Understanding Ambedkar

By Sankalp Khare

UNIT – I
Introducing Ambedkar's Approach to Studying Polity, History, Economy,
Religion, and Society

Despite being one of the worst victims of untouchability and having been denied basic
human rights, Dr. B R Ambedkar emerged as a colossus a jurist, a constitution maker, and
above all, a defender of the unity of India. In the words of late President K R Narayanan,
“he was a compassionate rebel.” In this regard, Anuradha Mukherjee argues that
“Ambedkar, the torchbearer of human rights established in the constitution of
India, was much more than a Dalit leader or an assiduous scholar”. He was a great
nation-builder too, in the proper sense of the term nation as understood globally. His
pursuit was of an India where everyone is a citizen regardless of whatever other identities
that an individual may have.

B R Ambedkar: A Brief Life-Sketch

Ambedkar was born on 14 April 1891 in Mhow, near Indore, where his father, Ramji
Sakpal was the instructor in the local Military School. His mother’s name was Bhimabai.
His father shifted to Bombay in 1904 and Ambedkar was admitted to Elphinstone High
School where he completed his matriculation in 1907. Ambedkar married Ramabai in
1908. He completed his graduation from Elphinstone College in 1912. After graduation,
he joined the armed forces of Baroda as a Lieutenant but due to the death of his father, he
had to return to Bombay. He also got the one scholarship that the Maharaja of Baroda had
started for backward caste students to study abroad and joined Columbia University in
1913.

At Columbia University, he completed his post-graduation with a dissertation on

"Administration and Finance of East India Company'’ and a doctorate on "National
Dividend: A Historical and Analytical Study’. He also wrote a major paper on ‘Caste in
India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development’. In 1916, Ambedkar joined the
London School of Economics and he also joined the Grey’s Inn for the Bar-at-Law.
However, he had to give a break to his studies and return to India in 1917 because he had
earlier signed a bond to serve the Baroda State after completing his studies which he did
with the help of a scholarship. He joined the Account General’s office at Baroda but due
to the negative and casteist atmosphere, he returned to Bombay and joined some other
job, but there was no stability. He organized the first All India Conference of the
Depressed Classes in Nagpur in 1920. With the help of Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur, he
again rejoined the London School of Economics in 1920. From there he obtained a M.Sc.
degree in 1921. For his doctorate work, he worked on "The Problem of the Rupee’ Its
origin and solutions.

One more Ph.D. which he obtained from Columbia University was also published by the
same publisher under the title, ‘The Evolution of Provisional Finance in British India’
in 1925. In 1924, he founded the Bahishkrit Hitkarni Sabha. In 1927, he led the famous
Mahad Satyagraha which caused a confrontation with higher-caste Hindus. Ambedkar
and his followers publicly burnt the Manu Smriti on 25th December 1927. In the same
year, he also published a fortnightly journal, Bahishkrit Bharat. He also established the
Depressed Classes Education Society in 1928 to provide hostel facility for high school
students. A prominent role was also played by him in the Kalaram Temple Movement in
1930, for the entry of the depressed classes.

Ambedkar also became the president of the All India Depressed Classes Congress in
Nagpur in 1930. A fortnightly called Janata was published in 1930 which became weekly
after a year. In 1930, he also participated in the first Round Table Conference in London.
It was the second Round Table Conference in which Gandhi and Ambedkar fought our
separate electorate for the depressed classes. A separate electorate to the untouchables
was granted by the Communal Award in 1932 and Gandhi resorted to a fast unto death
against this award. To save the life of Gandhi, a compromise was made resulting in the
Poona Pact. In 1931, Ambedkar became a member of the Indian Franchise Committee.
After Poona Pact, Harijan Sevak Sangh was set up and Ambedkar accepted membership
of its executive committee but found himself opposite to Gandhi’s way towards removing
untouchability, therefore he resigned in 1933.

In 1936, Ambedkar wrote a long speech, Annihilation of Caste, which could not be
delivered but was later published and generated an intense debate between Gandhi and
Ambedkar. In the same year, he founded the Labour Party. In 1946, Ambedkar started an
agitation seeking clarifications about the positions of depressed classes in future India.
During this period, he also wrote, What the Congress and the Gandhi Have Done to the
Untouchability! in 1945 and Who Were the Shudras?, published in 1946.
Approach to Study Polity, History, Economy, Religion and Society
POLITY
The first section on polity analyses for mobilization of untouchables and his emphasis on the
primacy of politics. This section ends with an appraisal of his disillusionment with politics
towards the end of his life. To understand Ambedkar’s political vision, it is imperative to
study his negotiations with the British government and his assertion of the separate identity
of the untouchables. It is important to understand how Ambedkar’s emphasis on the primacy
of politics lent way to his disillusionment with politics towards the end of his life. Some of
the points related to Ambedkar’s Approach towards politics are mentioned below:

● Politics as an Instrument of Social Justice

Unlike other social reformers, Ambedkar emphasized the role of politics in
establishing social justice. Ambedkar argued that a share in political power was
important to improve the condition of untouchables. Though he chose to enter politics
he retained the separate identity of untouchables by staying out of mainstream
national politics. In 1919, Ambedkar presented a memorandum to the Southborough
Committee that demanded franchises for the untouchables, separate electorates, and
the right to contest elections by relaxation of eligibility criteria. By political action,
untouchables could urge the government to provide their basic needs of food,
clothing, shelter, and education. He emphasized that untouchables should resort to
political action instead of prayers to advance their cause of liberation.

● Protest Movement
After the Mahad conference, Ambedkar believed that the only way to awaken the
people was to take recourse to resistance. Ambedkar asserted that untouchables need
to adopt the path of boycott (of caste Hindus by withholding services to them). In this,
Ambedkar was influenced ironically by Tilak (who adopted the path in the political
sphere) and employed it in the social sphere. He also talked about the weapon of
conversion as a higher-order weapon to be kept in reserve. In his speech delivered on
13 Nov 1927 at the Berar Provincial Untouchables Conference, Ambedkar gave a call
for Satyagraha to achieve the abolition of untouchability. His exposition modified the
Gandhian concept of Satyagraha. Though he agreed with Gandhi that Satyagraha,
means avowal of the right and obligation to fight for truth he argued that nonviolence
was not an essential part of Satyagraha.

● Redefining Nation
G. Aloysius has argued that Ambedkar’s conception of nation is derived from the
exposition of his values of fraternity and democracy. Ambedkar identifies democracy
 with the nation-state. Therefore ‘nation’, in Ambedkar’s formulation was identical to
a socio-cultural dimension of democracy i.e. social democracy.

● Revolutionary Potential of Democracy

According to Ambedkar, democracy is “a form and method of government whereby
revolutionary changes in the economic and social life of the people are brought about
without bloodshed”.15 In one of his writings, he laid down seven preconditions for
democracy to exist. He lists the following as the preconditions for democracy; the
society should be free of glaring inequalities and oppression; existence of opposition;
equality in law and administration; observance of constitutional morality; absence of
tyranny of the majority; moral order in society; public conscience.

● Good Government
Ambedkar argued that in a stratified society like India, self-government is inadequate
unless it is complemented with good government. In the first edition of Mooknayak,
Ambedkar wrote, “While one cannot object to the principle involved, we would not
be able to support this change unless we know whose self-government this is going to
be and what will be its practical goals-for practice is important than
principle”.Ambedkar was responding to the change of goal of Indian National
Congress (under the influence of extremists) from the achievement of good "
government to the attainment of self-government.

● Assertion of Separate Identity of Untouchable Community

Ambedkar was aware of the historical context in which he functioned and realized
that the road to social betterment was through the channel of politics and in politics
untouchables would not be able to play any part without asserting their special
identity. He realized that at least in the short run, the path of raising specific political
demands would be more effective rather than attempting to bring about a notional
change through Satyagraha on religious-social issues. Ambedkar’s efforts provided
the ‘nucleus of pride and defiance on which the new identity of the untouchable as a
rebel could be based’. This was a completely different form of self-identity from that
of the submissive and servile, long-suffering and ever-obedient untouchable who
swept the village streets and worked on the farms. In other words, the negative
identity of the untouchable imposed by the caste Hindus was sought to be replaced by
Ambedkar with a positive identity.

● ‘Educate, Agitate and Organize’

Ambedkar also recognized the potential of education to raise the level of a
community. In his speech at Dhobi Talao High School in 1948, he said: “We cannot
 rise in life without education and knowledge. The upper castes at present hold the
reins of political power. They are determined to keep hold of power. The education
needed to win high positions is still only for upper castes. You cannot wrest this
power from them without education”. Ambedkar very well understood the
significance of education not only as a means to gain awareness but also as a route to
access high positions in politics and the economy. He believed that it is because of
lack of education amongst untouchables, that the upper castes have been able to
secure their domination in all spheres of life.

HISTORY
Ambedkar was primarily concerned with the question of the origin of untouchability and
how the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism has shaped history. Ambedkar’s
conception of history was an amalgamation of materialism and idealism. Some of the
points related to Ambedkar’s Approach to History are mentioned below:

● Stagist Conception of History

Omvedt argues that, unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar had a firm conviction in the belief in
progress. He agreed with Marx and the Liberal Enlightenment that history is a
movement towards progress and advancement of human welfare. She characterized
Ambedkar’s economic and political philosophy as social liberalism. Omvedt argues
that though Ambedkar, like Mar,x is against exploitation unlike Marx, he does not
condemn accumulation and legitimizes sincere and brisk efforts of, “householders” to
work and earn. Though Ambedkar’s conception of history cannot be classified as
historical materialism; nevertheless his writings reflect an “evolutionary and statist
view of history”.

● Religion and Ideas as Determinants of History

In his essay on “Philosophy of Hinduism”, he establishes the link between a particular
religion associated with a particular society which he characterizes as “savage
societies”, “antique civilized societies” and “modem civilized societies.” In his review
essay of a book by Bertrand Russel, he wrote, “The economic and philosophical
outlook of a society are more intimately connected than is commonly supposed and
chipped off its exaggeration, the Economic Interpretation of History holds”. In his
essay titled, “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Indian History”, he classifies
Indian history in stages in religious terms: Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.
Moreover in his essays, he addresses the question of caste and emphasizes the
ideology of Brahmanism in maintaining the caste system. This clearly shows the
significance that Ambedkar attaches to religion and ideas as the moving forces of
history.
 ● “Pluralistic” Conception
Omvedt argues that though it appears that the perception of history shifted from
materialism towards idealism, it should be characterized as “pluralistic” because even
while criticizing Marx in his essay on “Buddha or Karl Marx”, he observes that
economic interpretation cannot be the only explanation of history. However, he does
not deny the role of material factors as a necessary part of any historical and social
explanation.

● Regarding Indian History

Ambedkar argued that only the period of the Maurya Empire can be considered a
period of freedom, greatness, and glory as it annihilated the Chaturvarna system and
the Shudras became the rulers of the country. He associated all other periods with the
time when the country suffered from defeat and darkness.

● Origin of Untouchability
In his work titled “TheUntouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became
Untouchables”, Ambedkar put forth the premise that the untouchables were
historically ‘broken men’, i.e. primitive tribes that were conquered and they broke
into segments and became a floating population roaming in all directions. To guard
their settlements against invaders, the settled tribes allowed such broken men to
inhabit the outskirts of their habitations. This along with their persistence in eating
beef resulted in their being regarded as ‘untouchables’. Ambedkar pointed out that
since the prohibition on cow slaughter was imposed in the Gupta period,
untouchability emerged around 400 A.D. The emergence of untouchability was the
outcome of the struggle for ascendancy between Buddhism and Brahmanism.

ECONOMY
Ambedkar showed an awareness of the meshing up of caste and class in the Indian
context. His foray into economics began during his research at Columbia University
where he was trained in liberal economics. When he came to India and led the protest
movement of untouchables, he came under the influence of Marxism; later on, he gave up
Marxist economics in favor of Buddhist economics. Some of the points related to
Ambedkar’s Approach to the Economy are mentioned below:

● Linking Caste and Class

In another essay, titled, “The House the Hindus Have Built”, Ambedkar highlighted
the class dimension of the problem of untouchability. He argued that there is a class
 cleavage between the Savarna Hindus and the Avarna Hindus. The problem of
untouchables was not only derived from religious ideology but also from the class
interests of Savarna Hindus. Throughout his text ‘Annihilation of Caste', he uses the
word ‘class’ and ‘caste’ interchangeably.

● Three Stages of Ambedkar’s Economic Thinking

Omvedt points out that Ambedkar’s economic thinking can be understood through
three different stages. The first stage is marked by his two books, “The Problem of the
Rupee' and “The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India”. In these works,
Ambedkar’s position can be characterized as a liberal economist presaging Keynesian
economics. In his first work, he argued for a ‘low rupee’ that would help establish a
balance between the interests of workers and the interests of capitalists. In his second
work, he critiqued the British government for governing India in the interest of British
manufacturers. In the second stage during the 1930s, he became heavily involved in
the social movements of Dalits, peasants, and workers and came under the influence
of Marxism. He went to the extent of saying that the two enemies of Dalits are
“capitalism and Brahmanism” and urged the unity of “peasants and workers” against
the “capitalists and landlord”. In fact, in his final essay on “Buddha or Karl Marx”,
Ambedkar appreciated the role of private accumulation of wealth.

Religion
Ambedkar’s views on religion should not only be interpreted as a critique of Hinduism;
he raised the existential question of what should be considered religion. He argued that
Hinduism is not a religion but a code of laws. Throughout his life, he called for reform of
the Hindu religion, but having failed he converted to Buddhism towards the end of his
life. His conversion to Buddhism meant parting ways with the Hindu religion and politics
in independent India, which he believed had failed in its emancipatory role.

● Distinction between Rules and Principles

Ambedkar’s conception of religion can be understood by referring to the distinction
that he makes a distinction between rules and principles. While rules are practical,
principles are intellectual. Rules prescribe ways of doing things, but principles are to
be applied to judge things. He is of the view that religion should be a matter of
principles and not rules. The first objection he raises to this conception of religion is
that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and reduces religion to conformity to
externally imposed rules. The second objection he raises is that the laws it contains
must remain the same forever. The third objection he has is that these laws are
different for different classes. He states that “there is nothing irreligious in working
 for the destruction of such a religion”. He makes it clear that though he condemns a
Religion of Rules it should not mean that religion is not necessary, rather he gives a
call to establish a Religion of Principles.

● Critique of Hinduism and Appreciation of Buddhism

In his essay titled, “Untouchability and Lawlessness” written after 1950, Ambedkar
quoted from Hindu religious law books to show how lawlessness was regarded as
lawful by the premise of inequality based on status and not contract. Different
punishment was provided for different castes for the same offense. Ambedkar pointed
out that though untouchables differed in their language names, all of them suffered
from the same disabilities by their oppressor caste Hindu. Ambedkar argued that
because of the lack of conscience, the Hindus are an obstacle to the removal of
untouchability. On the other hand, morality (the conduct of humans towards fellow
humans) was the nucleus of Buddhism. Unlike the spiritual equality in Hinduism,
Buddhism spoke of social equality. Compassion for fellow human beings was a
central virtue in Buddhism. Therefore Buddhism was rationally and spiritually
satisfying for him. He argued that rather than being a form of escapism, conversion
was a sensible alternative. Justifying his conversion to Buddhism he said: “Man is
not for religion, religion is for man. If you want to achieve dignity as a human being
change your religion...Why do you continue in a faith that does not respect your
humanity?”

SOCIETY
Ambedkar rejected the organization of society based on Chaturvarna and gave a call for
the reorganization of society on the values of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. He pointed
out that he derived these values not from the French Revolution but from Buddhism.
Ambedkar’s role in the drafting of the Indian Constitution was marked by his vision of a
new society.

● Obstacles to Social Reform

In his work “Annihilation of Caste”, Ambedkar discusses the obstacles in the path of
social reform in India. He pointed out that there are more critics than friends in the
path of social reform. The critics were the political reformers and the socialists.
Ambedkar attacked the political reformers and challenged their fitness for political
power in the context of the prevalence of untouchability.

● Caste System as a ‘Division of Labourers’

He also contended the proposition that the caste system is a division of labor. He
pointed out that rather it is the division of laborers into watertight compartments. It is
 a system based on a graded hierarchy. Moreover, this division is not based on natural
aptitudes but on the status of one’s parents. He challenged all the arguments in the
favour of caste system such as whether it leads to economic efficiency or the
improvement of race. On the contrary, he argues that the caste system has been
responsible for the disorganization and demoralization of the Hindus.

● Ideal Society
Ambedkar defined his ideal society as one based on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
He defined fraternity as the conscious sharing and communicating of interests and the
existence of various points of contact and modes of communication. Thus
conceptualized, he believed that fraternity is another name for democracy. Democracy
is not limited to the form of government but a “mode of associated living; based on
respect for fellowmen.

● Critique of ‘Chaturvarna’
The system of Chaturvarna is based on the classification of people into four different
classes. They argued for reorganizing society based on guna (worth) rather than birth.
But Ambedkar points out that because they continue to use the labels of Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, they cannot eradicate the caste system because any
reform needs to be based on notional change. Therefore he urges that to bring notional
changes, new names and labels are required. Ambedkar then pointed out various
practical difficulties in the implementation of the Chaturvarna system.
● Firstly, how four thousand castes (based on birth) will be reduced to four
varnas (based on worth).
● The second problem he pointed out was about the classification of people into
four definite classes as the qualities of individuals are so variable.
● The third difficulty that he raised was regarding the implementation of the
Chaturvarnasystem and the requirement of penalty for the transgressor.
● Fourthly he raised the issue of women’s place in the Chaturvarna system. If
women are placed in the Varna of their husbands, what would happen to the
criteria of worth? If women get classified according to their worth whether it
would be nominal classification or real classification. If it is to be nominal,
then the system of Chaturvamais inapplicable to women. If it is to be real, then
the possibility of women priests and women soldiers needs to be
acknowledged.

● Replying to Gandhi’s Critique

Responding to Gandhi, Ambedkar points out that Gandhi’s focus on the caste system
as a factor for stability and adjustment of society is problematic because stability
 should not come at the cost of change and social justice should not be sacrificed for
the cost of justice. The adjustment of social relationships based on caste is the worst
kind of adjustment as it goes against both the canons of social adjustment, namely
fluidity and equity. He argues that the way Gandhi has defined Varna; it becomes
merely a different name for Caste as he bases it on the pursuit of an ancestral calling.

● Difference in Position of Untouchables and Tribals

In an unpublished note titled, “Civilization or Felony”, Ambedkar emphasizes the
difference in the position of tribes and untouchables. While the isolation of tribes was
voluntary, disabilities were imposed on the untouchables who were forced to live on
the outskirts of their village. While tribals can come out of their self-imposed
isolation there does not seem much hope for the emancipation of untouchables as their
condition is sanctioned by their religion while in the case of tribals, there is no
religious sanction. In his work entitled, “The Untouchables”, he pointed out that there
are numerous untouchable communities and it would be difficult for an individual to
compile an exhaustive list.
UNIT – II
Caste and Religion Caste, Untouchability and Critique of Hindu Social Order
Islam and Partition of India Religion and Conversion

Introduction
Ambedkar was a great academician, thinker, and scholar. He deeply studied the social history
of India. His whole life was shaped and influenced by his personal -experiences of social
discrimination which he had faced since his childhood. He observed the condition of
untouchables which was worse than animals. Higher caste people had no sympathy towards
them. He found that the issue of caste and untouchability was due to the bad Hindu social
order. This social order was inspired by the code of Manu in which Shudras occupied a lower
place and Brahmins and Kshatriyas occupied the top position in the society.

Ambedkar devoted his whole life to eradicating the caste system. He wanted equal
citizenship and fundamental rights for all, including untouchables. Ambedkar showed how
the structure and dynamics of prejudice and power have been combined in varying contents
to make life oppressive for untouchables. He firmly believed that “untouchability was the
product of caste and unless it was destroyed, untouchability would not go.”Ambedkar neither
trusted the Congress nor Gandhi as he had ample idea that they would not do anything
concrete to improve the condition of untouchables.

CASTE
The caste is a rigid social stratification wherein social intercourse is prohibited. The caste
system governed itself by its own rules and customs. In the caste system, some caste enjoys
privileges and status while others suffer prohibitions and restrictions imposed on them, It is
based on hierarchy and it is stable, as nobody can change their caste. The caste is based on
the Samsara, Dharma, Karma, and Moksha. The caste system is studied in Hindu Dharma
doctrine and Hindu philosophy.

Definition of Caste
Caste is a permanent status in Indian society, its origin could be traced to the Portuguese
word ‘caste’ which means breed or race; which has complex hereditary qualities. No doubt
the varna system is responsible for the caste system but caste is fully different from the varna
system.
● In this context, Rajendra Pandey said that “castes are a group with well-developed life
of their own. The membership of this group is determined not by selection but by
birth”.
 ● Anderson analyzes, “caste as an extreme form of social class organization in which
the position of individuals in the status hierarchy is determined by descent and birth.”
● Nesfield has defined caste as “a class of the community which disowns any
connection with any other class and can neither intermarry nor eat or drink with any
but persons of their community”

B.R. Ambedkar defined the caste system and presented a theory of caste in his research paper
entitled "Caste in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development'. Ambedkar did not
agree with the definition of caste given by different scholars. He said that non-Indian
scholars could not understand the nature of caste. According to him “the caste being closed
unit has an inherent tendency to exclusiveness”, i.e. to limit social intercourse, including
inter-dining and intermarriage. Ambedkar viewed the origin of caste as the result of
endogamy.

Theory of Surplus Woman and Surplus Man

B.R. Ambedkar's theory of surplus women analyzes how the caste system, through strict
adherence to endogamy (marriage within caste), created a situation where there were more
marriageable women than men within certain castes. This imbalance, according to
Ambedkar, led to social evils like sati (widow immolation), enforced widowhood, and child
marriage as ways to manage these "surplus" women and maintain caste purity. While
influential in highlighting the gendered impact of caste and the control of women's sexuality,
the theory has faced criticism for overemphasizing endogamy as the sole cause, lacking
sufficient empirical evidence, and potentially homogenizing women's experiences. Despite
these critiques, Ambedkar's work remains a significant contribution to understanding the
complex relationship between caste and gender in India.

Theory of Endogamy
Ambedkar's theory of endogamy posits that the practice of marrying exclusively within one's
caste is the defining characteristic of the caste system. He argued that this rigid adherence to
endogamy is what creates and perpetuates the boundaries between different castes. By
restricting marriage to within the group, castes maintain their distinct identities and prevent
the blurring of social hierarchies. Ambedkar further explained that to maintain strict
endogamy, practices such as Sati, enforced widowhood, and child marriage emerged as
mechanisms to deal with the potential "surplus" or imbalance of marriageable men and
women within a caste. These practices, while seemingly disparate, served the underlying
purpose of preserving the endogamous nature of the caste system.
Principle of Division of Labor
Ambedkar did not accept these theories. Ambedkar gave a new idea of the formation of the
caste. He said that “Hindu society was formed initially as a class system based on the
principle of division of labor with four classes Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra.
These classes were divided based on occupation. Initially, this social order was not rigid; it
was easy to change the class. But later on, the priestly class (Brahmins) socially detached it
from the rest of the classes and through a closed door policy became a caste by itself.”

Source of Castes and Sub-Castes

Ambedkar explained the source of the castes and sub-casteslzHe said that Vaishyas and
Shudras were the original inchoate plasma, which formed the source of numerous castes in
India. Later on, they lost their open-door policy and confined themselves as castes.
Ambedkar said that Brahmins were ideal for all classes and since the Brahmins adopted a
closed-door policy, it had become a fashion for other classes also to adopt Brahmin’s policy.
Thus, other castes and sub-castes also imitated the Brahmin's policy.

UNTOUCHABILITY
The problem of Untouchability is widely recognized in India. It is not a simple matter of
economic deprivation but it is also an extreme form of social oppression and economic
exploitation. “It is true that the term/Untouchables’ designates a social group that owing to
their association with death, organic waste, and evil sprites are permanently polluted.”10 The
term ‘untouchable’ can be referred in modern times to those sections of Indian society which
has been economically and socially exploited by the higher class. They always faced
discrimination since ancient times. According to the census of 1981, India’s untouchable
population had touched about 16% and their population is growing faster.

Meaning of Untouchability
In the view of Ambedkar, “untouchability is a notion of defilement, pollution, contamination
and the ways and means of getting rid of that defilement”. However, the generic term for
Untouchables is not entirely satisfying. In the Sanskrit literature, we find equivalent words
for the Untouchables. For instance, ‘chandala’ which signifies that he was impure and he was
not allowed to reside in the village and town. His main duty was to carry the corpses and
cremation. Sanskrit literature stressed that he should eat their food from the broken vessels
and avoid any contact with higher castes. Ambedkar said “The Hindus who touched them
become polluted and after that, they have to undergo purification ceremonies to become pure
again. But there is nothing that can make the untouchables pure. They are born impure, they
are impure while they live, die, and give birth to children. It is a case of permanent hereditary
stain which nothing can cleanse.”
Origin of Untouchability
Scholars offer different theories to explain the origin of untouchability. This chapter briefly
analyses a couple of important theories in the following section.

Racial Theory: This theory posits that Untouchability originated from the conquest of one
racial group by another. In the Indian context, it suggests that the "untouchables" were the
original inhabitants of India who were subjugated by invading groups like the Dravidians and
later the Aryans. However, this theory has been largely discredited by scholars like B.R.
Ambedkar who pointed out the lack of evidence for distinct racial origins and highlighted the
practice of exogamy (marrying outside one's clan) as evidence of shared ancestry.

Occupational Theory: This theory links the origin of Untouchability to certain occupations
considered "polluting" or "impure," such as scavenging, tanning, and handling dead animals.
Those engaged in these professions were gradually ostracized and relegated to the lowest
rung of the social hierarchy. This theory finds some support in ancient texts that describe
hierarchies of labor and the association of certain groups with menial tasks.

Contempt of Buddhism
Ambedkar rejected the occupational origin of the untouchability theory. First was contempt
of Buddhism; second was beef-eating. Ambedkar enquired census commissioner’s
investigation which was made in 1910 that Brahmins shunned the Untouchables because they
did not believe in. the authority of Vedas and denied the supremacy of the Brahmins.
“Ambedkar’s inquiry revealed that the untouchables were not only shunned by Brahmins but
also regarded as impure.” According to Ambedkar they were not untouchables but were only
broken men. These broken men were Buddhists and “contempt against Buddhists was very
intense and widespread; and could be seen from the Sanskrit dramas”. Now broken men were
untouchables for Brahmins/Manusmiriti also pointed out that if any Buddhist touches a
Brahmin then they should purify themselves by bath. Ambedkar observed that broken men
also hated Brahmins because Brahmins had imposed untouchability on Buddhists and closed
all doors for them to return to Hinduism.

Beef-eating: Apart from the first reason, Ambedkar attempted to ascertain the additional
reasons for untouchability. He said that the habit of eating the dead cow by some people was
also the main cause of untouchability for them. Hindus worship the cows and they had
objection to it. It was abominable food for Hindus but the untouchables used to eat the cow’s
flesh. It was natural that Hindus would react against cow’s flesh eater. That is why they
considered the beef eaters as untouchables.
CRITIQUE OF HINDUS SOCIAL ORDER

Central Critique of Caste System: Dr. Ambedkar argues that the caste system is a rigid
hierarchical framework central to the Hindu social order, which enforces inequality and
restricts individual freedom and social mobility. He highlights how caste-based divisions
perpetuate exploitation and systemic discrimination, particularly against the "Untouchables"
(Dalits).

Religious Foundations: Ambedkar critiques the Hindu scriptures, such as the Manusmriti,
for justifying and institutionalizing the caste system. He asserts that religious dogma in
Hinduism enforces a moral code that legitimizes the subjugation of lower castes.

Inherent Inequality: According to Ambedkar, the Hindu social order inherently denies
equality by categorizing people into pre-ordained roles, with privileges and rights
concentrated among the upper castes. He argues that this structure undermines the principles
of justice and fraternity necessary for a cohesive society.

Opposition to Reform: Attempts to reform the caste system within the Hindu framework are
criticized as superficial by Ambedkar, who believes they fail to address the systemic nature
of inequality. He contends that genuine reform requires rejecting the foundational principles
of the caste system, which Hindu orthodoxy resists.

Call for Emancipation: Ambedkar advocates for a radical transformation of society,

emphasizing education, economic empowerment, and political representation for
marginalized communities. He encourages the oppressed to seek liberation by moving away
from Hinduism, which he sees as inherently oppressive, and adopting more egalitarian
religions or philosophies.

Relevance of Rationalism: Ambedkar emphasizes the need for a rational and ethical
approach to social organization, rejecting traditions that perpetuate suffering and injustice.
His critique challenges the moral legitimacy of the Hindu social order and calls for its
complete dismantling in favor of a more equitable system.
Religion and Conversion

AMBEDKAR’S VIEW ON RELIGION

“Religion is for Man, Man is not for Religion” - Ambedkar.

Ambedkar observed religion as an essential part of the life and development of mankind. He
wanted religion, but he did not want discrimination in the name of religion. Religion, to him,
was the driving force for human activity. In Ambedkar's words, “Religion must mainly be a
matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules
it ceases to be religion, as it kills responsibility, which is the essence of a truly religious act.”
Ambedkar was not against religion but he firmly believed that the nature of any religion
should be egalitarian. According to Ambedkar, “religion must be judged by social standards,
based on social ethics.”. He further remarked, “Religion is necessary for a free society. Not
every Religion is worth having. Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and
speculations about God, or Soul, or Heaven or Earth. It is wrong to make God the center of
Religion.

Hindu Religion: A Critical Outlook

“Inequality is the soul of Hinduism” - Ambedkar.

Being born into an untouchable family, Ambedkar had to experience the horrible aspect of
caste-based discrimination that was an essential part of the Hindu religion. Ambedkar had
renounced Hinduism and adopted Buddhism as his mark of protest against the prevalent caste
system in the Hindu religion. Gail Omvedt analyzed that “Ambedkar has not begun his
political career with a focus on religion or a concern with rejecting Hinduism. His dedication
to study was focused on economic and social issues. The large number of Ambedkar’s
writings, readings, speeches, and movements became the foremost voice of downtrodden
peoples and all these initiatives of Ambedkar launched a direct attack against Hindu religion,
Hindu social order, and Hindu religious scripts as well. "Philosophy of Hinduism’,
"Annihilation of Caste’, and "Riddles in Hinduism’ are considered among some of his main
works, which carry out a firm assault on Hinduism. Through his published and unpublished
works, Ambedkar has thoroughly condemned Hinduism particularly the Hindu social order,
the Varna system, Religious scriptures of Hinduism, Hindu laws, and Manu Smriti.

According to Ambedkar, religion is, ‘which governs people’, but when this definition is
applied to the Hindu Religion, which is based on an unjust society, one must find that there is
no place for an individual. Hindu religion does not teach how an individual should behave
with another individual. A religion that does not recognize individuals per se is not
personally acceptable to Ambedkar’. In this regard he raised a question by saying, ‘Three
factors are required for the uplift of an individual. They are Sympathy, Equality, and Liberty.
Can you say by experience that any of these factors exist for you in Hinduism?7 Therefore,
here it is necessary to highlight that after giving enough time to investigate Hinduism;
Ambedkar found that Hindu religious texts and scriptures are one of the main reasons behind
the pathetic condition of untouchables in society, which forced them to live vulnerable lives.

Ambedkar further maintained that the establishment order was based on graded inequality
and was legitimized by Hindu law which completely neglected the idea of equality,
fraternity, liberty, democracy, and human rights.”

Ambedkar raised a very rational question, “Does the Hindu social order recognize equality?
The answer must be negative. That men are born equal is a doctrine that is repugnant to the
Hindu social order. In the spiritual sense, it treats the doctrine as false. According to the
Hindu social order, although men are indeed the children of Prajapati the Creator of the
Universe, they are not equal on that account. For, they were created from the different parts
of the body of Prajapati. The Brahmins were created from the mouth, the Kshatriyas from the
arms, the Vaishyas from his thig, hs and Shudras from his feet. The limbs from which they
were created being of unequal value the men thus created are as unequal. In the biological
sense, the Hindu social order does not bother to examine whether the doctrine is founded in a
fact.” That means the Hindu social order does not treat humans equally and it also ignores
one’s capacity as well. Because of this unjust social order, the higher caste got more benefits
and opportunities, on the other side economic, social, educational, and political concerns of
the lower caste were being neglected. ‘Hinduism is a political ideology of the same character
as the Fascist or Nazi ideology and is thoroughly anti-democratic.’ Ambedkar firmly
believed that Hinduism and its branches are the main cause behind the deprivation of
untouchables which snatched the equality, freedom, and prosperity from the life of
untouchables.

AMBEDKAR AND BUDDHISM

Ambedkar’s journey towards Buddhism can be seen during a period of near about forty years
in which he has experienced the bitter side of Hinduism. In between, Ambedkar made many
successful attempts to condemn Hinduism and also launched several attacks to challenge its
orthodoxy. In 1950 he published an article in the Journal of the Mahabodhi Society entitled
'The Buddha and the Future of His Religion’, in which he argued that Buddhism was a
religion for the whole world. ’ Ambedkar had given sufficient time to study Buddhism in his
life and around 1950 he gave his full attention to Buddhism. In 1950, Ambedkar went to
Colombo (Sri Lanka) to attend the ‘World Buddhist Conference’. In 1954, Ambedkar visited
Rangoon (Burma) to attend the ‘Third World Buddhists Conference’. In 1955, he founded the
Bharatiya Buddha Mahasabha.

Ambedkar’s ideas about Buddhism can be seen through his writings and some articles that he
wrote during his life. He completed his leading work on Buddhism titled 'The Buddha and
His Dhamma’ in 1956 and it was first published in 1957 after his death. Before making any
serious attempt to conversion to Buddhism Ambedkar had given sufficient time to study
Sikhism, Islam, and Christianity also but finally, he gave preference to Buddhism above
others because he believed that Buddhism was the only religion that could provide improve
equal social, political, economic life to untouchables.

Conversion to Buddhism

Since 1935, Ambedkar seriously had been contemplating changing his religion by
denouncing Hinduism. However, he was very careful in choosing the new religion. After
spending a great deal of time reading about different religions, he finally decided that he
would embrace Buddhism. During the last phase of his life, Ambedkar had to survive some
health issues, which created anxiety in his family and among his followers. So after much
consultation with some of his close aides about conversion he finally announced that he
would embrace Buddhism and that moment came on October 14, 1956, at Nagpur.

By accepting the Three Refugees and Five Precepts from a Buddhist monk in the traditional
manner, Ambedkar completed his conversion. He then proceeded to convert some 500,000 of
his supporters who were come from all around the country. Ambedkar persuaded long battle
through his endless efforts against the disease of the Hindu religion particularly
untouchability, but during the last decade of his life, he realized that the liberation of
untouchables now can be achieved through conversion only. Therefore, it resulted in
Ambedkar's inclination towards Buddhism to achieve equal rights in society for
untouchables. According to Ambedkar, “Unfortunately, I was born a Hindu untouchable. It
was beyond my power to prevent that, but it is within my power to refuse to live under
ignoble[shameful] and humiliating conditions. I solemnly assure you that I will not die a
Hindu.”
Conversion as Socio-Political Revolution

“Buddhism was a revolution. It was as great a Revolution as the French

Revolution.” - Ambedkar

Ambedkar wanted untouchables to get out from the fold of the Hindu religion at any cost
because the roots of untouchability and the caste system were deeply inherited in Hinduism
and at that point in time it was not possible to bring reforms within the Hindu religion. So,
finally, Ambedkar decided to renounce Hinduism and convert to Buddhism. After living
thousands of years with humiliation the condition of untouchables was becoming worse than
animals. Thus, being the saviour of untouchables it became the responsibility of Ambedkar to
take some radical steps for giving respectful life to the untouchables. For that purpose, he
found Buddhism the most suitable religion which would provide egalitarian life to
untouchables.

In this regard, Valerian Rodrigues highlights that ‘Buddhism alone cherished such goals
comprehensively and intimately and offered a close complementarity to freedom, equality
and fraternity. Buddhism also embodied a just and emancipatory order, akin to the moral
basis of society.’32 Buddhism emerged as an answer to the evils that existed in Hinduism.
According to Ambedkar, Buddhism was the revolution against Brahmanism. Ambedkar not
only revolutionized Buddhism but also rejected Hinduism with its basis of Vedas and
Shastras and he subsequently burned out Manu Smriti as well.

In this regard, Valerian Rodrigues analyzes that ‘Ambedkar argued that Buddhism, which
attempted to form a society on the basis of reason and morality, was a major revolution, both
social and ideological, against the degeneration of the Aryan society. It condemned the Vama
system and gave hope to the poor, the exploited, and women. It rallied against sacrifices,
priestcraft, and superstition. The Buddhist sangha became the platform for the movement
towards empowering and enabling the common people.

Ambedkar further stated that ‘I like Buddhism’ and further added that it is useful to the
world in its present circumstances because it gives three principles in combination, which no
other religion does. All other religions are bothering themselves with god and soul and life
after death. Buddhism teaches, (1) prajna (understanding as against superstition and super
nationalism), (2) it teaches karuna (love) and (3) it teaches samata (equality). This is what
man wants for a good and happy life on earth. These three principles of Buddhism make it
appealing to me. According to Ambedkar, Buddhism has all the necessary values to uplift the
lives of untouchables. Therefore, Ambedkar started to call it a socio-political revolution and
a revolution that would certainly eradicate untouchability and establish a new society based
on equality, liberty, and fraternity. In Ambedkar's words, “Buddhism was a revolution.

Conversion as Emancipation

“Conversion is the only right path of freedom which ultimately leads to equality”.
-Ambedkar
Ambedkar thought his struggle should not be in vain therefore he decided to leave the
religion of his birth and assumed that life of untouchables could be emancipated only through
conversion. By denouncing Hinduism untouchables would not only be emancipated from the
Hindu religion but also from its other diseases, for instance, rigid caste system,
discriminatory Hindu laws, Hindu religious scriptures, etc. It was Ambedkar’s firm belief
that within the fold of Hinduism, there was no possibility that the status of untouchables
would ever be uplifted. While addressing a gathering at Dadar on 31 May 1936 Ambedkar
said, ‘The principal object of our movement is only to achieve social freedom for
untouchables; it is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion.’

Many of Ambedkar’s initiatives are considered as methods of emancipation for

untouchables, which would have been successfully persuaded by him during his battle
against Hinduism. For instance, the burning of the Manu Smriti by the Untouchables under
the presence of Ambedkar at Mahad in 1927 was the first major event that has very major
significance and importance in the history of the emancipation of the Untouchables.
According to Ambedkar, ‘the matter of conversion should be viewed through two aspects -
social and religious or moral and spiritual’.48 But he also added, that whatever may be the
aspect or thinking about the ‘conversion’, it is important to understand the nature of
untouchability.

He told his followers that the caste system was part and parcel of Hinduism. Thus destroying
the caste system meant destroying the Hindu religion. Ambedkar also argued that the
economic or political rights of the Dalit will not be affected by the conversion. Gail Omvedt
concludes that ‘with the conversion to Buddhism Ambedkar achieved what Phule and Periyar
for all their resistance to Hinduism had failed to achieve: making a conscious non-Hindu
identity a collective material and radicalizing force in India. In the last phase of Ambedkar’s
life, he made a great resolution to raise the banner of Buddhism and bring it back to his
motherland. Ambedkar not only adopted Buddhism with his followers but also ended its
exile for over twelve hundred years. According to Ambedkar, the emancipation of
untouchables can be achieved only by converting to Buddhism because the teachings of
Buddha are based on the foundations of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and it also favors a
scientific and rational humanistic outlook.

UNIT – III
Women’s Question Ambedkar on Women Hindu Code Bill Uniform Civil Code

Rise and Fall of Hindu Women

Ambedkar is rightly considered the real advocate of women’s rights. It can be perceived in
his works and writings. In his words: “I measure the progress of a community by the degree
of progress which women have achieved.”1 The chapter attempts to analyze the views of
Ambedkar on the issues of the rise and fall of women in India. However, before doing so, it
is important to briefly examine the Hindu family system and the status of women in India.
The families were matriarchal in the ancient period of human history considering sacrifices,
sufferings, and contribution of women for the welfare of the family. Women continued to
enjoy authority and respect in the family till the Vedic period—which will be discussed in the
following section. However, society took the 'Patriarchal' form when the women passed
through the phases of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth. At the same time, she was
dependent upon men for food and her protection which subsequently enslaved her position in
both family and society. In this way, the matriarchal structure of the families was replaced
with the patriarchal structure.

STATUS OF WOMEN IN VEDIC PERIOD

Women enjoyed all the required rights that were common for human beings and had access
to all the branches of learning in the Vedic period. In Brahadaranika Upanishad, in King
Janaka’s court, the maiden scholar Gargi was examined for her knowledge by Yaghavalkya.
Women were given equal positions at par with men. Women played an important role even in
religious ceremonies. No religious ceremony by men was considered complete without the
participation of his wife. For instance, to carry on the ceremonies for Ashawmegh yagna,
Rama had to be with Sita. In the Vedic period, the girls had the freedom to choose their
husbands in open ‘Sayambars’.

STATUS OF WOMEN IN LATER VEDIC PERIOD

In the later Vedic period the status of women had been downgraded and they were enslaved
through sexual discrimination. The social and economic status of the women decreased day
by day. Many conventional principles were imposed upon them and they were deprived of
basic human rights and prospects. They had no choices or freedom and were treated as
slaves. They were discriminated against by men and the conventional structure of the society.
They were deemed as one of the three ‘W’s-the wine, women and wealth. The women were
expected to be obedient to men. Ironically, they were treated as the property of men but they
had no rights of property. As a consequence, the women in the later Vedic period had been
thrown in complete darkness.

AMBEDKAR’S VIEWS ON THE RISE AND FALL OF HINDU WOMEN

Ambedkar is considered the most outstanding scholar of modern India. He studied at length
the Hindu Shastras and Smritis to find out the root cause of tarnished status of women in
India. His ‘The Rise and Fall of Hindu Woman’ is one of the articles in which he made a
historical study of Women’s status in ancient India and the causes that led to a decline in their
status in later years. He writes that during the pre-Manu days, in India, women occupied very
high positions in intellectual and social life.

Moreover, while analyzing reasons for barring women from reading religious scripts,
Ambedkar points out that it is important to understand the reason why the Brahmins debarred
women from taking Sannyas because it helps to understand the attitude of the Brahmin
towards women which was in sharp contrast with that of The Buddha. The reason is stated by
Manu. It reads as follows: “Women have no right to study the Vedas. That is why their
Sanskars (rites) are performed without Veda Mantras. Women do not know about religion
because they have no right to know the Vedas. The uttering of the Veda Mantras is useful for
removing sin. As women cannot utter the Veda mantras they are as untruth”... [For
Ambedkar] This view of the women was both an insult and an injury to the women of India.
It was an injury because without any justification she was denied the right to acquire
knowledge which is the birthright of every human being, it was an insult because after
denying her opportunity to acquire knowledge she was declared to be an unclean untruth for
want of knowledge and therefore not to be allowed to take Sannyas which was regarded as a
path to reach Brahma.

MANUSMRITI AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

● Ambedkar held Manu responsible for women’s subordination in Hindu society.

Women enjoyed respectable status in the Hindu Society in the pre-Manu days.
Women were free and in matters of education, divorce, remarriage, and economic
independence they enjoyed equal status with men. The descent in the status of women
in society began with the imposition of severe restrictions on them under the influence
of Manusmriti. Manu held a very low opinion about women. According to
 Manusmriti, women are not to be trusted for it is in their nature to seduce men. Men
were prohibited from sitting in a lonely place even with one’s mother, sister or
daughter. Women were not to be free under any circumstances, day and night women
must be kept dependent on the males of their family, as her father protects her in
childhood, her husband protects her in youth and her sons protect her in old age,
therefore a woman was never fit for independence. Nothing was to be done
independently by a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, even in her own
house.
● Manu did not give the right to divorce to women under any circumstances while
allowing a man to give up his wife at any time. Indeed man was allowed to abandon
and even sell his wife. Even after denial by her husband, she was not released by her
husband and could not become the legitimate wife of another. A wife could be
subjected to physical punishment by her husband dipping her status to that of a slave.
Like shudras, a woman was forbidden by Manu to study Vedas.
● Ambedkar’s criticism of Manu’s law for Hindu women is actually a studied
comparison with a pre-Manu Hindu order. To do this, he draws heavily from
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, highlighting the prospects for women to engage in
intellectual debate with men, their role in royal ceremonies, the record of post-puberty
marriages and the ideal of monogamy, the opportunity for divorce, the absence of a
ban on widow remarriage, the provision of a wife’s endowment and maintenance, and
even the possibility of suing a husband for offences and defamation. In defining the
Model in Manu’s law - by which marriage, kinship and the degradation of women link
structurally in reproducing graded inequality in society- Ambedkar’s primary mode
was to ask questions.
● Specifically, he asked three interrelated questions
● 1. When as a matter of fact some castes were independent in their existence, why did
Manu say that they were bastard castes/of mixed origin?
● 2. Why did Manu go against the basic assumption of patriarchal society to change the
law from pitra-savarhaya to matra-savarnayal
● 3. Why did he degrade women?

STRUGGLE TOWARD GENDER EQUALITY

Unlike social reformers like Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra
Vidyasagar and Mahatma Gandhi who tried to reform the Hindu Society of certain outdated
customs and practices without questioning the hierarchical social order, Ambedkar’s
approach to women’s empowerment was entirely different. His approach also differed from
Bhakti movement which spoke of brotherhood without attacking the unjust Hindu social
order that was based on graded system of caste hierarchy.
Ambedkar had one mission in life and that was to challenge the ideological foundations of
the graded system of caste hierarchy that denied equality, freedom, and human dignity to
women in Hindu Society. He believed that society should be based on reason and not on the
atrocious tradition of the caste system. Therefore, to reconstruct Hindu Society along modern
democratic ideas of liberty, equality, and union, he suggests in 'The Annihilation of Caste
System', that Hindu minds should be washed out from the thralldom of the shastras. To quote
him, “Make every man and woman free from the thralldom of the shastras, cleanse their
minds of the destructive ideas founded on the shastras and he or she will inter-dine and
inter-marry without your telling him or her to do so.” Ambedkar found education, inter-caste
marriage, and inter-dinning as methods by which caste and patriarchal thinking, maintained
through endogamy to be eliminated. Ambedkar’s work for women was not only limited to
social reforms but he used the legal framework to give women equal rights.

Concluding his speech, Ambedkar said “I measure the progress of community by the degree
of progress which women had achieved. Let every girl who marries stand by her husband,
claim to be her husband’s friend and equal, and refuse to be his slave. I am sure if you follow
this advice, you will bring honor and glory to yourselves.”

Hindu Code Bill

Ambedkar is hailed by many names, he is known as the architect of the Indian Constitution,
an eminent jurist, a greater scholar, messiah of the downtrodden, and an intellectual giant.
Ambedkar felt strongly about the Hindu Code Bill, which he saw as a long overdue
opportunity to reform the Hindu Family Law. This chapter intends to present Ambedkar’s
role on the Hindu Code Bill as a Law Minister and as a great emancipator of women. It will
be appropriate to have a look at the Indian Constitution in which Ambedkar clearly provided
equal status to women.

● Guarantees of Equal Status for Women: Ambedkar was rightly considered the chief
architect of the constitution. Ambedkar provided equal status to women at par with
men by inscribing several provisions in the constitution. The Preamble of the
Constitution guarantees justice, social, economic, and political, liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and opportunities, and
fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity ofthe
nation without any discrimination based on caste, creed or sex. The fundamental
rights and the Directive Principles of the constitution also ensure gender equality.
According to Article 14 of the constitution, the state guarantees equality before the
law and other articles as well.
● Why the Hindu Code Bill?: Ambedkar had a deep understanding of the Indian social
system and, therefore, he was well equipped to understand gender inequality and the
exploitable mechanism of women. As a solution he proclaimed “make every man and
woman free from the thralldom of the ‘Shastras’ cleanse their minds of the pernicious
notions founded on ‘Shastras’ and he or she will inter-dine and intermarry.”8 In a
strong appeal to demolish such a system, he said that “society must be based on
reason and not on atrocious traditions of the caste system.”. He was at the helm of the
constitution-making process from 1946 to 1950 and thereafter till 1951 as India’s First
Law Minister, Ambedkar was fully equipped with an opportunity to incorporate the
process of radical social legislation, namely the Hindu Code Bill.

● Hindu Code Bill: Ambedkar believes that the Hindu Code Bill aims to codify the
public sphere and ensure equal rights for women. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as India's first
Law Minister, championed the Hindu Code Bill to modernize and reform Hindu
personal laws, ensuring gender equality and social justice. The bill proposed
progressive measures, including equal inheritance rights for daughters, provisions for
divorce, monogamy, and women's rights in adoption and guardianship. Ambedkar
viewed these reforms as essential for uplifting women and marginalized groups in
Hindu society. However, the bill faced strong opposition from conservative factions,
leading to delays and its eventual dilution. Disillusioned by the lack of support,
Ambedkar resigned in 1951. Despite this, his efforts laid the groundwork for
subsequent enactments, such as the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act,
which transformed Hindu personal laws and advanced gender equality in India.

● Opposition of Hindu Code Bill: The Hindu Code Bill faced intense opposition from
conservative factions in Parliament and the broader Hindu society. Critics, primarily
orthodox leaders and members of right-wing groups argued that the bill undermined
traditional Hindu values and religious customs. They opposed provisions like equal
inheritance rights for women, the right to divorce, and the abolition of polygamy,
claiming these reforms threatened the sanctity of family and societal structure. The
debate in Parliament became highly polarized, with some accusing the bill of being
too radical and un-Hindu. This resistance, coupled with political reluctance within the
ruling government, led to delays and eventual dilution of the bill. The fierce
opposition highlighted the deep-seated resistance to gender and social reforms in
post-independence India.

● Resignation of Ambedkar: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar resigned as India's Law Minister in

1951, primarily due to the government's lack of commitment to passing the Hindu
Code Bill in its intended form. Ambedkar had championed the bill as a transformative
 step toward gender equality and social justice within Hindu society. However, the bill
faced significant resistance from orthodox factions and conservative members of
Parliament, leading to prolonged debates and repeated delays. Ambedkar grew
increasingly frustrated with the government’s inability to prioritize the bill and its
willingness to compromise under political pressure. In his resignation speech, he
expressed disappointment with the ruling leadership for not supporting progressive
reforms. His resignation was both a protest against the stalling of social justice
measures and a reflection of his unwavering commitment to the principles of equality
and human rights.

Uniform Civil Code

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a proposal in India to replace personal laws based on
religious customs with a common set of laws governing matters like marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and adoption, irrespective of an individual's religion or community. The idea
behind UCC is to ensure equality and justice for all citizens, regardless of their religious
affiliation, and to promote national integration by creating a unified legal framework.

Ambedkar’s Perspective on the Uniform Civil Code:

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as a staunch advocate for social justice and equality, strongly supported
the idea of a Uniform Civil Code. He believed that personal laws, which were often shaped
by religious traditions, perpetuated inequality, especially for women and marginalized
communities. Ambedkar argued that such laws were a tool for maintaining social hierarchies,
particularly in the Hindu system, where women had limited rights in matters like inheritance,
marriage, and property. His vision for the UCC was not just to create uniformity but to
ensure gender equality, social justice, and the elimination of caste-based discrimination.

1. Ambedkar’s Advocacy for a Uniform Civil Code: Ambedkar was deeply concerned
with the discriminatory practices embedded in religious laws, particularly those
affecting women. For instance, in Hindu law, women had very limited rights in
property inheritance, and practices like polygamy and child marriage were prevalent.
Ambedkar viewed these customs as unjust and a hindrance to India’s progress. His
push for a UCC was part of his broader mission to create a more egalitarian society.

2. Role in the Indian Constitution: During the framing of the Indian Constitution,
Ambedkar played a significant role in advocating for the inclusion of provisions that
would promote gender equality and social justice. He strongly supported the idea of a
UCC as a means of unifying India and removing inequalities rooted in religious and
customary laws. However, due to strong opposition from conservative religious
 groups and political pressures, the framers of the Constitution decided to leave the
implementation of a Uniform Civil Code as a directive principle, under Article 44 of
the Constitution, which states that "The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens
a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."

3. Ambedkar’s Disappointment with Delays: Ambedkar's frustration with the lack of

progress on a UCC was one of the key reasons behind his resignation as the Law
Minister in 1951. Despite his efforts to bring about legal reforms through the Hindu
Code Bill, which sought to address inequalities within Hindu personal law, Ambedkar
was disappointed by the government's hesitation to implement the Uniform Civil
Code, which he believed was crucial for ensuring justice and equality for all. His
vision for a UCC was not just about creating uniformity but was deeply tied to his
commitment to ending gender and caste discrimination, particularly against women.

4. Ambedkar’s Vision for Gender Equality and Social Justice: For Ambedkar, the
Uniform Civil Code was a cornerstone of social reform in India. He believed that a
unified code, grounded in modern principles of justice and equality, would help
dismantle the deeply entrenched patriarchal and caste-based structures that prevailed
in Hindu society and other communities. He argued that the state’s role was to ensure
equality before the law and protect the rights of women, and a UCC would be an
essential step toward realizing these goals.

5. Opposition and the Present Debate: Despite Ambedkar’s advocacy, the idea of a
Uniform Civil Code remains controversial in India. Opponents argue that it infringes
on religious freedom and the right of communities to follow their traditional practices.
Many Muslims, in particular, fear that a UCC would undermine their personal laws,
such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and Sharia law. In
contrast, supporters of the UCC, including many women’s rights groups, argue that a
common civil code would help bring about greater gender justice, end practices like
polygamy and child marriage, and eliminate legal inequalities that persist due to
religious laws.

Ambedkar’s Enduring Legacy on the Uniform Civil Code

Ambedkar’s push for a Uniform Civil Code was rooted in his broader vision of social
reform, equality, and justice. He recognized that personal laws based on religion were a
major barrier to the empowerment of women and marginalized communities. His ideas about
a UCC continue to inspire debates in India today, as the country grapples with the balance
between religious freedom and the need for social reforms. While the full implementation of
a UCC remains a contentious issue, Ambedkar’s advocacy for gender equality, social justice,
and the rights of all citizens remains a powerful reminder of the need for an inclusive and
equitable legal system.