SPEECH PREPARED BY Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR
FOR
The 1936 Annual Conference of the Jaat-Paat-Todak Mandal of Lahore
BUT
NOT DELIVERED
Let me now
turn to the Socialists. Can the Socialists ignore the problem arising out of
the social order? The Socialists of India following their fellows in Europe are
seeking to apply the economic interpretation of history to the facts of India.
They propound that man is an economic creature, that his activities and
aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is the only source of
power. They, therefore, preach that political and social reforms are but
gigantic illusions and that economic reform by equalization of property must
have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may join issue on every
one of these premises on which rests the Socialists’ case for economic reform
having priority over every other kind of reform. One may contend that economic
motive is not the only motive by which man is actuated. That economic power is
the only kind of power no student of human society can accept. That the social
status of an individual by itself often becomes a source of power and authority
is made clear by the sway which the Mahatmas have held over the common man. Why
do millionaires in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs? Why do millions of
paupers in India sell their trifling trinckets which constitute their only
wealth and go to Benares and Mecca? That, religion is the source of power is
illustrated by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the
common man often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such
things as strikes and elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so
easily be given a religious twist. Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a
further illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light
on this point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under the
Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul elected by a
separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which was an
assembly of Plebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they felt that
the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in carrying on
the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain because under the
Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the power of vetoing an act of
the other Consul. But did they in fact gain anything? The answer to this
question must be in the negative. The Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul
who could be said to be a strong man and who could act independently of the
Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course of things the Plebians should have got
a strong Plebian Consul in view of the fact that his election was to be by a
separate electorate of Plebians. The question is why did they fail in getting a
strong Plebian to officiate as their Consul? The answer to this question
reveals the dominion which religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an
accepted creed of the whole Roman populus that no official could enter
upon the duties of his office unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was
acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who were in charge of the temple of the
Goddess of Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected
a Consul who was known to be a strong party man opposed to the Patricians or
“communal” to use the term that is current in India, the Oracle invariably
declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how the Plebians
were cheated out of their rights. But what is worthy of note is that the
Plebians permitted themselves to be thus cheated because they too like the
Patricians, held firmly the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a
condition precedent to the taking charge by an official of his duties and that
election by the people was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that
election was enough and that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary they
would have derived the fullest benefit from the political right which they had
obtained. But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to
themselves but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant more amenable
to the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material gain
for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can be a
source of power as great as money if not greater? The fallacy of the Socialists
lies in supposing that because in the present stage of European Society
property as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true of India or
that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status and
property are all sources of power and authority, which one man has, to control
the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage, the other is
predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If liberty is the
ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man holds
over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic reform
must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of power and
dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and religious then
social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of
reform.
One can
thus attack the doctrine of Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the
Socialists of India. But I recognize that economic interpretation of history is
not necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that equalization of
property is the only real reform and that it must precede everything else.
However, what I like to ask the Socialists is this: Can you have economic
reform without first bringing about a reform of the social order? The
Socialists of India do not seem to have considered this question. I do not wish
to do them an injustice. I give below a quotation from a letter which a
prominent Socialist wrote a few days ago to a friend of mine in which he said,
“I do not believe that we can build up a free society in India so long as there
is a trace of this ill-treatment and suppression of one class by another.
Believing as I do in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in perfect
equality in the treatment of various classes and groups. I think that Socialism
offers the only true remedy for this as well as other problems.” Now the
question that I like to ask is: Is it enough for a Socialist to say, “I believe
in perfect equality in the treatment of the various classes?” To say that such
a belief is enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding of what is
involved in Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and is not merely
an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not whether he
believes in equality. The question for him is whether he minds one class
ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system, as a matter
of principle and thus allow tyranny and oppression to continue to divide one
class from another. Let me analyse the factors that are involved in the
realization of Socialism in order to explain fully my point. Now it is obvious
that the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come about
unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That seizure of
power must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is: Will the
proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution? What will move men
to such an action? It seems to me that other things being equal the only thing
that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling that other man
with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality and fraternity and
above all of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for the equalization of
property unless they know that after the revolution is achieved they will be
treated equally and that there will be no discrimination of caste and creed.
The assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that he does not believe in
caste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance must be the assurance
proceeding from much deeper foundation, namely, the mental attitude of the
compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal equality and
fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is,
recognise no distinctions except that of the rich and the poor? Can it be said
that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed, high
or low? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from
such a proletariat in its action against the rich? How can there be a
revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? Suppose for the
sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place and
the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal with the problems
created by the particular social order prevalent in India? I can’t see how a
Socialist State in India can function for a second without having to grapple
with the problems created by the prejudices which make Indian people observe
the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to
be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make
Socialism a definite reality then they must recognize that the problem of
social reform is fundamental and that for them there is no escape from it.
That, the social order prevalent in India is a matter which a Socialist must
deal with, that unless he does so he cannot achieve his revolution and that if
he does achieve it as a result of good fortune he will have to grapple with it
if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition which in my opinion is
incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account of caste after
revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution. This is only
another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, caste is the
monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you cannot
have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.
No comments:
Post a Comment