For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Removal of Untouchability and Mahatma Gandhi-II

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Removal of Untouchability and Mahatma Gandhi-II

Whilst, then, I thank you I must register my complaint about one or two things. You have omitted all mention of that in the address, whether purposely or not I do not know. You have rightly mentioned truth and non-violence as my guiding principles. I would indeed be a lifeless corpse without those two life-principles. But I am surprised that you have studiously omitted all reference to the two things, pursuit of which is inseparable from the practice of truth and nonviolence. I refer to khaddar and removal of untouchability. These two things are in a manner more important than Hindu-Muslim unity, for that unity is impossible without them. So long as we have not rid Hinduism of the stain of untouchability, it is impossible to achieve real Hindu-Muslim unity. A very thoughtful Mussalman once told me that so long as there was untouchability in Hinduism it was difficult for Mussalmans to entertain any regard for that faith or its followers. I have repeated times without number that an “untouchable” community is unknown to the Shastras. The weaver and the scavenger are not classed as untouchables by the Shastras. I am both. My mother was certainly a scavenger inasmuch as she cleaned me when I was a child. But she did not, on that account, become an untouchable. Why then should a Bhangi, who renders similar necessary service, be regarded as untouchable? Even if the whole world of Shastris were to be against me I would proclaim from the housetops that they are wrong in considering untouchability to be part of the Hindu religion. 1

I have repeatedly told the Hindus of India what the removal of untouchability means to me and to those who are today engaged in that holy campaign. It does not mean the breaking up of Varnashrama dharma. It does not mean inter-dining or inter marriages. But it does mean the common relations between man and man that should exist in any civilized society. It does mean that places of worship should be open if they are at all open to anybody, to all those who are considered Hindus. But I grant that if there is a particular class, say, Brahmins, who want to build temples and exclude non-Brahmins from them. I say that it is their right to do so. But if there is a temple which is open to non-Brahmins also, then there is no such thing as a fifth caste which may be put out of that temple. I see no warrant for such exclusion in the Hindu Shastras. Similarly I claim that public places such as schools should be open alike to the untouchables, if they are open to other classes. So would it be with watering places such as wells, lakes and rivers. That is the whole of my claim on behalf of those who are engaged in this campaign against untouchability and inapproachability. 2

It was for him to dispose of the whole of my time in this place. He has to his heart the removal of untouchability as much as any of us. You have remarked upon the apathy of the young generation towards social service. To a certain measure, I endorse it. It is true that the young generation requires excitement rather than work. But let me also inform you that there are hundreds of people not known to the world, not known to fame, who display ability in social service of a character infinitely more difficult than the service that you have just now described not me. Here, in Madras you have the amenities of what is called civilization. The young men of whom I am talking to you, I have got their names in my mind; have devoted the whole of their time to social service in villages. They are barred from all intercourse with the outside world. They do not see the newspaper. Excitement has no place in their diary. They lived in the midst of people and live the same life they are living. I commend their unknown labour to your attention. Let their service, so whole-hearted and so self-sacrificing; be regarded as a penance for the other part of the young people. And let their self-sacrificing service be also a spur to effort for the rest of the younger generation who have not known what real service is.

The friend next asked me for a definition of a sanatani Hindu and say: “Could a sanatani Hindu Brahmin inter-dine with a Hindu non-Brahmin although the latter may be a non-vegetarian?” My definition of a sanatani Brahmin is: He who believes in the fundamental principles of Hinduism is a sanatani Hindu. And the fundamental principles of Hinduism are absolute believe in truth (satya) and ahimsa (non-violence). The Upanishads proclaim, the Mahabharata proclaims from the housetop: “Put in one scale all your rajasuyas, all your ashvamedhas and all your merits and put truth in the other scale, the scale in which truth is thrown will outweight everything else.” Therefore use truth as your anvil, non-violence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with ahimsa, reject as non-Hindu. For a fuller definition of sanatani Hindu I must refer the friends and those who have similar doubts to the pages of Young India. I have said repeatedly that inter-dining and intermarriage have no connection whatsoever with the removal of untouchability, for inter-dining or intermarrying is a matter of choice and should be so too with every human being. It is an indulgence, whereas untouchability is a refusal to serve our fellow beings. And truth and ahimsa demand that no human being may debar himself from serving any other human being, no matter how sinful he may be. 3

You have very clearly set forth what my ambition at the present moment is. Eating, walking, sleeping and doing everything, I can think of nothing but the spinning of khaddar, removal of untouchability and unity of almost all classes and races. But there is a limit to our capacity for doing the work in the last two things; all cannot pay equal contribution to the removal of untouchability and all cannot also pay equal contribution to the bringing together of the different classes say, at the present day, the Hindus and Mussalmans, or, as I now discover, the non-Brahmins and Brahmins. As I say, this is not one in which everyone could only assist or simply refrain by doing anything [sic]. Therefore, it takes a negative character; whereas in spinning and khaddar the young, the old and debilitated could do their very best. A little Panchama boy could beat Mr. Prakasam hollow, if he chooses, in hand-spinning, (Laughter.) and a man in the street can give points to Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, so far as wearing khaddar is concerned. 4

For, the opening of the roads is not the final but the first step in the ladder of reform. Temples in general, public wells, public schools must be open to the untouchables equally with the caste Hindus. But that is not the present goal of the satyagrahis. We may not force the pace. The schools are almost all open to the untouchables. The temples and the public wells or tanks are not. Public opinion should be carefully cultivated and the majority should be converted before the reform can be successfully carried out. Meanwhile, the remedy lies in founding temples and digging tanks or wells that would be open to the untouchables and to the other Hindus. I have no doubt that the movement for the removal of untouchability has made tremendous headway. Let us not retard it by indiscretion or over-zeal. Once the idea of pollution by the touch of a person by reason of his birth is gone, the rest is easy and bound to follow. 5

The Mahajan had also arranged a public meeting, which was very well attended. No one in the meeting opposed my views. It is my request to the Mahajan that those who disapprove of my activities should publicly expresses their opposition. If they do so with restraint, it will be easier for me to explain my views to them. Even if, however, they express their opposition in any terms and in any manner that they choose, I am in duty bound to put up with it. I am constrained to say this because I know that there are persons who oppose my views and do so with bitterness and exaggeration. I do not wish to say that those who support the movement for the removal of untouchability are also not guilty in the same way. Exaggeration and bitterness deserve to be condemned, wherever they may be found. 6

If, therefore, the persons who arranged this address were opposed or indifferent to the movement for the removal of untouchability, they had no right to do what they have done. An address should reflect the real sentiments of the heart. Perhaps there would have been some justification for showering flattery on me if I had been an officer or a chieftain. But I am neither; I am only a Bhangi, a Chamar, a farmer, and a servant. You can, of course, present an address even to a servant like me, but only if you approve of what is the most important aspect of my service. It is quite true that we cannot win swaraj without Hindu- Muslim unity. But what would it matter if they continue to fight with each other? Hinduism is not likely to perish in consequence. After we have done enough of fighting, one day we shall become united. Hinduism is not likely to perish even if khadi and the spinning-wheel are wholly forgotten, though, of course, we shall pay for our folly and starve. But unless the practice of untouchability is rooted out, we shall perish, Hinduism will perish, we shall have to hang our head in shame before the whole world. We shall have to face its challenge and people everywhere will laugh at our preaching a universal religion. 7

I am certainly not a pessimist, but I do not see much sign of hope. I shall begin to hope when we meet with demonstrable success in our internal programme meaning thereby the unity of all races in India, the removal of untouchability and the development of spinning and the use of khaddar. 8 So long as untouchability disfigures Hinduism, so long do I hold the attainment of swaraj to be an utter impossibility. Supposing it would be a gift descending from Downing Street to India that gift would be a curse upon this holy land. If we do not get rid of this curse, it would be a curse added to curse, swaraj without the freedom of the untouchables. But what are the implications of this removal of untouchability? Let the sanatani Hindus understand from me who claims to be a sanatani Hindu. I do not ask you to interdine with anybody; I do not ask you to exchange your daughters with the untouchables or with anybody, but I do ask you to remove this curse so that you may not put him beyond the pale of service. For me the removal of untouchability is the acceptance of the privilege of service to people whom we have kept under bondage in the sacred name of religion. Listen to me the sanatani Hindus of Calcutta that this Hinduism is in the balance and it will go down to perdition if you do not get rid of this untouchability So much and so far for untouchability. Then take the third item in your programme, the spinning-wheel and the khaddar. What do I ask of you? The millionaires of Calcutta, the barristers, the M. L. A. s and the M. L. C. s of Calcutta, what do I ask of you? The women of Calcutta, what do I ask of you, half an hour, in the name of God, for the sake of perishing and famishing humanity of India? Is it too much for you to give half an hour of your time to doing that to spinning for the sake of these poor people so that you can cheapen khaddar, so that I can tell the villagers of Bengal that the daughters and sons of millionaires are spinning? Why will you not spin?

Do you know that the villagers have lost faith in us, in them and in God Himself? Because they find that we often go to them, sometimes to collect money, sometimes with one programme and sometimes with another programme. They do not know where we want to lead them and so they are distrustful of us and when we take in our simplicity, the spinning-wheel to their homes, they smile at us the smile of no-confidence. They do not say: “We do not understand this instrument of yours. We do not know what meaning lies behind the spinning-wheel.” So when the villagers have forgotten the use and the beauty, the life-giving beauty of the spinning-wheel, they do not take to it kindly. If you want them to take to this home industry of yours kindly, then it is necessary for you to spin the wheel yourself. And remember again that, unless you take to spinning yourselves, you will not be able to make necessary improvements on it, you will not be able to re-establish this almost lost industry of India. No agricultural country in the world has yet lived which has not added a supplementary industry to it. And I defy any Indian, no matter how distinguished an economist he may be to show me an effective substitute for the millions of India who are scattered all over the land which is 1900 miles long and 1500 miles broad and scattered in 700 thousand villages most of which are outside even the railway tracts.

I defy anybody to propose or to show any effective substitute. But till such an effective substitute is placed before you, do not idle away your time, do not grudge the poor, down-trodden humanity of India, the half an hour that I ask of you, the Congress asks of you. And then, if you take to the spinning-wheel, what about its product? Why is this spinning-wheel a necessity? Because we want clothes made not in Manchester or Japan, made not in Ahmadabad or Bombay which did not stand Bengal in good stead at the time of Partition, but we want beautiful khaddar manufactured in our own village homes which always stands us in good stead. We want the villagers to be smiling with plenty; we want the people of Khulna, when again they have got famine, to know that they are not to live on doles of rice thrown at their face by a Dr. Ray, but I want the people of Khulna to feel that they do not need the assistance of even a Ray, because they have got the spinning-wheel to fall back upon. Let them not become beggars when they have got ready in their hands an instrument of living, an instrument which shall be insurance, a permanent insurance against famine. That is why I ask you to take up the spinning-wheel and khaddar and that is what has brought me to Bengal. As regards untouchability, my views are well-known and I have spoken from a thousand platforms. I believe that so long as there is untouchability among Hindus no good can come to them. It is a great sin and has no religious sanction behind it. How can Hindus be great when they condemn millions of their brothers as untouchables? I therefore appeal to everybody present here to remove the blot of untouchability and induce others to do so. The removal of untouchability does never mean destruction of varnashrama dharma which is a very beautiful and beneficial thing and never a bad one. But I know, in the name of varnashrama dharma, many wrongs are being done which must be removed. This does not mean that we are to interdine and inter-marry amongst each other. You must never forget the distinction between untouchability and varnashrama dharma. 9

What is the national programme today, Removal of untouchability by the Hindus, khaddar and Hindu-Muslim unity? I think all the three items are calculated to help a solution of your difficulties. Even Hindu-Muslim unity means more or less a solution of the untouchability question too, and khaddar can unite us as nothing else can. Yes, if people come to you with schemes of swaraj in which there is no provision for you, and to which they want your assent just for the political exigencies of the hour, or if missionaries come to you with all sorts of schemes in which special rights are asked for you, you will be on your guard. You will brush both aside. 10 Here there is evidently a confusion of thought, I know all about the manufactured addresses by Untouchables during the visit of the Prince of Wales. And whilst I know nothing about the British Government being at the back of the movement referred to by the correspondent I should not be at all surprised to find that the charge is well founded. The tendency of the Government is undoubtedly to divide us. Its strength lies in our divisions. Our unity will dissolve it. But such a policy of the Government is no proof of its interference with our work for untouchables. The Government, for instance, does not directly or indirectly obstruct us in removing untouchability, conducting schools for untouchables, digging wells for them or sharing our own with them. Reform on the part of the Hindus is a totally different thing from the exploitation of the untouchables. Indeed, that exploitation is a certainty if we obstinately refuse to do our duty and purge Hinduism of the curse. And we shall not be able to exert ourselves to the utmost in this direction if we put the blame on the shoulders of the Government and thus wait for the removal of untouchability till swaraj is attained. 11

The movement for the removal of untouchability in India is one of purification of Hinduism a religion that is professed by nearly two hundred and forty million human beings. It is estimated that over forty million human beings are regarded as untouchables. This untouchability takes in the Southern parts of India the extreme form even of inapproachability and invisibility. Untouchability is refraining on the part of the so-called higher classes from touching those who are branded with the stigma of untouchability. Unapproachable are those whose approach within a stipulated distance pollutes the higher classes. The invisibles are those whose very sight defiles. These outcastes of Hindu society are confined to what may be fitly described as ghettos. They are denied the usual services that in a well-ordered society are regarded as the right of every human being, such for instance as medical aid, the offices of barbers, washer men, etc. This suppression of a large number of human beings has left an indelible mark on the suppressors themselves and the canker of untouchability, is eating into the vitals of Hinduism, so much so that it has degraded what was at one time a noble institution. I mean varnashrama, falsely or perhaps loosely rendered as caste. What was meant to be a scientific division of labour and occupation has become an elaborate system regulating inter-dining and intermarriage. One of the noblest religions on earth has been reduced to a farcical code of dining and marriage rules. Why then do I cling to a religion which tolerates such a curse?

For the simple reason that I do not regard it as an integral part of Hinduism which is described as the religion par excellence of truth and non-violence or love. I have tried to understand the Hindu scriptures, some in the originals, the rest through translations. I have tried in my humble way to live up to the teachings of that religion. After having studied Christianity, Islam and other great faiths of the world, I have found in Hinduism my highest comfort. I have not found any to be perfect. I have discovered superstition and error in the practice of all these faiths. It is enough therefore for me that I do not believe in untouchability. I can certainly find no warrant in the Hindu scriptures for the belief that a simple person becomes untouchable by reason of his birth in a particular family or clan. But if I must call myself a Hindu, as I do, I owe it to my faith as I owe it to my country to fight the evil of untouchability with my whole soul, counting no cost too much for achieving the reform. Let not the reader imagine that I am the only reformer. There are hundreds of educated Indians, who take pride in calling themselves Hindus, fighting the evil with all their might. It is the accepted creed of the enlightened Hindus that swaraj is unattainable without the removal of the curse. The way we are combating the sin is to demonstrate to the so-called higher classes the enormity of the wrong and passing resolutions at mass meetings condemning the practice. The Congress has made the reform an integral part of its programme. The reformers seek also to improve the condition of the suppressed classes by opening schools for their children, digging wells for them, pointing out to them the bad habits they have contracted through the criminal neglect of the higher classes, and so forth. Whenever it is found necessary as at Vaikom (Vykom) even the direct method of Satyagraha is being adopted. In no case is violence offered to blind orthodoxy but an attempt is being made to win them over by patient argument and loving service. The reformers suffer for their cause without imposing suffering on their opponents. My conviction is that the effort is bearing fruit and that before long Hinduism will have purified itself of the sin of untouchability. 12

Hindu reformers who are intent on removal of untouchability should understand the implications of Vaikom Satyagraha and its results. The immediate goal of the satyagrahis was the opening of the roads surrounding the temple, not their entry into the latter. Their contention was that the roads should be opened to the so-called untouchables as they were to all other Hindus and even non-Hindus. That point has been completely gained. But whilst Satyagraha was directed to the opening of roads, the ultimate aim of reformers is undoubtedly removal of every disability that ‘the untouchables’ are labouring under and which the other Hindus are not. It therefore includes access to temples, wells, schools, etc., to which other non-Brahmins are freely admitted. But for achieving these reforms much remains to be done before the method of direct action can be adopted. Satyagraha is never adopted abruptly and never till all other and milder methods have been tried. The reformers of the South have to cultivate public opinion in the matter of temple-entry, etc. This is moreover a disability not peculiar to the South but unfortunately and, to our shame it must be admitted, common, to more or less extent, to Hinduism throughout India. I therefore welcome the decision of Sjt. Kelappan Nayar who was in charge of the camp at Vaikom to concentrate his effort on working among the unhappiest and the most suppressed among ‘the untouchables’, i.e., Pulayas whose very shadow defiles. It is a golden rule to follow out every direct action with constructive work, i.e., work of conservation. Reform has to be undertaken at both ends to make savarnas do their duty by the untouchables whom they have so cruelly suppressed and to help the latter to become more presentable and to shed habits for which they can in no way be held accountable but which nevertheless have to be given up if they are to occupy their proper place in the social scale. 13

There is a serious complaint against you that at a meeting the other day regarding the removal of untouchability, you made a speech at Trivandrum where you incited to violence and said that nothing but violence would teach the opponents of reforms. I have in my possession extracts from your speech which I under-stand has been taken down verbatim. I shall thank you to let me know whether there is any truth in this report. 14 Therefore, for me the appeal only for funds for the removal of untouchability has a value. It comes with a force all its own. For reform of Hinduism and for its real protection, removal of untouchability is the greatest thing. It is all-inclusive and, therefore, if this blackest spot on Hinduism is removed, you have automatically all that shuddhi and sangathan can be expected to yield. And I say this, not because of the vast number of untouchables whom every Hindu should seek to embrace as one of his own but because consciousness of having broken down a barbarous and ancient custom and consequent purity it necessarily implies gives a strength which is irresistible. Removal of untouchability therefore is a spiritual process. Swamiji was a living embodiment of that reformation because he had no half measures about it, because he would not compromise, he would give no quarter. If he could have had his way, he would have made short work of untouchability in Hinduism. He would have opened every well and every temple to every untouchable on conditions of absolute equality and he would have braved all consequences. I can conceive no more fitting memorial to Swami Shraddhanandji than that every Hindu should henceforth purge his heart of the uncleanliness which untouchability undoubtedly in and deal with the untouchable as with his own kith and kin. His monetary contribution to the memorial, therefore, will, in my opinion, be merely an earnest of his irrevocable resolution to root out the evil and cast it away once and for all from Hinduism. 15

There is, too, confusion regarding swaraj. The term swaraj has many meanings. When Sjt. Iyengar says that removal of untouchability has nothing to do with swaraj, I presume he means that its existence can be no hindrance to constitutional advance. It can surely have nothing to do with diarchy or greater and effective powers being given to the legislatures. Removal of untouchability is a social question to be handled by Hindus. Why should it prevent the Mussalman and the Parsi in common with the Hindu from having the power to regulate the military expenditure, to determine the ratio or to achieve total prohibition or to impose a prohibitive tariff on foreign cloth and protecting the indigenous industries? Real organic swaraj is a different question. That freedom which is associated with the term swaraj in the popular mind is no doubt unattainable without not only the removal of untouchability and the promotion of heart unity between the different sections but also without removing many other social evils that can be easily named. That inward growth which must never stop we have come to understand by the comprehensive term swaraj. And that swaraj cannot be had so long as walls of prejudice, passion and superstition continue to stifle the growth of that stately oak. 16

My experience tells me that the Kingdom of God is within us, and that we can realize it not by saying “Lord, Lord,” but by doing His will and His work if therefore we wait for the Kingdom to come as something coming from outside, we shall be sadly mistaken. I am glad you are with me in my programme. I may assure you then that whatever I do is done with the object of that realization. Untouchability, you say, you would like to see removed as much as I. Well, then, I may tell you that you cannot remove untouchability without whole-heartedly taking up khadi work, for that work includes removal of untouchability, and goes beyond it. Do you know that there are thousands of villages where people are starving and which are on the brink of ruin? If we would listen to the voice of God, I assure you we would hear Him say that we are taking His name in vain if we do not think of the poor and help them. Mr. Sam Higginbottom, a Christian missionary friend, came to see me the other day to discuss this very thing. Fortunately he met me just in that area where the spinning wheel and khadi had done their work. I ask you to go and visit such parts, and if you cannot do so, to take my word for it, that there is no better subsidiary occupation for the poor than khadi. If you cannot render the little help that they need, it is no use talking of service of God and service of the poor. Please go to the exhibition and see things for yourselves, and try to identify yourselves with the poor by actually helping them. 17

This removal of untouchability is not to be brought about by any legal enactment. It will only be brought about, when the Hindu conscience is roused to action, and of its own accord removes the shame. It is a duty the touchables owe to the untouchables. 18 You love to get a little bit of a rag, or cocoanut, or anything that you can get as prasadam from temples from which, alas, all holiness has fled. I would ask you to transfer that spirit of humility and devotion to khaddar which is spun and woven in the living temple of Daridranarayana. Our temples have their proper place in our religion and society only in so far they enable us to reach out the hand of fellowship to the starving millions of India. But these very temples will be the instruments of forging our shackles if they become impassable barriers between the masses and us. If you will wear khaddar in true spirit you will purify yourselves and the temples. I need not explain to you now, how the removal of untouchability necessarily follows from this proposition. 19

And above all, in a movement like that of the removal of untouchability which in my opinion is essentially religious and one of self-purification, there is no room for hate, no room for haste, no room for thoughtlessness and no room for exaggeration. Since Satyagraha is one of the most powerful methods of direct action, a satyagrahi exhausts all other means before he resorts to Satyagraha. He will therefore constantly and continually approach the constituted authority, he will appeal to public opinion, educate public opinion, state his case calmly and coolly before everybody who wants to listen to him, and only after he has exhausted all these avenues will he resort to satyagraha. But when he has found the impelling call of the inner voice within him and launches out upon Satyagraha he has burnt his boats and there is no receding. Let me; however, hope that it will not be necessary in this land for people to undergo all the suffering for removing a wrong which is so patent. 20

I was pained when these friends of the two deputations informed me that there were even some of the Congressmen who believed in untouchability and kept these men at a great distance. I should like to find that these men have been misinformed and that that charge cannot be sustained. But if there are any Congressmen who harbour untouchability in their hearts, as a Congressman expected to know something of the Congress creed and the Congress resolutions, I beg to inform you that such Congressmen should resign their membership. They should understand that the removal of untouchability is an integral part of the Swaraj Resolution that was taken up by the Congress at its first session under the new constitution, in my opinion that resolution has almost the sanctity of the Congress creed. To be true to the nation, to the Congress and to be true to ourselves, if we do not believe in the removal of untouchability it is open to us to challenge the Congress creed, to challenge that resolution or to move for its removal. You cannot be truthful if you harbour untouchability and still be a party to the resolution on untouchability.

But I have put before you after all only a miserable, worldly view of a thing which does not admit of playing with. What does it matter whether you are a Congressman or no Congressmen? Is it not your duty those who are Hindus to give due consideration to this great question and examine it in its religious significance? I regard the removal of this evil as really an acid test of Hinduism. In my own humble opinion the Brahmin-non-Brahmin question, the Hindu-Muslim question and so many other questions that afflict us today are but phases of this untouchability question. 21

There are, I know, some ‘reformers’ who are apt to think: ‘Better reform and serve our own castes before we reform and serve the Dheds.’ This way of thinking betrays impatience and ignorance, impotence because we fight shy of obstacles, and ignorance because we forget that all other reform of Hinduism is nothing worth until the main reform, viz., the removal of untouchability, is achieved. This blot poisons the whole system, even as a drop of arsenic would poison a thankful of milk. Remove this and you open the door for other reforms, retain this and you render other reforms nugatory. The disease of a consumptive unless the root cause is tackled remains just the same whether you remove or do not remove a few abscesses on his body. 22 If we are to attain swaraj by effort from within, I do consider removal of untouchability like achieving Hindu-Muslim unity as a condition precedent to the attainment of swaraj but when the English rulers resist the demand for swaraj because we have not attained fully removal of untouchability, I regard their resistance as hypocritical and illegitimate. 23

Untouchability, which has taken such deep roots in Hinduism, is altogether irreligious. Its removal has therefore been treated as an independent principle. The so-called untouchables have an equal place in the Ashram with other classes. The Ashram does not believe in caste which, it considers, has injured Hinduism, because its implications of superior and inferior status and of pollution by contact are contrary to the law of Love. The Ashram however believes in varnashrama dharma. The division of varnas is based upon occupation, and therefore a person should maintain himself by following the hereditary occupation, not inconsistent with fundamental morals, and should devote all his spare time and energy to the acquisition and advancement of true knowledge. The ashrams (the four stages) spoken of in the Smritis are conducive to the welfare of mankind. Though, therefore, the Ashram believes in varnashrama dharma, there is no place in it for distinction of varnas, as the Ashram life is conceived in the light of the comprehensive and non-formal sannyasa of the Bhagavad Gita. 24

I come next to the problem of untouchability which includes the question of the Dublas. Will you be able to bring together and establish harmonious relations between the Dublas and the Ujali population? Do you realize that unless this is done, you will never be able to found real swaraj? Or dare you hope that you will bring round the refractory by main force once swaraj is established? You cannot shirk these and like problems if you want to utilize your victory to win freedom for all India. By all means take up any other constructive work, if you can think of any, if the work that I have suggested does not appeal to you. One cannot go on fighting always. But an outlet must be found for our stored-up energy and that can only be through constructive work. We have a lot of corporate cleaning-up to do yet, a host of social evils to purge out. Miss Mayo’s book has been justly condemned as being written with a malicious motive. It is full of deliberate misstatements and palpable falsehoods. But I am not prepared to say that there is no basis in fact for anything she says. Surely, some of the evils mentioned by her do exist in our midst, though the inferences that she has drawn from them are wholly unjustifiable and unwarranted. Child-marriage, the marriage of young girls with aged men, the inhuman treatment often accorded to our widows is painful and grim realities that stare us in the face. How do we propose to deal with these evils? 25

Throughout the country there is too much trifling with the national finance. My friends, you do not know how much money has been voted away for Andhra Desha for khadi production and for the removal of untouchability and you will permit me to say that the way in which this money has been handled by the various workers to whom it has been entrusted has not been to me a happy experience. It is time we woke up from our dreams. Not until we are jealous of our national finances as we are of our own, not till we are jealous of the reputation of the nation as of our own shall we have swaraj. We have to be like Caesar’s wife above suspicion in all these matters if we are to deserve the name of national servants. It is not enough that workers do not use it for self, it is wrong when they use it carelessly or for purposes not intended. 26 Among others, I take first the address of welcome presented by the Municipal Council, in which the problems of untouchability have been referred to. It is also stated there that “We members of the Council, look forward with great hopes when your efforts for complete prohibition (of drink and other intoxicants) would attain success.” It is very surprising to me to see these two references. Let me tell you, the work is not mined alone in the matter of prohibition and the removal of untouchability. The responsibility lies more on the Municipal Councillors than on a private individual, and it rests very largely on the intelligent public. It would be an illusion that I am going to achieve these miracles. I am only urging you to be awake to your duty to your country which is now in intense suffering on account of these two evils. If we do not do our duty by our motherland, we will have been born in vain, and we would not be doing our dharma. 27

The Congress Working Committee has set up a separate committee for the removal of untouchability, of which Bharat Bhushan Pandit Malaviya is the President. Its Secretary is Shri Jamnalalji. Its office is at 395, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. The main objects of the committee are: 1. to get public temples thrown open to the Antyajas; 2. to secure for the Antyajas the use of public wells; 3. removal of the restrictions which face Antyaja children in public schools; 4. to improve their condition in respect of cleanliness; and 5. to induce them to give up their habit of eating carrion and taking liquor. The committee expects every Hindu to help in educating public opinion for this work. Those who are willing to assist in this task should correspond with Shri Jamnalalji at the above address. 28

If the Congress is at all ready to carry out the constructive work decided upon by itself and if it cannot influence one man in every four hundred, it will have no value. The programme of constructive work is such that everyone can take part in it. It is not like that of the legislature in which only a few people whose number can be counted on one’s fingers can participate. If we can find volunteers, we can get work from crores of people. Khadi work is such that the boycott cannot at all be an accomplished fact without the enthusiasm and help of crores of people. The removal of untouchability means the consent of 23 crore Hindus. Prohibition implies the effect of true self-purification on lakhs of Hindus and Muslims. These things can be done only if the Congress organization is alive, alert and pervasive. And if the Congress cannot even do this work, the job which we hope to accomplish by January 1 of the coming year will never get done. Hence I hope that even in this work, Gujarat will, as in the past, make a bigger contribution than its share, and well before the end of August. And if we want to do that, we must take a map of Gujarat and decide how many men must join the Congress from every part, that is, from every taluka, and the work must then be distributed accordingly. 29

Removal of untouchability in the face of Sanatanist opposition is unthinkable. Boycott of foreign cloth through mills we did not achieve, through khadi we cannot achieve. There thus remains nothing that we can possibly do. Hence swaraj is an impossible proposition and slavery our natural condition. This is a most debasing state for anyone to be in. 30 I do not like deception anywhere Whether corruption increases or decreases day by day has nothing to do with the removal of untouchability. The duty of removing it remains. I am not acquainted with Shri Aurobindo. 31 I believe the removal of untouchability to be equally essential for our purpose. Indeed I have no desire to obtain swaraj, even if it was possible, at the sacrifice of a single legitimate interest of a single minority. I do not believe the Mussalman to be the natural enemy of the Hindu nor the Englishman of the Indian. I want for my compassing my end the co-operation of both the Mussalman and the Englishman. My non-co-operation though it is part of my creed is a prelude to co-operation. My non-co-operation is with methods and systems, never with men. I may not harbour ill will even against a Dyer. I regard ill will as beneath the dignity of man. The reader should now have no difficulty, if he had been patient with me so far, in bearing with me for saying that I am no enemy of capital or of Indian States. I believe the one to be consistent with the highest status attainable by labour and the other with the highest status attainable by the people. Need I repeat my growing faith in the life-giving wheel and khadi? 32

But this untouchability will soon be a thing of past. Hindu society has become conscious of the hideous wrong done to man by this sinful doctrine. Hundreds of Hindu workers are devoting themselves to the uplift of these suppressed classes. Among them may be named late Swami Shraddhanandji and the late Lala Lajpat Rai. These, however, may not be regarded as orthodox. Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviyaji, who is accepted by all Hindus as an orthodox Hindu, has thrown in the weight of his great influence on the side of reform. Everywhere one sees the process of emancipation silently but surely and steadily going on. The so called higher-class Hindus are conducting schools and building hostels for them, giving them medical relief and serving them in a variety of ways. The effort is absolutely independent of the Government and is part of the process of purification that Hinduism is undergoing. Lastly, the Indian National Congress adopted removal of untouchability as a vital part of its constructive programme in 1920. It may not be superfluous to add that while untouchability is undoubtedly a grave social wrong, it has no legal sanction behind it. So far as I am aware, there is no legal disability against the ‘untouchables’. The reformer has still a stiff task before him in having to convert the masses to his point of view. The masses give intellectual assent to the reformers’ plea, but are slow to grant equality in practice to their outcaste brethren. Nevertheless, untouchability is doomed, and Hinduism is saved. And, as I have indicated above, our municipalities can do much to bring about this salvation. 33

There may be some technical difficulty in appointing Raja president of the Committee for the Removal of Untouchability. But I am not sure. I have an impression that the president should be a member of the Working Committee. But now the year is about to end. So let the present position continues. 34 In the beginning of the movement as I had conceived it on my return from South Africa in 1915, I had thought that it was wholly inconsistent with the movement for removing untouchaability to build separate temples or schools for them. But experience taught me that the movement could not proceed upon strict logic and that we Hindus had so much suppressed a third of ourselves that even after the articulate Hindus had with one voice declared for removal the suppressed brethren would for a long time need the helping hand in a variety of ways. After the theoretical lip-removal of untouchability, if no special effort was made, the vast bulk of them would not readily take advantage of the removal and the ignorant mass would not tolerate them especially when the latter would be naturally clumsy in their deportment or pardonably forward in the enjoyment of long withheld freedom. I am therefore convinced that the two things will have to go hand in hand perfect freedom to enter ordinary temples and ordinary schools and to use common wells at the same time as erection of model schools and model temples specially designed for the convenience of ‘untouchables’ but open to the others subject always to priority for ‘untouchables’. It was along this line of reasoning that I suggested in the brief note for the Calcutta Municipal Gazette that the municipalities could foster removal of untouchability by erecting temples and model schools for the suppressed classes side by side with the attempt to have the existing temples thrown open to these countrymen of ours. 35

The boycott of legislatures is also part of the programme for enforcing the national demand. This was a natural corollary to the independence resolution, and I am glad to say it is finding an adequate response from Congressmen. A constructive programme such as removal of untouchability, communal union, liquor prohibition, and the boycott of foreign cloth remains. These have tremendous social and economic value and also bear great political consequences. The Nehru constitution, with its tentative communal solution, naturally lapses. 36 Then take the removal of untouchability. While talking of this question, some think of removing physical untouchability, some talk of the removal of the so-called untouchables’ disabilities as regards the use of public wells, schools and temples. But you should go much further. You should love them even as yourselves so that the moment they see you they might feel that you are one of them. Then and then only will you be able to have their co-operation in the constructive programme. 37 It has been said that I have now abandoned my first love and that I have given up Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability and khaddar as conditions of swaraj. This is a mischievous suggestion. The fact is that I have given up nothing. Many new things have been added. Hence have I called the recent presentation a new orientation? There will be no swaraj without the old conditions being fulfilled. But there will be none if some more conditions are not also fulfilled. They might have been neglected altogether at the time of formulating the constitution. Now they form an integral part of any scheme of swaraj if it is conceived in the interest of the masses. Again civil disobedience is being offered irrespective of the full fruition of the various points; for it, being in substitution for an armed rebellion, can go on side by side with the prosecution of the amplified constructive programme even as an armed man will be fighting, whilst the civil population may be engaged in various other national pursuits, suspending them to the extent necessary for supporting the armed man. There is no danger of any one of the conditions of swaraj being neglected or given up as those who are engaged in civil disobedience are irrevocably committed to them. The question therefore is, who are guiding the civil disobedience movement? It is well if they are pure nationalists not directly or indirectly fostering communalism. Civil disobedience is the method whereby the nation is to generate the strength to reach her formulated goal. 38

As in the matter of Hindu-Muslim unity so has there been misrepresentation in the matter of untouchability It has been stated that I am sacrificing the interest of the untouchables for the sake of swaraj. I know that the lacs of untouchables will not believe any such thing of me. For me just as there is no swaraj without communal unity, so is there no swaraj without the removal of untouchability. But what I do feel is that without swaraj there will be neither communal unity nor removal of untouchability. He who runs may see that it is to the interest of the ruling caste to keep up the divisions among us. That caste is no more interested in Hindus and Mussalmans coming together than in the removal of untouchability. In examining the sources of revenue I endeavoured the other day to show how the Government was built on an immoral foundation. Even so has it built itself upon our weaknesses and our vices. Take the disgraceful Nasik quarrel. The Government knows that the Sanatanists are in the wrong.

But what has it done? Because they represent a powerful interest, the untouchables have been sacrificed. It was open to the authorities to get together the Sanatanists and reason with them. It was open to them to reason with the untouchables and ask them not to precipitate a fight. But this required an impartial mind, disinterestedness. But the Government is not disinterested. It rejoices to see the parties quarrel and then side with the strongest. I know that many good natured but ignorant Englishmen will cavil at this opinion. I can only tell them that it is based on everyday experience. I do not suggest that every time the action is deliberate. ‘Might is right’, ‘divide and rule’, have become the daily routine of the official world. Such being my deep conviction, I would be wronging the minorities and wronging the untouchables if I stopped the progress towards swaraj by inaction. I hold that as soon as we have realized the power that is lying dormant in every one of us, that very moment we shall be free and we shall feel the glow of real unity and the untouchables will also feel an accession of power. Let it be understood that everywhere the bands of civil resisters contain Mussalmans, members of other faiths as also untouchables, be these ever so few. The fact is that the foundations of swaraj are being laid by those who regard communal unity, equality of rights and opportunity and removal of untouchability as articles of faith. Let the untouchable brethren not be lured from the common goal because it was the presence of Englishmen that stimulated Hindu thought and brought to the untouchables a sense of their rights. The fact is there.

But the English did not descend upon India with any such benevolent motive. Their civilization or rather the Western civilization does not recognize distinctions in the manner decayed Hinduism does. We could have profited by this excellence of theirs without having the infliction of their rule. My indictment is not against the English as men, it is against Englishmen as the ruling caste. As men they are as good as we. In some respects they are better; in some others they may be worse. But as rulers they are highly undesirable. As rulers they can do, have done, no good to any of us. They have pandered to, and accentuated, our vices. And as we have developed the inferiority complex, their contact demoralizes us. I have watched ourselves acting one way in their presence, another way behind their backs. This is an unmanly and unmanning process; it is unnatural. “The tallest of us,” said Gokhale “has to bend before them.” When they come to their senses, they too will realize that their rule has no less debased them than us, now a word to the untouchables. I have advised them and I repeat the advice that it is wholly unnecessary for them to seek to force entry into the orthodox temples even through the method of Satyagraha. It is the duty of the ‘touchable’ Hindus to secure for the untouchables the freedom of the temples. It is for the ‘touchables’ to offer Satyagraha when the time is ripe. The untouchables know that the Congress has appointed, with Jamnalalji as the head, a committee for that very purpose.

They know that very great progress has been made in the matter of removal of untouchability; they know that all over India are to be found hundreds of well-known believing Hindus who will lay down their lives to remove untouchability. The reformers hold it to be their duty and penance to purge the Hindu society of the evil. Let the untouchables know that the vast majority of them are today engaged in this life-and-death struggle. If they realize the truth of the statements I have made, they will at least suspend the Satyagraha pending the struggle even if the whole mass of them will not join it as some of them have already done. The Hindu reformers have undertaken the work not as patrons, not to do the favour to the untouchables, certainly not to exploit them politically. They have undertaken the task because their conception of Hinduism peremptorily demands it. They have either to leave Hinduism or to make good the claim that untouchability is no part of it but that it is an excrescence to be rooted out. 39

This, too, is a new observance, like control of the palate, and may even appear a little strange. But it is of vital importance. Untouchability means pollution by the touch of certain persons by reason of their birth in a particular caste or family. In the words of Akha, it is an excrescence. In the guise of religion, it is always in the way and corrupts religion. None can be born untouchable as all are sparks of one and the same Fire. It is wrong to treat certain human beings as untouchables from birth. It is also wrong to entertain false scruples about touching a dead body, which should be an object of compassion and respect. It is only out of considerations of health that we bathe after touching a dead body or after an application of oil, or after a shave. A man who does not bathe in such cases may be looked upon as dirty, but surely not as a sinner. A mother may be “untouchable” so long as she has not bathed or washed her hands and feet after cleaning up her child’s dirt, but if a child happened to touch her, it would not be polluted by the touch. But Bhangis, Dheds, Chamar and the like are contemptuously looked down upon as untouchables from birth. They may bathe for years with any amount of soap, dress well and wear the marks of Vaishnavas, read the Gita every day and follow a learned profession, and yet they remain untouchables! This is rank irreligion fit only to be destroyed. By treating removal of untouchability as an Ashram observance, we assert our belief that untouchability is not only a part and parcel of Hinduism, but that it is a plague, which it is the bounden duty of every Hindu to combat. Every Hindu, therefore, who considers it a sin should atone for it by fraternizing with untouchables, associating with them in a spirit of love and service, deeming himself purified by such acts, redressing their grievances, helping them patiently to overcome ignorance and other evils due to the slavery of ages, and inspiring other Hindus to do likewise. When one visualizes the removal of untouchability from this spiritual standpoint, its material and political results sink into insignificance and we befriend the so-called untouchables regardless of such results.

Seekers after Truth will never waste a thought on the material consequences of their quest, which is not a matter of policy with them, but something interwoven with the very texture of their lives. Similar is the case of those who have vowed to remove untouchability. When we have realized the supreme importance of this observance, we shall discover that the evil it seeks to combat is not restricted in its operation to the suppressed classes Evil, no bigger than a mustard seed in the first instance, soon assumes gigantic proportions and in the long run destroys that upon which it settles. Thus this evil has now assailed all departments of life. We practise untouchability against followers of other religions than our own, against those who belong to other sects than our own within the Hindu fold and even against members of our own sect, so much so that, ever busy observing untouchability, we .become a burden on the earth. We have hardly enough time even to look after ourselves,. Thanks to the never-ending ablutions and exclusive preparation of food necessitated by false notions of untouchability. While pretending to pray to God, we offer worship not to God but to ourselves. This observance, therefore, is not fulfilled merely by our making friends with untouchables but by loving all life as our own selves. Removal of untouchability means love for and service of the whole world and thus merges into ahimsa. Removal of untouchability spells the breaking down of barriers between man and man, and between the various orders of beings. We find such barriers erected everywhere in the world; but here we have been mainly concerned with the untouchability which has received religious sanction in India and reduced lakhs and crores of human beings to a state bordering on slavery. 40

References: