Gandhi and Ambedkar's Views On Caste System and Untouchability

In an interview with the BBC, Dr. B.R Ambedkar infamously said, “I know Gandhi better than his disciples. They came to him as devotees and saw only the Mahatma. I was an opponent, and I saw the bare man in him. He showed me his fangs”. The Mahatma contributed greatly to the freedom struggle, but never quite managed to become a hero of the oppressed classes. A feud that famously arose between Gandhi and Ambedkar due to their conflicting ideas on the caste system would culminate in the abolition of untouchability and the reservation of seats for scheduled castes in government offices in contemporary India. How were these two leaders and their approaches different to one another? Whose ideas were more practical?

The stark contrast in the backgrounds of these pioneers provides great insight into their approaches towards the caste system. Mahatma Gandhi who was born into a Vaishya family and his mother was a pious woman. Consequently, Gandhi imbibed Hindu religious customs and practiced them throughout his life (Mehra). Ambedkar, on the other hand, was born into the Mahar caste (untouchable). His family had served in the military for generations and that put Ambedkar in the unique position to be able to acquire an education.

The Mahatma believed in the Bhakti philosophy. He believed that the Charturvarna system was necessary to ensure social order in society. He was of the view that each of the factions propagated by the caste system has a role and that they must not exceed the scope of it (Mehra). The Mahatma abhorred untouchability and saw it as a practice that corrupted Hinduism. Therefore, his wish was to “save” Hinduism by abolishing untouchability. Gandhi was a rural romantic who wished to establish self-governing villages as the bedrock of rural India. In keeping with this idealistic view of society, he coined the term “Harijan” which literally means “children of God” to replace the use of words like “shudra” or untouchables. He even adopted the “Harijan lifestyle” by choice. People argue that his ideas and solutions were more rooted in religion than politics.

B.R Ambedkar however, took a completely different approach towards the caste system. Unlike Gandhi, he wished to eradicate the caste system completely. This approach stemmed from two core ideas- firstly, he acknowledged that people of the Indian society were not protected by the law but by the social and moral conscience of society. Secondly, that a religion has to be one that is framed on the principles of fraternity, equality, and liberty; qualities that Hinduism lacked (Mehra). Ambedkar believed that these qualities can be achieved if society discarded the divine authority of the Shashtras. He stressed the importance of lower castes getting a part of political power in order to liberate themselves. Ambedkar was an admirer of city-life and modern technology who dismissed Indian villages as dens of inequity. Unlike Gandhi who sought solutions in the refinement of Hinduism, Ambedkar held his own as a constitutionalist who worked within the framework of the state and sought solutions using the aid of the state.

These conflicting ideas of the two giants famously clashed at the Poona Pact roundtable conference. At the roundtable conference, Ambedkar had argued for separate electorates for the oppressed classes arguing that 'although they are included among the Hindus, they do not form an integral part of the community. Not only do they have a separate existence but they have also been given a separate status'. Gandhi objected this idea stating that he did not want to restrict the oppressed classes to just this measly share of seats and that if they were good enough, they could win them all. He wished for the oppressed classes to be able to stake their claim in the “kingdom of the world” but soon it was made clear that if the caste system continued to exist, there was no way that the oppressed classes could do that. Gandhi did not reject the idea just because he believed that it offered too little to the Dalits but because it would destroy Hinduism.

Gandhi’s scheme also seemed to stem from the political interest of the leadership of the Hindu community. Faced with challenges from the leadership of the Muslim community and the possible reduction in seats, Gandhi and the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha responded with the idea of inclusion. All those who were excluded from the community were now to be included in the community under the title “Harijan” whereas Ambedkar wished not only for political power but equality in the Hindu community. He resolved that if Hinduism cannot treat his people with dignity, they shall look elsewhere.

Several arguments can be made as to why the oppressed classes chose to be led by Ambedkar and not Gandhi:

• Firstly, as a pious Hindu who was only a “Harijan' by adoption, Gandhi failed to gain trust among the oppressed classes, unlike Ambedkar who was born into the untouchable caste and deeply understood the grievances of his people.
• Secondly, the romanticized idea that the ‘caste system would be free of discrimination if untouchability was abolished' as propagated by Gandhi seemed to be unrealistic as the concept of castes and untouchability as so intertwined that one could not possibly survive without the other. Gandhi's idea was too deeply rooted in his religious beliefs. This blinded him from understanding that the integration of the oppressed classes into the Hindu community did not guarantee equal representation of the Dalits in politics in any way.
• Thirdly, Ambedkar provided a more practical solution by suggesting the abolition of the caste system completely and provision of a portion of seats to the oppressed classes so as to ensure their representation in politics.
• Lastly, years of oppression had already ruined the lives of these classes who seemed to have accepted their fate. But a leader like Ambedkar fought viciously and ignited their spirits to find a way out of the pit that Hinduism had thrown them into, unlike Gandhi who suggested they remain in the hold of a system that tortured them for centuries.

Ambedkar once asked why Gandhi never held a fast unto death against untouchability but the question remains unanswered and so does the question of what would have happened if Ambedkar’s idea of separate electorates was adopted. Despite everything, the practices of the caste system and untouchability continue to prevail in rural and urban India alike. But, it has been realized that Gandhi's ideas were too idealistic for a society that created factions within religion and that it provided no real solutions to the deep seeded social issue.

References

• Singh, A. (2014). Gandhi and Ambedkar: Irreconcilable Differences? International Journal of Hindu Studies, 18(3), 413-449. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24713655
• Mehra, Sparsh; Comparison on Gandhi and Ambedkar’s Views on the caste system; https://www.academia.edu/32137012/Comparison_on_gandhi_and_ambedkars_views_on_caste_system?auto=download; retrieved 6:09 pm, 15/02/2019
• D. N. (1991). Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Separate Electorates Issue. Economic and Political Weekly, 26(21), 1328-1330. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4398052
• Ambedkar, interview on BBC Radio, New Delhi, December 31, 1955. See: roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content &view= article&id=3797:Dr-Ambedkar-remembers-the-Poona-pact-in-an-interview on-the-BBC-&catid=l 16:dr-ambedkar&Itemid=128 (accessed Feb, 2019).
• Guha, 'Gandhi's Ambedkar' (2010), p.33, National Digital Library, Retrieved 18:43 pm, 27/02/2019