Volume_01

486 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the combatants could not be achieved otherwise than by violence, i.e., without
involving the sacrifice of other ends equally valuable for the stability of
the world. True enough that violence cannot always be avoided and non-
resistance can be adopted only when it is a better way of resistance. But
the responsibility for an intelligent control of force rests on us all. In short,
the point is that to achieve anything we must use force : only we must
use it constructively as energy and not destructively as violence.

The length of this discussion of the philosophy of war as related to
the principles of growth can be justified, if need be, by more extenuating
circumstances than one. The present European war has brought into
unmeasured and even thoughtless censure the philosophy of force and
has ushered to the forefront the gospel of quieticism and the doctrine
of non-resistance. The fact that Mr. Russell’s is an anti-war book, the
author of which was sentenced to six months’ goal, not for writing the
book under review but for being a pacifist crank, will be construed to lend
its support to the lurking desire in many a mind for a passive life as a
natural reaction from the turmoil of war. It was therefore necessary to
know how far Mr. Russell shared in this condemnation of force. A second
justifying circumstance is furnished by the bias in the minds of the Indian
readers of Mr. Russell. It will be realized that what is advocated to take
the place of the philosophy of force is essentially an Eastern philosophy or
to be specific, Indian philosophy. It was therefore much more important to
present Indian readers of Mr. Russell with a correct interpretation of his
attitude. Their innate craving for a pacific life and their philosophic bias
for the doctrine of non-resistance, I am afraid, might lead them to read
in Mr. Russell a justification of their view of life, if not guarded against.

Is the Indian view of life a practicable view ? Nietzsche in his cynical
mood said of Christianity that there was only one Christian and he was
crucified-implying the impracticability of the Christian view of life. This
remark, if it is true of the Christian, must be true, in a larger degree,
of the Eastern view of life as well: for, though regionally Western yet
Christianity in its origin as well in its content is essentially Eastern.
Equally condemnatory, though not so severely, as shown above, is the
attitude of Mr. Russell towards this philosophy of quieticism. One cannot
however, fail to notice with dismay the persistence of this attitude towards
life on the part of Indians notwithstanding its theoretical impossibility and
the many vissicitudes through which the country has passed. Nay, in the
present days of Indian Nationalism—which sadly enough is tantamount
to justifying everything Indian—the attitude is likely to be upheld and
continued. Note, that of the stock contrasts between the East and the West,
thrown in relief by the war, the East is ever eager to give prominence in
terms of self-glorification to one—that of its being free from the extreme

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY 487

materialism of the West leading to war and devastation. There is
however no justification for setting the West in such a cruel contrast.
The East is too prone to forget that materialist we all are ; even the
East in spite of itself. Regarding the war, perhaps, the West may
be blamed. But it can retort and say, “not to act is to be dead. Life
consists in activity: It is better to act even violently as in war than
not at all for only when we act that we may hope to act well.” Thus,
surprising as it may be, the pacifist Mr. Russell thinks even war as
an activity leading to the growth of the individual and condemns it
only because it results in death and destruction. He would welcome
milder forms of war for according to him, “Every man needs some kind
of contest, some sense of resistance overcome, in order to feel that he
is exercising his faculties”,8 in other words to feel that he is growing.

Of the many reasons urged in support the Indian view of life one
is that it is chiefly owing to its influence that India alone of all the
oldest countries has survived to this day. This is a statement that
is often heard and even from persons whose opinions cannot be too
easily set aside. With the proof or disproof however of this statement
I do not wish to concern myself. Granting the fact of survival I mean
to make a statement yet more important. It is this; there are many
modes of survival and not all are equally commendable. For instance,
mobility to beat a timely retreat may allow weaker varieties of people
to survive. So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the
power of rising to the occasion be the condition of the survival of a
people. Consequently, it cannot be granted—as is usually supposed—
that because a people have survived through ages that therefore they
have been growing and improving through ages. Thus it is not survival
but the quality, the plane of survival, that is important. If the Indian
readers of Mr. Russell probe into the quality of their survival and
not remain contented merely with having survived I feel confident
that they will be convinced of the necessity of a revaluation of their
values of life.

This much for Mr. Russell’s outlook towards the philosophy of war.
We will now turn to his analysis of the effects of property. Mr. Russell
passes in review the various existing economic organizations of society,
the social ills they produce and the remedies put forth. His critique is
summarized by himself as follows:

“The evils of present system result from the separation between the
several interests of consumer, producer and capitalist. No one of these
three has the same interests as the community or as either of the other
two. The co-operative system amalgamates the interests of consumer and

8. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 96.

488 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

capitalist; syndicalism would amalgamate the interests of producer
and capitalists. Neither amalgamates all three, or makes the
interests of those who direct industry quite identical with those of
the community. Neither, therefore, would wholly prevent industrial
strife or obviate the need of the State as arbitrator. But either would
be better than the present system, and probably a mixture of both
would cure most of the evils of industrialism as it exists now. It is
surprising that, while men and women have struggled to achieve
political democracy, so little has been done to introduce democracy in
industry. I believe incalculable benefits might result from industrial
democracy either on the co-operative model or with recognition of a
trade or industry as a unit for purposes of Government, with some
kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism aims at securing. There is
no reason why all Governmental units should be geographical. The
system was necessary in the past because of the slowness of means
of communication, but it is not necessary now. By some such system
many men might come to feel again a pride in their work and to
find again that outlet for the creative impulse which is now denied
to all but a fortunate few. Such a system requires the abolition of
the land owner and the restriction of the Capitalist, but does not
entail equality of earnings. And unlike Socialism, it is not a static
or final system; it is hardly more than a frame-work for energy and
initiative. It is only by some such method, I believe that the free
growth of the individual can be reconciled with the huge technical
organizations which have been rendered necessary by industrialism”.9

It is a common place criticism of the industrial system that
it gives rise to compartmental ethics, dwarfs the personality
and makes slaves of the workers. To obviate such a result Mr.
Russell approaches with a cautious spirit, a breadth of outlook and
philosophic grasp of the social effects of the Economic Institutions.
I wish the same could be said of his analysis of the mental effects
of property. On the other hand his discussion of this aspect of
property is marked by certain misconceptions which it is necessary
to expose.

The first misconception is embodied in a statement about
the “love of money” in which he says “it leads men to mutilate
their own nature from a mistaken theory of what constitutes
success and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing
to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character
and purpose, a diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and
strain which leaves whole communities weary, discouraged, and
disillusioned.”10 This is a sentiment that smacks of the antique and

9. Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp, 141-42.
10. Ibid,. p. 113.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY 489

once served as a basic philosophy of life, probably with justification. The
economic life and the philosophic outlook of a society are more intimately
connected than is commonly supposed11 and chipped off its exaggerations,
the Economical Interpretation of History holds true. This time-honoured
complaint of the moralists against “love of money” is only a part of their
general complaint against the goods of the world and finds its justification
in the economic circumstances which gave rise to this particular belief.
Bearing this in mind, it becomes easy to understand why the philosophy
of sour grapes, of the have-nots, is the most human of all beliefs and why
it so largely pervades our values about things which we can and things
which we cannot possess in spite of our efforts to have them. When we
cannot have a thing we argue that it is not worth having. There is thus
a genuine difference between the outlooks of the “haves” and the “have-
nots” towards worldly goods as there is between the religions of the down-
cast and the successful. Each one in obedience to its profoundly moral
nature—moral even in its immorality in that it seeks justification for
everything it does—idealises its own attitude. At a time when the whole
world was living in “pain economy” as did the ancient world and when
the productivity of human labour was extremely low and when no efforts
could augment its return, in short, when the whole world was living in
poverty it is but natural that moralists should have preached the gospel of
poverty and renunciation of worldly pleasures only because they were not
to be had. The belief of a society of “pain economy” is that a thing must
be bad if it cannot be had just as a society of “pleasure economy” addicted
to “ conspicuous consumption “ believes that a thing must be nasty if it
is cheap. Neither does the re-statement of the evils of “love of money” by
Mr. Russell add any philosophic weight to its historic value. The
misconception arises from the fact that he criticises the love of money
without inquiring into the purpose of it. In a healthy mind, it may be
urged, there is no such thing as a love of money in the abstract. Love of
money is always for something and it is the purpose embodied in that “for
something” that will endow it with credit or cover it with shame. Having
regard to this, there can be no “dead uniformity of character” among the
individual for, though actuated by love of money, their purposes on different
occasions are likely to be different. Thus even love of money as a pursuit
may result in a variety of character.

If Mr. Russell’s thesis is shaky when looked at from the production
side of our life, it entirely falls to the ground when looked at from the
consumption side. Really to prove that human nature mutilates itself by
feeding, exclusively, some one appetite we shall have to find our support
by scrutinizing not the production but the consumption side of life. Now

11. Cf James Bonar “Philosophy in its Relation to Political Economy”, more particularly,
Achille Lorla, “Economic Foundations of Society”.

490 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

knowing as we do the laws of consumption12 is there a possibility of such
mutilation? The answer, as we shall see, is in the negative.

The laws of consumption, it may be noted, are simply certain deductions
from the economic doctrine of the utility theory of value Formulated, as a
reaction to the classical theory by Cournot, Gossen, Walres Menger and
Jevons, it no longer thinks of utility as a quality inherent in the objective
thing or condition but as dependent upon the capacity it possesses to satisfy
human wants. This being so, the utility of an object varies according to the
varying condition of the organism needing satisfaction. Even an object of our
strongest desire like food may please or disgust, according as we are hungry
or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus utility diminishes as satisfaction
increases. In other words as satisfaction is the pleasurable activity of a
particular organ or a group of them, the curve representing the relation of
the organ to the object of its satisfaction varies inversely with the condition
of the organ.

If Mr. Russell had carefully gone into the implications of this psychological
analysis, he would certainly have avoided the misconception in question. For
what does the psychological analysis really mean ? Why does the utility of an
object tend to be zero or even negative ? This takes place it may be argued
either (1) because at some point in the process of satisfaction the particular
organ irritated ceases to derive any further satisfaction by feeding itself on
the object of its craving or (2) because other organs needing a different kind
of satisfaction clamour against the over-indulgence of some one organ at their
expense. Prof. Giddings holding the latter view says “ if the cravings of a
particular organ or a group of organs are being liberally met with appropriate
satisfactions, while other organs suffer deprivation, the neglected organs
set up a protest, which is usually sufficiently importunate to compel us to
attempt their appeasing. The hunger of the neglected parts of our nature
normally takes possession of consciousness, and diverts our attention and
our efforts from the organ which is receiving more than its due share of
indulgence”.13 Of the two alternative explanations that of Prof. Giddings is
probably the more correct. Having regard to the behaviouristic hypothesis, of
the organism as an active entity, it is but proper to suppose that there does
exist this hunger of the entire organism for a varied satisfaction appropriate
to each of its organ which would engender such a protest. It is this protest
that compels obedience to what is called the law of variety in consumption.
If this is a fact it is difficult to understand how one organ by perpetual
dominance can mutilate the whole organism. On the other hand, though
one at a time, all the appetites have their turn. Human nature is, thus,
fortunately, provided by its very make-up against a one-sided development
leaving no doubt as to its promise for an all-round development in a
congenial environment. Whether it will be able to obtain the miscellaneous

12. For a brilliant discussion of them C/o. Prof. S. N. Patten’s “A Theory of Consumption”.
13. Democracy and Empire, p. 19.

MR. RUSSELL AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY 491

food-material, intellectual or spiritual it craves for is a matter beyond its
control. If it is mutilated by the lack of variety of food, it will be through
social default and not its own.

Another allegations of Mr. Russell is that property as the embodient of
the possessive instinct leads to war. One may agree with Mr. Russell and
yet say that Fredric Nietzsche understood the effects of property better than
Mr. Russell. This effect is well summed up in a story which Thucydides
relates somewhere. He depicts a farmer who having gathered his harvest
was sitting by the side of the heap brooding over the market and the gains
of his business; while deeply engrossed in his reverie he was surprised by a
robber. Thus aroused, the farmer, without even uttering a word of protest,
at once consented to share his pile and thanked heavens for having escaped
with the loss only of a half. Whether the above is a fact or a fable, it contains
a kernel of truth not always perceived. How much man is tamed of his wild
nature by his acquisitions through the course of time it is not possible to
measure. But that it is so is beyond doubt. Nietzsche was perfectly aware
of this and would not therefore let his Superman hold any property lest he
(the Superman) might not play the havoc Nietzsche wanted him to play for
the fear of losing his acquisitions in the bargain. The trouble therefore one
might say, is not with property but with the unequal distribution of it; for
those who have none of it are prone to perpetrate more destruction for its
possession than, those who have. An industrial dispute of the modern time
is another illustration and that workers, in a strike, use more violence than
their employers can only be understood in the light of the above remarks.
It is the existence of the stake that blunts the sword and it is the non-
existence thereof that sharpens it. Thus property may be aggressive. Yet it
is not without its compensating effects.

It would be unjust to pass over silently a most fundamental notion that
pervades the whole outlook of Mr. Russell. He says that “men’s impulses
and desires may be divided into those that are creative and those that are
possessive. Some of our activities are directed to creating what would not
otherwise exist, others towards acquiring or retaining what exists already.
The best life is that in which creative impulses play the largest part and
possessive impulses the smallest.14 Is it possible so to divide the impulses ?
Is there such a thing as an impulse to appropriate? It is beyond the scope
of this review to discuss this large question. I simply intend to raise a query
because I feel, that by making the distinction as one of instinct, Mr. Russell
is not quite on safe ground. Every impulse if uninhibited, will lead to some
creative act. Whether the product will be appropriated or not is a matter
wholly different from any act of impulse or instinct. It depends, I submit,
upon the method of its production—whether individualistic or otherwise—and
upon the nature of its use—whether communal or otherwise. No one sets

14. Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 234.

492 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

up a right of appropriation to anything that is produced by common efforts
nor to anything that is of joint use. Of the former one may cite the game
of a communal hunt of the primitive folks. For an example of the latter
the situation in a family presents a happy illustration, No member, it can
be said without fear of being challenged, will ever set up a right of private
appropriation to the articles of the Table or to the articles of decoration just
as nobody will ever set up a right of exclusive ownership regarding public
monuments. They are of the house. But every one of the family will surely
set up a right to the exclusive use of his or her clothes. They are of the
Individual. It is therefore, just a question of production and use and not of
impulse that a thing is appropriated. Thus the creative and the possessive
are on different levels and the methods of augmenting the former as of
diminishing the latter are bound to be different. The more of one will not
ensure the less of the latter.

With this we must close the review of Mr. Russell’s book. There is much in
it that can be laid at the foundation of the future reconstruction of Society.
Mr. Russell deserves full credit for having emphasized the psychic basis of
social life. Social reconstruction depends upon the right understanding of
the relation of individual to society—a problem which has eluded the grasp
of many sociologists. Mr. Russell’s conception of the relation—as being of
impulse to institution is, beyond doubt the truest. However, to understand
this and many other problems the book touches I will strongly recommend
the reader to go to the original. I have confined myself to putting Mr.
Russell in his right place where I thought he was likely to be misunderstood
and to guarding his uncritical readers against certain misconceptions that
may pass off unnoticed. In both cases I have attempted to do my duty to
Mr. Russell and to his readers.

zzz

INDEX
A Brahminism: 31, 77.
Aborigines: 46-52. Brahmo Samaj: 268.
Act: Burmah Anti Boycott: 417-18. Brihaspati: 73.
Civil Rights Protection: 408. British, the; 113-14, 131
Govt. of India, 1919: 322-24, 331. Bryce, James: 143, 236-38, 316-17.
Govt. of India, 1935: 283, 285-86, 292, 295, 308, Buckle: 212.
314, 322, 329, 331-32, 335, 343. Buddha: 44, 69, 91, 219, 240.
Acton, Lord: 122-24, 168. Buddhists: 248.
Addison, Joseph: 267. Bundelkhand: 470.
Agarkar, G. C.: 352. Burke, Edmand: 76, 79, 222.
Agra: 470. Burmah: 248.
Ahimsa: 93.
Alexander: 43, 213. C
Allah: 91. Caesar: 213.
Ambedkar, B. R.: 31-33, 81-85. Caird, Sir James: 473-74.
America: 248, 284-85, 293, 295, 300. Calcutta: 102, 104, 121, 124, 126, 156, 171.
American Economic Association: 467. Cambridge: 39.
American Indians: 8. Canada: 144, 284-86, 295, 301, 307, 309, 344, 426.
Amritsar: 29. Carlyle: 65, 90, 213-15, 224, 230.
Anandacharya, P.: 224. Carson: 378.
Anaryas: 53. Carver: 78.
Andhras: 105-06, 109,133. Caste and Caste System: 5, 7-22, 27-28, 31, 33, 41,
Angell: 483.
Anglo Indians: 368-75. 47-58, 60, 62, 64-74, 83-84, 87-93.
Anvil Brahmin: 123. Catholies: 42.
Arabs: 44. Cawnpore: 151.
Arnold Mathew: 17, 95. C. P. & Berar: 103, 109, 111, 148, 150, 151.
Arnold Thomus: 475. Chaitanya: 83, 88-89.
Aryans: 6, 21. Chakwara: 40.
Arya Samajists: 58-59, 63, 77, 92. Chalukyas: 112.
Ashoka: 159. Chamars: 49, 257, 275.
Ashtadhikar: 72. Chandragupta: 44.
Asia: 64. Chaturvarnya: 58-64, 86, 89.
Assam:, 103, 121, 470. China: 234-35.
Attila: 213. Chiplunkar, Vishnushastri: 218.
Aungier, Governor: 114. Christ: 244, 264.
Austria: 124. Christians: 16, 20, 45, 54, 80, 85, 94, 115, 116,
Austro-Hungarian Empire: 104
134, 249-50, 267, 365, 368-71, 373, 375, 423.
B Church, American Protestant Episcopal; 143, 317.
Bagehot, Walter: 18,231. Clemenceau: 214.
Balais: 39-40, 114-16. Clement: 294.
Balfour: 231-32. Coleridge : 222.
Baluchis: 248. Columbia University: 274.
Banias: 67, 90. 115-16. Communal Award: 42-43.
Baroda Committee: 460, 462-66, 476. Congress : 38-39, 131, 145, 217, 219, 224-25, 228,
Baroda State: 456, 471.
Bateson, Prof,: 49 236-37, 263, 297, 329-30 334, 348, 350, 358.
Benaras: 44 Consent Bill: 225.
Benaras Hindu University: 425. Constituent Assembly: 360-61, 364, 366.
Bengal: 103, 121, 126, 131, 135. Constitution of America: 360, 377;
Bengalis: 106, 126. Canada: 294, India: 358-60, 367;
Berar: 109, 470. South Africa: 375.
Berkenhead, Lord: 110, 378. Cotton, Sir Henry: 479.
Bhagwat: 64. Cournot: 490.
Bhai Parmanand: 29. Cripps Committee: 361-65.
Bhandarkar, D. R.: 48. Crito: 235.
Bhils: 248. Cromwelllan war; 52
Bhimji Parakh: 114. Crump: 276.
Bhishma: 240.
Bhopal: 131,152. D
Bhungis: 11, 30. Dadabhoy Naoroji: 264.
Bible: 220. Daman: 112.
Bicholi Hapsi: 39, 131, 135. Dantwala: 111, 119, 122-23.
Bihar: 103. 109. 120-21, 148, 150-51. Dashodh: 37.
Bismark: 231-32. Datta, K.L. 470.
Blue Ridge: 234. Davenport, H. J,: 467.
Bombay: 27-28. 34. 37, 109-14, 118-21, 125-27, Dayanand Saraswati: 92.
144-45, 155-58, 165, 258,417. Deccan Sabha: 207.
Bombay Army: 261. Delaware: 108.
Bonnerjee, Surendranath: 276, 352. Delhi: 170.
Bonnerjee, W. C: 38-39,41. Democles: 416.
Brahma: 91, 342. Democracy: 251.
Brahmins: 15-16, 18-20, 37, 49, 52-53, 59, 61-62, Denmark: 456
64, 70-71, 74, 83, 90, 95, 115-16, 134, 158, 162,
218-21, 253-56, 267-69, 274 of Ver; : 115-16.

494 INDEX

Depressed Classes: 34, 37, 84. 348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-71, 373-74 376-78,414,
Depressed Class Mission: 34, 265. 416-17, 420-23, 425-56, 431, 461.
Desai, Morarji: 155,162. Hindu Maha Sabha: 28, 146, 350.
Dewey, John: 79. Hindu Raj: 37.
Dhar: 132. Hindu Religion: 31-34, 75-76, 83, 93, 135.
Dheds: 257. Hirey: 162.
Dicey: 70, 302, 334. Hobhouse, L. T.:261.
Dictatorship: 411-12. Holland: 456.
Diu, city of: 115. Home Rule: 267.
Dnyaneshwar: 83, 88.
Dominion Status: 330, 331, 333-34, 345-48, 359. I
Dravidians: 6, 21. Ibbetson, Sir Denzil: 17.
Dufferin, Lord: 247. India: 6, 8-9, 14, 16, 25, 45-47, 50, 111-13, 121, 126,
Dutch: 114, 248.
131, 456, 466, 479.
E Indian Army Commission: 261.
East India Company: 53, 114-18, 220, 261. Indian Merchants Chamber: 110.
Education: 484. Indore: 152.
Eknath: 87. Indra Singh: 27.
Elphinston: 274. Instrument of Accession: 286-88, 292, 301-02, 306,
Ely: 469.
Endogamy: 8-12, 14. 336-38.
England 44, 300, 365, 368, 456, 473. Interdining: 67-68, 92.
English People: 114-15. Intermarriage: 67-68, 92.
Ethnology: 5. Iqbal Mohomed: 342.
Eton: 269. Ireland: 42-43, 365, 378.
Eugenics 49, 50. Irish Home Rule: 42.
Europe: 44-45, 63-64, 102, 112, 120, 248. Italy: 143.
Europeans: 119-20, 364.
Exogamy: 9-10. J
Jadhav, Ganpat Mahadev: 357.
F Jaimini: 75.
Falcon, the: 114. Jains: 67.
France: 456. James Elliot: 470.
Franklin, Doctor: 455. Jan Sangh: 146.
French: 114, 118, 143. Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal: 25, 27-37, 67, 81, 84-86.
French Revolution: 168. Jats: 417-418.
Fundamental Rights: 377. Jat State: 134.
Jennings: 237.
G Jevons, H. S.: 461, 464-66, 474-77, 479.
Gadgil, D. R.: 113,125, 281-83. Jews: 20, 134, 222, 251.
Gandhi, Mahatma: 37, 68, 86-96, 131, 134, Jinnah: 208-09, 226, 228-29, 337.
208-09, 226, 228-29, 346, 350-52, 422. Jnyandeo: 83, 87.
Gardiner: 227.
Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island: 114. K
Germans: 462 Kabir: 74.
Germany: 143, 147, 284-285, 311, 325, 378. Kale, R. R.: 283.
Gheewala: 111, 113,123-25. Kali: 91.
Giddings: 490. Kammas, the: 134.
Giffen Robert: 479. Kappus, the: 134.
Girdhar Moody: 117. Karnatak: 109,113.
Gladstone: 269. Karwar: 112.
Gokhale, G. K.: 269, 283, 352. Kashmir: 133.
Gonds: 248. Kathiawar: 120.
Gotra: 9. Kaurava: 240.
Gujarat: 470. Kavitha: 40.
Gujaratis, the: 67, 110, 111-15, 119-120, 122-24. Kayastha: 52,67.
Gujars: 134. Keatinge, G. M.: 457, 462-64, 466, 476.
Great Man: 212-17, 224, 226, 230, 232. Keralat:109.
Ketkar, S. V.: 7-8, 13, 21.
H Khaparde Dadasaheb: 264.
Hailey: 270. Kheri Jessore: 417-18.
Hansraj, Mahatma: 28. Kalis, the: 134.
Har Bhagwan: 29-30, 32. Konkan: 110, 256.
Harijan ((Community): 27. Kranti: 27.
Harijan (Journal): 27, 82, 86. Krishna: 64.
Haripura: 329. Kshatriya: 17-18, 59, 61-62, 64, 91.
Harrow: 249. Kumarswami, A. K.: 13.
Hart, A. B.: 247. Kurtakoti, Shankaracharya: 270.
Hindus; 6, 13, 15-22, 25, 28-31, 33, 35-37, 39-40, 50-
L
57, 59, 63-66, 72-74, 76-79, 84-85, 88-89, 91-92, Labour and Caste System: 47-48, 61, 64.
94-96,112, 134, 146, 167, 169, 209, 224, 248-50, Lahore: 28, 37.
252, 256, 261-62, 264, 267, 270, 274, 276-79, Land Acquisition Act: 340, 463.
Land Revenue Code: 476.
Lassalle, Ferdinand: 42.

INDEX 495

League of Nations: 102, 376. Nesfields: 7-8,17.
Lecky: 223. New York: 108,147.
Legislature: 393-95, 398, 404, 406. Nietzsche, Fredric: 486,491.
Liberal Party of India: 236, 238-40. Nima Parakh: 115-18.
Liberty; 57, 86, Nizam: 162.
Lincoln, Abraham: 215, 234. Non-Brahmins: 15-16, 19-20, 50, 253, 274.
Lingayats: 253-254, 273. North West Frontier Provinces: 401.
Linguistic Provinces: 101-03, 109, 121-22, 124-25, 132.
London Times: 478. O
Lothian Committee: 429. Ohio: 231.
Luther, Martin: 44. Oracle of Delphi: 45.
Orissa: 103, 121, 131.
M Oxford: 39.
Macaulay: 324.
Machigars: 257. P
Madig: 257. Pakistan: 146, 376.
Madras: 21, 103, 132, 144, 156, 470. Pali: 159.
Mahabharata: 64, 73, 82. Pandava: 240.
Mahakoshal: 152. Pannikar, K. M.: 147-48.
Mahars: 211, 248, 253-54, 256-57, 274-75, 346. Pant, G. V.: 151.
Maharashtra: 102, 106, 108-13, 118-27, 132-34, 144-53. Paramanand, Bhai: 28.
Maharashtrians: 105-06, 110, 121-22, 134. Pariah: 49,407.
Mahavamsa: 159-61. Parliament: 69-70.
Maheswara: 13. Parliamentary Democracy: 411-12.
Maitland, Prof.: 233. Parsees: 20, 250, 370, 375.
Malis: 134. Parsuram: 91.
Mangs: 257. Patel Vallabhbhai: 132.
Mann, H. S. 457. Patel Vitthalbhai: 266.
Manu: 16-63, 71-74, 218-19. Pathans: 248.
Manusmruti: 61, 73. Patidars: 123.
Marathas: 113, 121, 123, 134, 161-63, 253, 256, 261, Patricians: 43, 45.
Pax Britanica: 233.
273-74. Pendleton Herring: 239.
Marquis Tweedledale: 261. Peshwa: 39-54, 216.
Marwaris: 67. Phuley, Mahatma: 225-26.
Marx, Karl: 42, 72, 212. Pierson, N. G.: 462.
Mathai, John: 165. Pimpla Saudagar: 457.
Mazzini: 239-40. Pius IX (Pope): 227.
Mecca: 44. Plebians: 43, 45.
Meerut: 151. Poles: 248.
Mehta, Nani: 351. Political Reform Party: 37,
Mehta, Phirozeshah: 352. Pompeii: 5.
Menger: 490. Poona: 131, 263, 457.
Mill, J. S.: 41. Poona Pact: 401, 409, 421, 424-25, 429-3.
Mochis: 257. Pope: 264.
Moghuls: 170. Poritt: 426.
Mohammed, Prophet: 44, 264. Portuguese: 114-15.
Mongolians: 6, 248. Prabhus, Pathare: 53-54.
Montague: 267. Prakasham T.: 132.
Montague Chelmsford Retorm: 322. Prarthana Samaj: 268.
Morley, Lord: 231-32, 262, 265. Protestants: 43.
Morris: 55. Prussia: 42, 147.
Mourya Empire: 63,135. Punjab: 19, 27, 30, 41, 103, 121.
Mulhall: 472. Puranas: 64,76,82,92.
Muslims: 20, 53-55, 64-65, 70, 80, 85, 93, 112, 115, Puritanism: 44.

134. 146, 169, 248, 250, 252-54, 256,263, 267, Quebec: 427. Q
273-76, 348-50, 362, 364-65, 368-72, 374, 376-77,
422-423, ,461. R
Muslim League: 228. Radhakrishnan, S.: 66.
Radicals: 263.
N Raja, M. C: 82.
Nanak: 69. Rajasthan: 148.
Nanak, Guru: 44. Rajendra Prasad: 132.
Nanavati. M. B.:471. Rajgopalachari, C.: 133, 149-50, 237.
Nanga Sadhus: 149. Rama: 61, 69, 86.
Napoleon, Bonaparte: 213-14, 234-35, 269. Ramanuja: 74.
Narang, Gokalchand: 28. Ramayana: 82, 61.
Narendranath, Raja: 28. Ramdas: 37.
Natarajan: 276. Ramkrishna Paramhamsa: 83, 88.
Nationality: 123-25. Ranade, M. G.: 162, 207, 211-12, 215-16, 220-26,
National Liberation Federation: 329-330.
Negroes: 8, 222, 408. 230-40, 352.
Nehru, Jawaharlal: 131, 133, 145, 149, 152. Redmond: 42, 110, 378.
Risley, Sir H.: 7-8, 17.
Rohtak: 417-18.
R Roman Republic: 44.

496 INDEX

Rome: 43, 45. Surplus Woman: 10-14.
Roosevelt, Theodore: 212, 227. Swedes: 248.
Rosebery, Lord: 213. Switzerland: 144, 284-85, 311, 335.
Round Table Conference: 342, 350-51, 378. Sydenham College: 274.
Roy, Raja Ram Mohan: 83.
Russell, Bertrand: 483-84, 488-92; on T
Tagore, Devendranath: 83.
Impulse: 485-86; on property: 487; Tamerlane: 214.
on war: 483. Tamillants: 105-06.
Tamils: 132,
S Tarde, Gabriel: 19-20.
Sagotras: 9. Taylor, Henry C.: 467.
Sahara: 132. Telang, Justice: 221.
Sahyadrikhand: 52. Texas; 108.
Samson, the: 114. Thakkar Bappa: 346.
Sangathan: 55. Thana: 272.
Sankhya: 219. Thayer: 212.
Sanskrit: 12, 50. Tibet: 371.
Santram: 24, 27-28, 30, 32, 84-85, 93. Tilak, B. G.: 38, 87, 162, 217-18, 229, 270, 352.
Sanyasa: 13. Times of India: 39.
Sapindas: 9, Tiruvallur: 83, 88.
Sapru Committee: 361-62, 364-65, 379, 416. Toby, Sir: 237.
Sati: 13, 20. Tories: 263.
Scheduled Castes: 37, 39-41, 74, 133, 157, 250, Thorndike, E L,: 483.
Tral Maharashtrikas; 159-60.
252-58, 261-65, 268, 271, 274-76, 358, 365, Tribes, Criminal: 219-20.
368-72, 401-04, 407, 414, 416-17, 419-23, 425- Trimurti: 342.
26, 428-31. Tukaram: 83, 88.
Scheduled Caste Federation; 375. Turkish Empire: 104,
Scotland: 300, 365.
Scythians: 6. U
Secretary of State: 311, 332, 335-36, 345, Ulster: 43,
Senart: 6-7, 17. Uma: 13,
Separate Electorates: 401. United Provinces: 103, 121, 148, 150-51.
Settlement Commission: 403. United States of India: 143, 389-90, 392, 395-98,
Shambuka: 61. 402, 405-06.
Shankar or Shiva: 9,342. Untouchables. see S. Cs.
Shastras: 16, 68-69, 73-76, 84, 87-88, 93, 95, 263. Untouchability: 87-88.
Shastri, Srinivas: 211, 240. Upanishads: 18, 82, 92.
Shilahars: 112. U.S.A.: 8, 108, 143, 147, 478-79.
Shivaji: 37, 44, 50, 52, U.S.S.R.: 147, 408, 415, 428.
Shore, John: 269.
Shuddhi: 55. V
Shudra: 18, 58, 61-62. Vakil, N.C.: 111, 113, 119, 121-122.
Sikhs: 44, 55, 64-65. 80, 248, 364-65, 368-71, 373, Valshashlka: 219.
375, 423. Vaishya: 18, 59, 61-62, 90.
Simla: 170. Varna: 64, 73, 83-84, 86-87, 89, 91-92.
Simon Commission; 332, 421. Veda: 17, 30-31, 63, 69, 72-76, 82, 92-93.
Sind: 271, 276. Vedanta: 219.
Slater. Gilbert: 457. Vishnu: 90, 342.
Sly, Sir Frank; 38.40-41, 274. Vivekanand: 83.
Smith, Adam: 456.
Smritis: 73-75, 82. W
Social Conference: 217, 225, 263. Walres: 490.
Socialism: 460. Socialists: 44-47. Wanchoo, Justice: 133.
Social Reform Party; 37-38, 41-42. War; 484.
Socrates: 235. Warangal: 133.
Solicitor-General: 335-36. War or Roses: 52.
Sonar: 53-54, Washington City: 313-14.
South Africa: 144, 426, 428. Waterloo: 235.
Spencer, Sir, Herbert: 17. Wellington: 269.
Srinivasan, Diwan Bahadur: 82. Wilson, Woodrow: 239.
Sriramulu, Potti: 132. Wiseman, Cardinal: 215.
States, Indian: 203-04. 286-88, 301-02, 308, 311-12, Wyoming: 108.
317-21, 327, 332-33, 339-41, 343-47.
States Reorganisation Commission: 141-42. Y
State Socialism: 408-09, 411. Young, A.A.: 91, 467
Stephen, Leslie: 71. Young India: 97.
St. Helena: 235. Yuan Shih-K’ai : 235
Sultan: 69,264.
Supreme Court; 395, 398. Zanu: 40 Z
Superintendent of Minority Affairs: 398.
Surat: 114, 274.
Surplus Man: 10-14

zz

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

PUBLISHED VOLUMES

Vol. 1
z Castes in India

z Annihilation of Caste, Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province, Need for
Checks and Balances

z Thoughts on Linguistic States

z Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, Evidence before the Southborough Committee,
Federation versus Freedom

z Communal Deadlock and a Way to solve It

z States and Minorities

z Small Holdings in India, Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of Society

Vol. 2
z In the Bombay Legislature
z With the Simon Commission
z At the Round Table Conferences

Vol. 3
z Philosophy of Hinduism
z India and Pre-Requisites of Communism
z Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India
z Buddha or Karl Marx
z Schemes of Books

Vol. 4
z Riddles in Hinduism

Vol. 5
z Untouchables or the Children of India’s Ghetto and other Essays on

Untouchables and Untouchability Social—Political—Religious

Vol. 6
z Administration and Finance of The East India Company, The Evolution

of Provincial Finance in British India, The Problem of the Rupee [History
of Indian Currency and Banking, Vol. 1] Miscellaneous Essays.

Vol. 7
Who were the Shudras ?
z How they came to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society ?
The Untouchables
z Who were They and Why They Became Untouchables ?

Vol. 8
z Reprint of Pakistan or the Partition of India

Vol. 9
z What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables ? Mr. Gandhi

and the Emancipation of the Untouchables

Vol. 10
z Dr. Ambedkar as Member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council

(1942-46)

Vol. 11
z The Buddha and his Dhamma
Vol. 11–SUPPLEMENT
z Pali and other Sources of the Buddha & his Dhamma with an Index

Vol. 12
z Ancient Indian Commerce, The Untouchables and the Pax Britannica,

Lectures on the English Constitution, The Notes on Acts and Laws;
Waiting for a Visa, Other Miscellaneous Essays

Vol. 13
Dr. AMBEDKAR
z The Principal Architect of the Constitution of India

Vol. 14
Dr. Ambedkar and the Hindu Code Bill
Part One
z General Discussion on the Draft (17th November 1947 to 14th December

1950)

Part Two
z Clause by Clause Discussion (5th February 1951 to 25th September 1951)

Vol. 15
z Dr. Ambedkar as free India’s first Law Minister and Member of Opposition

in Indian Parliament (1947 to 1956)

Vol. 16
z Dr. B. R. Ambedkars

(I) The Pali Grammar
(II) The Pali Dictionary

(A) Pali into English
(B) Pali into English, Marathi, Hindi and Gujarathi
(III) Bouddha Pooja Path

Vol. 17
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and his Egalitarian Revolution
Part One
z Struggle for Human Rights

Part Two
z Socio-Political, Religious Activities

Part Three
z Speeches