© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
— Dileep P Chandran
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and erudite scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dr. Dileep P Chandran revisits the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate on untouchability.)
In the previous article, How did untouchability originate in India, BR Ambedkar’s critique of caste and his vision of social justice and equality were briefly discussed. The article also raised the difference between Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi on the question of untouchability. In this article, let’s see how the two towering figures, while fighting for the cause of untouchables, differed in their approaches to caste and social reform.
At the invitation of Gandhi, Ambedkar first met him on 14 August 1931 at Mani Bhavan in Maharashtra. But Gandhi gave him a cold shoulder response and did not acknowledge his presence for a while. After some time, the dialogue began with Gandhi’s response to Ambedkar’s grievances against him and the Congress on the problems of untouchables.
Ambedkar had expressed his lack of faith in great leaders or Mahatmas and was critical of the Congress for its token recognition of untouchability and sincerity on the issue. He said, “Gandhiji, I have no homeland”… “No self-respecting Untouchable worth the name will be proud of this land.” Ambedkar prioritised the question of untouchability and caste-based discrimination over the self-determination of the country.
Before leaving, Ambedkar asked Gandhi about his opinion on the recognition of the political rights of depressed classes in the first Round Table Conference (attended by Ambedkar and boycotted by Gandhi and Congress). Gandhi, while sympathetic to the plight of the untouchables, opposed separate electorates for depressed classes, believing it would fragment Hindu society.
During the Second Round Table Conference (RTC) in 1931, the irreconcilable position of Gandhi and Ambedkar on the political rights of the untouchables came to the fore. Gandhi was cited as saying, “Those who speak of the political rights of the Untouchables do not know their India.”
Reiterating his opposition to the separate electorate for Dalits, he resorted, “I would far rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived.” Gandhi also contested Ambedkar’s claim to represent all untouchables in India and feared it would create division in Hindu society.
But Ambedkar remained skeptical of Gandhi’s approach and the Congress’s sincerity in addressing untouchability. He prioritised the self-respect and political empowerment of the Depressed Classes over the unity of Hindu society. The debate also highlighted the contrasting philosophies of the two leaders, with Gandhi using the term “Harijans” (Children of God) and Ambedkar employing the Marathi term ‘Dalits’ (Broken People). The clash at the RTC ended without a resolution.
Notwithstanding Gandhi’s opposition, Dalit leaders continued to demand separate electorates for Dalits. Ambedkar went to London to lobby British cabinet members for it. Eventually, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal Award of 1932 (also known as the MacDonald Award), which provided separate electorates for Depressed Classes along with other minorities including Muslims.
Gandhi, imprisoned in Yerawada Jail in Poona, responded by announcing an indefinite fast until the provision of separate electorates for untouchables was revoked. Ambedkar had to concede to Gandhi’s “extreme form of coercion” and sign the Poona Pact on 24 September 1932. Madan Mohan Malviya signed on behalf of Gandhi. The pact replaced the separate electorate with reservations for the Depressed Classes.
Following the pact, Gandhi broke his fast and proposed to establish the Anti-Untouchability League to continue the fight against untouchability. However, tensions between Gandhi and Ambedkar persisted, reflecting their fundamentally different approaches to caste and social reform.
The publication of Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste (1936) further angered Gandhi for its critique of Hinduism and caste-based discrimination. He responded by publishing two articles in his newspaper Harijan (11 and 18 July 1936) titled Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment. Gandhi accused Ambedkar of wanting publicity.
He stated that religion has nothing to do with caste and blamed Ambedkar for misquoting scriptures and disregarding their interpretations by saints and sages. Gandhi went to the extent of calling Ambedkar a ‘challenge to Hinduism’. Despite Gandhi’s sharp criticism, Annihilation of Caste remains a seminal text, reflecting Ambedkar’s disappointment with the Poona Pact.
In the 1937 edition of Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar included Gandhi’s responses and provided a detailed reply. He clarified that his motive was not to seek publicity but to provoke Hindus to think. Ambedkar rejected Gandhi’s scepticism about the authenticity and interpretation of Hindu texts, arguing that the masses could not distinguish between genuine texts and interpolations.
Ambedkar was sceptical of the authority of saints on the ground that they never opposed the caste system and untouchability, stating that saints and Mahatmas ‘understand shastras differently from the learned few and ignorant many’. Ambedkar even criticised Gandhi for playing the double role of Mahatma and politician.
He also refuted Gandhi’s argument that religion should be judged by its best specimens rather than its worst practices. He accused Gandhi of not practicing what he was preaching on varna, and for having no clear differentiation between varna and caste.
The standoff between Ambedkar and Gandhi continued on issues like conversion, village republic, and method of satyagraha. Ambedkar likened the caste-ridden Hindu society to ‘a multi-storeyed tower with no staircase and no entrance’, symbolising its hierarchical system. Hence, he wanted to leave Hinduism and declared in Nasik in 1935 that he would not die a Hindu. In 1956, he converted to Buddhism.
Gandhi found Ambedkar’s announcement of leaving Hinduism unbelievable since he found no relation between religion and caste. Similarly, their views on village republics clashed. Gandhi idealised villages as the soul of India, whereas Ambedkar viewed villages as the ground for untouchability and other caste-based discriminations. The urge for justice and equality turned Ambedkar towards urbanisation, modernity, and industrialisation, while Gandhi was critical of the idea of modernity.
In addition, Ambedkar led the satyagraha in Mahad (1927) to claim the right to take water from a public tank. Gandhi, however, warned untouchables against using satyagraha lest it devolved into “duragraha” (stubborn insistence). He advocated “sweet persuasion” in caste issues to avoid animosity. Hence, the fundamental difference in their approach underscored their contrasting visions for achieving social justice.
What were the key ideological differences between Mahatma Gandhi and BR Ambedkar over the political rights of the untouchables?
What significance did the terms ‘Harijans’ and ‘Dalits’ hold, and how did they reflect the contrasting philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and BR Ambedkar?
Mahatma Gandhi asserted, “I would far rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived”. Evaluate his comment in light of his differences with BR Ambedkar on untouchability.
What were the main terms of the Poona Pact, and how did it differ from the original provision for separate electorates in the Communal Award?
Why did Mahatma Gandhi accuse BR Ambedkar of seeking publicity through the publication of Annihilation of Caste, and how did Ambedkar respond to this criticism?
Annihilation of Caste by BR Ambedkar.
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (Vol. 17 ) by BR Ambedkar.
Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India by Gail Omvedt.
The Essential Writings of B R Ambedkar edited by Valerian Rodrigues.
(Dileep P Chandran is Assistant Professor at the department of Political Science in University of Calicut, Kerala.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
