Bab 101

Anniversaryo
rth fD
Bi
5th
r.B
ebrating12
.R.A
mbedkar
Cel
Dr
Indira Gandhi National Open University .A
mb
edkarFound
ati
on
School of Social Sciences
BAB-101
B.R. Ambedkar:
Thinker, His Time
Certificate Programme on Life and

Thought of B.R. Ambedkar (CLTA)
Expert Committee
Prof. D. Gopal (Chairman) Prof. P. Kehsav Kumar Prof. Swaraj Basu
School of Social Sciences Department of Philosophy Discipline of History
IGNOU, New Delhi Delhi University School of Social Sciences
IGNOU, New Delhi
Prof. Nandu Ram Prof. Jagan Karade
Retired Prof. Centre for the Department of Sociology Prof. Debal K. Singharoy
Study of Social Systems Shivaji University Discipline of Sociology
School of Social Sciences Kolhapur School of Social Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University IGNOU, New Delhi
Prof. C. D. Naik
New Delhi
Prof. and Head Prof. Jagpal Singh
Prof. Umesh Bagade Division of Dr. Ambedkar Discipline of Political Science
Department of History Thought and Philosophy School of Social Sciences
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar IGNOU, New Delhi
Marathwada University Studies, Mhow, M.P.
Prof. Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay
Aurangabad
Prof. Y. Chinna Rao Discipline of History
Prof. M.H. Makwana Chairperson School of Social Sciences
Department of Sociology Centre for the Study of IGNOU, New Delhi
Gujarat University, Ahmadabad Discrimination and Exclusion
Prof. T. Kapur
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Prof. Vivek Kumar Discipline of Sociology
New Delhi
Centre for the Study of School of Social Sciences
Social Systems Prof. Shefali Jha IGNOU, New Delhi
School of Social Sciences Centre for Political Studies
Prof. Nita Mathur
Jawaharlal Nehru University School of Social Sciences
Discipline of Sociology
New Delhi Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi
Prof. Y.S. Alone IGNOU, New Delhi
School of Art and Aesthetic Prof. Rajkumar
Dr. Kiranmayi Bhushi
Jawaharlal Nehru University Department of English
New Delhi Delhi University
Prof. Basant Kumar Mallik Prof. Karunyakara M.G. IGNOU, New Delhi
Director Antarashtriya Hindi University
Dr. R. Vashum
Centre for Ambedkar Studies Wardha, Maharashtra
Utkal University
Prof. S. N. Chaudhary School of Social Sciences
Bhubneswar
Rajiv Gandhi Chair IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. C. Lakshmanan Barkatullah University
Dr. Rabindra Kumar (Convener)
Madras Institute of Bhopal
Associate Professor, Discipline
Development Studies
Prof. N. Sukumar of Sociology
Chennai
Department of Political Science School of Social Sciences
Prof. K. S. Chalam Delhi University IGNOU, New Delhi
Ex- Member UPSC
now associated with National
Human Rights Commission
New Delhi, as a Special
Reporter
CLTA Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rabindra Kumar

Course Coordinator
Dr. Rabindra Kumar
Associate Professor
IGNOU
New Delhi
Course Editor Editorial Assistance
Dr. Rabindra Kumar Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadav
Associate Professor Project Associate
Discipline of Sociology School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
IGNOU, New Delhi
BAB-101 Course Development Team
Prof. Rajkumar Dr. Ajay Verma
Department of English Centre for Philosophy
Delhi University (Unit 1-4) Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi and
Prof. Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay
Ms. Amritpal Kaur Research Scholar
Discipline of History
Jawaharlal Nehru University (Unit 12)
IGNOU, New Delhi (Unit 5) Dr. Santosh Suradhkar
Delhi University (Unit 13)
Prof. Swaraj Basu
Discipline of History Dr. Pol Prabodhan Aravind
School of Social Sciences Post Doctoral Research Scholar (Unit14 )
IGNOU, New Delhi (Unit 6)
Prof. Narender Kumar
Prof. Umesh Bagade Centre for Political Studies
Department of History Jawaharlal Nehru University
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada New Delhi
University. Aurangabad (Unit 7) and
Mr. Arvind Kumar
Dr. Dilip Chauhan
Research Scholar
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
Centre for Political Studies
University, Nanded (Unit 8)
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Dr. Umakant New Delhi (Unit 15)
Independent Research Scholar (Unit 9-10)
Dr. Vikas K. Jambhulkar
Dr. S. Lourdunathan Rashtrsant Tukadoji Maharaj
Anandar College Nagpur University
Madurai (Unit 11) Nagpur (Unit 16)
Language Editor
Mr. Bhupinder Singh
302, Tower 7, The Close North
Nirvana Country
Gurgaon
Material Production
Shri Manjit Singh
Section Officer (Publication)
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi
September, 2017
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2017
ISBN- 978-93-87237-18-6
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the
University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi – 110 068
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by
Director, School of Social Sciences.
Laser Typeset by: Graphic Printers, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi - 110091.
Printed at : Raj Printers, A-9, Sector B-2, Tronica City, Loni (Gzb.)
CONTENTS
Page No.
COURSE INTRODUCTION 7
Block 1 : Life World
Unit 1 Formative Years of Ambedkar’s Life 11
Unit 2 Young Ambedkar 17
Unit 3 Ambedkar Abroad 22
Unit 4 Ambedkar in India 28
Block 2 : Indian Intellectual Influences
Unit 5 Buddha 37
Unit 6 Kabir 45
Unit 7 Jyotiba Phule 52
Unit 8 Saint Poetic Tradition of Maharashtra 62
Block 3 : Western Intellectual Influences
Unit 9 Karl Marx 73
Unit 10 John Dewey 81
Unit 11 Edmund Burke 88
Unit 12 Bertrand Russell 98
Block 4 : Quest for Social Change and Alternative Movement
Unit 13 Democratic Struggle 109
Unit 14 Social and Educational Organisation 118
Unit 15 Participation and Representation 129
Unit 16 As a Constitution Drafting Committee Chairman and Minister 137
INTRODUCTION
The course on B.R. Ambedkar: Thinker, His Time tries to acquaint students about the
life sketch of B.R. Ambedkar and analyze and his analytical to appreciate both the
Western and the Indian Philosophical systems. This syllabus is structured and sequentially
prepared by an expert committee on life and thought of B.R. Ambedkar. The sixteen units
are distributed evenly into four blocks, each block in turn comprising four units each in
this book.
The introductory Block 1 is Life World and it comprises four units. Unit 1 provides
a glimpse of Ambedkar’s formative years including early life, parents and relations and
childhood education in India. Unit 2 discuss Ambedkar life world which emphasis on his
young life, college education and contemporary India of early 20th century. Unit 3 deals
with Ambedkar’s life in abroad and education in United States and England while pursuing
his academic carrier. While studying abroad the kind of exposure he got, particularly from
the American and English societies, made him bold to wage war on casteism in India.
Unit 4 moves on to focus Ambedkar’s life struggle, movements led by him, political
carrier and his conversion to Buddhism.
Block 2 will address on Indian Intellectual Influences and it comprises four units. Unit
5 will introduce about Buddha and his period, growth, decline and resurgence of
Buddhism and Ambedker’s interpretation of Buddhism. Unit 6 explore Kabir and his
ideas and teaching and influence on Ambedkar. India is a land of great poets and
philosophers whose ideas contributed to understanding the true values of human life.
Unit 7 discuss about Jyotiba Phule contribution as social reformer, anti caste movements,
education and influence on Ambedkar. Unit 8 deals with emergence of Bhakti movement,
its importance and influence in Maharashtra and other parts of the 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
Block 3 made attempt to study Western Intellectual Influences and it comprises four
units. Unit 9 begins with background of Karl Marx and his major contribution. It also
provides characteristics of caste-class. Before summing up, influence of Karl Marx on
Ambedkar has been mentioned. Unit 10 tries to address about John Dewey and his
philosophy and influence on Ambedkar. B. R. Ambedkar’s thoughts and life was inspired
greatly by western intellectuals. Unit 11 discuss about the western intellectual influence,
specifically of Edmund Burke, on Ambedkar. Unit 12 primarily talk about the Russel’s
notion on the genesis of war, behaviourism and creative and destructive principles.
In the final Block 4 Quest for Social Change and Alternative Movement which
comprises four units. Unit 13 emphasis various democratic struggles that took place under
B. R. Ambedkar’s leadership in colonial India. Most of these struggles emerged in 1920s
and 1930s. These struggles established Ambedkar as a national leader and crusader of
democratic values. Unit 14 explores social, educational and political organisations founded
by Ambedkar and briefly explore the activities conducted by them during his life time.
Ambedkar’s success in mobilizing the masses and foregrounding radical anti-caste discourse
should be predominantly attributed to the many mass organisations he founded. Unit 15
contextualize Ambedkar quest for social change and alternative movement for doing away
with ‘graded inequality’ of Indian society and restructuring it on the noble principles of
8 Introduction
liberty, equality and fraternity. To materialize these principles on Indian subcontinent,

Ambedkar throughout his life struggled for establishing social democracy since these
principles can be best realised in a democratic form of government that presupposes
democratic form of society. The final Unit 16 reflect about background of the Constitution
and its features and role of Ambedkar in drafting of the Indian Constitution. After India’s
independence on 15 August 1947, the new Congress-led government invited Ambedkar
to serve as the nation’s first law minister, a post he accepted.
You are advised to go through these units to gain a general overview of the above
mentioned themes. For a in-depth understanding you are encouraged to go through the
suggested reading and questions to check your progress at the end of each of the units.
For further assistance, do consult your counsellor.
BLOCK 1 LIFE WORLD
Unit 1 Formative Years of Ambedkar’s Life
Unit 2 Young Ambedkar
Unit 3 Ambedkar Abroad
Unit 4 Ambedkar in India
UNIT 1 FORMATIVE YEARS OF AMBEDKAR’S
LIFE
Structure
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Ambedkar’s Early Life
1.4 Ambedkar’s Early Education
1.5 Let Us Sum Up
1.6 Questions to Check Your Progress
Suggested Reading
1.1 OBJECTIVES
This unit would enable you to understand:
 Ambedkar’s early life;
 Ambedkar’s parents and relations;
 Ambedkar’s childhood education; and
 India of the nineteenth – early twentieth century.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will emphasis on Ambedkar’s early life, parents and relations and
childhood education. This is first unit of this block and rest unit will provide details on
Ambedkar’s young life as well as his experiences at abroad and in India.
Devi Dayal, who worked as a personal assistant to B. R. Ambedkar for more than eight
years, sums up Ambedkar’s life thus:
To write Babasaheb’s biography was not easy. He was such an outstanding
personality. He was versatile. He was an amalgam of world’s top talents. He had
the literary studiousness and wit of Johnson. He had the undaunted reformism of
Martin Luther, who had shaken by his doctrine the very foundation of papal bigotry.
He had the moral courage and truthfulness of Voltaire, who had torn apart by his
essays, speeches and satires the very fabric of conservatism in France. Babasaheb
had the scholastic diligence of Karl Marx. He had the intrepidity of Bonaparte,
patriotism of Lincoln, and of Garibaldi. He had the eloquence of Burke, and
competence of Bismark. Above all, Babasaheb had the loving-kindness and
compassion of Lord Buddha, and his prophetic vision as well. Endowed with these
myriad virtues, Babasaheb was too complex a character for me to describe. (Dayal
2001: 38)
Given the insight that Ambedkar had a complex character, how do we approach his life
and ideology? Today Ambedkar symbolizes different person as to different people. Hindu
12 Life World
nationalists call him “anti-national”; Hindu fundamentalists call him “a savior of Hindu
society”; neo-Buddhists believe him to be an incarnation of Buddha. And for millions of
Dalits across the country he is the symbol of their struggle and their hope. As a member
of Dalit community, Ambedkar championed their cause and fought relentlessly throughout
his life to ensure equality, social justice, self-respect and freedom for them. Ambedkar,
thus, stood for social liberation, economic emancipation and political advancement of the
downtrodden millions – a task never undertaken by any high caste Hindu leader with as
much vigor and force. To know more about Ambedkar, let’s go back to the pages of
Indian history and unravel some of the facts of his life and career.
1.3 AMBEDKAR’S EARLY LIFE

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956), popularly known as Baba Saheb to millions of
Dalits across India, was born at Mhow (Military Headquarters of Wars), a military town
close to Indore in Central India, on 14 April 1891. He was the fourteenth child of Ramji
Sakpal and Bhimabai. Ramji came from a well-off Mahar family from the Ratnagiri district
of Maharashtra. Ramji’s father Maloji Sakpal was a retired military man. Like his father,
Ramji also joined the military and rose to the rank of Subedar-Major in the 2nd
Grenadiers. He served as the headmaster of a military school for 14 years and after his
retirement in 1893 on a pension of Rs. 50 per month, he settled down at Dapoli in the
Ratnagiri district. In 1894 he was re-employed as a store-keeper in the Public Works
Department, Ratnagiri, and was later transferred to Satara.
Ambedkar was fortunate to have good parents. His father was industrious and devotional
by nature. He was stout, impressive, generous and voluble. He offered prayers in the
morning and evening, when invariably, his children joined him. He also read the
Ramayana and Mahabharata and recited devotional songs by Marathi saint-poets like
Moropant, Mukteshwar and Tukaram. Such regular readings and recitations of epics and
songs had a deep impact on his children from an early age, so much so that Ambedkar
would often quote Tukaram in many of his writings and speeches in later years.
Ramji also had other exceptional qualities. He was a confirmed teetotaler and never
touched meat. When young, he played cricket and football very well and continued to
enjoy good health. He was a contemporary of Mahatma Jotiba Phule who was the
founder of Satya Shodhak Samaj (The Truth-Seeking Society) and a pioneer of anti-caste
movements of non-Brahmins in Maharashtra. As a friend and admirer of Phule, Ramji
worked hard to address some of the social problems of his time and society. In 1892
when the British Government issued orders banning the recruitment of Mahars in the
Indian Army as a result of a petition by the upper castes, Ramji took a lead to protest
against the order. He mobilized people and with the help of Justice Mahadev Govind
Ranade drafted a petition and submitted it to the Government to rescind the unjust order.
Many years later Ambedkar found a copy of the petition in a bundle of his father’s old
papers.
Ambedkar’s mother Bhimabai came from Murbad village located in the Thana district of
Bombay state. The family was comparatively rich. She was beautiful with a fair
complexion, a broad forehead, curly hair, round glowing eyes and a short nose. She was
very kind and caring. Her father and her six uncles were all Subedar-Majors in the Army.
They also were members of the Kabir Panth, which Ambedkar inherited.
Formative Years of Ambedkar’s Life 13
1.4 AMBEDKAR’S EARLY EDUCATION

Ambedkar started his formal education at Dapoli where his father settled down after
retirement from the Army. At the age of five, young Bhimrao was sent to a local Marathi
school. Later, when his father was transferred to Satara and joined a civilian job, he was
admitted to a school there. After completing his primary education, Ambedkar joined
Satara Government High School in 1900. His official name in the school register was
Bhima Ramji Ambavadekar. The original surname of his family was Sakpal. But his
ancestors preferred to call themselves after their ancestral village Ambavade which was in
Khed taluka in the Ratnagiri district. One of the Brahmin teachers in the high school liked
Bhimrao’s honesty and intelligence so much so that he wanted to make him his protégé.
The teacher was kind and obliging. He would often share his food and advise Bhim to
work hard and set a high goal in life. As a mark of love and respect to his teacher,
Bhimrao began to call himself Ambedkar and throughout his life remained grateful to him.
When Ambedkar went to England to attend the Round Table Conference in 1930, the
teacher sent him a congratulatory letter. He must have been proud to see Ambedkar
progressing so well in life.
But Ambedkar had to face the stigma of untouchability from the very beginning of his life.
In fact, before Ambedkar arrived on the political scene, caste oppression was extremely
harsh because of the orthodox Brahmanism prevalent then. Physical contact with the
untouchables was said to be ‘polluting’ and worse still, even their shadows were
considered ‘defiling’. At one time the untouchables were required to tie an earthen pot
around their neck and a broom around their waist while walking in the street so that their
spittle and footsteps may not defile the roads which the upper caste people had to tread.
Very heavy and harsh were the penalties for the depressed caste people if they even
unwittingly transgressed the restrictions placed on them. Having suffered such indignities,
Ambedkar was imbued with hatred for the Hindu social system which condemned him
and his class of people to a life of utter degradation. Many painful incidents made the
young Ambedkar realize that caste system was based on discriminatory provisions.
Therefore, he took it as a mission in life to annihilate caste.
One summer day, Bhim and his elder brother, along with their little nephew, set out on
a train journey to meet their father who worked as a cashier at Goregaon. They got in
at Padali railway station and travelled up to Masur. As their father had not received their
letter in time, he did not turn up at the station to receive them. After waiting for long,
they persuaded the station master, a caste Hindu, to secure them a bullock cart and
started for Goregaon. The cart had not gone far when the god-fearing caste Hindu cart-
man came to know that they were from an untouchable family and instantly threw them
out of the cart. But when the boys paid him double the fare, the cart-man allowed them
to sit in the cart. While Bhim’s elder brother drove the cart, the cart-man fearing
pollution, followed the cart on foot. The boys travelled from evening till midnight without
getting a drop of water on their way. Whenever they requested people to give them some
water, people either pointed to some filthy water or asked them to go away. This was
the first rude shock for Bhim, a realization that he belonged to a family of untouchables,
who according to the Hindu caste rules were degraded to eat and drink filthy things. A
few days later Bhim, as a mark of protest, was seen drinking water from a public place.
When the upper castes caught him, he was beaten black and blue.
Later Bhim discovered many more barbaric rules of the caste Hindu society towards the
14 Life World
so-called untouchable population. He, for example, came to know that the barber who
happened to be his co-religionist and countryman would not cut his hair for fear of
pollution. So his sisters cut his hair. Being humiliated and subjected to inhuman treatment
regularly from his fellow-men, Bhim’s character started to take a unique shape of its own.
He was pugnacious, resourceful and fearless. So much so that he could defy anybody and
anything that dictated rules of conduct and discipline. Nobody could forbid him to do a
thing without being challenged. One day he went to school soaked in rain because his
classmates challenged him to go to school without an umbrella. When he entered his
class in a dripping shirt and dhoti, his class teacher, Pendse by name, was moved at the
sight. He at once asked his son to take Bhim to his residence, give him a hot bath and
a piece of cloth to wear and to hang up his wet clothes to dry.
During his school days he was discriminated by both his teachers and school mates. He
was forced to sit separately from his classmates in the classroom. He could not mix with
other boys or play cricket or other games with them. The teachers would not touch his
notebooks either. Perhaps, one cannot do better than to quote Dhananjay Keer,
Ambedkar’s biographer, in order to understand Ambedkar’s bitter experience during his
school days:
He and his brother were usually made to squat in a corner of the class on a piece of
gunny cloth which they carried to school. The teachers would not touch their notebooks,
nor did some of them even ask them to recite poems or put questions to them for fear
of being polluted! When these two boys felt thirsty in the school they turned their mouths
upward and then somebody would kindly pour drinking water into their mouths as if
through a funnel. (Keer 1990:14-15)
With such a discouraging environment Bhim had little or no love for his studies. He
started indulging in different hobbies rather than studying. From his childhood gardening
had fascinated his mind so much that he spent every pie he could lay his hand upon, in
purchasing new plants and caring for them. At one point he got fed up with such pursuit
and started tending to cattle and rearing goats. Keer quotes one of Ambedkar’s speeches
where he mentions about working at a railway station as a coolie, “On one occasion I
actually did some hamal work at Satara station. My aunt terribly felt humiliated at this
conduct of mine, but she loved me so much that she had no heart to punish me.” (Keer
1990: 15)
His family situation also made Bhim become tough. After his first wife passed away,
Ramji, Bhim’s father, married a second time. Although he had no intention to re-marry,
he got married for the sake of his children. Bhim did not like the idea of another woman
taking the place of his mother and he hated his step-mother for wearing his mother’s
ornaments. Bhim decided not to depend any longer on his father’s income and resolved
to earn his own bread. He had heard from his two sisters who were in Bombay after
their marriage that jobs were available in Bombay mills. Bhim decided to go to Bombay
and become a winding boy in a mill. But he had no money for the fare. He chalked out
a plan to steal the purse of his aunt, in whose company he slept on the floor. This
confession of Ambedkar came many years later in the following words:
For three successive nights I tried to remove the purse tucked up at the waist of my aunt,
but without success. On the fourth night I did get hold of the purse, but to my
disappointment I found only half an anna in it. And in half an anna, of course, I could
not go to Bombay. The four nights’ experience was so nerve-racking that I gave up the
Formative Years of Ambedkar’s Life 15
idea of collecting money in this shameful manner and I came to another decision – a
decision that gave an entirely different turn to my life. I decided that I must give up my
truant habits; that I must study hard and get through my examinations as fast as possible,
so that I might earn my own livelihood and be independent of my father. (Keer 1990:
15-16)
From that day onwards, Bhim gave up all his irregular habits and activities and became
so diligent in his studies that his teachers, who were disappointed in him earlier now
advised his father to give him the best possible education.
When his job at Satara was terminated, Ramji shifted his family to Bombay in 1904.
They lived in a small room in a chawl at lower Parel. The chawl, situated in an area
where only the mill workers lived, had the atmosphere of the underworld. Two of his
daughters had already got married and settled down in Bombay. They helped Ramji from
time to time. Ramji got his sons admitted to the Maratha High School. He received Rs.
50 for his monthly pension. Such a small amount of money was never sufficient for
supporting his family’s needs. And yet Ramji was determined to educate his children.
Bhim in the meantime had made a lot of progress in his studies. He did very well in
English as compared to other subjects. After a few months Bhim was sent to Elphinstone
High School which was one of the leading schools in Bombay then. Though Bhim studied
hard, he continued to face difficulties. The one-room chawl had virtually no space. The
room was full of domestic articles and utensils. It was smoky and crowded. But Bhim
had to adjust to the situation. He slept on a quilt. Near his head lay a grindstone huddled
next to the wall and a she-goat lay panting near his feet. He woke up very early morning
and studied in the light of a flickering oil-lamp with no glass cover. In spite of all the
difficulties, Bhim was very regular and punctual to class.
Compared to Satara High School, Elphinstone High School gave Bhim some respite from
caste discrimination. Being a Mahar, he could not play cricket at Satara, but in Bombay
there was no such restriction and he could play games as much as he wanted. But the
atmosphere in the school was not free from casteism. One day his class teacher called
upon Bhim to come to the blackboard to solve a problem. Instantly there was uproar in
the class. The caste Hindu children used to keep their tiffin-boxes behind the blackboard.
Fearing that their food would be polluted when Bhim touched the blackboard they rushed
to the blackboard and moved their tiffin-boxes aside. Bhim felt humiliated.
The school also did not allow Bhim and his elder brother to take up Sanskrit as a second
language. According to Hindu laws, the lower castes and women had no right to read and
write Sanskrit because it was considered to be Devabhasa, the language of the gods. So
Bhim and his elder brother had to opt for Persian instead. After many years, Ambedkar
of course, studied Sanskrit partly by himself and partly with the help of some Sanskrit
scholars. After pursuing these two classic languages for years, he held the opinion that
Persian stood no comparison with Sanskrit because the latter was the golden treasure of
epics, the cradle of grammar, politics and philosophy and the home of logic, dramas and
criticism.
Notwithstanding such deliberate insults and humiliations by the caste Hindu society,
Ambedkar worked hard and excelled in his studies. Of course, some broad-minded
human beings came to help him in his endeavour. He passed the matriculation examination
from Elphinstone High School in 1907. This was certainly an uncommon achievement for
an untouchable. The event was therefore, celebrated by his community. They called a
16 Life World
meeting in Bombay to felicitate Bhimrao for his success. S. K. Bole, a well known social
reformer, presided over the meeting. Krishnaji Arjun Keluskar, another social reformer and
a well-known Marathi writer also attended the meeting. Charmed by the hard work and
perseverance of Ambedkar, Keluskar presented him his latest book, Life of Gautam
Buddha. Thus Ambedkar got exposed to Buddha’s life and philosophy at a very early
age. It was a coincidence that towards the fag end of his life he embraced Buddhism
leaving Hinduism for good.
1.5 LET US SUM UP

Born into a modest Mahar family, Ambedkar had to face several hurdles from the
beginning of his life. Even if he had good parents and helpful relatives, caste rules tarred
his younger years. He had to face many obstacles to get his early education. But due to
hard work and perseverance he could overcome those obstacles and finally succeeded in
passing matriculation. In sum up we have learned Ambedkar’s early background of life
and education.
1.6 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1) Who were Ambedkar’s parents? What role did they play in bringing him up?
2) What kind of society was Ambedkar born into?
3) What hurdles did Ambedkar face to get his early education?
4) How did Ambedkar overcome the restrictions imposed by the caste laws?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Dayal, Devi. Daily Routine of Dr. Ambedkar. New Delhi: Samyak Prakashan, 2011.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting
Caste. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2005.
Keer, Dhananjay. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Life and Mission. New Delhi: Popular
Prakashan, 2016.
Kuber, W. N. B. R. Ambedkar. Delhi: Publication Division, Government of India, 2001.
Rao, K. Raghavendra. Babasaheb Ambedkar, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1993.
UNIT 2 YOUNG AMBEDKAR
Structure
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Introduction
2.3 Ambedkar’s Young Life
2.4 Ambedkar’s College Education
2.5 Ambedkar and the India of the Early Twentieth Century
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
2.1 OBJECTIVES
 Ambedkar’s young life;
 Ambedkar’s college education; and
 India of the early twentieth century.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss Ambedkar life world which emphasis on his young life, college
education and contemporary India of early 20th century. Christophe Jaffrelot, the renowned
French sociologist, wonders how Ambedkar, in spite of having several disadvantages in
life, could overcome them and become the tallest leader of India. Jaffrelot writes:
Ambedkar was the first Untouchable leader of India. In this capacity, he is almost
an enigma: how did he drag himself away from his social background to acquire this
standing and become a genuine statesman? We cannot, here, content ourselves with
a psychological explanation by emphasising the exceptional features of his personality.
Certainly, he had the advantage of an extraordinary mind and an iron will: he could
channel all his energy in the service of a wider project and his determination never
failed him. But such an idiosyncrasy alone does not account for his career. As usual
in such cases, an element of chance must be factored in too, but it does not explain
everything either. (Jaffrelot 2005: 8)
It is not so easy to understand in the face of many adversities Ambedkar rose to power
to become the greatest leader of Dalits in post-independent India. Whatever success he
had in his later phase of life can be ascribed to the making of the young Ambedkar. What
was the young Ambedkar like? What kind of youth was he? What kind of society did
he have to face during his growing years? What were his social experiences? These and
many other questions will be addressed while talking about the young Ambedkar. Having
studied about Ambedkar and his childhood experiences in the last unit, we will connect
18 Life World
those experiences with the experiences of the young Ambedkar and try to make sense
of how he evolved over the years.
2.3 AMBEDKAR’S YOUNG LIFE

Soon after Bhimrao passed his matriculation examination in 1907, several marriage
proposals came his way. As it was customary in India in those days to organise marriage
early for children, Ambedkar’s father, Subedar Ramji, also wanted his young son to settle
down in life. After a few marriage proposals failed, Bhimrao was married to Rami who
was nine years old then. Ambedkar was just 17. Rami, later renamed Ramabai, was a
gentle, sober and devoted girl. She came of a good but poor family. Her father Bhiku
Walangkar worked as a porter at Dapoli. Ramabai was his second daughter. By the time
Ramabai got married to Ambedkar, she had already lost both her parents. She was also
related to Gopal Baba Walangkar, a contemporary of Jotirao Phule and himself a social
reformer. While Ambedkar pursued his education and career, Ramabai always stood by
him. Staying behind the scene, she worked hard and saw to it that Ambedkar achieved
his goal. The couple had four children. Due to ill health she passed away early. After her
death Ambedkar married a young Brahmin named Savitabai.
Though Ambedkar was well prepared for his marriage at a young age, given his father’s
poor economic conditions it could not be organised on a grand scale. The marriage was
celebrated following traditional ceremonies. As Ambedkar’s father could not get a decent
place for marriage, it was organised in an open shed of the Byculla Market in Bombay.
After the day’s market was over, at night the bridegroom and his party were lodged in
one spacious corner of the open shed and the other corner was occupied by the bride
and her relatives. “Small gutters of dirty water flowed underneath their feet. The little
stone-platforms in the market served them as benches, and the whole market place
served as a marriage hall.” Nevertheless the people who joined the marriage party
enjoyed the marriage feast and festivities.
Soon after marriage, Ambedkar was admitted to Elphinstone College in Bombay. With this
started Ambedkar’s new life. He tried to balance his family life with his education.
2.4 AMBEDKAR’S COLLEGE EDUCATION

Encouraged by his father, Ambedkar started studying at Elphinstone College in earnest.
Being admitted to college in spite of being an Untouchable was a boon for him. He saw
many opportunities ahead. Though he worked hard to do well in the examinations, he
could not succeed in the first year because of ill-health. In the following years, putting in
twice as much effort, he worked very hard to pass the examinations. After passing the
Inter Arts Examination, he found that his father had no money to send him for further
studies. In that critical time, a social reformer, K. A. Keluskar, who loved Ambedkar,
came forward to help him. Keluskar approached the Maharaja of Baroda, Sayajirao
Gaekwad, who had announced a few days earlier in a meeting held at Town Hall in
Bombay that he would help any worthy Untouchable to get higher education. When
Ambedkar went to see the Maharaja, he was asked some questions. Being satisfied with
Ambedkar’s answers, he granted Ambedkar a scholarship of Rs. 25 per month. Thus,
Ambedkar’s monetary problems were solved, at least for the time being.
At Elphinstone College, Professor Muller also helped Ambedkar. He lent him books and
gave him clothes. He also advised him to complete his education in spite of hardships.
Young Ambedkar 19
There were few other teachers too who appreciated Ambedkar’s efforts and encouraged
him to study well. But Ambedkar, as in his school time, faced caste discriminations. For
example, the Brahmin college hotel keeper would not serve him tea or water fearing
pollution. Some of his classmates also deliberately insulted him. Whenever Ambedkar
faced caste discriminations, he felt restless. But he was determined to achieve his goal.
So he concentrated on his studies. Dhananjay Keer, Ambedkar’s biographer, writes how
reading was the greatest joy of his life.
Bhimrao Ambedkar studied now with a view to passing the examination. But
reading was the greatest joy of his life. It was directed to some purpose in life. It
was his aim to arm himself with every possible missile, make himself master of a
repository of knowledge and develop the power of his mind to prepare himself for
the higher attainments and the new life that was to open the portals and possibilities
of a great career. (Keer 2016: 22)
About this time Subedar Ramji moved into the Improvement Trust Chawl No. 1 at Parel,
Bombay. The family occupied room numbers 50 and 51, one opposite the other on the
second floor of the building. Ambedkar used room number 50 mostly for his study and
the other room was used for household purposes. Ambedkar studied very hard while his
father helped him to get all the essentials for his study. In 1912 Ambedkar passed his B.
A. examination from Bombay University without any class or distinction. In graduation,
economics and political science were his special subjects whereas English and Persian
were his language subjects. It was during this time that his first son Yashwant was born.
Ambedkar’s family members and relations celebrated these two occasions with great
pomp and joy.
After his graduation, Ambedkar had to go to Baroda and serve the Maharaja as part of
his agreement. Ambedkar’s father did not approve of this decision. He perhaps wanted
Ambedkar to get a government job and live an independent life. As a freedom-loving
person, he did not want his son to be subservient to anyone. But Ambedkar had to
honour the agreement. Ambedkar was appointed to the post of a lieutenant in the Baroda
State Forces. Ambedkar had no choice but to take up the post and do his duties
sincerely. But Keer thinks that Ambedkar’s decision to go to Baroda had a larger
purpose. He writes:
This acceptance of a post on the part of Bhimrao Ambedkar might be a shrewd
step probably taken with the full knowledge of the unbearable situation that might
have come in the smooth working of Bhimrao as a Government official in British
India where offices were mostly manned by the orthodox Hindu upper classes.
(Keer 2016: 24)
The new employment opportunities opened up by the colonial British government,
especially after the introduction of English language in 1835, were grabbed largely by
upper castes who were already on top of the traditional Indian social structure. In other
words, people who had earlier studied Sanskrit or Persian, now began to avail themselves
of the benefits of English education. Thus, the upper castes who had easy access to
higher education in the new dispensation also obtained higher positions in the British
administration. The lower castes, on the other hand, could not reap much benefit from the
British educational policy. Ambedkar’s acceptance of a job in the court of the Maharaja
of Baroda thus had a deeper reason.
But Ambedkar found it difficult to stay in Baroda for long. Working amidst upper caste
20 Life World
men, he faced caste discriminations at every level. Those were the days when the idea
of pollution was deeply entrenched in the minds of upper caste Hindus and Ambedkar
was humiliated even by his lowest subordinates. The idea of pollution by touch was so
strong among the upper castes that even the peons in his office would toss office files
at his desk instead of handing them over. Carpets from the office space were removed
lest they would be polluted. Most of all, when he was looking for a residence in Baroda,
he could not find a decent place to live in. Finally, Pandit Atma Ram, an Arya Samaji,
allowed him to stay with him. However, this did not solve his problem. The oppressive
social environment always disturbed his mental peace.
He had decided to quit the job at the earliest. He had served in the court of the
Maharaja of Baroda for not more than 15 days when he received a telegram towards
the end of January 1913 about his father’s serious illness in Bombay. Ambedkar left
Baroda immediately to look after his father. On his way home he got down at Surat
station to buy sweetmeats for his father and lost his train. Next day when he reached
Bombay he could not endure the sight of his dying father. When his father saw him, his
feeble hands moved on to his back to pet him and he suddenly breathed his last. For
Ambedkar, that day, 2 February 1913, was the saddest day in his life. Ramji was as if
waiting for his loved son to tell him about taking greater responsibility in his life.
Ambedkar was devastated. No words of consolation would calm him.
His father’s death was a big shock to Ambedkar. Ramji had sacrificed everything to
provide education to his son and had incurred debts. It was unfortunate that he passed
away before he could see his son’s advancement in education and career. Time plays an
important role in everybody’s life. This is what Kaushal K. Goyal, Ambedkar’s other
biographer, writes about the aftermath of Ramji’s death:
Circumstances play an important role in the lives of human beings. Had Bhim’s
father not been critically ill, Bhim would not have left the employment of the Baroda
state. What would have been the ultimate destiny of Bhim Rao Ambedkar, if this
had not happened is a matter of speculation. In all probability, he would have
continued to serve the state of Baroda and might have slowly arisen to occupy
perhaps the highest possible office viz., the Prime Minister of the state. However,
those were the days when even this attainment was beyond the wildest dreams of
an untouchable. But Bhim was destined to play a much more important role in the
history of his country and leave an indelible mark on the memory of its people.
(Goyal 2016: 27-8)
Goyal is right in his view because Ambedkar later played an important role to shape the
destiny of his country. It is therefore important that we look at the happenings of the early
twentieth century and know how Ambedkar participated in them.
2.5 AMBEDKAR AND THE INDIA OF THE EARLY

TWENTIETH CENTURY
As India’s freedom movement took a definite shape in the early twentieth century, the
British Government tried to suppress rights of Indians. This led to further discontent and
political unrest in the country. In Ambedkar’s home state alone, several political leaders
were prosecuted under the colonial laws. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was deported to Mandalay
and the Savarkar brothers were transported to Andamans. Besides, several other leaders
were sent to jails and some faced death sentences.
Young Ambedkar 21
Such state repression must have agitated Ambedkar’s mind, because the repercussions of
these events were seen on Ambedkar’s patriotic mind later when he wrote his thesis,
“The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India” where he condemned the repressive
measures taken by the British administration in India. He also condemned some of the
legislative measures, the famous being Morley-Minto Reforms Act of 1909 and the Indian
Press Act of 1910. Without any fear, he stated that instead of advancing education,
favouring Swadeshi and respecting Indian nationalism, the British bureaucracy in India, by
passing these laws was working against everything that would hamper Indian society to
grow.
The young Ambedkar felt bitter about the British ruling India with an iron hand.
Repressive measures taken by the colonial government made Ambedkar realize that as a
conscious citizen of the country he should influence the day-to-day functioning of the
British Government by writing petitions and letting them know about his opinions.
The next important step to occur in Ambedkar’s life would be his going abroad to get
higher education which would help him prepare better for defending the rights of the
lower castes who were then at the receiving end of the Indian society’s idiosyncrasies.
2.6 LET US SUM UP

Being born into an Untouchable family, the young Ambedkar faced caste discriminations
on all fronts. After passing his matriculation he was married to Ramabai at the age of 17.
Thereafter he joined Elphinstone College in Bombay and, with the Maharaja of Baroda’s
financial help, passed his graduation in 1912 from Bombay University. As a part of the
agreement with the Maharaja, he had to serve in his court but could do so only for 15
days. His father, Ramji, soon passed away in 1913. Ambedkar was determined to work
hard and continue with his education so that he could get a respectable job and help his
Untouchable community to get self-respect.

1) What was his college environment?
2) Why did Ambedkar quit his job in Baroda?
3) What was young Ambedkar’s response to the repressive measures of the British
Government in the early twentieth century?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Goyal, Kaushal K. B. R. Ambedkar: A Biography. New Delhi: Pigeon Books India,
2016.
Caste. New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2005.
Prakashan, 2016.
Kuber, W. N. B. R. Ambedkar. New Delhi: Publication Division, Government of India,
2001.
Rao, K. Raghavendra. Babasaheb Ambedkar. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1993.
UNIT 3 AMBEDKAR ABROAD
Structure
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Ambedkar in United States
3.4 Ambedkar in England
3.5 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
3.1 OBJECTIVES
 Ambedkar’s life abroad;
 Ambedkar’s education in the United States;
 Ambedkar’s education in England; and
 India of the early twentieth century.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss at length about Ambedkar’s life in abroad and education in
United States and England while pursuing his academic carrier. B. R. Ambedkar was quite
fortunate to have received education from abroad. While studying abroad the kind of
exposure he got, particularly from the American and English societies, made him bold to
wage war on casteism in India. Emphasising on the impact of education that Ambedkar
received in the United States, Robert Deliege, the author of the book The Untouchables
of India writes:
Ambedkar was one of the few Indian politicians to have studied in the United
States. It is probable that his life and career bore deep traces of his stay, and he
never contemplated any other political system for the new India than parliamentary
democracy. One thing that made him a relatively rare figure among popular leaders
in the colonies of that time, was that Marxism and communism never seemed to him
a suitable solution for his country. He also lived like a Westerner, and never affected
a return to Indian traditions. To the Mahars, he seemed a model of modernity, of
the benefits of civilization. Already one can see the first signs of his radical
opposition to Gandhi, the apostle of tradition. (Deliege 2001:178)
Let us understand how Ambedkar’s education abroad helped shape his personality.
Ambedkar went to the United States of America and England to study for his Masters
and Doctorate degrees. Who were his teachers? Which subjects did he choose to study
there? What kind of social and political environments did he encounter while studying
there? This unit will address these and many other questions.
Ambedkar Abroad 23
3.3 AMBEDKAR IN THE UNITED STATES

Let us now discuss Ambedkar’s education in United States. After the death of his father
Ramji, Ambedkar struggled hard to earn his livelihood. His thirst for knowledge was so
great that he wanted to pursue higher education. In June 1913 the Maharaja of Baroda
had announced that he wanted to send some deserving students to the Columbia
University for higher studies at the State’s expense. On hearing this, Ambedkar met the
Maharaja at his residence in Bombay and requested him to consider him as one of the
candidates for the fellowship. The Maharaja appreciated Ambedkar’s intelligence and
asked him to apply for the scholarship which was granted to him.
On 4 June 1913, he, along with three other applicants, signed an agreement in the
presence of the Deputy Minister of Education of the Baroda State, conveying his
willingness to devote his entire period of stay in the US for studying the prescribed
subjects and then serving the State for ten years after his studies at the Columbia
University were completed.
In 1913 the 22-year-old Ambedkar went to the US on a state scholarship. The three-
year scheme established by Sayajirao Gaekward III of Baroda was designed to provide
opportunities for postgraduate education at Columbia University in New York City.
Ambedkar was very fortunate to get this scholarship. He was the first person from the
Mahar community to go abroad for higher education. Ambedkar took this as an
opportunity to further not only his individual goal but that of the country as a whole. On
Ambedkar’s visit to the US, Dhananjay Keer writes:
This was a unique opportunity for an Indian and an event of enormous magnitude
for an Untouchable. And, indeed, it was an epoch-making event! An Untouchable,
an abominable Mahar, going to a foreign land to cultivate the best, the enduring and
the ennobling influence and imbibe the spirit of the age! Among the first-rate Indian
political leaders Ambedkar was the first to receive instruction in the land of
(Abraham) Lincoln and Booker T. Washington. Of course, the Socialist leader,
Jayprakash Narayan, may be the other to study in South America in the early
thirties. (Keer 1990, 26)
Ambedkar reached New York on 12 June 1913. For his journey he had taken books
on Buddhism as his reading material. For a week he stayed at the Hartley Hall, a
dormitory of the Columbia University. But he did not like the food there because most
of the dishes were ill-cooked and consisted of beef. So he shifted to Cosmopolitan Club
at 554 West, 114 Street where some Indian students were already living. A little later he
moved to Livingstone Hall residency with Naval Bhathena, a Parsi student, who formed
a lifelong friendship with him. Another student, C. S. Deval, was his close friend with
whom he used to have long discussions.
Life in America was a unique and moving experience for Ambedkar. There he could move
freely along with other students and colleagues. He could read, write, walk, bathe and
rest with a true sense of equality. He also had several new kinds of experiences. Meals
at regular hours, eating on a formally laid out table, with a napkin! Thus life at Columbia
University was a revelation for him. In fact, it was an entirely new world. Such everyday
events went deep into his mind and enlarged his mental horizon. A new kind of existence
began. He found new meanings in life. M. L. Shahare writes this about Ambedkar’s
exposure to this new world:
24 Life World
This was, indeed, a turning point in Bhim Rao’s life and opened undreamt of vistas
of opportunity and experience in a country which upheld the basic principles of
equal opportunity for everybody. It is a common knowledge that North America
which was a colony of the British in the late eighteenth century waged a historic
struggle for independence under the leadership of great men like George Washington.
The subsequent battle for abolition of slavery of the American Negroes in which
men of vision like Abraham Lincoln was a great event in world history. The United
States of America emerged into a powerful, united and truly liberal and democratic
State out of these turmoil(s) and the Statue of Liberty on the New York Harbour
today came to symbolise the principles of “Freedom, Equality and Fraternity” for
which this new nation stood for. The world had not come out of the spell cast by
people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and the great
Negro leader Booker T. Washington. America was in those days truly a land of
dreams. (Shahare 1988: 11-2)
Ambedkar was determined to make the best possible use of such unique opportunity
given to him. He worked for 18 hours a day with a single-minded devotion to excel in
his studies. He had no time for pleasant idleness or recreational activities. He neither went
to theatre nor spent time in strolling or sightseeing. When other students spent money on
watching movie, having drinks and cigarettes, Ambedkar spent money on books. Though
he had a vigorous appetite, he was frugal at his meals. He never had his meal until he
was very hungry. He appeased his hunger with a single meat or fish dish, two muffins and
a cup of tea or coffee which cost him one dollar and ten cents. In between his studies
Ambedkar often took tea. He was used to having tea from his childhood. Now, by taking
it frequently, he became addicted to it. Out of his scholarship money he spared some to
send to his wife back home for family expenses. Around this time, he started wearing
glasses.
Ambedkar was in New York for three years, from 1913 to 1916. He spent every
moment of his time for his studies. He knew that getting a fellowship was a rare
opportunity. He wanted not only to obtain higher university degrees, but also to be
the master of subjects such as science, politics, sociology and economics. He already had
a B.A. degree in English and Persian languages. Now he took up Political Science, Moral
Philosophy, Anthropology, Sociology and Economics as subjects for his study. Learned
professors like John Dewey, James Shotwel, Edwin Seligman, James Harvey Robinson,
Franklin Gidings and Alexander Goldenweizer taught in Columbia University then. They
had a great impact on American thinking. It was natural that Ambedkar was impressed
by the positive, comprehensive and progressive thinking of these professors.
Ambedkar worked 18 hours a day. After two years of hard work he obtained his M.A.
degree in June 1915 for his thesis “Ancient Indian Commerce”. He also read a paper
on “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis, and Development” at the anthropology
seminar organised by Professor Goldenweizer in May 1915. The paper, later published in
the Indian Antiquary journal in May 1917, was Ambedkar’s first published work. In this
paper he observed that endogamy was the essence of castes.
While working for his M.A. degree, Ambedkar was simultaneously working for his
Ph. D thesis, “National Dividend for India: A Historic and Analytical Study”. He
submitted his thesis to the Columbia University in June 1916 and was awarded the
Ph. D degree in 1924 after it came out as the book, The Evolution of Provincial
Finance in British India, published by P.S. King and Son Ltd., London. Ambedkar
Ambedkar Abroad 25
revised the original doctoral dissertation in the light of the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms
with reference to finance. The book was dedicated to Sayajirao, the Maharaja of Baroda,
and it had an introduction by Professor S.A. Seligman who had high praise for Ambedkar
stating that, “Nowhere to my knowledge, has such a detailed study of the underlying
principles been made”.
In the book, Ambedkar asserted that the interests of British industries and manufacturers
were dictating British government policies. Though Ambedkar wrote this book at the age
of 25, the language, the content and the thinking reflected Ambedkar’s intellectual maturity
at an early age. The book was so indispensable that during the budget session, Indian
legislators used this as a reference book. And for students, it was a guide. When
Ambedkar was called to give evidence before the Hilton-Young Commission on Indian
currency, he saw with pride that every member of the Commission had this book for
ready reference.
Ambedkar’s thirst for knowledge led him to look for books. He spent his leisure time in
browsing through books in the second-hand book stalls of the city. In New York he
bought as many as 2,000 old books and entrusted the boxes containing the books to a
friend to take them to India. But his trust was somehow misplaced because when he
came back to India he got only some and not all of these books.
When in America, Lala Lajpat Rai tried to involve Ambedkar in India’s freedom
movement. But Ambedkar refused politely under the pretext of studies. He, of course,
very closely followed events which were happening in India then. He also got influenced
by some historical events taking place in America. In this context Dhananjay Keer writes:
While in America, Ambedkar’s mind must have been deeply impressed with two
things. The first was the Constitution of the U.S.A. and more so the fourteenth
Amendment to that Constitution which declares the freedom of Negroes. The
second was the life of Booker T. Washington whose death occurred in 1915. He
was a great reformer and educator, of the Negro race in America and was the
founder and President of the Tuskegee Institute which disseminated among the
Negroes the doctrine of education of the head, heart and hand, and thus broke the
shackles of bondage which had crushed the Negroes for ages physically, mentally
and spiritually. (Keer 1990: 31)
3.4 AMBEDKAR IN ENGLAND

After a very successful career at Columbia University, Ambedkar explored obtaining
further education from London which was considered to be a great international centre of
learning. He left the US in June 1916 and reached London after a few days. The First
World War was not yet over. Because Ambedkar came from the US, where the Gadar
Party led by Lala Har Dayal was carrying on propaganda to mobilise the Indians in
America to go back to India and drive out the Britishers, on his arrival Ambedkar’s
person, clothes, boots and luggage were thoroughly searched by the British secret police,
thinking that he might have links with the Indian Revolutionary Party. But nothing of the
kind was found and the police let him go.
In October 1916, Ambedkar got himself admitted to the Gray’s Inn for doing Bar-at-
Law. He also simultaneously enrolled himself in the famous London School of Economics.
Professor Seligman had given him introductory letters to Professor Edwin Cannon and
26 Life World
Professor Sydney Webb. His stay in London was made possible by the benevolence of
the Maharaja of Baroda, who gave him permission to continue his studies in England on
state scholarship. However, the Dewan of Baroda took a different stand and Ambedkar
was asked to come back. Before leaving England with a heavy heart, he obtained special
permission from the London University through the kind recommendation of his professor,
Edwin Cannon, to resume his studies in London within a period not exceeding four years
from October 1917. Ambedkar returned to London in 1921 and completed his master’s
degree. His thesis was on “The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution.”
In 1923, he completed a doctorate in economics and the same year he was called to the
Bar by Gray’s Inn.
Before returning to India, Ambedkar collected many books in London. This time he
insured his luggage, which consisted mostly of books, and entrusted it to Thomas Cook
and Sons to be sent over to Bombay. He boarded a train at Boulogne on 27 July 1917
and reaching Marseilles, he embarked the S.S. Kaiser-i-Hind. The First World War was
still going on and it was dangerous to travel in a ship in the midst of the terror of bombs
and submarines. It so happened that when Ambedkar began his journey, a steamer was
torpedoed in the Mediterranean Sea. When this news reached India, Ambedkar’s family
members were plunged into deep sorrow. Cablegrams were exchanged, and they heaved
a sigh of relief when they came to know that Ambedkar was travelling in the S.S. Kaiser-
i-Hind and the steamer that fell victim to the enemy submarine carried his luggage only.
On 21 August 1917 Ambedkar reached Bombay via Colombo.
Immediately after Ambedkar’s arrival in Bombay, a meeting was called by Sambhaji
Waghmare and others to facilitate him on his educational achievement. Rao Bahadur
Chunilal Setalvad, the then Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, presided over the
function. Ambedkar, however, did not attend the meeting. This was perhaps because, “A
feeling of embarrassment and a modest estimate of his own merits must have weighed
upon his mind” (Keer). After the meeting was over, some of the speakers and admirers
went to the humble residence of Ambedkar and showered their felicitations.
When Ambedkar returned to India, the British government was in crisis because of the
reverses in the war. The Indian Home Rule movement and the Indian revolutionary forces
too were creating problems for it. To pacify them and strengthen Britain’s resources,
Montagu, the then Secretary of State for India, on 20 August 1917 made a famous
declaration in the House of Commons, of Britain’s “policy of gradual development of self-
governing institutions with a view to progressive realisation of responsible Government in
India as an integral part of the British Empire.” Montague came to India to take political
opinions from different organisations between November and December 1917. Among
those institutions which represented the untouchables was the Panchama Kalvi Abhivarthi
Abhimana Sangha, an association of untouchables from Madras Presidency. Ambedkar
was then a nobody in Indian politics.
3.5 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have provided a detail account of Ambedkar’s experiences at abroad.
Ambedkar was desirous of going abroad for his higher education. He was fortunate that
the Maharaja of Baroda sponsored his fellowship. Ambedkar got enrolled in the Columbia
University, USA, for his masters degree. Later he also obtained his Ph. D degree there.
From the US he went to England and got admitted in the London School of Economics
Ambedkar Abroad 27
for his D. Sc degree. He also successfully completed Bar-at-Law from the Gray’s Inn,
London. Ambedkar was the first untouchable to have got so many degrees from abroad.

1) What was the educational environment of the Columbia University when Ambedkar
joined it?
2) Who were his teachers in the Columbia University? What did he learn from them?
3) Why did Ambedkar return to India without completing his study in London?
4) Describe the political situation in the early twentieth century India?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Deliege, Robert. The Untouchables of India. Translated from the French by Nora Scott.
UK: Berg Publishers, 2001.
Prakashan, 2016.
2001.
Moon, Vasant. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1991.
Shahare, M.L. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar: His Life and Work. New Delhi: National
Council of Education Research and Training, 2010.
UNIT 4 AMBEDKAR IN INDIA
Structure
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Ambedkar’s Struggles in Life
4.4 Ambedkar’s Social Movements
4.5 Political Career
4.6 Conversion to Buddhism
4.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
4.1 OBJECTIVES
 Ambedkar’s struggles in life;
 Ambedkar’s social movements;
 Ambedkar’s political career; and
 Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism.
4.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit you will acquaint about the Ambedkar’s life struggle, movements led by him,
political carrier and his conversion to Buddhism. After Ambedkar returned from the US,
he went to Baroda in September 1917 as part of the agreement to serve the Maharaja
of Baroda for at least 10 years. The Maharaja wanted to appoint him as the Finance
Minister after giving him a chance to gain some administrative experience. So to begin
with, he appointed him the Military Secretary to the Maharaja. On reaching Baroda,
Ambedkar faced a grave problem. The Maharaja had instructed his officials to receive
Ambedkar from the railway station. But no official went to receive him as he was an
untouchable. He confronted more difficulties when he tried to look for a place for
boarding and lodging. Wherever he went to look for a house, he was refused on account
of being an untouchable. Finally, he stayed in a Parsi lodge for a few days, hiding his
identity.
His office environment was suffocating. In spite of his high education and position, the
clerks and peons in the office threw files at him from a distance, to avoid touching an
untouchable. No drinking water was provided to him in the office. Carpets were removed
from his office lest they be polluted through his touch. All this was unbearable to him. He
sent a note to the Maharaja appealing for his attention to his discomforts. The Maharaja
referred it to the Dewan. But the Dewan expressed his inability to do anything in the
Ambedkar in India 29
matter. The situation got worse when the Parsis came to know about his untouchable
identity and ganged together to beat him and made him vacate the place. Ambedkar had
no other option but to leave. He wandered on an empty stomach and getting tired, sat
under a tree in a park and wept profusely. Depressed and indignant, he returned to
Mumbai in November 1917. He informed the Maharaja about the circumstances that
forced him to leave Baroda, through his teacher Keluskar.
In the meantime Professor Joshi, a friend of Keluskar from Baroda, wrote to Ambedkar
saying that he was ready to accept him as a paying guest in his house. Ambedkar jumped
at this offer and reached Baroda. At the railway station he received a note from Professor
Joshi which stated that his wife was against having an untouchable in their house. Without
wasting any time, Ambedkar took the next train home from Baroda station. He never
went to Baroda again.
4.3 AMBEDKAR’S STRUGGLES IN LIFE

Soon after Ambedkar’s return from Baroda in 1917 his step-mother passed away.
Around the same time, a few upper caste Hindus arranged two conferences of the
Depressed Classes in Mumbai. One of the conferences took a resolution appealing to the
government to protect the interests of untouchables by granting the depressed classes the
right to elect their own representatives to the legislatures in proportion to their population.
Ambedkar did not take part in either of the conferences. He needed money to take
responsibilities of his growing family. So to tide over his financial situation he accepted
two private tuitions which a Parsi gentleman arranged for him.
He also set up a firm for providing consultancy to the share brokers in the stock market.
But when his customers came to know that the consultancy was run by an untouchable,
no one came to consult him. Ambedkar, then for a while, worked as an auditor for a
Parsi gentleman. During this period Ambedkar wrote a critical review of Bertrand
Russell’s book, Principles of Social Reconstruction and published it in the journal,
Indian Economic Society. His essay “Caste in India” was republished.
In November 1918 Ambedkar was appointed an economics professor in the Government
Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Bombay on a temporary basis at a
salary of Rs. 450. Ambedkar gave a fixed amount of his salary every month to his wife
Ramabai to run the household expenses. The rest of the amount he was saving to go
back to England and complete his unfinished studies at the London School of Economics.
He continued to live a very simple life in the two rooms in the Improvement Trust chawl
at Parel which his family had been occupying since his father’s days.
As a professor of economics, Ambedkar took his teaching seriously. He worked hard to
give his best. But his caste came as a hurdle here too. Dhananjay Keer writes about how
Ambedkar had to face discrimination even in a place of higher education:
At first the students in Sydenham College did not take this new professor seriously.
What could an Untouchable teach the caste Hindu students and others from
advanced societies? They knew not what happened when a man stood before them
with sincerity and serious behind him. By and by Ambedkar’s deep study, exhaustive
exposition and thoughtful style gripped the minds of his students. The young
professor with his fine dress, his profound studies, his serious glowing eyes became
well known in the circle of students of economics and as a result students from
30 Life World
other colleges also attended his classes with special permission. The notes and other
material which he had collected for preparing his lectures, it is said, were vast
enough for the production of an exhaustive work on Economics. But his success as
a professor could not mitigate the evils of untouchability in the holy atmosphere of
the place of learning. Some Gujarati professors objected to his drinking water from
the pot reserved for the professorial staff. (Keer 1990: 39)
On 27 January 1919, Ambedkar was invited to testify before the Southborough Committee
which was preparing for the Government of India Act 1919. Ambedkar argued in writing
that the government create separate electorates and reservations for untouchables and
other religious communities. Ambedkar came in contact with the Maharaja of Kolhapur,
Shahu Maharaj, who had been trying to do his best to break down the barriers of the
caste system and help the untouchables. Ambedkar helped the Maharaja to start a
fortnightly paper Mook Nayak (Leader of the Voiceless). The first issue of the paper
came out on 31 January 1920. Ambedkar made full use of it to expose, with his brilliant
logic, the irrationality and basic injustice inherent in the caste system.
In July 1920, to complete his unfinished degree in Law and Economics, Ambedkar left
for London. He returned to India in April 1923.
In June 1923 he started his practice as a barrister. But again his caste stood in his way.
The upper caste litigants were not willing to hire him in spite of his high qualifications.
People who came to hire him for their cases were mostly from the poorer sections who
could pay either very little or no money at all for his services. Ambedkar naturally felt
depressed but his spirit was undaunted. He was determined to work for a better India.
4.4 AMBEDKAR’S SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

Ambedkar’s education in the USA, England and Germany broadened his horizon and
strengthened his resolve to free his community from the thraldom of misery through
rational and progressive means. He wanted equality in religious, social, economic and
political spheres. A radical reconstruction of Indian society, as Ambedkar imagined, could
not come without the intensification of the caste/class struggle. Since Hinduism was
founded on scriptures which sanctioned a caste-based social order, a just solution could
only be possible through a new edifice, that is, through the annihilation of the Indian caste
system. To this end, Ambedkar launched several satyagrahas.
On 9 March 1924 Ambedkar convened a meeting at Damodar Hall, Bombay, to discuss
the need for establishing a central organisation for removing the innumerable handicaps
from which untouchables suffered and for placing their grievances before the government.
Following this meeting, a society named Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha was formed to
promote the interests of the untouchables. In 1926 after getting nominated as a member
of the Bombay Legislative Council by the Governor of Bombay, Ambedkar started the
Mahad tank satyagraha to allow untouchables to use water from public tanks. In April
1927 he started a Marathi fortnightly, Bahiskrit Bharat.
In a conference in late 1927, Ambedkar publicly condemned the classic Hindu text, the
Manusmriti, for ideologically justifying the system of caste discrimination and untouchability.
On 25 December 1927, thousands of people burnt copies of Manusmriti under the
leadership of Ambedkar.
In 1930 the temple entry movement was launched with the attempt to enter the Kalaram
temple at Nashik. About 15,000 volunteers participated in the satyagraha. The procession
was lead by soldiers marching to a military band. They were followed by a batch of
scout boys and girls. Women and men walked in discipline and order, determined to enter
a temple for the first time. When they reached the temple, the gates were closed by the
Brahmin authorities.
The Janata, a weekly was published by Ambedkar during this period. He also formed
the Samata Sainik Dal to dislodge values which fostered anti-human attitude in the name
of traditional and cultural heritage.
On 8 August 1930, Ambedkar presided over the All-India Depressed Classes Congress
at Nagpur. In his speech he endorsed dominion status for India and criticized M. K.
Gandhi’s salt march and civil disobedience movement as inopportune. He also criticized
the British Government for their bad governance.
The sole motive of Ambedkar’s movements was to establish equal status in religious,
social, economic and political matters to all classes, offering untouchables an opportunity
to rise in the scale of life and creating conducive conditions for their advancement. For
the upliftment of untouchables, Ambedkar came to realize that unless this socially
suppressed section of the Indian society secured political power it was not possible to
completely wipe out all social, legal and cultural disabilities from which they suffered. That
is why his slogan was: “Be a ruling race.” But the political power which Ambedkar
wanted for untouchables during the British rule could not be obtained due to the stiff
resistance from the Congress with its caste Hindu character. Unfortunately most of the
oppositions came from Gandhi.
Ambedkar and Gandhi embraced different positions on the issue of untouchability. Gandhi,
for example, believed that untouchability was excrescence, a pathological growth that had
nothing to do with the essential nature of the caste system which was a framework for
the division of labour. He maintained that caste had existed in the past without
untouchabilty and it could be purged from the caste system without doing damage to its
fundamental design. Gandhi advocated a purified varnashrama dharma in which
untouchables would be restored to their rightful place as Shudras.
Ambedkar took a position that was diametrically opposite to that of Gandhi. Ambedkar
considered the abolition of the caste system as indispensable for the abolition of
untouchability because he thought that the outcastes would be outcastes as long as there
were castes. And nothing could emancipate the outcastes except the destruction of caste.
This made Ambedkar to demand a separate electoral system for the untouchables from
the British Government. Gandhi’s fast unto death forced Ambedkar to a compromise
agreement, known as the Poona Pact of 1932.
The Poona Pact was an outcome of Gandhi’s opposition to Ambedkar’s demand for a
separate electoral system for untouchables. The British Government was a party to it.
When Indians rejected the Simon Commission’s report in 1930, the British invited leaders
of different parties for Round Table Conferences between 1930 and 1932 to draft a new
Constitution involving self-rule for native Indians. Ambedkar and Rao Bahadur Srinivasan,
representing the depressed classes, were among the 53 Indians. Gandhi, who represented
the Congress Party, did not attend the first and last but attended the second of the
Conferences. Ambedkar demanded separate electorates for untouchables as similar
provisions were already available for other minorities, including Muslims, Christians, Anglo-
32 Life World
Indians and Sikhs. The British Government agreed to Ambedkar’s proposal and British
Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal Award. Gandhi strongly
opposed the Communal Award on the grounds that it would disintegrate the Hindu
society. He began an indefinite hunger strike at Yerwada Central Jail from 20 September
1932 till a compromise, the Poona pact was made.
On 27 May 1935, Ramabai passed away. Soon after his wife’s death, Ambedkar was
offered the post of the Principal of the Government College of Law, Bombay. He joined
the post on 1 June 1935. Although in mourning, Ambedkar with his usual determination,
not only took classes but also looked after the administration of the college.
The All-India Depressed Classes Conference was held at Yeola on 30 October 1935. It
was attended by over 10,000 untouchables from all over India. The Conference was
chaired by Shri Rankhambe. Ambedkar in his speech strongly condemned Hinduism.
Since the indignities and humiliations to which untouchables were subjected, arose from
the fact that they were Hindus by the accident of birth, he posed the question before the
delegates of the Conference, whether it would not be better for them to leave the fold
of Hinduism and to embrace some other religion which would give them an honourable
and equal status. Ambedkar’s announcement of conversion shook up the entire country.
4.5 POLITICAL CAREER

The Government of India Act, 1935 promised provincial autonomy to the people of
British India and announced that elections to the provincial assemblies would be held in
1937. Ambedkar rallied his friends and lieutenants and founded a political party called
Independent Labour Party in August 1936. The party contested the 1937 Bombay
election to the Central Legislative Assembly for the 13 reserved and 4 general seats out
of which it secured 11 and 3 seats respectively. Ambedkar contested from Bombay and
came out victorious by beating his rival by a large margin of votes.
On 17 September 1937 at the Poona session of the Bombay Assembly, Ambedkar
introduced a Bill to abolish the Khoti system of land tenure in the Konkan area of the
Presidency. Ambedkar, thus, was the first Indian who introduced a Bill for the abolition
of serfdom of agricultural tenants. He published his book Annihilation of Caste in the
same year.
Ambedkar joined the Viceroy’s Executive Council as Labour Member in July 1942.
Accordingly he took in-charge of labour portfolio. In his capacity he moved an amending
Bill in April 1944 proposing paid holidays for industrial workers employed in ‘perennial’
factories. He resigned from the membership of the Viceroy’s Executive Council in the last
week of May 1946 when the British Government decided to set up a new government.
The British Parliament passed the Acts of Indian Independence on 15 July 1947. On 3
August 1947 the names of cabinet ministers were announced. Nehru invited Ambedkar to
serve as independent India’s first law minister. However, Ambedkar resigned from the
Nehru Cabinet on 27 September 1951 because the Hindu Code Bill, which he so
painstakingly drafted, could not be passed in Parliament. Had the Hindu Code Bill been
passed, Indian society would have gone through a remarkable transformation in terms of
gender equality.
But the most important political assignment was when he was elected to the Constituent
Assembly of India by the members of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1946. He
was elected to the Drafting Committee and later appointed its Chairman. Under his
Chairmanship the Indian Constitution incorporated some of the best features found in
other constitutions, such as nationalism, centralisation, a strong executive, secularism and
a welfare state.
4.6 CONVERSION TO BUDDHISM

As the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar worked hard for a new
constitutional order based on equality and social justice. This resulted in a provision for
adequate representation of the underprivileged classes in both political and educational
fields. Ambedkar also believed that democracy was meaningless if it did not enable
members of the deprived and the depressed classes to be dignified citizens of the country.
Doubting the credentials of Indian democracy, Ambedkar felt the following were needed:
 a strong opposition
 equality before law
 constitutional morality in administration
 a strong and active moral sense in society
 presence of public conscience.
As he had feared, Ambedkar witnessed during his life, the failure of Indian democracy.
Being dismayed and frustrated with the negative attitude of the caste Hindu people,
Ambedkar, towards the end of his life rejected Hinduism and embraced Buddhism.
Ambedkar along with his followers embraced Buddhism on 14 October 1956 at Nagpur.
His decision to change his religion was not sudden. Way back in 1929 at the Jalgaon
conference of the Scheduled Castes he had already announced his dismay towards
Hinduism.
Ambedkar adopted Buddhism because it advocates a casteless and classless society as
against Hinduism which is based on graded inequality. Buddha’s opposition to human
exploitation is, perhaps, the main reason for which Ambedkar finds in Buddhism an
alternative. After a very hectic but a fulfilling life, Ambedkar passed away on 6 December
1956.
4.7 LET US SUM UP

The present unit focuses on Ambedkar’s life after he returned to India from abroad. He
struggled hard to find a secure job and faced difficulties. Realizing that there was no
respite for the marginalized under the Hindu caste system, he launched many satyagrahas.
He also formed political parties to enter into electoral politics and brought policy changes.
As a Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution he framed secular
and progressive laws to make India a democratic republic. Getting disillusioned under
caste Hindu society, he finally embraced Buddhism.

1) Why did Ambedkar resign from the post of the Military Secretary of the Maharaja
of Baroda?
34 Life World
2) What was the main contention between Gandhi and Ambedkar that led to the Poona
Pact of 1932?
3) What was the main reason for Ambedkar to resign as the Law Minister from the
Nehru Cabinet?
4) Why did Ambedkar change his religion from Hinduism to Buddhism?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Deliege, Robert. The Untouchables of India. Translated from the French by Nora Scott.
UK: Berg Publishers, 2001.
Goyal, Kaushal. B. R. Ambedkar: A Biography. New Delhi: Pigeon Books India, 2016.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting
Prakashan, 2016.
2001.
Shahare, M.L. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar: His Life and Work. New Delhi: National
Council of Education Research and Training, 2010.
BLOCK 2 INDIAN INTELLECTUAL
INFLUENCES
Unit 5 Buddha
Unit 6 Kabir
Unit 7 Jyotiba Phule
Unit 8 Saint Poetic Tradition of Maharashtra
UNIT 5 BUDDHA
Structure
5.1 Objectives
5.2 Introduction
5.3 The Buddha and His Times
5.4 Development and Expansion of Buddhism
5.5 Decline of Buddhism in India
5.6 Revival of Buddhism in Modern India
5.7 Ambedkar and Buddhism
5.8 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
5.1 OBJECTIVES
 Buddha and His Period;
 Growth and Decline of Buddhism;
 Resurgence of Buddhism; and
 Interpretation of Buddhism by Ambedkar.
5.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss about Buddha and his period, growth, decline and resurgence
of Buddhism and Ambedker’s interpretation of Buddhism. Buddhism is among the greatest
religions of the world. It is a missionary religion which had spread to most of Asia which
included Sri Lanka, China, Tibet, Japan, Thailand, Burma, South-east Asia, Afghanistan,
Central Asia, and India. The founder of this religion was the Buddha (the Enlightened)
who spread his message of peace, love and brotherhood in his life and prepared a group
of followers who would disseminate his message after his life.
5.3 BUDDHA AND HIS TIMES

The period in which Gautama (later the Buddha) was born, and his creed was
established, witnessed profound economic, social and political changes. Iron was being
used on an increasingly large scale to clear forests and to expand agriculture leading to
growth in population. Trade was increasing and a large mercantile class was being formed.
There was an increase in urbanisation and large cities were being established. At a
political level, more and more lineage groups were forming kingdoms and empires.
38 Indian Intellectual Influences
The cultural-religious milieu of this period was distinguished by two important trends:
 Shramanic (ascetic) and
 Brahmanic (priestly).
In the Shramanic tradition, the Shramanas or the ascetic-renouncers abandoned the family
and society, and became wanderers in search for God and the meaning of life. They went
to live in forests in seclusion and moved from one place to another interacting with other
ascetics.
The Brahmanic tradition, on the other hand, encouraged householders’ religious practices,
even though it was not opposed to asceticism. This was a period when the practice of
sacrifices was spreading fast as more and more areas came under Brahmanical cultural
influence. The idea of a society divided into four varnas – Brahmans, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras in that order – was also being accepted at a wider level.
The two main points on which the Brahmanic tradition was in conflict with the Shramanic
tradition were observance of regular sacrifices (yajnas) and a hierarchical caste structure.
The Brahmans claimed pure descent from the Vedic days as the keepers and upholders
of the Vedas, and as priests. The Shramanas, however, contested the idea of hereditary
succession by asserting that a person became Brahman by virtuous and moral conduct,
and not by birth. While the Brahmanic tradition gradually placed more and more
disabilities on the lower social orders, particularly the Shudras, by even excluding them
from many religious observances, the Shramanic tradition was open to all and generally
preached equality. Both, however, believed in the ideas of karma and rebirth, although
they sometimes interpreted them differently. There was a lot of interaction between both
traditions and regular exchange of ideas was common.
The Buddhist tradition, as it emerged in this environment, attempted to assimilate the best
of both the traditions. In Buddhist literature, both the Shramanas and the Brahmans were
accorded equal respect, even though it identified a Brahman with quality and not birth.
Both the categories, along with that of the Buddhist monk, were identified with persons
who had achieved self-control, were compassionate, and lived a virtuous and moral life.
Buddhism criticized pure and completely detached asceticism as well as priestly ritualism
and the culture of sacrifices.
The Buddha, founder of Buddhism, was born as Siddhartha Gautam in c. 566 BCE in
Kapilvastu on the border of Nepal and India. His father’s name was Suddhodana and
mother’s name was Maya. The ganasangha (tribal republic) to which he belonged was
known as the Sakya. It was an oligarchy and his father was the chief of this polity. At
the age of 16, Siddhartha was married to Yasodhara. They had a son later on who was
named Rahul. Soon after Rahul’s birth, Siddhartha became a renunciate at the age of 29.
He kept wandering for a few years when he ultimately sat down to meditate and received
enlightenment at the age of 35 at Bodh Gaya in Bihar. He gave his first sermon at
Sarnath near Varanasi known as ‘Setting in Motion the Wheel of Dharma’. He also
proclaimed himself as Tathagata (‘one who has attained what is really so’). After that, he
spread around his teachings and died in c. 486 BCE at the age of 80 in Kushinagar in
Uttar Pradesh (Keown 1996: 17-23).
The Buddha questioned the idea that the Vedas were infallible, he criticized the practice
of sacrifices and rituals for attaining salvation, and he rejected the hierarchical principle of
the varna order. He preached the following Four Noble Truths:
Buddha 39
1) Life is suffering.
2) Suffering is caused by craving.
3) Suffering can have an end.
4) There is a path which leads to the end of suffering’ [Keown 1996: 44].
Buddhism envisages an endless chain of cause and effect. Everything which takes birth is
full of sorrow (dukkha), is impermanent (anicca) and lacks self-essence (anatta).
Nirvana from the cycles of birth and rebirth is the ultimate goal. The eight-fold path which
would take one out from this cycle is known as ‘the middle way’ (Keown 1996: 50-53).
Thus, the two most important ideas associated with Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths
and the middle path. Moreover, in Buddhism, there is no God and no soul, no ritualism
and no magic. Buddhism accepted members of all castes and women into the Sangha. At
this level, at least, social inequalities were abolished.
5.4 DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF BUDDHISM

According to tradition, after the death of the Buddha, the Buddhists held their first council
at Rajagriha in c. 400 BCE in order to determine the real teachings of the founder. This
attempt eventually resulted in the collections of his teachings in three baskets (tripitika).
The Second Buddhist Council was held in c. 383 BCE at Vaishali which resulted in a
split within the religion between Sthaviras (the elders) and Mahasamgikas (great
assembly).
Under of reign of Emperor Asoka, who had become a follower, Buddhism became firmly
established in North India and the Emperor also sent emissaries to various parts of Asia
to spread the creed of the Buddha. It was in this period that the Third Buddhist Council
was held at Pataliputra in c. 250 BCE.
In the course of time, three important schools developed within Buddhism:
 Theravada (the doctrine of the elders),
 Mahayana (the great vehicle)
 Vajrayana.
Theravada was the first to evolve, claiming to be based on original teachings of the
Buddha. This school of Buddhism holds predominant influence in South Asia (as in Sri
Lanka and Myanmar).
Mahayana developed later with many famous Buddhist philosophers belonging to this
trend. It was more philosophical and transcendental. It also did not consider the Buddha
just as a historical person but established him as the purest God. It also laid less stress
on monastic life and allowed lay followers in their meetings and listened to their views.
Mahayana philosophers introduced the idea that anybody from any caste and status could
become enlightened (bodhisattva). The most famous Buddhist philosopher belonging to
the Mahayana was Nagarjuna (in 2nd century CE) who is reputed to have established the
trend known as Madhyamaka or the ‘Middle Path’, which was a sophisticated improvisation
of the similar original teaching.
It was under the aegis of Mahayana that Buddhism spread to South India, Central Asia
and China between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is more prevalent in Tibet, Central Asia,
China and Japan.
Vajrayana developed still later having many features of the tantra. In contrast to
Theravada school, Vajrayana refused to strictly follow monasticism and rejected its
puritanical attitude towards women. It focused on human body and considered the unity
of male and female important for achieving salvation. Like other schools of Buddhism or
even more so, and in conformity with tantric tradition, Vajrayana was opposed to caste
discrimination and welcomed anybody to join it.
For about a thousand years, from around 400 BCE to 600 CE, Buddhism was the most
dominant cultural influence in South Asia. It continued to influence art, architecture and
literature till the middle of first millennium CE. Great Buddhist universities were founded
in India. The greatest of these was the Nalanda University where, at any given time, over
ten thousands students studied logic, grammar, epistemology, medicine and religion. It was
a great centre of learning and continued to flourish from the seventh to the twelfth century.
5.5 DECLINE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA

It is astonishing that Buddhism declined and disappeared in its country of origin even as
it spread far and wide in various parts of Asia exercising major influence and even
dominance on the religious and cultural lives of several countries. Various scholars have
given their opinions on this issue.
According to A.L. Basham, Buddhism faced enormous challenge from a ‘reformed’
Hinduism which absorbed innumerable local gods into its pantheon as avatars of Vishnu
and Shiva. Even the Buddha was declared to be the ninth avatar of Vishnu thus bringing
him within the Hindu fold. This move was supported at another level by the new
philosophical upsurge within Hinduism, pioneered by Acharya Shankara, which focused on
building of institutions to support the religion. The influence of Buddhism had declined in
the lives of the common people and it had become mostly restricted to the monasteries.
Finally, with the Muslim invasion, monasteries and Buddhist institutions were destroyed
and monks killed. With the monks running away to inaccessible areas like Tibet for
shelter, Buddhism was extinguished from the country where it had originated and wielded
such large influence for more than a thousand years.
B. R. Ambedkar also was of the opinion that it was Muslim invasion which dealt final
blows to Buddhism in India, after it was weakened by resurgent Hinduism, leading to its
disappearance.
According to Carl Olson, the decline of Buddhism happened during the Gupta period.
The Buddhist monasteries had flourished when they had received social and political
support by the people and favourable kings. When the kings, after the fall of the Mauryan
dynasty, turned away from Buddhism, ‘monastic life became more precarious and its
leadership gradually eroded’. The emergence and growth of many Hindu devotional
movements gradually won over the lay followers of Buddhism leading to the decline of
its social support. The resurgent Hinduism also adopted many ideas of Buddhism
attempting to absorb it within its expanding fold. The long wave of invasions from the
North-west region beginning with the Huns in the sixth century continued until the
thirteenth century (by the Turkish invaders) which destroyed monasteries and images of
worship, killed monks and nuns, and obliterated the centres of Buddhist learning. All these
developments led to the wiping out of Buddhism from North India, although it survived
in South India until the seventeenth century. And of course, it continued to flourish in East
and South-east Asia. (Olson 2005: 8-9).
Buddha 41
Damien Keown also considers that since 450 CE onwards, Buddhism suffered due to the
successive invasions by the Huns who destroyed Buddhist monasteries in Afghanistan and
North-west India. Later since the tenth century, the Muslim Turkish invasions dealt a
decisive blow to Buddhism as the attackers destroyed the monasteries and universities,
burnt the libraries, and destroyed the idols of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas and other art
works in North-west, North and then East India. (Keown 1996: 70).
Gail Omvedt, on the other hand, disputes the ‘sword of Islam’ thesis and argues that it
was the preceding confrontation between Buddhism and Hinduism which had severely
weakened Buddhism. Moreover, she argues that as major missionary religions, both
Buddhism and Islam had much more at stake and were more in competition not only in
India but the world over than Hinduism ever had with Islam. In fact, she argues,
Brahmanical Hinduism reached an accommodative understanding with the Islamic regimes
in India if the Muslim rulers allowed the caste system to function as usual. According to
her, the Muslim rulers were quite accommodating in this regard to work as upholders of
the Varna order almost as the Hindu rulers had been.
5.6 REVIVAL OF BUDDHISM IN MODERN INDIA

Revival of Buddhism in India began with the interests displayed by some Orientalist
scholars and some other European intellectuals in Buddhism in the late nineteenth century.
The leaders of the Theosophical movement, H. S. Olcott and H. P. Blavatsky, contacted
the Asian Buddhists in 1875. They were successful in energising two important Sri Lankan
Buddhist scholars, David Hewaviratne and Anagarika Dharmapala, to work towards the
revival of Buddhism in South Asia. The extensive work by William Rhys Davids on
Buddhist canonical texts greatly helped in the process. In 1891, Dharmapala came to
India and attempted to restore traditional Buddhist places of worship such as Bodh Gaya.
In the same year, Mahabodhi Society was formed in Colombo. In India, many scholars
began exploring our Buddhist past. Famous historians like Rajendralal Mitra, R.G.
Bhandarkar and Hari Prasad Shastri were important early intellectuals who wrote on
Buddhism. Later, Sarat Chandra Das was involved more deeply in writing and spreading
information about Buddhism. In 1882, he published a journal for the Buddhist Text
Society and, in 1893, Anagarika Dharmapal gave him the responsibility of editing the
Maha Bodhi Journal. K.A. Keluskar published a popular book on the Buddha in 1898.
This was the first book on the Buddha which Ambedkar read later on. Dharmanand
Kosambi became a Buddhist in 1902 and wrote many important works on the Buddha
and Buddhism. One of his important books, Bhagwan Buddha (1940), had an impact on
Ambedkar’s thinking on the subject.
The Tamil Dalit leader Iyothee Thass was one of important early figures who led the
movement for the revival of Buddhism in India. By the 1890s, Iyothee Thass was firmly
interested in Buddhism and in 1898 he visited Sri Lanka to be more acquainted with the
doctrine. He was instrumental in linking Buddhism to the masses, particularly in Tamil
Nadu in the early decades of the twentieth century. His writings and movement enabled
Buddhist ideas to spread beyond the confines of intellectuals and middle classes. He
claimed that the Tamil Dalit caste Paraiyars were the original inhabitants of Tamil Nadu
and they had been Buddhist in the Ashokan period. He also argued that the Paraiyars
were originally Buddhists who had descended from the Buddha’s own clan, the Sakyas.
He was instrumental in founding the Sakya Buddhist Society which attracted members
from both the Dalit and non-Dalit castes.
Laxmi Narasu was another important Buddhist activist and scholar at the turn of the
century. He published an important book, The Essence of Buddhism, in 1907 in which
he tried to re-interpret Buddhist dogmas regarding karma, dharma and sorrow (dukka).
During the 1920s, many other Dalit leaders and intellectuals were attracted towards
Buddhism, claiming it as their original religion. However, the overall reach of Buddhism
remained limited and by the 1930s, various other forms of devotional faiths were adopted
by Dalit movements in many parts of the country (Omvedt 2003: 234-41).
5.7 AMBEDKAR AND BUDDHISM

According to Gail Omvedt, ‘Ambedkar’s movement towards Buddhism began in 1908,
when he first received a book on the Buddha’s life. He followed it with reading on Indian
tradition and whatever Buddhist texts he could get access to, with discussions, with visits
to the ancient sites of Buddhist caves in Maharashtra. It reached a climax in 1935 when
Ambedkar announced, ‘Although I have been born a Hindu, I will not die a Hindu.’ And
it culminated in October 1956 in the city of Nagpur in central India when he and
400,000 followers took the ‘three refuges’ of traditional Buddhism and an additional 22
vows.’ (Omvedt 2003: 244). However, it seems that this journey had not been so
continuous. Various alternatives and strategies were adopted to fight against the caste
oppression which varied from reform within Hinduism, as exemplified in temple entry
campaigns, to the choice of Christianity, Islam or Sikhism as an alternative religion. It was
only around the mid-1930s that Buddhism began to be seriously considered by Ambedkar
as a comprehensive alternative to Hinduism. In 1933, he showed an inclination to consider
Buddhism as an alternative religion. He also named his house ‘Rajagriha’ which was a
centre of the Buddha’s teachings (Omvedt 2003: 258).
Even when Ambedkar had become convinced about the greater appropriateness of
Buddhism, he did not adopt it simply. He instead radically re-interpreted Buddhism in the
light of modern ideas, and imbued it with a post-enlightenment sensibility where secularism
stood along with the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity. For him, Buddhism was
based on reason, not on revelation or rituals.
Ambedkar’s re-interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings derives authority from the great
teacher himself as he told his disciple, Ananda, not to rely on any scripture or paths
shown by others, but to find one’s own path based on reason and experience:
O Ananda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge to yourselves. Betake
yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth as a lamp. Hold fast as a
refuge to the Truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourselves. And how,
Ananda, is a brother to be a lamp unto himself, a refuge to himself (Cited in
Omvedt 2003: 9).
Ambedkar argued that while other prophets promised salvation, the Buddha was the only
one who made no such promise. He distinguished between mokshadata (the provider of
salvation) and margdata (the one who shows the way). According the Ambedkar, the
Buddha wanted each individual to find his or her own path.
Ambedkar declared that the ‘purpose of Dhamma is to reconstruct the world’ and
presented Buddhism as the religion which transformed the world. He attempted to rescue
what he thought were the original teachings of the Buddha, the fundamental principles of
the creed, from what he considered the spurious interpretations as well as from the
distortions brought about by the process of Brahmanical cooption of the Buddha.
Buddha 43
Thus, Ambedkar did not adopt the prevalent Buddhist ideas about the Four Noble Truths
by declaring that they were not part of the original teaching of the Buddha. He considered
such ideas as pessimistic and escapist. Sorrow in the world is not self-inflicted by the
individual. In fact, he argued, suffering in the world arose due to oppression of one group
or individual by another group or individual. He asserted that Buddhism did not preach
a constant condition of sorrow; instead Buddhism was about the way to eliminate sorrow
and suffering from the world.
He also rejected the conventional Buddhist notion of karma as the cause of rebirth. He
argued that since Buddhism rejected the existence of soul, it is not possible therefore to
entertain the idea of rebirth. Moreover, the ideology of karma justifies status quo and the
caste system.
Ambedkar also questioned the role of the Buddhist Sangha as a monastic institution where
the renouncer-monks sought spiritual self-realisation. Instead, he wished to reorient the
Sangha towards social service to the larger community. Ambedkar did not think that the
Sangha was a self-contained and isolated world of the monks and nuns. Instead, he
visualised it as a social service centre which worked for the uplift of the poor and the
oppressed. Thus, he argued that ‘a bhikkhu who is indifferent to the woes of mankind,
however perfect in self-culture, is not at all a bhikkhu’.
Ambedkar placed more emphasis on the Buddhist idea of the ‘middle path’ between the
strict asceticism-renunciation of the world and a hedonist-luxurious life. He emphasised the
Buddhist virtues such as love, kindness and compassion towards fellow human beings.
Ambedkar conceived Buddhism as a this-worldly religion rather than an other-worldly
religion. According to him, Buddhism was capable of delivering liberation to the oppressed
people through its teachings of equality and justice. For him, Buddhism was truthful,
ethical and rational. It did not believe in any god but relied upon the individual to be his
/ her own guide. At the same time, Ambedkar saw in Buddhism ‘a theory of social
action’ which ‘can be a plausible ground for a Buddhist concept of social justice’ (Verma
2010: 57). Thus, both the individual and the social were parts of his conception of
Buddhism.
He went to the extent of considering Buddhism as working against and as providing
solution to the exploitation and oppression of human beings. According to Gail Omvedt,
Ambedkar ‘held out the Sangha as the ideal Communist society, and he believed that
through the morality of Dhamma humans could transform themselves and reconstruct
society’ (Omvedt, 2003: 2). He argued that not only Buddhism strove for equality, it’s
‘goal was, in essence, a welfare state, with a major aim of providing wealth to the
destitute’ (Omvedt 2003: 257). Ambedkar called his radical re-interpretation of Buddhism
as Navayana, to differentiate it from the existing schools within Buddhism – Mahayana,
Theravada and Vajrayana. Although his re-interpretation was thoroughly original, he also
derived from the early-twentieth century interpretations of Buddhism by Iyothee Thass and
Laxmi Narasu. The result of Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism was published after
his death as The Buddha and His Dhamma (1957). In this, he presents Buddhism not
just as a spiritual but also as a rational system which would work to transform the world
and free the people from sorrow.
Ambedkar visualised a fundamental conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism. While he
identified Hinduism with inequality and unreason, he extolled Buddhism as a rational
religion of equality and brotherhood. According to him, the decline and defeat of
Buddhism resulted in a sharp division of society into castes and the spread of untouchability.
Most of Buddhists, argues Ambedkar, who refused to the absorbed by the now-dominant
Brahmanism were declared to be untouchables. In his famous essay, The Untouchables
(1948), he argued that the Dalits were Buddhists who were condemned as untouchables
by a resurgent Brahmanism.
On 14 October 1956, Ambedkar embraced Buddhism along with his family and around
400,000 followers at a deeksha (conversion) ceremony held in Nagpur. Ambedkar was
instrumental in helping the process of revival of Buddhism in India and his death was held
as ‘Mahaparinibbana’ (the great voyage) by his followers.
5.8 LET US SUM UP

In sum up we have learned about the Buddha and his life and Buddhism and Ambedkar’s
interpretation of Buddhism. The Buddha was born in an atmosphere of important
economic, social and cultural changes. The ascetic and priestly traditions were in constant
conflict with each other. The Buddha, after attaining enlightenment, preached about the
prevalent suffering in the world and suggested ways to alleviate this suffering. He adopted
a middle path which rejected both the strict ascetic principles of complete dissociation
from the world and the Brahmanical ideas of sacrifices and rituals as the way for attaining
salvation. The teachings of the Buddha were collected by his followers after his death
giving shape to a form of creed and religion which became very influential in India and
in most of Asian countries. For various reasons, Buddhism declined in India, even when
it flourished in many other countries. A revival of Buddhism in India took place in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century which became much strengthened after Ambedkar
adopted Buddhism along with many lakhs of his followers in 1956.

1) Discuss the teachings of the Buddha in the context of the conflicting ideas of his
times.
2) Discuss the rise and decline of Buddhism in India.
3) Critically analyse Ambedkar’s re-interpretation of Buddhism.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Gail Omvedt. Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. New Delhi:
Sage, 2003.
Carl Olson. The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative-Historical Introduction.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005.
Damien Keown. Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996.
Vidhu Verma. ‘Reinterpreting Buddhism: Ambedkar on the Politics of Social Action’,
December 4, 2010, No 49, Economic & Political Weekly.
UNIT 6 KABIR
Structure
6.1 Objectives
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Life of Kabir
6.4 Kabir’s Teachings
6.5 Kabir’s Influence on Ambedkar
6.6 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Reading
6.1 OBJECTIVES
 Kabir and the historical context in which his ideas developed;
 Important aspects of Kabir’s teachings; and
 How his teachings influenced Ambedkar.
6.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit you will learn about Kabir and his ideas and teaching and influence on
Ambedkar. India is a land of great poets and philosophers whose ideas contributed to
understanding the true values of human life. Sant Kabir, was one such illustrious thinker,
great reformer and mystic poet, who urged people to recognisze human values ignoring
divisions in society in the name of religion and caste. His ideas on religion and caste,
particularly his emphasis on human values, left a deep impression on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
when he was a young boy. Later in his writings, Dr. Ambedkar acknowledged Kabir as
one of his masters. Dr. Ambedkar devoted his life to providing equality, dignity, self-
respect and justice to all socially oppressed people and in this mission of his life he
greatly admired Kabir.
In this unit we will first learn about Kabir and the historical context in which he was born.
Then we will talk about his ideas, particularly on religion, caste and humanism. Finally we
will explain how Ambedkar found Kabir’s teachings relevant for eradicating social evils
and establishing human dignity and equality.
6.3 LIFE OF KABIR

Many legends exist about Kabir’s life but some facts are widely accepted. He was born
in Varanasi around 1398 A.D. and grew up in a Muslim weaver family. Before we discuss
his journey towards sainthood, we need to understand the times in which he lived.
Fifteenth century north India witnessed political uncertainty following the decline of the
Sultanate of Delhi. Timur’s invasion of Delhi and subsequently the rule of the Lodis
created political instability and lawlessness. Common people were the victims of political
uncertainty. There were also tensions between the Muslim rulers and the Hindu chieftains,
enmity between followers of the two dominant religious traditions was very much in
existence. Attempts made to convert people, particularly those who were socially oppressed,
to Islam created social tension.
This was also the period when the bhakti movement flourished in North India. Ramananda,
an important proponent of the bhakti tradition, brought into Northern India the wave of
bhakti tradition that had swept South India earlier.
The bhakti movement had started and flourished in South India between 7th and 12th
century A.D. Rejecting ritualism and scriptural instruction, the bhakti tradition preached
personal devotion to God as a means of salvation. Religion was freed from Brahmanical
domination and was made accessible to common people. The gospel of humanity, equality
and universal brotherhood were the major contributions of the bhakti movement. In
contrast to orthodox ritualism of Brahmanical tradition and intellectualism of the Vedanta
philosophy, Ramananda proclaimed the path of bhakti as the means to realize the ultimate
truth. His personal god was Ram and he asked his followers to chant ‘Ram Nam’ in
order to attain salvation. Nathpanthis and the Shakta tradition also influenced the society
of that period. Varanasi, being a major pilgrimage centre of Brahmanical domination, was
very much swayed by these changes.
This introduction to socio-cultural context of the fifteenth century North India is important
to understand Kabir’s ideas. Kabir’s compositions reflect his understanding of the times
he lived in and also diverse religious traditions. Kabir was the product of his time and
was instrumental in bringing changes and enabling people to understand the true value of
human life devoid of any form of orthodoxy.
Though Kabir in early life became a disciple of Ramananda, he remained a householder
and used to earn his livelihood by weaving clothes, which was his family craft. Kabir,
naturally inclined towards meditation and spiritualism, had a strong desire to become
Ramananda’s disciple. It is said that Kabir being a Muslim was apprehensive that
Ramananda may not accept him as his disciple. He knew Ramananda went to the river
Ganges for bath and decided to lie on the steps of the bathing ghat in order to draw
his attention. Ramananda stepped on him by accident and uttered in surprise ‘Ram!
Ram!,’ the name of the God he worshipped. Kabir took this as his initiation as a disciple
of Ramananda and in his songs he acknowledged his indebtedness to Ramananda as his
teacher.
However, as we know that Varanasi in the fifteenth century was the centre of many
religious traditions like Brahmanical Hinduism, Sufism, Tantrism, Bhakti movement and
others and all these influenced Kabir’s spiritual ideas which are reflected in his teachings.
Whatever formal training he might have received from Ramananda, Kabir is believed to
have been in touch with various holy men of his time. He recognized the value of both
Hindu and Muslim scriptures and contemporary religious traditions probably shaped his
belief and faith in composite character. He was opposed to ritualism and orthodoxy in any
form. He considered himself, ‘at once the child of Allah and of Ram’. He was not literate
but his words were meaningful and full of wisdom which even common people could
understand. He did not choose the life of an ascetic but earned his living from the loom.
Kabir 47
He married and lived with his family like a common man. But he did not hesitate to
criticize orthodox ideas and expressed through songs and poems his passion for divine
love. P. D. Barthwal writing about Kabir says the following:
…Kabir, who, though born of Muslim parents, had spent much of his time in the
company of the Hindu Sadhus and had learnt his lessons in Vedanta at the feet of
Ramananda and those in Sufism in the association of Saikh Taqi. In him [Kabir]
both Vedanta and Sufism joined hands to proclaim that God is one and imageless,
that he is not to be found in rituals and forms which are but veils of falsehood
hiding Him from us, but is to be realized as one with us being enshrined in our own
hearts, and forming the substance in all that exists. And the Bitterness of the
preliminary controversies apart, there was nothing in the new thought, against which
the sense of a Hindu or that of a Moslem could reasonably revolt.
(Barthwal 1978: 15).
Kabir’s ideas invited strong reactions from orthodox groups of different religious traditions
and he was persecuted for his non-conformist ideas. It is said that representatives of
Hindus and Muslims once approached the court of the Emperor Sikandar Lodi and
alleged that Kabir was corrupting people through his ideas and he claimed to possess
divine power. But Sikandar Lodi was tolerant and did not punish him although Kabir was
asked to leave Varanasi to maintain peace. It is said that he roamed around many cities
of Northern India and breathed his last at Maghar near Gorakhpur. When he died, his
followers started fighting about the last rites. The legend is that when they lifted the cloth
covering his body, they found flowers instead. The Muslim followers buried their half and
the Hindu cremated their half. Whether he was Hindu or Muslim, Kabir said:
Hindu kahu tu hun nahi, musalman bhi nahi.
panch tattwa ka putala, gaibi khele mahi.
If I say I’m Hindu, I am not, and also I am not Moslem. The body is made up
of five gross elements and the Divine Being who is dwelling in it is ‘I am.’
His simplicity, use of vernacular language and everyday metaphors had major appeal
among common people and soon he had a large following among various sections of
society, particularly socially oppressed groups. Later on followers of Kabir formed Kabir
Panth to popularize his ideas.
6.4 KABIR’S TEACHINGS

Teachings of Kabir were compiled by his followers. Kabir did not compose any
systematic treatise, rather his work consists mostly of short verses expressed in vernacular
in the form of padas, dohas, and ramainis. His dohas or simple two-line verses replete
with illustrations from everyday life represent his philosophy of life. These short poems are
in the Bijak, the sacred book of Kabir Panthis, the followers of Kabir. And the Bijak is
one of the earliest of the major texts in modern Hindi. The compiler of Kabir’s teachings
might have considered Bijakas the most suitable title for the compilation of Kabir’s verses
because it refers to a document by which a hidden treasure of religious knowledge can
be revealed. Kabir through his teachings tried to break the hegemony of fundamentalists
in all religions and his simple words gave confidence to large number of people who were
socially oppressed to stand for equality and justice.
His anguish against the divisiveness in society because of caste and creed is very much
visible. He taught that humanity is above all religions and God is the father of all.
Therefore he asked people not to fight with each other because they were all brothers.
For Kabir, neither does Hari exist in the east nor Allah in the west. They are one and
reside inside the human heart. Kabir advised everyone to seek truth within their own
hearts. Living with his family and earning through his loom, he advocated dignity of labour
and preached that simple life and complete devotion to God is the way for realization of
the absolute truth of life. Evelyn Underhill, in his introduction to the translation of One
Hundred Poems of Kabir by Rabindranath Tagore, the great poet, writes in the following
words about Kabir’s religious philosophy.
The “simple union” with Divine Reality which he perpetually extolled, as alike the
duty and the joy of every soul, was independent both of ritual and of bodily
austerities; the God whom he proclaimed was “neither in Kaaba nor in Kailash”.
Those who sought Him needed not to go far; for he awaited discovery everywhere,
more accessible to “the washerwoman and the carpenter” than to the self-righteous
holy man. Therefore the whole apparatus of piety, Hindu and Moslem alike the
temple and mosque, idol and holy water, scriptures and priests were denounced by
this inconveniently clear-sighted poet as mere substitutes for reality…
(One Hundred Poems of Kabir. Translated by Rabindranath Tagore. Delhi, 1985,
pp. 5-6).
Kabir primarily preached religion of love without any distinction of caste and creed. He
was an enlightened saint who suggested that True God resides within a righteous person.
He denounced caste system and idolatry. From this discussion, we find that the core of
Kabir’s religious philosophy was his firm belief in humanism. Here I would like to quote
some of his verses from his Bijak which will further explain his teachings.
Saints, I see the world is mad.
If I tell the truth they rush to beat me,
if I lie they trust me.
I’ve seen the pious Hindus, rule-followers,
early morning bath-takers-
killing souls, they worship rocks.
They know nothing.
I’ve seen plenty of Muslim teachers, holy men
reading their holy books
and teaching their pupils techniques.
They know just as much.
And posturing yogis, hypocrites,
hearts crammed with pride,
praying to brass, to stones, reeling
with pride in their pilgrimage,
fixing their caps and their prayer-beads,
painting their brow-marks and arm-marks,
braying their hymns and their couplets,
reeling. They never heard of soul.
(Hess and Singh. 2015:.42).
Kabir 49
Brother, where did your two gods come from?

Tell me, who made you mad?
Ram, Allah, Keshav, Karim, Hari, Hazrat-
so many names.
so many ornaments, all one gold,
it has no double nature.
(Hess and Singh. 2015:.50-51).
There is nothing but water at the holy bathing

Places; and I know that they are useless,
For I have bathed in them.
The images are all lifeless, they cannot speak;
I know, for I have cried aloud to them.
The Purana and the Koran are mere words;
Lifting up the curtain, I have seen.
Kabir gives utterance to the words of experience;
And he knows very well that all other
things are untrue.
(Tagore 2005: 50-51).
Pandit, look in your heart for knowledge.
Tell me where untouchability
came from, since you believe in it.
Mix red juice, white juice and air-
a body bakes in a body.
As soon as the eight lotuses
are ready, it comes
into the world. Then what’s
Untouchable?
Eighty-four hundred thousand vessels
decay into dust, while the potter
keeps slapping clay
on the wheel, and with a touch
cuts each one off.
We eat by touching, we wash
By touching, from a touch
The world was born.
So who’s untouched? Asks Kabir.
Only he
Who has no taint of Maya.
(Hess and Singh. 2015:.42- 55).
Who’s Brahmin? Who’s Shudra?

Brahma rajas, Shiva tamas, Vishnu sattva…
Kabir says, plunge into Ram!
There: no Hindu. No Turk.’
(Hess and Singh 2015:.67)
Reading the above poems you definitely get the impression that Kabir was ahead of his
times. One can see the voice of protest and dissent to the existing socio-religious
practices in Kabir. Kabir the mystic was essentially a reformer and at the same time a
symbol of social revolt. People later on started worshipping Kabir as a god although
Kabir himself was against idolatry. In Kabir’s philosophy, the emphasis was on humanity
and universal brotherhood.
6.5 KABIR’S INFLUENCE ON AMBEDKAR

Ambedkar’s father, Ramji Sakpal, was a follower of Kabir and in Ambedkar’s household,
devotional songs of Kabir were sung every day. Ambedkar grew up as a child listening
to these devotional songs and witnessing the belief of elders in the bhakti tradition. This
had a lasting influence on Ambedkar’s life. As he started experiencing social discrimination
at school because of his birth in a Dalit family, Ambedkar felt the need to raise his voice
for social equality and human dignity. In this journey Kabir’s teachings shaped his ideas.
Kabir was one of the three masters who contributed towards shaping his life. He admitted
that as a young boy he was greatly influenced by Kabir as his father was a devotee of
Kabir. He believed that it was Kabir who truly grasped the essence of Buddha whom
Ambedkar considered his first and best master. Though Kabir lived in and around
Varanasi, his ideas spread to different parts of India. The fifth Sikh Guru, Guru Arjan Dev,
had incorporated many verses of Kabir into the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib.
After Kabir’s death his followers compiled his teachings and spread his ideas. His ideas
had strong appeal particularly among the socially oppressed people. Temples were built
and singing of Kabir’s verses became part of people’s life. Far away from North India,
in the family of Ambedkar, Kabir had a special place. Ambedkar’s parents encouraged
him in childhood to recite Kabir’s poems. In Ambedkar’s writings on contemporary
socio-religious practices one can find the reference to Kabir’s spirit. Arguing on the need
for abolition of caste, Ambedkar wrote:
There have been many who have worked in the cause of the abolition of Caste and
Untouchability. Of those, who can be mentioned, Ramanuja, Kabir and others stand
out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts of these reformers and exhort the
Hindus to follow them?...Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons
in the armoury of a reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to
disable him for action. How are you going to break up Caste, if people are not
free to consider whether it accords with reason? How are you going to break up
Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with morality?
(Vasant Moon 1989: 74).
One can find the reflection of Kabir’s ideas on religion and social division in the name
of caste and creed in Ambedkar’s struggle against the caste system and various prejudices
practiced in the name of Hinduism. The ultimate goal of these two great historical figures
Kabir 51
was a religion of humanity above anything else. Both advocated abolition of caste and
untouchability. Ambedkar was not against religion, but he was against the misconception
and misrepresentation in the name of religion.
He said,
…you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion – a basis that will be in
consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no
authority on the subject. But I am told that for such religious principles as will be
in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you
to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the
Upanishads.
(Vasant Moon 1989: 77-78).
6.6 LET US SUM UP

You have learnt about Kabir, the great poet and philosopher. Born around fifteenth
century in Varanasi and brought up in a family of Muslim weaver Kabir through his
teachings made significant contribution towards the spread of bhakti tradition in India. As
opposed to the orthodox cult, his religion of love had an immense appeal to a large
number of followers. We explained the historical context in which Kabir lived and
presented important facets of his teachings. His followers belonged to different sections of
society and different parts of India. Ambedkar’s family greatly admired Kabir and as a
child Ambedkar was inspired by his ideas. Influence of Kabir in his life was acknowledged
by Ambedkar himself in his writings and his socio-religious philosophy is the testimony of
Kabir’s influence on him. We end with a poem of Kabir:
The pundit and the torch-bearer-
Either of two in darkness gropes,
To others he doth give the light
But he himself in darkness goes.
(Karki 2001: 47).

1) Explore the historical context in which Kabir developed his ideas?
2) Discuss the important aspects of Kabir’s teachings
3) Analyse the teachings of Kabir influenced Ambedkar?
SUGGESTED READINGS
P. D. Barthwal. Traditions of Indian Mysticism based upon Nirguna School of Hindi
Poetry, Delhi, Heritage, 1978.
Mohan Singh Karki. Kabir: Selected Couplets From The Sakhi In Transversion, Delhi,
Motilal Banarsidass, 2001.
Vasant Moon. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. I. Bombay, 1989
Rabindranath Tagore. One Hundred Poems of Kabir. Delhi, 2005 (Reprinted)
Linda Hess and Shukdev Singh The Bijak of Kabir.Trans. Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2015
UNIT 7 JYOTIBA PHULE
Structure
7.1 Objectives
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Social Reformer Jyotiba Phule
7.4 Educator Mahatma Phule
7.5 Builder of Alternative Culture
7.6 Jyotiba Phule’s Influence on Ambedkar
7.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
7.1 OBJECTIVES
 Phule’s ideas and works as a social reformer;
 His critique of caste-patriarchal system and religion;
 His critique of existing education system and his contribution to the field of education;
 His attempt to create an alternative culture; and
 His influence on Ambedkar.
7.2 INTRODUCTION
This unit will introduce about Jyotiba Phule contribution as social reformer, anti caste
movements, education and influence on Ambedkar. Jyotiba Phule (1827-1890) was an
exemplary social reformer and revolutionary thinker of modern Maharashtra. He, by
rooting himself in the anti-caste tradition of India, had initiated a formidable movement
against caste system and religious tyranny which Gail Omvedt has described as ‘cultural
revolt of modern Maharashtra’. His ideology and activism represented the spirit of
modernism where values like humanism, rationalism, individualism and scientific temper
were cherished. Many emancipatory movements espousing human rights had begun under
his ideology and leadership.
By establishing Satyshodhak Samaj, he inculcated a spirit of anti-caste radicalism among
the Shudr-atishudra masses. He raised the issue of exploitation and oppression of
peasants and organised peasant movements in Maharashtra. His efforts to spread
awareness among the industrial working class and had given rise to the first working class
union in Mumbai. He challenged Brahmanical cultural hegemony and initiated the struggle
for alternative culture.
Jyotiba Phule 53
7.3 SOCIAL REFORMER JYOTIBA PHULE

Let us discuss social reforms done by Phule. In the nineteenth century, ideas of social
reform were engrossing every sphere of society including religion, society, economy and
politics. Social reformers who wanted reforms to take place in all these fields acknowledged
religious reforms as the precondition for all reforms. They inaugurated religious reform
movements based on rationalism, individualism and humanism. In the social sphere, they
introduced women’s reforms abolishing inhuman, irrational practices and customs; in the
economic sphere, they sought to change capitalist industrialization and emphasized the
importance of the propagation of western physical sciences and in the political sphere they
sought a change espousing the values of democracy, republicanism and secularism.
The early social reformers emerged from the upper strata of society. Their conception of
social reform revolved around issues related to family; they wrote and spoke against
irrational customs like sati and ban on widow remarriage, and argued in favour of
women’s education. However, they never could muster the courage to act as they
preached. Moreover, they never protested against caste and untouchability (Ambedkar,
2013: 219). In contrast, Phule with his piercing critique of social and religious institutions
and committed activism brought about a radical turn in the milieu of social reforms.
When other social reformers were advocating reforms in consonance with religious
scriptures, he was criticizing them as a caucus of few interested elites. When reformers
were giving merely lip-service to the cause of women’s education, he started a school for
girls. When due to ban on widow remarriage, young widows were falling prey to illicit
relations and were committing infanticide, Phule started an asylum for them and their
children (Keer, 1973: 98-101). He opened his well for the untouchables and demolished
proscriptions based on the principle of purity-pollution (Phule, 1980: 145-46).
He derided the Vedic myth of the origin of varna as unscientific and irrational and
rejected the Brahmanical theory of divine origin of caste. Moreover, his logic for rejecting
varna/caste hierarchy was drawn from the first century Buddhist text called Vajrasuchi.
The crux of his argument against caste was based on the Buddhist tenet that ‘as there
are different species in the animal world there are no such a difference in human world’
(Bagade, 2010:71).
There were several arguments defending hierarchy of caste and he demolished each of
them. The argument for ‘occupational division of caste’ held that caste inequality was
convenient and useful. Phule countered this by questioning, ‘if Brahmin’s three sons are
taking up three different occupations, will they be of three different castes? If a Brahmin
woman as a part of her daily chore is removing the excreta of a child, will she be treated
as untouchable’ (Phule, 1980:336)?
He refuted the hereditary basis of caste by demonstrating that the sons of great kings,
emperors and artists never possessed the same qualities and achievements as their parents
(Phule, 1980:218). By drawing attention to the immoral conduct of Brahmins, he disputed
the logic of caste hierarchy based on purity-pollution which considered Brahmins pure and
untouchables impure (Phule, 1980:314-16).
The most meticulous part of his critique of caste was unravelling of the exploitation and
oppression of the caste system. He not only brought out the material aspects of caste
exploitation but also pointed out the social and cultural relationships of domination and
subordination of caste which formed basis of material exploitation. By uncovering the

exploitation techniques employed by Brahmin priests and moneylenders, he initiated a
struggle against caste and untouchability.
Phule offered a scathing critique of patriarchy. He unravelled the complex processes of
women’s subjugation. According to him ‘men’s tendency of aggression, want oneness and
deceit was responsible for the genesis of women’s slavery.’ He stated that ‘to subjugate
women men had used violence and had implanted their selfish and distorted renderings of
women in the religious scriptures. He notes that women were enslaved through hegemonic
discourse of negative constructions in three ways:
 depicting women’s nature (stri-swabhav) as weak, cruel, evil etc.
 portraying women’s behaviour (stri-charit) as scheming and adulterous
 projecting women’s ethical conduct (stri-dharm) as pativratas or loyal, dedicated
and servile wives.
Against such kind of male positioned narrative and against the entrenched patriarchal
domination, Phule applauded women’s motherly attributes (like sacrifice, dedication, hard
work, and kindness) and contended that ‘women are superior to men’ (Phule, 1991:345).
The inequality between men and women was characteristic of Hindu religion. Patriarchal
order entrusted responsibility of Pativratadharm on women but exonerated men from
such a responsibility. It allowed Brahmin men to marry as many times they wished but
prohibited Brahmin widows from remarrying. Phule condemned all kinds of practices and
customs that supported men-women inequality. By putting a poignant question that ‘there
are several instances of wives in grief of deceased husband had committed sati but could
anybody cite a single example of a man who in sorrow of deceased wife has ever
committed sati’ (Phule, 1980:359)? He was as if on a mission to constantly expose the
inequality and injustices inflicted on women.
Phule had also revealed the linkages between caste and gender. He juxtaposed everyday
labour of Shudra women with everyday activities of Brahmin women (Phule, 1980:584-
586). This comparison certainly cautions us to be wary of using women as a single
category. Women were exploited in different ways under caste-gender hierarchy. He
pointed out that under the purity-pollution scale of the caste system, Brahmin or high
caste women were exempted from productive labour and the drudgery of labour was
always inflicted on low-caste women.
He offered scathing attack on Brahmanical religion. He rejected divinity of Vedas and
commented that ‘if Vedas would be made public, little girls would destroy its credibility’
(Phule, 1980:398). By employing scientific and moral logic, he criticised myths and their
divine heroes and by demonstrating irrationality and exposing exploitation he denounced
religious rituals. He condemned religious scriptures for inflicting inequality and injustice on
the Shudra-atishudras and women. He exposed the cunning, crafty and exploitative
nature of priest-craft. And he rejected all the illusory notions of traditional religion such
as rebirth, karmsidhant, heaven and hell as the concoctions of scheming priests (Bagade,
2006:330).
To give an organised form and public expression to the fight against religious tyranny and
caste oppression, Phule established Satyshodhak Samaj on 24 September 1873. Phule
called his religion universal true religion which allowed every individual to become member
Jyotiba Phule 55
of the Samaj without making any discrimination based on caste and religion. The main
concern of the Samaj was to
 abolish the slavery of the Shudra-atishudra masses
 make them aware of their human rights
 undertake their improvement (O’Hanlon, 1985:231-32).
Satyshodhak Samaj espoused the principle of monotheism, rejected mediation (of the
priest) between creator and devotee, opposed idolatry and advocated philanthropic
activism. It launched a vitriolic attack on Brahmanical hegemony, rejected all kinds of
irrational, inhuman faiths, customs and traditions. It propagated universal ethics based on
equality, liberty and fraternity and provided an alternative scheme of rituals.
7.4 EDUCATOR MAHATMA PHULE

Phule began the project of emancipatory education by establishing institutions namely
‘Native Female School’ which started a school for girls in 1848 and ‘The Society for
Promoting Education of Mangs and Mahars’ which started a school for untouchables in
1851. As there was no female teacher available, Phule trained his wife Savitribai, who
became the first female teacher of India. Both faced several adversities including paucity
of funds and government apathy and violent opposition put up by orthodoxy. Fighting
against all odds, Phule and his wife Savitribai ran several schools and worked relentlessly
in the field of education.
Phule honestly believed that social change can occur through education. For him, ‘the
defining character of human being is to possess intelligence and knowledge’ (Phule,
1980:256). He attacked the traditional policy of prohibition of education to the strishudr-
atishudra. According to him denial of access to education made the subaltern castes
ignorant. And due to this state of enforced ignorance, these castes could not realize the
injustice and slavery inflicted on them; nor could they recognize their human rights. He
identified that the caste-based inequality of power/knowledge is upholding caste and
avowedly suggested universal education as the important panacea. He believed that as
universal education brought revolution in Europe, it will bring revolution in India too (Phule
1991:229-244).
Phule criticized colonial apathy towards mass education and complained that the state
policy of allocating larger share of funds to higher education resulted in the neglect of
primary education (Phule, 1991: 243). He accused the government of ignoring the
education of lower classes by toeing the trickle-down theory. The government was under
the illusion that the higher classes would spread education among the lower classes. The
government squandered the taxes it collected from poor famers on educating the upper
classes. But children of the rich, who availed free education and achieved material success
on its basis, did nothing to assist the uplift of the underprivileged. The British policy
ensured ‘monopoly of education by the Brahmins’ and, as a result, ‘all the senior
government posts are monopolized by them’.
Due to poverty and ignorance, the subaltern castes were not ready to understand the
importance of education. The Shudra-atishudras, under the spell of religion, perceived
education as sin. They were so much under the sway of religious gullibility that they
dreaded to send their children to school. Phule urged the British government to initiate the
spread of primary education. Phule submitted several constructive suggestions to the

Hunter Commission:
 Each boy or girl up to age 12 should be given compulsory and free primary
education.
 The government should spend half the amount of the local funds on primary
education.
 The number of primary schools should be increased.
 Provincial governments should allocate enough funds for primary education.
 Municipalities should take responsibility of the expenses on primary education.
 The education department should control primary schools (Phule, 1980:167-182).
He wanted the British government to spend people’s money collected through taxes on
developing an infrastructure for universal education. He repeatedly asked, advised and
warned the government in this regard (Mani, 2005:273). Criticising colonial education for
not serving the immediate interests of caste subalterns, he pointed out that neither did it
offer them technical and professional capabilities to better their lives nor did it prove to
be instrumental in freeing themselves from the shackles of Brahmanism. He suggested
radical revamping in the approach, content and pedagogy of colonial education setting
alternative path of education.
Phule offered devastating critique of Brahmanical pedagogy and stated how it made the
subaltern lose the track of reality. Both, Brahmanical and colonial pedagogies, never
intended at cultivating a critical bend of mind in the students. Their descriptive and
memory-based pedagogy neither could give the students capability to pose questions nor
could impart skills or creativity to solve them. Their pedagogic stance was so alien and
textual that it detested any connection with everyday lives of the downtrodden students.
It remained abhorrent towards imparting occupational or technical skills. It was so
commanding that it never respected students’ ability of thinking and treated them merely
as passive objects.
Phule initiated a new kind of pedagogy which aimed at nurturing rational thinking among
students. He rejected teacher-student relationship prescribing command to teacher and
obedience to students. He encouraged inquisitiveness and spirit of inquiry among students.
He introduced problem-posing dialogic pedagogy which brought teacher and students on
the same level of active engagement. This pedagogic technique of placing questions and
finding solutions made students critical thinkers. It not only enabled students to approach
the reality in a critical and creative way, but also encouraged them to take up struggles
to transform the reality.
Phule’s pedagogy is evident in his writings. Some of his texts such as Gulamagiri and
Sarvajanik Sataydharma use dialogic mode in which the narrative runs as dialogue
between students and teacher Jyotiba. Unlike colonial education where teacher is adult
and student is child (Krishna Kumar, 1989), Phule places both teacher and students on
an equal footing; both pose questions to each other, procure facts, offer analysis, verify
statements and derive their own truths. His pedagogy helped caste-subaltern students in
building critique of existing knowledge and making fresh inroads in the field of knowledge.
The structure of education under the British government was entirely text-oriented and did
Jyotiba Phule 57
not provide practical or skill-oriented technical education. It also was not imparting the
knowledge of Western physical sciences. And the preponderance of Brahmin teachers
added an instrument of pedagogy which was memory-based, uncritical and bookish.
Colonial education was not that useful to meet the needs of the labouring subaltern-castes.
Therefore, Phule vehemently criticised these limitations of colonial education (Phule, 1991:
723-25) and asserted in favour of professional and technical education. He advised that
the knowledge of subjects like physics, astronomy and chemistry should be given at
primary level. According to him, education should address the life-world of the toiling
Shudra-atishudra masses and should enrich their skills and capabilities to make advances
in the industrial and agriculture field (Phule, 1991: 714-26).
Both the traditional Brahmanical and the colonial education had shown apathy towards
physical labour. Phule criticised this policy of delinking physical labour from intellect. For
him intellect and physical labour were inseparable. He attacked the tendency of stigmatizing
labour and urged that schools should be associated with industries so as to impart
professional and technical education. Thereby, students can learn to tackle the predicament
of practical life and turn themselves into independent and thinking individuals (Narke,
1998: 20).
He observed that the anti-labour vanity of the Brahmanical intellectuals was a major
hurdle in the development of education. He was in favour of an education of ‘doing’. He
placed the subjugated knowledge of the caste-subaltern central to his scheme of
education. Colonial education laid emphasis on liberal literary knowledge which was most
suited to the perpetuation of Brahmin hegemony. On the one hand, it stripped caste
subaltern from their advantage of knowing and doing of indigenous science and technology
and on the other hand it bolstered the already dominant position of Brahmins through text
and memory-centred education. Phule wanted to set a balance between education of
doing and education of concepts or abstractions. Illiteracy had denied the opportunity of
conceptual training to the caste-subaltern and led them to stagnation. Therefore, he
actively argued in favour of an education that would impart conceptual training and
develop critical and analytical capabilities. He wanted the education of ‘doing’ as
enshrined in the everyday knowledge of the caste-subaltern to be blended with abstract
training of European physical sciences and technology (Phule, 1991: 714-26).
7.5 BUILDER OF ALTERNATIVE CULTURE

Religion had remained a dominant ideology in India. It operated as the key institutional
force upholding customs, traditions and law codes. It, as an ideological and cultural
apparatus, had provided basis to the institution of caste, untouchability and patriarchy.
Phule realised that without the critique of religion and without an alternative scheme of
religion and culture, social reforms neither could be inaugurated nor could be cherished.
Therefore, Phule started an alternative religion called Sarvjanik Satydharm.
He set out on a quest for religious alternative in the trajectory of anti-caste traditions of
India. Phule invoked the following traditions, which according to him had combated with
the regime of religious slavery, caste oppression and Brahmanical hegemony:
 the rationalist tradition of Buddha
 the materialist tradition of Brahaspati
 the medieval bhakti tradition of saint Tukaram.
He grounded his alternative on Deist rationalism which by espousing universal religion has
propounded universal ethics based on liberty, equality and fraternity. He built his alternative
by dwelling on counter-cultural lineage of Shudra-atishudra masses of Maharashtra. By
invoking indigenous deities like Khandoba Bhairoba as historical heroes and ethical role
models, he put them in the alternative scheme of rituals.
A major concern of his alternative religion was to build universal ethics which, he argued,
could be realized through undertaking the criterion of self-examination i.e. atmparikshan
(Phule, 1980:458). The individual in the processes of self-reflection undertakes a critical
inquiry of her or his own experiences of social relations, where her or his personal
experience of social treatment of inequality, slavery, exploitation and humiliation becomes
unacceptable and, therefore, ethically unwarranted. The rigorous process of self-reflection
creates, justifies and legitimizes moral basis of society, cherishing values such as liberty,
equality, fraternity, industriousness, and philanthropy. (Bagade, 2006:334).
He presented Indian history as a series of conflicts between Aryans and non-Aryans. He
declared that till now the history of India was history of Brahmin domination. He traced
the process of subjugation of non-Aryans. He constructed the utopia of Bali’s kingdom.
Liberty, equality and fraternity prevailed in his kingdom; patriotism, democracy, republicanism
were integral to his polity; his efficient and pro-people officers like Khandoba Kalbhairi
were zealously serving people. During Bali’s regime, art and knowledge prospered; people
lived a happy life. He argued that the history of India since fall of Bali has been a history
of caste struggle (Phule, 1991: 150-153). Thus, by cherishing the utopia of non-Brahmin
past, he recovered the insurgent caste subaltern subject position rooted in anti-caste
tradition.
He confronted the colonial and the nationalist portrayal of a monolithic Hindu past by
retrieving anti-caste struggles of the Samkhy philosophy, Lokayats and Buddhist religion in
ancient India. By narrating a continuous trajectory of ongoing anti-caste struggle, he
rejected the colonial periodization of Indian history. By exemplifying Tukaram and
Chhatrapati Shivaji’s struggle against caste, he smashed the colonial myth of the period of
Islamic interruption. Phule’s exercise of unfolding anti-caste struggle was aimed at
retrieving the lower caste selfhood (Bagade, 1998:111-18).
However, though Phule’s history was based on mythology, it defied mythological or
theocratic notion. His attempt was to write modern scientific history which included
inquiry and causal analysis as integral to its method. He was not mythologizing history but
historicizing mythology for deriving insurgent subject position of the subaltern castes. He
gave a radical turn to history writing which empowered subaltern castes to challenge the
hegemonic construct of caste and untouchability.
Phule initiated a movement of alternative literature. He criticized contemporary mainstream
literature as hegemonic and useless. When M. G. Ranade extended invitation to participate
in a literary conference (Marathi Granthkar Sabha), he scathingly rejected it. He stated
that the conference would not present the woes of Shudratishdra masses (Phule 1991:
344). He rejected the self-proclaimed authenticity of the Brahmanical literature because
it did not possess concrete experience of women and the caste subaltern. By prioritizing
the experience of the caste and gender subaltern, he initiated a movement for alternative
literature.
He held popular language, culture and literature as the main source of alternative literature
(Patil, 1988:154). He drew inspiration from popular literature like bhakti and used popular
Jyotiba Phule 59
literary forms like abhang, powadas and ovi. By rejecting verbose, artificial complicated
elitist language, he used simple, lucid, communicative language of the labouring Shudratishudra
masses (Phule 1991: 41). He also rejected elitist aesthetics and carved a space for
alternative literature. Insurgent consciousness and the anger against unjust, exploitative
system remained the motive force of his scheme of alternative literature.
Phule rejected the existing notions of nationalism. The prevailing version of cultural
nationalism espoused unity which forced caste and patriarchal inequality and sustained
caste hegemony of the elites; therefore he condemned it as hegemonic. He also criticised
economic nationalism for not representing the interests of the Shudratishudra masses. He
defined nation as ‘one integrated people’ and claimed that India is a nation in making.
According to him annihilation of the caste is the precondition of becoming a nation (Phule,
1980:409). Thus, he prioritised the agenda of social transformation in the politics of
nationalism.
The then nationalists considered religion as the driving force of nationalism; they also
allowed caste and religious pride to be at centre stage in the politics of nationalism. Phule
rejected this variety of nationalism. He rebuked Sarvjanik Sabha and Indian National
Congress as organisations of caste elites which, in the name of nation, were serving their
own interests (Phule 1991: 407). He identified the contradiction between colonialism and
people of India; he exposed colonial exploitation and vehemently criticised colonial officers
for indulging in luxury and being apathetic towards the interests of the Shudra-atishudra
masses (Phule 1991: 136).
Against this background, Phule propounded an alternative nationalism whose objectives
were emancipation from exploitation, social equality and republicanism. When elite
nationalists were busy in claiming the unity of Indian nation around Vedic-Aryan tradition,
Phule made a non-Aryan-non-Brahmin past as the cultural grounding and uniting force for
the Indian nation. Non-Brahmin past and anti-caste traditions espousing values of patriotism,
republicanism and humanism remained a major source of alternative nationalism. Liberty,
equality, fraternity, and democratic governance were the enshrining principles of his variety
of nationalism. Therefore, instead of the term Hindustan, which was in vogue, he used
the term Balistan to address India (Bagade, 2006:352-354).
7.6 JYOTIBA PHULE’S INLUENCE ON AMBEDKAR

Ambedkar was greatly influenced by the ideas of Indian social reformers. Indian society
was rigid and conservative during his time and social reformers played a significant role
in society. Ambedkar was influenced by Lord Buddha, Mahatama Jyotiba Phule, Kabir
and Dalit saints like Nandnar, Ravidas and Chokkhabela. Here we discuss how Ambedkar
was influenced by Jyotiba Phule’s work.
Phule, who did remarkable work for the removal of social ills of Hindu society, had
influenced Ambedkar. Phule’s field of social work related to the problems of untouchability,
abolition of sati, upliftment of women in society, abolition of child marriage, etc. Phule’s
reforms impacted Ambedkar strongly, who cultivated the philosophy that all men were
equal by birth but social evils made one man superior over another man. He wanted to
provide opportunities to the suppressed to raise themselves socially, economically and
politically. Phule believed that Manusmiriti had bound the Shudras’s hand and foot:
unless they revolted against it, they would never be able to shake off the shackles of
bondage. Ambedkar also had a similar view point, which he derived from Phule.
According to Ambedkar, laws of Manusmiriti governed the lives of the Hindus in every
village. Their low social, economic and political status and degradation were due to the
injunctions of Manusmiriti. Ambedkar burnt Manusmiriti on 25 December 1927, which
was a very important landmark in his career as a social reformer. Many of Ambedkar’s
arguments regarding the origin of untouchability can be traced to Phule, whose influence
inspired Ambedkar to become a great social-political thinker of modern India.
7.7 LET US SUM UP

Like his contemporaries, Phule espoused the philosophy of western liberalism; however,
his organic ties with caste and gender subaltern gave a radical edge to his ideology and
activism. His caste critique demonstrated revolutionary ramifications. He fiercely refuted
every logic offered in defence of caste; demolished every theoretical grounding supporting
caste system; unravelled the social slavery and economic exploitation instituted under caste
and untouchability. His profound critique of men-women inequality unfolded ideological
structures of patriarchy which enslaved women. By exposing the exploitative and oppressive
role of Brahmanical religion in perpetuating caste and gender inequality, he initiated a fight
against religious tyranny.
Under his leadership, Satyshodhak Samaj steered anti-caste movement in Maharashtra
which not only confronted caste in its material and social sphere but led the struggle in
the field of knowledge and culture. By deploying education for transformatory purposes,
he started a campaign for mass education. Not only did he start schools for girls and
untouchables (he was the first one to do so in India), he also introduced critical
pedagogies for educating them.
According to G. P. Deshpande, Phule was a system builder. He built a new domain of
alternative culture in every important field that he encountered. He created alternative
religion espousing values such as liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy. He also
offered alternative conception of history which provided a theory of revolutionary praxis
leading to annihilation of caste.
His enterprise of alternative literature brought the subaltern experience at centre stage; it
opened a new critical stand, which by challenging prevailing regime of aesthetics and
language, channelized insurgent literary zeal of Shudratishudra masses. By rejecting
prevailing hegemonic nationalism, he propounded alternative nationalism which sought
freedom from all kinds of slavery, not just from the British. Ambedkar acknowledged the
philosophical legacy of Jyotiba Phule and called him ‘the greatest Shudra philosopher’ of
modern India.

1) Bring out Jyotiba Phule’s criticism of caste system.
2) Why Satyshodhak Samaj was founded?
3) What were Phule’s views on education?
4) Explain Phule’s use of alternative pedagogy.
5) Explain Phule’s attempt to create alternative culture?
6) Explain Phule’s influence on Ambedkar.
Jyotiba Phule 61
SUGGESTED READINGS
Keer, Dhnanjay. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule. Mumbai: Popular Publications, 1913.
Omvedt, Gail. Jyotirao Phule and Ideology of Social Revolution in India. Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 37; 1971.
Phule Jyotirao. Selected Writings of Jyotirao Phule, Deshpande G. P. (ed). New Delhi:
Left World, 2002.
Devare Aparana. History and Making of Modern Hindu Self. New Delhi: Routledge,
2011.
Ambedkar B. R. Annhilation of Caste. Anand S. (ed), New Delhi: Navayan, 2013.
REFERENCES
Bagade Umesh. “Itihaskar Mahatma Phule” in Shodhachya Navya Wata (Marathi)
Narake Hari (ed). Mumbai: Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Charitra Sadhane Prakashan Samiti,
1998.
Bagade, Umesh. Maharashtratil Prabodhan ani Varg-jati Prabutwa (Marathi). Pune:
Sugawa, 2006.
Bagade, Umesh. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule. Pune: Gandharv-Ved publications, 2010.
Keer, Dhnanjay. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule. Mumbai: Popular publications, 1913.
Krishna Kumar. “Colonial Citizen as an Educational Ideal” in Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol.24. (Jan. 28, 1989).
Mani. Debrahmanising India, Delhi: Manaohar, 2007.
Omvedt, Gail. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution. New Delhi: Sage Publications,
1994.
Patil Sharad. “Kalatit Warasa” in Narake Hari (edi) Shodhachya Navya Wata (Marathi).
Mumbai: Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Charitra Sadhane Prakashan Samiti, 1998.
Phule Jyotirao. Keer-Malashe (edi), Mahatma Phule Samgra Wangmay. Mumbai:
Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1980.
Phule Jyotirao. Mahatma Phule Samgra Wangmay, Phadake Y. D. (ed). , Mumbai:
Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1991.
Phule Jyotirao. Selected Writings of Jyotirao Phule, Deshpande G. P. (ed). New Delhi:
Left World, 2002.
UNIT 8 SAINT POETIC TRADITION OF
MAHARASHTRA
Structure
8.1 Objectives
8.2 Introduction
8.3 Historical Background
8.4 Views on Religion
8.5 The Guru-Shishya Tradition in the Bhakti Movement
8.6 The Bhakti Movement and Synchronic Tradition
8.7 Bhakti Tradition and Language
8.8 Women-Saint Poets
8.9 Ambedkar on Bhakti Movement
8.10 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
8.1 OBJECTIVES
 Historical context of the Bhakti tradition and its importance;
 Significance of the Bhakti tradition and its influence;
 The Guru-shishya tradition in the Bhakti movement;
 The Bhakti tradition and the role of language;
 The role of women and Muslim saint-poets; and
 Ambedkar on the Bhakti movement.
8.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss emergence of Bhakti movement, its importance and influence
in Maharashtra and other parts of the 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. (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Speech to the
Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949.)
The term bhakti comes from the Sanskrit root bhaj, one of whose meanings is to
Saint Poetic Tradition of Maharashtra 63
worship, to honour, to serve, to revere, and to be attached to.The Marathi word sant
used for these poets is derived from the Sanskrit sat which denotes being and awareness,
purity and divine spirit, wisdom and sagacity, being emancipated, and being true.
The Bhakti movement originated in south India in the 6thcentury and then gradually spread
to Karnataka, Maharashtra and further to the northern parts of India. Though the
movement reached its peak in the 15thand 16thcenturies, it continued to flourish till the
late 18thcentury in different forms. Spread over almost the whole of India, the movement
advanced with the emergence of several notable saints, many of them from low-castes,
such as the following:
 Kabir (1440-1518),
 Ravidas (15th century),
 Dadu (1554-1603),
 Eknath (1533-1599)
 Nanak (1469-1539),
 Tukaram (1608-1649),
 Janabai,
 Namdev (1270-1350),
 Akka Mahadevi (1130-1160),
 Chokhamela (14th century),
 Savata Mali.
Maharashtra underwent cultural metamorphosis during the 12th and the 13th centuries.
During this period, various religious sects such as the following emerged:
 Nathsampradaya founded by Gorakshanath (1050-1150),
 Lingayat sampradaya founded by Shri Chakradhar (1213-1272)
 Varakari sampradaya associated with Sant Namdev (1270-1350) and Dnyandeo
(1271-1309).
8.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Let us understand the historical context of the Bhakti movement. The Bhakti tradition was
spearheaded by a few poets, who later came to be known as sants. The Bhakti tradition
in medieval India was a cultural-religious movement led by poets who were called saints.
A remarkable feature of this movement is that these saint-poets emerged from the lower
layers of the caste hierarchy. Being low-caste artisans and labourers, they knew well the
social agonies of this section of society and being poets, they could express well these
agonies in the form of complaints, rage, devotion and so on. These medieval saint-poets
have remained torch-bearers for the masses across India today.
Many of these devotional cults were, as Vijaya Ramaswamy argues, heterodox and
reflective of an inner social ferment. The Bhakti movement, by and large, rejected the
existing ritual hierarchy and Brahmanical superiority. However, the response to the Bhakti
movement is ambivalent because some see it as devotionalism whereas others see it as

the rise of the low-caste devotees and poets against the authoritative Brahmanical religion.
In Maharashtra, the Bhakti tradition was immediately preceded by the rule of the Yadav
dynasty. When the Bhakti movement was in the offing, Ramdevrao Yadav was ruling
Maharashtra and the Yadav dynasty had been in deep crisis and was bound to fall.
Ramdevrao and his prime minister Hemadri were completely engrossed in Brahmanical
rituals. When Allahauddin Khilji attacked his kingdom, he gave it up easily.
During this period, two spiritual movements emerged in Maharashtra:
 Mahanubhav
 Varkari
The Mahanubhav sect, founded by Chakradhar Swami (1132-1169), who is said to have
come from Gujarat, was partly influenced by the Vedic as well as Jain / Buddhist
ideologies.
Both the Mahanubhav and the Varkari sects used people’s languages for communicating
their ideas.
Recently, some scholars have begun to analyse the Bhakti tradition in the context of
Buddhist history and argue that though the Bhakti tradition was partly entrenched in Vedic
devotionalism, it was also influenced by Buddhism. Quite often, Buddhism and Bhakti
movements are seen as protest movements against Brahmanism.
There are many problems in studying the saint-poets’ writings in general and low-caste
saint poets’ writings in particular. Some of them are:
1) Authentic and critically edited versions of the writings of these poets are not
available. For example, the writings of poets such as Chokhamela, Kabir, Tukaram
have been either partly destroyed or interpolated.
2) The existing records of the Bhakti tradition, which came from the 13th to the 18th
centuries, by and large came through the Brahmins and reflect their view points.
3) No authentic and contemporary biographical information of the poets is available. For
example, the biography of Nandnar, a Tamil saint-poet who lived during 660-842 CE
period, was written 400 years after his death (i.e., in the 12th century).
4) Ideologically, there are many versions of the same saint-poets.
The movement needs to be studied in the context of the material available and the reality
of the times. The movement arose when the Indian society had forgotten the rich heritage
of Buddhism. By the time the early proponents of Bhakti began to emerge, the society
had already turned feudal. Feudal ruling groups had begun to appropriate the surplus
produced by the peasantry and the artisan castes. The general picture of the society was
that of chaos. The economic conditions and poverty were further worsened by the
tightening grip of Brahmanical ritualism. The scenario was made more complex by the
following:
 Large number of gods
 Large number of castes
 Growing influence of patriarchy and the notion of purity

 Increasing feudalization of land relationships.
Significance of the Bhakti Tradition
The Bhakti tradition has had a profound impact on Marathi people and shaped their
‘world-image’. M G Ranade, one of the social reformers from Maharashtra, believed that
the Varkari sect and its socio-cultural practices created conditions conducive to the
formation of the political state of Shivaji:
It was not the work of one man, or of a succession of a gifted men. The
foundation was laid broad and deep in the hearts of the whole people and unlike
the subhedarships of Bengal, Karnatik, Oudh and Hyderabad, the rise of the
‘Maratha Power’ was due to the first beginnings of what one may well call the
process of nation-making….It was the upheaval of the whole population, strongly
bound together by the common affinity of language, race, religion and literature and
seeking further solidarity by a common independent political existence.
The Bhakti tradition influenced virtually every socio-cultural movement in the 19th and
20th centuries. Many socio-cultural organisations such as Prarthana Samaj of the 19th
century and many social reformers such as Gadge Baba of the 20th century were
influenced by the Varkari sect. The Satyashodhak movement, the most radical movement
of the 19th century Maharashtra, was also deeply influenced by the underlying anti-caste
radical potential inherent in the Varkari sect. While being critical of the brahmanical nature
of the Bhakti tradition, Jotirao Phule (1927-90) could not escape his affinity for saint-
poets like Tukaram. Many of his allies in the movement like Gyanoba Sasane and
Mukundrao Patil were also influenced by the Varkari sect.
8.4 VIEWS ON RELIGION

Many subaltern scholars have been engaged in discovering similarities between the bygone
Buddhist tradition and the medieval Bhakti tradition. They argue that Bhakti was
profoundly influenced by the Buddhist philosophy. However, there are few differences
between the two in terms of form and degree. These scholars have pointed out that both
were relatively anti-establishment. The proponents of the Bhakti movement opposed
religion that was imbued with ritualism, orthodoxy and exploitative cultural ethos. Instead,
they looked at religion as a power that could be used for raising a voice against
oppression. This was an attempt to respond to the upper castes that had used religion
as a tool to establish their own dominance.
Though the Bhakti movement was focused on the spiritual idea of worship, it was also
imbued with humanism and universal brotherhood. The proponents of the Bhakti movement
were trying to displace the old religion, which was lost in external pomp and caste
dogmatism, and replace it with a broad-minded and compassionate religion. Many
medieval saint-poets did not denounce material life and seek an escape into spirituality.
They thought religion was necessary for establishing social justice. Since there was no
possibility of providing an alternative to the exploitative material order of society, the saint-
poets were left with no option but to look for equality in the dominion of culture and
society.
The poets came from the lower rungs of society and their notion of God was different
from the orthodox understanding of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. In

fact, these poets paid greater attention to the devotees than to God. They refused to
accept God as representing the supreme authority. For these poets, God was just one of
them. Many of these poets talked to God in their poetry and, at times, rebuked God for
not helping them in crises. For example, Janabai and Tukaram quarrel with Vitthal for not
sharing life with them as real friends do.
8.5 THE GURU-SHISHYA TRADITION IN THE BHAKTI

MOVEMENT
Now we will discuss the role of Guru-Shishya tradition. In the hegemonic scriptural
religion, unlimited authority was wielded in the institutionalized position of guru, the mentor.
Ancient scriptures such as Manusmruti and medieval texts such as Gurucharitra and
Dasbodh deemed only the Brahmans as eligible for the elevated position of the guru.
These texts mention that a non-Brahman, irrespective of her or his scholarship or spiritual
attainments, was not eligible to be a guru. This is the reason why in the Hindu sects the
‘gurus’ are treated with great honour and reverence.
However, in the Bhakti cult, lowly born poets were also venerated as gurus by the high
born disciples. This attempt of reversing the logic of guru-shishya tradition in the Bhakti
movement was heavily criticized by priestly classes. Those who revered the lowly born
poets as their gurus were at times criticized and punished. The Brahmanical classes came
down upon this phenomenon very heavily. For example, Bahinabai (1628-1700), a saint-
poet born in a Brahman family, accepted Tukaram as her guru and Mirabai, a saint-poet
born in a Rajput family, accepted Ravidas as her guru. In Maharashtra, Samartha
Ramadasa dismissed the idea of lower-caste guru:
In becoming low-caste guru is lost morality
Who will ask the Brahmin mastered the Vedas
The Bhakti movement contested the traditional Brahmanical notion of guru. As discussed
earlier, the Brahmanical notion of guru conformed Brahman as a sole guru for all.
However, in the Bhakti movement, the saint-poets refused to follow the archetypal
dichotomy in the relationship between Brahman guru and non-Brahman disciple. There are
many instances of such defiance.
8.6 THE BHAKTI MOVEMENT AND SYNCHRONIC

TRADITION
Many scholars have argued that the Bhakti movement in India played a significant role in
lessening religious orthodoxy and synchronising the Hindu and the Muslim faith systems.
They tried to harmonise the orthogenetic and heterogenetic elements of the great and little
traditions of Hinduism and Islam. These saints professed the values and principles not
from the hegemonic scriptures; however, they preached a philosophy of life that was
closer to the lives of the common people among both Hindus and Muslims.
Maharasthra had around 42 Muslim saint-poet. There was a healthy dialogue between the
Hindu saint-poets and Muslim saint-poets. For example, Janardan pant, the guru of
Enkath, was a disciple of Chand Bodhale. There was a Muslim saint-poet named Shaikh
Mohammad in Shrigonda in Ahmednagar district. The Muslim poets showed tremendous
interest in the Bhakti cults such as Chaitanya, Nath, Varkari and Datta. A peculiar
confluence between the Hindu and the Muslim traditions is seen in Sufism.
8.7 BHAKTI TRADITION AND LANGUAGE

The issue of languages is complex in India. The complexity involved in the linguistic
scenario in India is a corollary to the varna-caste order. Multilingualism in India is an
outcome of the complex and fragmented system of varna-caste order in India. One of the
essential pre-conditions for the maintenance of varna-caste order was the lack of uniform
mode of communication and scriptural injunctions against learning certain languages such
as Sanskrit.
Rise of Sanskrit as a language of the priestly class was a peculiar phenomenon
appropriate for the development of the varna order. Access to Sanskrit was limited to the
priestly class and this facilitated their hegemony in knowledge. The lower castes were
forced to use the language that was stigmatised as unsuitable for any philosophical
discourse.
People’s languages developed during the Buddhist period and were used as the languages
of knowledge and philosophical discourse. The Buddha insisted on using people’s
languages while delivering discourses. As a result, a lot of literature in the form of writings,
stories, songs and fables emerged in these languages.
Keeping in tune with the linguistic practice of Buddhists, the saint-poets preferred to use
the languages of the populace for delivering their messages. They had to fight with the
priestly castes to establish their claim on these languages for religious and philosophical
discourses. For example, Saint Eknath had this to say in favour of Prakrit:
If Sanksrit had come from God
Did Prakrit come from the thieves?
Moreover, these poets also had to develop these languages to the extent that they could
be used for poetry and philosophy. The saint-poets’ decision to select the Prakrit
languages was to ensure large scale participation of peasantry, artisans and other ritually
inferior but economically powerful groups in these devotional movements.
Dilip P. Chitre argues that medieval Marathi poetry developed in two divergent directions.
One continued from the Sanskrit classics – both religious and secular. These classicists
neglected or excluded the use of the native colloquial Marathi. However, only a minority
of writers have produced such ‘classicist’ literature.
The other tradition continued from the Prakrit languages. Early saint poets such as
Dnyaneshwar and Namdeo had to win over linguistic orthodoxy in order to claim that
Marathi was equally eligible for the use of poetry.
8.8 WOMEN SAINT-POETS

The emergence of women-saint poets was an important phenomenon in the medieval
period. Vijaya Ramaswamy argues that the morphology of feminine spirituality in India lies
in the long record of male oppression and sexual exploitation which characterised the
condition of women in traditional India. Indian society being essentially patriarchal, the
position of women was markedly inferior.
Vijaya Ramaswamy further argues that the life and works of the women saints are
shrouded in mystery unlike those of the men saints. This was partly because none of them
established a guru paramparã or monastic tradition with disciples who might have
preserved the sayings or compositions of the saints. The one exception seems to have
been Venabai, the disciple of Samartha Ramadasa (17th century) who became the head
of the math at Miraj.
In Maharashtra, there were a few women-saint poets. Some of the prominent women-
saints were:
 Muktabai (Dnyaneshwar’s sister),
 Bahinabai (wife of Kulkarni),
 Rajai (daughter of Namdeo),
 Soyarabai (Chokhabai’s wife).
The struggle of Bahinabai epitomises the struggle of a woman poet to establish her right
to expression. In her poetry, she challenges caste, patriarchy and religion. She registers
a complaint against her husband for beating her. Bahinabai translated the anti-varna text
Vajrasuchi, which was written by a Buddhist scholar Ashvaghosh.
Janabai was another saint-poet. Born in a poor low-caste family, Janabai expressed
rebellious thoughts in her poems. She had bitter experiences of being a Shudra and also
a woman. She refused to succumb to the Brahmanical and patriarchal dominance and
continued to express her contempt for the dominant order.
8.9 AMBEDKAR ON BHAKTI MOVEMENT

B. R. Ambedkar did not have any ambivalence on the medieval Bhakti movement. The
clarity of his position on this movement emerged from his scientific and unprejudiced
outlook on history. Neither did he dismiss the Bhakti movement as an empty and fruitless
effort nor did he eulogise the Bhakti movement as liberatory.
He used this as a litmus test to assess the Bhakti movement. Using this criterion, he found
that the saint-poets in Maharashtra revolted against the Chaturavrya or varna order in
the society. They tried to establish the superiority of the devotee over the Brahman;
however, they did not try to establish superiority of human beings over the Brahman. He
further argues that the value of human beings cannot be established in terms of Bhakti as
the value of human beings is self-evident. Though he argues that the Bhakti movement
was a revolt against Brahmanism, it did not succeed in challenging the innate superiority
of the Brahmans.
However, Ambedkar pointed out the progressive nature of the Mahanubhav sect in the
medieval period. He argues that the Mahanubhav sect was against caste and was free
from the notion of touch-untouch and orthodoxy. He also admired Tukaram and used his
poetry frequently in his periodicals and writings. He compared Tukaram with the Buddha
and argued that Tukaram’s views on non-violence were close to those of the Buddha. He
also expressed his desire to use Pali literature to prove that Pandharpur was originally a
Buddhist site.
8.10 LET US SUM UP

The Saint poetic tradition was a landmark in the cultural history of Maharashtra and other
regions in India. The movement was marked by ideological diversity and contradiction.
The Bhakti movement was rooted in Vedic and Puranic traditions; however, it also strove
upon the tension between the radical liberatory shramanic tradition and the conservative-
hegemonic Brahmanical tradition.
Ambedkar pointed out the limitations of this movement by arguing that the movement did
not aim at establishing equality in all walks of life. Since he was interested more in the
liberation of the lower castes and women from the clutches of the caste system, the
possibility of annihilation of caste was a major criterion for Ambedkar for assessing any
movement.

1) Discuss the historical context of the Bhakti tradition and its importance.
2) Discuss the significance of the Bhakti tradition and its influence.
3) Explain the Bhakti tradition and the role of language.
4) Critically analyse Ambedkar’s position on the Bhakti movement.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Gail Omvedt. Seeking Begumpura: The Social Vision of Anti-Caste Intellectuals.
Pondicherry: Navayana Publishing, 2008.
Braj Ranjan Mani. Debrahmanising History: Dominance and Resistance in Indian
History (2005). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2013.
Gail Omvedt. Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahminism and Caste. New Delhi:
Sage Publications Pvt Ltd, 2003.
G. B. Sardar. Sant Wangmayachi Samajik Falashruti (1950). Mumbai: Prakash
Vishwasrao, 2004.
REFERENCES
Dilip Chitre. Says Tuka – 1: Selected Poems of Tukaram (1991). Pune: Sontheimer
Cultural Association, 2003.
Gail Omvedt. Seeking Begumpura: The Social Vision of Anti-Caste Intellectuals.
Pondicherry: Navayana Publishing, 2008.
Braj Ranjan Mani. Debrahmanising History: Dominance and Resistance in Indian
History (2005). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2013.
Gail Omvedt. Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahminism and Caste. New Delhi:
Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2003.
G. B. Sardar. Sant Wangmayachi Samajik Falashruti (1950). Mumbai: Prakash
Vishwasrao, 2004.
Satyashodhak Sanghatak: Varkari Parmapara va Marathi Sanskruti Visheshank 3:34
(November 2004).
BLOCK 3 WESTERN INTELLECTUAL
INFLUENCES
Unit 9 Karl Marx
Unit 10 John Dewey
Unit 11 Edmund Burke
Unit 12 Bertrand Russel
UNIT 9 KARL MARX
Structure
9.1 Objectives
9.2 Introduction
9.3 Life Sketch of Karl Marx
9.4 Characteristics of Caste-Class
9.5 On State Socialism
9.6 The Choice between Buddha or Karl Marx
9.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
9.1 OBJECTIVES
 Characteristics of caste-class;
 The provisions of state socialism in the Constitution; and
 Influence of Karl Marx and Buddha on Ambedkar.
9.2 INTRODUCTION
This unit begins with background of Karl Marx. It also provides characteristics of caste-
class. Before summing up, influence of Karl Marx on Ambedkar has been mentioned. It
is difficult to locate the exact influence of western intellectuals on B. R. Ambedkar. This
is mainly because there is not enough literature available to testify the dominating influence
of western intellectuals on his thought and we do not have much information in this regard
from Ambedkar himself as he did not write about these matters. But at the same time
it cannot be denied that Ambedkar was not unaffected by his teachers and western
intellectuals. Ambedkar’s thought and strategy to ameliorate the living conditions of the
Untouchables did not find much consonance with Karl Marx’s ideas; however, we do find
traces of Karl Marx or rather Marxian thoughts in Ambedkar’s thoughts and actions at
several points of time in his life.
9.3 LIFE SKETCH OF KARL MARX

Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 in Trier in the German Rhineland, where
his father, Heinrich Marx, practised law. In his university days in Berlin, he was influenced
by Hegelian philosophy and joined a group known as Hegelians. In the middle of the
nineteenth century, Marx arrived in Paris and studied historical records of the revolution
and the other associated subjects. His brief but productive spell in Paris ended in 1845
when he was expelled from Paris. Marx moved to Brussels where he was joined by his
74 Western Intellectual Influences
friend Engels. While in touch with various German communist workers’ organisations, with
branches in various European cities, Marx decided to set up an international organisation
of workers. Working with the Communist League, a federation of workers, Marx became
an organiser and a leader of a revolutionary party. In 1848, Marx wrote a document
called the Manifesto of the Communist Party for the London branch of the Communist
League. Until his death in 1883, he lived in England. In his last years, he was accorded
great honour and the material side of his existence also improved.
Marxism
Marxism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories
of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism is the system of socialism of which the
dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange.
Marx’s study of capitalism was grounded in a philosophy that was both dialectical and
materialist. Under capitalism, the proletariat, the working class or “the people,” own only
their capacity to work; they have the ability only to sell their own labour. According to
Marx, a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production. He
proclaimed that history was a chronology of class struggles, wars, and uprisings. Under
capitalism workers, are paid a bare minimum wage or salary to support their families.
They are alienated because they have no control over the labour or product they
produce. The capitalists sell the products produced by the workers at a proportional
value as related to the labour involved. Surplus value is the difference between what the
worker is paid and the price for which the product is sold.
A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the
means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a
dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism took over socialism’s slogan: “From each
according to his ability, to each according to his work,” and modified it in this way:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” What was the
Marxists’ view of religion? Because the worker under the capitalist regimes was miserable
and alienated, religious beliefs were sustained. Though Marx believed religion served a
purpose or a function in society, he did not accept it as to the basis of that function.
He saw that poor used their religion as a means to find comfort in their circumstances,
thus aiding in the process of alienation. Marx believed that religion was an illusion that
provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism
takes our productive labour and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest
ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and
unknowable being called a god.
9.4 CHRACTERISTICS OF CASTE-CLASS

Now we will get to know how cast and class have been defined. Indian society has
always been governed by religiously sanctioned rules and regulations and the caste system
as developed over the millennia plays an important role in fostering and maintaining its
existence. The characteristic of caste that emerged long ago and has remained alive even
now bears testimony to the fact that its codification into rules and regulations has been
transmitted down generation after generation and thus continued, and perhaps would
continue in several forms in the time to come.
Karl Marx 75
According to Gail Omvedt, Ambedkar mentioned his affinity towards communism in a

speech that he delivered at a peasants rally in Bombay. She writes, “he felt ‘the
communist philosophy’ to be ‘closer than any other’ (though significantly qualifying this ‘in
regard to the class struggle of toilers’)”. Omvedt goes onto argue that “it is undeniable
that his ‘class-caste’ paradigm was basically formed during the 1930s in the course of his
confrontation with Marxism, as it was presented to him in India, thus exerted an
important and continuing influence not only over his economic theory but also over his
interpretation of caste in society.”1
Gail Omvedt writes about a serious critical article on Marxism entitled “The Illusion of the
Communists and the Duty of the Untouchable Class”. In taking the relation of production
as the basis of the ‘economic interpretation of history’, the article made a clever twist or
reversal in the often-used, architectural analogy of ‘base and superstructure’, in this way:
But the base is not the building. On the basis of economic relations a building is
erected of religious, social and political institutions. This building has just as much
truth (reality) as the base. If we want to change the base, then first the building that
has been constructed on it has to be knocked down. In the same way, if we want
to change the economic relations of society, the first the existing social, political and
other institutions will have to be destroyed.2
Gail Omvedt claims that this article may have been written by Ambedkar himself or by
A. V. Chitre, but at any rate it can be taken as representing Ambedkar’s views.
The central question arises here is the stand taken by Ambedkar on caste-class issue.
How to understand the dichotomy related to it and how to ensure emancipation for the
toiling mass of Untouchables under the rule of Brahmanism and Capitalism? Regarding the
stand of Ambedkar about the above cited article, Omvedt further goes on to explain its
significance thus:
Just as clearly we can see in the argument the result of the often-heard cliché that
an anti-caste struggle is a part of the democratic revolution, not of socialist
revolution. For communists this could not but mean (at some basic emotional level)
that the issue was of secondary importance. Ambedkar of course saw it differently.
In effect he was motivated to say: all right, if this is ‘only’ the democratic revolution
this is what we have to be concerned about here and now; you far-sighted
revolutionary leaders go ahead and worry about the socialist revolution, we have to
get on with the immediate task (which you are not helping with in any case); it’s
all the more urgent to concentrate on this since no one else is around to do it, we
will fight for the democratic revolution. This logic was what undoubtedly moved
Ambedkar, after the ‘years of radicalism’, won no decisive gain, to put his efforts
during the 1940s into building the Scheduled Caste Federation as a strong pressure
group within a democratic framework, with an indefinite postponement of a broad
revolutionary struggle.3
Commenting on the need for understanding the way in which caste system is seen and
practiced and how Indian socialists should view it, Ambedkar rightly wrote:
The first question I ask is: Will the proletariat of India combine to bring about this
revolution? What will move men to such an action? It seems to me that other things
being equal the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the
feeling that other man with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality and
fraternity and above all of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for the
equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution is achieved they
will be treated equally and that there will be no discrimination of caste and creed.
The assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that he does not believe in caste,
I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance must be the assurance of proceedings
from much deeper foundation, namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots
towards one another in their spirit of personal equality and fraternity. Can it be said
that the proletariat of India, poor as it is, recognise no distinctions except that of
the rich and the poor? Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no such
distinctions of caste or creed, high or low? If the fact is that they do, what unity
of front can be expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich? How
can there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? Suppose
for the sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place
and the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal with the problems
created by the particular social order prevalent in India? I can’t see how a Socialist
State in India can function for a second without having to grapple with the problems
created by the prejudices which make Indian people observe the distinctions of high
and low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing
of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality then they
must recognize that the problem of social reform is fundamental and that for them
there is no escape from it. 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 it if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition which in my
opinion is incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account of caste after
revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution. 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.4
But none the less, despite the fragility and fractiousness of Ambedkar’s relations with the
Indian communist and also to a larger extent the Marxian philosophy, there are evidences
that suggest that the overall socio-economic and political scenario in India did have its
influence on Ambedkar and others in the Dalit movement which led to Marxist literature
being published in Janata in 1930s. As mentioned earlier by Omvedt and also confirmed
by findings of another social scientist Anupama Rao:
Ambedkar’s newspaper Janata reprinted translations of ‘Wage, Labour and Capital’,
… During the mid 1930s, Janata also published Soviet social realism in serialized
form, especially Gorky’s Mother which attained iconic status5.
Thus aligning with the labour for a brief period of time through Independent Labour Party
and other Marxist/communist/socialist groups, Ambedkar did make an effort to cobble up
a strong opposition to Brahmanism and capitalism. Rao further goes on to say that:
“(I)t was naming that became a technique for specifying social oppression: From
Ambedkar’s description of the class like character of the Depressed Classes, to
addressing them as Dalits or paddalit (crushed underfoot), non-Hindu, and Buddhist,
naming connected diverse social experiences through approximation and analogy,
rather than equivalence.6
Karl Marx 77
9.5 ON STATE SOCIALISM

Social transformation along with economic emancipation guided Ambedkar’s struggle
throughout his active life as an intellectual, ideologue and a political leader. And in this
regard Ambedkar did not hesitate to change his views as well as strategies to further his
chief concern for securing the best available solutions for the Untouchables and the
exploited people. By the middle of the 1930s, Gail Omvedt observed:
(H)e swung into an economic radicalism that included the main themes of his time:
the exploitation of the capitalists and landlords, the need for state control. His
economic thrust underwent a major change. This could be seen especially in regard
to agriculture. His early writings had expressed support for small peasant property
as the alternative to landlordism (in fact arguing that in terms of available capital
equipment, farms were if anything too large); by the time of the Scheduled Caste
Federation manifesto he was arguing that for enhanced production, agriculture had
to be mechanised. This means that large farms would replace small ones, and this
could be most effectively done through cooperative or collective farms. The notion
of state guided development, oriented to industrialization, was taking precedence.7
In order to ensure State Socialism through provisions in the Constitution as items of law
it was suggested that no future or current government under the influence of a brute
majority should be able to stop the remarkable target of establishing socialism in its true
sense of the term. That is why it was sought to be made into an essential part of the
Constitutional law wherein political democracy should function alongside social and
economic democracy. Explaining these important features of his proposals, Ambedkar
clarifies in detail what should be the role and responsibilities of the State:
The way out seems to be to retain Parliamentary Democracy and to prescribe State
Socialism by the Law of the Constitution so that it will be beyond the reach of a
Parliamentary majority to suspend, amend or abrogate it. It is only by this that one
can achieve the triple object, namely, to establish socialism, retain Parliamentary
Democracy and avoid Dictatorship. The proposal marks a departure from the
existing Constitutions whose aim is merely to prescribe the form of the political
structure of society leaving the economic structure untouched. The result is that the
political structure is completely set at naught by the forces which emerge from the
economic structure which is at variance with the political structure… it was equally
essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic structure of society, if
Democracy is to live up to its principle of one man, one value. Time has come to
take a bold step and define both the economic structure as well as the political
structure of society by the Law of the Constitution.8
Arguing in terms of both developmental needs and protection of working class rights, as
Omvedt says:
Ambedkar wrote, ‘State Socialism is essential for the rapid industrialization of India.
Private enterprise cannot do it, and if it did, it would produce those inequalities of
wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe.’ He described pithily the
effects of poverty as making ‘Fundamental Rights’ meaningless, and talks of
capitalist tyranny: Constitutional Lawyers… argue that where the State refrains from
intervention in private affairs – economic and social – the residue is liberty. What
is necessary is to make the residue as large as possible and State intervention as
small as possible…. [But] to whom and for whom is the liberty? Obviously this
liberty is liberty to the landlords to increase rents, for capitalists to increase hours
of work and reduce rates of wages. It must be so. It cannot be otherwise. For 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. If the State does not do so the private employers will….
In other words, what is called liberty from the control of the State is another name
for the dictatorship of the private employer.9
Thus we see in Ambedkar’s effort to properly use the State and Constitution for
providing social, economic and political justice. It only goes on to prove the point that
in a society where a system of graded inequality rules the roost, it is but necessary for
State to make positive intervention in society, economy and polity so as to pave the way
for creating an egalitarian society based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
With these concerns as his main consideration for making Constitutional and institutional
measures to ensure social and economic democracy a reality, Ambedkar struggled
throughout his life despite no support system of any kind from other liberal and modern
leaders and organisations.
9.6 THE CHOICE BETWEEN BUDDHA OR KARL MARX

Having a clear understanding of what Buddha and Marx stood and worked for, it would
become easy to make a distinction between similarities and dissimilarities between them.
It is beyond doubt that both were iconic and revolutionary and wanted to change the
world and the scientific humanism that both advocated for and practiced in their own
typical ways has impacted the whole world since then. Much as Ambedkar was
influenced by Buddha the great, he was also to a large extent fond of Marx and his
writings. In the first paragraph of his Buddha or Karl Marx, he admitted the great
influence these two persons had on his thoughts and actions. Very categorically, he
mentioned, “Having read both and being interested in the ideology of both, a comparison
between just forces itself on me.”10
What did Buddhism advocate and how it could hold sway for a long time in the history
of India and of the world should be a question that needs to be answered in great detail.
It would be quite instructive to explain the meaning of Ambedkar’s thinking on these
matters. Gail Omvedt traces Ambedkar’s profound statement on Buddhism thus, “The
purpose of Religion is to explain the origin of the world. The purpose of Dhamma is to
reconstruct the world’ (Ambedkar 1987: 322). With these words, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,
the famous leader of India’s Untouchables, interpreted Buddhism as a world-transforming
religion. This meant a three-fold challenge:
 to Brahmanism, the main exploiting system of traditional Indian society;
 to Marxism, the main social ideology opposing exploitation; and
 to the existing interpretations of Buddhism itself”11.
Ambedkar in Buddha or Karl Marx provides in graphic details the tenets of the
philosophy of Buddha and Marx and compares them. Omvedt finds that even when
Ambedkar talks of Buddhism his words were often couched in Marxist terms:
At the same time, Ambedkar also saw the Dhamma as a fundamental alternative to
Marxism. But in seeing the Dhamma as a solution to exploitation he was asking
Karl Marx 79
Marxist questions. His very words echoed his interpretation of Marx’s famous
saying in the Theses on Feuerbach, ‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world
differently; the point, however, is to change it.’ In one of his last essays on ‘Buddha
or Karl Marx’, Ambedkar had rephrased this as ‘The function of philosophy is to
reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world’
(Ambedkar 1987: 444).12
Ambedkar also went on to explain in this essay what Buddha and Marx stood for and
what made them different. And on each point of similarities and dissimilarities, Ambedkar
cited from Buddha’s teachings and corroborated the other viewpoints from Marxist
literatures.
It would be noteworthy here to discuss how Ambedkar used to define religion based on
principles rather than on rules and regulations. In the words of Ajay Skaria, Ambedkar
believed that,
The new world needs a religion because ‘[i]n all societies, law plays a very small part.
It is intended to keep the minority within the range of social discipline. The majority is
left and has to be left to sustain its social life by the postulates and sanction of morality.
Religion in the sense of morality, must therefore, remain the governing principle in every
society’. Such a religion, he suggests, must be ‘in accord with science’; ‘its moral code
must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity’; and finally, it
‘must not sanctify or ennoble poverty’. This religion of the principle, moreover, has a
proper name: ‘If the new world – which be it realized is very different from the old –
must have a religion – and the new world needs religion far more than the old world
did – then it can only be the religion of the Buddha.”13
9.7 LET US SUM UP

How do we judge the contributing influence of Buddha and Marx on Ambedkar?
Different aspects of Ambedkar’s engagement with Buddha and Marx show that he not
only learned a lot from both of them but at the same time he was also able to
dispassionately distinguish the efficacy of means/strategy/praxis to achieve the larger goal
of ending humanity’s sufferings. Ambedkar could comprehend it quite well that the
communist ideology failed to provide answers to maladies and sufferings of humankind,
despite advocating scientific socialism.
Whereas on the other hand it is Buddhism which was able to provide solutions to human
being’s misery through non-violent means. On the question of violence as a powerful
means to achieve equality, Ambedkar was more inclined to refuse its efficacy on the
ground saying that it is difficult to control violence and once it gets an upper hand it
destroys humanity rather than making space for harmonious life conditions. What was also
noteworthy in Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddha was about the essence of liberty and
fraternity along with equality. What good would equality turn out to be if there are no
corresponding situations created for liberty and fraternity? Thus Ambedkar opted for
Buddha’s teachings and thereby he advocated a non-violent parliamentary form of
government along with social and economic democracy to usher in an egalitarian system
based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Constitutional morality and public
conscience were to be important tools for stimulating the people to conduct themselves
in the larger interest of public good. A State Socialism through well defined provisions in
the Constitution thus became the guiding force to achieve the desired goals for social,
economic and political justice.

1) Why is it important to study the influence of Karl Marx on Ambedkar considering
the fact that Ambedkar was more inclined towards Buddha?
2) Would it be fair to say that Marx did not have any influence on Ambedkar?
3) On the question of means for achieving the desired goals of a constitutional state
socialism how and why was Ambedkar more inclined towards Buddha rather than
Marx?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ambedkar, B. R., “Buddha or Karl Marx,” Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and
Speeches, Vol. 3. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987.
—, “Revolution and Counter Revolution,” Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches,
Vol. 3. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987.
—, “Buddha and His Dhamma,” Babasaheb Ambedkar; Writings and Speeches, Vol.
11. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1992.
—, “Annihilation of Caste,” Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1.
Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979.
—, “State and Minorities,” Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1.
End Notes
1 Gail Omvedt. “Ambedkarism: The Theory of Dalit Liberation”, p. 227, in Dalits and the Democratic
Revolution.New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1994.
2 Published in Janata, 25 June 1938, cited in Gail Omvedt, ibid, p.228.
3 Gail Omvedt, ibid, 229.
4 B. R. Ambedkar. “Annihilation of Caste”, pp. 46-7, Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches,
Vol. 1. Bombay: Department of Education, Government of Maharashtra, 1979.
5 Anupama Rao, “Revisiting Interwar Thought: Stigma, Labour and the Immanence of Caste-Class,”
p. 48, in Cosimo Zene (Ed.), The Political Philosophies of Antonio Gramsci and B. R. Ambedkar:
Itineraries of Dalits and Subalterns, London and New York: Sage Publication, 2013.
6 Anupama Rao, Ibid, p. 55.
7 Gail Omvedt, op.cit, pp. 234-35.
8 B. R. Ambedkar. “State and Minorities,” p. 412, Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.
1. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979.
9 B. R. Ambedkar, cited in Gail Omvedt, op.cit, pp. 235-36.
10 B. R. Ambedkar. “Buddha or Karl Marx,” p. 441, Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches.
11 Gail Omvedt. Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. p. 1. New Delhi: Sage
Publication, 2003.
12 Gail Omvedt, ibid.
13 Cited in Ajay Skaria’s, “Ambedkar, Marx and the Buddhist Question,” South Asia: Journal of
South Asian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2015. p. 456.
UNIT 10 JOHN DEWEY
Structure
10.1 Objectives
10.2 Introduction
10.3 Life Sketch of John Dewey
10.4 The Influence on Ambedkar
10.5 The Changing Nature of Society
10.6 Humanity’s Progress: The Philosophy of Social Formation and Transformation
10.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
10.1 OBJECTIVES
 John Dewey’s influence on B. R. Ambedkar;
 Ambedkar’s thoughts on the changing nature of society;
 The role of education and democracy in transformation of humanity; and
 The philosophies of John Dewey and Ambedkar about transformation of society.
10.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss about John Dewey and his philosophy and influence on
Ambedkar. B. R. Ambedkar’s thoughts and life was inspired greatly by western intellectuals.
One of them was John Dewey, who had a profound influence on him. His pragmatism
and philosophy contributed greatly towards shaping Ambedkar’s philosophy.
10.3 LIFE SKETCH OF JOHN DEWEY

John Dewey (20 October 1859 – 1 June 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist,
and educational reformer whose ideas have greatly influenced education and society.
Dewey was one of the primary figures associated with the philosophy of pragmatism and
was one of the founders of functional psychology. He was born in America at Burlington,
Vermont, to a family of modest means.1
The overriding theme of Dewey’s works was his profound belief in democracy, be it in
politics, education, communication or journalism. Dewey himself stated in 1888, while still
at the University of Michigan, “Democracy and the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity
are to my mind synonymous.”2 Dewey considered two fundamental elements – schools
and civil society – to be major topics needing attention and reconstruction to encourage
experimental intelligence and plurality. Dewey asserted that complete democracy was to
be obtained not just by extending voting rights but also by ensuring that there exists a fully
formed public opinion, accomplished by communication among citizens, experts, and
politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies they adopt.3
10.4 THE INFLUENCE ON AMBEDKAR

Frances W. Pritchett, an emeritus professor at Columbia University, describes the arrival
of B. R. Ambedkar in Columbia University as his “great escape”. He writes, “At the age
of 22, the young Ambedkar came to Columbia, and began to make intellectual and
personal connections that shaped the rest of his life. He experienced what it was to be
free, albeit for a time, from the stigma of untouchability.”
Later on, Ambedkar would say that the best friends he had in life, “were some of my
classmates at Columbia and my great professors John Dewey, James Shotwell, Edwin
Seligman and James Harvey Robinson.” At Columbia, Professor John Dewey, who was
a well-known philosopher of education of the twentieth century, became one of young
Ambedkar’s heroes.4
Eleanor Zelliot, writing about Dewey’s influence on Ambedkar observes:
“John Dewey’s philosophy especially was meaningful to Ambedkar, for it offered
encouragement that educated and politically aware people could work out their own
political destiny in a pragmatic way, pruning the useless and preserving the useful in
their societies”.5
Ambedkar imbibed several things from John Dewey’s classes at Colombia University.
According to Clarke Blake, Ambedkar took down every word that the great teacher
taught. Ambedkar used to say to his friends that ‘[i]f Dewey died, I could reproduce
every lecture verbatim.’6
Zelliot further explained the extent of influence on Ambedkar thus:
“Mrs. Savita Ambedkar tells a touching story of Ambedkar happily imitating John
Dewey’s distinctive classroom mannerisms – thirty years after Ambedkar sat in
Dewey’s classes. It is impossible to find in Ambedkar’s life story any hint of a living
guru or a personality which dominated him, but here at least is a suggestion that he
was fond of both, Dewey the philosopher and Dewey the man”.7
Ambedkar, Zelliot notes, was quite mature when he went to Columbia and came in
contact with Dewey among his other professors. Dewey’s thinking provided him a
different way to look at the world. In other words, it might be more accurate to say that
in Dewey’s thinking on democracy on which Ambedkar’s already formed socio-political
dispositions and sensibilities found a home. Zelliot writes:
“It is more likely that in those early years in America [Ambedkar’s] own natural
proclivities and interests found a healthy soil for growth, and the experience served
chiefly to strengthen him in his lifelong battle for dignity and equality for his
people”.8
Thus Ambedkar’s experience of US as well as the influence of Dewey reinforced his
already formed convictions and intellectual dispositions. Indeed, it was Ambedkar’s
commitment to achieving dignity and equality for his people, the untouchables, which
underlined his interest in Dewey as in Dewey’s thinking on the nature and goals of
John Dewey 83
democracy, Ambedkar found the only viable means of attaining his vision of an inclusive,
democratic India. This also convinced Ambedkar of the Constitution’s role in enabling and
safeguarding this vision. Hence followed his democratic experiments with the Indian
Constitution.9
10.5 THE CHANGING NATURE OF SOCIETY

Societies, in the process of evolution, always strive to discard or reform their characteristics
wholly or in parts. This proves that nothing remains universal and acceptable for all times
to come. There is a dynamic process at work that keeps on responding to the changing
needs, time and space. Thus clinging on to the past and its false glorification may actually
hinder onward progress of not only individual but society per se. In this connection
Ambedkar pointed out quite logically the futility of following the deadwood of the past.
In Annihilation of Caste, he made a categorical statement:
“The Hindus need to discard a great deal of their heritage before they can suitably
govern themselves: the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the
whole of their social heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to future
generations only that much and no more. John Dewey, who was my teacher and
to whom I owe so much, has said: Every society gets encumbered with what is
trivial, with dead wood from the past, and with what is positively perverse. . . As
a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to conserve
and transmit the whole of its existing achievements, but only such as make for a
better future society”.10
Arun P Mukherjee explains the wonderful relationship that Ambedkar had developed with
John Dewey:
“Dewey’s quotation in the above passage is from his Democracy and Education.
This work had a lasting impact on Ambedkar and he quoted from it repeatedly,
although not always with quotation marks. Dewey here is speaking about the
education of the young and the type of education needed to build a democratic
society. The issues that Ambedkar and Dewey raise in this passage have still not
been settled: Will our society be governed by creationist or evolutionist principles?
Shall we teach our young to question everything in the light of accumulated
knowledge gained through what Dewey called ‘cooperative intelligence’, or tell
them, for instance, that ‘Vedic science’ and ‘Vedic mathematics’ are the epitome of
eternal truth? However, for Dewey as well as for Ambedkar, these are not
questions to be discussed in the abstract, as language games of philosophers. For
Dewey, it is about schooling and what shall be taught to the children. Ambedkar
applies Dewey to a concrete situation to ask whether the high caste Hindu society
can discriminate against some of its members and treat them as untouchables simply
because the scriptures sanction such practice? In 1937, Ambedkar burned a copy
of the Manusmriti at a rally in Mahad, Maharashtra, where over five thousand
people had gathered under his leadership to protest against the denial by high caste
Hindus of their basic right to take water from Lake Chavdar. Ambedkar, I would
suggest, drags Dewey to the edge. Dewey only played with the matches when he
reflected in subjunctives about the pernicious effect of idealizing the past. Ambedkar
actually set the ‘dead wood’ afire”.11
Further Ambedkar suggests to Hindus that there is nothing fixed, eternal, sanatan.
Everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society.
In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values and the Hindus
must realise that if there are standards to measure the acts of men there must also be
readiness to revise those standards.12
To support his reading of Buddha, Ambedkar invokes his teacher John Dewey. John
Dewey believed that ‘the end justifies the means’ is a morally perverted doctrine. What
then can justify the means, he asked. Dewey pointed out that violence is only another
name for the use of force and although force must be used for creative purposes, a
distinction between the use of force as energy and the use of force as violence needs to
be made. The use of force must be so regulated that it should save as many ends as
possible in destroying one evil.13
The similarity in views between Ambedkar and Dewey is quite remarkable. To understand
this special relationship between them it is necessary to unravel the intimacy and respect
for each other’s views, which is certainly a testimony to an explanation of their world
views. It could be rightly claimed that:
“Ambedkar’s writings mark his affiliation with Dewey through extensive quotations
from Dewey’s work. So deeply embedded is Dewey’s thought in Ambedkar’s
consciousness that quite often his words flow through Ambedkar’s discourse without
quotation marks. Ambedkar not only borrowed concepts and ideas from Dewey, his
methodological approach and ways of argumentation also show Dewey’s influence.
The two thinkers share a predilection for examining the past to reflect upon its
traces on the concerns and problems of the present and to determine how beneficial
or detrimental these residues of the past are to the present moment. Both believe
that change is fundamental to life and that the thought of any age is often
circumscribed by the conditions of life operant at the time. Both therefore are
suspicious of traditional worship and eternal truths. Thus, they both challenge the
dominant teleological ideas of “providence” or “manifest destiny” as well as the
determinist strands of Marxism. The human being, to them, is unique, incommensurate,
and continuously unfolding, making and remaking its world through education and
communication. Their human is not the atomistic, isolated individual of enlightenment
thought, but the individual always already embedded in the social”.14
10.6 HUMANITY’S PROGRESS: THE PHILOSOPHY OF

SOCIAL FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Scientific approach and rationality plays an important role in changing perceptions and also
helps in understanding the need for a dynamic process of change which conditions an
individual’s life and society at large. And that is why a rational and scientific approach
involves a transformative process through which new and better ideas of conduct in
private and public life emerge. Scientific approach was an important characteristic in
Dewey’s philosophy. In “The Quest for Certainty,” he makes his position more clear:
“A disciplined mind takes delight in the problematic and cherishes it until a way out
is found and approves itself upon examination. The questionable becomes an active
questioning, a search, a desire for emotion of certitude gives place to quest for the
objects by which the obscure and unsettled may be developed into the stable and
John Dewey 85
clear. The scientific attitude may almost be defined as that which is capable of
enjoying the doubtful; scientific method is, in one aspect, a technique for making a
productive use of doubt by converting it into operations of definite inquiry. No one
gets far intellectually who does not ‘love to think’, and no one loves to think who
does not have an interest in problems as such”.15
To understand how this gets transformed into a definite process of democratisation in
which education plays an important role, one must read what Dewey had to say on this
issue of vital importance:
“Democracy is much broader than a special form, a method of conducting
government, of making laws and carrying on governmental administration by means
of popular suffrage and elected officers... But it is something broader and deeper
than that... The key-note of democracy as a way of life may be expressed, it seems
to me, as the necessity for the participation of every mature human being in form
of the values that regulate the living of men together: which is necessary from the
standpoint of both the general social welfare and the full development of human
beings as individuals”.16
Ambedkar draws on Dewey when he talks about his ideal society:
“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 fellowmen” (Annihilation of Caste, p. 57).17
Arun P Mukherjee further explains the use of word ‘endosmosis’ by Ambedkar.
“Ambedkar used it frequently in his writing as a metaphor for communication in a
democratic society. The term was used originally by Henri Bergson and, after him,
by William James to describe the interaction of the mind with nature. Dewey
appropriated it as a descriptor for interaction between social groups. In science,
‘endosmosis,’ according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘the passage of a
fluid ‘inward’ through a porous septum, to mix with another fluid on the inside of
it’. I suggest that it is a very vibrant metaphor for Ambedkarist and Deweyan
thinking on democracy . It conveys fluidity, channels through which groups and
individuals in a democracy are linked and are, so to say, irrigated or suffused with
the nutrient of each other’s creative intelligence. The ‘porous septum’ is a separator,
a membrane that provides for the privacy of the individuals but does not enclose
them within impermeable walls. Thus the metaphor allows Dewey and Ambedkar to
hold simultaneously the two apparently contradictory ideas of separateness and
conjointness. A democratic social order is one in which there are ‘channels for the
distribution of change occurring anywhere’ as well as ‘varied and free points of
contact’. Dewey reiterates his point in the summary of the chapter: “The two points
selected by which to measure the worth of a form of social life are the extent in
which the interests of a group are shared by all its members, and the fullness and
freedom with which it interacts with other groups. . . . A society which makes
provision for participation in its good of all its members on equal terms and which
secures flexible readjustment of its institutions through interaction of the different
forms of associated life is in so far democratic” (Democracy and Education, 115).
So, Ambedkar used these criteria to assess the caste-based Indian society as well as the
actions of the Congress party’s leadership.18
10.7 LET US SUM UP

In sum up you have learned about John Dewey’s philosophy and his influence on
Ambedkar. John Dewey, the eminent American philosopher and educationist, could come
so close to his students that he became their role model, is itself a remarkable
characteristic feature of the man and his philosophy. It is no wonder that Ambedkar, a
very sincere scholar, could not escape from the overpowering persona of Dewey as a
teacher, philosopher and a friend.
According to Ambedkar and John Dewey, an ideal society is based on liberty, equality
and fraternity. Education is one of the sources of social discrimination among people as
well as equalization in society. It is needed to build a better democratic society.
Rationality, scientific and humanitarian approach play a very pivotal role in changing an
individual’s life and society at large. Moreover, democracy is also important for social
welfare and for the full development of human beings as individuals. In another context,
democracy is a mode of associate living, an attitude of respect and reverence towards
fellowmen.
So, democracy and education are the only way to change the society and helps to bring
about equality in society, especially in the Hindu society. Thus it would not be wrong to
assume that the level of special knowledge that Ambedkar developed at Columbia
University helped him in understanding the problems and issues of the untouchables and
the need for an emancipatory paradigm to address the long standing urge for an equitable
socio-economic and political order.

1) Why is it important to study John Dewey’s influence on B. R. Ambedkar?
2) Explain the meaning and ramification of factors in society working as agents of
change.
3) Democracy and education forms part of a transformatory process of emancipation for
humanity at large, how are these located in John Dewey’s and Ambedkar’s
philosophy?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ambedkar, B. R. “Annihilation of Caste,” Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches,
vol. 1, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1979.
Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste. New Delhi: Samyak Prakashan. 2013.
John Dewey 87
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Education. New York: McMillan, 1958, first printed 1916.
Zelliot, Eleanor. From Untouchable to Dalit. New Delhi: Manohar Publication, 1996.
Revised Editions also available.
End Notes
1 Gerald L. Gutek. Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education: A Biographical
Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. p. 338. ISBN 0-13-113809-X.
2 Early Works, 1:128 (Southern Illinois University Press) op cited in Douglas R. Anderson, AAR, The
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 61, No. 2 (1993), p. 383
3 Online Website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
4 Frances W, Pritchett, A Page on the Life and Writings, A Timeline of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Life,
Columbia University Website, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/
1910s.html
5 Eleanor Zelliot. “American Experience of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,“ p. 83, in From Untouchable to Dalit,
Manohar Publication, New Delhi, 1996.
6 Cited in Arun P Mukherjee’s, “B R Ambedkar, John Dewey and The Meaning of Democracy,“ p.4,
New Literary History, vol. 40, No. 2, Spring 2009.7 Eleanor Zelliot. op.cit, p.84
8 Cited in Keya Maitra. “Ambedkar and the Constitution of India: A Deweyan Experiment”, pp. 302-
03, Contemporary Pragmatism, Vol. 9, No. 2, December 2012
9 Ibid
10 B. R. Ambedkar.Annihilation of Caste, New Delhi: Samyak Prakashan. 2013. pp. 79-80
11 Arun P Mukherjee. op.cit, p. 349
12 P. Kesava Kumar. Political Philosophy of Ambedkar: An Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundations
of the Dalit Movement. New Delhi: Kalpaz Publication. 2014. p. 44.
13 Ibid. pp. 60-61.
14 Arun P Mukherjee. ibid, pp. 347-48.
15 Cited in K. N. Kadam’s, “Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s philosophy of Emancipation and the Impact of Dr.
John Dewey”, p. 22, in The Meaning of the Ambedkarite Conversion to Buddhism and Other
Essays, K. N. Kadam, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1997.
16 Ibid, p. 4.
17 Arun p Mukherjee. op. cit, p. 351
18 Arun P Mukherjee. op. cit. p. 352.
UNIT 11 EDMUND BURKE
Structure
11.1 Objectives
11.2 Introduction
11.3 Western Educational Influence: Knowledge Acquisition for Social Reconstruction
11.4 Edmund Burke’s Life Sketch (1729-1797)
11.5 Salient Ideas of Edmund Burke that Influenced Ambedkar
11.5.1 Burke for Anti-colonialism and Peace
11.5.2 Burke on the Tyranny of East India Company
11.6 Edmund Burke and Ambedkar

11.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
11.1 OBJECTIVES
 The influence of western intellectual traditions, specifically of Edmund Burke, on
Ambedkar;
 Ambedkar’s efforts to educate himself; and
 The social contribution of Ambedkar based on his intellectual influences.
11.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss the western intellectual influence, specifically of Edmund Burke,
on Ambedkar. B.R. Ambedkar’s life mission was liberation of Indian society from
casteism and its reconstruction on democratic principles. His phenomenal contribution to
Indian societal development stems from his formidable intellectual prowess in a diversity
of fields of knowledge. His message for the development of human society was: Educate,
Organise and Agitate. He believed that the cultivation of mind should be the ultimate aim
of human existence.
For Ambedkar, the primary concern of life was to achieve a peaceful and justice-based
human existence devoid of any social, cultural and political discrimination. To this end,
Ambedkar lived, worked, struggled and contributed throughout his life-time. He committed
his entire life to reconstruct Indian society based on the principles of social justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity.
To reconstruct Indian society devoid of any form of discrimination, Ambedkar primarily
took recourse to learning various sciences of humanities. To this end, he sought the
frontiers and depths of realms of knowledge. He studied different disciplines of social
Edmund Burke 89
sciences and humanities which in turn intellectually influenced and impacted Ambedkar to
understand and reconstruct Indian society based on the principles of modernity.
In spite of caste-based hardships and poor economic background, Ambedkar stands tall
in the company of other national leaders. His perspective of Indian society remains highly
academic, intellectual and knowledge-based.
Ambedkar had a strong motivation to educate himself. He sought every portal of learning
and was inspired by various schools of thought in and outside the country. His ardent
efforts to acquire knowledge through rigorous education formed the basis of his commitment
to social transformation.
Apart from undergoing rigorous formal education, Ambedkar was a voracious reader of
the writings of great personalities. He shared broadly the intellectual traditions of his times.
He was influenced by the following great western intellectual traditions:
 liberalism
 social contract as the basis of social and political construction
 nationalism.
He was convinced that the problem of Indian political, cultural and social slavery
cultivated by casteism can only be rooted out through educational empowerment.
To understand the dimensions of Indian society and to reconstruct it on the basis of
scientific understanding beyond any prejudice and taboos, Ambedkar took pains to study
different fields of knowledge. He is known for having mastered interdisciplinary fields of
knowledge such as economics, sociology, religion, law, anthropology, philosophy and
political sciences. Ambedkar stands unique among national leaders of his times in terms
of his scholarship in western educationas well as in understanding Indian society on a
scientific basis. Though Ambedkar belonged to the most vulnerable and discriminated
community and was made to suffer the yoke of untouchability, he uncompromisingly
emerged as a national leader in the struggle for political and social independence.
Influences and impressions from many diverse sources prompted Ambedkar to contribute
towards Indian social development and freedom. The key factors include the following:
 his indebtedness to genuine cultural roots of Indian culture, especially that of
Buddhism,
 his ability to critically evaluate and perceive the problems of Vedic scriptural
traditions,
 his wide knowledge and experience to analyze the problem of casteism,
 his consistent effort to seek knowledge in social sciences both in India and in the
West, and
 his reflective readings of great thinkers.
These influences are concretely reflected in the writings and speeches of Ambedkar.
11.3 WESTERN EDUCATIONAL INFLUENCE:

KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION FOR SOCIAL
RECONSTRUCTION
Ambedkar believed that anyone aiming to reconstruct Indian society must first acquire
relevant knowledge. He himself sought knowledge in the fields of political science,
sociology, religion, law, anthropology, philosophy and economics. He equipped himself
intellectually by way of acquiring formal education in most social sciences. Although
Ambedkar came from an untouchable community and suffered ill-treatment due to caste
prejudices prevalent in the Indian society of his times, he was not deterred by them. The
glory of Ambedkar lies in his ability to fight caste inequality both intellectually and socially.
Though opportunities for higher learning were denied to Ambedkar on the grounds of
caste discrimination and political prejudices, hetook strength from the very episodes of
denials and discrimination. In 1907 he successfully passed his matriculation examination, a
rare achievement at the time for one who belonged to the Mahar (untouchable)
community. He was the first person from his community to enter the portals of learning
at the University of Bombay.
Having entered the famous Elphinstone College in 1908, he obtained a dual degree in
Economics and Political Science from Bombay University in 1912. The death of his dear
father on 2 February 1913, who had always motivated him to work hard for intellectual
achievement, did not deter him from persuading higher studies at international universities.
He worked relentlessly to transform himself through right education to contribute towards
social transformation. At a very young age, having seen and gone through appalling
practices of social denials and discrimination based on caste prejudices, Ambedkar had
already realized self-transformation is the prerequisite towards social transformation. In
1913, he signed a contract with the Baroda state administration to serve the State after
completing his higher studies and was granted a scholarship of 11.50 British pounds a
month for three years. The scholarship enabled Ambedkar to join the Political Science
Department of the Colombia University (New York, USA) to do his post-graduate
studies.
With the aim of equipping himself sufficiently to work on freedom from caste cultural
slavery, Ambedkar spent most of his time attending lectures and studying at the library,
rather than touring around the country. He was indifferent to European style of lavish
living. Within three years (1913 to 1916) he had passed his M.A. exam, majoring in
Economics, with Sociology, History, Philosophy, and Anthropology as other subjects of
study.
To complete his post-graduation in economics, he successfully presented a thesis on
“Ancient Indian Commerce”. In the same year (1916) he presented another M.A. thesis,
“National Dividend of India: A Historic and Analytical Study” which eventually fetched him
another M.A degree. In the same year he presented a paper on “Castes in India: Their
Mechanism, Genesis and Development” in a seminar on Anthropology.
In 1916 he went to London and was admitted to Gray’s Inn for a Bar course. At the
same time he enrolled at the London School of Economics where he started working
towards a doctoral thesis. Ambedkar had to return to India in 1917 because the tenure
of his scholarship had ended; however his perseverance to research did not fade away.
He got permission to return to London to submit his thesis within four years. He returned
Edmund Burke 91
at the first opportunity, and completed the master’s degree in 1921. His thesis was on
the “The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and its Solution.”In 1923, he completed a
D.Sc. course in Economics, and the same year he was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn.
Finally, in 1927, he received his Ph.D. degree in Economics for his third thesis. His third
and fourth Doctorates (LL.D, Columbia, 1952 and D.Litt., Osmania, 1953) were
conferred honoris causa.
Ambedkar did not remain content with his Masters in Economics and study of other allied
social sciences; he soon ventured to study Law. The study of law, perhaps Ambedkar
thought to himself, was the proper way to augment his existing knowledge-base for
reconstruction of Indian society on constitutional and legal basis. He seems to have
already realized the fact that Indian politics must be guided by democratic laws, away
from its age-old caste-based discriminatory laws and traditional practices. This was the
intellectual trait of Ambedkar. He pursued his studies in western countries not for any
personal motive but to educate himself so as to educate Indian society at large. His
fundamental objective seems to have been to embark upon a scientific understanding of
the Indian society. Thus, for Ambedkar, western education turned out to be a social
capital or resource to help perceive and analyze Indian society scientifically than resort to
oft-repeated moral judgments. This is evident by his educational achievements, which in
turn get reflected in Ambedkar’s writings and speeches. Whenever Ambedkar presented
a case, whether in political, economic or legal writings, he always sought scientific and
intellectual evidences or arguments from great intellectual traditions. His writings and
speeches are not merely moral sermons but deeply scientific, academic and rational,
drenched with social ethics.
It was during these periods of pursuing his post-graduation and doctoral studies, that
Ambedkar spent most of his leisure time in reading and reflecting upon the writings of
great thinkers. He was influenced by the following thinkers:
 J.S. Mill
 Rousseau for his social contract theory
 Karl Marx for his critique of capitalism
 William James and C.S. Peirce for pragmatism
 John Dewey, a philosopher of pragmatism, for his educational techniques of
instrumentalism
 Bertrand Russell for his theory of social reconstruction based on the idea of secular
rationalism.
Ambedkar has often used quotes from the writings of Edmund Burke to support his
position. Edmund Burke spoke and wrote extensively against colonialism and abuse of the
colonized people. He criticized European colonial imperialism over the rest of the world.
Even though Edmund Burke represented Conservative politics in Britain, Ambedkar
employed his writings because Burke had always stood against the suppression of colonial
countries by Imperial forces.
11.4 EDMUND BURKE’S LIFE SKETCH (1729-1797)

Edmund Burke was an Irish statesman, political thinker, and British parliamentarian. He
was a member of parliament for several years in the House of Commons in England.
Burke is known as a political philosopher for his intellectual contributions. Burke’s earliest
writings include A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime
and Beautiful (1757), and A Vindication of Natural Society (1756). Thereafter he was
co-author of An Account of the European Settlements (1757) and began An Abridgement
of English History (c.1757–62). From 1758, at least until 1765, he was the principal
‘conductor ’ of the new Annual Register. He published On American
Taxation (1774), Conciliation with America (1775), and Fox’s East India Bill (1783)
and Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), and Reflections on the
Revolution in France (1790).
Burke is remembered mainly for his support for the cause of the American
revolutionaries, Catholic emancipation, the impeachment of Warren Hastings of the East
India Company, and for his later objections about the French Revolution, which made him
a leading figure in the conservative politics of England. However both conservatives and
the liberals accepted Burke as a political philosopher of great merit for his democratic
views with reference to the freedom of the colonized people.
In 1765, Burke became private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham (who had just
become First Lord of the Treasury) and was elected to the British House of Commons
in the same year. He remained there, with a brief intermission in 1780, for nearly 29
years, retiring in 1794. Burke was always a prominent yet controversial figure in the
Britain Parliament but remained an effective persuader of peace and liberty.
11.5 SALIENT IDEAS OF EDMUND BURKE THAT

INFLUNCED AMBEDKAR
Let us now discuss how ideas of Edmund Burke influence Ambedkar. As a practicing
parliamentarian and political philosopher, Burke expressed his ideas mostly in favour of the
people of the colonized countries and sought their freedom from the European rule. The
first subject Burke addressed in the British Parliament was about the controversy of
American colonies and suffering of the colonized people of America. In support of the
problems faced by the American colonies under the rule of King George III, Burke
courageously spoke in favour of justice to be meted out to the people of colonies and
argued for the American war of Independence from the British imperial governance. His
speech on this matter is published as “On American Taxation” (1775). He spoke thus:
Seek peace and ensue it. Leave America and its people free from taxation. Do not
bother them with taxes…. No body of men will be argued into slavery. Taxation
is a sort of legal slavery and not a matter of sovereignty.
Burke for Anti-colonialism and Peace
Burke always appealed for peace and reconciliation. Given the scenario of a civil war
during the American War of Independence, Burke supported independence of America
through a mode of peaceful reconciliation. He said peace is preferable over the force of
war. He made a bold speech in the British parliament against the British colonial rule in
America and reminded the parliamentarians that the people of the colonies were descendants
of Englishmen. They are devoted to liberty according to the English political principles. He
says:
Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your
government—they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be
Edmund Burke 93
of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your
government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may
exist without any mutual relation—the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and
everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to
keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred
temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of
England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they
multiply, the more friends you will have; the more ardently they love liberty, the
more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed
that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain, they may have it from
Prussia. But, until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your
natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.
Burke further argues that peace cannot be haunted by the medium of war and endless
negations. It should be allowed to emerge out of its natural course from and among the
life of the people. Burke was not in favour of war or force to bring about political
settlements. According to Burke the use of force is temporary and cannot yield a peaceful
society. He believed that the rule of the British in a foreign land was not sovereignty but
enactment of slavery and therefore antithetical to the principle of liberty of the people.
He foresaw the failure of British rule both in the American countries as well as in India
because of the fact that territorial governance belongs to the people of the land and not
to any alien rulers. Burke observes that the spirit of colonized or enslaved people to
liberty is stronger than the spirit of the British governance. Burke proposed the following
six resolutions to solve the conflict between Britain and American freedom fighters. They
are as follows:
1) Allow the American colonists to elect their own representatives, thus settling the
dispute about taxation without representation;
2) Acknowledge this wrongdoing and apologize for grievances caused;
3) Procure an efficient manner of choosing and sending these delegates;
4) Set up a General Assembly in America itself, with powers to regulate taxes;
5) Stop gathering taxes by imposition (or law), and start gathering them only when they
are needed; and
6) Grant needed aid to the colonies.
In so doing Burke argued for constitutional limits to British rule in its colonies. He argued
strongly against unrestrained royal power and for the role of political parties in maintaining
a principled opposition capable of preventing abuses, either by the monarch, or by
specific factions within the government. His most important publication in this regard was
his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents in 1770. Self-Governance as the
form of governance was strongly proposed by Edmund Burke. Burke in his “Speech to
the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll” (1774) defended strongly the
principle of representative political governance against the idea of monarchy or delegation
of monarchy in the colonial countries.
Burke and also Ambedkar held that property is essential to human life. According to
Burke, the division of property formed the basis of social structure and progress of human
society. Regarding religion, Burke and Ambedkar seem to hold the same position. For
Burke, religion is the foundation of civil society. So also Ambedkar held that religion was
a foundational social force. “To ignore religion is to ignore a livewire,” he said. For both,
human progress can only take place when social consciousness is supported by religious
morality.
Burke on the tyranny of East India Company
In his work on Impeachment of Warren Hastings, Burke strongly proposes charges
against the East India Company with reference to the governance of Warren Hastings, the
then Governor General of Bengal, on the basis of which Warren Hastings was put to trial.
It was the greatness of Burke that he raised the issue of the tyrannous colonial rule.
Burke was appointed as the Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of
Commons on East Indian Affairs in 1781. This committee was responsible to investigate
alleged injustices in Bengal, and other parts of India. Burke took sincere efforts to report
the tyrannous rule of the British representatives and concluded that the rule of the British
in India was by and large, condemnable. Burke openly and undoubtedly opposed the
British dominion, and in particular, the conduct of the East India Company. He felt that
the British had destroyed much that was good in the Indian traditions.
His opposition to British imperialism in Ireland and India and his opposition to French
imperialism and radicalism in Europe made it difficult for the British Parliamentarians (Whig
or Tory) to accept Burke as devoted to British governance. Karl Marx wrote in Das
Kapital that Edmund Burke played a double role. On the one hand he was supported
the bourgeois and on the other hand he supported freedom of the colonial countries.
Winston Churchill, though in the beginning disagreed with Burke’s political ideas, later
observed that Burke was a foremost apostle of Liberty and at the same time the
champion of Authority.
His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering
Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the
watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of
a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the
Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same
ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, and defending them from
assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.
Given Burke’s thoughts on peace, liberty and self-governance, it is no wonder that
Ambedkar took keen interest in Edmund Burke. However Ambedkar was critical of
Burke’s skepticism to democratic polity.
11.6 EDMUND BURKE AND AMBEDKAR

Ambedkar held that “apart from Burke’s conservative political position in Britain, Burke
always supported the cause of the freedom of colonized countries. Burke’s thoughts which
are positioned in favour of the subjugated people are accepted by me.” Burke’s
advocated a philosophy of freedom of the oppressed people of the colonial countries.
Burke was able to see through the types of oppression in the East India Company’s
affairs, American taxation and the role of the Lords in the French revolution which created
and nurtured exploitation of the vulnerable people and countries.
Edmund Burke 95
Though he was a conservative in British politics, Burke stood against all forms of slavery
by imperial colonizing regimes. When it came to the question of freedom of the colonized
countries, Burke always took liberal (liberalism) position based on the values of democracy
and justice. This is the reason why Ambedkar was influenced by Burke, which he himself
has acknowledged.
Ambedkar admired Burke’s arguments in favour of the freedom of enslaved countries.
Burke believed in the principle of fairness as public morality. The conservatism of Burke
is different from the conservatism of Winston Churchill. Both were conservative in
politics but with a difference. Churchill did not support the demand for India’s freedom.
This is reflected in his own words: “I have not become the Prime Minister of His
Majesty’s Government to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”Ambedkar
adopted the liberal and liberative position of Burke while arguing for societal freedom
from political and colonial slavery.
Dinkar Khadbe who did an extensive study of the western influence on Ambedkar writes:
Both Dr. Ambedkar and Edmund Burke belonged to the same school of thought so far
as the expectation of the moral degeneration of society was concerned. Both felt that
morality should be introduced into the conduct of public affairs. Education of the public
opinion was an important factor according to Burke, only legal procedure does not work
if the public at large is not in tune with it….Referring to the social matters and caste
distinction in the Indian society, Dr. Ambedkar said, while talking on Ranade’s birth
anniversary, that the rights are protected not by law but by the social and moral
conscience of society. If the social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise the
rights which the law chooses to enact, the rights will be safe and secured. But if the
fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no law, no Parliament,no judiciary can
guarantee them in the real sense of the word.’ To this end, Ambedkar cites examples of
American Negroes and claims that although the principle of equality and civil rights is
guaranteed by the American Constitution, it is of no use for the Negroes in practical life,
since it is opposed by the majority of the people of USA. The mind of the people of
USA must be prepared to ally towards human rights of the Black people. The law can
punish few individuals in case of breach of it, but it cannot punish masses.
While arguing this, Ambedkar quotes Edmund Burke as follows: “There is no method for
punishing the multitude, law can punish a single solitary recalcitrant criminal, it can never
operate against the whole body of the people who are determined to defy it.” In another
place, Ambedkar quotes the views of Coleridge, a famous English poet, social conscience
is that “calm incorruptible legislator of the soul without whom all other powers would
‘meet in mere oppugnancy’ - is the only safeguard of all rights fundamental or non-
fundamental”.
Burke held that mere enactment of law to tax the American colonies was not of any use,
since the whole body of the people was determined to overthrow it. In the same vein,
Ambedkar held that to root-out caste mindedness, mere enactment of laws is insufficient,
though necessary. The social conscience of the caste Hindus must be prepared to
recognise human values of dignity, that untouchability and practices of discrimination
against a group of people is inhuman and anti-social. To this end, Ambedkar held that
Edmund Burke was “the greatest teacher of political philosophy.” Ambedkar quite often
uses the sayings of Burke with reference to the re-organisation of Indian society politically.
Burke’s insistence on the issue of public morality and public conscience as a prerequisite
to bring about viable political and social change has been very well adopted by
Ambedkar. According to Burke, the use of legal, police and military force alone is
insufficient to build a democratic political society.
Dinkar Khadbe observes that Ambedkar uses references to Burke’s writings most
effectively on two important occasions.
 First, it is found in Ambedkar’s speech at the Round Table Conference in England
in the first session. While defending the political rights of the depressed classes
Ambedkar argues that the use of force in turning down the rightful demands of the
depressed classes is futile.
 Second, in the discussion on Hindu-Muslim problem in the Constituent Assembly.
While defending constitutional rights, Ambedkar uses Edmund Burke. He argues that
the problem of Hindu-Muslim divide cannot be solved by the use of military or legal
forces. Force, for Ambedkar, in such a situation is a type of State-enacted war
against people. The rightful demands of the Muslims cannot be made to surrender by
any force. One has to win over the consent of the Muslim people for any amicable
solution.
While writing the introduction of his book Pakistan or the Partition of India Ambedkar
uses Burke verbatim to support his opinion that “it would be unwise and impossible if
Hindus expect the British to use the force to put down the idea of separate Pakistan.”
Ambedkar quotes Edmund Burke as follows:
The use of force alone is but temporary, it may endure a moment, but does not remove
the necessity of subduing again, a nation is not governed which is continuously/perpetually
to be conquered (by other forces). The next objection to use of force is uncertainty.
Terror is not always the effect of force and an armament is not a victory, if you do not
succeed, you are without resources, for conciliation failing, force remains, but force failing,
no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and affinity are sometimes brought by
kindness, but they can never be begged, as alms by an in impoverished and defeated
violence… A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very
endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover, but
depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the context.
Edmund Burke, throughout his life, had been a spokesman of the rights of the enslaved
and colonized people. He argued for a liberal outlook of life. He sought the freedom of
people in terms of morality in public affairs. Ambedkar, being positively influenced by
Edmund Burke, positions himself on ethics while advocating legal governance to politically
constitute the Indian nation. Like Burke, who was a reformer of his times within the
Conservative politics, Ambedkar evolved as a reformer of the Indian nation in insisting on
the role of morality and public conscience in political affairs.
Ambedkar was attracted to the liberal philosophy of Edmund Burke. Burke had a wide
knowledge of the political affairs of the East India Company in India and always stood
for the cause of a politically free India, in the British parliament. Burke was well aware
of the great cultural traditions of India and did not approve of the policies of the British
in India. When people like Warren Hastings criticized India saying that the people of India
lack political acumen and hence ought to be ruled by the British, Edmund Burke argued
vehemently that the people of India belonged to a civilized nation with a rich cultural
heritage.
Edmund Burke 97
Burke fearlessly attacked the British politicians of his times who argued for British rule of
India. Burke said inthe British Parliament:
Let me remind your lordship that these people (Indians) lived under the laws which were
formed while we, I may say, were in the forests, certainly before we knew what technical
jurisprudence was. These laws are allowed to be the basic and substratum of the
manners, customs and opinions.
11.7 LET US SUM UP

The preceding discussion has broadly surveyed the contribution of Edmund Burke in the
writings of Ambedkar. He employed reason to position his case for Indian political and
social freedom. Ambedkar struggled to educate himself. He mastered economics, sociology,
religion, anthropology and philosophy which enabled him to perceive and critically evaluate
Indian society in the light of liberty, fraternity and justice.
Burke’s political ideas on individual freedom, liberty of the colonial countries, practice of
peace as against war or force, the necessity of political governance by the people of the
land, and the need for an authentic religion to promote a society based on morality
influenced Ambedkar’s speeches and writings. Armed with the knowledge of western
intellectual traditions, Ambedkar applied liberal ideas to build an Indian society based on
democratic principles.

1) How did Ambedkar’s educational achievements prepare him towards Indian social
transformation?
2) ‘Knowledge is prerequisite for social reconstruction’ - substantiate this from the life
and mission of Ambedkar.
3) Bring out the political ideas of Edmund Burke.
4) Examine the impact of Edmund Burke on Ambedkar.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Burke, Edmund and William Burke, An Account of the European Settlements.
London,1757,(and later editions).
Somerset, H.V.F, ed. A Notebook of Edmund Burke. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press,1957.
Burke, Edmund.Philosophical Enquiry. Ed. J.T. Boulton. London: Routledge, 1958 (later
edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1987)
Dinkar Khabde.Dr. Ambedkar and Western Thinkers. Pune: Sugava Prakshan,1989.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writingsand Speeches.
Keer D. Life and Mission.Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1962.
UNIT 12 BERTRAND RUSSELL
Structure
12.1 Objectives
12.2 Introduction
12.3 Ambedkar’s Review of Russell’s ‘Principles of Social Reconstruction’
12.4 Russell’s Analysis of Effects of War on Institution of Property
12.5 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
12.1 OBJECTIVES
 Ambedkar’s critique of Russell’s understanding of the genesis of war;
 Ambedkar’s critique of Russell’s idea of creative and destructive impulses;
 Are arguments against war coextensive with arguments for quieticism?
 Russell’s conception of how the possessive impulse for property leads to war; and
 Ambedkar’s critique of Russell’s understanding of behaviorism.
12.2 INTRODUCTION
This unit will primarily discuss the Russel’s notion on the genesis of war, behaviorism and
creative and destructive principles. Finally we explain critique of Ambedkar to Russel
understanding. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s higher education was mostly in England and the
US. Europe in general and England in particular had witnessed events of great socio-
political significance during the 17th century. These historical events marked the beginning
of an end of overarching influence of religion on social and political sphere of Europe.
The continent embarked on a journey of independent enquiry relying solely upon unbiased
objective observation as the hallmark of knowledge whose focus was on human progress
and alleviation of suffering. These events, which brought an end to knowledge based on
religious dogmas, created better living conditions with emphasis on equality and liberty.
This newly developed optimism about scientific method and knowledge suffered a setback
after the two World Wars. Many major thinkers of Europe started thinking a new about
the causes and reasons of war and how to avoid them and the loss of lives and great
human suffering that they unleashed. Any thinking around these issues would involve
thinking around the principles of reconstruction of society, which is the title of the book
by one of the best known philosophers of England at that time, namely Bertrand Russell.
But Russell’s book doesn’t mainly concern social evils like discrimination on the basis of
caste, race or gender. England in particular and Europe in general had painfully witnessed
the horrors of war which seemed to put any other factors of social reconstruction in
diminution.
Bertrand Russel 99
Ambedkar reviewed Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction which probably

remains the only point of contact between the two major thinkers of that time. What
brought them together on the same intellectual ground was their common objective,
namely the reconstruction of society. As we would see during the course of this essay,
Russell believed that all human actions, including the collective action of war, are the
results of human impulses of different kinds. The menace of war, therefore, could be put
at bay by promoting creative impulses that encourage us to do something creative for the
purpose of humanity.
On the other hand Ambedkar’s chief concern as a critic of his times was the annihilation
of the caste system and the evil practices that were associated with it. Therefore it is
difficult to say whether Ambedkar was directly influenced by Bertrand Russell. Ambedkar
is supposed to have met Russell only once in 1920 when the latter invited him for a
discussion on the review article, though there are no records available of the discussion
between the two.
12.3 AMBEDKAR’S REVIEW OF RUSSELL’S

‘PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION’
Russell’s book Principles of Social Reconstruction mainly focuses on the destructive
force that is unleashed during a war. Ambedkar points out therefore that this book
should be viewed as ‘a war book’. He further points out that generally such literature is
“either propagandist or preventive” with a disclaimer that “though it falls under the latter,
must be distinguished from the rest of the same class.” The reason for such uniqueness
in Russell’s work according to Ambedkar is that most anti-war books are either of the
following:
 They present “arguments against the unnatural geographical barriers within which
unwilling nations have been impounded by their conqueror,”
 They present arguments demonstrating that in a war the loss not only befalls upon
the nation that is defeated but upon the conquerors as well such that war always
remains a lose-lose proposition.
Russell’s work, according to Ambedkar, is different from such approaches in so far as he
believes that war “cannot be banished by rationalistic appeals such as above.” Ambedkar,
citing Russell, writes:
“It is not by reason alone” he says “that wars can be prevented but by a positive
life of impulses and passions antagonistic to those that lead to war. It is the life of
impulse that needs to be changed, not only the life of conscious thought.1
Ambedkar expresses the view that Russell’s approach towards the study of reasons for
war is hinged upon “the behaviouristic psychology.”2 War, being an outcome of a certain
thought pattern, an emotional outburst, has an intrinsic dynamism that may not have any
direct connection with the external world and external circumstances, which “do not
induce activity. They only redirect it.”3
The dominant idea in behaviorism is that “man… has the springs of action within him for
he is born with certain tendencies to act… These tendencies to act… in their working,
become modified by the effect of the Social milieu in which they function.”4 Taking these
ideas as his premise, Russell concludes, “The nature of these modifications ought to be
studied, and the result of his study ought to be taken account of in judging the good or
harm that is done by political and social institutions.”5
In Principles of Social Reconstruction Russell points out six major institutions namely,
state, war, property, education, marriage and religion; out of these Ambedkar chooses the
institution of property as the most important one from the point of view of economics.6
At this juncture, Ambedkar makes a crucial point that despite Principles of Social
Reconstruction being an anti-war book, Russell nowhere seems keen to offer philosophy
or quieticism as a solution, because for Russell war is a manifestation of impulses which
are a reservoir of human force; there is nothing inherently wrong with any force or energy
per se, therefore, what is required is not the suppression of this reservoir but rather an
intelligent control over it. Ambedkar cites Russell in this regard:
The point is that to achieve anything, we must use force: only we must use it
constructively as energy and not destructively as violence.7
Here Ambedkar adds a note of caution to the Indian readers of Russell’s book. He
points out that being an anti-war book, the reader may tend to believe that Russell is
talking about pacification and non-resistance which are ideas that have a dominant
presence in Indian philosophy. But Ambedkar points out that far from supporting the
philosophy of quieticism, Russell is rather keen to emphasize on the importance of
impulses in human life. Russell writes, “a great many of the impulses which now lead
nations to go to war are themselves essential to any vigorous or progressive life.”8
Describing the demerits of a life without impulses, Russell writes:
Impulse is the expression of life and while it exists, there is hope of its turning
towards life instead of towards death; but lack of impulse is death, and out of death
no new life will come.9
According to Russell:
Conflict, provided it is not destructive and brutal, is necessary in order to stimulate
men’s activities and to secure the victory of what is living over what is dead and
merely traditional. The wish for the triumph of one’s cause, the sense of solidarity
with large bodies of men, are not things which a wise man will wish to destroy. It
is only the outcome in death and destruction and hatred that is evil.10
Therefore Russell, Ambedkar points out, “is not against making war the outlet for them.”11
From this Ambedkar further concludes that Russell is against war but not in favour of
quieticism. Expressing it in the words of his own teacher John Dewey, he writes that
Russell is only against “force as violence” but is all for “force as energy.”12
Further Ambedkar points out that force is only a means and could be judged therefore
only depending upon the ends we wish to achieve through it. At this juncture Ambedkar
brings out an important fact about means and end relationship. All means are directed
towards some end but there may be, and indeed there are, some other ends as well that
are thrown into relief concomitantly. Thus the real issue in a situation of application of
force is to prudently judge “that while working for one end we do not destroy, in the
process, other ends equally worthy of maintenance.”13
Further Ambedkar points out that for Russell “not to act is to be dead. Life consists in
activity: It is better to act even violently as in war than not at all for only when we act
that we may hope to act well.”14 This again proves, according to Ambedkar, that Russell
is a pacifist but not a quieticist.
Bertrand Russel 101
Ambedkar points out that there is a dominant perception in India that as a nation we
have steadfastly survived and endured numerous wars and attacks. In response to this
perception Ambedkar maintains that even if we grant the fact of surviving the attack, not
all kinds of survival are equally worthy. He writes in this regard:
So the capacity to grovel or lie low may equally as the power of rising to the
occasion be the condition of the survival of a people. Consequently, it cannot be
granted—as is usually supposed—that because a people have survived through ages
that therefore they have been growing and improving through ages.15
Therefore according to Ambedkar it is not the fact of survival but the quality of survival
that is of real importance.
12.4 RUSSELL’S ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF WAR ON

INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY
In the next section of the review article Ambedkar focuses his attention on Russell’s
analysis of how the institution of property leads to war. Ambedkar points out that,
according to Russell, there are three central strands or co-ordinates that are at the very
foundation of the capitalist economic system. These three co-ordinates are:
1) Interest of the consumer
2) Interest of the producer
3) Interest of the capitalist
The evils of the capitalist system present themselves when we analyze it on the touchstone
of these three coordinates because any system of collectivity has to have at the core, the
interest of the community as a whole. But the triad of consumer, producer and capitalist
can never form a complete system according to Ambedkar, because the interests of these
three do not cohere with each other, nor do their interests complement the interest of the
community. Alternatively if we look at other economic systems:
The co-operative system amalgamates the interests of consumer and capitalist;
syndicalism would amalgamate the interests of producer and capitalists. Neither
amalgamates all three, or makes the interests of those who direct industry quite
identical with those of the community.16
But either of these systems, in Ambedkar’s judgment, would be better than the present
one, namely industrialism. Ambedkar expresses surprise at the fact that “while men and
women have struggled to achieve political democracy, so little has been done to introduce
democracy in industry.”17 Ambedkar points out that the coming together of these two may
result in a most befitting economic structure. He writes:
I believe incalculable benefits might result from industrial democracy either on the
co-operative model or with recognition of a trade or industry as a unit for purposes
of Government, with some kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism aims at
securing.18
Connecting it back to the behaviouristic model of study and his discussion on human
impulses, Ambedkar points out that such a system would address the present ills of
industrialism in so far as:
By some such system many men might come to feel again a pride in their work and
to find again that outlet for the creative impulse which is now denied to all but a
fortunate few. Such a system requires the abolition of the land owner and the
restriction of the Capitalist, but does not entail equality of earnings. And unlike
Socialism, it is not a static or final system; it is hardly more than a frame-work for
energy and initiative. It is only by some such method, I believe that the free growth
of the individual can be reconciled with the huge technical organisations which have
been rendered necessary by industrialism.19
From this point onwards in the paper, Ambedkar explicates some of the main presumptions
in Russell’s theory of human behaviour and its influence on economy. In this regard
Ambedkar states Russell’s thesis as follows:
“love of money… leads men to mutilate their own nature from a mistaken theory
of what constitutes success and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing
to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character and purpose, a
diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and strain which leaves whole communities
weary, discouraged, and disillusioned.”20
Ambedkar’s analysis of this idea of Russell’s and the main economic thesis presented
therein is largely Neitzschean in character. Ambedkar points out that any evaluation of the
institution of money would be relative to one’s own position in the economic system.
Substantiating his claim, Ambedkar writes:
At a time when the whole world was living in “pain economy” as did the ancient
world and when the productivity of human labour was extremely low and when no
efforts could augment its return, in short, when the whole world was living in
poverty it is but natural that moralists should have preached the gospel of poverty
and renunciation of worldly pleasures only because they were not to be had. The
belief of a society of “pain economy” is that a thing must be bad if it cannot be
had just as a society of “pleasure economy” addicted to “ conspicuous consumption
“ believes that a thing must be nasty if it is cheap.”21
Ambedkar maintains that one cannot criticize people’s love of money willy-nilly without
taking into consideration the purpose of it. Money, he points out, is only means to an end
rather being an end in itself. Subsequently Ambedkar states that love of money is always
for something else that we desire for and want to have possession of through money. It
stands to reason therefore that we should evaluate one’s love of money keeping in sight
the ends that one wants to achieve through it. Further since what one wants to achieve
through money would depend on and would differ in accordance with one’s character,
Ambedkar concludes “dead uniformity of character” among the individual for, though
actuated by love of money, their purposes on different occasions are likely to be different.
“Thus even love of money as a pursuit may result in a variety of character.”22
For example, if one loves money in order to help poor and another one loves money for
personal comforts, then their love of money cannot be equated for any moral evaluation.
Ambedkar attacks the thesis that “human nature mutilates itself by feeding, exclusively,
some one appetite” by demonstrating that it lacks support, especially from the vantage
point of the laws of consumption, which are based upon the utility theory of value.
According to this theory, utility is not considered as a quality inherent in the object
concerned but is a function of the capacity it possesses to satisfy human23 wants.
Bertrand Russel 103
Therefore the economic worth of an object is not decided by what it inherently has to
offer but on the capacity to satisfy human wants.
But human wants are not static either; they vary depending upon conditions. Ambedkar
demonstrates it with an example: “Even an object of our strongest desire like food may
please or disgust, according as we are hungry or have over-indulged the appetite. Thus
utility diminishes as satisfaction increases.”24 From the above argument we could conclude
that “the utility of an object could be zero or even negative…:
1) Because at some point in the process of satisfaction the particular organ irritated
ceases to derive any further satisfaction by feeding itself on the object of its craving.
2) Because other organs needing a different kind of satisfaction clamour against the
over-indulgence of some one organ at their expense.” 25
Ambedkar cites Professor Giddings in his support:
If the cravings of a particular organ or a group of organs are being liberally met
with appropriate satisfactions, while other organs suffer deprivation, the neglected
organs set up a protest, which is usually sufficiently importunate to compel us to
attempt their appeasing. The hunger of the neglected parts of our nature normally
takes possession of consciousness, and diverts our attention and our efforts from the
organ which is receiving more than its due share of indulgence. 26
Given the fact that the human person is not a function of one single drive and that there
is an intrinsic system of checks and balances among different faculties of the human
organism, it cannot be meaningfully held that any one organ by perpetual dominance could
mutilate the whole organism. Ambedkar further opines on this issue:
Human nature is, thus, fortunately, provided by its very make-up against a one-sided
development leaving no doubt as to its promise for an all-round development in a
congenial environment. Whether it will be able to obtain the miscellaneous food-
material, intellectual or spiritual it craves for is a matter beyond its control. If it is
mutilated by the lack of variety of food, it will be through social default and not
its own. 27
Next Ambedkar takes up for review Russell’s view that property as the embodiment of
the possessive instinct leads to war. While not disagreeing entirely with Russell on this
account, Ambedkar maintains that there could be a more comprehensive understanding of
the possessive instincts of human beings. Ambedkar points out that even though possessive
instincts do lead to efforts to possess, of which war could be the most violent form, but
also the person who has possessions becomes more tamed by the fear of losing what he
possesses.
From this Ambedkar concludes that possessive instincts on the one hand lead us to
activities which in their violent form are unwarranted but at the same time a society with
no possessions is likely to be more violent because it would not have any fear of losing
any possession and therefore would be more disposed to violence. Just like his earlier
analysis of utility of an object, Ambedkar points out that there is nothing inherently wrong
with property “but with the unequal distribution of it; for those who have none of it are
prone to perpetrate more destruction for its possession than, those who have.”28
Ambedkar thereafter challenges another presumption presented in Russell’s book. According

to Ambedkar, Russell assumes that men’s impulses can be divided into two main kinds,
namely, “those that are creative and those that are possessive. Some of our activities are
directed to creating what would not otherwise exist, others towards acquiring or retaining
what exists already. The best life is that in which creative impulses play the largest part
and possessive impulses the smallest.”29
Ambedkar maintains that this distinction between the two impulses is unwarranted since
“every impulse if uninhibited will lead to some creative act.”30 Ambedkar further believes
that the act of appropriation or possession of the product of an impulse is a different
issue and cannot be used to define the nature of impulse. Use or appropriation of a thing
produced depends upon the method of its production, not the source or impulse.
Illustrating his point with examples, Ambedkar points out that things produced as a result
of common effort or of joint use cannot and do not come under the right of any one
individual. In the former case, they belong to all who are involved in its production and
in the latter, the thing is produced for the purpose of joint use, for example monuments.
A specimen in a museum cannot have single ownership use. Ambedkar concludes from
this that “it is just a question of production and use and not of impulse that a thing is
appropriated.”31 Therefore, creative and possessive impulses that are so crucial to
Russell’s philosophy and interesting to consider, are at different levels and in no way have
any connection between them. Therefore Russell’s assumption that cultivating the former
will help diminishing the latter falls to the ground, according to Ambedkar.
Ambedkar winds up his discussion on Russell’s work by pointing out that any theory or
idea on social reconstruction of society depends upon a right understanding of the
relationship between the individual and society. Ambedkar gives full credit to Russell for
having emphasized the psychological basis of this relationship “as being of impulse to
institution”, which he declares to be “beyond doubt the truest.”32
12.5 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we learnt how Bertrand Russell, in his book titled Principles of Social
Reconstruction, theorizes the reasons for war in terms of human behaviour and impulses.
We tried to understand how Russell expresses his views against war without taking a
quieticist view. Russell attempts to explain the reasons for war in terms of human impulses
that get a space to express themselves in the event of war. Therefore war, according to
Russell, is a mere symptom of a deeper dynamics of energies in the garb of human
impulses.
We observed how Ambedkar in his review of the book, expresses apprehension over
some of the assumptions that are essential to Russell’s discussion on different reasons for
war and his suggestions regarding how to address them. Important among them is
Ambedkar’s disagreement regarding the division between creative and possessive impulses.
Ambedkar also examines the role of the institution of property, an essential ingredient of
any democratic system, and challenges some important reflections in this regard that
Russell makes in his book. Ambedkar appreciates Russell’s attempt to explain the genesis
of war on the basis of psychological principles but at the same time challenges some of
his important premises.
Bertrand Russel 105

1) What according to Russell are the main reasons for war?
2) What role do human impulses play, according to Russell, in an event of war?
3) What are the main arguments offered by Ambedkar to challenge Russell’s conception
of different kinds of impulses?
4) What role does the institution of property play as a reason for war?
5) Discuss the relationship between means and end from the point of view of human
impulses in Ambedkar’s discussion of Russell’s book?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Moon, Vasant (compiled by). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches Vol. 1.
Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of
India, websource: www.ambedkarfoundation.nic.in
Russell, Bertrand. Principles of Social Reconstruction. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd. 1917.
Giddings, Franklin Henry. Democracy and Empire: Studies of their Psychological,
Economic, and Moral Foundations. London: The Macmillan Company, 1901.
James Bonar. Philosophy and Political Economy in Some of Their Historical Relations.
New York: Macmillan & Co., 1893.
Loria, Achille, Keasbey, Lindley Miller. Economic Foundations of Society. London:
Swan Sonnenschein and Company, 1899.
(Endnotes)
Notes and References:
1 Bertrand Russell, Principles of Social Reconstruction. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
1917p.507.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 As cited by Ambedkar from Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 21.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid, p.93.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid,p. 485
13 Ibid.
14 As cited by Ambedkar from Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 96.
15 p.487.
16 Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp, 141-42.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid. p.113.
21 p.489.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 p.490.
25 Ibid.
26 As cited by Ambedkar from Democracy and Empire, p. 19.
27 p.490-91.
28 Ibid.
29 As cited by Ambedkar from Principles of Social Reconstruction, p. 234.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
BLOCK 4 QUEST FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
AND ALTERNATIVE
MOVEMENT
Unit 13 Democratic Struggle
Unit 14 Social and Educational Organisation
Unit 15 Participation and Representation
Unit 16 As a Constitution Drafting Committee
Chairman
UNIT 13 DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLE
Structure
13.1 Objectives
13.2 Introduction
13.3 Mahad Satyagrah (1927)
13.4 Kalaram Temple Entry (1930)
13.5 Mahar Watan
13.6 Anti-Khoti Movement (1929-1942)
13.7 Workers Struggle in Bombay
13.8 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
13.1 OBJECTIVES
 How Ambedkar tried to democratise Indian society through various struggles;
 Ambedkar’s position on caste and class; and
 The emergence of a democratic movement in Indian politics.
13.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will study various democratic struggles that took place under B. R.
Ambedkar’s leadership in colonial India. Most of these struggles emerged in 1920s and
1930s.The 1930s were “radical years” in Ambedkar’s movement, according to Gail
Omvedt. Ambedkar started his struggle from Mahad satyagrah in 1927 which was
followed by the Kalaram temple entry movement (1930). A vibrant peasant and workers
movement emerged under his leadership. Though these struggles took place in Marathi-
speaking areas, their effect was nationwide. It became the beginning of the liberation era
to fight against caste-class exploitation. These struggles established Ambedkar as a
national leader and crusader of democratic values.
13.3 MAHAD SATYAGRAHA (1927)

On 4 August 1923, the Bombay Legislative Assembly passed a resolution moved by S.
K. Bole, a prominent social reformer, stating that the Untouchables be allowed to use all
public water supply places, wells, schools, dispensaries etc. No real benefits followed in
the wake of the resolution.
In January 1924,the municipality of Mahad, an ancient Maharashtrian town of Kolaba
district, passed a resolution to open the Chavdar tank, a large pond on the outskirts of
the town in a caste Hindu area, though it failed to implement it.
110 Quest for Social Change and Alternative Movement
In August 1926, S.K. Bole proposed a new resolution asking the government to withhold
subsidies from municipalities and other local bodies that had refused to apply these
measures.
In 1927, Ambedkar fired the first shots to herald the freedom of the Untouchables. He
organised the Mahad Conference in March 1927, which stipulated that the Untouchables
were authorized to use wells, dharmshalas, schools, courts, administrative offices and
public dispensaries. Soon afterwards, he led a procession of conference delegates to
Chavdar tank. The leaders of the procession then stopped and drank water, attempting
a symbolic fulfilment of the law. On their return, they were attacked by aroused caste
Hindus fearing that the Untouchables were going to enter the Vireshwar temple.
In the days and weeks that followed, Mahad’s upper castes boycotted the Untouchables,
sometimes even revoking their employment and tenancy rights. Moreover, on 4 August
1927, the Mahad municipality revoked its 1924 decision granting the Untouchables access
to the Chavdar tank.
A further ‘satyagraha conference’ was planned in December to re-establish the right to
drink water. Ambedkar’s speech during the conference called for a root and branch
abolition of the caste system. The values he invoked were those that emerged during the
French Revolution. This speech was followed by a show of hands vote in favour of the
statement of human rights and a resolution on the inalienable equality of men.
Ambedkar launched a satyagraha on the next day to obtain free access to the Chavdar
tank and approximately 4,000 people volunteered to take part in it. The District
Magistrate urged them to maintain peace, arguing that the upper caste Hindus had taken
the case to court by claiming that the tank was a private property and therefore it was
advisable to wait for the judgment.
Though Ambedkar postponed the satyagraha, he organised a procession around the
water source. He did not want to fight with both caste Hindus and the law at the same
time. This position reflected Ambedkar’s legalism, even his constitutionalism, and in this
particular case the courts upheld his stand in a judgment given in 1937.
The place for the procession was carefully selected as a place where Mahar migrants to
Bombay had strong connections and where there was support from even caste Hindu.
The Mahad tank satyagraha illustrates both the role of mass readiness for action and the
genius of Ambedkar in giving leadership to it. Gail Omvedt has called this event the
“beginning of Dalit liberation struggle”. According to Eleanor Zelliot, the Mahad satyagraha
failed to achieve its specific purpose but was successful as a rallying point for the internal
reform of the Depressed Classes, the public expression of their grievances, and the
stimulation of a sense of unity.
13.4 KALARAM TEMPLE ENTRY

Ambedkar led another satyagraha in March 1930 to establish the right of the Untouchables
to enter the famous temple of Kalaram at Nasik. In 1920s, Ambedkar was in the process
of defining his attitude towards Hinduism and the Congress. He rejected an equality
limited to the spiritual sphere; what he demanded was social equality. He followed the
same logic to the problem of entry to temples. In the first editorial of MookNayak,
Ambedkar wavered between two possibilities. He wondered whether the Untouchables
should have their own temples or try to enter the Hindu temples.
Democratic Struggle 111
Meanwhile, the Mahars launched their first movement to enter a temple at Amraoti in
1927 and a satyagraha at the Parvati temple in Poona in 1929. Ambedkar’s role was
very limited here. The movement lost momentum and the temple was not opened to
Untouchables till 1947. The most significant attempt was in 1930 at Nasik. The
Depressed Classes at Nasik had formed a Satyagraha Committee and through its
secretary, Bhaurao Gaikwad, informed the trustees of the famous Kalaram temple that
they would launch a satyagraha if they did not throw the temple open to the Untouchable
Hindus before a particular date. Simultaneously, a clarion call was issued to the
Depressed Classes to come to Nasik to assert their right of worshipping Shri Rama in
the said temple.
Sporadic acts of violence occurred between the demonstrators and the upper castes.
Then, the latter, contrary to a newly reached agreement, prevented some Mahars from
pulling the processional chariot during the annual temple festival. This incident reinforced
Ambedkar’s determination but he eventually dissociated himself from the movement in
1934.
For Ambedkar, even though it had been an appropriate means of mobilising the
Untouchables, claiming entry to temples meant asking for a place within Hinduism, in
which the caste system was central and which condemned Dalits to a subordinate
position. Ultimately, he preferred to reject this social system entirely, including the issue of
temple entry. He was also disappointed by the unwillingness of upper caste representatives
in the assemblies to pass laws legalising and enabling the entry of the Untouchables to
temples. It needs to be underlined that Ambedkar, from the very beginning, was highly
critical of Hinduism and saw it as a fundamentally in egalitarian religion.
He saw the satyagrahas, however, as necessary efforts to unify the Untouchables and
make them conscious of their lack of rights. He called off the Nasik satyagraha in 1935,
choosing a railway town near Nasik for his announcement and stating at the same time
that he would leave Hinduism since it offered no sign of yielding either to plea or to mass
protest.
13.5 MAHAR WATAN

In 1924, soon after he returned from England for good, Ambedkar founded the
Bahishkrut Hitkarani Sabha, also known as the Depressed Classes Institute. One of its
objectives was abolition of the baluta system; it also sought to help Mahars assert their
rights as watandars. Bahishkrut Bharat, the newspaper founded by Ambedkar in 1927,
also campaigned for the abolition of the watan. Mahar watan became one of the core
issues of Ambedkar’s movement to launch the struggle against the caste-based economic
system.
Mahars were hereditary village servants and were considered authorities in all boundary
matters. They were village servants, carriers of dead animals, husbandmen, messengers,
labourers, scavengers, sellers of firewood and cow dung cakes, and beggars. The chief
source of their income was the yearly grain allowance or baluta. They had fifty-two
village duties. These duties carried with them a relatively substantial watan right or claim
to some portion of the village land in return for their performance.
In 1920s Ambedkar initiated his campaign against the Mahar watan, a practice which
was continued under the British rule. Ambedkar argued that the British colonial state
confirmed the existing caste-feudalism and utilised it for capitalist exploitation of the lowest
section of rural toilers. His first action on the issue was, when he brought the Hereditary
Office Act Amendment Bill before the Legislative Council in March 1928, which would
turn the Mahars (Ramoshi, Holey as and Vethis in different parts of India) into paid
government employees. Many Dalit leaders were actively engaged in Maharashtra in
support of the Mahar watan Bill. He warned the government that if nothing was done
there would be “a war between the Revenue Department and the Mahars”; if the bill did
not pass he would spend the rest of his life organising a general strike.
Ambedkar explained Mahar watan problems as the following:
Firstly, in Mahar watan, Mahars don’t have fixed work but have to do various
kinds of works. Mahar watan is like vethbegar where they have to do all the
works. Secondly, in Mahar watan the number of people who have to work in one
village is not decided. The time on work is not decided; a person has to work at
any given time whenever the village administrative and upper caste group asks him
to do so. In the case of Mahars the officiator is the person whose name is entered
in what is called the service register and he is not the only one person who is liable
to render service to government, but his whole family is liable to render service to
government. As a matter of fact, every department claims their services. They can
be called upon to render service to the Irrigation Department, Revenue Department,
Vaccination Department, Educational Department, Local Self-Government Department
and Police Department. It carried with it a small amount of watan land as badge
of public office, and this watan land bounded the Mahar to his village still more
firmly. (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol-2, 1982. p.75)
Ambedkar’s struggle, and writings on the issue of Mahar watan, Umesh Bagade writes,
unfolds caste-based relations of production and the caste modality of surplus appropriation.
They were allotted menial and hard physical labour. A large number of Untouchables in
the village were either village servants or landless labourers. Their labour and services
were put under the control of feudal elites; their relationship with watandar peasant
castes structured through baluta mode of production and exchange remained a major
ground of surplus appropriation. Ambedkar tries to define the social structure of the
relationship between a touchable and an Untouchable as the condition of exploitation and
oppression of untouchables. The touchables as the majority communities are economically
strong and powerful, socially occupy the position of ruling race and live inside the village.
The Untouchables as the disadvantaged minor community, are economically poor and
dependent on touchable castes, socially occupy the position of subject race of hereditary
bondsmen.
Ambedkar categorically marked out the social servitude of untouchables inbuilt in baluta
relations. Untouchabilty, as a condition of existence, doomed Mahars to be dependent on
balutawatan. The subservience of Mahar caste was structured through three ways:
 by placing patronizing authority with(savarna) castes who gave remuneration to
Mahars for their labour, which the Mahars were obliged to accept
 by giving insufficient, meager baluta payment far below than needed for survival
 by not allowing Mahars to take up alternative sources of survival.
He points out that the Untouchables were dependent upon the touchables for earning his
livelihood as well as for purchasing the necessities of life. The total dependence of
Untouchable made Mahars subservient to the village community. Therefore Ambedkar
declared Mahar watan as a charter of social slavery of Mahars. The Mahar watan
struggle went on throughout the 1930s and 1940s. The Mahar watan campaign had been
building up tempo since 1938–39, with conferences and meetings that drew in Mahars
from the Marathwada region of the Nizam state also.
13.6 ANTI-KHOTI MOVEMENT (1929–1942)

Within the Bombay presidency, the khoti system existed separately in the Konkan region.
The khots (landlords) rented villages and farm land and collected villages’ revenues for
the government as hereditary officers. The British rarely had any control over khots and
landlords retained a substantial measure of autonomy including the right to collect taxes
and impose jurisdiction over tenants. The colonial government contributed to the consolidation
of the khoti land tenure system and perpetuated its exploitative forms. The khots were
mostly Chitpavan Brahmans and a few were high-caste Marathas and Muslims. Khots
could not only keep a part of the revenue accruement, but often set themselves up as
local minor Rajahs. Tenants, on the other hand, were Marathas, Kunbis, Mahars,
Bhandaris and Agris.
The anti-khoti struggle emerged within the anti-caste movement in Maharashtra from 1920
onwards. None of the other parties bothered about this. The left parties and forces of
Bombay Presidency showed the least interest in the anti-khoti resentment amongst
peasants and tenants. Indian nationalists also always stood in favour of khots rights. B G
Tilakand V N Mandlik opposed abolition of the khoti system.
In 1920, S. K. Bole (Bhandari caste leader of the non-Brahmin Party in the Bombay
Legislative Council) highlighted the grievances of khoti tenants. Ambedkar supported him
in this cause, but nothing came out of it in the early period. During the 1930s, Ambedkar
launched a peasant agitation against the khoti.
One of the main aims of the formation of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in 1936
was to concentrate on and solve the problems and grievances of landless and poor
tenants, agriculturalists and workers. Ambedkar fused issues pertaining to caste and class
and made them the core of his party programme. Against this background, Ambedkar
explained in an interview with the Times of India, his party’s aims and agenda. With an
outright socialist line, he stressed his aim of abolishing the khoti system.
The election campaign of 1937 in Bombay Legislative Assembly sparked a renewal of the
ongoing struggle. The ILPwon14 seats in the Provincial Assembly. Three general candidates
and two Dalit candidates won for the ILP in the Konkan region. The largest number of
candidates won from the Konkan region.
On 17 September 1937, Ambedkar introduced a Bill in the Bombay Legislative Council
for the abolition of the khoti system in Konkan, a position more radical than his party’s
programme. It must be noted that in the first Provincial Assemblies, Ambedkar was the
first legislator in India to introduce a Bill for the abolition of serfdom of agricultural
tenants. While presenting the Bill in the Legislative Assembly he said that “under the
system of khoti tenure freedom has been so grossly abused by the khots it has been
reduced to a state of abject slavery.”
But the Congress government did not bring forth this Bill for discussion in the Assembly.
After a disappointing response from the Congress, Ambedkar launched a protest march
against the Bombay Legislative Assembly to abolish the khoti system. In this struggle,
communists too were involved. The climax was a march of 25,000 peasants to the
Bombay Council Hall on 12 January 1938, the biggest pre-independence mobilisation of
peasants in Maharashtra. After this protest march, Ambedkar delivered a speech and he
declared his closeness to Marxist ideology.
The entire 1930s was the period when Ambedkar formulated the struggle as being against
both ‘capitalism’ and ‘Brahmanism’. Slogans were raised “against landlordism, victory to
peasants, victory to workers and victory to the red flag” (the ILP flag was red in colour).
These were the years in which the pages of Janata, Ambedkar’s weekly, were filled with
reports of the struggles of workers and peasants against ‘capitalists and landlords’ as well
as fighting of Dalits against atrocities.
The silence on the part of the Congress on the anti-khoti Bill forced Ambedkar to go
for a mass struggle. The movement managed to mobilize tenants to protest against
landlords through various means such as boycotting khot land, non-payment of revenue,
and by building a common cause against landlords. Several meetings were held between
1937 and 1939 across the Konkan region and in other parts of the Bombay Presidency
during this campaign.
Mobilisation around the rampant issue of economic exploitation helped the Independent
Labour Party (ILP) to build up a common ground across various peasant castes. This
unity of different castes paralyzed the khots in some parts of the region. The khots tried
to use caste differences to destroy their unity but it did not work this time. It became
difficult for the khots to recruit labour even from other castes. Many khots from northern
Ratnagiri filed complaints and cases in court against their tenants. The khots would appeal
in the court that the court should punish the tenants if they refused to work in their land.
In many cases, the khots could not convince Maratha caste men to stand witness against
an untouchable tenant.
In 1939, a clear pro-khoti stand emerged from the Congress and they started arresting
leaders of the ILP. They were served with notices forbidding them to take part in peasant
activities. The struggle continued till 1942 but due to the primacy of other crucial and
pragmatic issues in the colonial context, Ambedkar had to shift his focus.
13.7 WORKERS STRUGGLE IN BOMBAY

Events in 1930s have a significant role in the Indian working class history. It was for the
first time in modern Indian history that anti-caste and anti-class ideology came together to
fight against brahminism and capitalism. However, the alliance could not last for long.
Ambedkar tried to convince Marxist leaders to fight against caste oppression. Gail
Omvedt has argued that caste elitism was a major barrier to the spread of the
Maharashtrian communist movement. Their leadership was mostly dominated by upper
castes.
The working class in Bombay was constituted by rural migrants and most of the workers
were from the Konkan region. The workers in Bombay were precisely ‘traditional’ or
pre-capitalist character of the Indian society in the late nineteenth and twentieth century.
Untouchables, who had migrated in large numbers, had to face discrimination in job
opportunity.
The ILP’s programme was close to a socialist agenda but the social base of the party
was entirely different from other labour organisations. Caste prejudices among workers
became a big obstacle for them to join ILP. The party had focused on different social
groups who were working in the low paid sector in industries. Moreover, the party
programme offered a very wide appeal directed at all class and caste groups. They
visualized untouchables’ class interest with other class groups, but their concern to fight
against untouchability alienated caste-Hindu workers.
In spite of this, significant mobilisation of different caste workers was taking place in
Bombay under the ILP leadership. In 1937, the Congress in its election manifesto made
many promises of workers’ rights. But in 1938 when the Congress came in power, it
started placating capitalist interests and improving their relations with the business world.
One of the major laws was the Industrial Disputes Bill that openly supported business
interests.
The Congress ministry introduced Trade Disputes Bill in the Bombay Legislative Assembly
on 2 September 1938. The Bill against Bombay workers, also known as the first of the
‘Black Acts’, made conciliation compulsory and strikes illegal under certain very ill defined
conditions. The penalty for illegal strikes was extremely high with six months’ of
imprisonment. The Bill met with strong opposition in the Legislative Assembly from trade
unions, Ambedkar’s ILP as well as the Muslim League, but the government was in such
a hurry to get it passed that it did not even allow the formation of a select committee
to look more closely into its provisions. Eventually the Bill was passed on 5
November1938.
Ambedkar termed this act “The Workers’ Civil Liberties Suspension Act”. He made an
eloquent defence of the right to strike as “simply another name for the right to freedom”,
and argued that “under the conditions prescribed by this Bill there is no possibility of any
free union growing up in the country.” He described the bill as “bad, bloody and brutal.”
Further, the provisions of the Bill were based on an utter disregard of the fact that the
two partners, employers and workers, were not equally organised and did not possess the
same strength and power. Ambedkar demanded separate provisions and separate regulations
for the workers as they were the subordinated group. He opposed the bill for judging
workers and owners on the same footing as if both existed on a level-playing field.
Ambedkar quickly seized this opportunity to announce that the ILP’s executive committee
would organise a one-day general strike. Prior to the strike a mammoth United Front
Labour rally was held on 16 October 1938 at Kamgar Maidan in Parel, where 30,000
workers were mustered. It announced that they would organise a one-day strike on 7
November at the presidency level.
After this conference, many of the foremost labour leaders of the CPI and the ILP
organised conferences at different places in Bombay. The ILP leaders went around with
Bhajani Mandals (troupes singing bhajans or devotional songs) all over the industrial areas
of Bombay to campaign for the strike’s success. The ILP campaigned against the Bill in
South, South-Central and Central Bombay where the mills were situated and at railway
stations, mill gates and workers’ colonies.
Before the day of the strike, they organised a workers’ conference in Bombay. On the
evening of 6 November 1938, 1,00,000 workers gathered at the Kamgar Maidan at
Parel – a sign that the next day’s strike was going to be successful. This workers’
struggle led to the emergence of Ambedkar as a labour leader on the national scene.
Workers gathered to listen to the fiery speeches of Ambedkar, Jamnadas Mehta, S. A.
Dange and other labour leaders.
On the day of the strike in the industrial part of the city, in the morning every man was
at his post, in front of Mill gates, at mouths of every street converging on the main roads.
In the morning Mill whistles blew and Mill gates were flung open, but neither a municipal
sweeper nor a single drainage worker came out to keep the city clean. Thousands of
shops refused to open their doors, thousands of hawkers refused to enter the usual trek
on the city’s streets and thousands of peddlers refused to ply their goods on this day.
In Bombay, the strike was joined by approximately half of all mill-hands. Policemen
opened fire on unarmed workers at three different places. Two persons died and more
than 14 workers were seriously wounded and 633 sustained injuries. The Janata
condemned the Congress notion of non-violence and pro-capitalist position. Although
Ambedkar and his party was successful in mobilising workers but the Congress government
protected the Bill.
13.8 LET US SUM UP

In sum up you have learned various democratic struggles that took place under B. R.
Ambedkar’s leadership. After 1919, Indian politics took a different path. Arrival of
Ambedkar brought caste and class issue in Indian politics very effectively. His debates
with various contemporary political and social organisations influenced the national discourse
on caste and class.
The Mahad satygraha became the first struggle of mobilisation of Dalits against their
exploitation and exercising of human rights. From the Kalaram temple entry movement,
Ambedkar realised that the emancipation of Untouchables in the Hindu fold was
impossible. Ambedkar, throughout his life fought against caste-based economy and
feudalism. He was the first leader who launched his struggle against both brahmanism and
capitalism. The anti-Mahar watan movement and the anti-khoti movement were significant
struggles to democratise the rural structure, away from the caste-feudal society. In
Bombay, Ambedkar mobilised different caste workers against their exploitation in
brahmanism and capitalism. The fusion of anti-caste and anti-class struggles and its
contestation of religious sanctity has always historically radicalized these struggles and
resulted in a more emancipatory reality.

1) What is the significance of the Mahad satyagraha and the Kalaram temple entry
movement?
2) Critically examine the nature of exploitation in the Mahar watan and the Khoti
system.
3) Discuss Ambedkar’s role in understanding caste as an exploitative institution.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bagade, Umesh. “Ambedkar’s Historical Method: A Non-Brahmnic Critique of Positivist
History”, Critical Quest. New Delhi, 2015.
Jeffrelot, Christophe. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting

Keer, Dhananjay. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1962.
Moon, Vasant. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 2002.
Omvedt, Gail. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit
Movement in Colonial India. Delhi: Sage, 2007.
Omvedt, Gail. Building the Ambedkar Revolution. Bhashya Prakashan, 2011.
Zelliot, Eleanor. From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement.
New Delhi:Manohar, 2015.
UNIT 14 SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS
Structure
14.1 Objectives
14.2 Introduction
14.3 Organisations founded by Ambedkar in the 1920s and 30s
14.3.1 Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha
14.3.2 Independent Labour Party
14.4 Organisations founded by Ambedkar in the 1940s and 50s

14.4.1 All-India Scheduled Caste Federation
14.4.2 People’s Education Society
14.5 Ambedkar’s Vision for Republican Party of India

14.6 Newspapers Established by Ambedkar
14.6.1 Mooknayak
14.6.2 Bahishkrut Bharat
14.6.3 Janata
14.6.4 Prabuddha Bharat
14.6.5 Samata
14.7 Let Us Sum Up

Suggested Readings
14.1 OBJECTIVES
 Different social, political and educational organisations founded by Ambedkar and the
historical significance associated with them; and
 The role played by newspapers founded by him in foregrounding assertive egalitarian
politics.
14.2 INTRODUCTION
This unit will introduce to you the social, educational and political organisations founded
by Ambedkar and briefly explore the activities conducted by them during his life time.
Ambedkar’s success in mobilizing the masses and foregrounding radical anti-caste discourse
should be predominantly attributed to the many mass organisations he founded. These
organisations eventually became the backbone of the organised Dalit politics led by him,
and later influenced the contours of political discourse in the country. Many of these
organisations were influential in western India, but organisations like All-India Scheduled
Social and Educational Organization 119
Caste Federation became influential even outside western India. It played a prominent role
in the east and north Indian politics in the 1940s and 50s.
Thus, from the 1920s onward till his death, Ambedkar was able to establish more than
five prominent socio-political organisations. These organisations inspired many Dalits to
actively participate in political life, and thereby contribute to the egalitarian social and
political discourse.
To understand the Ambedkar-led anti-caste movement, it is important to also know about
the newspapers founded by him in this period. They are one of the most important
repositories of knowledge of the movement he led. Their study is important because they
mainly reflect the ideological and political trends current during those times. Additionally
they were collective witness to important historical events that later shaped the history of
modern India.
From the beginning of his public life, Ambedkar acutely realized that newspapers were
instrumental in not only reporting organisational activities but also in disseminating alternative
ideas to the larger masses. He established five newspapers and was the editor of two of
them; the rest were edited by his close confidantes, who were closely associated with his
social and political movement. All five newspapers were established in different periods of
Ambedkar’s life.
14.3 ORGANISATIONS ESTABLISHED BY AMBEDKAR

IN 1920S AND 30S
Ambedkar began his public life in 1919 when he voluntarily deposited his testimony to
the Southborough Committee. The Committee was formed by the British government to
explore possibilities of political representation for different social and religious communities.
But his active engagement with political activism began only after 1923. The decade of
the 1920s, particularly after 1923, was immensely crucial for the nascent Dalit movement
in western India. In this decade, Ambedkar established an important social and political
organisation, Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha, which was instrumental in setting the tone of
organised Dalit politics in western India. On the other hand, in the 1930s, Ambedkar
established a powerful political organisation, the Independent Labour Party (ILP), which
successfully contested elections in and beyond Bombay Presidency.
14.3.1 Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha

Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha was the first socio-political organisation founded by Ambedkar.
It was founded on 20 July 1924 in Bombay (now Mumbai) for the moral and material
progress of the untouchables. In due course, its influence spread across Marathi-speaking
regions of western India.
After finishing his doctoral studies at London School of Economics, Ambedkar arrived in
India in 1923. After his arrival, he acutely felt the need to establish an organisation that
could become a voice of the marginalized masses. One of Ambedkar’s most famous
slogans, ‘Educate, Agitate and Organise’ was first used as the motto of this organisation.
From 1924 to 1936, Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha led many social activities and became the
foremost socio-political organisation in Bombay Presidency to fight against caste and
untouchability. Between 1925 and 1930, he set up four boarding houses in the Bombay
Presidency for untouchable students.
In the 1920s and 30s, the Sabha was immensely active in mobilizing the masses. The
famous Mahad agitation that Ambedkar led in 1927 was organised on behalf of the
Sabha. In 1927, the Sabha organised the event that led to the burning of the Manusmriti.
In the 1930s, the Sabha organised many protest meetings against Gandhi’s position on
separate electorates. These meetings were attended by thousands of people, and the
support Ambedkar received was overwhelming. With the establishment of Independent
Labour Party by Ambedkar in 1936, the Sabha lost its importance and had to give way
to the new political organisation. But the contribution made by the Sabha cannot be
undermined as it helped to foreground radical Dalit voice amongst the masses.
14.3.2 Independent Labour Party

Independent Labour party (ILP) was the first political party founded by Ambedkar. It was
established in 1936 on the eve of provincial elections of 1937. Due to its electoral
success in the elections of 1937, it became one of the prominent parties in the Bombay
Presidency. The formation of the ILP provided a newfound direction to the anti-caste
movement led by Ambedkar. The party’s orientation towards working classes and
peasants provided immense scope for itself to penetrate Dalit and non-Dalit households
alike. While speaking to the Times of India (15 August 1936) on the occasion of the
establishment of ILP, Ambedkar categorically stated that his objective in establishing the
party was to broaden the political mass-base beyond caste and religious identities.
Soon after the formation of the ILP, the manifesto of the party was released. It was
published in detail by Janata (22 August 1936) as well as the Times of India (15 August
1936). The manifesto hinted at a new direction the Ambedkar-led anti-caste movement
would be taking in the future. The party programme envisaged by the ILP was
significantly socialist in its orientation. Therefore, principles like the state ownership of
industries, free and compulsory education, and minimum wages for industrial workers find
prominent mention in the manifesto. The manifesto also put forward its programme that
promised to bring legislations to improve the working condition in factories, control
unemployment of workers and protect evictions of agricultural tenants under the khoti and
talukdari system. Due to lack of sufficient resources, ILP had to confine its activism to
only two provinces, Bombay Presidency and Central Provinces. Bombay Presidency
nevertheless remained the province of intense activism for ILP. The Konkan region
became ILP’s most important bastion where peasants irrespective of their caste
overwhelmingly voted for the ILP.
The ILP strongly advocated abolition of unjustifiable land tenure system, which was
known as the khoti system, found particularly in the Konkan region. The system was
being used by khot landlords in the region to exploit peasants. In September 1937,
Ambedkar tabled a Bill seeking the abolition of the khoti system. ILP activists and
leaders in Konkan were simultaneously engaged in mobilising and organising the Konkani
peasants in support of the Bill. In January 1938, ILP successfully held a mammoth
procession at Bombay, demanding abolition of khoti system. The procession was attended
by around twenty thousand Konkani peasants.
Similarly, ILP was also actively involved in mobilising and organising the working classes
in cities like Bombay. Although, its influence was not as strong as it was among the
Konkani peasants, ILP was particularly influential among the Dalit working classes of
Bombay. On some occasions, it successfully forged unity with the Communists and other
left-wing parties. It was successful in organising a massive strike in Bombay against
introduction of controversial Industrial Dispute Bill tabled by the Congress-led government

in the Bombay Presidency in 1937. This strike was supported by Communists and other
workers’ organisations. The Bill restricted the rights of workers to protest against industrial
management of the factories, which enraged the workers. The strike organised by ILP
was an enormous success which also displayed the political strength of ILP in the late
1930s.
14.4 ORGANISATIONS FOUNDED BY AMBEDKAR IN

THE 1940S AND 1950S
Dalit politics, particularly in western India, underwent radical changes after 1942. The year
1942 brought enormous changes in the nature of Indian politics, which subsequently
changed the contours of the then Dalit politics. The Second World War had already
accelerated the process of political change and realignment in India. The colonial
government was making desperate efforts to seek Indian support for the war. Lord
Linlithgow, then the Viceroy of India, had forwarded a proposal in 1940 to reframe the
constitution that would accommodate the aspirations of Indians including those of the
minority communities, like Muslims and Scheduled Castes. Ambedkar, the leader of the
ILP, was optimistic that the colonial government would abide by the promise of involving
Dalits in the deliberations of India’s political future. But the Cripps proposal of 1942
negated the Viceroy’s previous promise and refused to acknowledge the separate political
existence of Dalits. The impact of the Cripps proposal forced Ambedkar to dissolve ILP
and instead establish a new party, the Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF) in 1942.From
1942 onwards till his death in 1956, Ambedkar conducted his political activism as a
leader of SCF. Although SCF could not replicate the success of ILP in terms of electoral
results, it remained a formidable political organisation in western India. In the last years
of his life, he had planned to disband SCF in order to form a new party, Republican
Party of India (RPI). Unfortunately, he was not able to formally establish RPI in his
lifetime.
Apart from SCF and RPI, during this period Ambedkar was also able to establish a
prominent educational organisation in western India. This was People’s Education Society
(PES). Later on, PES would contribute intellectually towards the anti-caste discourse,
especially during the Dalit Panthers movement in the 1970s.
14.4.1 All-India Scheduled Caste Federation

The birth of the All-India Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF) was largely due to the
changed political circumstances in colonial India. Ambedkar proposed to establish a new
party in the All-India Depressed Classes Conference held at Nagpur in July 1942. This
conference was called by him to contemplate the possibility of establishing a new pan-
India Dalit political party.
In its lifetime of 15years, the SCF articulated many important social and political issues.
In the 1940s, the party revived Ambedkar’s demand for separate electorate for Dalits. It
also demanded separate village settlements for Dalits, who faced continuous violence from
the caste Hindus. After independence, from 1947 to 1951, the party forged an alliance
with its long-time rival, Congress. But this alliance could not last long and was broken
when Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru cabinet. Later, the party had to give up its
demand for separate electorates, though its other prominent demand for separate village
settlements for Dalits remained part of the party agenda. Interestingly, in 1955 SCF
passed a resolution demanding the abolition of political reservations. In 1956, SCF forged
an alliance with the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which was an anti-Congress platform
established to demand the linguistic state of Maharashtra. With this alliance, the party was
able to win significant number of seats in the general elections of 1957, which was held
immediately after Ambedkar’s death.
The decade of the 1950s saw several challenges for SCF. In this context, Ambedkar tried
to revive the party and infuse new energy in the party by focusing his attention to rural
hinterlands. He also made attempts to establish a rural organisation, Kanishtha Gavkamgar
Association (Subordinate Village Workers Association) which was established to organise
rural Dalits against violence and atrocities. Ambedkar’s novel idea of mobilizing rural
Dalits could not succeed well due to organisational weaknesses of Kanishtha Gavkamgar
Association. Yet the Association along with the SCF played a crucial role in highlighting
many cases of caste atrocities conducted against Dalits in rural hinterlands.
However, by 1956 Ambedkar realized that in order to foreground a radical anti-caste
agenda, a party with a broader mass base was required. He knew well that SCF was
not capable of mobilizing non-Dalits. In September 1956, he proposed to dissolve SCF
and establish a new political party, which would cater to a broader mass base beyond
Dalits. His proposal was unanimously ratified by the party, and thus, the idea of the
Republican Party of India (RPI) emerged. Although RPI was actually established in 1957,
after Ambedkar’s death, he laid the ideological foundations of the party.
14.4.2 People’s Education Society

People’s Education Society (PES) was founded in July 1945 by Ambedkar. It was
established mainly to cater to Dalits and promote higher education among them. However,
the colleges founded by the PES were open to all students irrespective of their caste and
religion. Nevertheless, the Society became one of the first educational institutions in the
country that focused its attention on imparting higher education particularly to Dalits.
Ambedkar had once argued that higher education alone would provide Dalits strategic and
executive positions in the government services, which would be collectively beneficial for
Dalit community. Thus, he pointed out that institutions like PES were instrumental for Dalit
community to attain such goals.
The Society received initial funding from the government to start a college. In 1946,
Siddharth College was established at Bombay. In 1950, Ambedkar founded another
prominent college, Milind College, at Aurangabad. In the course of time, these two
colleges became hubs of youth activism in the 1950s and 1960s. Both colleges attracted
the finest teachers and students who played a crucial role in shaping the contemporary
intellectual discourse in western India.
14.5 AMBEDKAR’S VISION FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY

OF INDIA
In 1956 Ambedkar decided to form a new political party to be known as ‘Republican
Party of India’ in place of the Scheduled Castes Federation. Unfortunately, Ambedkar
died within a few months of this decision. RPI was founded after Ambedkar’s death. Yet,
before his death, Ambedkar had extensively pondered upon the possible vision for the
new party. His ‘open letter’ to the masses which eloquently spoke about the aims and
objectives of the new party bears testimony to his plans and vision for the new party.
This ‘letter’ which was first published in the Prabuddha Bharat (Special Issue, 1957),
became a stepping stone to prepare the Constitution of RPI. In this letter Ambedkar dealt
with many important issues, which sought to explain as to why there was a need to form
a new political party. They were as follows:
 Necessity of dissolving Congress party, as it was established mainly to fight colonial
rule
 Essential conditions for the successful working of a democracy
 Importance of the Opposition party in the parliamentary government
 Definition of a political party
 Aims and objectives of RPI.
Ambedkar’s definition of democracy was “a form and method of government whereby
revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about
without bloodshed”. The ‘open letter’ by Ambedkar emphatically argues that to make the
democratic form of government successful, it was important to adhere to principles that
make it successful. He points out that the following were required for democracy to
succeed:
 an ‘opposition party’
 existence of social equality
 adherence to constitutional morality
 equality before law and administration.
He envisaged RPI as a counter to the Congress party. His letter further asserts that the
aims and objectives of his new political party were to realize the ideals of justice, liberty,
equality, and fraternity. Other important objectives of the party enunciated by him were
that it would strive to uphold the secular character of the Indian State. He highlighted that
RPI would fight for religious, economic, and political rights of every citizen, and uphold
their right of equality of opportunity before law. He was confident that in the course of
time, RPI would attain the position of the chief opposition party if it expands its mass
base beyond Dalits. Unfortunately, Ambedkar was not able to realize his dream in his
lifetime. RPI was formed on 3 October 1957, nearly a year after his death. The open
letter by Ambedkar remained the chief guiding light during and after formation of RPI.
14.6 NEWSPAPERS ESTABLISHED BY AMBEDKAR

This section will discuss various newspapers founded by Ambedkar from 1920 to 1956.
These newspapers became the most important medium, a mouthpiece, to propagate
radical anti-caste ideological politics among the masses. Ambedkar established the following
five newspapers at different stages of his political life:
 Mooknayak (1920)
 Bahishkrut Bharat (1927-29)
 Samata (1927)
 Janata (1930-56)
 Prabuddha Bharat (1956-61).
Ambedkar was actively involved in the publication of Mooknayak and Bahishkrut
Bharat, which were published in the early phase of his public life. He was the de facto
editor of the Mooknayak, while he became the official editor of Bahishkrut Bharat.
Despite his efforts to nurture these newspapers, they could not sustain for too long due
to insufficient funds. On the other hand, the Janata was the longest running newspaper
of the Ambedkar-led movement. It was established in 1930 and it continued till 1956
when its name was changed to Prabuddha Bharat, which continued its publication till
1961.
14.6.1 Mooknayak
Mooknayak (literally, the leader of the Voiceless) began its publication on 31 January
1920 under Ambedkar’s leadership. It was a fortnightly newspaper, published from
Bombay (now Mumbai) on alternate Saturdays. Mooknayak was published entirely in
Marathi. Though Ambedkar never became the official editor of the Mooknayak, he was
its de facto editor for at least six months, before leaving India for doctoral studies at
London School of Economics. In his absence, his closest aide, Sitaram Shivtarkar of
Bombay, oversaw the management of Mooknayak and regularly updated him regarding
the affairs of the newspaper.
Mooknayak received initial funding of Rs. 2,500 from Shahu Maharaja, who was the
native ruler of Kolhapur princely state, and also one of the chief non-Brahmin leaders of
western India. The official editor of Mooknayak at the time of its establishment was
Pandhurang Nandram Bhatkar, a young man from the Marathi-speaking region of the
Central Provinces. But he was soon removed from the editorship owing to complaints of
lethargy and unprofessionalism from his colleagues in the Mooknayak office. He was
replaced by Dnyandev Gholap, who was from Satara district. He edited Mooknayak till
1923. Thereafter, Mooknayak was permanently closed.
Mooknayak mainly carried reports and opinions on contemporary politics focusing
particularly on western India. Letters mainly from rural areas of western India, citing cases
of caste oppression and victimization, were regularly published in the Mooknayak. The
Mooknayak was established at a time when B.G. Tilak was at the helm of the Congress
in western India. The newspaper strongly took a stand that until the hierarchical caste
society was completely destroyed India could not develop as a nation. Arguments posed
by Mooknayak on questions of caste, untouchability, and nationalism set the tone for a
new discourse. It invigorated new political and intellectual churning in the Dalit movement
of western India. It began its publication when Dalit movement was at a very nascent
stage. The active stage of organised Dalit politics began only in 1927. Thus, unlike the
relatively popular position attained by the Bahishkrut Bharat among the masses, the
Mooknayak was not able to retain readership of the wider masses.
From its inception, the Mooknayak went through serious financial and management
problems. Sustaining financial support was a continuous cause of concern. After his
departure to London, Ambedkar was largely occupied in obtaining finances and
advertisements for the periodical mainly through his entrepreneur friends and activist
colleagues in Bombay. His close Parsi friend and a classmate from Columbia University,
Naval Bhathena, an entrepreneur himself, was a vital source of help for him. Bhathena
bailed out Mooknayak on several occasions and provided financial relief to the publication.
Ambedkar took his help to reach out to big businessmen like Godrej for obtaining
advertisements in Mooknayak. Although Mooknayak struggled to survive due to lack of
resources, it nevertheless helped in the institutionalization of print culture among Dalits in
western India. Secondly, Mooknayak played a crucial role in institutionalizing Dalit critique
of caste society in modern times. Prior to Mooknayak, the criticism of caste society in
western India largely remained an exclusive domain of the Non-Brahmins, with very few
exceptions from the Dalit community.
14.6.2 Bahishkrut Bharat
Bahishkrut Bharat was established during the course of the Mahad water tank agitation.
Its first issue was published on 3 April 1927. It subsequently became a mouthpiece of
the Ambedkar-led Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha. It continued its publication for two years.
The last issue of Bahishkrut Bharat was published in 1929. It was an eight-page Marathi
fortnightly periodical published from Bombay. Ambedkar himself was the editor. The
copies were initially printed at the city-based Vikram Printing Press. From November
1928 onwards, the Bharat Bhushan Printing Press, bought by Ambedkar, began to print
copies.
In the initial period, the Bahishkrut Bharat received substantial funding from Dalits based
in Konkan and Bombay city. Funds were mainly collected in public meetings organised
by the Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha across western India. Bahishkrut Bharat literally means
‘Excluded India’. It is interesting to note that the title, Bahishkrut Bharat, was decided
in a public meeting of Untouchables held at Bombay. It also illustrates that unlike
Mooknayak, the Bahishkrut Bharat, from the beginning itself was firmly grounded in the
mass movement and received immense popular support. We find instances of public
meetings where editorials of the Bahishkrut Bharat were publicly read aloud. Bahishkrut
Bharat rose to the peak of its popularity during the Mahad agitation in 1927, when it
produced some brilliant editorials and essays, incisively critiquing different positions
articulated by the caste-Hindus. Many contemporary newspapers praised the quality of
content found in the Bahishkrut Bharat.
Bahishkrut Bharat played crucial role in foregrounding radical anti-caste discourse in the
Marathi public sphere. It prolifically wrote in support of abolition of Mahar Watan Bill
tabled by Ambedkar in Bombay Legislative Council. Additionally, it continuously asserted
that everyday experience of violence and segregation faced by Dalits sets them apart from
the Hindu society. Thus, it fearlessly advocated an opinion in favour of autonomous Dalit
politics. Ambedkar’s leadership was as instrumental as were the writings in the Bahishkrut
Bharat to the then Dalit movement in western India. The emphasis on structural violence
in defining Dalit victimhood helped Ambedkar and the Dalit leadership across the Bombay
Presidency to mobilize and organise Dalits in an effective way. Essays and articles not
only meticulously argued their positions supporting the autonomy of Dalit politics but also
demanded political representation of Dalits in all spheres.
Like Mooknayak, the financial health of the Bahishkrut Bharat was precarious, and it
repeatedly faced even bigger financial difficulties in its lifetime. These difficulties were often
expressed in the periodical and even in the public meetings held by Ambedkar and other
activists. Within a year of its publication, the Bahishkrut Bharat was already burdened
with a debt of 500 Rupees. Passionate appeals were continuously made to Dalits to buy
a subscription of the periodical. Additionally, newly politicized Dalit activists would use
public and private gatherings to discuss the condition of Bahishkrut Bharat. These
activists would then urge Dalits to subscribe to Bahishkrit Bharat. Thus, these gatherings
became platforms to attract funds and potential readers. In 1928, Ambedkar bought a
new printing press. This printing press came to be known as the Bharat Bhushan Printing
Press. The establishment of the new press did not bring about great changes in the overall
health of the publication, and eventually, the periodical stopped publication with its last
issue published on 15 November 1929.
14.6.3 Janata
Janata was the longest serving newspaper of Dalit movement led by Ambedkar in
western India. Its publication began on 24 November 1930 from Bombay and continued
till 1956. Devrao Naik, a caste Hindu colleague of Ambedkar, became the first editor of
Janata. Unlike the titles given to Ambedkar’s previous periodicals, the title Janata
suggests Ambedkar’s desire to broaden the political horizon of the Dalit question, beyond
the pale of untouchability. Therefore, the first editorial (24 November 1930) urged the
readers to understand the intimate relationship between capitalism and colonialism in the
perpetuation of caste society. By making clear the departure from the past periodicals, the
Janata’s editorial pointed out that it would not remain confined to the question of
untouchability alone. “Instead,” it said, “it would strive to broaden its perspective by
focusing equally on different forms of exploitations, perpetrated by caste, capitalism and
colonialism.” This was a new phase in Dalit movement.
Ambedkar delegated the responsibility of conducting the newspaper to his most trusted
colleagues. He consciously kept himself away from the editorship of the newspaper due
to his increasing preoccupation in political activism and national politics. Later, the
editorship of Janata was graced by people like Devrao Naik, who was a Marxist and
a close colleague of Ambedkar; B.R. Kadrekar, and G.N. Sahasrabuddhe. Janata was
printed at Bharat Bhushan Printing Press, Bombay. Till 1936, Janata was the mouthpiece
of Bahishkrut Hitkarni Sabha. After formation of the Independent Labour Party by
Ambedkar, Janata became its first official mouthpiece. In 1942, Janata became the
mouthpiece of the All-India Scheduled Caste Federation.
At the time of the establishment of Janata in 1930, Dalit politics in western India was
at the crossroads. By the mid-1930s, Dalit discourses had attained considerable recognition
in the realm of provincial and national politics. The writings in Janata provide us an
extensive sketch of the ongoing political events, which become immensely important to
understand the course of Dalit politics. It did not confine its focus to the caste question
alone but tried to widen its span to other realms of politics. In 1930s, it took firm
positions on other politically important issues like discussions on federalism at the Round
Table Conference, universal adult franchise, and working class and peasant politics. It was
vocal in its opposition against Khoti system in Konkan region and regularly published
columns on peasants’ exploitation by different khots (landlords).
Although there are no available records to ascertain the growth in Janata’s readership but
many columns and editorials written in 1930 and 1931 suggest a phenomenal growth in
the number of annual subscribers in the first two years. Janata’s decision to convert the
fortnightly into a weekly was also due to its rising readership. The momentum of growth
did not sustain after 1932, and as a result, from the late 1932 onwards, Janata
perpetually remained on the threshold of a financial crisis. Yet, due to its efficient
management and visionary leadership, Janata was able to survive many financial onslaughts
in the course of its existence.
14.6.4 Prabuddha Bharat

Prabuddha Bharat, earlier known as the Janata, was a weekly mouthpiece of Ambedkar’s
political party, the All-India Scheduled Caste Federation, and it was published from
Bombay. Prabuddha Bharat continued even after Ambedkar’s death but could not
sustain for long and thus was discontinued in 1961. Although it remained the official
mouthpiece of the SCF, Prabuddha Bharat mainly devoted itself to propagating Buddhism.
A picture of the Buddha sitting on a lotus plant, carried on the cover page, became the
symbol of Prabuddha Bharat.
The first issue of Prabuddha Bharat was published on 4 February 1956, which
immediately succeeded the last issue of Janata published on 28 January 1956.The
Janata had already announced its desire to rename itself as Prabuddha Bharat in one
of the issues published in January 1956. A letter signed by Ambedkar was also published
later, which confirmed this report. In this, Ambedkar conferred the ownership of
Prabuddha Bharat on Buddha Bhushan Printing Press, which was earlier known as
Bharat Bhushan Printing Press. Unlike previous periodicals under Ambedkar, the financial
condition of Prabuddha Bharat in 1956 was better, but was not absolutely fine.
The writings in Prabuddha Bharat show how Dalit politics in 1956 was at a transitional
stage and how it responded to new challenges that it was facing. Due to continuous
electoral failures in the early 1950s, Ambedkar was forced to rethink its political strategies
and positions. Prabuddha Bharat issues help us to understand how Dalits responded to
this challenge.
14.6.5 Samata
Samata was the official mouthpiece of Samaj Samata Sangh, a reformist organisation
founded by Ambedkar and his caste Hindu colleagues in 1927. Samata began its
publication on 29 June 1928. It was mainly established to cater to caste-Hindus and
attract their attention to social reforms. Hence unlike Ambedkar’s other organisations,
Samaj Samata Sangh was dominated by caste Hindus. Its prominent members included
Sridhar Tilak (son of Bal Gangadhar Tilak), Devrao Naik, Sripatrao Shinde and D.V.
Pradhan. Samata was led by Devrao Naik as editor, who was later to become the editor
of Janata. Due to want of financial support Samata could not sustain for long. It was
closed in 1929.
14.7 LET US SUM UP

Ambedkar was a great crusader for the rights of the downtrodden and weaker sections
of the Indian society. Socio-political organisations play an important role in mobilizing and
organising the masses. Social and educational organisations founded by Ambedkar are an
example of what such organisations can possibly achieve. Masses get attracted to such
organisations mainly for two reasons.
First, due to their engagement with the masses through public activism and the charismatic
leadership they provide.
Second, due to their commitment to certain ideological and political positions. These
ideological positions are articulated by different kinds of propaganda literature, booklets,
newspapers and pamphlets, of which newspapers have attained an important position in
the public discourse. They are one of the most important sources of disseminating social
and political ideas among the larger masses.

1) Discuss the role played by social and political organisations founded by Ambedkar
in the making of assertive Dalit movement.
2) What were the newspapers established by Ambedkar and what was their significance?
3) Explain the vision of Republican Party of India as enunciated by Ambedkar in his
open letter.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Jaffrelot, Christophe. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability. New Delhi: Permanent Black,
2005.
Keer, Dhananjay. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission.Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1962.
Kshirsagar, R.K. Dalit Movement in India and Its Leaders.Delhi: M.D. Publication,1994.
Omvedt, Gail. Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India.New Delhi:Penguin Books,
2008.
Rao,Anupama. Caste Question: Dalits in Modern India. New Delhi: Permanent Black,
2008.
Zelliot, Eleanor.Ambedkar’s World: The Making of Babasaheb and the Dalit Movement.
New Delhi: Navayana, 2013.
UNIT 15 PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION
Structure
15.1 Objectives
15.2 Introduction
15.3 Philosophy of Participation and Representation
15.4 Modes of Representation
15.5 Search of Practical Solution: In Conversation with other Leaders
15.6 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
15.1 OBJECTIVES
 Popular Government;
 Franchise and Suffrage;
 Representation; and
 Power Sharing.
15.2 INTRODUCTION
As we are discussing in this unit B.R. Ambedkar in the context of his quest for social
change and alternative movement for doing away with ‘graded inequality’ of Indian society
and restructuring it on the noble principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. To materialize
these principles on Indian subcontinent, Ambedkar throughout his life struggled for
establishing social democracy since these principles can be best realised in a democratic
form of government that presupposes democratic form of society.
In this unit, we are going to talk about Ambedkar’s contributions and roles in shaping of
modern democracy and its cardinal working principles in India. The cardinal working
principles include idea of participation, representation, franchise and suffrage, election and
fundamental rights. Keeping in the mind about the mandate of this unit, our discussion will
be focused around idea of participation and representation.
Thinking about participation and representation brings our attention that representation is
a mechanism to ensure participation of individuals and social groups in government. This
simply means that somebody would be representing somebody else’s interest in government.
This indispensable involvement of at least two persons in the idea of representation leaves
enough scope for conflict between those ‘who represents’ and those ‘who gets represented’.
In diverse societies like India’s, widening up of “difference between profiles, policies, and
politics of those ‘who represents’ and the desires and demands of those ‘who gets
represented” (Yadav; 2013) has potential not only to further accelerate conflicts between
various social groups but also turn any particular group into ‘governing’ whereas rest as
‘governed’. Historically India has witnessed such situation.
Since the dawn of the twentieth century, for eliminating social conflicts and demolishing
existence of ‘governing’ and ‘governed’ groups, Dr. Ambedkar putted up his strenuous
efforts for establishing democracy on Indian soil with its working principles – direct
election, universal adult suffrage, and fundamental rights. We will explore in this unit his
consistent engagement with questions related to democracy and its cardinal working
principles.
This unit does this task mainly through analysis of Ambedkar’s Writings and Speeches on
the following:
 Southborough Committee
 Simon Commission
 Round Table Conferences
These texts deal with the questions that were posed in a particular historical and social
context; and hence, mere textual reading of these texts poses serious methodological
falsity of superimposition of present category over the past. Therefore, for avoiding such
falsity, attempt has been made to interpret the meaning of these texts by relocating it, in
its reconstructed historical and social context.
15.3 PHILOSOPHY OF PARTICIPATION AND

REPRESENTATION
Southborough Committee
The constitutional reform process began in India with the commencement of the Indian
Council Act 1892. That Act laid down the foundation of parliamentary democracy in India
with the introduction of indirect representation. The Government of India Act 1909
(Morley-Minto Reform Act) introduced the first election in India’s constitutional history.
The Act had also made provision for separate electorates for Muslims to safeguard their
interests. But the two implicit defects in the Reform Act were:
 Failure to evolve the mode of electing representatives
 Narrow electorate because of limited voting rights
The sudden breakout of the First World War (1914–1918) had led to the introduction
of the doctrine of self-determination in the arena of international relations. On 20th August
1917, the doctrine was announced to be made applicable on India also. In that context,
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and others had started
demand for the Home Rule, which meant a dominion status within the British Empire. The
Indian National Congress (INC) and the Muslim League had also signed the Lucknow
Pact 1916 for fighting the British government. Both the Congress and the Muslim League
had started demanding for right to self-determination.
To remove the mentioned defects of the Morley-Minto Reform Act and to materialize the
doctrine of self-representation in India, the British government appointed the Franchise
Participation and Representation 131
Committee, popularly known as Southborough Committee, and the recommendations of

the committee were to be incorporated in the Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-
Chelmsford Reform Act). On 27th January 1919, Ambedkar submitted evidence before
the Southborough Committee and called for redesigning of the franchise and representation
in such a manner so as to introduce popular government in India. He argued for the
expansion of the meaning of ‘popular government’ from the ‘government for the people’
that only translates individual opinion into public action, to the ‘government by the people’
that also allows representation of persons. The “popular Government is not only Government
for the people but by the people…..representation of opinions by itself is not sufficient to
constitute popular Government. To cover its true meaning it requires personal representation
as well” (Ambedkar; 2005).
Unlike Indian nationalists, Ambedkar argued that social divisions of India matter in politics
since they were an obstacle in realization of a harmonious life. For him:
The social divisions do not matter only when there is harmonious social and political
life. Harmonious life requires like-mindedness, which is nothing but common aims,
beliefs, aspirations, knowledge and understanding, which can be cultivated through
communication, participation or endosmosis. In isolation, each group works on its
own like-mindedness that creates conflict (2005).
He further argued that, “such social groups in India are touchable and untouchable in the
case of Hindus instead of Brahmin and non-Brahmin, and Muslim, Christian, Parsees, and
Jews”. Ambedkar wanted “the breaking up of the isolation of these groups for destroying
the distinct like-mindedness and creating newer like-mindedness based on larger participation
of each group that would finally eliminate the social conflicts and also would lead to
unity”. For this process, he argued for in-person representation of these social groups in
the government, that is, communal representation and that must be elected. He argued for
“doing away with nomination and proportionate electorate since they were ill suited for
cultivation of new like-mindedness”.
Ambedkar had a thorough understanding of how vulnerable social groups (communal)
were to be protected. Therefore, instead of a single member territorial constituency, he
asked for three-member constituencies where share of the seats of each community were
to be based on the ratio of the community in population rather than in the electoral roll.
This demand was supported by the fact that education and private property criterion-
based franchise had excluded the Untouchables because social disability and prejudices
had prevented them from possessing private property and gaining education. As a remedy
of the franchise problem, Ambedkar asked for a variation in the criterion for franchise to
Untouchables, in addition to three-member constituencies.
Instead of territorial constituency, his demand for three-member constituencies to ensure
communal representation was based on the following two assumptions.
 Voters discriminate while voting – He believed that “individuals have material and
secular interests. The former is same for each individual irrespective of community but
the latter creates social divisions. In election, voters would vote for the candidate for
whom they would have sympathy. And that sympathy would be due to belongingness
in the same community because voters are member of the community first and
electoral roll latter” (2005).
 Electoral roll of the territorial constituencies might be dominated by a numerically
minority community because franchise was based on criterion of education and

private property. And very few people form castes had education and private
property at that time.
The possibility of discrimination by voters and domination of a numerical minority
community in the electoral roll motivated Ambedkar to argue for equal opportunity to
minority communities in power sharing so that the newly emerged system could not
reproduce social inequality and disability. From minority, Ambedkar did not mean
numerical minority but the community that had been excluded, suppressed and oppressed.
15.4 MODES OF REPRESENTATION

Simon Commission
Though Ambedkar had submitted evidence before the Southborough Committee but the
Government of India Act 1919 failed to incorporate his demands. Moreover, the Act also
failed to implement the doctrine of self-determination as promised earlier. Therefore, the
post-1920 period saw increasing mass mobilisation against the British government in the
form of Khilafat, Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience movements. Untouchables also
got mobilised under the leadership of Ambedkar who formed the Bahishkrit Hitakarini
Sabha (Depressed Classes’ Institute) on 24 July 1924 in Bombay. The activities of the
Sabha intensified anti-caste struggles in the form of demand for civil and political rights,
and elimination of social disabilities and prejudices. And also to spread awareness about
socio-political rights, Ambedkar had launched two newspapers– the Mook Nayak and the
Bahishkrit Bharat– in the same decade.
Sensing possible growth of larger discontent and anticipating statutory revision of the
Government of India Act 1919 after two years, the British Government announced
appointment of a statutory commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon to
recommend future reform in India’s Constitution. Under the umbrella of the Congress,
numerous political groups boycotted the meetings of the Commission on the ground that
all its members were the British. But Ambedkar not only submitted statements but also
gave evidence to the Commission on behalf of the Depressed Classes’ Institute, Bombay.
The Commission had two central concerns: the question of franchise and designing suitable
method for providing representation to minorities. On the question of franchise, Ambedkar
argued for removal of criteria of education and private property and adoption of adult
franchise on following grounds:
 Franchise is a right which empowers citizens to decide their association with others.
And limiting franchise by imposing criterion of education and private property reduces
it from a right to privilege that further perpetuates slavery by leaving the future of the
un-enfranchised in the hands of enfranchised.
 Adult suffrage has inherent potential to do away with the evils of a communal
electorate. Here, both communal representation and communal electorate are distinct.
He interlinks both by arguing that though the former is merely a doctrine that has
great value, but the latter is one of the practical means to realize the former.
 Only adult suffrage has potential to prevent power from falling in the hands of an
oligarchy.
 Punishing innocent people by imposing literacy as a criterion for franchise is morally

wrong since mass scale illiteracy existed in India as the government failed to provide
education to the people and not the other way around where the people did not use
the facilities provided by the government for getting educated.
 Intelligence is the lone factor which should determine the right to vote instead of
literate-illiterate dichotomy. The literacy-based enfranchisement was based on two
wrongs assumptions: illiterate person would always be unintelligent and literacy always
imports higher level of intelligence in comparison to intelligence of the illiterate person.
Both assumptions deny the role of self-improvement as a natural capacity of human
beings which acts on self-experience and imports intelligence in people. Ambedkar
rightly differentiated between education and literacy. Education is a broad concept
which encompasses non-verbal and non-linguistic learning as well.
Interlinked with the franchise, representation was the next most important mandate of the
Simon Commission. Keeping in mind that representation is meant for self-government,
Ambedkar scrutinized various methods of representation in order to democratise the
government and its apparatus.
1) Nomination: Ambedkar had consistently argued against nominated mode of
representation on two major grounds. First, nominated members could not take a
stand against the government during a conflict of community interest which they
would be representing. Second, the idea of self-government is based on legislatures’
responsibility towards the people that can only be ensured through direct election.
2) Class Electorate: Ambedkar opposed the class electorate arguing that it was a
brainchild of British bureaucracy to retain political power on pretext of introducing
self-government. He said such an electorate was counterproductive for self-government
and hence, it must be abolished and submerged into general electorate. But he
argued for providing labours’ interests through labour unions.
3) Reserved Electorate: Ambedkar favoured reserved electorate with adult suffrage.
He refuted all three propositions against reserved electorate.
a) The majority community getting electoral advantage in reserved seats was refuted
on the ground of unawareness of such communities about their political strength
and numerical power.
b) Reserved seats creating inefficiency in parliament was ruled out on the basis of
the objective of parliament, which was never meant to bring the most intelligent
people but to create a mutually dependent consciousness that could be used as
unitary force in national service.
c) Reserved seats restricting the right of upper castes to represent lower castes
were refuted on the ground of distinction between ‘the right to represent’ and
‘the right to representation’. Ambedkar argued that both are not identical to
each other because the former is part of the latter. And therefore, the former
can be qualified. He further added that ‘the right to represent’ is a claim-right
which is made on the criterion of aptitude and experience. But the fulfilment of
the claim requires attitude, and the social attitude of higher classes towards
untouchables was never appropriate. Hence, their claim of ‘right to represent’
gets vindicated.
4) Communal Electorate: Ambedkar argued for communal representation but raised

serious objections over communal electorate being the best method to provide
communal representation. Hence, he scrutinized the main propositions on which
demands for communal electorate were echoed primarily by the Muslim League.
a) The communal electorate arrested the growth of discontent among Muslims but
it failed, according to Ambedkar, preventing communal disturbances since leaders
and masses, both were guided by momentary passion.
b) The claim that Muslims being a separate community had separate interests that
could only be protected through a separate electorate, did not stand according
to Ambedkar, because all communities have only material and secular interests.
The former is common for all whereas it is the latter which creates distinction.
The existence of the latter is special interest instead of separate interest and that
can be best protected through a general electorate and reserved seats with adult
suffrage rather than communal electorate.
Ambedkar also argued against separate electorate on the grounds of its inherent potential
of making any community as permanent minority, and its violation of the doctrine of
consent since Muslim representatives would be legislating in the affairs of other communities,
whom they did not represent, since they were to be elected from separate electorate.
15.5 SEARCH OF PRACTICAL SOLUTION: IN

CONVERSATION WITH OTHER LEADERS
Round Table Conferences (RTCs)
Boycott of the Simon Commission by political groups, under the umbrella of the
Congress, delayed the efforts of British Government to introduce constitutional reforms.
The boycott pressed the British Government to call for RTCs in London to discuss the
proposed constitutional reforms. The Congress initially boycotted the first two sessions of
the conference but after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Gandhiji joined the third session.
Ambedkar, along with Rao Bahadur Srinivas, participated in the RTCs as representative
of All-India Depressed Classes Associations. Speaking in the preliminary session, Ambedkar
called for the introduction of responsible government and representative government in
India. He said:
We must have a government in which men in power, knowing where obedience will
end and resistance will begin, will not be afraid to amend the social and economic
code of life which the dictates of justice and expediency so urgently call for. This
role the British Government will never be able to play. It is only a government
which is of the people, for the people and by the people that will make the possible
(Ambedkar; 2005).
On the question of representation, he argued that the composition of the legislative
assembly must reflect the psychology of the society, which meant nothing but communal
representation. Contrary to many Indian and the British delegates who opposed adult
suffrage, Ambedkar strongly advocated for elections on the basis of adult suffrage of men
and women. The third session of the RTCs also marked Gandhi’s participation. In the
conference, repeating the pledge of the Congress, Gandhiji accepted Ambedkar’s demand
for adult suffrage and also recognized special interest of Muslims. But his refusal to
recognize the special representation of Untouchables either through special reservation or
separate electorate not only created a deadlock but also brought Gandhiji in direct conflict
with Ambedkar.
Gandhi’s stand against communal representation of Untouchables, diminishing possibility of
introduction of adult franchise, and uncompromising attitude of Muslim representatives on
separate electorate seemed to have made Ambedkar to move away from his first option,
that is, joint electorate with reserved constituency along with adult suffrage, to the second
option, that is, demanding separate electorate for untouchables by recognizing them as a
minority equivalent to Muslims. He prepared a joint memorandum with the Muslims,
Indian Christians, Anglo- Christians and European minority leaders and agreed on the
demand for communal electorate with some special protections for Untouchables.
The British Government accepted those demands, and the British Prime Minister Macdonald
announced the Communal Award on 16 August, 1932, that granted separate electorate to
the Depressed Classes. Gandhiji opposed the Communal Award by sitting on hunger
strike in Yerwada Jail, which resulted into signing of the Poona Pact that laid the genesis
of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India.
Representation in Executive
We have already discussed how replacement of the bureaucratic form of the British
Government with a representative government was the central demand of our nation
builders. In addition to legislature, there were demands to Indianise bureaucracy and the
armed forces too. Implicit in the demand was the moral claim that Indians’ exclusion from
these services had perpetuated moral evil of subjugation and stunting of personality. Early
nationalist G. K. Gokhale was great exponent of such moral claims. Mentioning the
observation of G. K. Gokhale in his evidence before the Southborough Committee,
Ambedkar wondered if Indian Brahmins would have similar feelings for untouchables, who
have been excluded from centuries. He argued that the government, which is a part of
the society, is an important field to realize individual capacity; therefore, Indianisation of
bureaucracy and armed forces must be accompanied by special representation of
untouchables without destroying efficiency of the services, and that is possible only when
seats would be full filled through fair and open competition.
15.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we discussed continuous variation in Ambedkar’s opinion on the methods of
representation but on the question of participatory government, his opinion was consistent.
Participation in the government meant for him, realization of individual capacity. And the
individual capacity is nothing but achieving perfection through self-improvement and self-
governing through self-legislation.
Throughout his life, Ambedkar argued that nobody should be denied the opportunity
realization of individual capacity. And hence; he not only envisaged mechanisms like
equality of opportunity in power sharing, direct election, communal representation, expansion
of franchise and introduction of adult suffrage for men and women etc for eliminating
discrimination, oppression and suppression that were major obstacles in realization of
individual capacity but also actively campaigned for materialisation of these mechanisms on
Indian soil.
His engagement with the Southborough Committee, the Simon Commission and the RTCs
further reveals that his demand for equality of opportunity in power sharing and adult
franchise were meant for liberating individual from the oppression and suppression of other
groups, but communal representation was meant for breaking up of norms, codes and
conducts of individual’s parent group. Ambedkar had envisaged communal representation
having inherent potential of breaking up narrow like mindedness and creating larger like
mindedness; therefore, he always demanded communal representation through different
modes. The indispensability of communal representation became clear only in 1950s when
he finally demanded multi-member constituencies, the genealogy of which can be traced
in his demand for three-member constituencies during his engagement with the Southborough
Committee.

1) On what grounds, Ambedkar favoured communal representation?
2) Discuss Ambedkar’s defence of adult suffrage?
3) Discuss demerits of separate electorate, envisaged by Ambedkar?
4) Elabourate Ambedkar’s argument in favour of reserved electorate?
5) Discuss the changing ideas of Ambedkar on representation?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ambedkar, B. R. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. Ed. Hari Narake.
2. Vol. 1& 2. Mumbai: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Committee, Government
of Maharashtra, 2005.
Jafferlote, Christophe. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste.
London: Hurst and Company, 2005.
Omvedt, Gail. Ambedkar:Towards an Enlightened India.New Delhi: Penguin Books,
2008.
Rodrigues, Valerian (ed). Essential Writings of B R Ambedkar. New Delhi:OUP, 2004.
Thorat, Sukhdeo & Kumar, Narender.B R Ambedkar: Prespectives on Social Exclusion
and Inclusive Policies. New Delhi: OUP, 2008.
Zelliot, Eleanor. Ambedkar’s World: The Making of Babasaheb and the Dalit Movement.
New Delhi: Navayana, 2013.
End Notes:
1. B. R. Ambedkar. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Ed. Hari Nanak, Volume-1.
Mumbai: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Committee Government of Maharashtra, 2005.
2. Ibid, Volume-2, pp. 503.
3. Yogendra Yadav. Representation: Oxford Companion to Politics in India. Ed Niraja Gopal Jayal
and PratapBhanu Mehta. New Delhi: OUP, 2010, pp347-360.
4. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin. The Concept of Representation. Berkely: University of California, 1967.
5. For Ambedkar’s idea on representation in executive, see Vivek Kumar. Ambedkar’s Idea of Nation
and Nation Building, Human Rights Global Focus,Volume-5, No 3&4, July-December, 2010, pp.
69-85.
UNIT 16 AS A CONSTITUTION DRAFTING
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND
MINISTER
Structure
16.1 Objectives
16.2 Introduction
16.3 The Immediate Context and Ambedkar’s Efforts
16.4 The Drafting of the Constitution and the Promulgation of its Special Features
16.5 Democratic Prophecy
16.6 As a Law Minister
16.7 Let Us Sum Up
Suggested Readings
16.1 OBJECTIVES
 Background of the Constitution and Ambedkar’s efforts;
 Drafting of the Constitution and its features;
 Democratic prediction by Ambedkar; and
 Ambedkar as a Law Minister.
16.2 INTRODUCTION
In this we will discuss about background of the Constitution and its features and role of
Ambedkar in drafting of the Indian Constitution. After India’s independence on 15 August
1947, the new Congress-led government invited Ambedkar to serve as the nation’s first
law minister, a post he accepted. On 29 August, he was appointed chairman of the
Constitution Drafting Committee, and was appointed by the assembly to write India’s new
constitution. It was perhaps the biggest exercise in the history of mankind and the practice
of democracy in particular, in which such a varied group of people were to come together
to carve out their common political destiny – varied in terms of economic status, caste
practices, culture, identities, customs, regions, religions, political outlooks and lineages. It
was to be the finest exercise of rationality in the evolution of the nation and its people,
preparing to blend unconditionally to the rule of law and democracy.
The national struggle for freedom from the British rule culminated in the making of the
constituent assembly and the promulgation of the Constitution of free India. The Constitution
of India is a reflection of the objectives, values, ethics and aspirations of the nation and
the society which constituted it. The people shaping the Constitution made profound
contributions in its making and the Constitution of India had a profound impact on the
Indian society as we see today.
16.3 THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT AND AMBEDKAR’S

EFFORTS
Let us now discuss the efforts made by Ambedkar for Indian Constitution. The question
of representation on the basis of communities was one of the most important issues before
the Constituent Assembly, which the British government had also been facing. On 9
October 1939, Ambedkar, in his interview with the Viceroy, had made it clear that in any
scheme of constitutional advance of India, the interests of the Depressed Classes should
not be ignored.1
In 1940 the Congress offered conditional support to the war effort of the British
government. This led the British government to come up with its own offer known as the
August Offer, which comprised some proposals on constitutional reforms, and called for
the cooperation of all parties and communities. The statement held out prospects of
Dominion status for India after the war and also the formation of a constitution-making
body. The Congress was disappointed but Ambedkar declared his willingness to accept
the offer. 2 The August Offer carried the assurance that full weight will be given to the
views of minorities in any revisions of the existing constitution.
On 30 March 1942, while Cripps was in India to discuss the future plan, Ambedkar
along with M.C. Rajah met him. Ambedkar was not at all satisfied with the proposals put
forth by Cripps and in a statement to the press he rejected the proposals on the ground
that ‘the proposals were calculated to the do the greatest harm to his community and
were sure to place it under an unmitigated system of Hindu rule’. He dubbed the
proposals a sudden volte face on the part of the British government. The proposals
upheld the Congress demand for the Constituent Assembly; they had also conceded the
demand for Pakistan to satisfy the Muslim League, but had not cared to provide the
necessary safeguards to protect the interests of the Depressed Classes.3 This, Ambedkar
said, was not in accordance with the declaration of August 1940 which provided for
consultation with the minorities. He submitted a memorandum to the Viceroy on “The
Depressed Classes and the Cripps Proposals”, in which he examined the proposal relating
to setting up of a Constitution-making body and a treaty between the British Government
and the Constitution-making body. He also dealt with the position of minorities in the
future Constitution.
Ambedkar observed that the proposed treaty in the Cripps Plan cannot be relied upon
for the following reasons:
 The plan promises self-determination for India and it will be impossible for the British
government to impose their terms upon the new Constitution. The issue of the
protection of minorities had to be decided beforehand.
 After independence the Indian parliament could take away every safeguard that was
prescribed by the treaty.
 The British Parliament cannot pass an act on the one hand giving the treaty the force
of an overriding statute and on the other hand giving India Dominion status by the
same act.4
As a Constitution Drafting Committee Chairman and Minister 139
Commenting on the proposal of a Constitution-making body, Ambedkar expressed the

hope that the safeguards of the minorities can be secured only in the Constituent
Assembly. This again will depend upon:
 the composition of the Constituent Assembly,
 the rule for deciding issues and
 the scope of the Constituent Assembly.
However, the outcome of the Constituent Assembly will be defined by the following
conditions:
 In anticipation that the composition of the Constituent Assembly will be of Hindu
communal majority, the Muslims have started calling themselves as a nation and will
remain in the perpetual state of conflict with all others.
 The antipathy of the Hindus towards the Depressed Classes and their unwillingness
to recognize them as minority for the purpose of political safeguards.
 The anticipation that the reserved seats will be by and large captured by the Hindus
due to the simple majority procedure adopted of voting in the Constituent Assembly5.
Moreover, the demand of the Congress for the Constituent Assembly had actually
frightened the Depressed Classes and is going to do more harm for the following reasons:
 the Depressed Classes do not have separate electorates;
 the Depressed Classes have not only not taken part in the Congress movement but
also condemned it.
The antagonism of the Hindus to the Depressed Classes is going to affect the election of
the Constituent Assembly. He thus dubbed the proposal as a great betrayal.6Secretary
of State to India Amery found that Ambedkar’s criticisms unanswerable and agreed the
protection given to a minority by treaty might be a very illusory thing.7
In June 1945, Lord Wavell issued a statement, later known as the Wavell Plan, aimed
at ending the political deadlock and carrying India on her path to self-government. Lord
Wavell proposed to reconstitute the Executive Council with entirely Indian members,
providing balanced representation to all important communities.8 However, the Wavell
Plan could hardly turn out to be a serious constitutional effort on the part of the British.
On 16 May 1946, the British Government released the Cabinet Mission Statement which
included a set of proposals to guide the framing of a new Indian Constitution. Among
other recommendations, the Cabinet Mission laid out a detailed plan of the composition
of the Constituent Assembly, such that
 the body be “as broad based and accurate a representation of the whole population
as possible”.
 The delegates be drawn from three categories. In addition to Muslims and Sikhs, the
Cabinet mission suggested a general category which would include all other groups
such as Hindus, Anglo-Indians, Parsis, Indian Christians, the Scheduled Castes,
Tribes and women.
The Constituent Assembly thus was founded on the basis of the State Paper of the
Cabinet Mission Plan of the British Government which the Congress had accepted to
draw out the future Constitution of independent India.9However the striking part was, the
plan refused to recognize scheduled castes as a separate entity in the Indian political life
and did not object to their being represented by the Congress.
It was within this context that Ambedkar remained the single most important person with
the hindsight of the historical development and working of the Constitution of British India.
He had also been a part of the British Governments’ executive council. His interventions
at every epoch of constitutional development and the suggestions he had provided not just
for the improvement of the lot of the Scheduled Castes but also regarding the overall
questions of the minorities, the general questions of Indian constitutionalism, the issues of
Pakistan as well as the structure of federalism in India remained concrete and farsighted.
Ambedkar was one of the few statesman-politicians in India who took active part in all
the deliberations of Constitution-making from the Montford reforms (1919) to the Cabinet
Mission (1946). His appointment first as a member of the Constituent Assembly and later
as the chairman of the Drafting Committee is thus not without consideration of his
contributions and understanding of the Indian polity. His inclusion in the Constituent
Assembly thus remained the moral responsibility of the Congress at that time.
Ambedkar played a pivotal role in the making of the Constitution of India. He was
appointed as the chairman of the Drafting Committee in which the primary texts that were
submitted by the sub-committees were finally chiseled into shape before being presented
to the assembly. He guided and channeled the discussion in the Constituent Assembly.
Ambedkar was also one of the few members of the Drafting Committee who belonged
to more than one of the 15committees and therefore could follow closely all the debates.
Above all, as the president of the Drafting Committee, he was sent all the propositions
of the various committees and it was his responsibility… to reformulate these articles
many of which required clarifications. Such editorial tasks also rested on his shoulders
because of the chronic absenteeism that plagued the Drafting Committee.10
T.T. Krishnamachari, while speaking in the Constituent Assembly in November 1948, said:
The House is perhaps aware that of the seven members nominated by you to the
Drafting committee, one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One died
and was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was not filled up
and another person was engaged in State Affairs and there was a void to that
extent. One or two people were far away from Delhi and perhaps for reasons of
health did not permit them to attend. So it happened ultimately that the burden of
drafting this constitution fell on Ambedkar and I have no doubt that we are grateful
to him for having achieved this task in a manner which is undoubtedly commendable.11
16.4 THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE

PROMULGATION OF ITS SPECIAL FEATURES
Ambedkar was elected to the Constituent Assembly of India from the West Bengal
Legislative Assembly. He was elected to the Drafting Committee and later appointed as
its chairman. The other members on this committee were the following:
 N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar
 Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar

 K.M. Munshi
 Sir Mohammed Sadullah
 N. Madhava Menon
 D.P. Khaitan
 B.N. Rau (appointed as a constitutional adviser).
The Constituent Assembly first met on 9 December 1946. The first draft of the
Constitution was presented on 4 November 1948 and the final draft after its presentation
was adopted on 26 November 1949.
The longest Constitution
While presenting the Draft Constitution before the Constituent Assembly on 4 November
1948, Ambedkar maintained that the Draft Constitution is a formidable document. It
contained 315 articles and 8 schedules. He admitted that the Constitution of no other
country could be found to be as bulky as the Draft Constitution.
Form of the Government Explained
To Ambedkar two questions merit consideration with regards to any constitution. They
are:
1) what is the form of government and
2) what is the form of the constitution?
The Draft Constitution, he maintained, has placed as the head of the Indian Union a
functionary who is called the President of the Union. However, apart from the name,
the President does not resemble the US President. The Draft Constitution proposed a
parliamentary system. The two are fundamentally different. He went on to clarify- Under
the presidential system of America, the president is the chief head of the executive. The
administration is vested in him. In the Draft Constitution the President occupies the same
position as the King under the English Constitution. He is the head of the state but not
of the executive. He represents the nation but does not rule the nation. His place in the
administration is that of a ceremonial device on a seal by which the nation’s decisions are
made known.
Under the US Constitution, the President has under him secretaries in charge of various
departments. In like manner, the President of the Indian Union will have ministries under
him in charge of different department but the difference is the President of the United
States is not bound to accept any advice tendered to him by any of his secretaries. The
President of the Indian Union will be generally bound by the advice of his ministers. He
can do nothing contrary to their advice. The President of India, unlike the US President,
has no powers to dismiss the ministries so long as the ministers command a majority in
Parliament.
The presidential system in America is based on the separation of executive and the
legislature. The president and the secretaries cannot be members of Congress. In the
Draft Constitution, the doctrine of the separation of executive from the legislature has not
been accepted. The ministers under the Indian Union are members of Parliament. Only
members of Parliament can become ministers.
Test of Democratic Government
Having stated that both the forms of government are democratic, he further elabourated
upon the test of democratic government. He maintained-a democratic executive must
satisfy two conditions:
1) it must be a stable executive and
2) it must be a responsible executive.
If one chooses stability then the aspect of responsibility is sacrificed, and so is the other
way round.
The US and the Swiss systems give more stability but less responsibility. The British
government on the other hand gives more responsibility but less stability. In the presidential
system, the executive is not dependent upon the majority in Congress but in the
parliamentary system the existence of the executive is dependent upon the majority in
Parliament.
Secondly, the parliamentary and the non-parliamentary systems differ in terms of assessment
of their responsibility. Whereas, in the parliamentary system, the assessment is daily and
periodic through the following:
 Questions
 Resolutions
 No-confidence motions
 Adjournment motions and debates and
 By the electorate during the elections.
In the non-parliamentary system, the assessment of the responsibility is only periodic.
Thus, the Draft Constitution in recommending the parliamentary system of executive
preferred more responsibility to more stability, which was considered far more necessary
for a country like India.
Form of the Constitution Explained
While explaining the form of the Constitution of India, Ambedkar mentioned that the Draft
Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it establishes what may be called as
a Dual Polity. This dual polity under the proposed Constitution will consist of the Union
at the Centre and the States at the periphery, each endowed with sovereign powers to
be exercised in the fields assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. However,
unlike the US Constitution in which the dual polity corresponds to dual citizenship and so
does the citizenship rights, the proposed Indian Constitution is a dual polity with a single
citizenship. There is no state citizenship. Every Indian has the same rights of citizenship,
no matter in what state he resides.
Another point of difference with the US is regarding the power of states. In the US, the
states, subject to the maintenance of the republican form of government, have the right
to frame their own constitution which the proposed Indian Constitution does not offer. No
state (those in Part I) has a right to frame its own constitution. The Constitution of the
union and the states is a single framework from which neither can get out and within
which they must work.
Apart from this, Ambedkar mentioned that there are some other features which mark the
Indian federation off from not only the US federation but all other federations. All
federations, including the US, are placed in a tight mould of federalism. No matter what
the circumstances, it cannot change its form. On the other hand the Draft Constitution
can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of times and
circumstances. In normal times it is framed to work as a federal system, but in times
of war it is so designed to make it work as a unitary system.
Another point of difference which makes the Indian federalism unique is the problem it
has to confront, that is, rigidity and legalism. A federal constitution cannot but be a written
constitution and a written constitution must necessarily be a rigid constitution. A federal
constitution also means division of sovereignty, with two necessary consequences:
 any invasion by the federal government in the fields assigned to the states and vice
versa is a breach of the Constitution and
 such breach is a justifiable matter to be determined by the judiciary only-thus leading
to legalism.
In assuaging the rigor of rigidity and legalism, the Draft Constitution follows the Australian
plan on a far more extensive scale. The biggest advance made by the Draft Constitution
over the Australian Constitution is in the matter of exclusive power of legislation vested
in Parliament. While the exclusive authority of the Australian Parliament to legislate extends
only to about three matters, the authority of the Indian Parliament extends to 91 matters,
thereby securing the greatest possible elasticity in its federalism which is otherwise
supposed to be rigid by nature.
However there are other ways too in which the Draft Constitution stands unique. It gives
powers to Parliament to
 legislate on exclusively provincial subjects- which has become a matter of national
concern- in normal times and
 amend a large portion of the Constitution without ratification of the states.
Indian federalism is thus a flexible federation.
Yet, another feature of the federation is that India has uniformity in all the basic matters
which are essential to maintain the unity of the country. For which it had adopted three
means:
 established a single judiciary system,
 made provision to bring uniformity in fundamental laws, both civil and criminal and
 devised a common All-India Civil Services to man important posts. This is done to
eliminate all diversity in all remedial procedures.
16.5 DEMOCRATIC PROPHECY

Nearly after a year or so after the draft had been introduced and discussed, a final
Constitution was agreed upon. On 25 November 1949, Ambedkar delivered his final
speech before the adoption of the Constitution. His speech is an analytical account of
Indian people’s history and the problems that they are going to confront in the long road
towards democratic governance. His words even today sound prophetic and guiding both
in terms of understanding the nature of Indian mindset and the problems before a
democratic polity.
While speaking on the merits of the Constitution, he said:
However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out to be bad, because
those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad the
constitution may be, it may turn out to be good, if those who are called to work
it, happen to be a good lot.
Ambedkar was an ardent democrat. He understood the problems of working a democracy
in a country like India and thus he remarked:
If we wish to maintain democracy not just in form and in fact then we must first,
hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives.
It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution as well as the
methods of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When constitutional
methods are not available these methods could be justified. These methods are
nothing but the grammar of Anarchy and be abandoned sooner the better.
As a second point he urges people not to lay their liberties at the feet’s of even a great
man or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions:
In India Bhakti 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.
Third, we must not be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political
democracy social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at
the base of it social democracy. Social democracy means a way of life which recognizes
liberty, equality and fraternity.
The warning Ambedkar gave us remains prophetic. He said:
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 life 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 labouriously built up.
16.6 AS A LAW MINISTER

The Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 and came into effect on 26
January 1950. Ambedkar was appointed as the law minister in Nehru’s first Cabinet of
the government of Independent India. The task before him was stupendous. And despite
the fact that he was not very satisfied with the law ministry portfolio (he wanted planning),
he nevertheless laid down the foundation of the first generation of progressive and welfare
legislations in India.
The biggest resistance to Ambedkar came with the proposal of the Hindu Code Bill
introduced in Parliament of Independent India. This eventually led to Ambedkar resigning
from the Cabinet. Ambedkar’s emphasis in his argument on the Bill was to reform
Hinduism and to create large enough public space regulated by rule of law applicable to
one and all.12 The Hindu Code Bill was the part of the Agenda of the Uniform Civil
Code. While speaking in the Constituent Assembly, he said:
We have a uniform Criminal Code, law of the Transfer of Property, Negotiable
Instruments Act. This would prove that this country had practically a Civil Code,
uniform in its content and applicable to the whole of the Country. The only province
the civil law has not been able to invade so far is marriage and succession.13
The necessity of bringing the Hindu Code was because, there was no one system of law
for Hindus for the whole of India; there was chaos in the laws of adoption; laws relating
to the marriages were not uniform. Hindu law as such was not uniform for all Hindus and
was not a system of law. Under these circumstances, codification was the only solution.14
The codification of the Hindu law was a continuation of the work of framing the
constitution. The codification fulfilled the unambiguous pledge given by the Constitution of
India that there would be no discrimination on the grounds of sex or caste. Ambedkar
contended that the enactment of the present code was a natural consequence of the
adoption of the Constitution of India.
16.7 LET US SUM UP

Ambedkar had throughout his life kept the light of reason as the guiding element in his
struggle against the oppressive Hindu order. He tirelessly fought for the rights of not just
the Depressed Classes and for women, but against all the oppressive systems and
structures of the society. His chief method of achieving his goal had always remained
constitutional and within the framework of law, though he also saw the limitations of law
in front of the moral conscience of the society. Yet, he understood the working of the
modern world and the instruments that need to be strengthened for attaining the desired
changes in society, for the establishing governing structures and institutions and for
protecting human rights.
In the course of his struggle and within the context of India’s freedom struggle, he was
leading a different and more meaningful struggle which was not limited to the political
rights of the people, but which related to the overall aspects of an individual living in a
political society. Though, he might have not been successful all the time in his efforts, yet
he took it in his stride, never failing to carve out a space towards a democratically
workable solution. The strength of his courage and conviction has shaped the overall
destiny of the country, its society, polity, as well as economy, not to mention the reshaping
of the cultural argument.
This change was initiated and sustained through his continuous efforts in the form of social
movements, his breathtaking depth of analysis and objective writings, his contributions in
the making of the Constitution of India and eventually codification of the Hindu law and
the eventual conversion into the Buddhist fold.
He remained an ardent rationalist and pragmatist social democrat and a symbol of
opposition against the tyrannical social order and orthodoxy. His contributions, throughout
the period of Indian independence struggle and later, have sustained significant interest of
the great masses of the Indian subcontinent and have contributed immensely to strengthening
of the democratic culture.
However, he leaves an unfinished legacy of the liberation of the oppressed masses, as he
has reminded us in his final speech in the Constituent Assembly that the nation needs to
secure economic and social equality and eventually, human rights for all its citizens.

1) Explore Ambedkar’s efforts in contextualizing the Constitution?
2) Discuss the drafting of the Constitution and its features?
3) Discuss the democratic prediction apprehended by Ambedkar after framing the
Constitution?
4) Examine the role of Ambedkar as law minister?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, published by Government of Maharashtra.
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution, Corner Stone of a Nation, OUP, 1999, new
Delhi.
Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of Indian Experience,
OUP, 2000, New Delhi.
Gail Omvedt, Understanding Caste: From Buddha to Ambedkar and Beyond, Orient
Black Swan, 2012.
Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Popular Prakasha, 2014.
Eleanor Zelliot, Ambedkars World, IPD Publications, New Delhi.
(Endnotes)
1 Times of India, 10 October 1939.
2 VPS Menon.The Transfer of Power in India. p. 95.
3 Times of India, 3 April 1942.
4 Ambedkar’s Memorandum submitted to the Viceroy. A pamphlet entitled, ‘Depressed Classes and
the Cripps Proposal’.
5 Ibid.
6 ibid
7 Transfer of Power Vol III Doc. 437 Amery to Ambedkar, Feb. 8, 1943.
8 Transfer of Power Vol V Doc. 6 Wavell Papers Political Series, pp.49-51.

9 See the state paper of the cabinet mission of the British government; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru while
moving the objective resolution in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946 maintains that
the British Government has a hand in the birth of the Constituent Assembly and the state paper
the foundation of this constituent assembly, Constituent Assembly Debates, Book 1, Vol. I, official
Report, Publication by Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, 1989, p. 57.
10 Christophe Jaffrelot. Ambedkar and Untouchability. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 107-108
11 Quoted in Christophe Jaffrelot.Ambedkar and Untouchability. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, p.108
12 Veleraian Rodrigues. The Essential Writings of B.R.Ambedkar. New Delhi: OUP, 2002, p.471.
13 Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol VII, PP. 550-51, quoted in W.N. Kuber, Ambedkar: A Critical
Study.New Delhi: Peoples Publishing House, 2001, p. 59.
14 Kote and Ursekar.Hindu Code, p.25, quoted in W.N. Kuber. Ambedkar: A Critical Study, Peoples
Publishing House, New Delhi, 2001, p. 60.

Bab 101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bab 101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anniversaryo

School of Social Sciences

Certificate Programme on Life and

CLTA Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rabindra Kumar

liberty, equality and fraternity. To materialize these principles on Indian subcontinent,

1.3 AMBEDKAR’S EARLY LIFE

1.4 AMBEDKAR’S EARLY EDUCATION

1.5 LET US SUM UP

1.6 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

2.3 AMBEDKAR’S YOUNG LIFE

2.4 AMBEDKAR’S COLLEGE EDUCATION

2.5 AMBEDKAR AND THE INDIA OF THE EARLY

2.6 LET US SUM UP

2.7 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

3.3 AMBEDKAR IN THE UNITED STATES

3.4 AMBEDKAR IN ENGLAND

3.5 LET US SUM UP

3.6 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

4.3 AMBEDKAR’S STRUGGLES IN LIFE

4.4 AMBEDKAR’S SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

4.5 POLITICAL CAREER

4.6 CONVERSION TO BUDDHISM

4.7 LET US SUM UP

4.7 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

5.3 BUDDHA AND HIS TIMES

5.4 DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF BUDDHISM

5.5 DECLINE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA

5.6 REVIVAL OF BUDDHISM IN MODERN INDIA

5.7 AMBEDKAR AND BUDDHISM

5.8 LET US SUM UP

5.9 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

6.3 LIFE OF KABIR

6.4 KABIR’S TEACHINGS

Brother, where did your two gods come from?

There is nothing but water at the holy bathing

Who’s Brahmin? Who’s Shudra?

6.5 KABIR’S INFLUENCE ON AMBEDKAR

6.6 LET US SUM UP

6.7 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

7.3 SOCIAL REFORMER JYOTIBA PHULE

subordination of caste which formed basis of material exploitation. By uncovering the

7.4 EDUCATOR MAHATMA PHULE

spread of primary education. Phule submitted several constructive suggestions to the

7.5 BUILDER OF ALTERNATIVE CULTURE

7.6 JYOTIBA PHULE’S INLUENCE ON AMBEDKAR

7.7 LET US SUM UP

7.8 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

8.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

movement is ambivalent because some see it as devotionalism whereas others see it as

 Growing influence of patriarchy and the notion of purity

8.4 VIEWS ON RELIGION

from the orthodox understanding of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. In

8.5 THE GURU-SHISHYA TRADITION IN THE BHAKTI

8.6 THE BHAKTI MOVEMENT AND SYNCHRONIC

8.7 BHAKTI TRADITION AND LANGUAGE

8.8 WOMEN SAINT-POETS

8.9 AMBEDKAR ON BHAKTI MOVEMENT

8.10 LET US SUM UP

8.11 QUESTIONS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

9.3 LIFE SKETCH OF KARL MARX

9.4 CHRACTERISTICS OF CASTE-CLASS

According to Gail Omvedt, Ambedkar mentioned his affinity towards communism in a

9.5 ON STATE SOCIALISM