COMPARISON IN UNTOUCHABILITY

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

COMPARISON IN UNTOUCHABILITY

 

 

 During my stay in Wardha, I had occasion to visit the untouchable quarters. The inmates seemed happy but the awakening that has come into being amongst them has made them dissatisfied with the progress of the campaign against the curse of untouchability. The resent the fact that they are still being debarred from the use of temples, wells and public schools in general. They cannot, they will not, understand that progress is ‘lame’ and, therefore, tantalizingly slow. They can see no reason; there is none, for the insufferable disabilities under which they are labouring. Two days after this interesting visit I discovered that in Wardha, thanks to the efforts of Jamnalalji, they were better off than anywhere else. They have several public wells open to them. They were freely admitted to the Municipal schools. As orphans they had the same facilities as the others. They had free use of public water-taps. And a continuous attempt was being made to break down completely the wall of prejudice against them. About the same time that I was having experiences of the thought- current of the untouchable brethren, I had to rehearse to myself the incidents of the untouchability of South Africa. I had to do so in view of the Round Table Conference that is deliberating there at present.

We who are responsible for Indian untouchability are ourselves victims of it in South Africa. It is a case over again of ‘the biter bitten’. We have sown the wind in India; we are reaping the whirlwind in South Africa. The Conference is now sitting to consider whether there is a way out. Andrews is making herculean efforts to bring about a happy result. He has mobilized the purest forces of South Africa in favour of the cause. Let us, however, see the difference between the two untouchabilities. The Indian is withering. The axe has been laid at its root. Enlightened public opinion is against it. No one whose opinion carries any weight defends it. The chains that bind the ‘untouchables’ are daily being broken. Law does not countenance it. What there is of it is all due to the persistence of custom. Customs die hard; they long survive the withdrawal of legal sanction, especially if they are ancient. The disappearance of Indian untouchability is now purely a question of time. The South African species on the other hand is growing into a hardy tree. It is being daily armed with fresh legal sanctions. The legal disabilities of the Indian untouchables of South Africa have grown with every sitting of the Union Parliament since 1915 in spite of the final settlement of 1914. It is spreading in other parts of the British Empire, as was made plain by the Kenya letter printed last week in these columns. It is against this growing evil that Andrews is fighting almost single-handed in South Africa. Let us hope that his efforts will be crowned with success. But the very best way of dealing with the evil no doubt is to rid ourselves of it in India.

The members of the Union Deputation were heard to say more than once that it would be time for Indians to agitate for the removal of the bar in South Africa when they had got rid of it in India. No doubt they forgot or did not know that with us here, there was no legislative bar against the untouchables. But it would ill become us to advance an argument of that nature when we are seeking justice. There is a fine legal maxim which is applicable to our case. Those who seek justice must come with clean hands. The best case therefore that we can prepare against South African untouchability is to put our own house in order. Till then, I suppose, we will have to be content with what palliatives the Round Table Conference secures for us. There is the other side to the question. The untouchables owe something to themselves and to India. But I must deal with this phase of the question in another article.