please read the subject line as Ambedkar ,Quoted On Nov 13, 3:57 pm, "Venugopalan K M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "...Most people do not realize that society can practise tyranny and > oppression > against an individual in a far greater degree than a Government can. The > means and scope that are open to society for oppression are more extensive > than those that are open to Government, also they are far more effective. > What punishment in the penal code is comparable in its magnitude and its > severity to excommunication ?..." > "...Indeed he showed a high degree of courage. For let is be remembered that > he lived in times when social and religious customs however gross and unmora > l were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning their divine > and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but as intolerable > blasphemy and sacrilege..." > > "...The Hindu philosophers had. both their philosophy and their Manu held > apart in two hands, the right not knowing what the left had. The Hindu is > never troubled by their inconsistency, As to their social system, can > thingsbe worst > ? The Caste system is in itself a degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which > is the ideal of the Hindu. How can anybody who is not a congenital idiot > accept Chaturvarnya as the ideal form of society ? Individually and socially > it is a folly and a crime. One class and one class alone to be entitled to > education and learning! One class and one class alone to be entitled to arms > ! One class and one class alone to trade! One class and one class alone to > serve! For the Individual the consequences are obvious. Where can you find a > learned man who has no means of livelihood who will not degrade his education. > ? Where can you find a soldier with no education and culture who will use > his arms to conserve and not to destroy ? Where can you find a merchant with > nothing but the acquisitive instinct to follow who will not descend to the > level of the brute ? Where can you find the servant who is not to > acquireeducation, who is not to own arms and who is not to po > ssess other means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended him to be > ? If baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not enough > for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must *be* able to > weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the gale and the wind > of an aggression ? It is obvious that it cannot...." > "...No wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a dangerous > point. The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a Regulation (VII of 1819) > to put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The preamble to the Regulation says > that women were employed wholesale to entice and take away the wives or > female children for purposes of prostitution, and it was common practice > among husbands and fathers to desert their families and children. Public > conscience there was none, and in the absence of conscience it was futile to > expect moral indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins were > engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived on > them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the lot of > the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child marriage and they > defended enforced widowhood—the two great props of the Caste system. They > defended the burning of widows, and they defended the social system of > graded inequality with its rule of hypergamy which led the Rajputs to kill > in their thousands the daughters that were born to them. What shames ! What > wrongs! Can such a society show its face before civilized nations ? Can such > a society hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade asked. He > concluded that on only one condition it could be saved—namely, rigorous > social reform...." > > "...His (Ranade's) greatest opponents however came from the politicle school > of the intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. According to > that thesis political reform was to have precedence over social reform...." > "....The thesis caught the imagination of the people. If there was one > single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform movement could be > attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis is > unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were wrong > and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the country". > The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to every individual is no > doubt very laudable. The question is how to make them effective ? 'The preva > lent. view is that once rights are enacted in a law then they are safeguarded. > This again is an unwarranted assumption. *As* experience proves, rights are > protected not* by* law but by the social and moral conscience of society. If > social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognizes the rights which > law chooses to enact rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental > rights are opposed by the community, no Law no Parliament, no judiciary can > guarantee them in the real sense of the word. What is the use of the > fundamental > rights to the Negroes in America., to the. Jews in Germany and to the Untouc > hables in India.? As Burke said, there is no method found for punishing the > multitude. Law can punish a single solitary recalcitrant criminal. It can > never operate against a whole body of people who are determined to defy it.S > ocial conscience—to use the language of Coleridge—that calm incorruptible > legislator of the soul without whom ail other powers would " meet in mere > oppugnancy— is the only safeguard of all rights fundamental or > non-fundamental..." > "....The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a > misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never realized that > democracy was not* *a form of Government. It was essentially a form of socie > ty. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, > by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of symp > athy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude > of mind, an attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second > is a social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is > incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, resulting in > the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged. > Unfortunately,the opponents of Ra > nade were never able to realize the truth of this fact...." > > "...Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his opponents > against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social Tones. In clear > and unmistakable terms he warned them saying : > " ..You canned be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics and > conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. You > cannot cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the sphere of your > political rights and privileges, and at the same time keep your hearts > closed and cramped. It is an idle dream to expect men to remain enchained > and enshackled in their own superstition and social evils, while they are > struggling hard to win rights and privileges from their rulers. Before long > these vain dreamers will find their dreams lost."..." > "....Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be compared ? > Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore be compared with > the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of India two great men, so big > that they could be identified without being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What > sort of a history they will make may be a matter for posterity to tell. For > us it is enough that they do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They > hold leading strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. > They are the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with > Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to make some > observations upon their temperaments and methods with which they have now > familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for what they are > worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be difficult to find > two persons who would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom > personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of the country a mere > counter on the table. They have made Indian politics a matter of personal > feud. Consequences have no terror for them ; indeed they do not occur to > them until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or > if they remember it, they overlook it with a complacency which saves them > from any remorse. They choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. > They wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves > to their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, but > are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a > wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they are always > in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be supreme. If > supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small wonder. In addition to > supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. " > "Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a competition in > extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be known as > Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have the Muslim > League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the All-India Congress > Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working Committee and its > Council. The session of the Congress must be followed by a session of the > League. It the Congress issues a statement the League must also follow suit. > If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's > Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress > President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must have his. > If the Congress must address an: appeal to the United Nations, the Muslim > League must not allow itself to be outbidden. When is all this to end? When > is there to be a settlement? There are no near prospects. They will not > meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah insists that Gandhi should > admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that Jinnah should admit that he is > one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has there been such a deplorable > state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one sees in these two leaders of > India. They are making long and interminable speeches, like lawyers whose > trade it is to contest everything, concede nothing and talk by the hour. > Suggest anything by way of solution for the deadlock to either of them, and > it is met by an everlasting " Nay ". Neither will consider a solution of the > problems which is not eternal. Between them Indian politics has become > "frozen" to use a well-known Banking phrase and no political action is > possible.".. > > *( RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH* > > * > _______________________________________________________________________________________ > * > Address delivered on the 101st Birthday Celebration > > *of* > MAHADEO GOVIND RANADE > > *held on the 18th January 1943* > > *in* > > *the Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona * > *First Published: 1943 Reprinted from the first edition of 1943* ) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
