Ambedkar and Gandhi: Limits of Divergence and Possibilities of Conversation

Author(s): SUHAS PALSHIKAR

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 15 (APRIL 11, 2015), pp. 45-50
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481886
Accessed: 17-03-2023 10:05 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Ambedkar and Gandhi
Limits of Divergence and Possibilities
of Conversation
SUHAS PALSHIKAR
B R Ambedkar and M K Gandhi
thought through different
paradigms and spoke in different
frameworks. As the study of ideas
and political thinking in India
departs from a simplistic
straitjacketing based on literal
accounts, we do not have to fall
into the trap of sitting in
judgment on key figures. This
article points out that it might be
much more rewarding if ideas
and thinkers are studied through
interpretative lenses. Such
exercises will allow us to make a
choice between a conversation
and a closure of ideas.
Revised and abridged version of keynote
address delivered at the national seminar on
"Untouchability and the Caste Question:
Interrogating the Gandhi-Ambedkar Debate,"
Department of History, Sikkim University,
Gangtok, 24-25 September 2014.
Suhas Palshikar Csuhaspalshikar@gmail.com)
teaches politics at the Savitribai Phule Pune
University, Pune.
Economie & Political weekly QB59 april il, 2015 vol l no 15
This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
B R Ambedkar as adversaries.
HistoryTheir
pitted M Kexchanges
public Gandhi were
and
marked by acrimony. The debate bet
ween Ambedkar and Gandhi continues
even after the departure of both. The
acrimony also continues as part of that
debate. Three interrelated and overlap
ping issues constituted the core of their
exchanges—the issue of representation
of the depressed classes; the removal of
untouchability; and the caste question.
The challenge before us is to try and go
beyond the acrimony, beyond the tem
poral context, and make sense of the
differences and possibilities of finding
political (praxis-related) and epistemo
logical spaces that both of them can
simultaneously occupy.
Comparing Thinkers, Ideas
While the relationship between Gandhi
and Ambedkar was fraught with tension
and differences, and therefore not many
would consider studying them together, a
larger issue is about looking at thinkers
practitioners beyond their temporal par
ticularities, and comparing and compre
hending the universal elements in their
ideas. The present attempt to consider
Gandhi and Ambedkar in relation to
their ideas on caste is informed by both
these impulses.
When I wrote long ago—almost 20
years ago—about an imaginary and
posthumous rapprochement between
Ambedkar and Gandhi (Palshikar 1995,
1996), it was a polemical and political
argument in response to the acrimony in
their interaction and the supposed im
possibility of a conversation. I would
still subscribe to the political dimension
of that argument, but do not intend to
enter into that issue for the most part of
this article. Reporting my earlier formu
lation, Jaffrelot somewhat summarily
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PERSPECTIVES
set it aside by describing it as a "sponta
neous Gandhian" argument (2005:145).
That I am revisiting and restating that
argument should make it clear that it
was not "spontaneous" and as my assess
ment will show, it is not a Gandhian ar
gument in the sense of "underplaying
conflict" (Jaffrelot 2005: 145). (As an
aside, Gandhi chose to underplay con
flict only so far as his resources—organ
isational and intellectual—were not ad
equately mobilised. But once he formu
lated an idea or action plan, he did not
shy away from confrontation. Therefore,
this casual remark by Jaffrelot can be
seen as characteristic of a wilful igno
rance of what Gandhi did and what he
stood for.) Be that as it may, neither in
my older piece nor here do I intimate
that there were no differences in ap
proach and understanding. Yet, I con
tinue to search for common ground
rather than looking at their debate as a
closed chapter.
Ambedkar and Gandhi were both en
gaged in active politics in adversarial
camps. But did they talk past each other?
Does history have to sit in judgment on
who was right and who was wrong?
Does contemporary politics benefit from
separating them or from thinking of
them as constituting a conversation that
needs to continue? And, above all, in the
field of history of thought and ideas,
how does one make sense of the differ
ences and debate between Gandhi and
Ambedkar? Should scholars, thinkers
and ideologues who tend to be based in
different political camps be seen only as
opponents or are there methods and
spaces for a post-facto reassessment of
the nature of differences and debates?
More specifically, can we imagine a
method of studying the history of ideas
where differences are distinguished as
antagonistic and non-antagonistic?
On comparisons and attempts to re
interpret, I would draw attention to
attempts at looking at the works of Karl
Marx and Max Weher in an unconven
tional manner and searching for com
plementarities in their work (see, for in
stance, the claim that Weber's works are
a "long and intense debate with the
ghost of Marx" in Zeitlin 1968: viii;
Gerth and Mills 1958 also look at Weber
45
PERSPECTIVES

in a similar light). Our understanding of employ different styles. Of course, they nation and then to cede ground to differ
the empirical detail and the ideological are equally trenchant in their criticism ent communities as separate political
divide becomes enriched by exercises of each other, and the reader today has communities would be an impossibility,
that unsettle pre-existing limits on con- to keep the polemics away and search and, in this sense, the nationalist project
versation. It also helps in evolving a for the deeper argument. But, besides by its very nature was bound to be
comparative frame for study of thought that, there is a difficulty as far as the homogenising in ambition and practice,
and ideas. In the context of political ide- structuring of their arguments is con- Nor was Ambedkar the only or the first
as and thinking in India, there have cerned. Ambedkar adopts a reasonably to protest against this homogenisation.
been some exercises that consider Indian academic and intellectual style of writ- Indeed, Jyotirao Phule, in the 19th cen
and non-Indian ideas and thinkers ing and argument that becomes accessi- tury, had raised similar questions when
together (such as Gandhi and Jürgen ble easily and (apparently) allows for the Congress was just taking shape.
Habermas in Pantham 1986 and Verma very little interpretative hurdles. Gan- Ambedkar was resolutely focused on
2014 and Ambedkar, Amartya Sen and dhi's writings and pronouncements are representing the depressed classes (as
John Rawls in Rodrigues 2011). So, I taciturn, idiomatic, slippery and, above they were then called) though he also
would like to submit that for a better un- all, non-academic in style. This makes made efforts to broad base his politics
derstanding of the difference between the task of deciphering Gandhi more by taking up issues of the workers and
Ambedkar and Gandhi, and also for a complex. Gandhi's style and the result- forming the Independent Labour Party,
comparative study of their political dis- ant obscurity of his argument must have In terms of the core objective of his poli
courses, it is necessary to move away been trying for Ambedkar. Even in their tics, the interests of the depressed classes
from the supposed illegitimacy of look- personal interaction and political ex- were paramount. He employs multiple
ing for comparable and common ground changes, the difficulties caused by meth- strategies for pursuing this politics. One,
between the two thinkers. od of communication must have proved he expects to negotiate and create a
Towards that objective, this aims at central. Gandhi would have little appre- space for his politics in relation to the
clearing the ground and understanding ciation for the scholastic and legalistic nationalist struggle; two, he organises
the nature and scope of the differences arguments of Ambedkar, which were the depressed classes and negotiates
between the two on the questions listed informed, and made rich, by a rational with the British; and three, he ensures a
above. Fortunately, more recently, some approach. On the other hand, Ambedkar minimum fair space for the depressed
efforts are under way on similar exer- would have little patience for Gandhi's classes in the new dispensation of indé
cises without necessarily taking sides. For somewhat convoluted and evocative pendent India. In this entire endeavour,
instance, in an issue of Seminar maga- pleas and claims based on ideas of moral the key claim he has to make is that the
zine devoted to Gandhi, Suhrud and judgment and normative appeals. Congress (and Gandhi) do not represent
Geetha bring in the Ambedkar-Gandhi But more than these difficulties, one the depressed classes. Only such a claim
difference because it is important for must keep in mind that they were located could ensure that the depressed classes
them to make sense of it to understand in rival political camps. This rivalry was (and their leadership) would have sepa
Gandhi. In arguing that shame is differ- an immediate one and pertained to their rate stakes in the negotiations that the
ent from humiliation (Suhrud 2014:13), positions on political reforms that the British government was conducting,
and that Gandhi's ideas and practice British government would bring. It re- So, both academically and from a con
were marked by an "uneven and lated to claims of leadership and neither temporary political perspective too, it
problematic balance between love and was willing to give quarter to the other. would be crude to sit in judgment on
justice" on the Muslim and caste Thus, a prime obstacle today in revis- their respective quests for a common
questions (Geetha 2014: 16), they have iting their debate is the difference in nation and insistence on a separate poli
opened up new possibilities of studying their respective political locations. We tics. Both Gandhi and Ambedkar were
the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate. We shall cannot do justice to their work and re- engaged in their politics in a historical
not go into a detailed discussion of these spective positions unless we frontally ac- context, and that politics separates them
interesting moves; but these two essays cept the difference. Gandhi always clai- and pitches them as adversaries. To
show what direction studies on the med to be representing the Indian peo- insinuate, as Shourie (1997) does, for in
Ambedkar-Gandhi debate could mean- pie in their entirety. Occasionally, he gives stance, that Ambedkar wanted to col
ingfully take. an impression that he would settle for laborate with the imperial power, or to
being a leader of the Hindus (that is, exclu- allege that Gandhi wanted to perpetrate
Of Style and Location ding the Muslims), but given his tussle Brahminical rule and therefore side
As we start comparing and contrasting with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, it is clear lined Ambedkar, as Arundhati Roy
the works of Ambedkar and Gandhi, we that the claim was about representing (2014) does, are both anti-intellectual
start facing numerous obstacles. There the "Indian" people rather than any strategies leading to a closure of ideas
are genuine obstacles handed down by segment thereof. This was an inevitable and denial of history,
history. As if their political differences aspect of the construction of the Indian This political location made them
were not enough, Ambedkar and Gandhi nation. To have claimed to be an Indian competitors and rivals par excellence.

46 april 11, 2015 vol l no 15 EBSSÜ Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PERSPECTIVES

Ambedkar's criticisms rendered Gandhi's while a setback to his (immediate) poli- philosophically—was on removal of
leadership claims morally problematic, tics, it is doubtful if the Poona Pact can untouchability and abolition of caste. It
and Gandhi's claim that he was leading be understood as damaging his political was here that the differences between
all Hindus meant that Ambedkar was project of emancipation of the depressed Ambedkar and Gandhi become more
pushed more and more into claiming classes. He had not shown much interest pronounced. Ambedkar famously held
leadership of only the depressed classes, in separate electorates when deposing that untouchability is a stigma on "our"
Gandhi robbed him off a possible role in before the Southborough Committee, as body and we ("untouchables") shall
leadership of the lower castes, or the also later before the Simon Commission, remove it. Gandhi, on the other hand,
"downtrodden" more generally. Even during the early stages of the round held that untouchability was a sinful
table conference, he placed an option of practice for which the perpetrators, that
On Separate Electorates adult suffrage as an alternative to sepa-- is, the caste Hindus were responsible,
It is against this backdrop that the cen- rate electorates (for details, seoJaffrelot and, therefore, they had the prime re
tral political stand-off evolved between 2005: 53-59). Therefore, I would argue sponsibility to right the wrong. It is here
the two—the issue of separate elector- that separate electorates were not a criti- that the distinction made by Suhrud
ates. The fast by Gandhi was certainly a cal element of Ambedkar's political (2014) between shame and humiliation
complicated action—he was fasting not project. What was fundamental to him becomes relevant,
against an oppressive (foreign or domes- was adequate representation, and the Is it possible to say either of these
tic) power, but against his political com- key strategy favoured by him consistently propositions is incorrect? For the un
petitor who was representing the op- was expansion of the voting right to touchable, to wait for the enlightenment
pressed. Ambedkar at that point in time larger numbers from the oppressed com- of the caste Hindu was an unreasonable
certainly did not have any political re- munities. Clearly, he veered more to- strategy. Something that was unjust
source to counter this offensive and finally wards a political rather than a mechani- needed to be fought and thrown away,
had to give up the demand for separate cal-institutional option because the po- That is what Ambedkar was doing. Gan
electorates. However, what Ambedkar litical option (of expanding suffrage) dhi actually realises this dimension of
gave up was not something central to his would ensure greater awakening and untouchability when he repeatedly says
larger moral-political vision. One way to mobilisation of the oppressed. that "Dr Ambedkar has every right to be
look at this would be to argue that sepa- Second, as we interpret Ambedkar on angry" or that it is a great virtue that
rate electorates were central to Ambed- this matter, we also need to keep in Ambedkar is not propagating violence,
kar because he subscribed to a theory of mind that he was responding to a fast- These should not be read as patronising
representation that was an alternative to changing political situation during the pronouncements to placate Ambedkar,
the liberal democratic theory of repre- last leg of colonialism in India. There- but as admissions of the validity of his
sentation (as Rao argued in her response fore, if his views on the issue of political argument. But at the same time, Gan
to me in 1997). From a holistic reading of power are to be correctly understood, it dhi's insistence that caste Hindus must
Ambedkar from the 1920s to 1940s, it is would be more accurate to say that he change their attitude also had equal va
clear that he does not uphold the mirror critiques the liberal theory of represen- lidity. Because, even if the depressed
theory of representation. What he keeps tation. However, the modalities of repre- classes were to politically delink them
repeatedly insisting on is the share in sentation were contingent for him. selves from caste Hindu society, the
power that the oppressed classes would While his "pact" with Gandhi was surely social issue would remain unresolved
get at every stage of reform and democ- under duress, his acceptance of "reser- until the "practice" of untouchability
ratisation. Even in States and Minorities, ved constituencies" in the Constitution was removed/abandoned. It was not the
his main concern is about an institution- cannot be constructed as an outcome of untouchables but the caste Hindus who
al mechanism ensuring a real share for a conspiracy (by the Congress) or a sur- were practising untouchability. They
the depressed classes as minorities. This render (by Ambedkar). had to change themselves. Gandhi thus
tract was written at a time when political engages the caste Hindus, coaxing them,
negotiations were focused on the claims Untouchability convincing them, and occasionally (and
to being a minority. Whether, however, The larger question that arises from the unsuccessfully) blackmailing them with
Ambedkar upholds separate représenta- issue of separate electorates is not so fasts. For him, the responsibility of
tion and constitutionally ordained alio- much the method of representation as removing the evil of untouchability lay
cation of power among communities as the root cause that needed to be ad- with the beneficiaries of inequality,
essential ingredients of representation dressed. Given Ambedkar's mission to These two positions were not "oppo
is doubtful. do away with caste and untouchability, sed" to each other, they were actually
The issue of separate electorates was, it is not easy to accept that he was theo- complementary to each other. Both
of course, part of his immediate political rising representation differently. Rather, Gandhi and Ambedkar would agree
strategy (as one possible institutional he was looking for possible arrange- that the upper castes were responsible
mechanism) to mobilise and empower ments that would serve the immediate for perpetuating untouchability. Both
the depressed classes independently. So, purpose, but his focus—politically and would also agree that the practice of

Economic & Political weekly 0321 april 11, 2015 vol l no 15 47

This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PERSPECTIVES

untouchability must go. In the course of Moreover, by straining to de-empha- root of the caste system. But two things
his struggle against untouchability, sise the shastras, Gandhi endorses an- would still have to be said. With all the
Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that other important claim by Ambedkar— emphasis on anti-untouchability, aboli
it was not possible to wait till caste Hin- that Hindus are "enslaved" by their ad- tion of caste does not become a political
dus stopped practising untouchability— herence to the shastras and only free- programme for Gandhi. That everyone
it was necessary to make them stop by dorn from this can make them see the should marry out of her or his caste re
recourse to modern law. evil of caste. Instead of saying so, Gan- mains a personal insistence and moral
At the same time, Ambedkar also dhi draws attention to non-shastric egal- exhortation. As Ambedkar rather sar
knew that law alone would not serve his itarian traditions that should be the castically remarked, the marriage of
purpose. So, like Gandhi, but in a differ- source of religion. At one go, he is dele- Gandhi's son outside his caste perhaps
ent way, he too engages caste Hindus, gitimising the shastras and deflecting pushed him to a somewhat changed po
He argues that the core of Hindu reli- their power as also redefining religion, sition (Ambedkar 2011: 96). It is certain
gion is unreasonable and a full-fledged And then Gandhi almost rephrases what ly very interesting that Ambedkar, who
reform of its beliefs is required. He inter- Ambedkar says in Annihilation of Caste, was primarily concerned with the removal
ests himself in the question of why caste "If shastras support caste ... I may not of untouchability and was seen as the
Hindus support the practice of untouch- call myself or remain a Hindu" (Ambed- leader of the depressed classes, takes up,
ability, in particular, and caste, in gen- kar 2011: 85). both intellectually and politically, the
eral. He argues that the mental slavery analysis of caste and its removal as his
of the Hindus was responsible for this. Caste Question key concerns, whereas Gandhi, who clai
They must give up their blind faith in the Gandhi's opposition to untouchability med to represent the Hindus as a whole,
teachings of the shastras and other and emphasis on removing it was con- does not get into the caste question ana
"scriptures." This led him to a critique of tinuous in his scheme of things. Ambed- lytically nor attend to it politically.
Hindu shastras in the Annihilation of kar's Bahishkirt Bharat (15 March 1929) I have suggested earlier (Palshikar
Caste, and later to the rejection of the quotes Gandhi's speech in Rangoon, 1995; see also Sumant 1995) that this di
"philosophy of Hinduism." strongly warning that "either Hinduism vergence could be explained in Ambed
In the epic debate, Gandhi disagrees has to perish or untouchability has to kar's case in terms of caste being the
with Ambedkar's claim that there is go" (Moon 1990: 246). But Gandhi did basic justification for untouchability.
something wrong with the shastras. But not take a similarly uncompromising Ambedkar looks at caste as providing
it is doubtful if Gandhi was actually stand on caste in general. As has been scriptural and practical sustenance to
talking to Ambedkar. His comments on noted by many (Nagraj 1993; Rodrigues untouchability. Therefore, unless caste
(and "review" of) Annihilation of Caste 1994), he slowly shifted his position and goes, he could not imagine how un
only partly talk to Ambedkar. A careful his later-day insistence on inter-caste touchability could go. Also, in one of his
reading of it suggests that Gandhi was marriage may be seen as cutting at the speeches, Ambedkar came close to
taking off from Ambedkar's views and
talking to his audience, the Hindu read
er. That is why he deftly skips discussing
Economic&PoliticalwEEKLY
the details of the shastras and delves
into non-arguments. He mythologises
EPW 5-Year CD-ROM 2004-08 on a Single Disk
the shastras, claims that all religious The digital versions of Economic and Political Weekly for 2004, 2005,2006,2007 and 2008
precepts are always of high moral stand are now available on a single disk. The CD-ROM contains the complete text of 261 issues

ing, and goes on to say—and it is here published from 2004 to 2008 and comes equipped with a powerful search, tools to help organise

that he is talking to his Hindu audience research and utilities to make your browsing experience productive.The contents of the CD-ROM
are organised as in the print edition, with articles laid out in individual sections in each issue.
rather than to Ambedkar—that religion
means what its ideal men and women, With its easy-to-use features, the CD-ROM will be a convenient resource for social scientists,

the saints, have preached and practised researchers and executives in government and non-government organisations, social and political
activists, students, corporate and public sector executives and journalists.
(Ambedkar 2011: 82). This extraordi
nary shifting of the terrain of argument Price for 5 year CD-ROM (in INDIA)

brings Gandhi close to Ambedkar's core Individuals - Rs 1500

Institutions - Rs 2500
objection that there is something wrong
in the shastras. (But Gandhi is not ready To order the CD-ROM send a bank draft payable at Mumbai in favour of Economic and Political
to enter that debate; instead he is telling Weekly.

his Hindu audience—let us leave shas

Any queries please email: circulation@epw.in
tras and their meaning to the scholastic
Grculation Manager,
and pedantic, and follow the saints, all
Economic and Political Weekly
of whom at a philosophical level seek the
320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013, India
equality of mankind.)

48 april il, 2015 vol l no 15 BBSS Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PERSPECTIVES

saying that as the most deprived section Gandhi (or for that matter Kanshi Ram instead taking recourse to separate iden
that derived no benefit from the caste too) did not realise that hierarchy was a tity, political and legal-constitutional
system, only the untouchables could de- sine qua non of caste. Therefore, once measures. The price he has to pay for
mand and work for its abolition. Ad- hierarchy is done away with, caste will this is that thé "social endosmosis" he
dressing the Untouchable Youth Confer- lose is caste-ness. For Gandhi, once un- talks about (Rodrigues 2002: 276) is dif
ence in Pune in 1936, he said, "You have touchability went, the process of aboli- fkult to achieve with only these meas
nothing to lose except your chains" tion of caste would have begun because ures. On the other hand, Gandhi, who
(Keer 1971: 273). In this sense, Ambed- untouchability was the extreme and would be one with Ambedkar on the aim
kar saw caste as a key obstacle in the re- most abhorrent aspect of caste-based in- of achieving social endosmosis, has to
moval of untouchability. He believed equality. Caste could not exist without depend on the willingness of caste Hin
caste to be the foundation on which un- the idea of purity and pollution, and dus and, in the process, disregard the
touchability was raised, and hence the removing untouchability would strike at self-respect of the oppressed,
removal of untouchability was dependent their root. Therefore, programmatically, Ambedkar claimed that caste and un
on the removal of caste. He also expect- he kept talking almost exclusively of touchability caused a deep breach in the
ed the untouchable community to be removing untouchability. Indian social order, separating ati
more active in anti-caste struggles (as it But this programme was severely lim- Shudras from caste Hindus. He would
had the least stake in the caste system). ited by that Gandhi had to depend on question the possibility of forging a com
Gandhi does not have a theory of the the sensibilities of his Hindu following, mon political cause when the two sec
caste system. He satisfies himself by arg- This limitation is clearly brought out by tions were separated and hierarchised
uing that caste is a distortion of the Jaffrelot (2005). But Jaffrelot's interpre- by the caste factor. For him, an existing
varna system, the latter a pure form and tation seems to be that since Gandhi division on social and religious grounds
the former a degeneration. As Parekh wanted the popular energy to focus on precluded the possibility of imagining or
comments, "Gandhi so radically rede- political struggles, he could not afford to claiming unity in the political realm,
fined the four categories of traditional press for the anti-untouchability pro- Gandhi, on the other hand, preferred to
occupations underlying the ancient gramme beyond a point (2005: 71). This believe (a) in the feasibility of political
varna system that the latter no longer is true enough, but the critical issue was unity despite social inequality; and
made sense" (1999: 252). Later in life, different. For Gandhi, since a change (b) in simultaneous efforts for uniting
Gandhi pointed out that varna too did among-caste Hindus was the critical ele- society politically and socially. But Gandhi
not exist in a pure form. Therefore, in ment of the anti-untouchability pro- does not have a satisfactory response to
his preface to the 1945 edition of gramme, not conceding the sentiments the intransigence of Hindu social prej
Varnavyavastha, a forgettable tract, of the majority of traditional Hindus udice. More than the failure of Gandhi
Gandhi makes the excuse of not having would have been suicidal. Having said and Gandhi's approach, this alerts us to
time to "read it again" and goes on to say this, the central issue still remains— the complexity of the issue of fighting
how times change, and that the four Gandhi does not encompass the eco- caste—injustice can be fought with self
varnas of the Gita are now nowhere, nomic and the political dimensions of assertion and the law (engagement in
Finally, he advises the reader to discard caste (Parekh 1989; 230-71), nor does he conflict), but fraternity cannot be achi
anything in the original book that is in- explicitly connect untouchability to eved either through conflictual meas
compatible with the preface. How one caste as a system. ures or through a Gandhian avoidance
wishes that the seeker of truth had the The divergences between Ambedkar of conflict. It is here that we are remind
time to more explicitly repudiate his and Gandhi unfold a tricky dilemma be- ed of the "imbalance between love and
earlier position. fore us. There could be no two opinions justice" that Geetha (2014) talks of.
While giving the impression that the about the need for the oppressed to
vertical structure of caste was the only awaken, adopt a sense of self-respect, Some Asides
problematic dimension—hierarchy, not and combat their degradation. Yet, the Both Gandhi and Ambedkar must have
differentiation, mattered—Gandhi was practice of degradation could not cease been aware of the reality that caste
effectively refusing the sanctity of varna merely by confronting their oppressors, could not be destroyed with only One
to caste, and, at the same time, denying but by the wrongdoers recognising their weapon. They both, therefore, kept
it the force of unequal power. (One may, dignity. So, it becomes necessary to con- exploring multiple strategies and ap
with some trepidation, recall that the verse, coerce and convert the wrong- proaches to the issue of social change,
late Kanshi Ram reportedly used to doers. But the pace and content of that The Ambedkarite sojourn towards a
show a raised pen to his audiences and conversation-coercion and the nature of democratic socialist coalition was one
say that that represented the existing that conversion becomes dependent on such effort, as was Gandhi's proposal of
caste system. He would then hold the the acceptance and willingness of the trusteeship. This is relevant because
pen in a horizontal position and say that wrongdoers themselves. Ambedkar both Ambedkar and Gandhi were acute
is how he wanted to change the caste walks out of this dilemma by refusing to ly aware of the challenge of modern
system.) In any case, it is unlikely that talk further with the wrongdoer, and capitalism in creating new inequalities

Econoipic & Political weekly 13253 april 11, 2015 vol l no 15 49

This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PERSPECTIVES
and perpetrating older ones. But
Ambedkar often gets recognition only as
a "liberal," while Gandhi is seen, more
drastically, as a full-blown anti-modern
ist. This is not the place to go into details
about alternative interpretations. Else
where, I have separately tried to argue
that Ambedkar, though a liberal in his
political convictions, was more than a
radical liberal in his understanding of
the caste issue and also his expectations
from the state (Palshikar 1990, 1993),
and that Gandhi was much less of anti
modernist than he was against certain
expressions of modernity such as capi
talism (Palshikar 2000). Similar at
tempts to see Ambedkar through differ
ent prisms can be found in Teltumbde
(1997) and Baxi (1995).
While these details need not detain us
here, the point is twofold. One is the
possibility of looking at the ideas from a
different interpretative frame. The other
is the need to appreciate that their re
spective approaches and expressions
were within the contextual constraints
in which they operated. This contextual
ity had some limitations on their posi
tions, though their larger projects tend
ed to transcend these limitations. At the
given historical juncture and social con
text (for example, a Hindu audience),
Gandhi could not take radical postures.
In Ambedkar's sociopolitical predica
ment, he was forced to adopt a steadfastly
liberal and straightforward modernist
stance (as opposed to the traditional).
Gandhi, in this respect, was better
placed to take nuanced and discerning
stands on both tradition and modernity.
It is not uncommon to find Gandhi
and Ambedkar talking differently about
the Hindu religion. But both converge in
their approach to religion. As I have
mentioned in an older piece (1996), they
construct a very unorthodox conception
of a secular religion and, more than
that, reserve the right of interpretation
of religious precepts to the follower.
This extraordinary manoeuvre of situat
ing agency in the followers of religion
makes their conceptions of religion radi
cally different from the labels they use/
adopt. For both of them, religion was a
resource in the project of emancipation.
For Gandhi, the unorthodox construction
50
This content downloaded from 171.61.48.29 on Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:05:01 UTC
of Hindu religion was one resource,
while for Ambedkar, the construction of
dhamma was one such resource. As dis
cerning scholars of Ambedkar and Gan
dhi know, both refused to remain bound
by received understandings of Hindu re
ligion or Buddhism, and this interpreta
tive autonomy distinguishes their intel
lectual exercise.
This leads to the final point. Ambed
kar and Gandhi certainly thought
through different paradigms and spoke
in different frameworks. As the study of
ideas and political thinking in India de
parts from a simplistic straitjacketing
based on literal accounts, does it have to
fall into the trap of sitting in judgment
on key figures? It might be much more
rewarding if ideas and thinkers are stud
ied through interpretative lenses. Such
interpretations would of necessity be
based on three axes. First would be to
examine the core beliefs or the funda
mentals of the thinker concerned from a
philosophical perspective. Second, we
would need to relate the ideas to the
context in which they emerged and had
their life. Third would be (our) contem
porary "political" frame of reference;
that is, the intellectual energies that we
can derive from the past for compre
hending and defining ongoing struggles.
This article does not aim to engage with
these issues further, but these broader
considerations might be worth taking note
of because they will allow us to enrich the
space called "Indian political thinking."
More importantly, such exercises will al
low us to make a choice between a con
versation and a closure of ideas.
REFERENCES
Ambedkar, B R (2011): Annihilation of Caste with a
Reply to Mahatma Gandhi, 1944, Mumbai: Dr
Ambedkar Institute of Social and Economic
Change.
Baxi, Upendra (1995): "Emancipation as Justice:
Babasaheb Ambedkar's Legacy and Vision" in
Upendra Baxi and Bhikhu Parekh (ed), Crisis
and Change in Contemporary India, New Delhi,
Sage, pp 123-49.
Geetha, V (2014): "Caritas and Maithri," Seminar,
662,14-17 October.
Gerth, H H and C Wright Mills (trans and eds)
(1958): From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2005): Dr Ambedkar and Un
touchability, New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Keer, Dhanajay (1971): Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mis
sion, 3rd edition, Bombay: Popular.
Moon, Vasant, ed (1990): Bahishkrit Bharat ani
april il, 2015 vol L no 15 HBO Economic & Political weekly
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mooknayak, Bombay: Government of Mahar
ashtra.
Nagraj, DR (1993): The Flaming Feet: A Study of the
Dalit Movement in India, Bangalore: South Fo
rum Press.
Palshikar, Suhas (1990): "Ambedkar's Socialism,"
Rajyashastra Patrika, Journal of Maharashtra
Political Science Association, pp 11-23.
— (1993): "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity in
Ambedkar" in K I Vibhute (ed), Dr Ambedkar
and Empowerment, Pune: University of Pune,
PP 37-54
— (1995): "Gandhi ani Ambedkaranchi Charchav
ishve: Shatrubhavi ki Maitrabhavi?" (Were the
discourses of Gandhi and Ambedkar antago
nistic?), Marathi, Samaj Prabodhan Patrika,
130, pp 8-13.
— (1996): "Gandhi-Ambedkar Interface: ...When
Shall the Twain Meet?" Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol 31, No 31, pp 2070-72.
— (2000): "Gandhi and Modernity" in S N Datye
(ed), Rethinking Mahatma Gandhi, Delhi: Ka
linga, pp 165-76.
Pantham, Thomas (1986): "Beyond Liberal Democ
racy: Thinking with Mahatma Gandhi," in Tho
mas Pantham and Kenneth L Deutsch (ed.), Po
litical Thought in Modern India, New Delhi,
Sage, pp 325-46.
Parekh, Bhikhu (1999): Colonialism, Tradition and
Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi's Political Dis
course, 1989, New Delhi, Sage.
Rao, Anupama (1997): "A Question of Politics and
Method," Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 32,
No 43, pp 2835-36.
Rodrigues, Valerian (1994): "Between Tradition
and Modernity: The Gandhi-Ambedkar De
bate" in A K Narain and D C Ahir (eds), Dr
Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change, Delhi,
BR Publishing, pp 137-61.
— (2002): Essential Writings of B R Ambedkar,
New Delhi, Oxford University Press.
— (2011): "Justice as the Lens: Interrogating
Rawls through Sen and Ambedkar," Indian
Journal of Human Development, Vol V, No 1.
Roy, Arundhati (2014): "The Doctor and the Saint"
in S Anand (ed), Annihilation of Caste: The An
notated Critical Edition, New Delhi, Navayana,
pp 17-179
Shourie, Arun (1997): Worshipping False Gods:
Ambedkar and the Facts Which Have Been
Erased, New Delhi: ASA.
Sumant, Yashwant (1995): "Gandhi-Ambedkar Kri
tak Sangharsh Sampavinyachya Disha" (Some
clues to resolving the quasi-conflict between
Gandhi and Ambedkar), Marathi, Samaj Pra
bodhan Patrika, 130, pp 14-23.
Suhrud, Tridip (2014): "The Problem," Seminar,
662,12-13 October.
Teltumbde, Anand (1997): Ambedkar In and For the
Post-Ambedkar Dalit Movement, Pune: Sugawa.
Verma, Vidhu (2014): "Public Religions in a Postsecu
lar Era: Habermas and Gandhi on Revisioning
the Political," Telos, Summer, 167; pp 49-67.
Zeitlin, Irving M (1968): Ideology and the Develop
ment of Sociological Theory, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Economic&PoliticalwEEKLY
available at
Gyan Deep
Near Firayalal, H. B. Road
Ranchi 834 001, Jharkhand
Ph: 0651-2205640