Dr Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandi, different approaches to the Dalit question.

By Gregory Williams

From 1920 onwards emancipation for the dalit castes became a central political

issue in colonial India. Leaders Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi led

different campaigns to fight caste inequalities. Despite sharing the aim of ending the

oppressive treatment of the dalits and other untouchables, Gandhi and Ambedkar had

different approaches toward and sought different outcomes from their respective

campaigns. This report seeks to identify the shifting areas of convergence and dispute

in the methodology and desired outcomes of these important exponents of caste

politics.

Throughout his political career, Gandhi asserted the ritual degradation of the

untouchables to be a perversion of Hinduism and his agenda for reform surpassed that

of many of his Congress contemporaries. In1920 he led Congress towards passing a

Non-cooperation resolution in which it was mentioned that abolition of untouchability

castes was a pre-requisite of achieving swaraj.1 The addition of this clause was

intended to incorporate reform of the caste system within the struggle for

independence and is indicative of Gandhi's method of attempting to unite a diverse

Indian society behind national emancipation. During the movement he sought to

change opinion, calling on Hindus to “remove the sin of untouchability”2 and actively

rallied the lower caste masses to participate in national politics through civil

disobedience. Early in his campaign Gandhi sought to appease the fears of the caste

Hindus by maintaining support in the four tiered varnashram system. Gandhi stressed

the divine nature a gradient structure by referring to those of lower caste origin as

1 S. Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India.(New Delhi, 2007),

in 1924 debated with orthodox Sanatanist Hindus that just moral conduct was more in

keeping with Hindi values than the Brahmanic scriptures which reinforced

untouchablity.3 At the same time, by glorifying the role of the “sweeper” in society, (a

reference to the menial nature of the employment available to the “Harijan” and

Sudra) Gandhi reinforced the socio-economic basis of the caste system by highlighting

the worthy contribution and virtue of the lower castes. For this reason it has been

claimed Gandhi failed to address the “economic and political roots”4 of untouchablity

although his proposed religious reforms clearly have political implications. Rather than

attacking the entire ideological basis of the caste system, Gandhi sought to gradually

improve conditions of the lower castes through persuading the caste Hindi toward a

less severe interpretation of tradition. In this way he breached the gulf between the

conservatives and radicals whose policies emphasised the communal divisions which

fractured national unity. The policy of “divide and rule”5 employed by contemporary

colonialists ran contrary to Gandhi's ambitions. The British preached “protective

discrimination,” donning a sympathetic face when liaising with dalits whereas in fact

they practiced negative discrimination in their patronage of Brahmans within the

colonial institutions. Gandhi sought to minimise the threat communalism posed to the

national independence movement and in the 1930s, as caste issues gained political

prominence, Gandhi's differences with Ambedkar sharpened. After a campaign headed

by Ambedkar colonialists granted the 1932 Communal award which secured the

separate election of lower castes in representative bodies, seen by Gandhi as a

“sinister British plot to divide the Hindus”6. Gandhi began a fast to revoke the award

and pressured Ambedkar to compromise. In doing so Gandhi worked with Ambedkar

on the Poona Pact which allowed a reserved proportion of seats to be set aside for

3 Ibid., p.128.
4 B. Parekh cited in S. Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern
India.(New Delhi, 2007),p.354.
5 B.Chandra et. al. India's Struggle For Independence. (New Delhi, 1989) p.290.
6 S. Bose & A. Jalal. Modern South Asia. (Delhi,1998) p.151.
dalit representation. The compromise is indicative of Gandhi's attempts to absorb

marginal groups within mainstream politics instead of allowing a parallel route which

he believed would cause further disassociation from the common cause. Gandhi

opposed militant agitation and virulently opposed the burning of the Manumrti, the

1929 satyagraha in Pune over temple admission and the trade union strikes

throughout this period which Ambedkar led. It could be asserted that Gandhi was at

times, hypocritical in his personal approach to Ambedkar, especially when it is

considered that he tried to undermine Ambedkar's legitimacy by claiming the

questionable nature of his dalit origin despite his own Brahmanical background. He

went on to claim;

“I say it is not a proper claim which is registered by Dr Ambedkar when he seeks

to speak for the whole of the Untouchables of India...I myself in my own person claim

to represent the vast mass of the untouchables.”7

During the mid 1930s, in reaction to the popularity of Ambedkar, Gandhi

modified his rhetoric on caste to better place himself as the leader of the “depressed

classes” now modifying his assessment of the status of varnashram to;

“The present caste system is the very antithesis of varnashram. The sooner

public opinion abolishes it, the better.”8

Gandhi also moved to resolve the hostilities expressed by the Harijan

communities toward him by admitting;

“They have every right to distrust me... Do I not belong to the Hindu section

miscalled superior class or caste Hindu, who have ground down to powder the so

called untouchables?”9

Gandhi spent the two years following the Poonah Pact dedicating himself the the

Harijan cause, touring the country to raise public support and emphasising the

7 M. Gandhi quoted in D. Hardiman, Gandhi in his time and ours. (London, 2003)p. 131.
8 M. Gandhi. Ibid. p. 127.
9 M. Gandhi quoted in B. Chandra et. al.India's Struggle For Independence. (New Delhi, 1989)
p. 293.
importance of the struggle to congress through fast10. The gap between Gandhian and

Ambedkars ideas lessened through the latter years of the national independence

struggle. As a result, D.R. Naraj theorised11 that opposition in the 1930s caused both

leaders to modify their approach, compromising with the other and moving toward

synthesis. An example of this is in the 1940s when Gandhi decreased his emphasis on

the civil “Harijan campaign” towards calling for state intervention through legislation

against the practice of untouchablity highlighting the methodological shift from

religious to politcal reform.12 Furthermore, in the 1940s he was more outspoken in

support for reserved seats for dalits, a measure he had been less enthusiastic about

when accepting the 1932 Poona Pact.

Ambedkars approach to caste can be described as extension of Gandhis,

especially in that he always interpreted the struggle as civil rather than religious13.

Ambedkars primary difference with Gandhi is that the dalit cause was his sole political

mission. He was therefore less concerned with the communal antagonism his methods

might produce and was unafraid to take a confrontational approach to achieve

explicitly anti-caste14 and radical aims compared with the gradual reform offered by

Gandhi. Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar assumed a intrinsic link between caste system and

untouchability;

“The outcaste is a by-product of the caste system. There will be outcastes as

. Ambedkar employed various strategies and in a speech at Barli Takli in 1924

Ambedkar discussed religious conversion, redefinition of untouchability and civil

10 B.Chandra et. al. India's Struggle For Independence. (New Delhi, 1989) p. 292.
11 D.R.Naraj cited in D. Hardiman, Gandhi in his time and ours. (London, 2003) p. 134.
12 Ibid. p. 134.
13 Ibid p.129.
14 G. Omvedt, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution. (New Dehli, 1994) p.163.
15 B. Ambedkar quoted in B. Chandra et. al.India's Struggle For Independence. (New Delhi,
1989) p. 294.
disobedience.16 In 1927 he launched a confrontational satyagraha, publicly burning

the Manusmrti, a revered text which upheld Brahman birth rites. He also encouraged

crowds to drink from wells reserved for Brahmans, to spite the notion that

untouchables were inherently polluting. Such militancy was denounced by Gandhi and

many Congress leaders. However, there are parallels with this method and the salt

satyagraha which Gandhi led in 1930 in defiance of Colonially imposed salt laws. Both

sought to use provocative actions to highlight the perceived injustices against their

social groups. Ambedkar did not share Gandhis scruples about cooperating with the

British, as for him the goal of achieving caste emancipation was greater than the

means of liberation. This is demonstrated in his willing collusion with colonialists and

Musilims in initiating the Communal Award in 1932. In 1936 Ambedkar formed the

Independent Labour Party in an inclusive move to “advance the welfare of the

poor results reflected their reform agenda did not match the aspirations of the

masses.18 However, during the 1940s dalit assertion was increasingly incorporated

within the mass nationalism led by Congress. In 1947 Ambedkars All India Scheduled

Caste Federation won just 2 of the 15119 seats reserved for dalits. Losses were

predominantly ceded to the Congress candidates whose results were buoyed in the

aftermath of the “Quit India” campaign. Ambedkar accepted appointment of chairman

of the constitution draft commission from Congress, symbolising a pragmatic move

from direct action into mainstream politics and collaboration with Congress.20 In this

participatory role in creating the constitution,Ambedkar instituted law to make

untouchalility illegal. He became a law minister within the Nehru cabinet although his

reformist agenda jarred with party consensus and he resigned from office in 1951.

16 C. Jaffrelot. Ambedkar and Untouchablity: Analysing and Fighting Caste. (London, 2005)p.52.
17 B. Ambedkar quoted in S. Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern
India.(New Delhi, 2007), p.356.
18 B. Ambedkar What Congress and Gandhi Have done to the Untouchables. (Bombay, 1946)
19 S. Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India.(New Delhi, 2007),
p.357
20 Ibid. p.357
Ambedkar was clearly willing to work alongside any groups which he felt could aid the

rapid emancipation of the lower castes. His confrontations and involvement with

Congress are regarded to have altered the course of Indian politics.

Bibliography

Ambedkar, B.R. What Congress and Gandhi Have done to the Untouchables. Bombay:
Thacker, 1946

Chandra B., Mukherjee M., Mukherjee A., Panikkar K.N., Mahajan S., India's Struggle
For Independence: 1857-1947. New Dehli:Penguin, 1989. pp224-249, 261-295, 336-
342, 364-370.

Bandyopadhyay S., From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. New Delhi:
Orient Longman., 2007 pp346-7, 352-8, 381-404.

Bose S. and Jalal A., Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1998. pp140-141, 144, 146, 151,161.

Hardiman, D., Gandhi in his time and ours: the global legacy of his ideas. London:
Hurst & Co. 2003. pp 123-155.

Jaffrelot, C., Dr Ambedkar and Untouchablity: Analysing and Fighting Caste.

Omvedt, G., Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr Ambedkar and the Dalit
Movement in Colonial India. New Dehli: Sage Publications. 1994. pp160-186.