GANDHI AND AMBEDKAR

                                               GANDHI AND AMBEDKAR

                             Diverging perceptions in the struggle against oppression

Among those who contributed to the social advancement of the Harijans, Gandhi and
Ambedkar are the most important. The former came from a caste of Vaishya status,
while the latter was born into an Untouchable caste; the former approached the problem
from the standpoint of an upper caste Hindu who wanted to rot out Untouchability from
the fabric of society, the latter identified himself with the struggle against the exploitation
which the untouchables had suffered under the upper caste Hindus across the centuries.
Gandhi, as a believing Hindu, felt that Hinduism needed to be reformed of the
excrescence of Untouchabilty. Ambedkar, on the contrary, was convinced that the
problem was a part of Hinduism and was enshrined in its sacred scriptures.
It is our opinion that the differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar are not merely
personal approaches. They continue to be debated within Indian Society even today. In
what follows we shelf look at some significant situations where the differing positions of
the two leaders emerge. After this we shall make a brief examination of the backgrounds
and values which influenced and motivated their styles of leadership in their respective
struggles against Untouchablitiy.
The Vaikom Satyagraha
The demand for social and religious reforms was slowly gaining ground in Travancore
State in the Nineteen Twenties. In 1918, the Exhale caste had already appealed to the
Government to open out. The temples in the State to all Hindus, They late followed up
with a threat to convert themselves to Christianity if the Government did not act
decisively. It was in this climate that the Vaikom Satyagraha (1924-25) took place.
The issue concerned the use of a road which ran beside the temple at Vaikom.
Untouchables and other low castes were not permitted to use this road. A few followers
of Sri. Narayana Guru, several caste Hindus and a Syrian Orthodox Christian began a
Satyagraha to open out the road to the untouchable castes Gandhi visited the area and
began a negotiation with a Nambudri Brahman trustee of the temple. Mahadev Desais
notes of that negotiation reveal Gandhi’s reformist approach to the problem:
Gandhiji: Is it fair to exclude a whole section of Hindus, because of their supposed low
birth, from public roads which can be used by non-Hindus, by criminals and bad
characters, and even by dogs and cattle?
Nambudri Trustee: But how can it be helped? They are reaping the reward of their
Karma.

Gandhiji: No doubly they are suffering for their Karma by being born as Untouchables.
But why must you add to the punishment? Are they worse than even criminals and
beasts?
Nambudri Trustee: They must be so, for otherwise God would not condemn them to be
born Untouchables.
From the discussion quoted above we get some idea of the traditional understanding of
the position of the Untouchable castes and Gandhi’sdivergence from this position. For
the Nambudiri Trustee the notion of Untouchablity could not be separated from the being
of the Untouchable, which was a result of his Karma. it is clear from this discussion that
while Gandhi’s espousal of the cause against Untouchability is of great social importance,
his reasoning appeared self-contradictory. The position taken by the Nambudiri Trustee
was nearer the traditional understanding of Karma. Gandhi made a departure from
tradition by rejecting the practice of Untouchability without giving up the system of caste.
Ambedkar’s reaction to Gandhi’s action at Vaikom was qualified. While he felt that the
latter was not going far enough in his crusade against Untouchability, he nevertheless
admitted that ‘when one is spurned by everyone, even the sympathy shown by Mahatama
Gandhi is of no little importance’. (On another occasion Ambedkar stated that Gandhi
supported the temple entry movement becasue he wanted to weaken the distinction
between Hindus and Untouchables, thereby hoping to deny the lathers demand for
political rights.) Nothing that the Brahmans at Vaikam had used scripture to justify
untouchability, Ambedkar said, `This clearly indicated that either we should burn all
these scriptures or verfy and examine the validityof their rules regarding untouchability..
and if we are unable to prove their falseness or invalidity, are we to suffer Untouchability
till the end of time!...Truly these scriptures are an issue to people. The Government
should have confiscated them long ago.”
Bombay Meeting
At Gandhi’s invitation Ambedkar went to meet him Malabar Hill, in Bombay, on august
14th, 1931. the meeting did not go off well. Gandhi stated that he had been thinking of
the problem of Untouchables ever since his school days, well before Ambedkar woes
born. He had incorporated the fight against untouchability in the programme of the
congress. he was surprised that Ambedkar opposed him and the Congress. Ambedkar
replied sarcastically that it was true that Gandhi started to think about the problem of
Untouchables before he was born. Old people always liked to emphasise the point of
age.
However, the congress had done nothing beyond digging formal recognition to the
problem. had the Congress party been sincere it would have made “the removal of
Untouchability a condition, like the wearing of Khaddar, for becoming a member of the
congress”. Ambedkar states that Hindu were not showing any change of heart concerning
the problem of untouchables.

He continued: We believe in self-help and self-respect. We are not prepared to have
faith in great leader sand Mahatmas. Let me be brutally frank about it. history tells that
Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust, but raise no level. Why should the
Congress men oppose our movement and dub me a traitor? towards the end of the
meeting Ambedkar asked Gandhi what his position was on the question of special
political safeguards and adequate political representation for the Depressed Classes.
Gandhi replied: “I am against the political separation of the Untouchables from the
Hindus. That would be absolutely suicidal.” When Ambedkar heard this his worst fears
about Gandhi were probably confirmed for the brusquely thanked the latter and left the
hall.
The problem of separate electorates
At the second round Table Conference had in London, in 1931, Gandhi and Ambdkar
continued to have serious differences. While the latter wanted reserved seats and separate
electorates for the Untouchables, the former wouldn’t hear of it. Stating that Dr.
Ambedkar did not speak for the whaled of the Untouchables in India, Gandhi went on to
say: “I want to say with all the emphasis I can command that if I was the only person to
resist this thing I will resist it with my life.”
Gandhi was true to his word. under the Communal Award of 1932 the Untouchable
castes were to choose a few representatives of their own by separate electorates and also
vote in the general electorate. Gandhi imposed this move by going on the famous `Wpic-
Fast’. Ambedkar, with great reluctance, went to Poona to negotiate with Gandhi, whose
condition was worsening. Eventually a compromise was arrived at where Ambedkar
dropped his demand for separate electorates and Gandhi conceded the provision of
reserved seats.
Gandhi’s reason for opposing separate electorates was his fear that it would disrupt the
Hindu community. He said. separate electorates will create division among Hindus so
much that it will lead to blood shed. Untouchable hooligans will make common cause
with Muslim hooligans and kill caste-Hindus.? At another level Gandhi felt that the time
was ripe for caste Hindus to make reparation to the untouchables. Conceding separate
electorates would take away this possibility of change of heart.
The Harijan Sevak Sangh
On September 30, 1932,, Gandhi organised a group called the All India Antiuntouchability
League, which later came to be known as The Harijan Sevak Sangh.
Several untouchables were on the central board, including Ambedkar. The goals of the
organisation were to open out public wells, roads, schools, temples and cremation
grounds to the Untouchables. Intra-caste practices like rules relating to commonality did
not enter the reforms envisaged by the organisation. Between November 1933 and July

1934 Gandhi travelled 12,500 miles in India to talk about the evils of untouchability and
collect funds for the organisation.
Ambedkar wanted the Anti-untouchable league to take seriously the question of equal
opportunity in economic and social matters. His views do not appear to have been
shared by the other founders. He resigned after a few months and the other Untouchable
members also appear to have left. In course of time The Harijan Sevak Sangh did not
admit Untouchable members. Gandhi explained that the organisation was there for
repentance on the part caste Hindus. Therefore, Untouchables could advice but not play a
leading role. From this it is clear that Gandhi was extremely concerned about a change of
attitude among the higher castes and less preoccupied with the new ideas emerging from
among the Untouchables themselves.
Formative years and divergent approaches:
Gandhi came from the Kathiawad peninsula which is toady a part of Gujarat. he
belonged to the Vaishya caste known as the modh Bania. The Bania castes were wealthy,
influential and took tradition seriously. Gandhis father, grand-father and great grandfather
had served as prime-ministers in the princely states of the peninsula.
Gandhi capacity to compromise was developed during his years in South Africa. In
accepting compromise one helped ones opponent not to lose face. it was an honourable
way of resolving problems; for the dignity of all the contending individuals or groups was
preserved. Thus, for example, when Ambedkar accepted to give up his demand for a
separate electorate, Gandhi responded by conceding the claim for reserved seats.
Gandhi disliked conflictual struggle. The style of resolving differences where the two
contending parties had to fight each other so that one of them might win was abhorrent to
him. It has been argued by Lloyd and Susan Rudolph that Gandhis preference for
consensus and distaste for conflict has roots in village society. There was a constant
search for consensus in village affairs and opposition to partisanship. De-emphasising
open clashes, victories and defeats, appeared to be a widely prevalent way of resolving
disputes. We are of the opinion, however, that the dominant castes potential for coercion
contributed to the success of the consensus approach.
One of the references in Gandhi’s autobiography deals with his firmness on the question
of admitting and untouchable family to his ashram near Ahmebadad in 1915. In 1920,
Gandhi said: “Swaraj is unattainable without the removal of the sin of untouchability as
it is without Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1921 he said, “I do not want to be reborn. But if I
have to be reborn, I should be born an Untouchable”.
In 1937 Gandhi said, “One born a scavenger must earn his livelihood by being a
scavenger, and then do whatever else he likes. For a scavenger is as worthy of his hire as
a lawyer or your President. That according to me is Hinduism. “ What is being implied
is that all varnas have equal worth. Seen from another point of view, this would suggest

a denial of equal opportunity: for few people will admit that a scavenger is the equal of a
lawyer or a President in worldly status, Gandhi believed in Varnashramadharma, the
religious division of society into four groups: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
This four-fold ordering of society and the associated traditional duties were important for
the preservation of harmony and the growth of the soul. “The law of Varna prescribes
that a person should, for his living, follow the lawful occupation of his forefathers,”
Stated Gandhi.
We shall now look at Ambedkar’s early years and the gradual hardening of his position
towards Hinduism and caste-Hindu society. To begin with, their was a great difference
in the respective family situations of Ambedkar and Gandhi. While the latter’s
forefathers had served as prime-ministers, the formers grandfather and father had served
in the lower, rungs of the British army. Ambedkars father, Ramji Sakpal was an intensely
religious man. He regularly recited the Ramayana and the Mahabharata to his children.
Inspired by the Bhakti current of kabir and chokhamela, the family sang the praises of
Krishna and Rama. Values of equality before God appear to have played some
importance in this system. His followers believed that caste and rank at birth mattered
little to God. In the army, Ramji ( and his father before him) had been exposed to liberal
English values. Ramji had picked up enough of the English language to impart it to his
son, Ambedkar The fact that the Mahars had been given their own regiment, the 111th
Mahars, contributed to the strengthening of horizontal ties among those of term who were
in the army. Here they were not obliged to observe traditional practices which
symbolised their Untouchability.
Life in the cantonments and in Bombay (where his father moved to during his last years
of High school) permitted the space for young Ambedkar to develop ideas and attitudes
which as village Untouchable youth could scarcely have hoped to arrive at. Thus,
Ambedkar’s childhood and early youth and the following influences: a Bhaktk current
which spoke of the individuals equality before God, the enchantment and inspiration of
the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and the liberal English values which filtered down to
the Mahar regiment. This was also a period when the beginnings of horizontal caste
solidarities and the weakening of behaviour associated with traditional intercaste relations
began to appear. If Ambedkar had grown up in the ideological context of the Untouchable
Mahar quarters of a Hindu village. It is unlikely that he could have developed into the
confident and persevering youth that he became. From the latter part of his childhood
onwards there were several unpleasant incidents which brutally brought home to him that
he was not the social equal of caste Hindus.
Ambedkars earlier attitude to Hinduism was ambivalent. On the one hand, he was
slowly coming to realise that within Hinduism there could be no liberation from
untouchability; on the other, his own upbringing had been within an atmosphere where
the Hindu epics were recited with great devotion. In the early 1920’s he had some faith in
the Untouchables changing their status through emulating higher caste practices. He
gradually came to the conclusion that this process, which sometimes included wearing the
sacred thread and celebrating marriages with Vedic rites, had little effect in changing the

attitudes of caste Hindus. By 1927, his mind was already made up when the Manusmriti
was burnt in his presence at a large public meeting. In 1935, he announced his decision
to leave Hinduism. Where Gandhi’s path was one of rediscovering Hinduism,
Ambedkars was one of bitterness and eventual rejection of the religion of his forefathers.
On October 14th, 1956, Ambedkar renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism along
with several hundred thousand of his followers. His choice of this particular religion.
and not any other, was based onto need to bicultural rooted in India. Furthermore, he felt
that Buddhism espoused egalitarian values without resorting to the violent methods of
communism.
Conclusion:
It is possible to argue that Ambedkar and Gandhi played complementary roles in the fight
against Untouchability. While this may partly be true, it must not make us lose sight of
the serious implications of their fundamentally different approaches to the problems. We
shall briefly summarise these different approaches to the problem. We shall briefly
summarise these differences below.
To begin with, Gandhi may be seen as coming from the dominant sections of Hindu
society, while Ambedkar mainly represented the mahars (although he attempted, with
limited success, to moblilise Untouchables all over Inida) The former believed that a
change of heart on the part of the caste Hindus could revitalise Hinduism and permit the
development of a varna system where all sections would be equal. For Ambedkar,
however, Untouchability and Hinduism were inextricably interwoven.
Through calling Untouchables Harijan (children of God) Gandhi attempted to give them a
new self-respect. His efforts to change the heats of the caste Hindus did result in creating
acclimate of concern among at least some of them, particularly the educated sections.
During the crucial years of Ambedkar’s struggle to uplift the untouchables, this climate
probably helped to prevent a stiffening of caste Hindu attitudes against him.
For Ambedkar, equality did not a stop with all varnas being equal. In fact he harshly
criticised the caste-system and wanted Untouchables to have no part in it. When he
advocated equality, he referred to equality in the economic. Political and social spheres.
While Ambedkars dreams are still far frombeing realised, his contribution was realistic
and lasting. He was largely responsible for creating reserved positions for untouchables
in the civil service, legislatures and higher education. But moreimportantly, his major
contribution was to have emphsised the importance of action from below: that political
organisation was indispensable to securing justic and basic human rights.
The differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar still continue to haunt the various Dalit
movements and reformist Hindu organisations. For the reformist Hindu organisations
the big dilemma is to keep the Harijans within their fold without watering down Hindu
values and beliefs. This is not an easy task; for Harijans see lurking paternalism and
upper-caste biases even with in those organisation which have formally condemned

Untouchability. We have the Jatav Untouchables of Agra who quit the Arya Samaj
because of the above mentioned reasons.
Ambedkar was clear that, as Hindus, the Untouchables could not hope to be treated as
equals with the rest. He therefore advocated another identity through conversion to
Buddhism. This did help considerably in giving the Dalits (mainly in Maharashtra) a
new sense of purpose and militancy, although some people have stated that Buddhism as
a religion would end up dampening the militancy of the Dalits. However, many caste
Hindus persisted in seeing the neo-Buddhists as Untouchables.
The Dalit movements which have not embraced Buddhism are busy securing social,
economic and political gains for teir members. Some of the non-Buddhist Dalit leaders
have been influenced by Marxixm and Secularism. They do not see the religious
question as being of importance. They feel that it is a sufficient to criticise and condemn
Hinduism. They do not see any need to convert to Buddhism, In our opinion, this
position is fraught with ambiguity. Can the Dalit masses in the rural areas content
themselves with rejecting Hinduism without finding an alternative religious identity? We
do not think so. it is our opinion that many of the non-Buddhist Dalit masses will remain
Hindu in some sense or the other while struggling for economic, political, social and
educational rights. As for the non-religious Davit intellectuals, it would be interesting to
probe to what extent they remain culturally Hindu even if they have rejected Hinduism.
And what would it mean to be a Hindu only in the cultural sense of term? Traditionally it
was not possible to separate culture and religion. Today, it seems possible. But what this
constitutes in theory and practice needs to be further explored.