320 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
the scheme of commutation, still Government has, by its Resolution, given him a preferential right to be employed as a Talati, an agency created by Government to replace the Kulkarni.
Now the question that I would like to raise is this : If the principle or policy on which Government rely is “ no service no pay” or “as much service so much pay,” why is it that the said principle was not applied by the British Government in the case of (i) Warshasandars, (ii) Inamdars and Jahagirdars, (iii) Hereditary District Officers, (iv) other Village Officers and (v) the Kulkarnis, who have all been relieved from the obligations to serve but who have been allowed to retain a substantial portion of their emoluments ? Comparing the treatment given to the other Watandars and particularly the treatment given to the Kulkarni, the treatment given to the Mahars stands in a cruel contrast. The limit of discrimination against the Mahars cannot go beyond. Why is this principle applied only to the Mahars ? What is the explanation of this invidious discrimination ? I confess my inability to find any. On the contrary, I venture to suggest that the principle sought to be applied to the Mahars is a wrong principle and that the policy adopted in dealing with the other Watandars was the right principle. According to the law prevalent under the Peshwa Government, Watan property was not only heritable but it was also alienable. So that a Watandar could alienate his office as well as his Watan property. Watan property was of the nature of private property and a Watandar was its owner who could do with it as he could with his own. This was the law upto 1827 when the Bombay Government by Regulation XVI of 1827 declared for the first time the Watan property as inalienable and forbade its alienation by any sole incumbent of the office or any co-sharer of such office out of the family for a term exceeding his life time.
That being the view of Watan property it can be said that Government could not have acted otherwise than it did without giving great violence to the sentiment which prevails in the country among Watandars in the matter of the Watan lands. My respectful contention is that Maharki Watan is in no sense distinguishable from other Watans and if in the commutation of these Watans Government has not applied the policy of “no