Ambedkar- Gandhi Clash and Cooperation

 

 Ambedkar- Gandhi Clash and Cooperation 

“B.R. Ambedkar, Partition and the Internationalisation of Untouchability, 1939 1947”

Jesús F. Cháirez Garza

History Department, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

pages 24-25

“After Ambedkar announced his intention to take the plight of the Untouchables to the UN, various Congress leaders approached him, including Vallabhbhai Patel. In the summer of 1946, Patel and Ambedkar had a preliminary discussion at which Ambedkar asked for 20 percent of all types of electoral representation, and Patel promised to think about the demand. He later wrote to Gandhi for advice. On 1 August 1946, Gandhi replied that it was good that Patel had met with Ambedkar, but he cautioned Patel about the complications inherent in reaching an agreement with the Dalit leader. Gandhi claimed that Ambedkar should not be trusted because he made ‘no distinction between truth and untruth or between violence and non-violence;’ moreover, he had no principles, because he would ‘adopt any means which will serve his purpose.’ To illustrate this, Gandhi alluded to Ambedkar’s understanding of religion as instrumental to politics, reminding Patel that ‘one has to be very careful indeed when dealing with a man who would become a Christian, Muslim or Sikh and then be reconverted to his convenience.’ Gandhi was convinced that Ambedkar’s demands were ‘all a snare’ or ‘a “catch”’. 69 Gandhi also wanted to maintain Congress’ strategic position as a negotiator. He warned Patel: ‘if we negotiate with Ambedkar out of fear of the League we are likely to lose on both fronts,’ because any type of pact agreed before independence would inevitably suffer alteration. However, Gandhi did concede that the decision not to make an agreement with Ambedkar was also due to the attitude of Congress members towards Dalits. Gandhi told Patel: ‘you may come up to any understanding you like today—but who are the people who beat up the Harijans, murder them, prevent them from using public wells, drive them out of schools and refuse them entry into their homes? They are Congressmen.’70 As a result, Gandhi believed that reaching an agreement with Ambedkar was pointless. In contrast to the popular notion that Gandhi suggested to Nehru that Ambedkar should be brought into his new government, the paragraphs above suggest otherwise. “

Ambedkar on Bhagat Singh

 

Ambedkar on Bhagat Singh

Sunday 20 March 2016, by Anand Teltumbde

Legendary freedom fighter and martyr Bhagat Singh’s birth centenary was observed on September 28, 2007. On the occasion of the eightyfifth anniversary of his martyrdom, we are reproducing, with due acknowledgement, the following article (published earlier in Countercurrents.org) in homage to the outstanding revolutionary hero’s abiding memory. He was executed along with Sukhdev and Rajguru in Lahore on March 23, 1931. He was and remains to this day a source of inspiration for our youth. In this context we also offer our sincere tributes to Babasaheb Ambedkar just before his 125th birth anniversary next month.

The vested interests, while lauding Babasaheb Ambedkar, have systematically reduced him to be his near-ideological antithesis. The ruling classes and their state, of course, have played a vanguard role but even his so-called followers have not in any way been behind. This year the ruling establishment is going gaga over the celebration of his 125th birth anniversary, when as though revealingly, the year has dawned with the monumental injustice to the five Dalit Ph.D scholars of the Hyderabad Central University that led to one of them, Rohith Vemula, committing suicide. When Ambedkar stressed on higher education, unlike most reformers of his times, he had the likes of Rohith in mind, laced with critical faculties to steer the movement of oppressed people to their liberation. Harassment of Dalit students pushing them to commit suicide in higher educational institutions is not new but the manner in which this suicide took place should wake up Dalits to the deceit practised by the current regime.

It saw the continued abuse of the Constitution and trampling of all ideas Ambedkar stood for in the recent imbroglio in JNU. The very establishments that decimated his ideal of democratic republic and killed the spirit of liberty, equality, fraternity are posing as his biggest devotees. Under such mounting propaganda, right from the late 1960s, which shows that it is not the parties but the class they belong to that has been acting in concert, the radical aspects of Babasaheb Ambedkar have been systematically overshadowed. For instance, just after getting disillusioned with the aftermath of the Mahad struggle he had tried class politics over the entire decade until he was forced by the circumstances to revert back to caste politics. This politics, symbolised by the Independent Labour Party, which was described by him as a workers’ party, and its reflection in Janata, his newspaper, appears to have been completely forgotten. The 1930s was an eventful decade and it is interesting to see how he saw or related with many of these events. The non-Marathi readers are totally lost to these writings because their translations are yet not available in English and therefore in other languages. This creates the impression that Babasaheb Ambedkar just hammered on the betterment of Dalits and supplemented the ‘divide-and-rule’ policy of the British imperialists. At least that is what is reflected by the current genre of Dalit leaders through their apathy towards issues other than Dalit.

One of the most shattering events of this decade was the trial and eventual hanging of Bhagat Singh along with his two comrades, Rajguru and Sukhdev. It exposed the British imperialists in their true colours along with their love for the rule of law as well as the phoney concern of our nationalist leadership for the freedom of the people. Bhagat Singh and Dr Ambedkar, as they would seem perfect opposite of each other, are the two heroes who had truly understood what ailed this country. When I said this while speaking at the launch of the centenary celebrations of Bhagat Singh in Maharashtra in 2007, people were perplexed by such a weird statement. But that is quite true. The relevance of these two people is growing as they get distanced from us. How did they see each other? There is no evidence of either of them saying anything about the other. However, we do know that Bhagat Singh had grappled with the Dalit question. He had written an article, titled Achoot Samasya (Problem of Untouchability), at the age of 16, but it still has a freshness and reflects an amazing maturity of thought to be relevant for the emancipatory struggle of Dalits. Ambedkar did not write on the revolutionary movement of Bhagat Singh but had written an editorial note, titled “Three Victims”, when they were hanged. Though it does not speak about their struggle, much less politics, it explains how their execution was influenced by political expediency back home.

I provide herewith its translation as it may be of interest to many a student of Ambedkar besides its historical value.

Three Victims

(Janata, April 13, 1931)

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru have been eventually hanged. They were charged for the murders of an English police officer, named Saunders, and a Sikh police sepoy, named Chaman Singh. Also, there were three or four additional charges such as an attempt of murdering one police inspector at Banaras, throwing a bomb in the Assembly, conducting robbery at a house in Maulimiya village and looting its valuables. Bhagat Singh had already admitted to the charge of throwing bomb in the Assembly. For this crime, he and Batukeshwar Dutt were already sentenced with life imprisonment. One of the comrades of Bhagat Singh, by the name of Jaigopal, had confessed that the murder of Saunders was executed by the revolutionaries including Bhagat Singh and others. The government had filed a case against Bhagat Singh and his comrades based on this confession. None of the three accused participated in this case, however. A special tribunal was appointed comprising three High Court judges that heard the case and unanimously awarded them death penalty.

Bhagat Singh’s father had made a mercy petition to the Emperor and the Viceroy requesting them not to execute the punishment and convert it, if required, into life imprisonment at Andamans. Many people, including prominent leaders, also tried to plead with the government in the matter. The issue of Bhagat Singh’s death penalty might have arisen in the negotiations that took place between Gandhi and Lord Irwin. Although Lord Irwin had not given any definitive assurance about saving Bhagat Singh’s life, Gandhi’s speech during the intervening period created a hope that Irwin would try his best within his powers to save the lives of these three youth. But all these hopes, predictions and appeals proved futile. They were killed by hanging in the Central Prison, Lahore on March 23, 1931 at 7 pm. None of them had made any appeal for saving them. But as it is already published, Bhagat Singh had expressed a desire for being killed with bullet shots instead of hanging by the neck. But even this last will of his was not granted and they implemented the judgment of the tribunal verbatim. The judgement was to hang by the neck till dead. If they were killed with bullet shots, the execution would not have conformed to the judgement verbatim. The order of the justice goddess was obeyed in toto and the three were killed with the method she prescribed.

For whom the Sacrifice?

If the government thinks that people would be impressed by its display of devotion to and strict obedience of the justice goddess and therefore they would approve of this killing, it would be its utter naivet. None believes that this sacrifice was made with the only intention of maintaining the clean reputation of the British justice system sans blemish. Even the govern-ment will not be able to convince itself with such an understanding. Then how will it convince others with this veil of the justice goddess? The entire world, as well as the government, does know that it is not for the devotion to the justice goddess but the fear of the Conservative Party and public opinion back home in England that this sacrifice was executed. They thought, the unconditional release of political prisoners like Gandhi and signing pacts with Gandhi’s party have damaged the prestige of the Empire. Some orthodox leaders of the Conservative Party have launched a campaign that the prevailing Cabinet of the Labour Party and the Viceroy, who danced to its tune, were responsible for it. In such a situation if Lord Irwin had showed mercy to political revolutio-naries who have been convicted for assassinating an English officer, it would be like giving a burning torch into the hands of the Opposition leaders. Already the condition of the Labour Party is not stable. In such a situation if these Conservative leaders got an alibi that the Labour Government grants clemency to the convicts, who had murdered an Englishman, it would be so easy to provoke public opinion against it. In order to avert this imminent crisis and to thwart the fire in the minds of the Conservative leaders from flaring further, these hangings were executed.

As such this was not to satisfy the justice goddess but to please public opinion in England. If it had been the issue of personal liking or disliking of Lord Irwin, he would have within his own powers annulled the death penalty and awarded life imprisonment in its stead. The Cabinet of the Labour Party in England would have supported Lord Irwin in this decision. It would have been necessary to maintain congeniality of public opinion in the context of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. While leaving the country, Lord Irwin would surely have liked to earn this goodwill. But he would have been crushed between the ire of his Conservative kin in England and the Indian bureaucracy imbued with the same casteist attitude. Therefore, not minding the public opinion here the Government of Lord Irwin hanged Bhagat Singh and his comrades to death and that too just two to four days before the Karachi conference of the Congress. Both the hanging of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, and its timing were sufficient to puncture the Gandhi-Irwin Pact and to trash the efforts to bring it about. If Lord Irwin wanted to fail this Pact, he would not have found a better act than this one. Looking from this perspective, as Gandhiji also felt, one could say that the government committed a great blunder.

In sum, merely not to incur the anger of the Conservatives in England, they sacrificed Bhagat Singh and his comrades ignoring public opinion and not minding what would happen to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The government must remember, howsoever it tries to cover it up or polish it, it will never be able to hide this fact.

(Courtesy: Countercurrents.org)

Dr Anand Teltumbde is a writer and civil rights activist with the CPDR, Mumbai. He is currently a Professor of Business Management at the IIT, Kharagpur.

Poona Pact: A Reappraisal

 

Poona Pact: A Reappraisal

                        S. R. Darapuri, National President, All India People's Front

                        (Special on Poona Packet Day on 24th September)

Caste is considered the cornerstone of Indian Hindu society. In this structure of hierarchical inequality, the untouchables were at the bottom and were officially called 'Depressed Classes' till 1935. Gandhiji had rewarded him with the name of 'Harijan' which was not accepted by most of the Untouchables. Now they have chosen the name 'Dalit' for themselves which is indicative of their downtrodden status. Currently, they constitute about one-sixth (16.20%) of the total population of India and one-fifth (20.13%) of the total Hindu population. The Untouchables have been deprived of all types of social, religious, economic, and educational rights in Hindu society for centuries and to a large extent they are so even today.

Dalits have been facing many types of deprivations and disabilities. They have a long history of struggle to get equal status in Hindu society and politics. When . E.S. Montague, Secretary of State for India, made this important announcement in Parliament in 1917 '"The aim of the British Government is to give Dominion States to India, so the Dalits held two meetings in Bombay and presented their demand letter to the Viceroy and the visiting Secretary of State for India. As a result, the lower castes got an opportunity to present their problems in various provinces to the touring commission in advance of the Indian constitutional reforms of 1919.

Thereafter, a long and complex series of various commissions, conferences and councils took place. The Montague Chelmsford Report in 1918 was followed by the Muddiman Committee Report in 1924, which talked about the extremely low representation of the Depressed Classes in the counsels and measures to increase it. The Simon Commission (1928) accepted that the Depressed Classes should be given adequate representation. From 1930 to 1932, three Round Table Conferences were held in London in which the right of Dalits along with other minorities to cast their vote in the making of the future Constitution of India was recognised. This was a historic and decisive event. In these Round Table Conferences due to the effective representation and forceful presentation of Dalits by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Rao Bahadur R. Srinivasan, Dalits got the independent political right of separate electorate in the 'Prime Minister's Award' announced by the British Government on August 17, 1932. With this award, Dalits got the right to elect their own representatives through separate electorates on reserved seats and got the right to two votes to elect upper caste people in general caste constituencies. Thus, for the first time in the history of India, the Untouchables got the right to political freedom which could pave the way for their liberation.

By the said award, based on the recognition given to Dalits as a minority under the Government of India Act, 1919, along with other minorities - Muslims, Sikhs, Anglo Indians, and some others, they could get their representatives to the provincial legislatures and the Central Assembly in the form of separate electorates. They got the right to choose for themselves and the number of seats was fixed for all of them. In this, 78 seats were reserved as special constituencies for the Untouchables.

After the announcement of the said award, Gandhiji announced a fast unto death from September 20, 1932, in Yerwada (Poona) jail on August 18, 1932, in protest the right to separate elections for Dalits. Gandhiji believed due to this the untouchables would be separated from the Hindu society which would disintegrate the Hindu society and Hindu religion. It is known that he had no opposition to the same rights given to Muslims, Sikhs and Anglo-Indians. Taking note of this apprehension, Gandhiji sent a letter to the then British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald on August 18, 1932, appealing to abolish the separate electorate rights given to the Dalits decide for a joint electorate and save the Hindu society from disintegration n. In response to this, the British Prime Minister wrote in his letter dated September 8, 1932, "Under the plan of the British Government, the Depressed Classes will remain a part of the Hindu society and they will vote equally in Hindu electorates, but such a system will not be implemented for the first time. This will continue for twenty years and despite being a part of the Hindu society, there will be a limited number of special constituencies for them so that their rights and interests can be protected. In the present situation, it has become necessary to do so. Wherever there will be special constituencies, there will be special constituencies for general Hindus. The Dalits will not be deprived of voting in the general constituencies. Thus, the Dalits will have the right to two votes - one for their member in the special constituency and the other for the general members of the Hindu community. We have deliberately omitted what you call the communal election.: Dalit caste voters will be able to vote for the upper caste candidate in general Hindu constituencies and upper caste Hindu voters will be able to vote for the Dalit caste candidate in his constituency. In this way, the unity of the Hindu society has been preserved.” After giving some other arguments, he requested Gandhiji to leave the fast unto death.

But Gandhiji, in response, considered fasting unto death as his sacred religion and said that merely giving double voting rights to the Depressed Classes cannot prevent them and the Hindu society from disintegrating. He further said, "In my understanding, making arrangements for separate electorates for the Depressed Classes is an injection to destroy the Hindu religion. This will not benefit the Depressed Classes." Gandhiji had also given similar arguments in the second and third Round Table Conferences, in response to which Dr. Ambedkar rejected Gandhiji's claim of being the sole representative and well-wisher of the Dalits and asked him not to oppose the political rights of the Dalits.  He had also said that at present the Dalits are only demanding independent political rights and not for creating a separate country separate from the Hindus. But Gandhiji had a selfish interest in protecting the interests of the upper caste Hindus and keeping the Untouchables as slaves of the Hindu society. This was the reason why, denying all the facts and arguments, he started a fast unto death on September 20, 1932, against the right to separate electorates for the Untouchables. This was a critical situation. On one side there was a huge powerful Hindu community in Favor of Gandhiji, on the other side Dr. Ambedkar and the Untouchable community. Ultimately, due to immense pressure and fear of possible genocide of the Untouchables and with the aim of saving Gandhiji's life, Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues had to sacrifice the right to separate electorate for the Dalits and sign the so-called Poona Pact with the upper caste Hindus on September 24, 1932.  In this way, the Untouchables had to lose their right to political freedom due to Gandhiji's stubbornness.

Although according to the Poona Pact, the number of seats reserved for Dalits in the 'Prime Minister's Award' was increased from 78 to 151, but due to joint electorates, they were deprived of the right to choose their own representatives, the consequences of which are still being suffered by the Dalit community till date. The first elections were held in 1937 by including the provisions of the Poona Pact in the Government of India Act, 1935, in which, despite Gandhiji's assurance to the Dalit representatives that Congress would not interfere, Congress captured 78 out of 151 seats. Because in the joint electoral system, Dalits again became dependent on upper caste votes. Disgusted with this deceit of Gandhiji and Congress, Dr. Ambedkar had said, "Dalits have been cheated a lot in the Poona Pact."

The independent political existence of the Dalits could have been secured due to the dependence of the upper caste Hindus on the Dalits by allowing the untouchables to elect their own representatives in the form of separate elections through the Prime Minister's Award and by having the right to double vote, but the compulsion of making the Poona Pact forced the Dalits to again Made the upper caste Hindus slaves. Through this system, the MPs or MLAs who are elected on reserved seats are not actually elected by the Dalits but by the political parties and the upper castes, who have to live as their slaves/bondsmen. All political parties keep strict control over such representatives with slave mentality and do not allow them to raise or speak on any Dalit issue beyond the party line. This is the reason why the position of Dalit representatives in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies is like Bhishma Pitamah of Mahabharata, who when asked, "When Draupadi was being disrobed in the court of Kauravas, why did you not speak?" To this his reply was, "I have eaten the salt of the Kauravas." (Bhagwan Das)

In fact, the Prime Minister's Award gave Dalits independent political rights, enabling them to choose their own representatives and become their voice. Besides this, due to the right to double vote, the upper caste Hindus also depend on them in the general constituencies and do not dare to anger the Dalits. This could have created a new equation in the Hindu society which would have paved the way for Dalit liberation. But Gandhiji violated the political freedom of Dalits by making false claims of disintegration of Hindu society and Hindu religion and by adopting the unethical tactic of fasting unto death, due to which Dalits again became political slaves of the upper castes. In fact, Gandhiji's move was political to a great extent, which is also clear from what he later said to Sardar Patel on one occasion:

"I am horrified by the consequences of a separate electorate  for the Untouchables. Despite separate electorate rights for the other classes, I will still have scope for bargaining with them, but I will have no means of bargaining with the Untouchables. They do not know that a separate electorate will divide the Hindus so much that it will result in bloodshed. The Untouchable goons will join the Muslim goons and kill the Hindus. Does the British government have no idea of this? I don't think so." (Mahadev Desai, Diary, page 301, Ist volume).

From this t statement of Gandhiji, you can guess the real purpose of Gandhiji to force the Untouchables to sign the Poona Pact.

Due to the joint electorate system of Dalits and their dependence on upper-caste Hindus, no political party of Dalits can flourish, even if it is the Republican Party of India (RPI) founded by Dr. Ambedkar. For this reason, Dr. Ambedkar also had to face defeat in elections twice because the upper caste vote is decisive on reserved seats. For this reason, upper-caste parties win most of the reserved seats. It was because of these ill effects of the Poona Pact that Dr. Ambedkar had said that political reservation in the Constitution should be continued only for 10 years. But various political parties have been extending it continuously for 10-10 years till now, not in the interest of Dalits but for their own selfishness because this gives them the facility to elect their favourite and enslaved Dalit MPs and MLAs.

The upper caste Hindu political parties buy the Dalit leaders and the Dalit parties become weak and disintegrate. This is the reason why the Bahujan Samaj Party, the so-called Dalit party in North India, is also following the Brahmins and Baniyas and is forced to accept slogans like "It is Ganesh, not elephant, it is Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh". Now it has transformed from Bahujan to Sarvajan. Due to these circumstances, Dalits have suffered a lot and have become political slaves of the upper castes. Therefore, in this context, it would be appropriate to review the appropriateness of the Poona Pact. Should Dalits think of raising the demand for separate electorates again?

Although the terms of the Poona Pact included the abolition of untouchability, reservation in government services and provision of budget for the education of Dalits, the condition of their implementation remains pathetic even after 75 years of independence. Dr. Ambedkar, while expressing his apprehensions in a large meeting of upper caste Hindus in Bombay on September 25, 1932, called for the approval of the Poona Pact, and said, "We have only one concern. Will the future generations of Hindus agree to this agreement? Will you comply?" On this, all the upper caste Hindus said in one voice, "Yes, we will." Dr. Ambedkar also said, “We see that unfortunately, the Hindu community is not a united group but a federation of different communities. I hope and trust that you, on your part, will consider this accord sacred and will act in an honourable spirit." Do the upper caste Hindus today know a little about faithfully implementing this agreement made by their ancestors with the Dalits? There should be introspection. If they see their own harm in implementing this agreement honestly, then should they not return the political rights of separate electorates to the Dalits?

Now, since there is no possibility of restoration of separate electorate in the present circumstances, Dalits should take their politics out of caste politics and adopt politics of issues. Along with this, instead of voting for someone only based on caste, one should vote keeping in mind the work done by that person in the interest of the Dalit class. Dalits will also have to be free from hero worship, about which Babasaheb had fully cautioned. Instead of political isolation, Dalits should join hands with democratic, secular and progressive forces. They should remember that liberation for all lies in the liberation of Dalits.