Babasahab Ambedkar, Poona Pact and the Cultural Politics of Brahminism

Dr.P.D.Satya Pal
Professor, Department of Anthropology,
Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India.
satyapalpd@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper envisages examining the mechanizations of Brahminism in response to the

Communal Award and the spiritual-‘moral’ coercion by Gandhi as its agent over Babasahab
Ambedkar who took up the reconstruction of Indian society on the foundations of democracy. The
attempt is to discern underlying dimensions of colonial rule and attempts at the formation of two
distinct Minorities into Majority- a)the Brahmanical minority and the construction of the religio-
political community to be labelled as Hindu , forming a ‘natural’ majority vis-a-vis other permanent,
communal minorities; Gandhi’s concern for the creation of a ‘harmonious’ and single Hindu society;
b) Babasahab Ambedkar heralding a democratic revolution by pressing for the recognition of
Depressed classes as a distinct minority, there after moving ahead to fashion the oppressed majority
of the Brahmanical system as Backward class citizens of India in the Constitution. The cultural
politics of Brahminism that mythicised the condemnable acts of Gandhi as benevolent, non violent
dimensions of Mahatma and dubbing Babasahab as communal, divisive and pro- colonial shall be
analysed. The focus is on Ambedkar’s transformative agenda in framing the Constitution of India and
striving for a moral society and New Social Order. The paper also highlights the attempts to blunt
Ambedkar’s Cultural Revolution with Gandhi’s paternalistic reformism and the façade of Gandhi’s
humanism and its enchantment in the West. The paper calls for proper perception of Ambedkarism as
the bulwark of democracy and foundation for a just and humane society for our own times.

***

Babasahab Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, one of the illustrious intellectuals of the

twentieth century, waged a valiant struggle against the “diabolical contrivance to suppress
and enslave humanity” –the Brahmanical system to make the servile majority regain their
human personality through social, economic, political and cultural emancipation. He
developed a socio-ethical philosophy and steadfastly stood for human dignity and freedom,
socio-economic justice and spiritual discipline. For him it was not merely a question of
saving the Untouchables, but it was saving India as a nation through saving Untouchables.
The greatness of Ambedkar lies not just in espousing the foundations of a suffering society
and providing a way out but by carrying out the mission of emancipation himself, as
pragmatic philosopher.

Making of Babasahab:

We are here today to celebrate Dr.Ambedkar’s American Experience as an alumnus

of Columbia University which not just shaped his personality and worldview but also
provided the essentials to Babasahab for his National Reconstruction project in India. He has
availed himself of the courses offered by as many top ranking professors at Columbia as he
could including John Dewey, Edwin Seligman, James Harvey Robinson and Alexander
Goldenweiser who gave him a ‘broad and deep exposure to an expansive and pragmatic body
of knowledge’(Zelliot,1992). He came under the influence of the outstanding American
philosopher of the time, Prof.John Dewey who had forsaken the then dominant Hegelian
theory of ideas, and formulated an instrumentalist theory of knowledge, which conceived
ideas as instruments to solve social problems. Ambedkar internalized Dewey’s ideas on
society, freedom, democracy and philosophy as criticism involving reconstruction. Afro-
American liberation movements of that time influenced Ambedkar to juxtapose the
conditions of the Depressed classes. Chris Queen(1996) suggests that the beginnings of
Ambedkar’s liberation theology can be traced back to the Social Gospel Movement that
dominated Columbia University and in Morningside Heights, where Ambedkar lived. Meera
Nanda(2006) analyses the Dewey-Ambedkar- Buddha connection and explains that
Ambedkar’s Deweyan Buddha as reason and scientific method sacralised calling for the
cultural demystification of the Brahmanical dogma, paving way for a secular and humanist
civic culture.

Significance of Communal Award:

Communal Award assumes importance not just as a decisive victory for Ambedkar’s
struggle for over a decade in getting the right to be human to the Depressed Classes but also
as a dent to the power, prestige and privilege of the Brahminical minority through spiritual
fascism.

Babasaheb Ambedkar till then was focusing on the social and legal equality in Mahad
Satyagraha and on the religious equality within Hinduism in Kalaram Temple Satyagraha. It
was during the Mahad Satyagraha Dr.Ambedkar proclaims in 1927 that the ‘aim’ of the
movement was “not only removing our own disabilities, but also at bringing about a social
revolution that will remove all man-made barriers of caste by providing equal opportunities
to all to rise to the highest position and making no distinction between man and man so for as
civic rights are concerned”. It is pertinent to note here that while Dr.Ambedkar was fighting
for the basic human necessities, Gandhi was inaugurating FICCI in 1927!

The Communal Award is a marker of political equality coupled with social freedom
to the Depressed Classes over which Ambedkar placed utmost importance. Communal Award
is also significant for the fact that it is the first step towards replacing the culture of
Reservations with the culture of representations. Branding that the Brahmanical society as
based on Culture of Reservations- keeping education, reserved 100% for the Brahmanical
castes and relegating the Mulnivasi Bahujans to service, Ambedkar wanted to usher in
democratic society based on the Culture of Representations. His memoranda to the
Southborough Committee, Montague-Chemsfeld committee, Muddiman Committee, Simon
Commission and his arguments in Round Table Conferences are based on the rights of
representation as democratic rights.

The Charter of Right and Demands that Dr.Ambedkar presented before the Indian
Statutory Commission commonly known as Simon Commission had a wider ‘constitutional
significance’ for equal citizenship. Representing the Backward Classes, SD Singh Chaurasia
welcomed the Simon Commission.While all the participants at the Round Table Conferences
were busy with their Communal Representations, Dr.Ambedkar’s demanded the following
for the Depressed Classes at 1 st RTC- Equal rights, Equal citizenship with Fundamental
Rights, Protection against Social boycott and Discrimination, Adequate Representation in
Legislatures, Cabinet, Services and Education, Setting up of Central & State Service
Commission to give representation, Adult Franchise, Separate Electorates with Dual Voting.
He reasoned and demanded for the recognition of the untouchables as a separate minority
group for Social-Political and Constitutional purposes. The British government got convinced
over the argument put forth by Dr.Ambedkar and promised him to sanction the specific
rights, which he demanded.

The present attempt is to discern the underlying dimensions of colonial rule and
attempts at the formation of two distinct Minorities into Majority- a)the Brahmanical
minority and the construction of the religio-political community to be labelled as Hindu ,
forming a ‘natural’ majority and Gandhi striving for such concern; b) Babasahab Ambedkar
heralding a democratic revolution by pressing for the recognition of Depressed classes as a
distinct minority, there after moving ahead to fashion the oppressed majority of the
Brahmanical system as Backward class citizens of India in the Constitution. The Round Table
Conferences and the events that followed became the arena of contestation between
Brahminical Hindu elements and the forces of Democracy. The single most pervasive and
persistent issue of contestation was understandably, the appropriation of power, of centralized
power being released by Imperialism.

Background to Gandhi’s rejection:

Gandhi’s opposition to Communal Award as explained by him is on two counts- a) it

will affect the interests of Hindu Community as represented by Hindu Mahasabha and
‘morality’ of Hinduism b) that untouchables are part of Hindu society so cannot claim
separate representation. An analysis of the two objections is essential to understand the socio-
political situation of that time.

Here we need to look into the emergence of Hindu Community as such and how the
Brahminical minority utilized Colonial regime for the construction of the religio-political
community to be labelled as Hindu and Gandhi’s concern for the creation of a ‘harmonious’
and majoritarian Hindu society.

It is too well known that there is no mention of the word Hindu in any of the
Brahmanical literature and that the usage of that word came into existence through the
Muslim in roads into India. Dayananda Saraswati in his book, Satyardhaparkash(1875)
explains that the reference as Hindu is derogatory(also found in the meaning of the word in
Persian dictionary). During 15th century when Aurengajeb imposed jijiyah tax on the Hindus,
the Arya Brahmins, Kshtriyas and Vysyas refused to pay claiming that they were not Hindus.
Just as the Brahmanical minority assisted and got benefitted during the Muslim rule, their
adoration of the British rule also directed for the similar purpose. With the onset of British
rule, they used both Max Muller’s praise and general theory of Aryanism to claim equality
and unity between the British rulers and Arya Indians. Till 1905, B.G.Tilak was writing on
the ‘Arctic home of the Vedas’ as the homeland of Aryans. Prominent individuals like
Rajaram mohan Roy(1884) and Keshub Sen(1877) of Brahma samaj were hailing the advent
of British into India as the ‘reunion of the parted cousins’, the Aryans. Even M.K.Gandhi in
his letter addressed to the legislators of Natal, South Africa(1894) laments that the British
were not realising that the Indians (Arya Indians to Gandhi) were Eurasians “both the English
and the Indians spring from a common stock, called Indo-Aryan”.

This led to the familiar history of mutuality between the State and society here: if the
pursuit of the Imperial objective circumstanced the creation of a unified society with
Brahminical prominence and dominance, the same on the other hand, required the State
support for its survival also and hence, ensured its continued buttressing. This discovery of
the mutually beneficial partnership that ensued between what was even flaunted as the
reunification of the two long-lost brothers of the same stock (R Thapar, 2008:39), the
subsequent developments became almost predictable: “every one of the major policy of either
commission or omission of the Company Rule, consistently underwrote the twin objective.
Protection and support to, and thereby the gradual recasting of the sub-continental society in
the image and likeness as well as for the comfort and convenience of the native partner, the
Brahminical” (Aloysius,G, 2010).

However, with the takeover of the country’s administration by the British Parliament
and the Royal promise of equal treatment of all subjects of the Empire, one could easily
perceive a shift in the time-tested Imperial policy of non-interference. Especially when the
Adult franchise right was enacted in England in 1919, the ripples were felt in the colony,
India. The Brahminical minority, in order to perpetuate their dominance and to lay claim over
the country demonstrated a decisive shift by propping up an imagined society, i.e the Hindu
society.

In 1922, Hindu Mahasabha was formed for that purpose, mostly by the Brahmins. A
new and corresponding cultural imaginary and terms such as Hindu heritage, Hindu
civilisation emerged. “The sectarian, scattered and long-lost Sanskritic literatures were
unearthed, dusted and dragged to the very centre of the emergent public sphere as the
negotiating and reverential referent not merely for the Brahminical castes, or ‘the extended
Hinduism’ but for the subcontinent as a whole. The four Vedas for example, became the
origin-point of the sub-continental civilization not only in chronological but also logical
terms” (Aloysius,G, 2010). They became the source-original, meaning also authentic, for the
reconstruction of history, religion, culture and tradition here. Personalities such as
Vivekananda, Arabindo Ghosh became much relevant.

This Colonial discovery of the all-encompassing but Brahmin-Sanskrit dominated

‘Hinduism’ has been clearly pointed out as early as the first decade of the twentieth century
by Mulnivasi intellectuals like Iyothee Thassar, Periyar, which is being extensively worked
upon by recent scholarship. Romila Thapar (2004), in a remarkably clear essay has explained
that what is now non-problematically accepted as Hinduism is nothing but the consolidation
of the structure of interests,( the Brahminical) put together in the wake of modernity as the
dominant and majority culture and continues to spread, flourish and influence political
economy at all levels. Robert E Frykenbergh (2009) observes that the Indian Empire had
already become a de facto Hindu Raj under the British Crown. Swami
Dharmatheertha(1944), later Gail Omvedlt, King(2008) and Kancha Ilaiah(2009) explain
that the colonially discovered ‘Hinduism’ became resurgent and politically salient(claiming
to be Akhand Hindurashtra) and MN Srinivas (1966) comments that under the British rule
varna became popular and led to the re-vitalization and aggrandizement of the Brahmins and
Brahminical within practically all sphere of the new political economy; Washbrook (1993)
unerringly notes the simultaneity of peasantization of economy and brahminization of culture.

The new discourse of ‘Hinduism’ had started the process of coaxing the entire
population into the new straitjacket, the so-called majority religion. Those who could not for
obvious reasons be disciplined within this Hinduistic discourse were coerced to become
‘minorities’ as Muslims, Christians and others. These were considered as minorities vis-à-vis
the much too easily taken-for-granted or the ‘natural’ majority of the ‘Hindus’. The process,
by which a monolithic Hindu collectivity was being created thus, had two complimentary
dimensions: a) it was an attempt to achieve dominance over the mass of people known as
Shudra and ati-Shudra castes, i.e., the Mulnivasi Bahujans b) it was also a process of creation
of recognizable and hence acceptable communal minorities. If the former was sought to be
subordinately included, the latter was straight away excluded from the construction of the
new power-appropriating culture. In other words, the process of subordination under the
colonially valorized Brahminical through the formation of the Hinduistic discourse was two-
pronged: caste-subalternization on the one hand and communal exclusion on the other. If the
construction of the ‘majority religio-political’ community was to be legitimated in principle,
then assistance also needed to be extended to the formation of similar minority religio-
political communities. Therefore religious unities were seen and projected as better suited to
the country’s ethos than caste/class divides (Aloysius,G, 2010). The Brahmanical strategy is
both Divide and Rule (as castes) and also Unite and Rule (as Hindus) against the communal
minorities. It is the Brahminical minority that always dominates. No surprise that Ambedkar
remarks that “Indeed if the British rule has achieved anything in India, it is to strengthen and
reinvigorate Brahminism…”(BAWS, Vol X:498 ).

Now it is crucial for our purpose to explain how the more-than-a-century old
collaboration between the Brahminical minority and the British turned into confrontation.
Keeping aside the mainstream historiographies (mostly Brahmanical versions) which explain
as the rise of nationalism; a closer look brings to light the fact that in India anti-colonialism
per se does not constitute nationalism as a simple or straightforward case, but anti-colonial
stance is taken also to arrest the progress of Mulnivasi Bahujans to equality and for equal
treatment, that is citizenship, emergence of which alone constitutes genuine nationalism. Both
the dimensions sprang up from the same source- the Brahminical Minority assuming latent
dominance leading the emergent Hindu majoritarian community.

And Gandhi, is the most prominent ideologue leading this scheme in the guise of
national movement. In fact, in Gandhi we see the concern for the creation of a ‘harmonious’
and single Hindu society as the ultimate goal and an overarching obsession, determining even
his strategic manoeuvres vis-à-vis Imperialism.
Ambedkar’s retort:

On the other hand, anti-Brahmin and anti-caste democratic movements across the
country beginning with Jotiba Phuley through Iyothee Thassar and Periyar to Ambedkar to
name only the prominent few, continue to find resonance in the Colonial India seeking for the
establishment of democratic society(Hanlon,C,1985; Geeta and Rajadurai,1998). These
movements run contrary to the Brahmanical scheme and Ambedkar as the valiant crusader of
social freedom explained that the Brahaminical system denies the right to existential dignity
to the Mulnivasi Bahujans and relegates them a subhuman existence (Satyapal,2010). As a
consequence, they are denied three essential rights, viz., their right to Identity. All the
identities that are attached to the Mulnivasi Bahujans are not given by themselves, but are
called by others. The identities like Anarya, Pisacha, Sudra, Atisudra, names of individual
castes and even the surnames-all are insulting, demeaning identities and are the identities of
suppression. The Mulnivasi Bahujans are denied the right to Choice of Occupation and are
forced to take up polluting occupations as hereditary occupations. His diligent exposition of
the economics of Brahmanism as the law of enforced poverty based on the dogma of
predestination, conditioning the victims as willful vassals reveals the third dimension of
capital, i.e the Cultural Capital(Satyapal,2010).

At the Round Table Conference, Babasahab Ambedkar was heralding a democratic

revolution by pressing for the recognition of Depressed classes as a distinct minority and
secure social, economic and political rights thereby the oppressed majority of the
Brahmanical system would realise their physical and mental slavery of Brahminism and
liberate themselves. His demand for the recognition of communal minority runs counter to
the religious communal representation that secures and maintains the dominance of
Brahminical groups in the guise of Hindu majority. Ambedkar refused to see any significant
difference between the Congress which claimed to be a secular body and Hindu Mahasabha
which avowedly was sectarian. The meaning of such an observation is clear enough: that
both of these bodies were concerned despite their declarations, not with nation-making but
with the formation of a traditionally unified Hindu community in modernity (R.
Thapar,2004). Hence Ambedkar’s clear remark, “Hinduism is a form of
imperialism”(BAWS,Vol.ix:48).

Towards Epic(!) fast :

Gandhi’s sole aim at the Round Table Conference was to see that the Hindu majority
prevails by thwarting the attempts of Ambedkar and thereby the Mulnivasi Bahujans do not
get any rights and they should always depend on the mercy and magnanimity of the
Brahmanical Upper castes. Meanwhile the entire Minority groups (Christians, Muslims,
Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Sikhs) who attended the Minorities subcommittee conference
on 13 Nov 1931 have come to an understanding with each other. They made a “Minorities
Pact” and informed the British about this. The British promised them to announce
Communal Award soon to all of them. Incensed by these developments, Gandhi deployed all
the strategic weapons in the armory of Brahminism to stall Ambedkar:
 - Creating Confusion- Gandhi claimed himself as the sole leader of the vast mass of
untouchables and if there were a referendum of untouchables he would win hands down. His
intention was to confuse the British.

- Conspire-Gandhi tried to make a pact with the leaders of Muslim community to

counter the grant of separate electorates to untouchables.

- Trying to debase- Unable to satisfy the Britishers and others, that, the Hindus are
taking care of the Untouchables, Gandhi arrogated that from next Census onwards there
wouldn’t be a column for counting untouchables.

- Cooption-Gandhi even declared that Ambedkar was not the only leader of
untouchables and there are other leaders from the untouchable community like M.C.Rajah
who wanted only Joint Electorates not Separate Electorates as was demanded by Ambedkar.

-Coercion-Gandhi found that his threat had failed to have any effect on the decision of
the Britishers. With full of anger he wrote a letter to Ramsay McDonald on 18 th Aug 1932
and stated that he, as a man of religion regret the decision and declared the start his proposed
fast unto death on the noon of 20th Sept 1932.
The political issue of representations was painted by Gandhi as a ‘moral’ and
religious issue only to curtail any third party intervention so that Ambedkar remains isolated.
Maintaining that the issue is a matter of economic servitude, Ambedkar in his interview to
BBC in 1955 on Poona Pact explained the intensity of tension, double blackmail and revealed
that Gandhi as an opponent ‘exposed his real fangs to me’. Upendra Baxi(1995) suggests that
Gandhi ‘knew par excellence how to deal with liberals’and humanists like Ambedkar.

- Create Terror- Gandhi unleashed the ultimate weapon of Brahminism, naked

violence by inciting and releasing reactionary and uncontrollable forces to keep the servile
castes. The by now well-known Gandhian utterance, “The untouchable hooligans will make
common cause with Muslim hooligans and kill caste Hindus,”(M.Desai, 1953:301) makes
clear in no uncertain terms the then nationalist urgency and anxiety. Untouchable areas were
being attacked by the Hindu mobs. Under such pressure, it took only five days to arrive at a
compromise which became (in)famous as Poona Pact between the Hindu Mahasabha and the
Depressed Clases, Gandhi brokering the deal as a partisan of the Hindus.

Consequences of the Poona Pact:

Ambedkar diligently analysed the affects of the Pact and found that in the larger
dimension, his attempt to replace Brahminical hegemonic Nationalism by Positive, Liberal
Democratic Nationalism has been grounded. It was this aggression in the very name of
‘nationalism’ that Ambedkar was confronting and also challenging. The project of Social
Freedom as the panacea to the Mulnivasi Bahujans also was checked. Ambedkar reflected in
his BBC interview that Gandhi had such madness in him that ‘if two people vote together in a
common polling booth on a single day, that their hearts are going to change.”

In particular the pact resulted in:

Disfranchisement: As we cannot elect a member of our own choice under the Joint Electorate
System, Franchise for the depressed classes has lost its meaning. We have power but cannot
exercise it.

Birth of Political Stooges: Ambedkar could clearly visualise that the Depressed Classes
“would be submerged and their representatives will be slaves of the Hindus”. As such our
political representatives are being picked up or selected by the upper castes.

Non-Abolishing of Untouchability: We know Untouchability is still in vougue in different

forms in different parts of the country. Dual Voting system would have put an end to this
practice. But as this dual voting right had vanished with the Poona Pact, now it is left to the
mercy of the Upper Castes who observe it whether to practice it or not.

We have Lost our Independence: The Brahminical castes have got Independence on 15 Aug
1947 from the Britishers. But the Depressed Classes would have taken the road to their
independence on 17Aug 1932 itself.

Gandhi who had proved himself the most determined enemy of the untouchables, in
order to lure back them from the fold of Ambedkar had started an organization called
“Harijan Sevak Sangh” on 30th Sept. 1932. Its first President was GD Birla and AV Thakkar
Bapa was General Secretary. The aims and objectives of the Sangh were nothing but to
brahminise the untouchables and to boast about the deeds of the Hindus as greatest help to the
untouchables.
The Poona Pact assumes critical importance in the history of modern India and the
plight of oppressed majority. An impartial observation reveals Ambedkar’s role as the
defender of democracy and a ‘patriot of sterling worth’ and the lone crusader who defrocked
Gandhi’s saintly robes. However, the Brahminical forces and their media fashioned Gandhi
as the Champion of the Untouchables, savior of the Hindu society, a towering personality of
unity and as the father of the Nation: Ambedkar was dubbed as divisive, communal and
stooge of the British. Thus the Brahminical forces captured their ground and kept Ambedkar
at the receiving end in all moves thereafter.

Disciplaining the Minorities:

At the time of Round Table Conference, Gandhi was expressing that he has no
objection if the Depressed Classes converted to Islam or Christianity as long as they do not
press for separate representation. But Govind Ballabh Pant after Poona Pact warned that if
SCs go out of the Hindu fold, concessions that cover under Poona Pact will be cancelled and
no facility will be given to them. This is only an instance of the hegemonic nationalism that
the Brahmanism thrust upon the minorities.

Ambedkar describes the fascist facet of Brahminism while dealing with the
Minorities. “Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while
the monopolizing the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism”(BAWS,Vol. I:427).
He warns of the impending danger “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the
greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to
liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy”
(BAWS,Vol.8:352). Anticipating the scheme of the Hindus to create conditions for a
separation over religio-linguistic grounds, Ambedkar as a statesman tried to explain Muslims
that creation of Pakistan was not a solution to the problem of communalism. He asked
“Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost. But is Pakistan the true remedy against it? …
Hindu Maha Sabha and Hindu Raj are the inescapable nemesis which the Musalmans have
brought upon themselves by having a Muslim League. It is action and counter-action. One
gives rise to the other”(pp.355). He suggested that the only effective way of burying the
ghost of Hindu Raj is possible only through the democratic representation of all sections of
the country. However, it is well known history that the Muslims got carried away by the
mechanisations of the Brahmanical forces and in the gory episode of Partition that followed,
the Sikhs, the Scheduled Castes along with others were drawn to the most shameful vortex of
violence.

Ambedkar’s challenges to Brahminism:

Avowed to liberate the oppressed majority from the thraldom of Brahmanism,

Ambedkar withstood several designs to sideline him. He declared that “Our battle is for
Freedom. Our battle is not for few economic and political gains. Our battle is for the
reclamation of Human Personality which was suppressed and mutilated by the Hindu social
order.”

Declaration to leave Hinduism-engagement with Sikhism

Counteracting the Brahminical conspiracy to keep the lower castes under Hindu
slavery, Ambedkar declared leaving Hinduism. In the conference of 1936 Ambedkar gave a
pragmatic reasoning that religion must be anthropocentric and not theocentric. He
emphasised that the ideology of democratic revolution comprehends not only Social, legal &
civic equality but also religious equality. This event is significant that it helped members of
the society to realize the necessity to understand that religion no longer be inherited but be
examined rationally by everybody. It also is a deliberate attempt to debase the Brahminical
culture that employs religion as the engine of oppression. Dr. Ambedkar remarked that if the
bottom- most stone in a structure is shifted, those above it are bound to be shaken out of their
position (BAWS Vol.17(3):240). His serious engagement with Sikhism for conversion was
scuttled by the Brahmanical forces even within Sikhs.

a)Constitution- Affirmative and Transformative agenda

The Constitution of India bears the impression of Dr.Ambedkar’s thought as a key

instrument for National Reconstruction. He was the lone speaker at the Constituent
Assembly of 1946, which discussed the frame work of future Constitution to underline the
need to build up a cohesive society. “Our difficulty is how to make the heterogeneous mass
that we have today take a decision in common and march on the way which leads us to unity.
Our difficulty is not with regard to the ultimate; our difficulty is with regard to the
beginning”. In order to establish an inclusive society, Ambedkar looks at democracy, not as a
political arrangement, but as “a mode of associated living.” (Keer, 1962:480). He highlights
fraternity as the root of democracy and without fraternity other ideals of democracy like
equality and liberty cannot endure.

The Constitution of India, in order to reconstitute the society on the democratic

foundations of equality, liberty, fraternity and justice, incorporated legislations for equality
and equal opportunity in all spheres of life. Road map is laid for a democratic and inclusive
society through reservations as representations. In order to create social polarization among
the victims of the Brahmanical social system, Ambedkar engineered the category ‘Backward
classes’ which would cover three principal components, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes and the Other Backward classes. And he addressed himself to the task of securing
social justice for all the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in the country, under
the mandate of a new constitution. It is to be underlined that the Idea is to break monopoly
by proportional representations, Policy- is to Bring SC,ST, OBC on one platform in order
to Break caste system as representations are for collection of castes, not for individual castes-
as Backward classes.

The Directive Principles strive to create a Welfare State and a just social order.
Making the State responsible for social change, Article 38 contains the essence of these
principles: “The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice-social, economic and
political –shall inform all the institutions of national life”.

b)Hindu Code Bill

Ambedkar was the first to link caste with gender inequities in the Brahmanical
system. When the Brahmanical forces did not allow him to place in enough measures to pull
down the caste system in the Constitution, he laboured hard to draft Hindu Code Bill to bring
in gender equality which simultaneously breaks up the caste inequalities. When the
‘government of pundits’ did not allow Hindu Code Bill and the Commission to identify
Backward Classes, Ambedkar resigned his ministerial position.

c) Conversion

Ambedkar identified the functioning of moral order, observance of Constitutional

morality as the conditions for the successful working of democracy. “Society must have
either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together without either, society
is sure to go to pieces”. Ambedkar found the means to develop essential social and moral
conscience of the society for establishing democratic society in Buddhism. He holds that the
essence of Buddhism consists not in the removal of suffering- which is only negative and
incidental, but in the attainment of perfection, which is positive and fundamental – i.e.
establishing a democratic society. He declared his mission to make India as Prabuddha
Bharat, an Enlightened India. He exhorts that Morality is not passive; it is pro active. To
defend democracy, in its true sense, becomes the moral duty of every Buddhist.

Continuing contradictions and the Tyranny of Twin Enemies:

 It is unfortunate that even after six decades of Constitutional policy, democratic ideals
are yet to find firm ground among the citizens of India. Owing to illiteracy, poverty and
powerlessness they are not in a position to make democracy work. The Fundamental rights
provided to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in Article 15 and 16 of the
Constitution, who constitute the majority i.e., Mulnivasi Bahujans of the country, are being
denied to a large extent in the pretext of dubious argument of merit(Fundamental Rights to
Enabling Provisions). This equal opportunity legislation quite often drives the society to take
emotional polemic positions. The underlying problem is that method has been confused with
the policy. Providing representations or fair access or equal opportunity being the policy, the
quota mechanism is a method to secure fairness. (Thorat, 2008). In addition, Ambedkar’s
practical policy of bringing unity among the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes on
the basis of their common victimhood (Scheduled Castes due to untouchability, Scheduled
Tribes on the basis of isolation and Other Backward Castes who are socially and
educationally deprived) as the platform of unity has been ignored, even by the victims of
caste system themselves. It is because they still continue to be influenced by the ideology of
exclusion, Brahminism which shapes their lives.

After opening up of public superintendence over the national resources in the name of
Liberalization, Privitization and Globalization, conditions turned too favourable for the
entrenched castes to transform Cultural Capital into financial capital and Brahmin control
over economy. Vast tracts of land are being handed over to private individuals, unbridled
opportunities to establish profit-oriented enterprises, licensing educational mafia aided by the
misinterpretations of the Statues; unchecked religious fundamentalism-all together resulted in
the strengthening of Brahamnism and Capitalism which were declared by Ambedkar as the
twin enemies to the society as a whole. In the pretext of development, the reins of economy
are given to the individuals who have been already in possession of all kinds of capital,
including Cultural Capital. But Ambedkar warned “It is not enough to keep development as
the goal for India…it (development) should be at the socially desirable level”. Globalization,
based on the philosophy of libertarianism has produced inequalities not only in income and
wealth but also inequalities in education and knowledge, leading to inequalities in human
capital and technologies.

Ambedkar forewarned such a situation; “Now everybody in India knows that

whatever may be its title it is beyond question that the Congress is a body of middle class
Hindus supported by the Hindu Capitalists whose object is not to make Indians free but to be
independent of British control and to occupy places of power now occupied by the British. If
the kind of Freedom which the Congress wants was achieved there is no doubt that the
Hindus would do to the Untouchables exactly what they have been doing in the past”
(BAWS, Vol.ix:212).

He declared that the crucial problem is that a Conscious and determined minority
creating conditions, in their favour, over an amorphous and ignorant majority. This
continues unabated even in the Post Globalization period also unless we heed to the warnings
of Babasahab.
The West and its romance with Gandhism:

The communities of knowledge and communities of power in India are united in their
marginalization of Babasaheb and promoted condemnable Gandhi as the prophet of non-
violence and peace (Baxi,U,1995). Even at the time of Communal Award, the Western media
on the one hand being unaware of the intricacies of the Brahmanical system and influenced
by the Brahmanical propaganda on the other has been fascinated by the Gandhian drama.
Being fully aware of this, Ambedkar as and when possible tried to place the facts. He wrote
articles such as “What Congress and Gandhi has done to the Untouchables” only to
“illuminate the situation in a manner so simple that even foreigners who do not know the
mysteries of the Hindu social system may understand what tyranny the Hindus can practice
upon the Untouchables”.

Retorting to deliberate branding of his representative method as Communal Scheme

and the discriminative scheme of the Hindus of the Congress as a National Scheme, he
explains that it is a case of damning what you do not like by the easy method of giving it a
bad and a repelling name. Ambedkar cautions and warns “the American friends of the Hindus
not to be content with the ‘glittering generalities’ contained in Congress declaration of
Minority Rights. To declare the rights of the minority is one thing and to have them
implemented is another”. Recent attempts to “reconcile Gandhi with Ambedkar” is one such
move to blunt Ambedkar’s Cultural Revolution with Gandhi’s paternalistic reformism and
the façade of Gandhi’s humanism to maintain its enchantment in the West.

Ambedkar wanted us to be attentive to such designs. He exhorted that “It has become
very necessary to secure a position of perfect equality and sovereignty. Unless we secure
such a position, we will be pushed back to our former position of servility. We must
therefore, make our voice heard not only in India but also in the U.S.A, China and United
Kingdom. We must close our ranks, and perfect our organisation. This is a task, much bigger
than that of securing jobs for our community”.

Our Responsibility

Great responsibility that Dr.Ambdedkar kept on us is to elevate members of castes

into equal and responsible citizens who not only realize the necessity to save Democracy but
make democracy work. He stated “there lies on us a very heavy duty to see that democracy
does not vanish from the earth as a governing principle of human relationship…If democracy
dies, it will be your doom” (BAWS Vol.17.3pp.260).

He held the view that ills were not due to machinery and modern civilization; they
were due to wrong social organization which had made private property and pursuit of
personal gain matters of absolute sanctity. Unless we rearrange the society on democratic
lines, we cannot expect any change. “If you want to pull down this system, you must put this
system under constant fire” (BAWS Vol.5pp.396).

Responsibility lies more on the educated sections, as beneficiaries of the democratic

movement of Dr.Ambedkar. However, it is our painful experience that education and vested
interest results in indifference which is causing misery to the masses. Therefore, it requires a
Nationwide Movement to create a feeling of sense of social obligation among the victim
castes of the Brahminical social order. Infact, this is what Ambedkar meant ‘taking the
Caravan ahead’. Therefore,we need to create a feeling of brotherhood among the victims of
the Brahmanical System; To create and strengthen a vibrant, vigilant Civil society.

Hence, it is the responsibility of the civil society especially the educated sections to
create social and moral consciousness and build a humane society. In an important way,
Dr.Ambedkar thus gave expression to an inner need in India for a just social condition; on
such basis alone can National well-being be secured. Though mindful of the great obstacles
to the establishment of democratic arrangement in Indian society, Ambedkar was optimistic
about a cohesive society. His optimism rests solely on our conviction and action to check
Brahminism. He announced that the people of India “Expect to happen in a sovereign and
free India is a complete destruction of Brahminism as a philosophy of life and as a social
order”. He exhorted the nation to preserve independence by establishing equality and
fraternity in all spheres of life. World requires to be reconstructed for the public good,
common good and universal good of humankind. Ambedkarism shows the way-out. It has a
vision to build up a ‘New World Order’.

References:

Aloysius, G, 1997, Nationalism without a Nation in India, Delhi, Oxford university Press.

Aloysius, G ,2010, The Brahminical Inscribed in Body-politic, Critical Quest, New Delhi.

Ambedkar, B.R 1979, Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches(BAWS), Vols: I,5,7,
8,9.10, 17, Bombay, Govt. of Maharastra,.

Beteille, Andre, 1974, Studies in Agrarian Social Structure, Delhi, Oxford University Press.

Dharmatheertha, Swami, 2004, No Freedom with Caste: The Menace of Hindu Imperialism,
Delhi, Media House.

Dube, SC, 1965, Cultural Problems in the Economic Development of India, in RN Bellah
(edited) Religion and Progress in Modern Asia, New York, The Free Press.

Dumont, Louis, 1998, Homo Hierarchicus The Caste System and its Implications, Delhi,
Oxford University Press.

Frykenberg, RE, 2009, Constructions of Hinduism at the nexus of History and Religion, New
Delhi, Critical Quest.

Fuller, Chris, 1973, British India or Traditional India? An Anthropological Problem, Ethnos.

Kothari, Rajni, 1993, Poverty: Human Consciousness and the Amnesia of Development,
London, Zed Books.
Nanda, Meera, 2006, A Prophet Facing Forward, New Delhi, Critical Quest.

Moddie, AD, 1968, The Brahmanical Culture and Modernity, Mumbai, Asia Publishing
House.

Parekh, Bhikku, 1995, Ethnocentricity of Nationalist Discourse, Nations and Nationalism,

Vol I, Part1, pp25-52.

Queen, Christopher, 1996, Dr. Ambedkar and the Hermeneutics of Buddhist Liberation, in
Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, edited by C.Queen and
S.B.King, Albany, State University of New York Press, pp 45-72.

Sandanshiv, D.N., 1986, Reservations for Social Justice, A socio-constitutional approach,

Current Law Publishers, Bombay.

Satyapal,P.D, 2011, The Ideology of Exclusion and Cultural Politics in Indian Society,
Vol.V.No.3 July, The IUP Journal of History and Culture, The ICFAI University Press.

Satyapal,P.D, 2012, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar’s Exhumation of Cultural Capital and its Dynamics

in Indian Society in The Eastern Anthropologist, Vol.65:1

Srinivas, MN, 1966, Social Change in Modern India, Hyderabad, Orient Longman.

Thapar, R, 2004, Imagined Religious Communities, New Delhi, Critical Quest.

Thorat, S 2008, On Economic Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in Reservation- The Die is
Caste, The Little Magazine, Vol-VI, Issues 4 & 5, www.littlemag.com

Veeramani, K & PR Kuppuswamy, 1989, According to Law We are Still Shudras – A Socio-
Legal Study, Chennai, Emerald Publishers.

Washbrook, David, 1993, Land and Labour in Late 18 th Century: The Golden Age of the
Paraiah, in Peter Robb edited Dalit Movements and Meanings of Labour in India, Delhi,
Oxford University Press.

Zelliot, Eleanor, 1992, From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkarite Movement,
New Delhi, Manohar.