Ambedkar’s speech “Annihilation of Caste” was prepared as the presidential address for the annual conference of a Hindu reformist group, Jat-Pat Todak Mandal on the ill effects of caste in Hindu society. Reading through his speech, I got new insights into the caste dynamics and its impact on the freedom struggle. At the cusp of independence, Country was politically charged. My idea was that we collectively fought the foreign forces and threw them away. While we might have stood united, we had internal divisions as well. We were fighting battles within ourselves. This also helped me understand how England ruled over us for years, even though we outnumbered them. While historians often claim that British divided us and ruled courtesy their ‘divide and rule’ policy, we were already divided on the lines of caste, which must have served as a fertile ground for England to rule.
Ambedkar cites examples of how untouchables were not allowed to get into the mainstream. They were not allowed to have food of their choice or move around freely. They had limited access to public places like wells and temples. While untouchability as a concept is not new to me, the extent and nature of it is beyond human purview. I have seen my acquaintances in village maintaining a safe distance from certain set of people. These are the same people who are not allowed to enter the temples. But I have always been on the other side and could never feel the pains and pangs of untouchables. The idea that an untouchable should not walk on the streets when an upper caste Hindu happens to be on the street testifies the injustice and inequality in the society. “It is foolish to take solace in the fact that because the Congress is fighting for the freedom of India, it is, therefore, fighting for the freedom of the people of India and of the lowest of the low.” [1]
Ambedkar, in the above lines, makes a distinction between the freedom of India and freedom of people of India. For the people of lower caste, freedom would have simply meant a change in the face. They were oppressed by the British under colonial rule and would have been oppressed by their own people under ‘swaraj’. Ambedkar displays commendable foresightedness to suggest during freedom struggle that social revolution was as important as political and economic revolution, if not more. It also hints towards a flaw in the approach mainstream leaders followed for freedom struggle. They should have first tried to stand united. Had we been united, we would have been free long back.
Does this imply that Hindu leaders were unaware of the importance of social revolution or of it being a precursor for political revolution? Ofcourse not. “It is necessary to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu family, and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has a relation to widow remarriage, child marriage, etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of the Caste System.”[2]
Ambedkar makes a clear distinction between the reform of Hindu family and Hindu society. He suggests that reformers who belong to upper caste ignore the demon called untouchability. Their area of concern is limited to the problems faced by upper caste Hindus, while the cries of lower caste Hindus go unheard. Arundhati Roy also endorses this view and labels Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda as ‘privileged-caste Hindu reformers’. [3]
Having said that, Ambedkar’s suggestion that Hindus are divided and all other religions of the world stand united is unacceptable. Even today we see all the religion be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or Sikhism have their own differences. Ambedkar’s argument that lower caste are preferring to shift to other religion is valid. But he exaggerates it by saying,
“Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is no such cement.”[4]
My intention here is not to justify division within Hindus by pointing finger towards other religion, but to drive home a fact that all the religion end up dividing people and hence fails the entire purpose of religion. A true religion is one which unites people. I also believe that British helped us shed our caste differences and come together for common good. For example, Ambedkar shunned his inimical relations with Congress and joined hands to draft the constitution. Also, as the people from lower caste got representation, their concerns could no longer be ignored. They made their presence felt and safeguards were put in place to provide a level playing field for them. One of the safeguards being reservation of seats for untouchables, who were put in the bracket of Schedules caste.
Hence the freedom movement not only marked the change of power centers, but also witnessed a reversal of trend. With the untouchables, initially being oppressed, they now enjoyed special privileges. While before independence, various castes tried to move up to the upper caste, today they want to be included in the backward castes to get the privileges of reservation. A recent demand by Gujjars stands in testimony to it. Hence Ambedkar’s text helps understand the caste dynamics.
Gandhi’s response “Vindication of Caste” published in ‘Harijan’ helps understand the genesis of caste system. He provides the ideal view of how caste system should be. The chaturvarna system and each varna complementing each other brings out the picture of harmonious and united society. It also establishes the crucial difference between varna and caste and establishes the fact that Hinduism as religion does not endorse division of laborers and keeps all the occupation on the same pedestal. So putting views of both Ambedkar and Gandhi together, one realizes that untouchability and rigid caste boundaries are the adulterations that crept into the religion gradually.
The overall tone of Ambedkar in his speech was defensive, while that of Gandhi was complacent and paternal. Was it the inherent trait of the caste they represented? We don’t have enough evidence from the text to support this, but it can’t be denied altogether. When Arundhati Roy says, “Ambedkar was a prolific writer. Unfortunately his work, unlike the writings of Gandhi, Nehru or Vivekananda, does not shine out at you from the shelves of libraries and bookshops.”[5] And further adds, “History has been unkind to Ambedkar. First it contained him, and then it glorified him.”[6] She clearly highlights the injustice done to Ambedkar. But whether this was due to his caste would always be hard to ascertain.
Ambedkar’s work brings to life the caste system prevalent in the pre-independence era. While many of us today abhor reservation, it justifies why certain set of people needed safeguards and privileges. Ambedkar and Roy expose ‘the gap between what most Indians are schooled to believe in and the reality we experience every day of our lives.’[5] And in the process, I realized how history might have been tailored to favor certain individuals. Connecting the dots looking backwards one can say that Caste was a bigger demon and threat to nation than the foreign forces. Hence Ambedkar’s concern were not misplaced. On the contrary, all those who jumped the guns and advocated that political revolution should get precedence over social revolution, did a great disservice to the nation.
Caste boundaries might have blurred over time, but it has failed to vanish. Today, no one is barred to fetch water from the well, mostly because there are no wells and even if certain villages have wells, the water has long dried. Inter-caste marriages are still looked down upon. Riots still occur. Politicians still appeal to caste sentiments and manipulate the voters on the lines of caste. Such incidents would have found place neither in India of Gandhi nor of Ambedkar. It’s time we introspect, what good has the caste division done in the last so many years. If we have reasons good enough to hold on to it, we must. Else, let’s work towards a new religion, a new caste- that of nationalism.
Citations:
1. Section 11, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
2. Para 1, Page 5, Annihiliation of Caste by Dr B. R Ambedkar
3. Section 3, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
4. Para 4, Page 14, Annihiliation of Caste by Dr B. R Ambedkar
5. Section 1, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
6. Section 13, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
Ambedkar cites examples of how untouchables were not allowed to get into the mainstream. They were not allowed to have food of their choice or move around freely. They had limited access to public places like wells and temples. While untouchability as a concept is not new to me, the extent and nature of it is beyond human purview. I have seen my acquaintances in village maintaining a safe distance from certain set of people. These are the same people who are not allowed to enter the temples. But I have always been on the other side and could never feel the pains and pangs of untouchables. The idea that an untouchable should not walk on the streets when an upper caste Hindu happens to be on the street testifies the injustice and inequality in the society. “It is foolish to take solace in the fact that because the Congress is fighting for the freedom of India, it is, therefore, fighting for the freedom of the people of India and of the lowest of the low.” [1]
Ambedkar, in the above lines, makes a distinction between the freedom of India and freedom of people of India. For the people of lower caste, freedom would have simply meant a change in the face. They were oppressed by the British under colonial rule and would have been oppressed by their own people under ‘swaraj’. Ambedkar displays commendable foresightedness to suggest during freedom struggle that social revolution was as important as political and economic revolution, if not more. It also hints towards a flaw in the approach mainstream leaders followed for freedom struggle. They should have first tried to stand united. Had we been united, we would have been free long back.
Does this imply that Hindu leaders were unaware of the importance of social revolution or of it being a precursor for political revolution? Ofcourse not. “It is necessary to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu family, and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has a relation to widow remarriage, child marriage, etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of the Caste System.”[2]
Ambedkar makes a clear distinction between the reform of Hindu family and Hindu society. He suggests that reformers who belong to upper caste ignore the demon called untouchability. Their area of concern is limited to the problems faced by upper caste Hindus, while the cries of lower caste Hindus go unheard. Arundhati Roy also endorses this view and labels Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda as ‘privileged-caste Hindu reformers’. [3]
Having said that, Ambedkar’s suggestion that Hindus are divided and all other religions of the world stand united is unacceptable. Even today we see all the religion be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or Sikhism have their own differences. Ambedkar’s argument that lower caste are preferring to shift to other religion is valid. But he exaggerates it by saying,
“Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is no such cement.”[4]
My intention here is not to justify division within Hindus by pointing finger towards other religion, but to drive home a fact that all the religion end up dividing people and hence fails the entire purpose of religion. A true religion is one which unites people. I also believe that British helped us shed our caste differences and come together for common good. For example, Ambedkar shunned his inimical relations with Congress and joined hands to draft the constitution. Also, as the people from lower caste got representation, their concerns could no longer be ignored. They made their presence felt and safeguards were put in place to provide a level playing field for them. One of the safeguards being reservation of seats for untouchables, who were put in the bracket of Schedules caste.
Hence the freedom movement not only marked the change of power centers, but also witnessed a reversal of trend. With the untouchables, initially being oppressed, they now enjoyed special privileges. While before independence, various castes tried to move up to the upper caste, today they want to be included in the backward castes to get the privileges of reservation. A recent demand by Gujjars stands in testimony to it. Hence Ambedkar’s text helps understand the caste dynamics.
Gandhi’s response “Vindication of Caste” published in ‘Harijan’ helps understand the genesis of caste system. He provides the ideal view of how caste system should be. The chaturvarna system and each varna complementing each other brings out the picture of harmonious and united society. It also establishes the crucial difference between varna and caste and establishes the fact that Hinduism as religion does not endorse division of laborers and keeps all the occupation on the same pedestal. So putting views of both Ambedkar and Gandhi together, one realizes that untouchability and rigid caste boundaries are the adulterations that crept into the religion gradually.
The overall tone of Ambedkar in his speech was defensive, while that of Gandhi was complacent and paternal. Was it the inherent trait of the caste they represented? We don’t have enough evidence from the text to support this, but it can’t be denied altogether. When Arundhati Roy says, “Ambedkar was a prolific writer. Unfortunately his work, unlike the writings of Gandhi, Nehru or Vivekananda, does not shine out at you from the shelves of libraries and bookshops.”[5] And further adds, “History has been unkind to Ambedkar. First it contained him, and then it glorified him.”[6] She clearly highlights the injustice done to Ambedkar. But whether this was due to his caste would always be hard to ascertain.
Ambedkar’s work brings to life the caste system prevalent in the pre-independence era. While many of us today abhor reservation, it justifies why certain set of people needed safeguards and privileges. Ambedkar and Roy expose ‘the gap between what most Indians are schooled to believe in and the reality we experience every day of our lives.’[5] And in the process, I realized how history might have been tailored to favor certain individuals. Connecting the dots looking backwards one can say that Caste was a bigger demon and threat to nation than the foreign forces. Hence Ambedkar’s concern were not misplaced. On the contrary, all those who jumped the guns and advocated that political revolution should get precedence over social revolution, did a great disservice to the nation.
Caste boundaries might have blurred over time, but it has failed to vanish. Today, no one is barred to fetch water from the well, mostly because there are no wells and even if certain villages have wells, the water has long dried. Inter-caste marriages are still looked down upon. Riots still occur. Politicians still appeal to caste sentiments and manipulate the voters on the lines of caste. Such incidents would have found place neither in India of Gandhi nor of Ambedkar. It’s time we introspect, what good has the caste division done in the last so many years. If we have reasons good enough to hold on to it, we must. Else, let’s work towards a new religion, a new caste- that of nationalism.
Citations:
1. Section 11, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
2. Para 1, Page 5, Annihiliation of Caste by Dr B. R Ambedkar
3. Section 3, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
4. Para 4, Page 14, Annihiliation of Caste by Dr B. R Ambedkar
5. Section 1, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
6. Section 13, The Doctor and the Saint by Arundhati Roy
No comments:
Post a Comment