Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
Saturday, 10 September 2016
Sunday, 4 September 2016
DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?
DID THE HINDUS NEVER EAT BEEF ?
TO the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable
Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no,
never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten
beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his
answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned
Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they
always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the
killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.
What is the evidence in support of the construction that the Hindus
never ate beef and were opposed to the killing of the cow?
There are two series of references in the Rig Veda on which reliance
is placed. In one of these, the cow is spoken of as Aghnya. They are
Rig Veda 1.164, 27; IV.1.6; V 82-8; VII.69. 71; X.87. Aghnya means
‘one who does not deserve to be killed’. From this, it is argued that
this was a prohibition against the killing of the cow and that since
the Vedas are the final authority in the matter of religion, it is
concluded that the Aryans could not have killed the cows, much less
could they have eaten beef. In another series of references the cow
is spoken of as sacred. They are Rig Veda VI.28.1.8. and VIII, 101.
15. In these verses the cow is addressed as Mother of Rudras, the
Daughter of Vasus, the Sister of the Adityas and the Centre of Nectar.
Another reference on the subject is in Rig Veda VIII. 101. 16 where
the cow is called Devi (Goddess).
Raliance is also placed on certain passages in the Brahmanas and
Sutras.
There are two passages in the Satapatha Brahmana which relate
to animal sacrifice and beef-eating. One is at III. 1.2.21 and reads
as follows :-
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of
either the cow or the ox, for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on
earth. The gods spake, ‘verily, the cow and the ox support everything
here; come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to
other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence
were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were,
an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going to the end (or, to destruction)...
Let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox.”
The other passage is at 1, 2, 3, 6. It speaks against animal sacrifice
and on ethical grounds.
A similar statement is contained in the Apastambha Dharma Sutra
at 1, 5, 17, 29. Apastambha lays a general embargo on the eating
of cow’s flesh.
Such is the evidence in support of the contention that the Hindus
never ate beef. What conclusion can be drawn from this evidence?
So far as the evidence from the Rig Veda is concerned the
conclusion is based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the
texts. The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means
a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed.
That the cow is venerated in the Rig Veda is of course true. But
this regard and venerations of the cow are only to be expected from
an agricultural community like the Indo-Aryans. This application of
the utility of the cow did not prevent the Aryan from killing the cow
for purposes of food. Indeed the cow was killed because the cow was
regarded as sacred. As observed by Mr.Kane:
“It was 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.”1
That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food
and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig
Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says:- “They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen”.
The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses,
bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it
appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe.
As to the testimony of the Satapatha Bramhana, can it be said
to be conclusive? Obviously, it cannot be. For there are passages in
the other Bramhanas which give a different opinion.
To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the
Taittiriya Bramhana, not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid
down, but we are even told what kind and description of oxen and
cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be
chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze
on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to
1 Dharm Shaslra Vichar (Marathi) p, 180.
Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The Taittiriya Bramhana
notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most important
element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old
humpless, dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three yearold.
As against the statement of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra, the
following points may be noted.
First is the contrary statement contained in that Very Sutra. At
14, 15, 29, the Sutra says :-
“The cow and the bull are sacred and therefore should be eaten”.
The second is the prescription of Madhuparka contained in the
Grahya Sutras. Among the Aryans the etiquette for receiving important
guests had become settled into custom and had become a
ceremony. The most important offering was Madhuparka. A detailed
descriptions regarding Madhuparka are to be found in the various
Grahya Sutras. According to most of the Grahya Sutras there are
six persons who have a right to be served with Madhuparka namely;
(1) Ritwija or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya,
the teacher, (3) The bridegroom (4) The King (5) The Snatak, the
student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any
person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except
in the case of Ritvija, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered
to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvija, King and Acharya it is
to be offered each time they come.
What was this Madhuparka made of ? There is divergence about
the substances mixed in offering Madhuparka. Asv.gr and Ap.gr.
(13.10) prescribe a mixture of honey and curds or clarified butter and
curds. Others like Par.gr. 13 prescribe a mixture of three (curds,
honey and butter). Ap.gr.(13.11-12) states the view of some that those
three may be mixed or five (those three with fried yava grain and
barley). Hir.gr.I, 12, 10-12 give the option of mixing three of five
(curds, honey, ghee, water and ground grain). The Kausika Sutra (92)
speaks of nine kinds of mixtures, viz., Brahma (honey and curds). Aindra
(of payasa), Saumya (curds and ghee), Pausna (ghee and mantha),
Sarasvata (milk and ghee), Mausala (wine and ghee, this being used
only in Sautramanai and Rajasuya sacrifices), Parivrajaka (sesame oil
and oil cake). The Madhava gr.I.9.22 says that the Veda declares that
the Madhuparka must not be without flesh and so it recommends
that if the cow is let loose, goat’s meat or payasa (rice cooked in
milk) may be offered; the Hir.gr. 1.13, 14 says that other meat should
be offered; Baud.gr. (1.2,51-54) says that when the cow is let off, the
flesh of a goat or ram may be offered or some forest flesh (of a deer,etc.) may be offered, as there can be no Madhuparka without flesh
or if one is unable to offer flesh one may cook ground grains.
Thus the essential element in Madhuparka is flesh and particularly
cow’s flesh.
The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that
the guest came to be called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of the
cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the Ashvalayana Grahya
Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when the
guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette.
Thirdly, reference may be made to the ritual relating to disposal
of the dead to counter the testimony of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra.
The Sutra says1 :-
“1. He should then put the following (sacrificial) implements (on the
dead body)
2. Into the right hand the (spoon called) Guhu.
3. Into the left the (other spoon called) Upabhrit.
4. On his right side the wooden sacrificial sword called Sphya, on his
left side the Agnihotrahavani (i.e., the laddle with which the
Agnihotra oblations are sacrified).
5. On his chest the (big sacrificial laddle called) Dhruva. On his head
the dishes. On his teeth the pressing stones.
6. On the two sides of his nose, the two smaller sacrificial laddies called
Sruvas.
7. Or, if there is only one (Sruva), breaking it (in two pieces).
8. On his two ears the two Prasitraharanas (i.e, the vessels into which
the portion of the sacrificial food belonging to the Brahmin) is put
9. Or, if there is only one (Prasitraharana), breaking it (in two pieces).
10. On his belly the (vessel called) Patri.
11. And the cup into which the cut-off portion (of the sacrificial food)
are put.
12. On his secret parts the (staff called) Samy.
13. On his thighs two kindling woods.
14. On his legs the mortar and the pestle.
15. On his feet the two baskets.
16. Or, if there is only one (basket), breaking it in two pieces.
17. Those of the implements which have a hollow (into which liquids
can be poured) are filled with sprinkled butter.
1 Kane’s vol. II. Part I p. 545.
18. The son (of the deceased person) should take the under and the
upper mill-stone for himself.
19. And the implements made of copper, iron and earthenware.
20. Taking out the omentum of the she-animal he should cover therewith
the head and the mouth (of the dead person) with the verse, ‘But
on the armour (which will protect thee) against Agni, by that which
comes from the cows.’ (Rig Veda. X.16.7).
21. Taking out the kidneys of the animal he should lay them into the
hands (of the dead body) with the verse, escape the two hounds,
the sons of Sarma (Rig Veda X 14.10) the right kidney into the right
hand and the left into the left hand.
22. The heart of the animals he puts on the heart of the deceased.
23. And two lumps of flour or rice according to some teachers.
24. Only if there are no kidneys according to some teachers.
25. Having distributed the whole (animal), limb by limb (placing its
different limbs on the corresponding limbs of the deceased) and
having covered it with its hide, he recites when the Pranita water
is carried forward (the verse), ‘Agni do not overturn this cup,’ (Rig
Veda, X.16.8).
26. Bending his left knee he should sacrifice Yugya oblation into the
Dakshina fire with the formulas ‘To Agni Svaha, to Kama Svaha,
to the world Svaha, to Anumati Svaha’.
27. A fifth (oblation) on the chest of the deceased with the formula ‘from
this one verily thou hast been born. May he now be born out of
thee. To the heaven worlds Svaha.’ ”
From the above passage quoted from the Ashvalayan Grahya Sutra
it is clear that among the ancient Indo-Aryans when a person died,
an animal had to be killed and the parts of the animal were placed
on the appropriate parts of the dead body before the dead body was
burned.
Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and
beef-eating. Which part of it is to be accepted as true? The correct
view is that the testimony of the Satapatha Brahmana and the
Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view that
Hindus were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhortations
against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against
cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating
of beef had become a common practice. That notwithstanding these
exhortations cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often
they fell on deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the
great Rishi of the Aryans. The first passage quoted above from the
Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as an
exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the
exhortation this is what Yajnavalkya said :–
“I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender”
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved
abundantly by the description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist
Sutras which relate to periods much later than the Vedas and the
Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals
took place was colossal. It is not possible to give a total of such
slaughter on all accounts committed by the Brahmins in the name
of religion. Some idea of the extent of this slaughter can however
be had from references to it in the Buddhist literature. As an
illustration reference may be made to the Kutadanta Sutta in which
Buddha preached against the performance of animal sacrifices to
Brahmin Kutadanta. Buddha, though speaking in a tone of sarcastic
travesty, gives a good idea of the practices and rituals of the Vedic
sacrifices when he said:
“And further, O Brahmin, at that sacrifice neither were any oxen slain,
neither goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kind of living creatures
put to death. No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Darbha grasses
mown to stress around the sacrificial spot. And the slaves and messengers
and workmen there employed were driven neither by rods nor fear, nor carried
on their work weeping with tears upon their faces.”
Kutadanta on the other hand in thanking Buddha for his conversion
gives an idea of the magnitude of the slaughter of animals which
took place at such sacrifices when he says :-
“I, even I betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the
Doctrine and the Order. May the venerable One accept me as a disciple, as
one who, from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his
guide. And I myself, O, Gotama, will have the seven hundred bulls, and the
seven hundred steers, and the seven hundred heifers, and the seven hundred
goats, and the seven hundred rams set free. To them I grant their life. Let
them eat grass and drink fresh water and may cool breezes waft around them.”
In the Samyuta Nikaya (III,1-9) we have another description of
a Yajna performed by Pasenadi, king of Kosala. It is said that five
hundred bulls, five hundred calves and many heifers, goats and rams
were led to the pillar to be sacrificed.
With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when
Hindus –both Brahmins and non-Brahmins –ate not only flesh but
also beef.
____
Volume 7
CHAPTER XI
WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? How they came to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society • Book • 1947
Democracy and Hindu social system
RIDDLE NO. 22
BRAHMA IS NOT DHARMA. WHAT
GOOD IS BRAHMA?
There are various forms of Government known to history—Monarchy,
Aristocracy and Democracy to which may be added Dictatorship.
The most prevalent form of Government at the present time is
Democracy. There is however no unanimity as to what constitutes
Democracy. When one examines the question one finds that there are
two views about it. One view is that Democracy is a form of Government.
According to this view where the Government is chosen by the people
that is where Government is a representative Government there is
Democracy. According to this view Democracy is just synonymous with
Representative Government which means adult suffrage and periodical
elections.
According to another view a democracy is more than a form of
Government. It is a form of the organization of Society. There are two
essential conditions which characterize a democratically constituted
society. First is the absence of stratification of society into classes. The
Second is a social habit on the part of individuals and groups which is
ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of reciprocity of interests.
As to the first there can be no doubt that it is the most essential condition
of Democracy. As Prof. Dewey1 has observed:
[Quotation referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS
from ‘Democracy and Education’, by Dewey p. 98.]
The second condition is equally necessary for a democratically
constituted society. The results of this lack of reciprocity of interests
This chapter consists about 20 pages out of which first two pages and the
concluding six are in the handwriting of the author. The rest are typed
pages with all necessary modifications by Dr. Ambedkar.—Ed.
among groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results which
have been well described by Prof. Dewey1 when he says:
[Quotation from ‘Democracy and Education’ of page 99 referred to by
the author is not recorded in the original MS.]
Of the two views about democracy there is no doubt that the first
one is very superficial if not erroneous. There cannot be democratic
Government unless the society for which it functions is democratic in
its form and structure. Those who hold that democracy need be no more
than a mere matter of elections seem to make three mistakes.
One mistake they make is to believe that Government is something
which is quite distinct and separate from society. As a matter of fact
Government is not something which is distinct and separate from Society.
Government is one of the many institutions which Society rears and to
which it assigns the function of carrying out some of the duties which
are necessary for collective social life.
The Second mistake they make lies in their failure to realize that
a Government is to reflect the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and
wishes of society and this can happen only where the society in which
the Government is rooted is democratic. If society is not democratic,
Government can never be. Where society is divided into two classes
governing and the governed the Government is bound to be the
Government of the governing class.
The third mistake they make is to forget that whether Government
would be good or bad democratic or undemocratic depends to a large
extent up on the instrumentalities particularly the Civil Service on
which every where Government has to depend for administering the
Law. It all depends upon the social milieu in which civil servants are
nurtured. If the social milieu is undemocratic the Government is bound
to be undemocratic.
There is one other mistake which is responsible for the view that
for democracy to function it is enough to have a democratic form of
Government. To realize this mistake it is necessary to have some idea
of what is meant by good Government.
Good Government means good laws and good administration. This is
the essence of good Government. Nothing else can be. Now there cannot
be good Government in this sense if those who are invested with ruling
power seek the advantage of their own class instead of the advantage
of the whole people or of those who are downtrodden.
Whether the Democratic form of Government will result in good
will depend upon the disposition of the individuals composing society.
If the mental disposition of the individuals is democratic then the
1 Democracy & Education p. 99.
democratic form of Government can be expected to result in good
Government. If not, democratic form of Government may easily become
a dangerous form of Government. If the individuals in a society are
separated into classes and the classes are isolated from one another
and each individual feels that his loyalty to his class must come before
his loyalty to every thing else and living in class compartments he
becomes class conscious bound to place the interests of his class above
the interests of others, uses his authority to pervert law and justice
to promote the interests, of his class and for this purpose practises
systematically discrimination against persons who do not belong to his
caste in every sphere of life what can a democratic Government do. In a
Society where classes clash and are charged with anti-social feelings and
spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its task of
governing with justice and fairplay. In such a society, Government even
though it may in form be a government of the people and by the people
it can never be a Government for the people. It will be a Government by
a class for a class. A Government for the people can be had only where
the attitude of each individual is democratic which means that each
individual is prepared to treat every other individual as his equal and is
prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims for himself. This
democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the individual
in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of
a democratic Government. Democratic Governments have toppled down
in largely due to the fact that the society for which they were set up
was not democratic.
Unfortunately to what extent the task of good Government depends
upon the mental and moral disposition of its subjects has seldom been
realized. Democracy is more than a political machine. It is even more
than a social system. It is an attitude of mind or a philosophy of life.
Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality and liberty
are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important
question is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it
is the law of the state which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a
true answer. What sustains equality and liberty is fellow-felling. What
the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word fraternity is not
an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called,
Maitree. Without Fraternity Liberty would destroy equality and equality
would destroy liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality
and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the basis of both
there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.
The foregoing discussion is merely a preliminary to the main question.
That question is—wherein lie the roots of fraternity without which
Democracy is not possible? Beyond dispute, it has its origin in Religion.
In examining the possibilities of the origin of Democracy or its
functioning successfully one must go to the Religion of the people and
ask—does it teach fraternity or does it not? If it does, the chances for a
democratic Government are great. If it does not, the chances are poor. Of
course other factors may affect the possibilities. But if fraternity is not
there, there is nothing to built democracy on. Why did Democracy not
grow in India? That is the main question. The answer is quite simple.
The Hindu Religion does not teach fraternity. Instead it teaches division
of society into classes or varnas and the maintenance of separate class
consciousness. In such a system where is the room for Democracy ?
The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It is designed
to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and
of castes and outcastes are not theories but are decrees. They are all
barricades raised against democracy.
From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity was unknown
to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion
would not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and
Philosophic thought gave rise to an idea which had greater potentialities
for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the
doctrine of Brahmaism1.
It would not be surprising if some one asked what is this Brahmaism?
It is something new even to Hindus. The Hindus are familiar with
Vedanta. They are familar with Brahmanism. But they are certainly
not familiar with Brahmaism. Before proceeding further a few words of
explanation are necessary.
There are three strands in the philosophic and religious thought of
the Hindus. They may be designated as (1) Brahmaism (2) Vedanta
and (3) Brahmanism. Although they are correlated they stand for three
different and distinct ideologies.
The essence of Brahmaism is summed up in a dogma which is stated
in three different forms. They are—
(i) Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma—All this is Brahma.
(ii) Aham Brahmasmi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore I am Brahma.
(iii) Tattvamasi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore thou art also Brahma.
1 have borrowed this word from Prof. Hopkin’s–The Epics of India.
They are called Mahavakyas which means Great Sayings and they
sum up the essence of Brahmaism.
The following are the dogmas which sum up the teachings of Vedant—
I Brahma is the only reality.
II The world is maya or unreal.
III Jiva and Brahma are—
(i) according to one school identical;
(ii) according to another not identical but are elements of him
and not separate from him;
(iii) according to the third school they are distinct and separate.
The creed of Bramhanism may be summed up in the following dogmas—
(i) Belief in the chaturvarna.
(ii) Sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas.
(iii) Sacrifices to Gods the only way to salvation.
Most people know the distinction between the Vedanta and Brahmanism
and the points of controversy between them. But very few people know
the distinction between Brahmaism and Vedanta. Even Hindus are not
aware of the doctrine of Brahmaism and the distinction between it and
Vedanta. But the distinction is obvious. While Brahmaism and Vedanta
agree that Atman is the same as Brahma. But the two differ in that
Brahmaism does not treat the world as unreal, Vedanta does. This is
the fundamental difference between the two.
The essence of Brahmaism is that the world is real and the reality
behind the world is Brahma. Everything therefore is of the essence of
Brahma.
There are two criticisms which have been levelled against Brahmaism.
It is said that Brahmaism is piece of impudence. For a man to say
“I am Brahma” is a kind of arrogance. The other criticism levelled
against Brahmaism is the inability of man to know Brahma. ‘I am
Brahma’ may appear to be impudence. But it can also be an assertion
of one’s own worth. In a world where humanity suffers so much from
an inferiority complex such an assertion on the part of man is to
be welcomed. Democracy demands that each individual shall have
every opportunity for realizing its worth. It also requires that each
individual shall know that he is as good as everybody else. Those who
sneer at Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) as an impudent utterance
forget the other part of the Maha Vakya namely Tatvamasi (Thou
art also Brahma). If Aham Brahmasmi has stood alone without the
conjunct of Tatvamasi it may not have been possible to sneer at it. But with the conjunct of Tatvanmsi the charge of selfish arrogance cannot
stand against Brahmaism.
It may well be that Brahma is unknowable. But all the same this
theory of Brahma has certain social implications which have a tremendous
value as a foundation for Democracy. If all persons are parts of Brahma
then all are equal and all must enjoy the same liberty which is what
Democracy means. Looked at from this point of view Brahma may be
unknowable. But there cannot be slightest doubt that no doctrine could
furnish a stronger foundation for Democracy than the doctrine of Brahma.
To support Democracy because we are all children of God is a very
weak foundation for Democracy to rest on. That is why Democracy is so
shaky wherever it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize
and realize that you and I are parts of the same cosmic principle leaves
room for no other theory of associated life except democracy. It does not
merely preach Democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of one and all.
Western students of Democracy have spread the belief that Democracy
has stemmed either from Christianity or from Plato and that there is
no other source of inspiration for democracy. If they had known that
India too had developed the doctrine of Brahmaism which furnishes a
better foundation for Democracy they would not have been so dogmatic.
India too must be admitted to have a contribution towards a theoretical
foundation for Democracy.
The question is what happened to this doctrine of Brahmaism ? It is
quite obvious that Brahmaism had no social effects. It was not made
the basis of Dharma. When asked why this happened the answer is that
Brahmaism is only philosophy, as though philosophy arises not out of
social life but out of nothing and for nothing. Philosophy is no purely
theoretic matter. It has practical potentialities. Philosophy has its roots
in the problems of life and whatever theories philosophy propounds
must return to society as instruments of re-constructing society. It is
not enough to know. Those who know must endeavour to fulfil.
Why then Brahmaism failed to produce a new society? This is a
great riddle. It is not that the Brahmins did not recognize the doctrine
of Brahmaism. They did. But they did not ask how they could support
inequality between the Brahmin and the Shudra, between man and
woman, between casteman and outcaste ? But they did not. The result
is that we have on the one hand the most democratic principle of
Brahmaism and on the other hand a society infested with castes,
sub-outcastes, primitive tribes and criminal tribes. Can there be
a greater dilemma than this ? What is more ridiculous is the teaching of
the Great Shankaracharya. For it was this Shankarcharya who taught
that there is Brahma and this Brahma is real and that it pervades all
and at the same time upheld all the inequities of the Brahmanic society.
Only a lunatic could be happy with being the propounder of two such
contradictions. Truely as the Brahmin is like a cow, he can eat anything
and everything as the cow does and remain a Brahmin.
BRAHMA IS NOT DHARMA. WHAT
GOOD IS BRAHMA?
There are various forms of Government known to history—Monarchy,
Aristocracy and Democracy to which may be added Dictatorship.
The most prevalent form of Government at the present time is
Democracy. There is however no unanimity as to what constitutes
Democracy. When one examines the question one finds that there are
two views about it. One view is that Democracy is a form of Government.
According to this view where the Government is chosen by the people
that is where Government is a representative Government there is
Democracy. According to this view Democracy is just synonymous with
Representative Government which means adult suffrage and periodical
elections.
According to another view a democracy is more than a form of
Government. It is a form of the organization of Society. There are two
essential conditions which characterize a democratically constituted
society. First is the absence of stratification of society into classes. The
Second is a social habit on the part of individuals and groups which is
ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of reciprocity of interests.
As to the first there can be no doubt that it is the most essential condition
of Democracy. As Prof. Dewey1 has observed:
[Quotation referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS
from ‘Democracy and Education’, by Dewey p. 98.]
The second condition is equally necessary for a democratically
constituted society. The results of this lack of reciprocity of interests
This chapter consists about 20 pages out of which first two pages and the
concluding six are in the handwriting of the author. The rest are typed
pages with all necessary modifications by Dr. Ambedkar.—Ed.
among groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results which
have been well described by Prof. Dewey1 when he says:
[Quotation from ‘Democracy and Education’ of page 99 referred to by
the author is not recorded in the original MS.]
Of the two views about democracy there is no doubt that the first
one is very superficial if not erroneous. There cannot be democratic
Government unless the society for which it functions is democratic in
its form and structure. Those who hold that democracy need be no more
than a mere matter of elections seem to make three mistakes.
One mistake they make is to believe that Government is something
which is quite distinct and separate from society. As a matter of fact
Government is not something which is distinct and separate from Society.
Government is one of the many institutions which Society rears and to
which it assigns the function of carrying out some of the duties which
are necessary for collective social life.
The Second mistake they make lies in their failure to realize that
a Government is to reflect the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and
wishes of society and this can happen only where the society in which
the Government is rooted is democratic. If society is not democratic,
Government can never be. Where society is divided into two classes
governing and the governed the Government is bound to be the
Government of the governing class.
The third mistake they make is to forget that whether Government
would be good or bad democratic or undemocratic depends to a large
extent up on the instrumentalities particularly the Civil Service on
which every where Government has to depend for administering the
Law. It all depends upon the social milieu in which civil servants are
nurtured. If the social milieu is undemocratic the Government is bound
to be undemocratic.
There is one other mistake which is responsible for the view that
for democracy to function it is enough to have a democratic form of
Government. To realize this mistake it is necessary to have some idea
of what is meant by good Government.
Good Government means good laws and good administration. This is
the essence of good Government. Nothing else can be. Now there cannot
be good Government in this sense if those who are invested with ruling
power seek the advantage of their own class instead of the advantage
of the whole people or of those who are downtrodden.
Whether the Democratic form of Government will result in good
will depend upon the disposition of the individuals composing society.
If the mental disposition of the individuals is democratic then the
1 Democracy & Education p. 99.
democratic form of Government can be expected to result in good
Government. If not, democratic form of Government may easily become
a dangerous form of Government. If the individuals in a society are
separated into classes and the classes are isolated from one another
and each individual feels that his loyalty to his class must come before
his loyalty to every thing else and living in class compartments he
becomes class conscious bound to place the interests of his class above
the interests of others, uses his authority to pervert law and justice
to promote the interests, of his class and for this purpose practises
systematically discrimination against persons who do not belong to his
caste in every sphere of life what can a democratic Government do. In a
Society where classes clash and are charged with anti-social feelings and
spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its task of
governing with justice and fairplay. In such a society, Government even
though it may in form be a government of the people and by the people
it can never be a Government for the people. It will be a Government by
a class for a class. A Government for the people can be had only where
the attitude of each individual is democratic which means that each
individual is prepared to treat every other individual as his equal and is
prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims for himself. This
democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the individual
in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of
a democratic Government. Democratic Governments have toppled down
in largely due to the fact that the society for which they were set up
was not democratic.
Unfortunately to what extent the task of good Government depends
upon the mental and moral disposition of its subjects has seldom been
realized. Democracy is more than a political machine. It is even more
than a social system. It is an attitude of mind or a philosophy of life.
Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality and liberty
are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important
question is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it
is the law of the state which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a
true answer. What sustains equality and liberty is fellow-felling. What
the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word fraternity is not
an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called,
Maitree. Without Fraternity Liberty would destroy equality and equality
would destroy liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality
and equality does not destroy liberty, it is because at the basis of both
there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore the root of Democracy.
The foregoing discussion is merely a preliminary to the main question.
That question is—wherein lie the roots of fraternity without which
Democracy is not possible? Beyond dispute, it has its origin in Religion.
In examining the possibilities of the origin of Democracy or its
functioning successfully one must go to the Religion of the people and
ask—does it teach fraternity or does it not? If it does, the chances for a
democratic Government are great. If it does not, the chances are poor. Of
course other factors may affect the possibilities. But if fraternity is not
there, there is nothing to built democracy on. Why did Democracy not
grow in India? That is the main question. The answer is quite simple.
The Hindu Religion does not teach fraternity. Instead it teaches division
of society into classes or varnas and the maintenance of separate class
consciousness. In such a system where is the room for Democracy ?
The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It is designed
to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and
of castes and outcastes are not theories but are decrees. They are all
barricades raised against democracy.
From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity was unknown
to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion
would not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and
Philosophic thought gave rise to an idea which had greater potentialities
for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the
doctrine of Brahmaism1.
It would not be surprising if some one asked what is this Brahmaism?
It is something new even to Hindus. The Hindus are familiar with
Vedanta. They are familar with Brahmanism. But they are certainly
not familiar with Brahmaism. Before proceeding further a few words of
explanation are necessary.
There are three strands in the philosophic and religious thought of
the Hindus. They may be designated as (1) Brahmaism (2) Vedanta
and (3) Brahmanism. Although they are correlated they stand for three
different and distinct ideologies.
The essence of Brahmaism is summed up in a dogma which is stated
in three different forms. They are—
(i) Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma—All this is Brahma.
(ii) Aham Brahmasmi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore I am Brahma.
(iii) Tattvamasi—Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore thou art also Brahma.
1 have borrowed this word from Prof. Hopkin’s–The Epics of India.
They are called Mahavakyas which means Great Sayings and they
sum up the essence of Brahmaism.
The following are the dogmas which sum up the teachings of Vedant—
I Brahma is the only reality.
II The world is maya or unreal.
III Jiva and Brahma are—
(i) according to one school identical;
(ii) according to another not identical but are elements of him
and not separate from him;
(iii) according to the third school they are distinct and separate.
The creed of Bramhanism may be summed up in the following dogmas—
(i) Belief in the chaturvarna.
(ii) Sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas.
(iii) Sacrifices to Gods the only way to salvation.
Most people know the distinction between the Vedanta and Brahmanism
and the points of controversy between them. But very few people know
the distinction between Brahmaism and Vedanta. Even Hindus are not
aware of the doctrine of Brahmaism and the distinction between it and
Vedanta. But the distinction is obvious. While Brahmaism and Vedanta
agree that Atman is the same as Brahma. But the two differ in that
Brahmaism does not treat the world as unreal, Vedanta does. This is
the fundamental difference between the two.
The essence of Brahmaism is that the world is real and the reality
behind the world is Brahma. Everything therefore is of the essence of
Brahma.
There are two criticisms which have been levelled against Brahmaism.
It is said that Brahmaism is piece of impudence. For a man to say
“I am Brahma” is a kind of arrogance. The other criticism levelled
against Brahmaism is the inability of man to know Brahma. ‘I am
Brahma’ may appear to be impudence. But it can also be an assertion
of one’s own worth. In a world where humanity suffers so much from
an inferiority complex such an assertion on the part of man is to
be welcomed. Democracy demands that each individual shall have
every opportunity for realizing its worth. It also requires that each
individual shall know that he is as good as everybody else. Those who
sneer at Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) as an impudent utterance
forget the other part of the Maha Vakya namely Tatvamasi (Thou
art also Brahma). If Aham Brahmasmi has stood alone without the
conjunct of Tatvamasi it may not have been possible to sneer at it. But with the conjunct of Tatvanmsi the charge of selfish arrogance cannot
stand against Brahmaism.
It may well be that Brahma is unknowable. But all the same this
theory of Brahma has certain social implications which have a tremendous
value as a foundation for Democracy. If all persons are parts of Brahma
then all are equal and all must enjoy the same liberty which is what
Democracy means. Looked at from this point of view Brahma may be
unknowable. But there cannot be slightest doubt that no doctrine could
furnish a stronger foundation for Democracy than the doctrine of Brahma.
To support Democracy because we are all children of God is a very
weak foundation for Democracy to rest on. That is why Democracy is so
shaky wherever it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize
and realize that you and I are parts of the same cosmic principle leaves
room for no other theory of associated life except democracy. It does not
merely preach Democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of one and all.
Western students of Democracy have spread the belief that Democracy
has stemmed either from Christianity or from Plato and that there is
no other source of inspiration for democracy. If they had known that
India too had developed the doctrine of Brahmaism which furnishes a
better foundation for Democracy they would not have been so dogmatic.
India too must be admitted to have a contribution towards a theoretical
foundation for Democracy.
The question is what happened to this doctrine of Brahmaism ? It is
quite obvious that Brahmaism had no social effects. It was not made
the basis of Dharma. When asked why this happened the answer is that
Brahmaism is only philosophy, as though philosophy arises not out of
social life but out of nothing and for nothing. Philosophy is no purely
theoretic matter. It has practical potentialities. Philosophy has its roots
in the problems of life and whatever theories philosophy propounds
must return to society as instruments of re-constructing society. It is
not enough to know. Those who know must endeavour to fulfil.
Why then Brahmaism failed to produce a new society? This is a
great riddle. It is not that the Brahmins did not recognize the doctrine
of Brahmaism. They did. But they did not ask how they could support
inequality between the Brahmin and the Shudra, between man and
woman, between casteman and outcaste ? But they did not. The result
is that we have on the one hand the most democratic principle of
Brahmaism and on the other hand a society infested with castes,
sub-outcastes, primitive tribes and criminal tribes. Can there be
a greater dilemma than this ? What is more ridiculous is the teaching of
the Great Shankaracharya. For it was this Shankarcharya who taught
that there is Brahma and this Brahma is real and that it pervades all
and at the same time upheld all the inequities of the Brahmanic society.
Only a lunatic could be happy with being the propounder of two such
contradictions. Truely as the Brahmin is like a cow, he can eat anything
and everything as the cow does and remain a Brahmin.
Sunday, 13 September 2015
Dr. Ambedkar’s Resignation Speech
Dr. Ambedkar’s Resignation Speech
Most of us know Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s ideological fights with Gandhi. Not many, however, would know the kind of issues he had with Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. The modernist Pt. Nehru had turned so conservative after India’s freedom – or he was a conservative throughout his life that Dr. Ambedkar could no more remain his co-traveller and had to resign from his Cabinet on September 27, 1951. Reproduced [Ambedkar’s Writings, Vol. 14, Part Two, pages.1317-1327] is the full text of his speech on his resignation
 |
Dr Ambedkar at a Constituent Assembly meeting.
|
Text of the Resignation
The House I am sure knows, unofficially if not
officially, that I have ceased to be a member of the Cabinet. I tendered
my resignation on Thursday, the 27th September to the Prime Minister and asked
him to relieve me immediately. The Prime Minister was good enough to
accept the same on the very next day. If I have continued to be a
Minister after Friday, the 28th, it is because the Prime Minister had requested
me to continue till the end of the Session — a request to which I was, in
obedience to constitutional convention, bound to assent.
Our Rules of Procedure permit a Minister who has
resigned his office, to make a personal statement in explanation of his
resignation. Many members of Cabinet have resigned during my tenure of
office. There has been however no uniform practice in the matter of
Ministers who have resigned making a statement. Some have gone without
making a statement and others have gone after making a statement.
For a few days I was hesitant what course to follow. After taking all
circumstances into consideration I came to the conclusion that making of a
statement was not merely necessary, but it was a duty which a member who has
resigned owes to the House.
The House has no opportunity to know how the
Cabinet works from within, whether there is harmony or whether there is a
conflict, for the simple reason that there is a joint responsibility under
which a member who is in a minority is not entitled to disclose his differences.
Consequently, the House continues to think that there is no conflict among
members of Cabinet even when as a matter of fact a conflict exists. It
is, therefore, a duty of a retiring Minister to make a statement informing
the House why he wants to go and why he is not able to continue to take further
joint responsibility.
Secondly, if a Minister goes without making a
statement, people may suspect that there is something wrong with the
conduct of the Minister, either in his public capacity or in his private
capacity. No Minister should, I think, leave room for such suspicion and
the only safe way out is a statement.
Thirdly, we have our newspapers. They have
their age-old bias in favour of some and against others. Their judgements
are seldom based on merits. Whenever they find an empty space, they
are prone to fill the vacuum by supplying grounds for resignation which are not
the real grounds but which put those whom they favour in a better light and
those not in their favour in a bad light. Some such thing I see has
happened even in my case. It is for these reasons that I decided to make a
statement before going out.
It is now 4 years, 1 month and 26 days since I was
called by the Prime Minister to accept the office of Law Minister in his Cabinet.
The offer came as a great surprise to me. I was in the opposite camp and
had already been condemned as unworthy of association when the interim
Government was formed in August 1946. I was left to speculate as to what
could have happened to bring about this change in the attitude of the Prime
Minister. I had my doubts. I did not know how I could carry on with
those who have never been my friends. I had doubts as to whether I could,
as a Law Member, maintain the standard of legal knowledge and acumen which had
been maintained by those who had preceded me as Law Ministers of the Government
of India. But I kept my doubts at rest and accepted the offer of the
Prime Minister on the ground that I should not deny my cooperation when it was
asked for in the building up of our nation. The quality of my performance
as a Member of the Cabinet and as Law Minister, I must leave it to others to
judge.
I will now refer to matters which have led me to
sever my connection with my colleagues. The urge to go has been growing
from long past due to variety of reasons.
I will first refer to matters purely of a personal
character and which are the least of the grounds which have led me to tender my
resignation. As a result of my being a Member of the Viceroy’s Executive
Council, I knew the Law Ministry to be administratively of no importance.
It gave no opportunity for shaping the policy of the Government of India.
We used to call it an empty soap box only good for old lawyers to play
with. When the Prime Minister made me the offer, I told him that besides
being a lawyer by my education and experience, I was competent to run any
administrative Department and that in the old Viceroy’s Executive Council, I
held two administrative portfolios, that of Labour and C.P.W.D., where a great
deal of planning projects were dealt with by me and would like to have
some administrative portfolio. The Prime Minister agreed and said he
would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which, he said, was
intending to create. Unfortunately the Planning Department came very late
in the day and when it did come, I was left out. During my time, there
have been many transfers of portfolios from one Minister to another. I
thought I might be considered for any one of them. But I have always been
left out of consideration. Many Ministers have been given two or three
portfolios so that they have been overburdened. Others like me have wanted
more work. I have not even been considered for holding a portfolio
temporarily when a Minister in charge has gone abroad for a few days. It
is difficult to understand what the principle is underlying the distribution of
Government work among Ministers which the Prime Minister follows. Is it
capacity? Is it trust? Is it friendship? Is it
pliability? I was not even appointed to be a member of main Committees of
the Cabinet such as Foreign Affairs Committee, or the Defence Committee.
When the Economics Affairs Committee was formed, I expected, in
view of the fact that I was primarily a student of Economics and Finance, to be
appointed to this Committee. But I was left out. I was appointed to
it by the Cabinet, when the Prime Minister had gone to England. But
when he returned, in one of his many essays in the reconstruction of the
cabinet, he left me out. In a subsequent reconstruction my name was added
to the Committee, but that was as a result of my protest.
The Prime Minister, I am sure, will agree that I
have never complained to him in this connection. I have never been a party to
the game of power politics inside the cabinet or the game of snatching
portfolios which goes on when there is a vacancy. I believe in service,
service in the post which the Prime Minister, who as the head of the Cabinet,
thought fit to assign to me. It would have, however, been quite unhuman
for me not to have felt that a wrong was being done to me.
I will now refer to another matter that had made me
dissatisfied with the Government. It relates to the treatment accorded to
the Backward Classes and the Scheduled Castes. I was very sorry that the
Constitution did not embody any safeguards for the Backward Classes. It
was left to be done by the Executive Government on the basis of the
recommendations of a Commission to be appointed by the President. More
than a year has elapsed since we passed the Constitution. But the
Government has not even thought of appointing the Commission. The year
1946 during which I was out of office, was a year of great anxiety to me, and
to the leading members of the Scheduled Castes. The British had realised
from the commitments they had made in the matter of constitutional safeguards
for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Castes had no knowing as to what the
Constituent Assembly would do in that behalf. In this period of anxiety,
I had prepared a report* on the condition of the Scheduled Castes for
submission to the United Nations. But I did not submit it. I felt that it
would be better to wait until the Constituent Assembly and the future
Parliament was given a chance to deal with the matter. The provisions
made in the Constitution for safeguarding the position of the Scheduled Castes
were not to my satisfaction. However, I accepted them for what they were
worth, hoping that Government will show some determination to make them
effective. What is the Scheduled Castes today? So far as I see, it
is the same as before. The same old tyranny, the same old oppression, the
same old discrimination which existed before, exists now and perhaps in a worst
form. I can refer to hundreds of cases where people from the Scheduled
Casts round about Delhi and adjoining places have come to me with their tales
of woes against the Caste Hindus and against the Police who have refused to
register their complaints and render them any help. I have been wondering
whether there is any other parallel in the world to the condition of Scheduled
Castes in India. I cannot find any. And yet why is no relief
granted to the Scheduled Castes? Compare the concern the Government shows
over safeguarding the Muslims. The Prime Minister’s whole time and
attention is devoted for the protection of the Muslims. I yield to none,
not even to the Prime Minister, in my desire to give the Muslims of India the
utmost protection wherever and whenever they stand in need of it. But
what I want to know is, are the Muslims the only people who need
protection? Are the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Indian
Christians not in need of protection? What concern has he shown for these
communities? So far as I know, none and yet these are the communities
which need far more care and attention than the Muslims.
I could not contain within myself the indignation I
have felt over the neglect of the Scheduled Castes by the Government and on one
occasion, I gave vent to my feelings at a public meeting of the Scheduled
Castes. A question was asked, from the Hon’ble the Home Minister, whether
my charge that the Scheduled Castes had not benefited by the rule which
guaranteed to them 12 ½ per cent representation was true. In answer to
the question the Hon’ble the Home Minister was pleased to say that my charge
was baseless. Subsequently for some reason – it may be for satisfying the
qualms of his conscience – he, I am informed, sent round a circular to the
various Departments of the Government of India asking them to report how many
Scheduled Caste candidates had been recently recruited in Government
service. I am informed that most Departments in reply said “NIL’ or
nearly nil. If my information is correct, I need make no commentary on
the answer given by the Hon’ble the Home Minister.
From my yearly childhood I have dedicated myself to
the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes among whom I was born. It is not
that there were no temptations in my way. If I had considered my own
interest I could have been anything I wanted to be and if I had joined the
Congress would have reached to the highest place in that organization.
But as I said, I had dedicated myself to the upliftment of Scheduled Castes and
I have followed the adage that it is better to be narrow-minded if you wish to
be enthusiastic about a cause which you wish to accomplish. You can
therefore, well imagine what pain it has caused me to see that the cause of the
Scheduled Castes has been relegated to the limbo of nothing.
The third matter which has given me cause, not
merely for dissatisfaction but for actual anxiety and even worry, is the
foreign policy of the country. Any one, who has followed the course of
our foreign policy and along with it the attitude of other countries towards
India, could not fail to realize the sudden change that has taken place in
their attitude towards us. On 15th of August, 1947 when we began our life
as an independent country, there was no country which wished us ill. Every country
in the world was our friend. Today, after four years, all our friends
have deserted us. We have no friends left. We have alienated
ourselves. We are pursuing a lonely furrow with no one even to second our
resolutions in the U.N.O. When I think of our foreign policy, I am
reminded of what Bismarck and Bernard Shaw have said. Bismark has said
that “politics is not a game of realizing the ideal. Politics is the game
of the possible.” Bernard Shaw not very long ago said that good ideals
are good but one must not forget that it is often dangerous to be too
good. Our foreign policy is in complete opposition to these words of
wisdom uttered by two of the world’s greatest men.
How dangerous it has been to us this policy of
doing the impossible and of being too good is illustrated by the great drain on
our resources made by our military expenditure, by the difficulty of getting
food for our starving millions and by difficulty of getting aid for the
industrialization of our country.
Out of 350 crores of rupees of revenue we raise
annually, we spend about Rs180 crores of rupees on the Army. It is a
colossal expenditure which has hardly any parallel. This colossal
expenditure is the direct result of our foreign policy. We have to foot
the whole of our Bill for our defence ourselves because we have no friends on
which we can depend for help in any emergency that may arise. I have been
wondering whether this is the right sort of foreign policy.
Our quarrel with Pakistan is a part of our foreign
policy about which I feel deeply dissatisfied. There are two grounds
which have disturbed our relations with Pakistan – one is Kashmir and the other
is the condition of our people in East Bengal. I felt that we should be
more deeply concerned with East Bengal where the condition of our people seems
from all the newspapers intolerable than with Kashmir. Notwithstanding
this we have been staking out all on the Kashmir issue. Even then I feel
we have been fighting on an unreal issue. The issue on which we have been
fighting most of the time is, who is in the right and who is in the
wrong. The real issue to my mind is not who is right but what is
right. Taking that to be the main question, my view has always been that
the right solution is to partition Kashmir. Give the Hindu and Buddhist
part to India and the Muslim part to Pakistan as we did in the case of
India. We are really not concerned with the Muslim part of Kashmir.
It is a matter between the Muslims of Kashmir and Pakistan. They may decide
the issue as they like. Or if you like, divide into three parts; the
Cease fire zone, the Valley and the Jammu-Ladhak Region and have a plebiscite
only in the Valley. What I am afraid of is that in the proposed
plebiscite, which is to be an overall plebiscite, the Hindus and Buddhists of
Kashmir are likely to be dragged into Pakistan against their wishes and we may
have to face same problems as we are facing today in East Bengal.
I will now refer to the Fourth matter which has a
good deal to do with my resignation. The Cabinet has become a merely
recording and registration office of decisions already arrived at by
Committees. As I have said, the Cabinet now works by Committees.
There is a Defence Committee. There is a Foreign Committee. All
important matters relating to Defence are disposed of by the Defence
Committee. The same members of the Cabinet are appointed by them. I
am not a member of either of these Committees. They work behind an iron
curtain. Others who are not members have only to take joint responsibility
without any opportunity of taking part in the shaping of policy. This is
an impossible position.
I will now deal with a matter which has led me
finally to come to the decision that I should resign. It is the treatment
which was accorded to the Hindu Code. The Bill was introduced in this
House on the 11th April, 1947. After a life of four years, it was killed
and died unwept and unsung, after 4 clauses of it were passed. While it
was before the House, it lived by fits and starts. For full one year, the
Government did not feel it necessary to refer it to a Select Committee.
It was referred to the Select Committee on 9th April 1948. The Report was
presented to the House on 12th August, 1948. The motion for the
consideration of the Report was made by me on 31st August 1948. It was
merely for making the motion that the Bill was kept on the Agenda. The
discussion of the motion was not allowed to take place until the February
Session of the year 1949. Even then it was not allowed to have a continuous
discussion. It was distributed over 10 months, 4 days in February, 1 day
in March and 2 days in April 1949. After this, one day was given to the
Bill in December, 1949, namely the 19th December, on which day the House
adopted my motion that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be taken
into consideration. No time was given to the Bill in the year 1950.
Next time the Bill came before the House was on 5th February, 1951 when the
clause by clause consideration of the Bill was taken. Only three days
5th, 6th and 7th February were given to the Bill and left there to rot.
This being the last sessions of the present
Parliament, Cabinet had to consider whether Hindu Code Bill should be got
through before this Parliament ended or whether it should be left over to the
new Parliament. The Cabinet unanimously decided that it should be put
through in this Parliament. So the Bill was put on the Agenda and was
taken up on the 17th September 1951 for further clause by clause consideration.
As the discussion was going on, the Prime Minister put forth a new proposal,
namely, that the Bill as a whole may not be got through within the time
available and that it was desirable to get a part of it enacted into law rather
than allow the whole of it to go to waste. It was a great wrentch to
me. But I agreed, for, as the proverb says “it is better to save a part
when the whole is likely to be lost”. The Prime Minister suggested that
we should select the Marriage and Divorce part. The Bill in its truncated
form went on. After two or three days of the discussion of the Bill the
Prime Minister came up with another proposal. This time his proposal was
to drop the whole Bill even the Marriage and Divorce portion. This came
to me as a great shock – a bolt from the blue. I was stunned and could
not say anything. I am not prepared to accept that the dropping of this
truncated Bill was due to want of time. I am sure that the truncated bill
was dropped because other and more powerful members of the Cabinet wanted precedence
for their Bills. I am unable to understand how the Bananas and Aligarh
University Bills, how the Press Bill could have been given precedence over the
Hindu Code even in its attenuated form? It is not that there was no law
on the Statute Book to govern the Aligarh University or the Benares
University. It is not that these Universities would have gone to wreck
and ruins if the Bills had not been passed in this Session. It is not
that the Press Bill was urgent. There is already a law on the Statute
Book and the Bill could have waited. I got the impress that the Prime
Minister, although sincere, had not the earnestness and determination required
to get the Hindi Code Bill through.
In regard to this Bill, I have been made to go
through the greatest mental torture. The aid of Party Machinery was
denied to me. The Prime Minister gave freedom of Vote, an unusual thing
in the history of the Party. I did not mind it. But I expected two
things. I expected a party whip as to time limit on speeches and
instruction to the Chief whip to move closure when sufficient debate had taken
place. A whip on time limit on speeches would have got the Bill through.
When freedom of voting was given there could have been no objection to have
given a whip for time limit on speeches. But such a whip was never
issued. The conduct of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, who is
also the Chief Whip of the Party in connection with the Hindu Code, to say the
least, has been most extraordinary. He has been the deadliest opponent of the
Code and has never been present to aid me by moving a closure motion. For
days and hours filibustering has gone on a single clause. But the Chief
Whip, whose duty it is to economise Government time and push on Government
business, has been systematically absent when the Hindu Code has been under
consideration in the House. I have never seen a case of a Chief Whip so
disloyal to the Prime Minister and a Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal
Whip. Notwithstanding this unconstitutional behaviour, the Chief Whip is
really a darling of the Prime Minister. For notwithstanding his
disloyalty he got a Promotion in the Party organization. It is impossible
to carry on in such circumstances.
It has been said that the Bill had to be dropped
because the Opposition was strong. How strong was the Opposition?
This Bill has been discussed several times in the Party and was carried to
division by the opponents. Every time the opponents were routed.
The last time when the Bill was taken up in the Party Meeting out of 120 only
20 were found to be against it. When the Bill was taken in the Party for
discussion, 44 clauses were passed in about 3 ½ hours’ time. This shows
how much opposition there was to the Bill within the Party. In the House
itself, there have been divisions on three clauses of the Bill – 2, 3 and
5. Every time there has been an overwhelming majority in favour even on
clause 4 which is the soul of the Hindu Code.
I was, therefore, quite unable to accept the Prime
Minister’s decision to abandon the Bill on the ground of time. I have
been obliged to give this elaborate explanation for my resignation because some
people have suggested that I am going because of my illness. I wish to
repudiate any such suggestion. I am the last man to abandon my duty
because of illness.
It may be said that my resignation is out of time
and that if I was dissatisfied with the Foreign Policy of the Government and
the treatment accorded to Backward Classes and the Scheduled Castes I should
have gone earlier. The charge may sound as true. But I had reasons
which held me back. In the first place, most of the time I have been a
Member of the Cabinet; I have been busy with the framing of the Constitution.
It absorbed all my attention till 26th January 1950 and thereafter I was
concerned with the People’s Representation Bill and the Delimitation
Orders. I had hardly any time to attend to our Foreign Affairs. I
did not think it right to go away leaving this work unfinished.
In the second place, I thought it necessary to stay
on, for the sake of the Hindu Code. In the opinion of some, it may be
wrong for me to have held on for the sake of the Hindu Code. I took a
different view. The Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure
ever undertaken by the legislature in this country. No law passed by the Indian
Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in the future can be compared to
it in point of its significance.
To leave inequality between class and class,
between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on
passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our
Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap. This is the
significance I attached to the Hindu Code. It is for its sake that I
stayed on notwithstanding my differences. So if I have committed a wrong,
it is in the hope of doing some good. Had I no ground for such a hope,
for overcoming the obstructionist tactics of the opponents? I would like
in this connection to refer only to three of the statements made by the Prime
Minister on the floor of the House.
On 28th November, 1949, the Prime Minister gave the
following assurance. He said:
“What is more, the Government is committed to this
thing (Hindu Code). It is going through with it.”
“Government would proceed with that. It is
for this House to accept a measure, but if a Government takes an important
measure, and the House rejects it, the House rejects that Government and the
Government goes and another Government comes in its place. It should be
clearly understood that this is one of the important measures to which the
Government attaches importance and on which it will stand or fall.”
Again on 19th December, 1949, the Prime Minister
said:
“I do not wish the House to think in the slightest
degree that we consider that this Hindu Code Bill is not of importance, because
we do attach the greatest important to it, as I said, not because of any
particular clause or anything, but because of the basic approach to this vast
problem in problems, economic and social. We have achieved political
freedom in this country, political independence. That is a stage in the
journey, and there are other stages, economic, social and other and if society
is to advance, there must be this integrated advance on all fronts.”
On the 26th September, 1951, the Prime Minister
said:
“It is not necessary for me to assure the House of
the desire of Government to proceed with this measure in so far as we can
proceed with it within possibilities, and so far as we are concerned we
consider this matter as adjourned till such time as the next opportunity – I
hope it will be in this Parliament – offers itself.”
This was after the Prime Minister had announced the
dropping of the Bill. Who could not have believed in these pronouncements
of the Prime Minister? If I did not think that there could be a
difference between the promises and performances of the Prime Minister the
fault is certainly not mine. My exit from the Cabinet may not be a matter
of much concern to anybody in this Country. But I must be true to myself
and that can be only by going out. Before I do so, I wish to thank my
colleagues for the kindness and courtesy they have shown to me during my
membership of the Cabinet. While I am not resigning from my membership of
Parliament, I also wish to express my gratitude to Members of Parliament for
having shown great tolerance towards me.
10th
October 1951
New Delhi B.R. Ambedkar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)