WHAT CONGRESS AND
GANDHI HAVE DONE
TO
THE
UNTOUCHABLES
_____________________________________________
AN ABJECT SURRENDER
Congress
Beats An Inglorious Retreat
I
The Poona Paet was signed on, the 24th September
1932. On 25th September 1932, a public meeting of the Hindus was held in Bombay to accord
to it their support. At that meeting the following resolution was passed :—
"This Conference confirms the Poona
agreement arrived at between the leaders of the Caste Hindus and Depressed Classes on
September 24, 1932, and trusts that the British Government will withdraw its decision
creating separate electorates within the Hindu community and accept the agreement in full.
The Conference urges that immediate action be taken by Government so as to enable Mahatma
Gandhi to break his fast within the terms of his vow and before it is too late. The
Conference appeals to the leaders of the communities concerned to realise the implications
of the agreement and of this resolution and to make earnest endeavour to fulfil them.
"This Conference resolves that
henceforth, amongst Hindus, no one shall be regarded as an Untouchable by reason of his
birth, and that those who have been so regarded hitherto will have the same right as other
Hindus in regard to the use of public wells, public schools, public roads, and all other
public institutions. This right shall have statutory recognition at the first opportunity
and shall be one of the earliest Acts of the Swaraj Parliament, if it shall not have
received such recognition before that time.
"It is further agreed that it shall be
the duty of all Hindu leaders to secure, by every legitimate and peaceful means, an early
removal of all social disabilities now imposed by custom upon the so-called Untouchable
Classes, including the bar in respect of admission to temples."
This resolution was followed by a feverish
activity on the part of the Hindus to throw open Temples to the Untouchables. No week
passed in which the Harijan a weekly paper started by Mr. Gandhi which did not publish a
long list of temples thrown open, wells thrown open and schools thrown open to the
Untouchables set out under special column headed "Week to Week" on the first
page. As samples I produce below these "Week to Week" columns from two issues
from the Harijan.
'HariJan'
of 18th February 1933
WEEK: TO WEEK
(During the Week ending 7th February 1933)
TEMPLES THROWN OPEN |
Gorakhpur Town, U.P. |
One temple recently built at a cost of a lakh
and half rupees in North Calcutta. One temple in village
Bhapur, district Ganjam, Madras. One Thakurdwar temple at Naurania, in
Jullundar, Punjab. WELLS OPENED 0ne Municipal well at Guriapur in Jaipur town,
district Cuttack, Orissa. Two wells in Wazirpura and Nikigali, Agra, U.P. In Trichinopoly (Madras) an orthodox Brahmin
has offered expenses necessary for digging three wells for the common use of Harijans and
caste Hindus. SCHOOLS STARTED A free school in Bachrota, district Meerut,
U.P. One school at Metah district in Rajputana. Three schools at Fatehpur, Chernun and Abhaypur
in Jaipur State, Rajputana. One school at Fatehghar, district Farukhabad,
U.P. Three night schools in Muttra, U.P. Three night
schools in |
One night school in Hata Tehsil, District Gorakhpur, U.P. One
night school at Sak-honia. INDIAN STATES 1. The Palitana State (Kathiawar) Assembly has passed by
a large majority three resolutions relating to the facilities to be given to the Harijans. 2. A standing committee-has been appointed by
the Government of Sandhur State, Madras, to concert measures calculated to ameliorate the
condition of the Harijans in the State. GENERAL 1. The Harijans in various villages near Kashia
in Gorakhpur district have given up carrion eating. 2. On the occasion of the ' Basantpanchami '
festival ' Basantotsava ' was celebrated at Muzaffarpur (Bihar) under the auspices of the
Harijan Seva Sangh in the temple of Sri Chaturbhujnathji in which all castes of Hindus
took part. A. V. thakkar,
General Secretary. |
Sjt. V. R. Shinde, President, All-India
Anti-Untouchability League and Founder-Trustee of the Depressed Mission Society of India,
Poona, has addressed an open letter to the members of the Legislative Assembly on Sjt.
Ranga Iyer's Untouchability Bills, strongly urging them to support the two measures. In Taikalwadi in ' G ' Ward of Bombay, there
was an outbreak of fire recently which caused very serious damage to the huts and
belongings of 48 Mahar families. The President of the Bombay Provincial Board of the
Servants |
of Untouchables Society sanctioned Rs. 500 for
giving relief to these families, and the relief was organised by a sub-Committee of the
'G' Ward Committee of the Society. A sum of Rs. 402-8 was distributed as an urgent measure
of help to the 48 families, containing in all 163 persons. The Bombay Government has issued orders that
requests from local bodies for assignment of Government lands for wells, tanks,
dharamshalas, etc., should not be granted except on condition that all castes alike will
have equal use of such wells, tanks, etc. |
'Harijan'
of July 15, 1933
WEEK
TO WEEK
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Three reading rooms for Harijans have been
opened in the North Arcot District by the S.U.S. In the Madura District S.U. S. workers got
Harijan children admitted into the Viraganur taluq board school. Banians, towels, slates, etc. were distributed
free to the children of the Melacheri school established by the Madura S.U.S. Two Harijan students of Ramjas College, Delhi,
have been allowed free scholarship and free lodging and one a free scholarship by
Principal Thadani of the College. One night school for adult Harijans was opened
under decided to start a hostel for Harijan students in Urava-konda. Some provisions and
money have already been collected and it is intended to start the hostel with 20 students. Owing to the unremitting efforts of the
District Harijan Seva Sangham, Guntur, Harijan boys have been allowed into the savarna
schools in a manner of villages and towns. wells Three wells in Coimbatore District which were
in a bad condition, were cleaned and made available for use. The District Board President, South Arcot, has
promised to dig four wells in cheries selected by the S.U.S. During the fortnight ending 31-5-33, no less
than 125 wells in all were opened to Harijans and 5 new ones constructed in Andhradesh. GENERAL A shop has been opened in a bustee near Hogg
Market (Calcutta) where Doms live, for supplying them
with articles of food at cheap rates. Rs. 60 has been paid by the S.U.S. Bengal for
paying up the debts of a Harijan family at Bibi Bagan bustee (Calcutta). The Arnrita Samaj (Calcutta) has given service
to some Harijans. 450 Harijans of Bolpur (Birbhum)have given up
drinking habits and 1,275 Muchis have taken a vow not to take beef. |
the auspices of the Lahore Harijan Seva Sangh
in the Harijan quarters outside Mochi Gate. The opening ceremony was performed by Mrs.
Brij Lal Nehru. It has been decided to start one more hostel
for Harijan students in Brahmana Kodur (Guntur). The East Godavery District Harijan Seva Sangham
has resolved to start a hostel for Harijan Girl Students studying in Coconada. A sum of
Rs. 630, 20 bags of rice, fuel necessary for one year, have been already received as
donations for the hostel, which will be started with 15 students. The Anantapur District Harijan Seva Sangam has
Three new district centres of S.U.S. have been opened during the month in Bankura,
Murshidabad, and 24 Par-gana.s. Trichinopoly, Tanjore, Tin-nevelley, Salem.
Dindigul, North Arcot and Madura have all taken up the idea of a Gandhi Harijan
Service corps for direct and personal service in the cheris. Alandural, a Harijan village 12 miles from
Coimbatore was ^iven Rs. 25 worth of grain, Rs. 100 worth of cloth and Rs. 5 worth of oil,
as relief after a lire in the village. A Harijan Youth League has been formed in
Chidam-baram. A shop to supply provisions at cost price to
the Harijans has been set up in Tenali and is being made use of by them. A sum of Rs. 110 was spent in giving help for
rebuilding houses of Harijans in Valanna Paleni (East Kistna) recently destroyed by Fire. A sum of Rs. 100 was contributed by the
Provincial Committee towards the relief of Harijans in Yellamanchili (Vizag) who lost
their houses by a fire. The local Harijan Seva Sangham is endeavouring to erect new houses
for the Harijans in a better locality and is collecting donations— in cash and
building materials. One Harijan has been employed as a servant by a
savarna gentleman in Golla-palem. |
When the owners or trustees of temples were not
prepared to throw open their temples to the Untouchables, the Hindus actually started
satyagraha against them to compel them to fall in line. The satyagraha by Mr. Kelappan for
securing entry to the Untouchables in the temple at Guruvayur was a part of this
agitation. To force the hands of the trustees of the temples who had the courage to stand
against the current, many Hindu legislators came forward, tumbling over one another, with
Bills requiring the trustees to throw open temples to the Untouchables if a referendum
showed that the majority of the Hindu worshippers voted in favour. There was a spate of
such Bills and a race among legislators to take the first place. There was a Temple Entry
Bill by Dr. Subbaroyan of the Madras Legislative Council. There were four Bills introduced
in the Central Assembly. One was by Mr. C. S. Ranga Iyer, another by Mr. Harabilas Sarda,
a third by Mr. Lalchand Navalrai, and a fourth one by Mr. M. R. Jayakar.
In this agitation Mr. Gandhi also joined.
Before 1932, Mr. Gandhi was opposed to allow Untouchables to enter Hindu Temples. To quote
his own, words Mr. Gandhi said 23[f.1] :—
"How is it possible that the Antyajas
(Untouchables) should have the right to enter all the existing temples ? As long as the
law of caste and ashram has the chief place in Hindu Religion, to say that every Hindu can
enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today."
His joining the movement for Temple entry must
therefore remain a matter of great surprise. Why Mr. Gandhi took this somersault it is
difficult to imagine. Was it an honest act of change of heart, due to a conviction that he
was in error in opposing the entry of the Untouchables in Hindu temples ? Was it due to a
realisation that the political separation between the Hindus and the Untouchables brought
about by the Poona Pact might lead to a complete severance of the cultural and religious
ties and that it was necessary to counteract the tendency by some such measure as Temple
Entry as will bind the two together ? Or was his object in joining the Temple Entry
movement to destroy the basis of the claim of the Untouchables for political rights by
destroying the barrier between them and the Hindus which makes them separate from the
Hindus ? Or was it because Mr. Gandhi saw before him looming large a possibility of adding
to his name and fame and rushed to make the most of it, as is his habit to do ? The second
or the third explanation may be nearer the truth.
What was the attitude of the Untouchables to
this movement for Temple entry? I was
asked by Mr. Gandhi to lend my support to the movement for Temple entry. I declined to do
so and issued a statement on the subject to the Press. As it will help the reader to know
the grounds for my attitude to this question I have thought it well to set it in full.
Here it is !
Statement on Temple Entry Bill
14th February, 1933
Although the controversy regarding the question
of Temple Entry is confined to the Sanatanists and Mahatma Gandhi, the Depressed Classes
have undoubtedly a very important part to play in it, in so far as their position is bound
to weigh the scales one way or the other when the issue comes up for a final settlement.
It is, therefore, necessary that their viewpoint should be defined and stated so as to
leave no ambiguity about it.
To the Temple-Entry Bill of Mr. Ranga Iyer as
now drafted, the Depressed Classes cannot possibly give their support. The principle of
the Bill is that if a majority of Municipal and Local Board voters in the vicinity of any
particular temple on a referendum decide by a majority that the Depressed Classes shall be
allowed to enter the temple, the Trustees or the Manager of that temple shall give effect
to that decision. The principle is an ordinary principle of Majority rule, and there is
nothing radical or revolutionary about the Bill, and if the Sanatanists were a wise lot,
they would accept it without demur.
The reasons why the Depressed Classes cannot
support a Bill based upon this principle are two: One reason is that the Bill cannot
hasten the day of temple-entry for the Depressed Classes any nearer than would otherwise
be the case. It is true that under the Bill, the minority will not have the right to
obtain an injunction against the Trustee, or the Manager who throws open the temple to the
Depressed Classes in accordance with the decision of the majority. But before one can draw
any satisfaction from this clause and congratulate the author of the Bill, one must first
of all feel assured that when the question is put to the vote there will be a majority in
favour of Temple Entry. If one is not suffering from illusions of any kind one must accept
that the hope of a majority voting in favour of Temple-Entry will be very rarely realised,
if at all. Without doubt, the majority is definitely opposed to-day—a fact which is
conceded by the author of the Bill himself in his correspondence with the Shankracharya.
What is there in the situation as created after
the passing of the Bill, which can lead one to hope that the majority will act differently
? I find nothing. I shall, no doubt, be reminded of the results of the referendum with
regard to the Guruvayur Temple. But I refuse to accept a referendum so overweighted as it
was by the life of Mahatma Gandhi as the normal result. In any such calculations, the life
of the Mahatma must necessarily be deducted.
Secondly, the Bill does not regard
Untouchability in temples as a sinful custom. It regards Untouchability merely as a social
evil not necessarily worse than social evils of other sorts. For, it does not declare
Untouchability as such to be illegal. Its binding force is taken away, only, if a majority
decides to do so. Sin and immorality cannot become tolerable because a majority is
addicted to them or because the majority chooses to practise them. If Untouchability is a
sinful and an immoral custom, then in the view of the Depressed Classes it must be
destroyed without any hesitation even if it was acceptable to the majority. This is the
way in which all customs are dealt with by Courts of Law, if they find them to be immoral
and against public policy.
This is exactly what the Bill does not do. The
author of the Bill takes no more serious view of the custom of Untouchability than does
the temperance reformer of the habit of drinking. Indeed, so much is he impressed by the
assumed similarity between the two that the method he has adopted is a method which is
advocated by temperance reformers to eradicate the evil habit of drinking, namely, by
local option. One cannot feel much grateful to a friend of the Depressed Classes, who
holds Untouchability to be no worse than drinking. If Mr. Ranga Iyer had not forgotten
that only a few months ago Mahatma Gandhi had prepared himself to fast unto death if
Untouchability was not removed, he would have taken a more serious view of this curse and
proposed a most thoroughgoing reform to ensue its removal lock, stock and barrel. Whatever
its shortcomings may be from the standpoint of efficacy, the least that the Depressed
Classes could expect is for the Bill to recognise the principle that Untouchability is a
sin.
I really cannot understand how the Bill
satisfies Mahatma Gandhi, who has been insisting that Untouchability is a sin ! It
certainly does not satisfy the Depressed Classes. The question whether this particular
Bill is good or bad, sufficient or insufficient, is a subsidiary question.
The main question is: Do the Depressed Classes
desire Temple Entry or do they not ? This main question is being viewed by the Depressed
Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it,
the Depressed Classes think that the surest way for their elevation lies in higher
education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well
placed in the scale of social life, they would become respectable and once they become
respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change,
and even if this did not happen, it can do no injury to their material interest.
Proceeding on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their
resources on such an empty thing as Temple Entry. There is also another reason why they do
not care to fight for it. That argument is the argument of self-respect.
Not very long ago there used to be boards on
club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which said
"Dogs and Indians" not allowed. The temples of Hindus carry similar boards
to-day, the only difference is that the boards on the Hindu temples practically say :
"All Hindus and all animals including dogs are admitted, only Untouchables not
admitted. " The situation in both cases is on a parity. But Hindus never begged for
admission in those places from which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them.
Why should an Untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by
the arrogance of the Hindus ? This is the reason of the Depressed Class man who is
interested in his material welfare. He is prepared to say to the Hindus, "to open or
not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If
you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality. open your
temples and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than be gentleman, then shut the
doors and damn yourself for I don't care to come."
I found it necessary to put the argument in
this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men like Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya of
their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward expectantly for their
patronage.
The second point of view is the spiritual one.
As religiously minded people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not
? That is the question. From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to
temple entry as they would be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But
their final answer must depend upon the reply which Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus give to
the question namely : What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry ? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the
advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold ? Or is it
only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal ? Temple Entry
as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support. Indeed they will not only reject
it, but they would then regard themselves as rejected by Hindu Society and free to find
their own destiny elsewhere. On the other hand. if it is only to be a first step in the
direction they be may be inclined to support it. The position would then be analogous to
what is happening in the politics of India to-day. All Indians have claimed Dominion
Status for India. The actual constitution will fall short of Dominion Status and many
Indians will accept it. Why ? The answer is that as the goal is defined, it does not
matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in one jump. But if the British had
not accepted the goal of Dominion Status, no one would have accepted the partial reforms
which many are now prepared to accept. In the same way, if Mahatma Gandhi and the
reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they have sot before themselves is for the
advancement of the Social Status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold, it would be
easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards Temple Entry. The goal
of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the information and
consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a religion, which will
give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding, I would like to
elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils which are the results of
secular causes and social evils which are founded upon the doctrine of religion. Social
evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more
odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the
ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequities to which
they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that
will lend its support to the continuance of these inequities.
If the Hindu religion is to be their religion,
then it must become a religion of Social Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious
code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot
make it a religion of equality of social status. All
that it can do is to recognise them as nationals and not aliens, if I may use in this
connection terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they
would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal, without being above or
below any one else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the
principle of equality of social status; on the other hand it fosters inequality by
insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatrias, Vaishyas and Shudras, which now
stand towards one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of
contempt. If the Hindu religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment
of its code to provide temple-entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the
doctrine of Chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all in equality and also the parent of
the caste system and Untouchability, which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is
done not only will the Depressed Classes reject Temple Entry, they will also reject the
Hindu faith. Chaturvarna and the Caste system are incompatible with the self-respect of
the Depressed Classes. So long as they stand to be its cardinal doctrine the Depressed
Classes must continue to be looked upon as low. The Depressed Classes can say that they
are Hindus only when the theory of Chaturvarna and caste system is abandoned and expunged
from the Hindu Shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal
and will they show the courage to work for it? I shall look forward to their
pronouncements on this issue, before I decide upon my final attitude. But whether Mahatma
Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not, let it be known once for all that
nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes and make them accept Temple
Entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it; is to temporise with evil and barter
away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in them.
There is. however, one argument which Mahatma
Gandhi and the reforming Hindus may advance against the position I have taken. They may
say: "acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple Entry now, will not prevent them
from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste. If that is their
view, I like to meet the argument right at this stage so as to clinch the issue and clear
the road for future developments. My reply is that it is true that my right to agitate for
the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste System will not be lost, if I accept Temple Entry
now. But the question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be at the time when the question
is put. If he will be in the camp of my opponents, I must tell him that I cannot be in his
camp now. If he will be in my camp he ought to be in it now.
B. R. AMBEDKAR.
Dewan Bahadur R. Srinivasan who along with me
represented the Untouchables at the Round Table Conference also did not support the
movement for Temple entry. In a statement to the Press, he said :—
"When a Depressed Classes member is
permitted to enter into the caste Hindu temples he would not be taken into any one of the
four castes, but treated as man of fifth or the last or the lower caste, a stigma worse
than the one to be called an Untouchable. At the same time he would be subjected to so
many caste restrictions and humiliations. The Depressed Classes shun the one who enters
like that and exclude him as casteman. The crores of Depressed Classes would not submit to
caste restrictions. They will be divided into sections if they do. 'Temple entry cannot be
forced by law. The village caste-men openly or indirectly defy the law. To the village
Depressed Class man it would be like a scrap of paper on which the "sugar" was
written and placed in hands for him to taste. The above facts are placed before the public
in time to save confusion and disturbance in the country."
To the question I put to Mr. Gandhi in, my
statement he gave a straight reply. He said that though he was against untouchability he
was not against caste. If at all, he was in favour of it and that he would not therefore
carry his social reform beyond removing untouchability. This was enough for me to settle
my attitude. I decided to take no further part in it.
The only leading member from the Untouchable
community was the late Dewan Bahadur Rajah. One cannot help saying that he played a very
regrettable part in this business. The Dewan Bahadur was a nominated member of the Central
Assembly from 1927. He had nothing to do with the Congress either inside or outside the
Assembly. Neither by accident nor by mistake did he appear on the same side of the
Congress. Indeed, he was not merely a critic of the Congress but its adversary. He was the
staunchest friend of the Government and never hesitated to stand by the Government. He
stood for separate electorates for the Untouchables to which the Congress was bitterly
opposed. In the crisis of 1932, the Dewan Bahadur suddenly decided to desert the
Government and take sides with the Congress. He became the spearhead of the Congress
movement for joint electorates and Temple entry. It is impossible to discover a parallel
in the conduct of any other public cause. The worst part of the business was that it had
none but personal motive behind. The Dewan Bahadur was deeply cut because the Government
did not nominate him as a delegate to the Round Table Conference to represent the
Untouchables and in his stead nominated Dewan Bahadur R. Srinivasan. The Government of
India had good ground for not nominating him. It was decided that neither the members of
the Simon Commission nor the members of the Central Legislative Committee should have a
place in the Round Table Conference. The Dewan Bahadur was a member of the Central
Legislative Committee and had therefore to be dropped. This was quite a natural
explanation. But the wounded pride of Dewan Bahadur Rajah could not let him see it. When
the Congress Ministry took office in Madras, when he saw how the Poona Pact was being
trampled upon, how his rival was made a Minister and how notwithstanding his services to
the Congress he was left out, he bitterly regretted what he did! The fact, however,
remains that in the critical year of 1932, Dewan Bahadur Rajah lent his full support to
the Congress. He was not only running with the Congress crowd but he took care not to fall
out in the race for legislation against untouchability. He too had sponsored two Bills.
One of them was called the Removal of Untouchability Bill and the other was called the
Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill.
Mr. Gandhi did not mind any opposition and was
indifferent as to whether it came from the orthodox Hindus or from the Untouchables. He
went on in mad pursuit of his object. It is interesting to ask, what happened to this
movement? Within the short compass of this book it is not possible to spread out this
inquiry and cover everything that was done and claimed as evidence of the success of the
movement.
To put it briefly, after a short spurt of
activity in, the direction of removing untouchability by throwing open temples and wells
the Hindu mind returned to its original state. The reports appearing in. the "Week to
Week" columns of the Harijan subsided, became few and far between and ultimately
vanished. For myself I was not surprised to find that the Hindu heart was so soon stricken
with palsy. For I never believed that there was so much milk of human kindness locked up
in the Hindu breast as the "Week to Week" column in the Harijan would have the
world believe. As a matter of fact a large part of the news that appeared in the
"Week to Week" was faked and was nothing but a lying propaganda engineered by
Congressmen to deceive the world that the Hindus were determined to fight untouchability.
Few temples if any were really opened and those that were reported to have been, opened
most of them were dilapidated and deserted temples which were used by none but dogs and
donkeys. One of the evil effects of the Congress agitation is that it has made the
political minded Hindus a lying squad which will not hesitate to tell any lie if it can
help the Congress. Thus ended the part which the Hindu public played or was made to appear
to play in this Temple-Entry movement. The same fate overtook the Guruvayur Temple
satyagraha and the legislation for securing Temple-Entry for the Untouchables. As these
are matters which were pursued by Mr. Gandhi and Congressmen their history might be told
in some detail inasmuch as it reveals the true mentality of Mr. Gandhi and the Congress
towards the Untouchables.
To begin with the Guruvayur Temple Satyagraha.
A temple of Krishna is situated at Guruvayur in, the Ponnani taluk in Malabar. The Zamorin
of Calicut is the trustee of the temple. One Mr. Kelappan, a Hindu who was working for the
cause of the Untouchables of Malabar, began an agitation for securing the Untouchables
entry into the temple. The Zamorin of Calicut as the trustee of the temple refused to
throw open the temple to the Untouchables and in support of his action, cited Section 40
of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act which said that no trustee could do anything against
the custom and usage of the temples entrusted to him. On the 20th September 1932, Mr.
Kelappan commenced a fast in, protest lying in front of the temple in. the sun till the
Zamorin revised his views in favour of the Untouchables. To get rid of this annoyance and
embarrassment the Zamorin, appealed to Mr. Gandhi to request Mr. Kelappan to suspend his
fast for a time. After a fast for ten, days Mr. Kelappan. at the request of Mr. Gandhi
suspended the fast on 1st October 1932 for three months. The Zamorin did nothing. Mr.
Gandhi sent him a wire telling him that he must move in the matter and get over all
difficulties legal or otherwise. Mr. Gandhi also told the Zamorin that as Mr. Kelappan had
suspended his fast on his advice he had become responsible for securing to the Untouchable
entry into the temple to the extent of sharing the fast with Mr. Kelappan. On 5th November
1932, Mr. Gandhi issued the following statement to the press :—
"There is another fast which is a near
possibility and that in connection with the opening of the Guruvayur temple in Kerala. It
was at my urgent request that Mr. Kelappan suspended his fast for three months, a fast
that had well nigh brought him to death's door. I would be in honour bound to fast with
him if on or before 1st January 1933 that temple is not opened to the Untouchables
precisely on the same terms as to the Touchables, and if it becomes necessary for Mr.
Kelappan to resume his fast."
The Zamorin refused to yield and issued a
counter-statement to the press in which he said :—
"The various appeals that are being made
for throwing open the temples to Avarnas proceed upon an inadequate appreciation of such
difficulties. In these circumstances, there is hardly any justification for thinking that
it is in my power to throw open the Guruvayur temple to the Avarnas as desired by the
supporters of the temple-entry campaign."
In these circumstances a fast by Mr. Gandhi
became inevitable, and obligatory. But Mr. Gandhi did not go on fast. He modified his
position and said that he would, refrain from fasting if a referendum was taken in Ponnani
taluk in which the temple was situated and if the referendum showed that the majority was
against the throwing open of the temple to the Untouchables. Accordingly, a referendum was
taken. Voting was confined to those who were actual temple goers. Those who were not
entitled to enter the temple and those who would not enter it were excluded from the
voters' list. It was reported that 73 per cent. of eligible voters voted. The result of
the poll was 56 per cent. were in favour of temple entry, 9 per cent. against, 8 per cent.
were neutral and 27 per cent. abstained from recording their votes,
On this result of the referendum, Mr. Gandhi
was bound to start the fast. But he did not. Instead, on, the 29th of December 1932 Mr.
Gandhi issued a statement to the press which he concluded by saying :—
"In view of the official announcement
that the Viceregal decision as to sanction for the introduction, in the Madras Legislative
Council, of Dr. Subbaroyan's permissive Bill with reference to the temple-entry could not
possibly be announced before the 15th January, the fast contemplated to take place on the
second day of the New Year will be indefinitely postponed and in any case up to the date
of the announcement of the Viceregal decision. Mr. Kelappan concurs in this
postponement."
The Viceregal pronouncement mentioned by Mr.
Gandhi had reference to the Viceroy's granting permission or refusing permission to the
moving of the Temple Entry Bills in the Legislature. That permission was given by the
Viceroy. Yet Mr. Gandhi did not fast. Not only did he not fast, he completely forgot the
matter as though it was of no moment! Since then nothing has been heard about Guruvayur
Temple Satyagraha though the Temple remains closed to the Untouchables even to-day.
Thus ended Guruvayur. Let me now turn to the
other project namely legislation for Temple-Entry. Of the many bills the one in the name
of Mr. Ranga Iyer in the Central Legislature was pursued.
The rest were dropped. There was a storm at the very birth of the Bill. Under the
Government of India Act as it then stood no legislative measure which affected religion
and customs and usages based on religion could be introduced in the Assembly unless it had
the previous sanction of the Governor-General. When the Bill was sent for such sanction
another commotion was created by the reports that were circulated that the
Governor-General was going to refuse his sanction. Mr. Gandhi was considerably excited
over these reports. In a statement to the press issued on the 21st January 1933, Mr.
Gandhi said :—
"If the report is an intelligent
anticipation of the forth-coming Viceregal decision, I can only say that it will be a
tragedy. . . I emphatically repudiate the suggestion that there is any political objective
behind these measures. If court decisions had not hardened a doubtful custom into law. no
legislation would be required. I would myself regard State interference in religious
matters as an intolerable nuisance. But here legislation becomes an imperative necessity
in order to remove the legal obstruction and based as it will be on popular will, as far
as I can see, there can be no question of clash between parties representing rival
opinions."
The decision, of the Government was announced
on, the 23rd of January 1933. Lord Willingdon, refused sanction to Dr. Subbaroyan's
Temple-Entry Bill in the Madras Council, but His Excellency permitted the introduction, in
the Legislative Assembly, of Mr. Ranga Iyer's Untouchability Abolition, Bill. The
Government emphasised the need of ascertainment of Hindu opinion before they (Government)
could decide what attitude to adopt. The announcement further stated that the
Governor-General and the Government of India desired to make it plain that it was
essential that consideration of any such measure should not proceed unless the proposals
were subjected to the fullest examination in all their aspects, not merely in the
Legislature but also outside it, by all who would be affected by them. This condition can
only be satisfied if the Bill is circulated in the widest manner for the purpose of
eliciting public opinion. It must also be understood that the grant of sanction to the
introduction in the Central Legislature, Bills relating to temple entry do not commit the
Government in any way to the acceptance or support of the principles contained therein. On
the next day, Mr. Gandhi issued a statement in which he said:—
"I must try to trace the hand of God in
it. He wants to try me through and through. The sanction given to the All-India Bill was
an unintentional challenge to Hinduism and the reformer. Hinduism will take care of itself
if the reformer will be true to himself. Thus considered the Government of India's
decision must be regarded as God-send. It clears the issue. It makes it for India and the
world to understand the tremendous importance of the moral struggle now going on in India.
But whatever the Sanatanists may decide the movement for Temple-Entry now broadens from
Guruvayur in the extreme south to Hardwar in the north and my fast, though it remains
further postponed, depends not now upon Guruvayur only but extends automatically to
temples in general."
One can well realize under what fanfare the
Bill began, its legislative career. On the 24th of March 1933, Mr. Ranga Iyer formally
introduced the Bill in the Assembly. As it was a Bill for Mr. Gandhi the Congress members
of the Assembly were of course ready to give it their support. Mr. Gandhi had appointed
Mr. Rajagopalachari and Mr. G. D. Birla to canvass support for the Bill among the
Non-Congress members with a view to ensure safe passage for the Bill. He said they were
better lobbyists than he was. The motion for introduction was opposed by the Rajah of
Kollengode and Mr. Thampan raised a preliminary objection that the Bill was ultra vires of
the legislature. The latter objection was overruled by the President and the House allowed
the Bill to be introduced. Mr. Ranga Iyer next moved that the Temple-Entry Bill be
circulated to elicit public opinion by the 30th July. Raja Bahadur Krishnamachari opposed
the circulation motion and condemned the proposed legislation, in, strong terms. At last
he urged that the date for circulation should be 31st December instead of 31st July. Mr.
Gunjal opposed the circulation motion and asked the House not to support the Bill. As it
was already 5 p.m. and as that was the last day of the session for non-official business,
the President wanted to take the sense of the House for a late sitting. As there was no
overwhelming majority for it, the President adjourned the House. So the Bill stood
postponed to the Autumn session of the Assembly.
The discussion of the Bill was resumed on 24th
August 1933 during the Autumn session of the Central Legislature. Sir Harry Haig on behalf
of the Government explained that their support to the motion for circulation of the Bill
should in no way be construed as implying support to its provisions. It was true that the
Government sympathized for the Depressed Classes and were anxious to do what they could
for their social and economic improvement. He quoted from the communiqué issued in
January last, wherein the Government's view was fully explained. In his opinion,
circulation by the end of June was a fair and reasonable time to secure the widest
possible circulation. As regards the limit of circulation to temple going Hindus, Sir
Harry Haig said from the practical viewpoint that it would really hardly be possible to
impose the restriction as proposed. The Government wanted the matter to be fully discussed
by all classes of Hindus and were therefore prepared to give their support to the
amendment of Mr. Sharma. Closure was moved and the House accepted Mr. Sharma's motion, for
circulation of the Bill by the end of June 1934. Opinions were duly received. They fill a
whole volume of over a thousand foolscap pages. The Bill was ready for the next stage
namely to move for the appointment of a Select Committee. Mr. Ranga Iyer had even given
notice for such a motion. A strange thing happened. The Government of India decided to
dissolve the Assembly and order new election. The result of this announcement was a sudden
change in the attitude of the Congress members in the Central Legislature towards Mr.
Ranga's Bill. One and all stood out against it and refused to give any further support to
the Bill. They were terrified of the electorates. Mr. Ranga Iyer's position was very
pitiable. He described it in very biting Language, the venom of which could hardly be
improved upon. So well did he describe the situation that I make no apology for
reproducing the following extract from his speech Rising
to move his motion Mr. Ranga lyer said:
"Sir, I rise to move what is known as
the Temple-Entry Bill, to remove the disabilities of the so-called Depressed Classes. Sir,
I move :—
' That the Bill to remove the disabilities of
the so-called Depressed Classes in regard to entry into Hindu temples be referred to a
Select Committee consisting of the Honourable Sir Nripendra Sircar, the Honourable Sir
Henry Craik, Bhai Parma Nand, Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah, Mr. T. N. Ramakrishna Reddi, Rao
Bahadur B. L. Patil and the Mover.'
"I will delete with your permission, the
words 'with instructions to report within & fortnight' and then I will continue the
remaining portion of the motion: 'and that the number of members whose presence shall be
necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.'
"Sir, at the time I gave notice of this
motion, I did not think that before a fortnight we would be going into the wilderness.
Therefore, I recognise the limitations of this motion, for there will be no time even to
go to a Select Committee. I recognise that it gives us an opportunity to express our
opinion on the subject.
"I have already stated that I owed an
apology to Mr. Satya-murthi for while interrupting Mr. Mudaliar, I was not in a position
naturally as he was rushing along with his speech to explain myself fully and he would
have been at a disadvantage if I had done so. I recognise that Mr. Satyamurthi, who was at
no time in favour of the Temple Entry Bill, has succeeded in making the Congress drop it.
I read the following written statement of Mr. C. Rajagopalachariar in the Hindu of Madras,
dated the 16th August. The Hindu is a very responsible newspaper, and as it is not a mere
telegraphic interview but a written statement, I believe Mr. Rajagopalachariar's statement
can be taken as accurate. Mr. Rajagopalachariar is apologising to the public for his
betrayal of the cause of the Untouchables. As the principal lieutenant of Mahatma Gandhi,
his betrayal must be placed on record. He says :
'The question has been asked by some
Sanatanists whether Congress candidates will give an undertaking that Congress will not
support any legislative interference with religious observances. Similar questions may be
asked on a variety of topics by persons and groups interested in each one of them. That
such questions are asked only of the Congress candidates and similar elucidation is not
attempted in respect of other parties and independent candidates is a very great
compliment paid to the Congress.'
"So says, Sriman Rajagopalachariar. And,
instead of following up the compliment and arousing public opinion on. an unpopular
measure, here is a great Congress leader who sat dharna at our house with his son-in-law,
Devidas Gandhi, who repeatedly called on me at Delhi and said 'We seek joint support for
this legislative measure,'— here is a man who goes back 'like a crab,' to borrow the
language of Shakespeare. Political parties, explains this subtle brain from the South,
have distinctive policies on various questions covering a wide field :
'Not all of them, however, are made into
election issues at any one time.'
"Sir. this Congress leader is afraid of
facing the public opinion which he has roused. "Sir, are the Congress people slaves ?
'They are slaves who fear to speak,
For the fallen and the weak.'
" 'According to Milton, 'To say and
straight unsay argues no liar but a coward traced.' Mr. Rajagopalachariar unsays now what
he had been saying long before the General Election from every platform in the following
words :
'The Congress candidates go to the electorate
in this election on well-defined political issues.'
"That is to say, they go to the
electorate with a view to pandering to the prejudice of the masses whom they have misled,
so much so, that they have got themselves into a bog. Lord Willingdon came to their
rescue, to take them out of the bog by announcing the dissolution of this Assembly and
giving them an opportunity, as a Constitutional Viceroy, to return to the sheltered paths
of constitutionals. Therefore, they have run away from their own convictions and are
playing every trick to come back to the Legislature with as large a number as possible.
Had they gone on with the Temple Entry Bill or the Untouchability question, they would
have lost many votes, for it is not a popular issue. I said so, though Mahatma Gandhi
contradicted me publicly at the time, I said so when Shankaracharya was staying in Malabar
in my brother's house at Palghat. My brother came on a deputation to the Viceroy to oppose
the Bill. I said: 'I know, the reformer is not in a majority in Malabar.' Nowhere else are
the reformers in a majority but the reformers believe in persuading the majority to their
way of thinking. Then, I said—whatever the result of a referendum, the Congress
people might have taken in Guruvayur in Malabar, might be, I could not for a moment
believe that the majority of the temple-going people in Malabar were in favour of
admitting the Untouchables into the temples: but I was prepared to fight them, also to
argue with them and to persuade them and to make them take an interest in the cause and
the case of the Untouchables, for, I feel, the Untouchables are a part of my community.
Sir, if one-third of my community is to remain submerged in exclusion in the name of
religion, I feel, as I have always felt and said, that that community has no right to
existence. It is with a view to the unification of the Hindu community, it is with a view
to building up the greatness of the future of that community on the past of that
community, when Untouchability was quite unknown as in the Vedic ages, that I have taken
up their cause. And now, I find Congressmen, so keen about Untouchability yesterday,
explaining why they are not taking it up today. Mr. Raja-gopalachariar has driven the last
nail into the coffin of the Temple Entry Bill as Raja Bahadur Krishnamachariar, the Raja
Saheb of Kollengode or Sir Satya Charan Mukherji would perhaps like to say, representing
as they do the various Sana-tanist groups of the country.
"Sir, Mr. Rajagopalachariar goes on to
say that they asked to be returned 'on no other issue,' that is to say, not on Temple
Entry issue, but merely on a political Anglo-phobia issue, an anti-British issue, because,
having traded on public feeling, having tried to give it as much racial antipathy as
possible in the name of non-violence, in the name of religion itself, because non-violence
was sometimes given a religious bias, having created that atmosphere of distrust in the
country, finding that that atmosphere might not help them in the election if they fought
it on a bigger, a cleaner and higher issue, namely, the removal of Untouchability itself,
they side-track the issue, they run away from their conviction :
' They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.'
"Then he a principal lieutenant of
Gandhiji goes on to say ; ' If successful at the polls, they cannot believe they will
receive the mandate of the electorate on any other questions.'
"That is to say, they are not receiving
the mandate of the electorate on the Temple Entry Bill. This man, who came screaming at
our doors, begging us for support—these beggars in the cause of the Congress—who
just begged of us to proceed with this Temple Entry Bill, are not only betraying the cause
of the Untouchables, but they are betraying the principles of the Mahatma himself, for, we
know, that Mahatma's fast was directed toward the uplift of the Untouchables by giving
them concession in regard to the Communal Award, which the Congress naturally has
hesitated to repudiate, and we, therefore, know that that has a direct bearing on the
Untouchability question to approach which, to solve which, the Mahatma, the great Mahatma,
wanted to tour the country, but today the Congress, who betrayed him first in the betrayal
of the Congress boycott of the Councils, have, by seeking to come to the Councils, further
betrayed him with the assistance of his own samandhi, Rajagopalachariar, and they say that
they are not going to proceed with the Untouchability question and the Temple Entry Bill
without a mandate from the people !
"Sir, where is the difference, I ask,
between Raja Bahadur Krishnamachariar and Srima.n Rajagopalachariar ? Raja Bahadur Krishnamachariar has always
conceded—'take a mandate from the people and then come and legislate.' Sir, he is not
a coward; a great Sanatanist himself, he is willing to face the musio. On the contrary,
these people who pillory the Sanatanists up and down the country, forgetting that Sanatan
Dharma is eternal truth itself, are behaving in a manner which even the Sanatanists will
not appreciate, for Sanatan Dharma is eternal truth and the betrayal of truth is worthy
only of untruthful people I Having betrayed many a principle which would lead us to our
national goal, having taken up the case of the Untouchables only to save their faces, with
no conviction behind them, as we now see, the great Congress leaders with the exception of
Mahatma Gandhi, have said through Rajagopalachariar, the Organiser-in-chief of the coming
elections on behalf of the Congress :
It will be open to all Congressmen to have
the matter duly considered before it is ever made into an official Congress Bill.'
"For this betrayal of the cause of the
Untouchables, I hope constitutionalists will organise themselves, whether Hindus or
Mussalmans. They can agree to differ later on on communal issues, but they will unite and offer a great battle to the Congress and bring that organ
of masqueraders down on its knees. Sir, I think here is a betrayal of the cause of the
Untouchables and the Depressed Classes; and, if I did not believe in this movement before
Mahatma Gandhi could take it up or Mr. Rajagopalachariar went from door to door in Delhi,
I should not have been here to move this Bill."
Here was a case of retreat from glory! And what
an inglorious retreat ? How did Mr. Gandhi react to it? In a statement issued on, 4th
November 1932, Mr. Gandhi said :—
"Untouchables in the villages should be
made to feel that their shackles have been broken, that they are in no way inferior to
their fellow villagers, that they are worshippers of the same God as the other villagers
and entitled to the same rights and privileges that the latter enjoy.
"But if these vital conditions of the
Pact are not carried out by caste-Hindus, could I possibly live to face God and man ? I
ventured even to tell Dr. Ambedkar, Rao Bahadur M. C. Raja and other friends belonging to
the suppressed group that they should regard me as a hostage for the due fulfilment by
caste-Hindus of the conditions of the Pact. The fast, if it is to come, will not be for
coercion of those who are opponents of reform, but it will be intended to sting into
action those who have been my comrades or who have taken pledges for the removal of
Untouchability. If they belie their pledges or if they never meant to abide by them and
their Hinduism was a mere camouflage, I should have no interest left in life."
He was never tired of repeating this. Exclusion
of the Untouchables from the Hindu Temples, he described, as the agony of his soul. What
did Mr. Gandhi do in this connection ? Did he resent this betrayal by Mr. Rajagopalachari
of this project without which he said he had no interest left in life ? One would
naturally expect Mr. Gandhi to denounce this betrayal by the Congress Party to achieve
success at the polls ? Quite the contrary. Instead of blaming Mr. Rajagopalachari, he
blamed Mr. Ranga Iyer for his violent denunciation of the Congress Party for withdrawing
its support to the Bill. This is what Mr. Gandhi said in the issue of the Harijan dated
August SI, 1934 :—
"The ill-fated Temple Entry Bill
deserved a more decent burial, if it deserved it at all, than it received at the hands of
the mover of the Bill. It was not a bill promoted by, and on behalf of, the reformers. The
mover should, therefore, have consulted reformers and acted under instructions from them.
So far as I am aware, there was hardly any occasion for the anger into which he allowed
himself to be betrayed or the displeasure which he expressed towards Congressmen. On the
face of it, it was, and was designed to be, a measure pertaining to religion, framed in
pursuance of the solemn declaration publicly made in Bombay at a meeting of representative
Hindus, who met under the chairmanship of Pandit Malaviyaji on 25th September, 1932. The
curious may read the declaration printed almost every week on the front page of Harijan.
Therefore, every Hindu, caste or Harijan, was interested in the measure. It was not a
measure in which Congress Hindus were more interested than the other Hindus. To have,
therefore, dragged the Congress name into the discussion was unfortunate. The Bill
deserved a gentler handling."
The Temple Entry, what one is to say of, except
to describe it a strange game of political acrobatics! Mr. Gandhi begins as an opponent of
Temple Entry. When the Untouchables put forth a demand for political rights, he changes
his position and becomes a supporter of Temple Entry. When the Hindus threaten to defeat
the Congress in the election, if it pursues the matter to a conclusion, Mr. Gandhi, in
order to preserve political power in the hands of the Congress, gives up Temple Entry ! Is
this sincerity ? Does this show conviction ? Was the "agony of soul" which Mr.
Gandhi spoke of more than a phrase ?
[f.1]Gandhi Shikahan, Vol. II, p. 132.