banner-frontier

Social Reform And Political Reform

Who is afraid of Ambedkar?

Ashok Nag

Every storm runs out of rain eventually—Maya Angelou

A storm has erupted across the streets of India following an invoking of the name of Babasaheb Ambedkar in a derogatory manner by the Home Minister. This happened when a discussion was going on in Rajya Sabha to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Indian Constitution. Babasaheb, to recall, was the chairman of the drafting committee of the independent India’s constitution. No doubt, this storm will also pass. However, the idea and vision of Babasaheb will remain unread, gathering dust in the library of the parliament. Ironically, both the ruling party and the opposition are earnestly praising a man by attributing to him ideas and beliefs that stand diametrically opposed to those of the Babasaheb who aspired to create a truly democratic and secular India after colonial rule.

To understand what Babasaheb Ambedkar stood for, one needs to read a definitive exposition of his thoughts in the text of the speech he composed but could not deliver. In December 1935, the “Jat-Pat-TodakMandal” (translated as the Society for the Breakup of the Caste System), a reformist organisation in Lahore, invited Babasaheb to deliver a speech on the Indian caste system at their annual conference scheduled for January 1936 in Lahore. After he shared the first draft of the speech (Ambedkar 1935) with the conference organisers, a difference of opinion arose over certain views expressed in that draft. Since neither the author nor the organisers were willing to compromise on their positions, Babasaheb withdrew the speech. The title of the speech was “Annihilation of Caste”, and ironically, the inviting organisation, while opposed to the caste system, advocated for breaking the barriers between castes rather than its complete annihilation, a goal for which Babasaheb was fighting. To understand the intellectual underpinnings of this dispute and the current controversy, one must recognise the critical difference between these two views.

Why social reform is necessary for political reform? (Section 2 of the speech)
Babasaheb Ambedkar was clear about the pre-eminence of social reform over political reform. By “social reform” he meant the elimination of “mischiefs wrought by evil customs” prevailing in the Hindu society which was not “in a state of efficiency”, and “ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils”. The goal of political reform is to eradicate “the weak points in the political organisation in the country”. Babasaheb was of the opinion that without the prior occurrence of social reform, political reform would be a non sequitur, rendering it of no value to the people of the country. He pointed out that two organisations, namely National Congress and Social Conference, were twins at their birth–the first one to spearhead political reform while the other one to social reform. However, “in the course of time the party in favour of political reform won, and the Social Conference vanished and was forgotten.” For Babasaheb, it was a conscious move by Hindu liberals. To underscore this point, he highlighted the following lines from a speech delivered by the president of the National Congress at its eighth session held in Allahabad in 1892:

“I for one have no patience with those who say 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 [from the audience])”.

To reinforce and hammer away his contention that without social reform, political reform would provide no succor to the people who have been treated as animals for millennia, Babasaheb referred to a variety facts about the inhuman treatment that the untouchables of Hindu society receive from the upper caste people. He emphasised that by social reform, he does not mean the reform of the ‘Hindu family’, like abolition of child marriage, allowing widow marriage, etc. He was seeking the reform of the fundamental architecture of the Hindu society- that is abolition of the Caste System.

Why social reform is necessary for economic reform (section 3 of the speech)
In this section, Babasaheb argues that even a socialist revolution in India would fail without effecting social reform prior to it. To prove his point that political policymaking can have “value and permanence” if and only if it is in conformity with existing social practice within a society, he referred to many such instances from history. However, more importantly, he referred to the “Communal Award” which was created on 16 August 1932 by the British government of India, to extend separate electorate to Depressed Classes (called Scheduled classes in Independent India) and other minorities. This shows that the British Government understood that without this limited social reform, even a small political reform would be a non-starter. Although Mahatma Gandhi and the National Congress were vehemently opposed to eking out a separate electorate from the Hindu community, Babasaheb welcomed heartily this policy of the British government of India. It is worthwhile to quote what Mahatma Gandhi wrote about this British policy.

They do not realise that the separate electorate will create division among Hindus so much so that it will lead to bloodshed. Untouchable hooligans will make common cause with Muslim hooligans and kill caste Hindus. Has the British Government no idea of all this? I do not think so. (Duncan Ira , 2022, also see Helen M. Nugent (1979))

Babasaheb was unconcerned about the merits or demerits of socialism because his entire life was singularly focused on eradicating the most inhuman evil of Hindu society—caste. To quote him- “This is only another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, Caste is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform; you cannot have economic reform unless you kill this monster.”

It is more than evident that Dr Ambedkar’s view about the fundamental and unchangeable social hierarchy of the Hindu society was widely different from the views of the Congress leadership. Despite this, he agreed to be one of the main architects of the independent India’s constitution because the Congress leadership agreed to provide a separate electorate for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. In other words, as a pragmatic leader, he believed that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This act of him does not imply that he had given up his lifelong struggle for annihilation of caste.

Caste is not just a division of labour; it is a division of labourers (section 4 of the speech)
Apologists of the caste system argue that it should be viewed, ignoring its etymological past, as another name for the modern division of labour, which is an integral part of any industrial society. Babasaheb , while accepting the division of labour as one of the attribute of the caste system, points out that the caste system of the Hindu society also determines an hierarchy in that division of labour, condemning those at the bottom as not worthy to be treated as an independent human being. The division of labour based on skill, dexterity, and judgment does not, in principle, determine the purported division at the time of a person’s birth. This sui generis division of labour is essentially a division of labourers, argues Babasaheb. The age-old Indian division of labour based on caste system has thus led to “subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.”

Caste cannot preserve a nonexistent “racial purity” (section 5)
In today’s world “racial purity” is just a fantasy; harboured by many but followed by none. Maintenance of “racial purity” could have been a motivation for the authors of Manusmriti, but to hallucinate it today is a non-sequitur. In this regard, one may look at the statement issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in the year 2019. “Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” In view of this declaration, one cannot but agree with Babasaheb’s view about the claim of racial purity for themselves by the upper caste Hindus: “[the caste system] 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 the authority to force it on their inferiors.” (Last Para)

Caste prevents Hindus from forming a real society or nation (section 6)
As a critique of Hinduism, Babasaheb has no equal so far. His criticism is not merely a scholarly investigation into a social construct, unwrapping of the interplay of power, property and social status, layer by layer. Rather, it is the result of felt agony of being an untouchable in a highly fractured and rigidly hierarchical society. Nevertheless, he actively participated in the nation building effort of independent India by providing his deep knowledge about Indian society, modern jurisprudence and structure of governance in advanced countries. Therefore, the point arises, why he should be so skeptical about the possibility of independent India becoming a modern nation without any spec of ignominy of untouchability for any section of the society. In this regard, the following quote, a lengthy one, is good enough to understand the rationale behind his views.

‘In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.
Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity, any more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many miles away from other men
The similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, is not enough to constitute men into society
Men constitute a society because they have things which they possess in common. Parallel activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society
The Caste System prevents common activity; and by preventing common activity, it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being’.

This is a very radical view about what constitutes a society or a nation. If one considers all the above points with regard to a country like the USA, it would have failed to qualify as a nation until the mid-20th century. The Rosa Park event happened on December 1, 1955 at the capital of Alabama. City buses in that city followed the law of segregation- the front seats for whites and the rest for blacks. Ms Park, after a busy day boarded a city bus and sat in the middle, just behind the front “white” section. When incoming passengers filled up the front white section, the bus driver ordered the black passengers in the middle row to vacate the seats and stand. Rosa Park refused. She was arrested and convicted for defying the segregation law. It is a different matter that this event led to quashing of segregation law.

It may not be out of place to recall the “I have a dream’’ speech of Martin Luther King that he delivered on the steps of Lincoln Memorial of Washington DC on August 23, 1963. To recall, around 100 years back, the US president Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves.

‘I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’

By Babasaheb’s yardstick, USA could not be called a nation.

In fact, inequality is all pervasive. The only difference between India and USA is that the dominant religion in USA does not discriminate between white and black people, per se. No Church would disallow a black to pray in its sanctuary. However, an untouchable is routinely denied entry into the sanctuary of many famous Hindu temple- called Garbhagriha.

Although majority of Indians are Hindu and Hindus by themselves do not form a society for reasons enumerated by BabasahebAmbedkar in this section of his speech. But for that reason India does not cease to be a nation. However, Babasaheb Ambedkar’s argument will become valid, if India ceases to be a secular country and Indian Constitution is amended to declare it as Hindu Rashtra.

The worst feature of the Caste System is an anti-social spirit (section 7)
The anti-social spirit is a phenomenon that cuts across castes, religions and languages. In every nation or society, it would be difficult not to find a small community or a group that live at the margin of the society and is called anti-social. Babasaheb himself has written this in the second para of this section: “This anti-social spirit, this spirit of protecting its own interests, is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations in their isolation.”

Similarly, the British Government of India enacted Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) 1871 to notify certain tribes as criminal and kept them under continuous surveillance, thus labelling about 200 communities in several provinces “criminal” communities under this act (Devy 2013 Ram Singh). 

In Great Britain, a large survey of ethnic minority groups was carried out in 2021. According to a Guardian report the survey has revealed that ethnic minorities Roma, Gypsy and Traveller face extremely high levels of racial assault, poor health, precarious employment and socioeconomic deprivation. The research found that 62% of Gypsy or Traveller people had experienced a racial assault. In other words, although anti-social spirit is present in all nations, Indian system of caste may make it more pervasive (see the link in reference section below).

Caste prevents the uplift and incorporation of the aboriginal tribes (section 8)
This section essentially repeats section 7; with the only difference being that it focuses on aboriginal tribes, referred to as ‘scheduled tribes’ in the Indian Constitution. He criticises the Hindu society for ignoring 13 million people still “living in the midst of civilisation … in a “savage state”. The reason for this apathy of a Hindu towards anyone born outside the caste system is that Hindus are more concerned about protecting the purity of his or her caste. Unlike a Christian missionary, Hindu priests rarely engage themselves in proselytisation, as it would be difficult to assign any particular caste to the converted person because caste is determined at birth only. That is why; a number Hindu groups are against worshiping Sai Baba, because he was born a Muslim.

Remaining sections:
The higher castes have conspired to keep the lower castes down (section 9)
Caste prevents Hinduism from being a missionary religion (section 10)
Caste deprives Hindus of mutual help, trust, and fellow-feeling (11)
Caste is a powerful weapon for preventing all reform (section 12)
Caste destroys public spirit, public opinion, and public charity (section13)

It is better to address all five sections in one go because they are interrelated and repetitive, highlighting one of the most important shortcomings of Hinduism: its rigidity and the consequent barrier to conversion from other faiths to Hinduism. Dr Ambedkar views Hinduism as a constellation of castes, where internal unity is highly fragile and contingent upon any dire external threat. This exclusivity of Hinduism is not only directed at non-Hindus but also manifests within its own people by creating an insurmountable hierarchy of status, privileges, occupation, and socialisation among believers. 

The following quotes from Dr Ambedkar’s un-delivered lecture proves the point.

The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. [But] Hindu would not spread the light,... would endeavour to keep others in darkness, [and], would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance” with others who are ready to consider conversion to Hinduism. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty. (Last para of section 9)

Hindu Society being a collection of castes and each caste being a closed corporation, there is no place for a convert (Last para of section 10)

With the Hindu Gods all-forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is the result of the Caste System, which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible. (Last para of section 11)

Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reformers and for killing all reform. (Last line of section 12)

The capacity to appreciate merits in a man, apart from his caste, does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue, but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. (Last para of section 13)

In truth, the above summary of the five paragraphs faithfully presents the views of the respected doctor. Despite having experienced inhuman treatment at the hands of upper-caste Hindus, Babasaheb, setting aside his personal rancor, has provided a succinct and accurate description of the caste system in Hinduism. However, criticism is a lazy exercise for any great thinker of the stature of Babasaheb. People would like to know: What is the road ahead? Will it be possible to annihilate the caste system in Hindu society within the next hundred years?

In this respect, Babasaheb has only left for his followers only a dream—a dream similar to the one Martin Luther King articulated in 1963. King’s dream has largely remained unfulfilled, and fate has so far played the same game with Babasaheb. In this speech, Babasaheb outlines his vision for a society based on liberty, equality, and fraternity. The great French revolutionary Robespierre suggested that these words be inscribed on the flags of France in 1790. They were denied, and after a few failed efforts, they were incorporated into the French Constitution of 1948.

After spelling out his ideal, in the next 11 sections of the speech, Dr Ambedkar gave detailed reasons for the impossibility of Hindu society accepting and implementing his ideals. So far, efforts to bring reform from within the Hindu society, keeping the caste system intact, with some marginal tweaking, has failed as it was inevitable given the basic structure of Hindu religion. In this respect, Babasaheb was right. In the last section, he expressed his frustration through the title of the section itself- The struggle is yours; I have now decided to leave the Hindu fold.

Babasaheb wrote this speech in December 1935 and Dr Ambedkar adopted Buddhism on October 14, 1956. It took him two decades to take the plunge because he could not or did not want to be a Godless person. To be an atheist and leader of any community in India, even if that community is untouchable to its other communities worshiping the same God, is next to impossible. This is the same reason for accepting a key position in the committee for drafting of the Indian constitution. He did not want to give any leeway to other members of drafting committee to incorporate Hinduism in that precious document. In this respect at least, he had Pandit Nehru as a co-believer. It was Pandit Nehru’s masterstroke to bring in the Doctor as the head of the drafting committee. Otherwise, there was a possibility that Mahatma Gandhi’s view about the eternal sanctity of Hindu Dharma could have found a place in the Constitution.

When Babasaheb took it upon himself to publish his speech, Mahatma Gandhi entered into a debate with the doctor by pointing out fallacies in Babasheb’s train of argument. A perusal of the text of that debate clearly shows that there was no meeting ground between the two. 

The article so far has pointed out the deep divergence between the understanding of Congress about Hindu Dharma and that of Babasaheb. What about the BJP’s view on this subject? One can only say that Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar must be laughing in the heaven, subject to its existence, if BJP is ready to chant his name in praise. Maybe, the sun has started rising in the west.

Finally, one must accept that an overwhelming majority of Indian people are deeply religious, and very few are willing to renounce their ancestral religion. At the same time, a significant section of Hindus is not ready to follow all dictates of the Shastras or Manusmriti and would actively support any effort towards the annihilation of caste. People must find a middle path to gradually break the stranglehold of Brahmins and high-caste people on the practice of Hindu religion. A list of low-hanging fruits is given below.

1.   For any government document, the caste title like Sharma, Bhat, Upadhyay, Chatterjee, Iyer, Shastri, Chattopadhayay, Bagchi, Pandit etc. will be forbidden. Mother’s given name should follow every person’s given name and nothing more. The father’s name must not be part of this naming convention.
2.   This naming convention would apply to all government documents including property registration documents, birth certificate, passport etc.
3.   UPSC should prepare a list of qualified priests, based on open examination. All temples must select priests from this list. People should consider Priesthood as any other job which, requiring specific skill- like knowledge of Satras etc. Every university should have a degree in priesthood also.

Implementation of the above list of aspirational activities may not be easy and vehement opposition to its introduction will defiantly break out. However, Rome was not built in one day.

References:
Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (B.R), 1935 The Annihilation of Caste, Columbia Centre for Teaching and Learning https://ccnmtl. columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/readings/aoc_ print_2004.pdf
Duncan Ira 2022, Ambedkar and British Policy on the Communal Award: A Response to Sujay Biswas, Studies in People’s History, 9, 2 (2022): 224–240: quoted from M.K. Gandhi, ‘Appendix: Discussion on the Communal Award, 21 August 1932’, CWMG, Vol. 56, p. 466
Fuentes A, Ackermann RR, Athreya S, et al. AAPA statement on race and racism. Am J PhysAnthropol 2019; 169:400–402.
Helen M. Nugent (1979) The communal award: The process of decision making, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 2:1-2, 112-129

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 29, Jan 12 - 18, 2025