole  of poor, starving, illiterate India is

mortgaged to the Bania.


To  sum up, the Brahmin enslaves the mind and

the Bania  enslaves the body.  Between them, they

divide  the  spoils  which  belong  to  governing

class.  Can anyone who realizes what the outlook,

tradition  and social philosophy of the governing

class in India, is believe that under the Savarna

regime, a sovereign and independent India will be

different from the India was under British?


Class  qualifications  can never be  ignored.

Man is  not a mere machine.  he is a human  being

with  feelings of sympathy for some and antipathy

for others.  This is even true of the ‘best’ man.

He too  is  charged  with the feelings  of  class

sympathies  and class antipathies.  Having regard

to these  considerations the ‘best’ man from  the

governing class may well turn out to be the worst

from  the  point of view of the servile  classes.

The difference  between the governing classes and

the servile  classes  in  the   matter  of  their

attitudes  towards each other is the same as  the

attitude  a person of one nation has for that  of

another  nation.  Persons of the governing  class

in parodying  the demands of the servile  classes

seem  to  forget that the difference between  the

governing class and the servile class in India is

of the  same  nature  as the  difference  between

French and Germans, Turks and Greeks or Poles and

Jews  and  the reasons why one will not  tolerate

the government of the other although it may be of

the ‘best’ men are the same in both cases.


Was  there  any doubt that the Brahmins  form

the governing  class  in India ?  Was  there  any

doubt  that the Savarna fought for Freedom is  for

the freedom  of  the governing class ?  Is  there

any doubt  that  the  Savarna are  the  governing

class  and the governing class is the congress  ?

Was there any doubt that when Swaraj came in 1937

in the  form  of Provincial autonomy the  Savarna

shamelessly  put the governing class in places of

power and authority?


It  is  a  pity that people do  not  seem  to

distinguish the case of a tyrant who is held down

and who  pleads  for liberty because he wants  to

regain  his  right to oppress and the case of  an

oppressed  class  seeking  to be  free  from  the

oppression  of  the  tyrant.  In their  hurry  to

bring  freedom  to  India they have  no  time  to

realize that by siding with the Savarna what they

are doing is not to make India safe for democracy

but to free the tyrant to practise his tyrannies.

Is it  necessary  to  tell them that  to  support

Savarna  is  to  let   tyranny  have  freedom  to



Beware  of  Gandhi.  How could we believe  in

the earnestness  of  a person who takes a vow  to

fast if the Guruvayur temple is not opened to the

Untouchables  but  will not go on fast even  when

the temple remains closed?  How could they accept

a man  to  be in earnest when he sponsors a  Bill

for securing   Temple-entry    and   subsequently

becomes  a party to dropping it?  How could  they

accept  the  earnestness  of a man  who  contents

himself  with  saying that he will not go into  a

temple if it is not open to the Untouchables when

what  is required of him is to adopt every  means

to get   the   temples  thrown    open   to   the

Untouchables?   How  could  they believe  in  the

earnestness  of  a man who was ready to fast  for

everything   but   will   not    fast   for   the

Untouchables?   How  can  they   believe  in  the

earnestness  of a man who is prepared to practise

satyagraha  for everything and against  everybody

but who  will not practise it against the  Hindus

for the  sake of the Untouchables ?  How can they

believe  in the earnestness of a man who as  real

minorities   in  India  whose   rights   can   be

endangered  by India becoming independent.   With

the exception  of the Depressed Classes there  is

no minority  which  is not able to take  care  of



When  the British Government recognized  the

Untouchables  and  helped by giving the  safeguard

then Mr.Gandhi started fast unto death unless the

safeguards  to  the untouchables were  completely

withdrawn.   He came out as an open enemy of  the

Untouchables.   How  can the untouchables  regard

such  a  man as their friend an ally?  He  was  a

political shoemaker.  The Harijan Sevak Sangha is

to Untouchables  what Putana was to Krishna.  The

whole  object  of the Sangh is to create a  slave

mentality  among  the Untouchabls  towards  their

Hindu master.



No  man  can be grateful at the cost of  his

honour,  no women can be grateful at the cost  of

her chastity  and  no country can be grateful  at

the cost  of its liberty.  said ” Danial O’Connel

the Irish leader”.27


Untouchability  has been in existence for the

last  two thousand years during which period  the

Hindus  have  day in and day out sucked the  very

blood of the untouchables and have mutilated them

and trodden upon them in every way.  During these

two thousand  years  what amount of charity  have

the Hindus done to the Untouchables?28


What  is  Gandhism?  What does it stand  for?

What  are  its teachings about economic  problem?

What are its teaching about social problem?


At  the outset it is necessary to start  that

some  Gandhists have conjured up a conception  of

Gandhism which is purely imaginary.  According to

this  conception  Gandhism  means return  to  the

village  and making the village  self-sufficient.

It makes  Gandhism a mere matter of  regionalism.

Gandhism, is neither so simple nor so innocent as

regionalism is.


To start with Mr.Gandhi’s teachings on social

problem   from   a   Gujarathi   Journal   called

Nava-Jivan in 1921-22.  In his own words:


”  1.   I believe that if Hindu  Society  has

been able to stand it is because it is founded on

the caste system.


  1. The  seeds of Swaraj are to be found  in

the caste  system.   Different  castes  are  like

different  sections  of military division.   Each

division is working for the good of the whole…


  1. A  community which can create the  caste

system  must  be said to possess unique power  of



  1. Caste  has  a   ready  made  means  for

spreading  primary  education.  Every  caste  can

take  the responsibility for the education of the

children  of  the Caste.  Caste has  a  political

basis.   It  can  work  as an  electorate  for  a

representative  body.  Caste can perform judicial

functions by electing persons to act as judges to

decide  disputes among members of the same caste.

With  castes it is easy to raise a defence  force

by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.


  1. I   believe     that   interdining   or

intermarriage  are  not necessary  for  promoting

national  unity.   That dining  together  creates

friendship  is  contrary to experience.  If  this

was true   there  would  have   been  no  war  in

Europe…   Taking  food  is as dirty an  act  as

answering   the  call  of   nature.    The   only

difference is that after answering call of nature

we get  peace  while  after eating  food  we  get

discomfort.   Just  as  we  perform  the  act  of

answering the call of nature in seclusion so also

the act  of  taking  food must also  be  done  in



  1. In  India  children of brothers  do  not

intermarry.   Do they cease to love because  they

do not  intermarry?   Among the  Vaishnavas  many

women are so orthodox that they will not eat with

the members  of  the family nor will  they  drink

water  from  a  common water pot.  Have  they  no

love?   The Caste system cannot be said to be bad

because   it  does  not   allow  interdining   or

intermarriage between different Castes.


  1. Caste is another name for control.  Caste

puts  a limit on enjoyment.  Caste does not allow

a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of

his enjoyment.  That is the meaning of such caste

restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.


  1. To destroy caste system and adopt Western

European  social  system means that  Hindus  must

give  up  the principle of hereditary  occupation

which   is  the  soul  of  the   castes   system.

Hereditary principle is an eternal principle.  To

change  it is to create disorder.  I have no  use

            for a  Brahmin if I can’t call him a Brahmin  for

            my life.   It  will  be a `chaos if every  day  a

            Brahmin is to be changed into a Sudra and a Sudra

            is to be changed into a Brahmin”.


  1. The  Caste system is a natural order  of

society.   In India it has been given a religious

coating.   Other countries not having  understood

the utility  of the Caste System it existed  only

in a  loose  condition   and  consequently  those

countries  have not derived from Caste System the

same  degree  of  the advantage which  India  has



These  being  may views I am opposed  to  all

those who are out to destroy the Caste system.”


In 3rd February 1925 again he said:


“I  gave  support to caste because it  stands

for restraint.   But  at present caste  does  not

mean  restraint, it means limitations.  Restraint

is glorious  and  helps to achieve freedom.   but

limitation  is  like chain.  It binds.  There  is

nothing  commendable  in  castes  as  they  exist

today.   They  are contrary to the tenets of  the

shastras.   The number of castes is infinite  and

there  is  a bar against intermarriage.  This  is

not a  condition of elevation.  It is a state  of



In  reply  to the question:  What is the  way

out he  said:   “The  best remedy is  that  small

castes should fuse themselves into one big caste.

There  should be four such big castes so that  we

may reproduce the old system of four varnas.”


In  short,  in 1925 he became an upholder  of

the Varna system.


The  old  Varna system prevalent  in  ancient

India had society divided into four orders:


  1. Brahimins, whose occupation was learning;


  1.   Kshatriyas whose occupation was warfare;


  1. Vaishyas, whose occupation was trade and


  1. Shudras, whose occupation was service of

the other classes.


Is  his  Varna  system the same as  this  old

varna   system  of  the   orthodox  Hindus?    He



“1.   I believe that the division into  Varna

is based on birth.


  1. There  is  nothing in the  Varna  system

which  stands in the way of the Shudra  acquiring

learning  or studying military art of offence  or

defence.   Contra  it is open to a  Kshatriya  to

serve.   The Varna system is no bar to him.  What

the Varna  system  enjoins is that a Shudra  will

not make learning a way of earning a living.  Nor

will  a  Kshatriya  adopt  service as  a  way  of

earning  a living.  Similarly a Brahmin may learn

the art  of  war or trade.  But he must not  make

them  a  way  of earning his  living.   Contra  a

Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the

art of  war.  But he must not make them a way  of

earning his living.


  1. The  varna system is connected with  the

way of  earning a living.  There is no harm if  a

person  belonging  to  one   varna  acquires  the

knowledge  or  science and art specialized in  by

persons belonging to other varnas.  But as far as

the way  of  earning his living is  concerned  he

must  follow the occupation of the varna to which

be belongs  which  means  he   must  follow   the

hereditary profession of his forefathers.


  1. The  object  of the varna system  is  to

prevent  competition and class struggle and class

war.   I  believe in the varna system because  it

fixes the duties and occupations of persons.


  1. Varna means the determination of a man’s

occupation before he is born.


  1. In  the  varna  system no  man  has  any

liberty to choose his occupation.  His occupation

is determined for him by heredity.”


Turning  to  the  field   of  economic  life,

Mr.Gandhi stands for two ideals:


On  of these is the opposition to  machinery.

As early  as  1921  Mr.Gandhi gave  vent  to  his

dislike  for  machinery.   Writing in  the  Young

India of 19th January 1921, He said:


“Do  I want to put back the hand of the clock

of progress?   Do I want to replace the mills  by

hand-spining  and  hand  weaving?  Do I  want  to

replace  the  railway by the country cart?  Do  I

want  to  destroy  machinery  altogether?   These

questions have been asked by some journalists and

public  men.   My answer is :  I would  not  weep

over  the disappearance of machinery or  consider

it a calamity.”


In  January  8,  1925 he said:   “Nation  are

tired  of  the  worship   of  lifeless   machines

multiplied  ad infinitum.  We are destroying  the

matchless living machines viz., our own bodies by

leaving  them  to rust and trying  to  substitute

lifeless  machinery for them.  It is a law of God

that  the body must be fully worked and utilized.

We dare not ignore it.  The spinning wheel is the

auspicious  symbol  of Sharir Yajna-body  labour.

He who  eats  his  food   without  offering  this

sacrifice steals it.  By giving up this sacrifice

we became traitors to the country, and banged the

door in the face of the Goddess of Fortune.”


He  was against the modern civilization as he

            said  in  1921:   “Western  civilization  is  the

            creation of Satan “.


In  short, Gandhism with its call of back  to

            nature, means back to nakedness, back to squalor,

            back  to  poverty and back to ignorance  for  the

            vast mass of the people.



In  a  class structure there is, on  the  one

hand,  tyranny, vanity, pride, arrogance,  greed,

selfishness   and  on   the  other,   insecurity,

poverty,    degradation,    loss    of   liberty,

selfreliance,    independence,     dignity,   and

self-respect.   Democratic  society   cannot   be

indifferent to such consequences.


The  social ideal of Gandhism is either caste

or varna.   Though  it  may be difficult  to  say

which,  there  can  be no doubt that  the  social

ideal  of Gandhism is not democracy.  For whether

one takes  for comparison caste or varna both are

fundamentally  opposed  to democracy.   It  would

have  been  something  if the  defence  of  caste

system  which,  Gandhism  offers was  strong  and

honest.   But his defence of the caste system  is

the most  insensible  piece of rhetoric  one  can

think   of.   Examine   Mr.Gandhi’s  argument  in

support  of  caste  and  it will  be  found  that

everyone of them is specious if not puerile.


He  said  “There  is  no  harm  if  a  person

            belonging  to one varna acquires the knowledge of

            science  and  art  specialized   in  by   persons

            belonging to other varnas.  But as far as the way

            of earning his living is concerned he must follow

            the occupation  of the varna to which he  belongs

            which  means  he  must   follow  the   hereditary

            profession of his forefathers.” But he himself or

his son’s  didn’t  followed the suit.  They  have

selected   the  occupation   which  they   liked.

Whether  the Hindu Society has been able to stand

while  others  have  died out or  disappeared  is

hardly  a  matter for congratulation.  If it  has

survived  it is not because of caste but  because

the foreigner  who  conquered the Hindus did  not

find  it necessary to kill them wholesale.  There

is no  honour in mere survival.  what matters  is

the plane  of  survival.   One   can  survive  by

un-conditional  surrender.   One can  survive  by

beating a cowardly retreat and one can survive by

fighting.    On  what  plane   have  the   Hindus

survived?   If they can be said to have  survived

after  fighting  and  beating their  enemies  the

virtue  ascribed to the caste system by Mr.Gandhi

could be admitted.  The history of the Hindus has

been  one of surrender – abject surrender.  It is

true  other  have surrendered to their  invaders.

But in  their  case  surrender is followed  by  a

revolt  against  the foreign ruler.   The  Hindus

have  not  only never withstood the onslaught  of

the foreign  invader, they have never even  shown

the capacity to organize a rebellion to throw off

the foreign  yoke.  On the other hand the  Hindus

have  tried to make slavery comfortable.  On this

one may  well argue the contrary namely that this

helpless  condition of the Hindus is due entirely

to the  caste  system.  In fact under  the  caste

system  a general mobilization of the people  for

defence is impossible since mobilization requires

a general  liquidation of the occupational theory

underlying the caste system.29


The caste system has been defended by others.

But an  extraordinary if not a shocking  argument

used  to  support  it  by  Mr.Gandhi.   Even  the

orthodox  may  say, “Save us from Mr.Gandhi.”  It

shows  what  a deep dyed Hindu Mr.Gandhi is.   He

has outdone  the most orthodox of orthodox Hindu.

Dr.Ambedker says “It is not enough to say that it

is an  argument  of a cave man.  It is really  an

argument of a mad man.”


The  hereditary system may be good or may not

be good.  It may be agreeable to some.  It may be

disagreeable  to others.  Why elevate it into  an

official  doctrine?  Why make it compulsory?   In

Europe  it is not an official doctrine and it  is

not compulsory.   It is left to the choice of  an

individual  most of whom do follow the profession

of their  ancestors and some don’t.  Who can  say

            that compulsory system has worked better than the

            voluntary system ?30


The  varna system of the Bhagvat Gita has  at

least two merits:


  1. It  does  not say that it  is  based  on

birth.  Indeed it makes a special point that each

man’s  varna  is  fixed according to  his  innate



  1. It  does not say that the occupation  of

the son  shall  be that of the father.   It  says

that   the  profession  of  a  person  shall   be

according to his innate qualities, the profession

of the  father  according to the father’s  innate



But  Gandhi has given a new interpretation of

the varna  system.   He  has changed  it  out  of

recognition.     Under     the    old    orthodox

interpretation    caste     connoted   hereditary

occupation  but  varna did not.  Mr.Gandh by  his

own whim  has  given  a new  connotation  to  the

varna.  The genius of Mr.Gandhi is elvish, always

and throughout.   He has all the precocity of  an

elf with no little of its outward guise.  Like an

elf he  can  never  grow up and grow out  of  the

caste  ideology.   Gandhi told ” I have  come  to

fulfil the law of Caste.”


The  religion  to which depressed  class  are

tied, instead of providing for them an honourable

place,  brands  them  as   lepers,  not  fit  for

ordinary  intercourse.   Economically,  it  is  a

class  entirely  dependent  upon the  high  caste

Hindus  for  earning  its  daily  bread  with  no

independent  way  of living open to it.  Nor  are

all ways   closed  by  reason   of   the   social

prejudices  of the Hindus but there is a definite

attempt all through out the Hindu Society to bolt

every  possible  door  so  as not  to  allow  the

Depressed  Classes any opportunity to rise in the

scale  of  life.   Indeed  it  would  not  be  an

exaggeration  to  say that in every  village  the

caste  Hindus, however divided among  themselves,

are always  in a standing conspiracy to put  down

in a  merciless manner any attempt on the part of

the Depressed  Classes  who  form   a  small  and

scattered body of an ordinary Indian citizen.


In  these circumstances, it would be  granted

by all  fair minded persons that as the only path

for a  community so handicapped to succeed in the

struggle for life against organized tyranny, some

share  of  political power in order that  it  may

protect   itself   is  a   paramount   necessity.

Therefore  a well-wisher of the Depressed Classes

would  have fought tooth and nail for securing to

them as much political power as might be possible

in the    independent   India     and   its   new

Constitution.    Because  Untouchable’s    as   a

separate element.  Dr.Ambedkar  says,  “Mahatma’s

have come and   Mahatma  have   gone.    But the

untouchable have remained as untouchables.”


































  1. Writing  & Speechs by Dr.Ambedkar  vol9,


  1.        do         p56
  2. do         p71
  3. do         p72
  4. do         p77
  5. do         p88
  6. do         p95
  7. do         p96
  8.        do         p97
  9. do         p98
  10. do         p102
  11. do         p110
  12. do         p136-137
  13. do         p168
  14. do         p173
  15. do         p178
  16. do         p183
  17. do         p186
  18. do         p188
  19. do         p189
  20. do         p193
  21. do         p194
  22. do         p197
  23. Writing & Speeches by Dr.Ambedkar  vol12


  1. do         p238
  2. do         p255
  3. do         p267
  4.       do         p270
  5. do         p287
  6. do         p288











How  do the proposals deal with the Depressed

Classes ?  To put it shortly, they are bound hand

and foot  and  handed over to the  caste  Hindus.

They offer them nothing;  stone instead of bread.


If  we  examine  the  position  of  depressed

classes  of other countries we finds, The  Romans

had their  Slaves, The Spartans their Helots, The

Britishs  their  Villeins,  The  Americans  their

Negroes  and  The  Germans their  Jews.   So  the

Hindus  have  their  Untouchables.  But  none  of

these  can  be said to have been called  upon  to

face  a  fate which is worse than the fate  which

pursues  the  Untouchables.    Slavery,  serfdom,

villeinage have all vanished.  But Untouchability

still  exists  and bids fair to last as  long  as

Hinduism will last.  The Untouchable is worse off

than a Jew.  The sufferings of the Jew are of his

own creation.   Not  so  the  sufferings  of  the

Untouchables.   They  are  the result of  a  cold

calculating  Hinduism  which is not less sure  in

its effect  in producing misery than brute  force

  1. The  Jew  is  despised but  is  not  denied

opportunities  to grow.  The Untouchables is  not

merely  despised but is denied all  opportunities

to rise.


The  case of the representative is a case  of

divided   loyalties.   He  is   confronted   with

two-rather with three conflicting duties.


  1. a duty to himself,


  1. a duty to the class to which he belongs,



  1. a  duty to the voters who  have  elected



In  a  democratic society the  representative

prefers the interests of his class to that of his

voters.   And why should anyone expect him to act

otherwise?   It is in the nature of things that a

man’s  self  should  be nearer to  him  than  his

constituency.   There  is  a homely  saying  that

man’s Skin sits closer to him than his shirt.


The  demand  for separate settlements is  the

result  of  what  might be called “The  New  Life

Movement”  among the Untouchables.  The object of

the movement is to free the Untouchables from the

threaten  of the Hindus.  So long as the  present

arrangement  continues  it is impossible for  the

Untouchables  either to free themselves from  the

yoke  of  the  Hindus  or to  get  rid  of  their

Untouchability.  It is the close-knit association

of the Untouchables with the Hindus living in the

same   villages   which  marks    them   out   as

Untouchables  and  which  enables the  Hindus  to

identify  them  as being Untouchables.  India  is

admittedly  a land of villages and so long as the

village system provides an easy method of marking

out and   identifying   the    Untouchable,   the

Untouchable  has  no escape from  Untouchability.

It is   the  village   system  which  perpetuates

untouchability  and  the  Untouchables  therefore

demand   that  it  should  be  broken   and   the

Untouchables who are as a matter of fact socially

separate  should be made separate  geographically

and territorially  also,  and  be grouped  in  to

separate  villages exclusively of Untouchables in

which the distinction of the high and the low and

of Touchable and Untouchable will find no place.1


The  second  reason  for  demanding  separate

settlements  arises out of the economic  position

of the  Untouchables in the village.  That  their

condition  is  most  pitiable no one  will  deny.

They  are  a body of landless labourers  who  are

entirely  dependent  upon such employment as  the

Hindus  may choose to give them and on such wages

as the  Hindus may find it profitable to pay.  In

the villages  in  which  they  live  they  cannot

engage  in any trade or occupation, for owing  to

untouchability  no Hindu will deal with them.  It

is therefore  obvious  that  there is no  way  of

earning   a   living  which  is   open   to   the

Untouchables  so long as they live as a dependent

part  of  the  Hindu villages.  As  a  result  at

present  we  find  that they are force  to  leave

their villages and migrated to the urban areas.


There is isolation in the Class system but it

does  not  make  isolation a virtue nor  does  it

prohibit social intercourse.  The class system it

is true  produces groups.  But they are not  akin

to Caste  groups.  The groups in the Class System

            are only non-social while the Castes in the Caste

            system  are in their mutual relations  definitely

            and positively  anti-social.  If this analysis is

true  then there can be no denying the fact  that

the social   structure   of   Hindu  Society   is

different   and   consequently    its   political

structure   must   be    different.    What   the

Untouchables  are  asking, to put it  in  general

terms,  is a proper correlation of means to ends.

End may  be the same.  But because the end is the

same it does not follow that the means must also

be the same.  Indeed ends may remain the same and

yet means  must  vary  according   to  time   and

circumstances.   Those who are true to their ends

must  admit  this  fact and must agree  to  adopt

different  means  if they wish that the end  they

have in view is not stultified.


In  this  connection there is another  things

which  I would like to mention.  As I have  said,

it is  the  Caste  basis of Hindu  society  which

requires  that its political structure should  be

different  and  suited to its  social  structure.

There  are  people who admit this but argue  that

caste  can  be abolished from Hindu  society.   I

deny  that.  Those who advocate such a view think

that  caste  is an institution like a club  or  a

Municipality  or  a  County Council.  This  is  a

gross  error.  Caste is Religion, and religion is

anything   but  an  institution.    It   may   be

institutionalized  but it is not the same as  the

institution in which it is embedded.  Religion is

an influence  or force suffused through the  life

of each   individual  moulding   his   character,

determining  his actions and reactions, his likes

and dislikes.   These likes and dislikes, actions

and reactions  are not institutions which can  be

lopped off.  They are forces and influences which

can be   dealt  with  by   controlling  them   or

counteracting  them.  If the social forces are to

be prevented  from  contaminating   politics  and

perverting  it  to the aggrandizement of the  few

and the  degradation of the many then it  follows

that  the  political structure must be so  framed

that it will contain mechanisms which will bottle

the prejudices  and  nullify the injustice  which

the social  forces  are likely to cause  if  they

were let loose.2


The   system  of   Untouchability  is  enough

evidence  of the inherent antagonism between  the

Hindus   and   the   Untouchables.   Given   this

antagonism  it  is simply impossible to  ask  the

Untouchables  to depend upon and trust the Hindus

to do  them  justice  when the  Hindu  get  their

freedom  and independence from the British.   Who

can say  that  the  Untouchable is not  right  in

saying  that  he will not trust the  Hindu?   The

            Hindu  is  as alien to him as a European  is  and

            what  is worse the European alien is neutral  but

            the Hindu  is most shamefully partial to his  own

            class  and  antagonistic  to  the   Untouchables. 

There  can  be no doubt that the Hindus have  all

these ages despised, disregarded and disowned the

Untouchables   as  belonging  to  different   and

contemptible  strata  of  Society  if  not  to  a

different race.  By their own code of conduct the

Hindus behave as the most exclusive class steeped

in their  own  prejudices and never  sharing  the

aspirations  of  the Untouchables with whom  they

have  nothing  to  do  and  whose  interests  are

opposed  to theirs.  Why should the  Untouchables

entrust their fate to such people?  How could the

Untouchables be legitimately asked to leave their

interest  into  the  hands of a people who  as  a

matter  of  fact  are opposed to  them  in  their

motives and interests, who do not sympathies with

the living    forces    operating    among    the

Untouchables, who are themselves not charged with

their  wants  craving  and   desires,  who   are

inimical  to  their  aspirations,   who  in   all

certainly  will  deny  justice  to  them  and  to

discriminate  against  them and who by reason  of

the sanction  of their religion have not been and

will  not  be  ashamed to  practise  against  the

Untouchables  any  kind of inhumanity.  The  only

safety  against  such  people  is  to  have   the

political  rights which the Untouchables claim as

safeguards  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Hindu

Majority  defined  in the Constitution.  Are  the

Untouchables   extravagant  in   demanding   this

safety?  They were right as we examine the things

after 50 years of independent.


The  Hindus have been opposing the  political

demands  of the Untouchables with the tenacity of

a bulldog  and  perversity  of a  renegade.   The

            Press  is  theirs  and  they  make  a  systematic

            attempt  to  ignore the Untouchables.  When  they

            fail  to ignore them they buy their leaders;  and

            where  they  find a leader not open  to  purchase

            they  systematically abuse him, misrepresent him, 

            blackmail  him,  and do everything possible  that

            lies  in their power to suppress him and  silence

            him:   Any such leader who is determined to fight

            for the  cause  of  the Untouchables he  and  his

followers  are  condemned as  anti-National.   So

exasperated  the  Hindus become by the  political

demands  of  the Untouchables that they in  their

rage   refuse   recognize    how   generous   the

Untouchables  are in consenting to be ruled by  a

Hindu  Majority in return for nothing more than a

few political safeguards.


The  Hindus are not aware of what Carson said

to Redmond  when  the two were negotiating for  a

United Ireland.  The incident is worth recalling.

Redmond  said to Carson.  “Ask any safeguards you

like  for the Protestant Minority of Ulster, I am

prepared  to give them;  but let us have a United

Ireland  under one constitution.” Carson’s  reply

was curt  and brutal.  He said without asking for

time to consider the offer “Damn your safeguards, 

            I don’t  want  to be ruled by you”.   The  Hindus

ought  to be thankful that the Untouchables  have

not taken  the  attitude which Carson took.   But

far from  being  thankful they are angry  because

the Untouchables  are daring to ask for political

rights.   In  the  opinion  of  the  Hindus   the

Untouchables have no right to ask for any rights.

What does this difference of attitude on the part

of the  Hindus  to the political demands  of  the

different communities indicate?


It  indicate three things (1) They wanted  to

get all  power  to themselves, (2) They were  not

prepared  to base their political institutions on

the principle  of justice, (3) Where they have to

surrender  power  they will surrender it  to  the

forces  of  truculence and the mailed  first  but

never to the dictates of justices.


The  Hindus  have  an innate  and  inveterate

conservatism  and  they have a religion which  is

incompatible   with    liberty,    equality   and

fraternity  i.e.  with democracy.  Inequality, no

doubt,  exists  everywhere in the world.   It  is

largely  to conditions and circumstances.  But it

never  has  had  the support of  religion.   Will

Hindus  establish  a  New Order or will  they  be

content  with  rehabilitation of the  traditional

Hindu   India,   with   its    castes   and   its

untouchability,  with  its   denial  of  Liberty,

Equality  and  Fraternity?   Still it  is  a  big



Once  upon a time Harijan Sevak Sangh was one

of the  many techniques which had enabled  Gandhi

to be a successful humbug.


The  youths  who  filled   the  Colleges  and

            Universities   and   who    fight   against   the

            reservation  policy  are ever ready to  fight  to

            annihilate  the  caste  system.   What  do  these


children  of the leisured class Hindus have  done

            to redress the wrongs their forefathers have done

            to the  Untouchables?   You can get thousands  of

            Hindu youths to join political propaganda but you

            cannot  get one single youth to take up the cause

            of breaking  the  caste  system  or  of  removing

            Untouchability.   Democracy and democratic  life,

justice  and conscience which are sustained by  a

belief in democratic principle are foreign to the

Hindu mind.


Some  people  will  not admit  the  patriotic

motives  of  the Untouchables in  keeping  silent

over  falls propaganda which is directed  against

them.   The  fact,  however,   remains  that  the

silence and the desire to avoid open challenge on

the part of the Untouchables have been materially

responsible  for  the  general  belief  that  the

Savarna’s represents all, even the Untouchables.




























After  attending  the RTC’s  Dr.B.R.Ambedekar

says  that  ”  I  am confident  that  the  future

generation  of Hindus will appreciate my services

when  they  study  the  history  of  Round  Table

Conference.   There he was convinced the  members

of the  RTC  regarding  his  claim  for  separate

electorate are logical and in future it will help

the depressed  class to snatch the power from the

hand   of  present  ruling   class.   He  was   a

nationalist  and  he declared publicly that  ”  I

shall  not  deter from my pious duty, and  betray

the just  and  legitimate interests of my  people

even  if you hung me on the nearest lamp-post  in

the street”.


Adopting the line of least resistance will be

ineffective   in   the    matter   of   uprooting

untouchability.   “For  that you must  create,”he

            asserted,  “A crises by direct action against the

            customary  code  of conduct of the caste  Hindus. 

            The crisis  will compel the caste Hindu to think, 

            one once he begins to think he will be more ready

            to change  than  he is otherwise likely  to  be”. 

The great   defect  in  the   policy   of   least

resistance  and  silent infiltration of  rational

ideas  lies  in this that they do not  produce  a

crisis.   The  direct  action in respect  of  the

Chowdar  Tank  at  Mahad, The Kalaram  Temple  at

Nasik  and  the Guruvayur Temple in Malabar  have

done  in a few days what million day of preaching

by reformers would never have done.1


It is true that If there is a caste, question

of outcast  can  arise and if there is  no  caste

question of untouchability will not arise.


According  to  him,  the   way  out  was  the

emergence  of a benevolent dictator in  religious

and social  matters.   ” India wants  a  dictator

like  Kamal  Pasha  or Mussolini  in  social  and

religious matters.  Democracy is not suitable for



Lala  Har  Dayal observes :  ” Caste  is  the

curse  of  India.  Caste, in all its  forms,  has

made  us a nation of Slaves.  It is not Islam, It

is not  England, that has destroy India.  No, our

enemy  is within us.  Priestcraft and caste  have

slain us.  India can never establish and maintain

a free  State  so  long  as caste  rules  in  our

society.    You   may   deliver   speeches   pass

resolutions,   sign    Commonwealth    Bills   at

infinitely, but caste Hindus cannot work together,

or establish a free State, or create a victorious



                Merit has no value in a caste ridden society, 

            whatever  meritorious you are you can’t become  a

            priest  of  a Hindu temple or even to touch  some

            daity.   ” Because of untouchability your  merits

            go unrewarded;  there is no appreciation of  your

            mental and physical qualities.  Because of it you

            are debarred  from entering into the army, police

            department  any navy.  Untouchability is a  curse

            that  has  ruined your worldly existence,  honour

            and name,” he thundered. 


As we see today corruption in high places and

slow  progress  in  the field of  development  in

villages  and urban areas due to social  barriers

and the mentality of rulers towards upliftment of

their  own countryman.  Once Dr.Ambedkar said “He

did not  believe  in  the honesty  of  the  Hindu

social  reformers  who lived in their own  caste,

married  in their own caste and dies in it!”  The

verdict is now proved.


He was occupied the highest post and smell the

caste  in  everywhere  in  the  society  then  he

declared, “I have decided once for all to give up

this  religion.   My religious conversion is  not

inspired by any material motive.  There is hardly

anything  that  I  cannot   achieve  even   while

remaining  an  untouchable.   There is  no  other

feeling than that of 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 opinions of

those  who  foolishly ridicule the idea  of  your

conversion  for material ends.  What avail is the

religion  that  deals with life after  death?   A

rich  man’s sense may be tickled by this idea  in

his leisure  time.  Those who are well-placed and

prosperous  in  this  world   may  pass  life  in

contemplation  of  life-after-death.    But   why

should  you live under the fold of that  religion

which has deprived you of honour, money, food and



Again  he  said  to  his people  as  his  own

language  “I  tell you , religion is for man  and

not man  for religion.  If you want to  organize,

consolidate  and  be  successful in  this  world,

change this religion.  The religion that does not

recognize  you as human beings, or give you water

to drink,  or  allow you to enter the 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 force.  The religion

that  asks  its adherents to suffer the touch  of

animals  but not the touch of human beings is not

religion  but  a  mockery.  That  religion  which

precludes  some  classes from education,  forbids

them  to  accumulate wealth and to bear arms,  is

not religion  but  a mockery.  The religion  that

compels  the ignorant to be ignorant and the poor

to be poor, is not religion but a visitation!”


In  heaven as per mythology God and  Monsters

are there, hence “If the untouchable classes were

the people  of  God, were the  touchable  classes

assumed to belong to monsters.”


Our  people  follow  the  Mahatmas  as  Sheep

follow the shepherds.


An educated man without character  and

          humanity was more dangerous than a beast.


Regarding the social status of Mr.M.K.Gandhi,

He said  that  If  a man with God’s name  on  his

tongue  and a sword under his armpit deserved the

appellation  of  a  Mahatma,   then  Mohandas  K.

Gandhi  was  a  Mahatma.  His  verdict  was  that

Gandhi age was the dark age of India.


At  the time of division of India Dr.Ambedkar

and Savarker  warned  that if the demand  of  the

Muslim league for a division of India was allowed

to hold the Muslim masses, there would be no hope

for united India and all responsibility would lie

with the congress.


Dr.Ambedkar  told  “I  hate,”  he  continued,

injustice,  tyranny, pompousness and humbug,  and

my hatred  embraces  all those who are guilty  of

them.  Country is greater than a man .


Now  in  India the political power is in  the

hand  of Indian but what is the condition of  the

masses of this country.  Their condition remained

the same even after 50 years of Independence even

the position in some places has been deteriorate.

In this situation we can recall the what was said

by the  philosopher  Burke  “It is easy  to  give

power, but difficult to give wisdom”.


Again  he  said that Political power was  the

key to  all  social progress, and  the  Scheduled

Caste  could  achieve  their  salvation  if  they

captured  the power by organizing themselves into

a third  party  and  held the  balance  of  power

between the rival political parties, the Congress

and the Socialists.


Further said Untouchables were Broken Men and

because   those  poor  men   could  not  give  up

beef-eating  and  Buddhism, they were treated  as

Untouchables.    He   traces    the   origin   of

untouchability  to a time about 400A.D.  and with

his profound  scholarship  maintains that  it  is

born  out  of the struggle for supremacy  between

Buddhism and Brahmanism.


In the course of his speech he attributed all

the vices  of  the  Hindus   such  as   violence,

immorality  and corruption in Government offices,

to deterioration  in  Hinduism and declared  that

Real  salvation  for  India would come  when  the

people embraced Buddhism.


He was described the benefited persons forgot

            the class  from  which  they came and  became  as

            insolent and arrogant as any foreigner. 


He  said to his people that he had lost faith

            in the  educated man of his community and  pinned

            his faith on the illiterate. 


He said it was unfortunate that most of those

            men who  rose  from amongst the Scheduled  castes

            turned  their  back  upon them.   They  tried  to

            become second class Brahmins. 


Regarding the Constitution of India he says I

shall be the first person to burn it out. I don’t

want it, it does not suit any   body.    If  your

want  to be effective then you must have guns and

not mere  soft  speech”.    The  ignorant  people

believed  that  their fate was pre-appointed  and

irretrievable.   Regarding Geeta he said it is an

irresponsible book on ethics, a compromise of all

errors.   He  also said “Indeed the  ideal  Hindu

            must  be like a rat leaving in his whole refusing

            to have any contact with others.  To him Buddhism

            differed  from  Hinduism.  He  further  observed:

            “Hinduism  believes in God.  Buddhism has no God.

Hinduism believes in soul.  According to Buddhism

there   is  no  soul.    Hinduism   believes   in

Chaturvarnya  and the caste system.  Buddhism has

no place for the caste system and chaturvarnya.”


On 22.4.1933, Dr.Ambedkar himself addressed a

meeting  at Sopara under Bassien  Police-station,

Thana  District,  on  April  9  and  advised  his

            hearers  not  to trust the leaders of  the  caste

            Hindus, who hated the Untouchables. 


He  said  in Parliament that all  social  and

political  rights  are denied to me because  they

say that  I  am  a Hindu.  If  fraternity  is  to

involve  this  cost, then I say that I  am  their

cousin and not their brother.


The  other thing that I would like to say, is

this  and I would like to say it very positively.

I want  to tell my Hindu friends that I shall not

            live  on  their  charity.  I do  not  want  their

            charity.   I am a citizen of this country.  I  am

            entitled  to  claim from the Government  Treasury

            whatever rights and benefit every other community

            is claiming  for itself.  I do not want  charity; 

            charity,  the  object of which is to enclave  and

            demoralize  me  an my community.   The  Scheduled

Castes  want to stand on their rights and I  take

this  opportunity to tell the House that if their

claims  are  met with opposition, they  will  not

hesitate  to  shed  their blood in order  to  get

their rights.3


    By Margaret Thatcher

‘Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks.’ Milton’s words perfectly describe America today. After the horror of September 11 the world has seen America gather its strength, summon its allies and proceed to wage war halfway across the globe against its enemy — and ours.

America will never be the same again. It has proved to itself and to others that it is in truth (not just in name) the only global superpower, indeed a power that enjoys a level of superiority over its actual or potential rivals unmatched by any other nation in modern times. Consequently, the world outside America should never be the same either. There will, of course, arise new threats from new directions. But as long as America works to maintain its technological lead, there is no reason why any challenge to American dominance should succeed. And that in turn will help ensure stability and peace.

Yet, as President Bush has reminded Americans, there is no room for complacency. America and its allies, indeed the western world and its values, are still under deadly threat. That threat must be eliminated, and now is the time to act vigorously.

In many respects the challenge of Islamic terror is unique, hence the difficulty western intelligence services encountered trying to predict and prevent its onslaughts. The enemy is not, of course, a religion — most Muslims deplore what has occurred. Nor is it a single State, though this form of terrorism needs the support of States to give it succour. Perhaps the best parallel is with early communism. Islamic extremism today, like bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.

The first phase of that strategy had to be a military assault on the enemy in Afghanistan, a phase that is now approaching its end. I believe that while the new interim government there deserves support, the United States is right not to allow itself to become bogged down with ambitious nation-building in that treacherous territory. Some would disagree, arguing that the lesson of the present crisis is that neglect of failed States causes terrorism. But this is trite. It implies a level of global interventionism that almost everyone recognises is quite impractical.

The more important lesson is that the West failed to act early and strongly enough against Al-Qaeda and the regime that harboured it. And because there is always a choice in where you concentrate international efforts, it is best that the US, as the only global military superpower, deploy its energies militarily rather than on social work. Trying to promote civil society and democratic institutions in Afghanistan is best left to others — and since those ‘others’ now include the British, I only hope that we, too, are going to be realistic about what can (and cannot) be achieved.

The second phase of the war against terrorism should be to strike at other centres of Islamic terror that have taken root in Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. This will require first-rate intelligence, shrewd diplomacy and a continued extensive military commitment. Our enemies have had years to entrench themselves, and they will not be dislodged without fierce and bloody resistance.

The third phase is to deal with those hostile States that support terrorism and seek to acquire or trade in weapons of mass destruction. We have got into the habit of calling them ‘rogue’ States. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we don’t fall into the trap of imagining that they will always and on every issue fit into the same slot.

For example, Iran and Syria were both sharply critical of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the attacks of September 11. Nevertheless, they are both enemies of western values and interests. Both have energetically backed terrorism: the former has just been caught out dispatching arms to foment violence against Israel. Iran is also making strides toward developing long-range missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads.

Other critics of September 11 are a menace, too. Libya, for example, still hates the West and would dearly like revenge against us. And Sudan undertakes genocide against its own citizens in the name of Islam. As for North Korea, the regime of Kim Jong is as mad as ever and is the world’s main proliferator of long-range ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

The most notorious rogue is, without doubt, Saddam Hussein — proof if ever we needed it that yesterday’s unfinished business becomes tomorrow’s headache. Saddam Hussein will never comply with the conditions we demand of him. His aim is, in fact, quite clear: to develop weapons of mass destruction so as to challenge us with impunity.

How and when, not whether, to remove him are the only important questions. Again, solving this problem will demand the best available intelligence. It will require, as in Afghanistan, the mobilisation of internal resistance. It will probably also involve a massive use of force. America’s allies, above all Britain, should extend strong support to President Bush in the decisions he makes on Iraq.

The events of September 11 are a terrible reminder that freedom demands eternal vigilance. And for too long we have not been vigilant. We have harboured those who hated us, tolerated those who threatened us and indulged those who weakened us. As a result, we remain, for example, all but defenceless against ballistic missiles that could be launched against our cities. A missile defense system will begin to change that. But change must go deeper still.

The West,  as a whole needs to strengthen its resolve against rogue regimes and upgrade its defenses. The good news is that America has a president who can offer the leadership necessary to do so. 4









  1. Writings  & Speeches by  Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

v-9 p136

  1. Source material pg139
  2. Writings & Speeches by Dr.Ambedkar v-10


  1. The writer is a former Prime Minister of Britain

from The Guardian





















The constitution of India adopted 50 years back

and   its  framers given their verdict on them as

Dr.Ambedkar said in the Parleament as under.


I  am  quite  convinced that given  time  and

            circumstances  nothing in the world will  prevent

            this  country  from  becoming  one.   (Applause):

            With  all  our castes and creeds, I have not  the

            slightest  hesitation that we shall in some  form

            be a united people(Cheers).  I have no hesitation

            in saying  that notwithstanding the agitation  of

            the Muslim League for the partition of India some

            day enough  light  would  dawn upon  the  Muslims

            themselves  and they too will begin to think that

            a United  India  is  better even  for  them.(Loud

            cheers and applause).3



Burke  has said somewhere that it is easy  to

give power, it is difficult to give wisdom.


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.


The third thing which I would like to mention

in this  connection  is  that  unfortunately  the

religions  which prevail in this country are  not

merely  non-social;   so  far   as  their  mutual

relations are concerned they are anti-social, one

religion  claiming that its teachings  constitute

the only right path for salvation, that all other

religions  are  wrong.  The Muslims believe  that

anyone who does not believe in the dogma of Islam

is a  Kafir  not entitled to brotherly  treatment

with  the Muslims.  The Christians have a similar

belief.   In view of this, it seems to me that we

should  be  considerably disturbing the  peaceful

atmosphere   of   an     institution   if   these

controversies   with  regard  to   the   truthful

character  of  any  particular religion  and  the

erroneous  character  of the other  were  brought

into  juxtaposition  in  the  school  itself.   I

therefore  say  that  in laying down  in  article

22(1)  that in state institutions there shall  be

no religious instruction, we have in my judgment

travelled the path of complete safety.4


The God is one and different followers calls in different name and in different ways in individually or with other coreligionist. Liberty, equality and fraternity among coreligionist as well as the other followers is a must for peaceful co-existance of a society. If all religious persons try to uplift their respective down trodden fellow in the main stream like Shiks, then there will be  no use of diversion or conversion from one religion to another. In every religion there have some short of misgivings or the other, which may not be acceptable to everybody. Some religionist has rectified it to improve the things as more  suitable to the humanity, some are stick to their old dictum. Which certainly not acceptable in this modern  period. Due to the medieval period short sighted comments or lack of knowledge at the period the religious dictum enforced for some society or tribe which is now not suitable for others. By force or by compulsion few people can be convert from one faith to the other but it can’t change the social order or a country. Some religionist has forced to divide some country by hate campaigner or by force in the cost of millions of life’s. How can you call it as religion? Which divide society instead of unity among the fellow human being to fight against any odd.


The basic principal of a religion must be to unite among co-religionist as well as learn to co-existence with the other followers. If the followers of a religion become blood thirsty for others faith then there will a time that no body will be able to live without fare. There were lot of war in the name of religion and women in the past, if  we go through the world   history. We have seen in 1971 in Pakistan 30 Lakhs Bengali people were butchered by the Pakistani army in the name of religion, raped thousands of women in the name of Kaffir, malauns(those who were one kind of chain in their neck).


Masses were converted to voluntarily or by force or by political compulsion are failed to uplift their fate in their new faith and received no better deal than previous experienced as a result there will  no hope is in new faith in future, if the mentality does not improve.








  1. Writing  & Speeches  by  Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

vol9, p419

  1. ,,          p424
  2. ,,          v13 p423
  3. ,, v13 p423






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s