Let me now take the specific question, namely why it is necessary that in the Indian Constitution the Communal Scheme must find its place and why in the Public Services for the Untouchables should be specified and should be assigned to them as their separate possession.

The justification for these demands is easy and obvious. It arises from the undeniable fact that what divides the Untouchables from the Hindus is not a mere matter of difference on non-essentials. It is a case of fundamental antagonism and antipathy. No evidence of this antipathy and antagonism is necesssary.

The system of Untouchability is enough evidence of the inherent antagonism between the Hindus and the Untouchables.

Given this antagonism, it is simply impossible to ask the Untouchables to depend upon and trust the Hindus to do them justice when the Hindu get their freedom and independence from the British.

Who can say that the Untouchable is not right in saying that he will not trust the Hindu?

The Hindu is as alien to him as a Europen is and what is worse the European alien is neutral but the Hindu is most shamefully partial to his own class and antagonistic to the Untouchables.

There can be no doubt that the Hindus have all these ages despised, disregarded and disowned the Untouchables as belonging to different and contemptible strata of Society if not to a different race. By their own code of conduct, the Hindus behave as the most exclusive class steeped in their own prejudices and never sharing the aspirations of the Untouchables with whom they have nothing to do and whose interests are opposed to theirs.

Why should the Untouchables entrust their fate to such people? How could the Untouchables be legitimately asked to leave their interest into the hands of a people who as a matter of fact are opposed to them in their motives and interests, who do not sympathise with the living forces operating among the Untouchables, who are themselves not charged with their wants, cravings and desires, who are inimical to their aspirations, who in all certainty will deny justice to them and to discriminate against them and who by reason of the sanction of their religion have not been and will not be ashamed to practise against the Untouchables any kind of inhumanity.

The only safety against such people is to have the political rights which the Untouchables claim as safeguards against the tyranny of the Hindu Majority defined in the Constitution.

Are the Untouchables extravagant in demanding this safety?

Source: BAWS, Vol. 9, Page 425

(Text separated into paragraphs by Velivada editor)

[irp]