Biography: highpoints
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedikar (Babasaheb):April 14, 1891 – 6 December 1956
(Marathi:डॊ.भीमराव रामजी आंबेडकर)
Born in the untouchable Mahar community. Father, like his forefathers, served in the
army of the East India Company, rose to Sudebar rank. Knew the value of education
and being in the army and surrounded by white Englishmen, was not placed squarely
inside the caste system. Was able to resist caste prejudice in educating his children.
His native village name was "Ambavade" in Ratnagiri District so he changed his name
from "Sakpal" to "Ambedkar" on the suggestion of a Brahmin teacher, Mahadev
Ambedkar who appreciated his abilities as a pupil. Family moves to Bombay/Mumbai,
Ambedkar passes school, joins university all through experiencing segregation and
discrimination. So rare was it for an untouchable to reach university that it became
an occasion for celebration among the Mahars. A teacher is said to have presented
to him a biography of the Buddha. After completing a degree in economics, he
gained employment in Baroda, a princely state ruled by a reformist king Sayaji Rao
Gaekwad. On a scholarship provided by the same ruler, Ambedkar went to the
United States, where he studied at Columbia University. In 1916, he obtained a Ph.D
in economics. From New York he proceeded to London where he studied law at
Gray’s Inn and economics again at the London School of Economics. Returning to
India, he went to work for the Baroda government but the continuing discrimination
proved unbearable and he quit. After some trials, he finds employment in a Mumbai
college thanks to the efforts of an Englishman. In 1920, returns to England this time
aided by a Parsi friend and the Maharaja of Kolhapur, another progressive ruler of a
principality in Maharashtra. Awarded a D.Sc at LSE and admitted to the British bar as
barrister. Returns to India via Germany.
Ambedkar had gained reputation as a leading scholar and pride of the untouchable
caste people. Invited to speak before the Southborough Committee, drafting the
Government of India Act 1919. Appeals for separate electorates for untouchables
and reservations for untouchables and other minorities. Starts publishing a periodical
Mooknayak (Leader of the Silent). Speech at Depressed Classes conference
denouncing Hindu discriminatory practices impresses the Kolhapur Raja, who dines
with him, causing uproar among the Hindus.
Establishes Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha (Society for the Welfare of the Excluded).
1926, nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council. Soon he began to actively
organize dalits for struggle against caste discrimination. An important milestone,
described by a scholar as a ‘foundational struggle’ was the campaign at Mahad in
1927 to gain right to draw water from the tank. A gathering of 10000 led by
Ambedkar marched to the tank.
Known by the name ‘Mahad satyagraha’, at which Ambedkar spoke: “We want equal
rights in society. We will achieve them as far as possible while remaining within the Hindu
fold or, if necessary by kicking away this worthless Hindu identity. And if it becomes
necessary to give up Hinduism it would no longer be necessary for us to bother about temples.”
‘Unfortunately for me I was born a Hindu Untouchable.
It was beyond my power to prevent that, but, I declare that it is within my
power to refuse to live under ignoble and humiliating conditions. I solemnly
assure you that I will not die a Hindu.’ Ambedkar in 1935 (Yeola conference)
Ambedkar considers conversion to Sikhism as an option but gives up on it when he realizes that even
among Sikhs, dalits continued to face discrimination. Another factor was the British government stand
that reservations given to Sikhs would not be extended to any new converts but only to the Sikhs of
Punjab. (Jaffrelot)
He then turned to Buddhism which he was already familiar with. He had read the biography of Buddha
gifted to him by a teacher and had named his house Rajgriha, after the capital of a Buddhist kingdom
in ancient Bihar. His college bore the name of Siddharth. He had played a role in the adoption of
Buddhist symbols by the new Indian state: the wheel of dharma, the lions of Ashoka.
Hundreds of thousands of Dalits – mostly Mahars – got converted along with Dr.
Ambedkar on 14 October 1956 in Nagpur. The anti-Hindu dimension of these
waves of mass conversions was reconfirmed, subsequently, by the elimination
of the Hindu deities from the untouchable localities of Maharashtra, sometimes
in a way of provoking the upper castes. The palanquin of the village goddess,
generally kept with the Mahars, was returned to the upper caste Hindus.
Similarly, the Untouchables rejected more and more obligations and functions
attached to their ritual status, which did not go without causing violent
tensions. (Jaffrelot)
On August 29, 1947 Dr. Ambedkar was appointed the Chairman of the Drafting Committee that was
constituted by Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution for independent India. The draft
Constitution was the result of the collective efforts of a galaxy of great leaders and legal scholars in the
Constituent Assembly
The text prepared by Ambedkar provided constitutional guarantees and protections for a wide range of
civil liberties for individual citizens, including freedom of religion, the abolition of untouchability and
outlawing all forms of discrimination. Ambedkar argued for extensive economic and social rights for
women.
THE real contribution of Ambedkar is reflected in the protective discrimination scheme or the
reservation policy of the government envisaged under some provisions of Part III and many of Part IV
dealing with the constitutional mandate to ameliorate the condition of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and the other backward classes. Provisions like Article 17 prohibiting untouchability,
Article 30 dealing with the protection of minorities are some of the notable examples.
Annihilation of Caste
Text of speech prepared at the behest of Jat-Pat Todak Mandal (Forum for the Destruction of Caste)
“ To many a Hindu he [Gandhi] is an oracle”, “so great that when he opens his lips it is expected
that the argument must close and no dog must bark. But the world owes much to rebels
who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible. I
do not care for the credit which every progressive society must give to its rebels. I
shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize that they are the sick men of India and
that their sickness is causing danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.” (Preface to
2nd edn)
The story behind the text:
The Ja-Pat Todak Mandal invited Ambedkar to preside over its conference at Lahore, and the latter
reluctantly agreed to address this body which was a ‘caste Hindu’ initiative to work towards breaking up
the caste system and reconstructing Hindu society. The invitation was based on the fact that Ambedkar
had communicated to Sant Ram, the leading figure in the Mandal, that only by destroying its religious
foundation could the caste system be destroyed, and not by such measures as inter-dining and intercaste marriage. Initially, Ambedkar was asked, even encouraged to present his radical views in detail in
his address. Ambedkar sent a draft, further questions were posed to him to elaborate on some points,
and he was promised payment for 1000 copies to be printed. After the print order was given, he
received a letter from another member of the Mandal that some of his views were found objectionable
and irrelevant to the topic and that he should remove certain references to the Vedas and destruction of
religion in order to make it non-controversial and thereby productive to the anti-caste cause. In a
detailed reply Ambedkar refused to do so and explained how his views were known to the Mandal from
the beginning, and that other considerations seemed to have intervened to change its stance. He asserts
his right as President to present his views without censorship, and explains how he had taken all
possible precautions, suggested many possible alternative ways by which the Mandal could have
dissociated itself from his views if they so desired, and that in spite of it, they had encouraged him to go
ahead until the last stage. A few weeks before the scheduled address, Ambedkar participated in a Sikh
religious conference and points out that this might have been the proximate cause of this about-turn in
the Mandal’s position.
The text proper:
Begins with reference to JPTM invitation.
The Mandal will no doubt be asked by the politically-minded Hindus to explain why it has called
me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great daring. I shall not be surprised if some
political Hindus regard it as an insult. This selection of mine cannot certainly please the ordinary
religiously-minded Hindus.
Social reform in India has few friends and many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes.
One class consists of political reformers and the other of the socialists.
Critique of the Political Reformers
While the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the political organisation of
the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the weak points in the social
organisation of the Hindu Society.
The Indian National Social Conference. MG Ranade and Raghunatha Rao associated with the conference
set up in the 1860s. The Conference and the INC worked together and held joint meetings, but soon split
into two parties. The Political Reform Party and the Social Reform Party. Hostilities increase under Tilak
and soon the Social Reform Party disappears.
Speech of WC Bonnerji at Allahabad Congress:
" I for one have no patience with those who saw we shall not be fit for political
reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the
two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried
and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries ? because our wives
and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends? because we do not
send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge ? " (Cheers)'
Untouchability under Peshwa rule
The untouchable’s shadow pollutes. Required to wear a sign as warning. Sweep the ground
behind him as he walks, with broom tied to his waist. Tied to the neck, a pot in which he had to
spit.
Contemporary example:
Restrictions imposed on Balais in Central India: no gold lace bordered turbans or dhoties with
fancy borders; women must not wear gold and silver jewellery or fancy clothes. This apart from
a long list of duties that they are obliged to perform which were already in existence.
Elsewhere, prevented from sending children to government school. Women assaulted for using
metal pots for water. In 1936, a community dinner is raided by upper castes because the
untouchables dared to eat ghee.
" Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a large class of your own
countrymen like the untouchables to use public school ? Are you fit for political
power even though you do not allow them the use of public wells ? Are you fit for
political power even though you do not allow them the use of public streets ? Are
you fit for political power even though you do not allow them to wear what apparel
or ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow
them to eat any food they like ? " (following Bonnerji’s rhetorical strategy)
Why the Social Conference lost the battle: The Social Conference was a body which mainly
concerned itself with the reform of the high caste Hindu Family. It consisted mostly of
enlightened high caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition of
caste or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt quite naturally a greater urge to remove
such evils as enforced widowhood, child marriages etc., evils which prevailed among them and
which were personally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of the Hindu society.
Ferdinand Lassalle:
The communal award is a vindication of the Social Reformist position. It means that social
conditions cannot be ignored. “It is a victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that
though defeated they were in the right in insisting upon the importance of social reform.”
Irish Home Rule. Refusing to be ruled by Southern Ireland in Common Home Rule agreement. If
the minorities had done the same here in India?
Rome: Patrician and Plebeian.
“To sum up, let political reformers turn to any direction they like, they will find that in the
making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of the prevailing social
order.” Further, “one can say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that
political revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.”
Examples: Protestantism, Puritanism, Islam, Buddhism, Bhakti, Sikhism.
The above a critique of the political reformers, who pose one kind of objection to social reform.
The other objection comes from the socialists. Ambedkar now turns to them:
Critique of the Socialists:
Economic interpretation. Economic reform must have priority over all other reforms. But
Mahatmas hold sway over common man. Rich people bow to penniless sadhus and fakirs. Poor
people spend the little they have to go on pilgrimages. Everything can take a religious turn in
India.
The Plebeians of Rome and the power of religion over man. The Plebs fought for and won the
right to elect their own Consul to the administration of Republican Rome, as the Patrician
Consuls discriminated against them. But in reality the Consul elected by the Plebs never served
them as expected.
“The question is why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to
officiate as their Consul? The answer to this question reveals the dominion which
religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the whole
Roman populus that no official could enter upon the duties of his office unless the
Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who
were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever
therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was known to be a strong party man
opposed to the Patricians or " communal " to use the term that is current in India,
the Oracle invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess.”
Crucial here is the belief in the oracle shared by the Plebeians. Ambedkar here articulates a
theory of ideology but it carries the connotation of a deception. For eg.
‘power and authority, which one man has, to control the liberty of another’
Question posed to the socialists: ‘Can you have economic reform without first bringing about
a reform of the social order ?’ Mere belief in the equality of all does not suffice to bring about
change.
Next, Ambedkar brings up the question of a proletarian revolution. If the working class has to
seize power, there must first be unity within its ranks. ‘It seems to me that other things being
equal the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling that the other
men with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality and fraternity and above all of
justice…. The assurance must be the assurance proceeding from much deeper foundation,
namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal
equality and fraternity.’
No such deeper spirit prevails among the proletarian classes in India. They are as divided by
caste and creed as the other classes, there is no perception of a fundamental division between
rich and poor.
In the event of a revolution being achieved, it will have to deal with the prevailing social
distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. Caste has to be contended with, if not before,
then after the revolution.
Defenders of caste
1) ‘It is but a form of division of labour which exists in every civilization.’ No. It also divides
labourers. It is a hierarchy. It is not a division based on competence in a particular skill, it is
preselection based on birth. There is no freedom to change occupation based on social
requirements and personal abilities. ‘If a Hindu is seen to starve rather than take to new
occupations not assigned to his Caste, the reason is to be found in the Caste System.’The
dogma of predestination prevails. Stigma attaches to some occupations and leads to avoidance
of such labour. The question of efficiency is raised.
2) A biological argument: caste system was meant to preserve purity of the race. Cites scientific
evidence of admixture of races. Caste differences cannot be equated with racial differences. No
racial affinity between Brahmins of Madras and Punjab. Or racial difference between the
Chamar of Punjab and the Brahmin of Punjab? Caste is a social division. In any case, what
objection could there be to the mingling of races? [Here he takes up the question of eugenics]
‘Few would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic principle of eugenics
because few can object to the improvement of the race by judicious mating.’ But caste system
is negative, a prohibition against intermarriage rather than a positive programme of selective
mating. The existence of sub-castes is proof against the racial defence. Bar on inter-dining also.
No eugenic benefits are visible in the Hindu physique which is weak and stunted.
‘It is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse
section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion
and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.’
What caste has done to the Hindus
It has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.
No such thing as a Hindu society. Only caste. Not even a federation of castes. Only a collection,
not a community. ‘There is no Hindu consciousness of kind’ only ‘consciousness of caste.’ Hence
not a society or a nation. Similarity of customs, beliefs, habits etc not enough to make a society.
A society consists of people who possess something in common. To possess in common is
different from having similar things.
‘And the only way by which men can come to possess things in commonwith one another is by
being in communication with one another.’ Commons and communication: the question of
language is present here only indirectly. ‘Society continues to exist by communication indeed in
communication.’ Festivals are celebrated by all, but separately.
Prevalence of anti-social spirit
Putting down other castes, glorifying one’s own. Sahryadrikhand. Even subcastes vilify each
other and claim superiority over one another. Castes carry memories of past injury done by
other castes and so enmity is maintained. Contra: England.
The aborigines
Living in an uncivilized state, pursuing criminal activities. A shameful thing. Why were they not
civilized, even though they are living in the midst of civilization? By contrast, the Christian
missionary’s work among tribals, something a Hindu would never have done.
‘The Hindu has not realized that these aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these
savages remain savages they may not do any harm to the Hindus. But if they are reclaimed by
non-Hindus and converted to their faiths they will swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus.
If this happens the Hindu will have to thank himself and his Caste System.’
[In discussing the Roman example, Ambedkar appears to be treating ideology as conspiracy.
However, it is clear that his theory of ideology, although never articulated as theory, is a
genuine one. In effect Ambedkar is analyzing societies that have religion as their dominant
ideology and he clearly regards this ideology as constituting a social whole (even if it is not,
according to him, a society in the modern sense). This is brought out unambiguously in his
remark that a Hindu will starve rather than take up an occupation not assigned to his caste:
thus the ideology of caste encompasses all, high and low. In identifying religion as the dominant
ideology of Hindu society, Ambedkar joins a long line of political thinkers including Marx,
Gramsci, Althusser, Lefort. He proposes that inter-marriages and interdining are no solutions,
that the base of the caste system, the Hindu religion, must be destroyed. Thus he operates with
a base-superstructure model of society, although here it is a restricted model that deals only
with the relation between caste and religion. A question that can be posed here is whether the
social order explains the religious doctrine or the other way round. In response to the
‘economistic’ argument of the socialists, he points out that social hierarchies and discriminatory
practices will not disappear with the proletarian ascent to power. He positions society and
economy side by side, rather than in a relationship of determination (one way) between
economy and society. Social and economic issues have to be dealt with separately, the solution
to one cannot be the solution to the other. Solution of economic issues will leave the social
issues intact. Solution of social issues, ie, eliminating caste differences between workers for eg,
is a necessary first stage towards revolutionary action. Is it possible to build such solidarity
during the struggle? In a way, what we are dealing with here is an attempt to treat a situation
that is presented to us as if on a stage. We have the examples that history affords us : the
Roman republics, the American revolution, the French revolution, the Russian and so on. We
know how they went, and we now have to deal with our situation. We cannot help thinking
with those models. That is what the socialists are doing. Ambedkar points to this problem of the
socialists thinking with borrowed tools which makes them ignore caste or treat it as a
superstructural phenomenon that will disappear when the base is transformed. In Ambedkar’s
theory this is by no means self-evident, it is even counter-indicated. However, the idea that
what appears on top can be changed by treating what is ‘at the bottom of it’ – the basesuperstructure concept – features in his thinking with regard to the relation between caste and
religion. Is the reasoning behind this valid?]
The Hindu discourages assimilative practices
The Sonars and the Pathare Prabhus. The Sonars adopt the style of dress and speech of the
Brahmins, which displeases the Brahmins. They ask the local authorities to ban these. The
Pathare Prabhus, who allowed widow remarriage, wished to give up the practice in emulation
of the higher status Brahmins who disallowed it. The Peshwa authorities did not like it and
forbade such innovations. Muslims and Christians were no doubt cruel but they wanted to
impose on others what they believed in themselves, whereas the Hindu does not want anyone
to think and believe as he does. Meanness worse than cruelty.
A missionary religion?
Must have been, to spread so far and wide. But today it is no longer so. Why? ‘Hindu religion
ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus.’ [There is
a problem with the assumption of missionary activity in the past. What is the problem?]
Shudhi and Sanghatan. Arya Samaj terms. Purification, a rite preceding ‘conversion’ to the Arya
Samaji idea of Hinduism, from outside the Hindu order or from the lower castes. Sanghatan a
programme of building solidarity and masculine traits in Hindu men to make them virile like
Muslim and Sikh men.
The associative mode of life practiced by Sikhs and Muslims promotes fellow-feeling. An
individual Sikh or Muslim can rely on the aid of others. Not so with the Hindu.
Scope for individual assertion
Excommunication is a threat that keeps individuals in check. Rebellion immediately invites
expulsion from society, which is equal to death. A severe punishment which acts as a deterrent
to individual thinking and action.
All human virtues are strained, limited to caste
Charity, public opinion, loyalty, sympathy, appreciation. Leaders are followed only if they are of
the same caste. Between virtue and caste, caste always takes precedence.
The ideal society
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. ‘there must be social endosmosis’, possible with fraternity. Liberty
must include liberty of vocation. Equality: a man’s power depends on heredity, social
inheritance, individual effort. This is no doubt a combination that will make people unequal. But
there is no need to treat them as unequal. By treating people as unequal by the first and second
criteria, selection once again falls back on privilege. The statesman is compelled by the
circumstances of rule to adopt the principle of equality.
The Arya Samaj
Wants to retain the varna system while dissolving all jati differences. Varna is to be based not
on birth but on merit. But why use the old names?
Also, the four-varna system is harmful, impractical and a failure.
Similarities of the varna system and Plato’s three-tier model. Both attract the same criticisms.
Modern science has shown the folly of such compartmentalization.
How will this division be maintained? The problem of the transgressor. Enforcement by law will
be required. The example of Shambuka. Killed for transgression, therefore Rama’s action is just
according to the varna system.
Status of women not clarified by the Arya Samajists. Do they also independently enter into
these categories? Or do they follow their husbands? Women priests, women soldiers etc.
Even assuming it is practicable, it is a vicious system.
An alluring interpretation, which makes the Sudra the ward of the other three Varnas.
Everybody needs education, and must be able to defend themselves. The Laws of Manu.
Why no rebellions in India? Because of the deprivations imposed by caste. No experience of
military action etc. Maurya period greatest in Indian history: caste system completely destroyed
and Shudras gained political power. The rest is darkness.
Brahmin and Kshatriya conflict has been there from the earliest times. Rivalry and enmity
between them constitutive.
Caste among non-Hindus
Groups exist in all societies. ‘The questions to be asked in determining what
is an ideal society are : How numerous and varied are the interests which are
consciously shared by the groups ? How full and free is the interplay with other
forms of associations ? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more
numerous than the forces that unite ? What social significance is attached to this
group life ? Is its exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience or is it a matter
of religion ? It is in the light of these questions that one must decide whether caste
among Non-Hindus is the same as caste among Hindus.’ No integrating force to counteract the
disintegration caused by caste. ‘organic filaments’ (Carlyle). No excommunication among Sikhs
and Muslims for breach of caste. No religious consecration. A practice, not a sacred institution.
It is a survival.
Radhakrishnan’s defence of Hinduism: long life as a virtue. Questionable. Whether the life is
honourable or not is the question. ‘merely living and living worthily’.
What is to be done?
The only question that remains to be considered is—How to bring about the reform
of the Hindu social order ? How to abolish caste ? This is a question of supreme
importance.
Some people want to abolish sub-castes as a first step. Based on erroneous assumption that the
differences between subcastes are minimal. In any case this is not guaranteed to end caste. The
process might stop at the first step.
Inter-dining: does not make a difference.
Inter-marriage: effective means. But there is resistance from Hindus.
‘Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the
Hindus from co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion, it is a
state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a
physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so
gross as to be called man's inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the
Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong headed. They observe Caste
because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is
wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste.’
Only by attacking the Shastras, by destroying the belief in their sanctity, can caste be destroyed.
‘Reformers working for the removal of untouchability including Mahatma Gandhi, do not seem
to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs inculcated upon their
minds by the Shastras and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe
in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded.’
[Here again, religion as ideology is seen as sustaining caste practices. The religious doctrine, the
sacred texts must be delegitimized. How is this to be done?]
‘cleanse their minds’. Like Buddha and Guru Nanak, you must ‘deny the authority’ of the
Shastras.
Types of reform
Secular type.
Religious types: two. One calls for a return to the principles of a religion which have been
abandoned. Two, opposes religious principles, questions their authority, and calls for actions
contrary to them. The third is the most difficult and most necessary reform.
[Do those who practice caste discrimination really believe in the Shastras? Do they venerate the
sacred texts? The call here seems to be to start a new religious movement, which opposes the
old and introduces a new principle. Who is to do this?]
But this task is ‘well nigh impossible’. First reason: Brahmin hostility to the very idea. Their
interests are directly affected. Distinction between secular and priestly Brahmins is meaningless.
A commentary on the English Constitution (Dicey): External and internal limitations to
sovereign authority. External: possibility of disobedience by a large number. Internal stems
from the nature of sovereign power itself, it cannot act against its own basis.
Importance of the intellectual class. It is a powerful class, the governing class. It is given the
highest position in Hindu scriptures. If it opposes reform, it will be impossible.
Second reason: Internal gradation and scale of privileges, creates competition among castes.
Reason is denounced by the scriptures. Only Veda, smriti and sadachara are guides, never
reason. Cites Manu, Brihaspati, Mahabharata. The theory of prayaschita allows the Hindu to
break the rules of conduct whenever it becomes necessary to do so.
Sadachara (good conduct) is defined in the scriptures as custom! Reason and morality are thus
rendered ineffectual, making reform impossible. ‘You have got to apply dynamite to the
Shastras….’
What is meant by ‘destruction of religion’
Hindu religion not a set of universal principles, but of laws. Dharma is a set of injunctions to be
found in the texts. A set of ordinances, legalized class-ethics. The misnaming of Law as Religion
must be unmasked, the that false religion abandoned. ‘This is an essential step for you.’ [Advise
given from an outsider’s position.][realization; looking upon; association of ideas; coming to
know. The argument is that wrong ideas, mistaking laws for ideas is the root of the problem and
the solution is to ‘realize’, to come to know, that they are merely laws. Then people will not
mind changing them, because they know that laws can be changed.]
Not against religion
Burke. Replace these laws by a Religion of Principles.
Cardinal items in reform:
Only one sacred book.
Abolition of priesthood, or non-hereditary.
State licence mandatory for practice of priesthood.
Priest as servant of the State.
Restriction on numbers of practicing priests (like ICS).
Thorough overhaul, rebuilding of religion on new basis in consonance with modern principles.
The Hindus must examine their religion and morality for their survival value. Dewey: every
society in order to move forward will have to shed its accumulated dead wood. Even Burke
admits. Dewey: the present takes priority over the past.
Nothing sanatan.
Social reform tougher than Swaraj. For Swaraj the entire nation is behind you. For social reform,
the nation is divided. Personal note. Will not remain within this order.
GANDHI’S COMMENT
Defends his (Ambedkar’s) right to be heard.
The Hindu scriptures are a vast accumulation, not all of it to be taken seriously. Who will be the
judge of this? Not the learned people, but the saints and seers.
Caste is not related to religion. Varna (the four-fold social division) and ashrama (the four
stages of the ideal life) are also not related to caste.
‘Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have nothing to do with castes .The law of Varna
teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling. It
defines not our rights but our duties. It necessarily has reference to callings that are conducive
to the welfare of humanity and to no other. It also follows that there is no calling too low
and none too high. All are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of a
Brahmin— spiritual teacher—and a scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries
equal merit before God and at one time seems to have carried identical reward before man.
Both were entitled to their livelihood and no more.’
Varna doctrine does not promote untouchability. Those who belong to but violate the principles of a
varna cannot be taken as evidence to judge the varna order.
My interpretation will be contested by many. I don’t mind, I have lived and will continue to live by it.
‘In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to
pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value and the state of degraded
Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woefully misrepresent.’
Judge it not by its worst, but by its best specimens.
Sant Ram’s letter of clarification to Gandhi. His criticism of Gandhi’s attempt to hold on to the
varnavyavastha (varna order) while opposing untouchability as untenable.
Gandhi finds this rejection of Shastras to imply that they cease to be Hindus. Equates the
Shastras with the Quran and the Bible and takes acceptance of them as definitive for being a
Hindu. Therefore varna must also be accepted since it is ordained in the scriptures. I have no
objection to inter-marriage and inter-dining, and if the Shastras had opposed these, I should
have ceased to be a Hindu. But I remain a Hindu. Therefore it is demonstrated that Hinduism
does not sanction untouchability, while they advocate a varna order.
AMBEDKAR’S RESPONSE TO GANDHI
While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to a sense of
surprize on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should accuse me of a desire
to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests that in publishing the
undelivered speech my object was to see that I was not " forgotten ". [This passing jibe is part
of Gandhi’s rhetorical strategy. Ambedkar does not want to ignore it.]
6-point summary of his argument. Gandhi has missed the point in his response.
Texts cited by me are not authentic: they are taken from Tilak, an authority on the subject.
Authenticity of texts is of no consequence, since the masses only follow what they are told is in
the scriptures.
The saints’ teachings may have been different but they have been ineffective. They never
campaigned against caste, but remained within their respective castes. Jnandeo and Eknath.
They taught that all men all equal in the eyes of God, not that all men are equal. The masses
also taught that while a saint might break caste, an ordinary person cannot. A saint is not to be
followed but revered.
Judge by the best, not the worst. Agreed. But the question remains why the worst are
numerous and the best so few. The best have become best in spite of the wrong ideals.
Personal character as a factor dismissed.
Does he practice what he preaches? Details of Gandhi’s career and his son’s. Mahatma has not
thought things through before writing. He is not aware of the implications of his argument. Eg.
A pimp or a prostitute.
Priests in Hinduism are ready to serve any god or goddess. Not motivated by spiritual
commitment but for the sake of livelihood.
Mahatma regards stability as an end made possible by caste. But a static society’s stability is
not desirable.
The Mahatma has changed a lot since the days when he used to be a staunch sanatanist, fully
embracing all the scriptures and caste. He now admits caste can be harmful. But even now, his
view of the varna order is more regressive than that of the Arya Samajists who say that varna
order will be based not on birth but on ability, whereas the Mahatma still clings to the ancestral
calling. By his definition, there is no difference between varna and caste. Swami Dayanand’s
interpretation of varna is a sensible and inoffensive thing. But the Mahatma is confusing caste
with varna, and making varna a matter of birth.
Shows up the Mahatma’s prevarication. His answer in the first reply is different from what he
says in response to Sant Ram. ‘Whom does he want to please?’
Two reasons: one, his childlike innocence, the ability to say whatever he pleases, which means
that tomorrow he will criticize varna also.
Second, he is both saint and politician and the politician cannot retain his central position if he
does not continue to defend varna.
‘My quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is
much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.’
Without intellectual emancipation no Hindu leader can hope to lead a movement for change.
The Mahatma’s fear of thinking.
The duplicity of those who break caste injunctions but refuse to acknowledge change, thus they
‘deny the masses the fruits of their thinking’.