30 Ambedkar Quotes That May Surprise The BJP

30 Ambedkar Quotes That May Surprise The BJP

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/04/14/30-ambedkar-quotes-that-may-surprise-the-bjp_a_22039425/

"Hindu raj must be prevented at any cost," wrote Ambedkar.
By Shivam Vij
BJP National President Amit Shah and Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh paying floral tributes to the...
HINDUSTAN TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES
BJP National President Amit Shah and Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh paying floral tributes to the Portraits of Pandit DeenDayal Upadhyaya, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee before party workers'convention at Gandhi Maidan on April 14, 2015 in Patna.
The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Narendra Modi-led government have plans to celebrate Dalit hero Bhim Rao Ambedkar's 126th birthday with great fanfare. It is surprising that they are doing so, because the BJP's Hindutva agenda is at odds with what Ambedkar wrote on Hinduism, Hindu nationalism, even beef-eating. Here are 30 Ambedkar quotes that may actually surprise the BJP.

On Hinduism and caste

"The first and foremost thing that must be recognised is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves [from them]. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had no conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu Society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes."
"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 about the credit which every progressive society must give to its rebels. I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realise that they are the sick men of India, and that their sickness is causing danger to the health and happiness of other Indians."
"Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself, but each caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India, which so amuse the tourists? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole, refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call "consciousness of kind." There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. 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."
"Anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal character is in my judgment wasting his energy and bugging an illusion."
"The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the score of the Inquisition. But really speaking, who is better and more worthy of our respect--the Mohammedans and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation, or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of their own make-up? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty."
"To put the matter in general terms, Hinduism and social union are incompatible. By its very genius Hinduism believes in social separation, which is another name for social disunity and even creates social separation. If Hindus wish to be one, they will have to discard Hinduism. They cannot be one without violating Hinduism. Hinduism is the greatest obstacle to Hindu Unity. Hinduism cannot create that longing to belong which is the basis of all social unity. On the contrary Hinduism creates an eagerness to separate."
Images of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar known as Babasaheb, India's first minister of law and justice and a...
BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
Images of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar known as Babasaheb, India's first minister of law and justice and a social reformer who inspired the Dalit Buddhist Movement, top left, and gods and godesses are displayed outside a house in in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, India, on Monday, Aug. 22, 2016. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is seeking to woo Dalits in order to win the state's legislative elections, which would give him greater momentum to push his economic agenda at the national level. While the BJP dominated Uttar Pradesh in the 2014 national elections, Modi faces a tough fight for Dalit votes against several caste-based parties -- in a state where caste is the most important factor for voters. Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
"In the Hindu religion, one can[not] have freedom of speech. A Hindu must surrender his freedom of speech. He must act according to the Vedas. If the Vedas do not support the actions, instructions must be sought from the Smritis, and if the Smritis fail to provide any such instructions, he must follow in the footsteps of the great men. He is not supposed to reason. Hence, so long as you are in the Hindu religion, you cannot expect to have freedom of thought."
"It must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask a Mohammedan or a Sikh who he is. He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh, as the case may be. He does not tell you his caste, although he has one; and you are satisfied with his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Suni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda, Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why? Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu, that without knowing it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is."
On Food

"One can quite understand vegetarianism. One can quite understand meat-eating. But it is difficult to understand why a person who is a flesh-eater should object to one kind of flesh, namely cow's flesh. This is an anomaly which calls for explanation."
"The Census Returns show that the meat of the dead cow forms the chief item of food consumed by communities which are generally classified as untouchable communities. No Hindu community, however low, will touch cow's flesh. There is no community which is really an Untouchable community which has not something to do with the dead cow. Some eat her flesh, some remove the skin, some manufacture articles out of her skin and bones."
"The Touchables, whether they are vegetarians or flesh-eaters, are united in their objection to eat cow's flesh. As against them stand the Untouchables, who eat cow's flesh without compunction and as a matter of course and habit."
"...no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus, both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, ate not only flesh but also beef."
NEW DELHI, INDIA - APRIL 14: People pay tributes during the floral tribute ceremony of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar...
HINDUSTAN TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES
NEW DELHI, INDIA - APRIL 14: People pay tributes during the floral tribute ceremony of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on his 125th birth anniversary at Parliament House, on April 14, 2016 in New Delhi, India. Born on April 14, 1891 to Bhimabai Sakpal and Ramji in Madhya Pradesh, Ambedkar was the Chief Architect of India's constitution. He died on December 6, 1956. (Photo by Arvind Yadav/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)
"People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste."
"That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins."
"The sovereignty of scriptures of all religions must come to an end if we want to have a united integrated modern India."
"In Hinduism, conscience, reason and independent thinking have no scope for development."
"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 recognised that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious."
On democracy

"In India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship."
"I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians."
On Hindu nationalism and Pakistan

"If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. Hindu raj must be prevented at any cost."
"But it is right to ask if the Musalmans are the only sufferers from the evils that admittedly result from the undemocratic character of Hindu society. Are not the millions of Shudras and non-Brahmins, or millions of the Untouchables, suffering the worst consequences of the undemocratic character of Hindu society?"
BHOPAL, INDIA - APRIL 14: Followers celebrate the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on April...
HINDUSTAN TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES
BHOPAL, INDIA - APRIL 14: Followers celebrate the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on April 14, 2016 in Bhopal, India. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as Babasaheb, is considered as the Father of Indian Constitution, the biggest and the most complex constitution in the world. The United Nations for the first time observed the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. BR Ambedkar, also dubbed 'Ambedkar Jayanti', at the UN headquarters in New York. Born on April 14, 1891 to Bhimabai Sakpal and Ramji in Madhya Pradesh, Ambedkar was the Chief Architect of India's constitution. He died on December 6, 1956. (Photo by Mujeeb Faruqui/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)
"The Muslims are howling against the Hindu Maha Sabha and its slogan of Hindudom and Hindu Raj. But who is responsible for this? Hindu Maha Sabha and Hindu Raj are the inescapable nemesis which the Musalmans have brought upon themselves by having a Muslim League. It is action and counter-action. One gives rise to the other. Not partition, but the abolition of the Muslim League and the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims is the only effective way of burying the ghost of Hindu Raj."
"This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power, as they have done to the lower class Hindus. This trait of the high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding of their politics."
"Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation."
"Nor should the formation of a mixed party of Hindus and Muslims be difficult in India. There are many lower orders in the Hindu society, whose economic, political and social needs are the same as those of the majority of the Muslims and they would be far more ready to make a common cause with the Muslims for achieving common end than they would with the high caste of Hindus who have denied and deprived them of ordinary human right for centuries."
"If the Musalman will not yield on the issue of Pakistan, then Pakistan must come. So far as I am concerned, the only important question is: Are the Musalmans determined to have Pakistan? Or is Pakistan a mere cry? Is it only a passing mood? Or does it represent their permanent aspiration? On this there may be difference of opinion. Once it becomes certain that the Muslims want Pakistan there can be no doubt that the wise course would be to concede the principle of it."
On Buddhism and conversion

"Though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu." - Before converting to Buddhism
"I will not believe in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh. Neither would I worship them." - In 22 vows administered while converting to Buddhism
"The teachings of Buddha are eternal, but even then Buddha did not proclaim them to be infallible. The religion of Buddha has the capacity to change according to times, a quality which no other religion can claim to have... Now what is the basis of Buddhism? If you study carefully, you will see that Buddhism is based on reason. There is an element of flexibility inherent in it, which is not found in any other religion." - In his speech while converting to Buddhism
"The history of India is nothing but a history of a mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahminism." - From B.R. Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol.3, p.267 (in the chapter, "The triumph of Brahminism: regicide or the birth of counter-revolution")

The economics of Ambedkar

The economics of Ambedkar
12 min read . Updated: 09 Apr 2016, 11:22 PM IST
Pramit Bhattacharya
It is impossible to reduce Ambedkar's economics to any one doctrine or ideology


Topics
BR AmbedkaragricultureindustrializationcapitalismeconomicsIndiahistory
After long years of neglect, the ideas of B.R. Ambedkar seem to be gaining currency. While his thoughts on Indian society and politics have garnered more attention, some of his economic ideas too deserve greater attention.

Known largely as the father of the Indian Constitution and a leader of Dalits, Ambedkar began his career as an economist, making important contributions to the major economic debates of the day. He was, in fact, among the best educated economists of his generation in India, having earned a doctorate in economics from Columbia University in the US and another from the London School of Economics.

Ambedkar’s London doctoral thesis, later published as a book, was on the management of the rupee. At that time, there was a big debate on the relative merits of the gold standard vis-à-vis the gold exchange standard.

The gold standard refers to a convertible currency in which gold coins are issued, and may be complemented with paper money, which is pledged to be fully redeemable in gold. In contrast, under the gold exchange standard, only paper money is issued, which is kept exchangeable at fixed rates with gold and authorities back it up with foreign currency reserves of such countries as are on the gold standard.


Ambedkar argued in favour of a gold standard as opposed to the suggestion by John Maynard Keynes that India should embrace a gold exchange standard. He argued that a gold exchange standard allowed the issuer greater freedom to manipulate the supply of money, jeopardizing the stability of the monetary unit.

Ambedkar’s Columbia dissertation was on the state-centre financial relations under the guidance of Edwin Seligman, one of the foremost authorities on public finance in the world. Ambedkar argued that under a sound administrative system, each political unit should be able to finance its expenditure by raising its own resources, without having to depend too heavily on another.

Ambedkar’s views on the rupee and on public finance were responses to the raging economic problems of the day and not all of his analysis may be relevant today. But some of the principles he enunciated such as that of price stability and of fiscal responsibility remain relevant even today.


Of all his academic publications, the one that has aged best and has great relevance for contemporary economic debates is a 1918 essay on farming and farm holdings published in the journal of the Indian Economic Society.

In that essay, Ambedkar considered the problem of small landholdings in India and their fragmentation. After examining various proposals to consolidate and enlarge such landholdings that were being debated in those days, Ambedkar came to the conclusion that such proposals were fundamentally flawed.

Ambedkar argued that land was only one of the factors of production required to produce crops, and unless it was used in an optimal proportion with other factors of production, it would be inefficient. Landholdings should, therefore, not be fixed but should ideally vary with the availability of other factors of production: increasing with the availability of farm equipment and shrinking if the latter shrank.


Any proposal to enlarge holdings can be entertained only if it can be shown that the availability of farm implements has grown considerably in the country, argued Ambedkar. And he then marshalled data to demolish that argument by showing that capital stock had, in fact, declined.

Ambedkar argued that the real challenge lay in raising the stock of capital and that will be possible only if there is greater savings in the economy. This was not possible as long as a great mass of people depended on land for their livelihoods, he reasoned. Therefore, he posited industrialization as the answer to India’s agricultural problem.

“In short, strange though it may seem, industrialization of India is the soundest remedy for the agricultural problems of India," Ambedkar concluded. “The cumulative effects of industrialization, namely a lessening pressure (on land) and an increasing amount of capital and capital goods will forcibly create the economic necessity of enlarging the holding. Not only this, industrialization by destroying the premium on land will give rise to few occasions for its sub-division and fragmentation."


What is most remarkable about Ambedkar’s analysis is that he was able to conceive of the notion of “disguised unemployment" much before it came into vogue in development economics, and that he was able to anticipate one of the key insights of Nobel Prize-winning economist Arthur Lewis three decades before Lewis formulated his famous two-sector model of the economy.

Lewis presumed that developing economies had surplus and idle labour in the farm sector, and showed how transferring labour from farms to factories would raise savings and productivity levels in both sectors, leading to overall growth. The model Lewis formulated in 1954 was far more elaborate than what Ambedkar outlined in his essay, but there are striking similarities in the way both framed the issue.


Ambedkar returned to this theme in a 1927 speech made on the floor of the Bombay legislative assembly (as it was then called), which was debating a proposal for regulating landholdings.

Ambedkar warned of the folly of such regulation, reiterating his arguments made in the 1918 essay. He argued that the enlargement of landholdings by controlling the partition of immovable property and sale of consolidated holdings would create a small crust of wealthy landowners and a large mass of landless “paupers".

Despite his objections to many social customs sanctioned by Hindu scriptures, Ambedkar voiced his approval of the Hindu law of inheritance, which, according to him, prevented the creation of plutocracy, which primogeniture (the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child) would surely have created. A better way of addressing the problem of fragmentation was to introduce cooperative farming, and “to compel owners of small strips included therein to join in cultivation without destroying private ownership".


In later years, Ambedkar’s energies were devoted more to politics and social change rather than economic analysis, but even his writings and speeches on politics reflected a deep engagement with economic issues and questions of political economy.

Just as his politics are today being appropriated by politicians of all hues, his economics today has become a battleground between the left and the right, with both sides claiming that he was actually on their side. But a careful reading of Ambedkar’s writings dispels the view that he was either a champion of a laissez-faire economy or a revolutionary socialist.

Ambedkar’s views on economics were as complex as his views on politics and it is likely that one shaped the other. As his views on India’s agrarian problems indicate, he saw no contradiction between advocating for industrialization on the one hand and cooperative farming on the other. And in both cases, he supported his arguments with examples of countries in other parts of the world which had adopted the solutions he was advocating. More than doctrine, empirical evidence seems to have guided many of his policy positions.


Although Ambedkar spoke out in favour of industrialization and urbanization, he also warned of the ills of capitalism, arguing that unfettered capitalism could turn into a force of oppression and exploitation.

It was Ambedkar who proposed to the Constituent Assembly that the chapter on fundamental rights in the Constitution should include both negative rights (relating to civil liberties) as well as positive rights (relating to social and economic justice). In a memorandum on this subject, Ambedkar outlined his vision of the rights of citizenship in a free India, and explained why it would entail extensive state control over the economy.

Ambedkar included a section on remedies against “economic exploitation", which proposed, among other things, that key industries should be owned and run by the state and that agriculture should be a state industry. Ambedkar argued that a modified form of state socialism in industry was necessary for rapid industrialization, and that collective farming was the only salvation for landless labourers belonging to the “untouchable" castes.


Anticipating the objections of “constitutional lawyers" who may think that Ambedkar’s formulation went beyond the scope of the usual kind of fundamental rights, Ambedkar argued that such a view would be based on a very narrow understanding of fundamental rights. If the objective of such rights was to protect individual liberty, his proposals did the same, Ambekar argued.

Ambedkar argued that an economy based purely on the profit motive violated two tenets of political democracy: one, it allowed private employers, rather than the state, to govern the lives of individuals, and two, it may force an individual to give up his constitutional rights to gain a living.

“If a person who is unemployed is offered a choice between a job of some sort, with some sort of wages, with no fixed hours of labour and with an interdict on joining a union and the exercise of his right to freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., can there be any doubt as to what his choice will be?" Ambedkar wrote. “The fear of starvation, the fear of losing a house, the fear of losing savings if any... are factors too strong to permit a man to stand out for his Fundamental Rights."


Responding to libertarian lawyers who argued for minimum state intervention to protect liberty, Ambedkar argued that withdrawal of the state may lead to liberty but that liberty is “liberty to the landlords to increase rents, for capitalists to increase hours of work and reduce rate of wages".

“In an economic system employing armies of workers, producing goods en masse at regular intervals, someone must make rules so that workers will work and the wheels of industry run on," he wrote. “If the state does not do it, the private employer will. Life otherwise will become impossible. In other words, what is called liberty from the control of the state is another name for the dictatorship of the private employer."

Both the political and economic structure should be defined by law to translate the rule of one man, one vote to the doctrine of one man, one value, Ambedkar argued. Countries such as India should profit from the experiences of other countries and define the shape and structure of the economy in the Constitution itself, he felt.


Yet, Ambedkar’s radical proposals did not win the support of the Constituent Assembly. Instead, many of the provisions outlined in his memorandum found place in the Directive Principles of State Policy, which, though important, are not justiciable in a court of law.

Ambedkar seemed to have accepted that compromise with equanimity when the chapter on directive principles was finalized in late 1948, even though just a year earlier (in 1947), he had made an impassioned plea for making socioeconomic rights justiciable. “How and why Ambedkar’s position on social and economic rights changed remains a puzzle," writes political scientist Niraja Gopal Jayal in her 2013 book, Citizenship and Its Discontents.

Although Ambedkar resented Jawaharlal Nehru for, among other things, not including him in the cabinet committee on economic affairs (and cited that as one of the reasons for his resignation from the cabinet), his views on the economy and the role of the state mirrored those of Nehru.


Both Nehru and Ambedkar advocated state ownership of key industries to drive rapid industrial growth without closing avenues for private enterprise in the country. Like Nehru, Ambedkar was influenced by the dominant intellectual paradigm of the day, which emphasized a large role of the state in economic affairs.

Both men were also likely influenced by the ideas of Fabian socialists, and their social democrat counterparts in the US. One of the biggest influences on Ambedkar was American educationist and philosopher John Dewey, who became the president of the League of Industrial Democracy in 1939, and who subscribed to a broad conception of social democracy.

Despite accepting certain insights from Marxism, particularly the concept of exploitation in society by one group against another, Ambedkar differed with Marxists in many respects. In an essay titled Buddha or Karl Marx, written a few weeks before his death, he analysed the similarities and differences between the ideas of Buddha and those of Marx, and argued that the ideas of the former were more appealing.


Ambedkar pointed out that even Buddha had spoken about the evils of exploitation in society, even if he did not use the Marxist parlance of class conflict, and had warned that private property brought sorrow and suffering to the world. According to him, both Buddhism and Marxism aimed to root out exploitation and suffering, but the means were different.

While one appealed to the conscience of man to change himself, the other relied on violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve it. The latter was unacceptable to him because it did not recognize the value of human life. To him, the three ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality were compatible only with Buddhism.

Ambedkar was also critical of Indian socialists who failed to take into account caste while planning for class struggle. In that brilliant but undelivered speech written in 1935, The Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar argued that it was impossible for the poor to form a common front against the rich as long as they maintained caste distinctions.


Ambedkar argued that it was not enough for the socialist to say that he himself did not believe in caste; if he wanted to be taken seriously, he would have to undertake a vigorous programme of social reform to remove caste distinctions in society.

“That the social order prevalent in India is a matter which a socialist must deal with; that unless he does so, he cannot achieve his revolution; and that if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune, he will have to grapple with the social order if he wishes to realize his ideal—is a proposition which in my opinion is incontrovertible," wrote Ambedkar. “He will be compelled to take account of caste after the revolution if he does not take account of it before the revolution."


Despite his disagreements with Marxist methods, and his resentment against socialists for not taking caste seriously, Ambedkar shared their concerns about economic inequality in the country. In his concluding speech to the Constituent Assembly, he warned that without economic and social equality, political equality will eventually be jeopardized. Political democracy will last only if we make it a social democracy as well, he said.

“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions," said Ambedkar. “In politics, we will have equality, and in social and economic life, we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognizing the principle of one man, one vote and one vote, one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up."


Economics Express runs weekly, and features interesting reads from the world of economics and finance.

Comments are welcome at feedback@livemint.com

BR Ambedkar: In his own words

BR Ambedkar: In his own words

17 min read . Updated: 14 Apr 2016, 02:27 PM IST

Niranjan Rajadhyaksha

Selections from Ambedkar's writing provide a brief glimpse into his astonishingly diverse oeuvre

https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/JHyUYYjoMzBFWSKuptd8LK/BR-Ambedkara-man-of-many-parts.html

Topics

mint-india-wire BR Ambedkar Dalits scholar social reformer politician M.K. Gandhi Dalit leader

B.R. Ambedkar was a man of many parts—a scholar, a social reformer, a politician, a religious thinker and the moving spirit of the Indian constitution. He wrote prolifically over his nearly four decades in public life. Here, Mint offers a very brief glimpse into his astonishingly diverse oeuvre. These selections have been chosen with an eye on contemporary relevance, and hence do not cover what Ambedkar wrote on the more immediate issues of his time.

Also Read: »

Today’s politics aims to neutralize BR Ambedkar

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Our reading list

The Economics of Ambedkar

THE MAN

Ambedkar was exposed to the sheer brutality of the caste system even when he was a child. In an undated autobiographical note, he described what he had to endure during a family trip. Even when he later came back from the US to take a job in the Baroda government, Ambedkar found it hard to get accommodation in the city.

“As is usual among the Hindus, the station-master asked us who we were. Without a moment’s thought I blurted out that we were Mahars. He was stunned. His face underwent a sudden change. We could see that he was overpowered by a strange feeling of repulsion. As soon as he heard my reply he went away to his room, and we stood where we were. Fifteen to twenty minutes elapsed; the sun was almost setting. Our father had not turned up, nor had he sent his servant; and now the station-master had also left us. We were quite bewildered, and the joy and happiness which we had felt at the beginning of the journey gave way to a feeling of extreme sadness.

After half an hour, the station-master returned and asked us what we proposed to do. We said that if we could get a bullock-cart on hire, we would go to Koregaon; and if it was not very far, we would like to start straightway. There were many bullock-carts plying for hire. But my reply to the station-master that we were Mahars had gone round among the cartmen, and not one of them was prepared to suffer being polluted, and to demean himself carrying passengers of the untouchable classes. We were prepared to pay double the fare, but we found that money did not work.

The station-master who was negotiating on our behalf stood silent, not knowing what to do. Suddenly a thought seemed to have entered his head and he asked us, “Can you drive the cart?" Feeling that he was finding out a solution of our difficulty, we shouted, “Yes, we can." With that answer he went and proposed on our behalf that we were to pay the cartman double the fare and drive the cart, and that he should walk on foot along with the cart on our journey. One cartman agreed, since it gave him an opportunity to earn his fare and also saved him from being polluted.

It was about 6:30pm when we were ready to start. But we were anxious not to leave the station until we were assured that we would reach Koregaon before it was dark. We therefore questioned the cartman about the distance, and the time he would take to reach Koregaon. He assured us that it would be not more than three hours. Believing in his word, we put our luggage in the cart, thanked the station-master, and got into the cart. One of us took the reins and the cart started, with the man walking by our side.

Not very far from the station there flowed a river. It was quite dry, except at places where there were small pools of water. The owner of the cart proposed that we should halt there and have our meal, as we might not get water on our way. We agreed. He asked us to give a part of his fare to enable him to go to the village and have his meal. My brother gave him some money and he left, promising to return soon. We were very hungry, and were glad to have had an opportunity to have a bite... We opened the tiffin basket and started eating."

We needed water to wash things down. One of us went to the pool of water in the river basin nearby. But the water really was no water. It was thick with mud and urine and excreta of the cows and buffaloes and other cattle who went to the pool for drinking. In fact that water was not intended for human use. At any rate the stink of the water was so strong we could not drink it. We had therefore to close our meal before we were satisfied, and wait for the arrival of the cartman…

“On his advice I went to the toll-collector’s hut and asked him if he would give us some water. ‘Who are you?’ he inquired. I replied that we were Musalmans. I conversed with him in Urdu (which I knew very well), so as to leave no doubt that I was a real Musalman. But the trick did not work and his reply was very curt. ‘Who has kept water for you? There is water on the hill, if you want to go and get it; I have none.’ With this he dismissed me. I returned to the cart, and conveyed to my brother his reply. I don’t know what my brother felt. All that he did was to tell us to lie down.

The bullocks had been unyoked, and the cart was placed sloping down on the ground. We spread our beds on the bottom planks inside the cart, and laid down our bodies to rest. Now that we had come to a place of safety we did not mind what happened. But our minds could not help turning to the latest event. There was plenty of food with us. There was hunger burning within us; with all this we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables."

—From an autobiographical note, circa 1934

THE SOCIAL REFORMER

The most important battles Ambedkar fought were for the rights of his people. The treatment given to untouchables angered him. He attacked Hindu society for what it had done to the untouchables, but also told social reformers from the upper castes that caste could not be annihilated unless the old religious texts themselves are questioned. If Ambedkar was critical of Hindu society, he was perhaps even more critical of Muslim society, especially its regressive politics and its treatment of women.

“You are right in holding that Caste will cease to be an operative farce only when inter-dining and inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located the source of the disease. But is your prescription the right prescription for the disease? Ask yourselves this question; Why is it that a large majority of Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry? Why is it that your cause is not popular? There can be only one answer to this question and it is that inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which the Hindus regard as sacred. 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. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste."

—From the Annihilation of Caste, 1936

“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women.

These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment…

The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.

—From Pakistan, or the Partition of India

THE ECONOMIST

Ambedkar was a trained economist with two PhD degrees. As in most other aspects of life, Ambedkar was an uncompromising modernist in economic matters. He believed that the industrialization of India was the best antidote to rural poverty. The first excerpt is from one of his first academic publications as an economist and the second is from the manifesto he drafted for the Independent Labour Party.

“In short, strange as it may seem, industrialisation of India is the soundest remedy for the agricultural problems of India. The cumulative effects of industrialisation, namely a lessening pressure (of surplus labour) and an increasing amount of capital and capital goods will forcibly create the economic necessity of enlarging the holding. Not only this, but industrialisation, by destroying the premium on land, will give rise to few occasions for its sub-division and fragmentation. Industrialisation is a natural and powerful remedy…"

—From Small Holdings in India and their Remedies, 1918

“The party believes that the fragmentation of holdings and the consequent poverty of the agriculturists are mainly due to the pressure of population on the land, and unless the pressure is relieved by draining off the excess population subsisting on land, fragmentation will continue, and the condition of the agriculturists will remain as poverty-stricken as it is today. In the opinion of the party, the principal means of helping the agriculturists and making agriculture more productive consists in the industrialisation of the province. The party will, therefore, endeavour to rehabilitate old industries and promote such new industries as the natural resources of the provinces will permit… The party accepts the principle of state management and state ownership of industry, whenever it may become necessary in the interests of the people."

—From the programme of the Independent Labour Party, 1936

THE POLITICAL THINKER

Ambedkar was a political liberal who believed in the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. But he also warned that political democracy would be at risk if the underlying society remains unequal or if Indians did not embrace what he described as constitutional morality.

“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us."

The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions". There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connell, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions?"

—From a speech in the Constituent Assembly, 1949

“I would not be surprised if some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question that is bound to be asked of you? If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not? What objection can there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow men."

—From the Annihilation of Caste

“My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed by philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha. In his philosophy, liberty and equality had a place; but he added that unlimited liberty destroyed equality, and absolute equality left no room for liberty. In his philosophy, law had a place only as a safeguard against the breaches of liberty or equality; but he did not believe that law can be a guarantee for breaches of liberty or equality. He gave the highest place to fraternity as the only real safeguard against the denial of liberty or equality — fraternity which was another name for brotherhood or humanity, which was again another name for religion."

—From an address to All India Radio, 1954

THE CRITIC OF GANDHI

Ambedkar was an unsparing critic of M.K. Gandhi. He ended a book on whether India should be a federation or a unitary state with an acerbic comparison between what he called the Age of Ranade and the Age of Gandhi. Some of his warnings remain relevant even today.

“We are standing today at the point of time where the old age ends and the new begins. The old age was the age of Ranade, Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Bannerjee. The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this generation is said to be Gandhi generation. As one who knows something of the old age and also something of the new I see some very definite marks of difference between the two. The type of leadership has undergone a profound change. In the age of Ranade the leaders struggled to modernize India. In the age of Gandhi the leaders are making her a living specimen of antiquity. In the age of Ranade leaders depended upon experience as a corrective method to their thoughts and their deeds. The leaders of the present age depend upon their inner voice as their guide. Not only is there a difference in their mental make up there is a difference even in their viewpoint regarding external appearance. The leaders of the old age took care to be well clad while the leaders of the present age take pride in being half clad. The leaders of the Gandhi age are of course aware of these differences. But far from blushing for their views and. their appearance they claim that the India of Gandhi is superior to India of Ranade.

They say that the age of Mr. Gandhi is an agitated and an expectant age, which the age of Mr. Ranade was not.

Those who have lived both in the age of Ranade and the age of Gandhi will admit that there is this difference between the two. At the same time they will be able to insist that if the India of Ranade was less agitated it was more honest and that if it was less expectant it was more enlightened. The age of Ranade was an age in which men and women did engage themselves seriously in studying and examining the facts of their life, and what is more important is that in the face of the opposition of the orthodox mass they tried to mould their lives and their character in accordance with the light they found as a result of their research. In the age of Ranade there was not the same divorce between a politician and a student which one sees in the Gandhi age. In the age of Ranade a politician, who was not a student, was treated as an intolerable nuisance, if not a danger. In the age of Mr. Gandhi learning, if it is not despised, is certainly not deemed to be a necessary qualification of a politician.

To my mind there is no doubt that this Gandhi age is the dark age of India. It is an age in which people instead of looking for their ideals in the future are returning to antiquity. It is an age in which people have ceased to think for themselves and as they have ceased to think they have ceased to read and examine the facts of their lives. The fate of an ignorant democracy which refuses to follow the way shown by learning and experience and chooses to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and the megalomaniacs is a sad thing to contemplate."

—From Federation versus Freedom, 1939

Ambedkar on Adivasis and Gandhi on Dalits

Ambedkar on Adivasis and Gandhi on Dalits

By looking at the tribes as distinct from castes, Ambedkar, like many others before him, drives a wedge between the “civilized” and the “uncivilized”

BY VISHAL PRATAP SINGH DEO विशाल प्रताप सिंह देव

ON JUNE 1, 2017

https://www.forwardpress.in/2017/06/ambedkar-on-adivasis-and-gandhi-on-dalits/#_edn3

From the mid-19th century onwards, the colonial state spent a lot of intellectual energy trying to understand caste and tribe, leaving behind copious amounts of literature written by ethnologists and administrators. These texts explain the dominant narrative that was prevalent around that time, when ideas such as the “martial race theory”, the “inward migration theory” and the “original inhabitant theory” were explained through the lens of Victorian anthropology. The census exercise, which involved enumeration of vast bodies of people starting in the 1880s, was a direct result of this intellectual activity. In the 1920s, categories of caste, tribe and religion were broken up into smaller categories, which to this day influence politics in the subcontinent.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar and his wife, Savita

The construction of the Dalit identity owes its origins to the various views put forward by officials of the colonial state, ethnologists, nationalist leaders and leader of Dalit associations. Ambedkarism of the 1920s built upon earlier forms of activism while also emerging as a novel break from the caste politics of the earlier century. It is a well-established convention to write of Dalit politics as having a linear history, often anachronistically, from Jyotiba Phule to Ambedkar. The two to my mind represent opposite ends of a Dalit paradigm, connected in their contest against Brahmanism, but nuanced in the means of protest and the context of politics they found themselves in.

The colonial state was critical of the caste system, but used it to classify and enumerate social groups into definitive categories of caste and tribe. Within the rubric of anti-colonialism lay the politics of men like Ambedkar and Gandhi who held divergent views on the issue of untouchability. For Ambedkar, his firm belief in modernity led him to argue on behalf of social reform as a precursor to political reform. Modern laws, according to him, couldn’t be applied to a society that was unprepared to do away with its control over tradition.[1] Ambedkar’s demand for social reform was based on the everyday conflict with the upper castes that that “Untouchables” were drawn into, including for equality in places of work, in society, and for the annihilation of the caste system altogether. He disagreed with the method adopted by the Congress in addressing social exclusion. The party had spoken through its president W.C. Bonnerjee at the Allahabad Congress in 1892, when he said, “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.”[2]

Ambedkar with members of the Simon Commission

The socialists took on an economic determinist view with regards to social exclusion, believing that caste would melt away under the larger rubric of socialism. To this Ambedkar responded by saying that by ignoring caste in the analysis of class, the workplace would only go on to perpetuate caste differences.[3]

Ambedkar’s insistence on the annihilation of caste was absolute. He backed his arguments through several of his writings, often drawing on the Buddha’s teachings or attacking the Congress for its passive acceptance of untouchability. However, being a product of his time, that is modernity, Ambedkar saw no fault in keeping certain sections of society disenfranchised or excluded from political reform. The Eurocentric model of economic progress ranked societies and cultures on the basis of modes of production. Fanned by social evolutionists, those societies that appeared to be lagging behind on the civilizational ladder were often subjected to political and social exclusion. To quote Ambedkar from his deposition to the Simon commission in 1929, “The aboriginal tribes have not as yet developed a political sense to make the best use of their political opportunities and they may easily become mere instruments in the hands of either of a majority or a minority and thereby disturb the balance without doing any good to themselves.” [4]

By looking at the tribes as distinct from castes, Ambedkar, like many others before him, drives a wedge between the “civilized” and the “uncivilized”. Such an approach exposed a vast body of people to pacification campaigns even though they culturally and religiously share deep affiliations with the settled castes.

For Gandhi there could be no nation without religion. He said, “I do not believe that religion has nothing to do with politics. The latter, divorced from religion is like a corpse, only fit to be buried.”[5] Quoting W.W. Hunter (a late 19th– and early 20th-century ethnologist), he says, “India was never in need of a poor law, caste-regulated service in the event of death, disease and poverty.”[6] Hunter was of the opinion that old institutions should be studied, investigated and revived. This seemed acceptable to Gandhi who upheld the Hindu faith and argued against the conversion of Hindus into other religions. Treating the Hindu philosophical view as sacrosanct, Gandhi felt that the prevalence of untouchability was an internal matter of the Hindus, who were expected to rid themselves of ideas of purity and pollution that prevented them from dining and touching untouchables.

Gandhi in Madras while raising funds for ‘Harijans’

In his reply to Ambedkar’s essay “The Annihilation of Caste”, he upholds caste by referring to it as an ancestral duty where answering to one’s calling was not wrong. Blaming the corruption of the Hindu religion, he said Ambedkar was referring to texts that lacked authenticity and overlooking the famous saints who professed the same faith.[7] Here he refers to Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram,Tiruvalluvar, Ramkakrishna Paramhansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharishi Devendranath Tagore and Vivekananda.[8] On the question of the Untouchables, he refers to them as “Bhangi”, and “Antyaja”, and goes a step ahead of Ambedkar in presuming that lower castes needed to be Hinduized.

It becomes clear that the modernizing or sedentarizing narrative pushed forward by the colonial state had found agreement in the speeches and works of Gandhi and Ambedkar. If Ambedkar was for enfranchising the Tribals through the appointment of a statutory commission, Gandhi was for Hinduizing the Bhangi and Antyaja. Gandhi’s support for the Vedic stricture “each according to his birth” is similar to the racially determined theories laid down by colonial ethnologists.[9]

Two Approaches To Excluding Tribals

The Indian Statutory Commission (Simon commission) was set up as an extension of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 and was meant to submit a report on the effects and readiness of constitutional reforms in the sub-continent. The commission was to submit a detailed report on the state of education, on local governments and the conditions for franchise. To understand Ambedkar’s deposition before the commission one has to consider the views of the colonial state and the parameters it set for eligibility for the franchise.

Rules on the eligibility of voters in most municipalities in the province were made in 1886 and remained practically unchanged until 1917. Voters were required to be at least 21 years of age, and to ordinarily reside or run a business, or possess immovable property, and be brought within municipal taxation. The rules also made allowances for alternate qualifications such as[10]:

1.   Possession of immovable property of a specified value within municipal limits: in most cases the minimum value was Rs200, but in some of the larger towns it was Rs300 and more.

2.   Payment of rent, usually not less than one rupee a month but in the larger towns not less than two rupees a month.

3.   Receipt of a specified minimum income, usually of Rs10 a month but in the larger towns of Rs 15 and more, up to Rs 25 a month.

4.   Possession of certain educational qualifications with or without a specified minimum income: usually the qualification was that of having passed the Middle School Examination, but in the larger towns that of having passed the University Entrance Examination.

5.   Payment of a minimum amount of land revenues usually Rs 25 a year

In 1917, the revision of the election rules of all municipalities was taken up and during the next two or three years rules were revised with regard to the qualifications of voters in most towns. The eligibility criteria remained the same as before, but generally, except in respect of the land revenue, the cut-off value of immovable property or rent or income or standard of educational qualification was increased. Thus, in 55 municipalities, the qualifying value of immovable property was raised to Rs800 or more, in 57 municipalities the minimum monthly rent was raised to Rs2 or more and in 45 municipalities the minimum qualifying income was raised Rs20 or more. At the same time plural voting was abolished.[11]

Ambedkar with members of the Samata Sainik Dal

When the Simon commission was examining the issue of the franchise towards the late 1920s, depositions were accepted from various classes. Ambedkar argued for extending the franchise to the Dalits, but was keen to leave out the Tribals as he thought them unfit to be given the right to vote. If for the commission, property ownership was key to be eligible for the franchise, for Ambedkar, the wild and uncivilized ways of the Tribals ruled them out.

Assimilate Or Exclude Tribals?

Attempts at controlling the economic activities of Tribals had began in the earlier century but in the period after the 1920s, the attitude had changed to providing autonomy to those tribes that carried out shifting cultivation 12], and were said to have “distinct” religious and cultural practices[13]. By the 1930s, the state’s strategy had become to put tribes into spheres of control. Notwithstanding these changes in attitude of the State, those sections of the tribal population like the Santhals, who took to education, modern laws and settled agriculture, were said to be moving towards a more civilized way of life. According to G. S. Ghurye, “Forest policy in the central provinces was influenced by the nature of resources present there, and the people who resided in the very tracts were meant to be utilized for resource extraction.”[14] By the mid-19th century, the state had introduced regulations to control the economic activity in the central provinces.

The interest in carving out excluded areas as zones of freedom marks a shift in the approach towards social categories. While earlier, the liminal relationship between caste and tribe was placed on record in the voluminous census records and the writings of colonial ethnologists, the 1920s see a marked difference in the categorization of social groups and the State’s response to them. Several intellectuals writing in the 1930s dealt this question of “assimilation” and “exclusion”. G.S. Ghurye argued for assimilation and was supported in his views by A.V. Thakkar, who agreed with the term “assimilation”, rather than isolation. There were others such as Verrier Elwin who argued instead for autonomous zones. Treating tribes as distinct in their way of life, Elwin was quick to point out the “liberated woman”, and the innocence and the honesty that the Baigas possessed. He was worried about the invasion of untouchability, child marriage and a rupture in tribal solidarity if the tribes were assimilated into Hindu society. “The life of the true aboriginal is simple and happy, enriched by natural pleasures. For all their poverty, their days are spent in the beauty of the hills … the life of their children in the village dormitory is described as beautiful as a bison’s horns, lovely as a horse’s throat.”[15]

Gandhi interacts with Dalits

If the tribes were meant to be assimilated or kept in autonomous zones, Gandhi’s diktat on assimilating lower castes found resonance in J.H Hutton’s Caste in India.[16] Hutton investigated the “exterior castes” and ways in which they can be made more acceptable within Hindu society. He evaluated the acceptability of backward castes in the Hindu fold thus:

1.   Whether the caste or class in question can be served by clean Brahmans or not.

2.   Whether the caste or class in question can be served by the barbers, water carriers, tailors, etc, who serve the caste Hindus

3.   Whether the caste in question pollutes a high-caste Hindu by contact or by proximity.

4.   Whether the caste or class in question is one from whose hands a caste Hindu can take water.

5.   Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from using public conveniences, such as roads, ferries, wells or schools.

6.   Whether the class or caste in question is debarred form the use of Hindu temples.

7.   Whether in ordinary social intercourse a well-educated member of the caste or class in question will be treated as an equal by high-caste men with the same educational qualifications.

8.   Whether the caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of its own ignorance, illiteracy or poverty, and but for that, would be subject to no social disability

9.   Whether it is depressed on account of the occupation followed and whether but for that occupation it would subject to no social disability.[17]

Hunter was writing a few years after Independence when the questions over the  backward castes were being debated in the Constituent Assembly. It becomes clear that social groups can only be a caste or tribe, excluded or assimilated. The way social groups are marginalized by the census and later appropriated under the same categories of the Indian state shows the failure on the part of the intellectuals who readily accepted the colonial categories of caste and tribe.

Ambedkar meets Dalit women

          The census created new categories that were otherwise fluid and liminal. Notwithstanding this, the challenge to Brahmanism and state hegemony from the marginalized was also an outcome of the same exercise. The census lent weight to the Dalit and tribal identity, since the enumeration of an entire population for the first time made communities aware of their strength in numbers. This is not to deny that religion-supremacist groups also based their politics on their majoritarian strength. The significance of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Tabligh-i-Jamaat in the 1920s can be read within this emerging trend in politics.

The mass mobilization of Hindus who demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992, the riots in Gujarat in 2002, all point to the binaries created between the majority and the minority. To investigate these binaries is to go back to the census and understand the contemporary roots of communalism and sectarianism. The census may have introduced a shift in caste and communal politics but the narrative of politics continued to remain prisoner to the 19th-century notions of race and ethnicity. Today, a feeling of historical wrongs continues to drive community formation, which often leads to mass mobilization and demand for reservation. The Patidars in Gujurat and the Jats in Haryana have most recently agitated along these lines.

[1] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1 December 1944, New Delhi; last modified 12 July 2015.

http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm

[2] Extract of speech of W.C. Bonnerjee (1882) in The Doctor and the Saint (2013), New Delhi: Navayana, p 213.

[3] B.R. Ambedkar in his delivered speech “Annihilation of Caste” (1944), in The Doctor and the Saint (2013), New Delhi: Navayana, p 213.

[4] Ibid, p 249.

[5]Selected works of M.K. Gandhi, ed Ronald Duncan, Faber and Faber, p 127, London; accessed at http://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/SWMGandhi.pdf

[6] Collected works of M.K. Gandhi (cwmg), Speech at Rajkot, 25 September 1919, www.mkgandhi.org

[7] Annihilation of Caste, p 326.

[8] Ibid, 328.

[9] B.R. Ambedkar (1944), Reply to Mahatma Gandhi, Appendix 2, Annihilation of Caste, http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm#a02

[10] Indian Statuary Commission (1930) in the memorandum submitted by the Government of Punjab, Vol 10, p 135, www.gipe.ac.in

[11] Ibid

[12] G.S. Ghurye, The Scheduled Tribes of India (1963)

[13] Parliamentary debates, Fifth series, Vol 299, col 1395-1401, ‘If at this moment we decide on a ring-fence policy and segregate as many areas as we can put off to a later date the chance of assimilating the backward areas in the general policy of India’, in Ghurye (1963)

[14] Ibid

[15] Verrier Elwin, The Aboriginal (1943), London: Oxford University Press

[16] J.H. Hutton, ‘Exterior Castes’ in Caste In India (1963). Oxford: Oxford University press

[17] Ibid, 195

Based in New Delhi, India, ForwardPress.in and Forward Press Books shed light on the widespread problems as well as the finer aspects of Bahujan (Dalit, OBC, Adivasi, Nomadic, Pasmanda) society, literature, culture and politics. Next on the publication schedule is a book on Dr Ambedkar’s multifaceted personality. To book a copy in advance, contact The Marginalised Prakashan, IGNOU Road, Delhi. Mobile: +919968527911.