Dr.

Asha Singh

Assistant Professor
Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta (CSSSC)
An ICSSR Institute under MHRD, Govt. of India)
R - 1, Baishnabhghata Patuli Township, Kolkata, India
Email: communication.asha@gmail.com

Introduction

ion was always a keyword, an indicator which

he applied on issues of political representation and regional imbalance. Thus, beyond the inherent value of
education, Babasaheb was keenly aware of its emergent meanings in a socially differentiated society. In his
writings, one finds Ambedkar engage with the question of education as an educationist, policy maker,
institution builder and above all a political philosopher who is acutely sensitive to our social realities. He
generously borrows universal themes on education from philosophers of his times. However, in doing so, he
always qualifies them in our contexts. This qualification often translated into specific policy proposals on
questions of primary and university education.

The second volume of Babasaheb A

interventions by Ambedkar on the idea of education, especially in the context of erstwhile Bombay. The
volume is a collection of s starting
from his nominated entry into the Bombay Legislature in 1927 where he continued as a nominated (up to
1936) and later an elected member till the prorogation of the Assembly with the commencement of the
Second World War. During this time, Ambedkar was actively involved in labour movements (industrial
disputes, women workers, maternity benefits etc.), struggles for land reforms (against Khoti system and
Mahar Watan), questions of primary and secondary education, linguistic state etc. He served as a member of
the committee assigned to engage with the Simon Commission. He was also part of a State Committee
which looked into the socio-economic and educational conditions of depressed classes in the late 1920s.
This period also witnessed Ambedkar leading the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 followed by the Kalaram
Satyagraha in Nashik. He also formed the Indian Labor Party in the 1930s. He spearheaded Bahiskrit
Bharat, a Marathi fortnightly bulletin, and consistently produced reports on matters of socio-economic and
political significance in Marathi. 1 One also finds him actively participating in the Round Table Conferences
(in 1930) and winning the case for separate electorates for untouchables. Nevertheless, this victory was a
still-birth owing to the Poona Pact of 1932. This period represents a full

1982, pp. xi-xiv

as it witnessed his unsuccessful attempts to reform a hostile social order followed by his emancipatory

Having said that, this paper would primarily focus on his written response to the Bombay University
Reforms Committee of 1924 (among other documents), to underline his defining views on higher education,
pedagogy and research. Such an exercise would also highlight the continuing significance of his vision in a
changed context.

Education and Representation

powerful, let it be the colonial administration or the native elite. These exchanges were not aimed at
emotionally transforming their hearts but were well-researched political exercises that challenged and
redefined modern values which the former often claimed as their own. As you go through his voluminous
writings, you would realize that Ambedkar was a researcher par excellence. He considered systematic
enquiry as a part and parcel of any socio-political programme. Every time he addressed an audience or
agency, he provided them an informed view; where he defined his questions and sought answers to them
methodically. In this paper as I wo

the Simon Commission in 1927.2As we know, the Simon Commission was appointed by the British to
recommend constitutional reforms in Colonial India. Ambedkar, in his statement on behalf of Bahishkrut
Hitakarini Sabha3 made pointed recommendations for the education of the depressed classes (sections of
present-day OBCs, SCs and STs).4 He wanted the British to recognize depressed classes as a minority on
par with Muslims and not simply an addendum to the Hindu population. However, in order to arrive at these
recommendations, he begins the statement with a question- What has been the history and status of
education among depressed classes in Bombay Presidency? He answers this question by preparing a
chronologically arranged, periodized timeline of British education policy in Bombay Presidency. 5 Based on
official documents, he observes that initially the British were not keen on introducing education among the
natives. But with time (starting from 1813), they changed their policy and provided modern education
largely to the learned native or the higher classes. Babasaheb quotes from the Report of the Board of
Education of the Bombay Presidency, 1850-1851 to underline how the British thought it would be
appropriate to educate only the learned native (in their words the 'most intelligent of natives') as they have

2
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.2, Government of Maharashtra, 1982, pp. 407-428
3
Bahishkrut Hitakarini Sabha was established by Ambedkar on 20th July 1924 with a stated objective of
educational and socio economic uplift of the Depressed Classes. For details see- Keer Dhananjay, Dr.
Ambedkar life and mission, Popular Publications, Mumbai, 1990, p. 54.
4
Depressed Classes included Aboriginal and Hill Tribes and Low-caste Hindus.
5
Ambedkar periodized modern education in the following broad categories 1813-1854; 1854-1882; 1882-
1928; 1923 onwards. 1813 marks the beginning of modern education for the learned native; 1854 marks the
beginning of mass education; 1882 is the year when the Indian Education Commission or Hunter
Commission tabled its report and recommendation on the status of mass education and 1923 marks the
transfer of mass education from legislature to local bodies in Bombay. See, Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings
and Speeches Vol.2, Government of Maharashtra, 1982, pp. 407-428
greater influence over the more numerous classes.6 It was argued that educating the elite would lead to a
'logical' trickle down of education to the masses.

Based on the same report, Ambedkar argues that the British officials have identified four classes of
learned natives in India. They include - one, landowners, representatives of former feudatories; two, wealthy
business/mercantile classes; three, higher government employees; four, Brahmins and other higher castes of
writers such as Prabhus and Shenvis of Bombay, Kayasthas of Bengal etc. Of the four classes, the
government was the most hopeful about the latter as they were the 'easiest to work with' and had the greatest
influence on the largest sections. Brahmin and the Brahmannis proxmi(classes in proximity to Brahmins)
were identified as the best collaborators to diffuse the seeds of education. 7 This class continues to dominate
university education in India.

Commenting on the exclusive nature of the British Education Policy in the early 19th century,
Ambedkar argues that the British was playing into the hands of the Hindu elite and thus working against the
British feared that providing education to the lowest castes
would mean creating a class of educated men who are hated and despised by all. Certain British officials
also claimed that providing education to the masses would create unnecessary expectations and excitements
among them. 8 Formation of a disgruntled class of educated men among the masses would threaten the
government. This policy of elite education changed after the Despatch (of the Court of Directors) in 1854. 9
The Despatch is perceived as the foundation of mass education in the country. In 1882, the Hunter
Commission or the Indian Education Commission was appointed to take stock of the British education
policy. Drawing from the investigations of the Commission, Babasaheb observes that even after three
decades of mass education, the 'masses were as outside the pale of education as they were before the year
1854' and the lowest and aboriginal classes were absent in High Schools and Colleges of the Presidency. 10

Ambedkar points out that the first government school for untouchables in Bombay Presidency began
only in 1855. Entry into common schools was impossible even after the Charles Wood Despatch of 1854.
He explains this situation with an example recorded in the Report of the Director of Public Instruction for
the Bombay Presidency for the year 1856-57, two years after the Despatch- A Mahar boy who was denied
admission in Dharwad Government School in 1856, appealed to the concerned authorities. 11 However, the
government was of the opinion that they cannot run the risk of making the 'institution practically useless for
the great mass of natives' by admitting an individual of the lowest class. Thus, the educational rights of the
untouchables were perceived as diametrically opposite to the interest of the majority.

In short, before making concrete recommendations, Ambedkar used archives such as government
documents, census records, newspaper reports etc. to make a historical case for the educational demands of
the depressed/backward classes. In doing so, he arranges facts in a way that answers his question. One
should remember that facts do not self-select or speak for themselves. One has to consciously select and
arrange them in a way that tells a coherent, logical story. 12 Furthermore, he exposes the limits of the

6
Ibid: pp. 410-415
7
Ibid: p.413
8
Ibid: p.417
9
Despatch No. 49 of 19th July 1854 the Court of Directors
10
Ibid: p.417
11
Ibid: p.418
12
The Vital past: writings on the uses of history 1935, pp. 20-
36.
Ambedkar makes the following point in his evidence to the Southborough Committee in the 1918. He
writes13 -

The growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessarily lead to liberalism. It may
lead to the justification and conservation of class interest; and instead of creating the liberators of the
downtrodden, it may create champions of the past and the supporters of the status
effect of education so far? That it will take a new course in future [ceteris paribus], there is no
ground to believe. Therefore, instead of leaving the untouchables to the mercy of the higher castes,
the wiser policy would be to give power to the untouchables themselves who are anxious, not like
others, to usurp power but only to assert their natural place in society

Thus, education for Ambedkar was not simply confined to school or college buildings. He links it
closely to power and self-determination. One also learns that Ambedkar was acutely aware of the

esentation of different classes in

the portals of modern education, especially higher education. A significant aspect of the statement is how
Ambedkar conceptualizes representation in relation to the real population of a given class. For example,
with the help of tables, he proves how Brahmins and allied castes are represented over and above their
population in the presidency. On the other hand, backward classes, though high in population, find
themselves in the bottom of the educational pyramid. 14 It should also be noted that Ambedkar divides the
Hindu population into three classes - advanced/intermediate/backward to make a case for the minority status
at
this division is in no way ad hoc or unexplained. Ambedkar arrives at it through numbers and historical facts
produced by the colonial state. Thus, he uses a variety of research strategies to highlight his questions and
objectives, never once speaking without evidence or shifting from his political programme.

University Reforms Committee in the year 1926.15 What was this committee about? The editorial note
reads16 -

The Bombay Government had appointed a Committee to look into the problem of reform of the
Bombay University. This Committee consisted of 13 members with Sir Chimanlal H. Setalvad, Kt.
as its Chairman. Dr. Ambedkar was not a member of this committee but he was one of the 321
persons to whom the committee sent its questionnaire of 54 questions. Dr. Ambedkar replied only
some of the questions which he considered worth replying.

The questionnaire of the Committee had listed questions which enquired about the definition and
function of a university, its relationship to communities and the public in general, relationship between
teaching and research, functions of different decision-making bodies so on and so forth. For my purpose, I

13
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.I, Government of Maharashtra, 1982, pp. 268
14
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.2, Government of Maharashtra, 1982, pp.420-421
15
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol.2, Government of Maharashtra, 1982, pp. 292-313
16
Ibid:p.292
also in his deliberations on the issue in the Bombay Legislative Council. To begin with, what according to
Babasaheb was the function of the university? He writes17-

University Education should be scientific, detached and impartial in character; that it aims not so
much at filling the mind of the student with fact or theories as at calling forth his own individuality,
and stimulating him to mental effort; that it accustoms him to the critical study of the leading
authorities, with perhaps, occasional reference to first hand sources of information, and that it
implants in his mind a standard of thoroughness, and gives him a sense of the difficulty as well as the
value of reaching at truth. The student so trained should learn to distinguish between what may fairly
be called matter of fact and what is certainly mere matter of opinion. He should be accustomed to
distinguish issues, and to look at separate questions each on its own merits and without an eye to
their bearing on some cherished theory. He should learn to state fairly, and even sympathetically, the
position of those to whose practical conclusions he is most stoutly opposed. He should become able
to examine a suggested idea, and see what comes of it, before accepting it or rejecting it. Without
necessarily becoming an original student he should gain an insight into the conditions under which
original research is carried on. He should be able to weigh evidence, to follow and criticize
argument and put his own value on authorities.[Italics mine]

This description on university education needs pertinent attention. The ability to differentiate
opinions from matters of fact; judgments from investigated conclusions; issues from cherish theories is
crucial for Ambedkar. He argues for a research-driven education where the aim may not always include
becoming an original student - but to surely become a student who understands the conditions under which
research is carried on. It is only when we become sensitive to these conditions of knowledge production that
we begin to appreciate the difficulty and value in arriving at truth. He argues against unconditional
reverence for authorit

necessarily agree with. For him, university education should cultivate the individuality of a student. This
focus on individuality is crucial in a caste society, where denigrated community identities overpower our
-caste agenda for
university education. This description is extremely relevant for our contexts. Our university systems
continue to promote rote-learning and endless examinations. It hardly promotes any sense of research or
investigation. As children or even as college students, we are always told to worship textbooks and never
question its claims. As a result, the ability to form an informed opinion on its content was beyond the scope
of schooling at all levels. Similarly, like in any other unequal society, education in India becomes an
addendum to communal status and power, hardly ever showing us a way beyond permanent identities.

cannot succeed in promoting research or in promoting higher education, if it makes the examination system
the be-
and post-graduate universities has led to a 'certain degree of rivalry and enmity'. This distinction, which has
degenerated into a hierarchy, had a retrograde effect on research and promotion of knowledge. 18

Babasaheb keenly observed the status of under-graduate colleges in Bombay both as a teacher and as
a policy maker. He realized that undergraduate students are hardly adept in pursuing research. He suggested
-

17
Ibid: p.296-297
18
Ibid: p.46
disciplines organize their sessions in a way that would benefit all the students of the discipline irrespective
of college.19 Let us take a moment to analyze this suggestion, one he imagined greater communication and
conversations among teachers of a common discipline, greater amalgamation of students from various social
backgrounds who are united by a discipline, dilution of exclusivity and creation of common pedagogical
practices and greater diversity of content. This is a radical proposal, academically, pedagogically and
politically. To believe that there can be an academic semblance across social classes involved in the study of

hese
faculties, he proposed, should have the final say on the academic issues of a university. A university would
become a teaching university only when teachers have a strong say in its functioning. In the words of
20
Universities should be established in
close coordination with colleges and they should work in synthesis as equal partners who promote
undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. He was against the separation of colleges and universities.
Ambedkar believed that teachers who are part of the university should engage in undergraduate teaching, for
knowledge is produced through conversations of students and teachers. In other words, he felt that the
researcher should not be a 'solitary worker', but a teacher constantly dedicated to the project of
dissemination. In fact, he did not separate knowledge production from its dissemination. 21

Backward Classes as Decision-Makers

Furthermore, Ambedkar strongly advocated for the presence of backward communities in the Senate
of a University, where legislative decisions are taken. Not surprisingly, he faced severe hostility for his
suggestion in the Bombay Legislative Council, especially from its upper-caste members. Ambedkar
contended against this hostility by arguing that the skewed communal composition of university bodies can
be acted against only by providing a counter-check through representation of backward classes and
minorities. He argued in the Bombay Legislative Council 22-

One of the fundamental functions of the University as I understand it, is to provide facilities for
bringing the highest education to the doors of the needy and the poor. [...]'if it is the duty of a modern
university to provide facilities for the highest education to the backward communities, I think it will
be accepted as a corollary that the backward communities should have some control in the University
affairs.

Ambedkar always combined issues of representation, citizenship and knowledge production. He argued that
23
Thus, leaving
important decisions to their volition would be the undoing of backward classes. He perceived education as
the greatest, achievable material benefit for the marginalized. He argued that for the backward classes their
existence is not safe without education - and thus emphasizing the need to control the university as an
inevitable corollary. 24

19
Ibid: p.303
20
Ibid: p.306
21
Ibid: p.299
22
Ibid: p.61
23
Ibid: pp.61-62
24
Ibid: p.62