gandhi and ambedkar.pdf

7/28/2019 gandhi and ambedkar.pdf

1/15

Gandhi - Ambedkar Correspondence

Discussion with B. R. Ambedkar

September 22, 1932

AMBEDKAR: We must accept that in the country there are two groups belonging to two

different ideologies and act accordingly, and I should get my compensation. I also want that

a clear understanding should be arrived at which would recompense me in other respects

also. The decision of the Government gives me seventy-one seats and I feel that is a just,

reasonable and definite allocation.

GANDHIJI: According to you.

A. Over and above that I get the right to vote and contest elections in the general

constituencies. I also have a franchise in the labourers constituencies. We do realize that

you are of immense help to us.

G. Not to you personally.

A. But I have only one quarrel with you, that is, you work for the so-called national welfare

and not for our interests alone. If you devoted yourself entirely to the welfare of the

Depressed Classes, you would then become our hero.

G. Very sweet of you to say so.

A. I want political power for my community. That is indispensable for our survival. The basis

of the agreement therefore should be: I should get what is due to me. I wish to tell the

Hindus that I should be assured of my compensation.

G. You have clarified your position very beautifully. However, I should like to ask you one

question. You say that if there is any genuine party among the Depressed Classes it should

be given sufficient scope to rise. Therefore their refusal to accept joint electorates without

primary elections is quite reasonable. What I do not understand is why you have not said so

far that there should be a separate election of this kind. I feel from whatever study I have

made of the subject that if I accept the primary election, the letter of my vow is not violated.

I therefore accept the Clause [of primary election] but I would most certainly have to

scrutinize its wording. At the moment, I say only this, that the idea of separate primary


2/15

elections does not go against my vow. But I suspect something when you insist that the

panel should consist only of three candidates. It does not give me sufficient place to turn in.

Moreover, you consider panel system for some seats only, thereby satisfying both the parties

[among Harijans]. There would be one election, i.e., of the primary nature by the Harijan

voters only. The other would be by the joint electorate. I have to safeguard without any

discrimination not the interest of one group alone but of the Depressed Class as a whole. I

want to serve the untouchables. That is why I am not at all angry with you. When you use

derogatory and angry words for me, I tell myself that I deserved that. I will not get angry

even if you spit on my face. I say this with God as witness. I know that you have drunk deep

of the poisoned cup. However, I make a claim, which will seem astounding to you. You are

born an untouchable but I am an untouchable by adoption. And as a new convert I feel more

for the welfare of the community than those who are already there . At the moment I havebefore my eyes the dumb untouchablesunapproachables and unseeablesof South India. I

am scrutinizing the scheme to see how these people will be affected by it. You will of course

say why I should worry about that. All of you will either accept Christianity or Islam. I say

that you may do whatever you like after my body falls. What I say is that if the panel system

is good for the Depressed Classes it should be good for the entire electorate. I do not like it

from the beginning that the community should be divided into two groups. I will raze to the

ground the fort of sanatanists with dynamite if all the untouchables are one and united. I

want that the entire untouchable community should unitedly rebel against the sanatanists.

You should not worry about the number as long as the appointing power is in your hands. I

am a lifelong democrat. The whole world will agree that I was the foremost among the

democrats after my ashes are scattered in the air or, if that does not happen, after they are

immersed in the Ganga. I do not say this out of pride but tell the truth with humility. I learnt

the lesson of democracy at the tender age of 12. I quarreled with my mother for treating the

domestic sweeper as an untouchable. That day I saw God in the form of a Bhangi. You spoke

the truth when you said that the welfare of untouchables is dearer to you than my own life.

Now be honest and stick to it. You should not care for my life. But do not be false to

Harijans. My work will not die with me. I have asked my son to convey my message to the

Conference. In that, I have said that they should not be tempted to forsake the interests of

the Harijans in order to save my life. I am sure that if I die my son will definitely follow me.

Not only he but many others also will lay down their lives, for I do not have only one son, I

have thousands. He would not be my worthy son if he did not lay down his life for the

honour of Hinduism. Without eradicating untouchability root and branch the honour of

Hinduism cannot be saved. That can only happen when untouchables are treated on par with

caste Hindus in every respect. A person who is regarded as unseeable today should also

have the opportunity to become the Viceroy of India. I had said, in the first political speech I


3/15

made on coming to India that I would like to make a Bhangi the President of the Congress.

So I appeal to you not to haggle. Do not bring to me something, which is so bad that I would

not even like the look of it. Bring to me some nice present, which would inspire life into a

person who is willingly courting death. However you will do that only if you are convinced

that my co-operation has some value.

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi-Vol. 57: 5 SEPTEMBER, 1932 - 15

NOVEMBER, 1932)

[From Gujarati]

Mahadevbhaini Diary, Vol. II, p. 69-72

Discussion with B. R. Ambedkar

October 17, 1932

AMBEDKAR: I have not come to discuss untouchability but political matters.

GANDHIJI: That is true. I cannot talk about it with you; even if you do I shall not be able to

express an opinionmy mind does not work in that direction.

A. I have come here for this. I want to request you to give up civil disobedience and to join

the Round Table Conference. The point is that if you do not come, we shall get nothing in

England and everything will be upset. People like Iqbal who are enemies of the country will

come to the forefront. We have to work any sort of constitution. Hence though I am a small

man, I request you to come.

G. If you elaborate your argument, I shall think over it. I suggest you go and write about it

at length in the newspapers. I shall think over it.

A. It is not a thing that can be put down in writing. In it I shall have to say a lot that will

hurt the Muslims and I cannot say that publicly. But I shall write anonymously or have

someone write in a different way. Please have a look at it and, taking it to be mine, think

over it.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/Selected%20Letters/amb-gandhi%20corr..htm


4/15

G. It will be good if you write under your own name. But of course you may do as you wish.

A. I must honestly say that I have no interest in the temples being thrown open, common

dinners and the like, because we suffer thereby. My people have to put up with beatings and

bitterness increases. After the common dinner at Vile Parle, the Maratha workers went on

strike. If the caste Hindus had the strength they would have engaged untouchables as

servants. But that has not been so. Hence I do not feel interested in the thing. I only want

that social and economic hardships should end.

G. Give examples.

A. The untouchables do not get houses to live in; they continue to suffer injustice and

oppression. In one case, an untouchable was accused of having murdered a Maratha. I could

have taken the case to Sessions and got him acquitted, but the magistrate changed the

charge of murder to one of grievous injury. Now he will receive some punishment. You may

not know what even I have to face. I do not get any other place to live in Bombay except the

Port Trust chawl. In my village, I have to stay in the midst of the Mahars. In Poona, all

others stay with their friends. I have to stay at the National Hotel and have to spend Rs. 7

and transport fare.

G. Servants of India?

A. Yes, I can perhaps stay there. But only perhaps. You will know if you ask Vaze. Once

Vazes servant insulted me in his presence. I want to do away with all these hardships.

G. I am at one with you. You ought to know that my fast has not ended yet, it is still on. To

correct the agreement was a minor thing. The main thing still remains to be done. I am

ready to give my life for it. All the injustices you mention ought to end.

A. Birla said that I should be taken on the Committee for the Abolition of Untouchability. I

declined to join, because what can I alone do? I would have to agree to the work of

abolishing untouchability being done in accordance with your wishes. If we are in a majority

we can get the reforms that we wish brought about. You wish that temples should be erected

or wells should be dug. We might feel that that would be a waste of money that there should

be another way out for it.

G. I understand your point of view, and I shall keep it in mind and shall see what can be

done.


5/15

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi-Vol. 57: 5 SEPTEMBER, 1932 - 15

NOVEMBER, 1932)

Letter to B. R. Ambedkar, February 16, 1933

DEAR DR. AMBEDKAR,

I thank you for your letter of the 12th instant enclosing your statement. I did not receive

anything from the Associated Press, but I saw it in the daily Press. I hope you saw my reply.

I wish that you could appreciate my viewpoint.

Yours sincerely,

From a microfilm: S.N. 20265

Associated Press, 14-2-1933

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi- Mahadevbhaini Diary, Vol. II, pp. 144 -

6[From Gujarati])

Discussion with B. R. Ambedkar, February 4, 1933

Discussing the propriety or otherwise of Ranga Iyers two Bills [Ambedkar] said: The one-

paragraph Bill is a very simple one. Its fair point lies in admitting that this custom is

immoral. There is no such admission in the second Bill.

BAPU: No, it is there in its preamble.

A. But it is not clear.... I also think that the two Bills do not go together...

BAPU: The one-paragraph Bill is certainly superior to the other. But the other lengthier Bill

was brought forward because the first one could not be introduced in the Provincial

Legislature. There is no contradiction in the two Bills. In one Bill untouchability ceases to be

a disability and the law refuses to accept the argument based on untouchability. As a result

of the second Bill, temple authorities are obliged to take steps under certain circumstances.

If we can get both the Bills passed the trustees will not be able to put up any kind of


6/15

obstacle. I take it upon myself to have all the temples opened within one month if we could

get both the Bills passed. The sanatanists would prefer the second Bill. But speaking as a

sincere sanatanist I would prefer the first Bill.

A. ...Now the Government will have to issue orders against the sanatanists under Section

144 because they would be regarded as interfering with untouchables rights.

BAPU: However, I want you now to emphatically proclaim your ideas in very clear words.

A. ...As far as we are concerned we have no immediate concern other than securing political

power... and that alone is the solution of our problem... We want our social status raised in

the eyes of the savarna Hindus. There is another point of view also. The object of this effort

could be that you want the depressed classes to be retained in the Hindu religion, in which

case I am inclined to believe that it is not sufficient in the present awakened state of the

depressed classes... If I call myself a Hindu I am obliged to accept that by birth I belong to a

low caste. Hence I think I must ask the Hindus to show me some sacred authority, which

would rule out this feeling of lowliness. If it cannot be I should say goodbye to Hinduism... I

am not going to be satisfied with measures, which would merely bring some relief... I dont

want to be crushed by your charity.

BAPU: I have nothing to say if you have come with a final decision that you are not going to

move your little finger to have this Bill passed.

A. We have not made any decision. However, I have shown you how my mind is working.

BAPU: I told you that I could have nothing to say if you have already taken a decision.

A. We cannot ask the savarna Hindus to decide for themselves whether or not we are a part

of them. You ought to demonstrate your determination by getting these Bills passed.

BAPU: I am not asking you to do anything. I never wanted the depressed people to go on

their knees to the savarna Hindus and ask them to get these Bills passed. Unfortunately, the

solution of this problem is in the hands of a third power, which is in a position to mend or

worsen the situation.

A. I can set right the thing.

BAPU: That is right. Of course I agree with you that it does not behove your dignity to

approach the Hindus. I take the positionyou might remember since I made the speech at


7/15

the Round Table Conferencethat we should atone for this. If you repudiate us and go away

I would think that we only deserved it.

A. The Bill mentions temple-entry but it makes no mention of entry into the sanctum

sanctorum. Will they let a member of the depressed community place flowers on the idol, or

will they let him offer a tray containing oblations? Malaviyaji has already declared that

question of offering puja does not arise.

BAPU: Temple-entry is meant for puja if anything. But if the language of the Bill is not right

it can be amended and we can say entry for the purpose of puja. It seems there has been

some misunderstanding somewhere in the case of Malaviyaji. He would not say what you

attribute to him. Flowers, sweets or any other offerings from Harijans will surely be

accepted. So we two agree on this point that there is no question of your imploring the

savarna Hindus. When some savarna Hindus tell me that Harijans do not want to enter the

temples I ask them to throw open the temple doors for the Harijans whether or not they

wish to come in. They ought to have the satisfaction that they have done their duty. They

ought to discharge the debt, which they owe whether the creditor keeps it or throws it into

the gutter. But I must say that you ought not to say that you are not a Hindu. In accepting

the Poona Pact you accept the position that you are Hindus.

A. I have accepted only the political aspect of it.

BAPU: You cannot escape the situation that you are Hindus in spite of your statement to the

contrary.

A. We ask of you that our silence should not be misconstrued. After that I accept your point.

BAPU: I go one step further. You will not be able to go ahead a single step unless you

maintain your position absolutely correct. I regard temple-entry as a spiritual matter

through which everything else will bear fruit.

A. The Hindu mind does not work in a rational way. They have no objection to the

untouchables touching them on the railway and other public places. Why do they object to it

only in the case of temples?

BAPU: We are well caught on this point. I take up the question of temple-entry first of all

because these people want to cling to untouchability in the temples. Many sanatanist Hindus

say that they would admit Harijans in schools and public places but not in temples. I ask


8/15

them to grant the Harijans equal status before God. It will raise their status.

A. Supposing we are lucky in the case of temple-entry, will they let us fetch water from the

wells?

BAPU: Sure. This is bound to follow it. And it is also very easy.

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi- APPENDIX X VOL. 59: 13 JANUARY 1933

- 9 MARCH 1933)

[From Gujarati]

Mahadevbhaini Diary, Vol. III, pp. 117-22

Vide Dr. Ambedkar and Caste, 7-2-1933

Letter to B. R. Ambedkar, April 27, 1933

DEAR DR, AMBEDKAR,

In accordance with my promise I send you herewith my opinion on your proposal. I hope you

do not mind my having dealt with the matter publicly. I thought that the issue raised by you

was of such momentous importance that if I discussed it at all, I should do so publicly.

Yours sincerely,

Enclosure From a photostat: S.N. 21074

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi- VOL. 61: 27 APRIL, 1933- 7 OCTOBER

193)

Volume 63

Letter to B. R. Ambedkar

AS AT PATNA, April 9, 1934
http://www.mkgandhi.org/Selected%20Letters/amb-gandhi%20corr..htm


9/15

DEAR DR. AMBEDKAR,

Pray excuse me for the delay in replying to your letter of 29-3-1934. It was not possible to

reply earlier owing to incessant traveling. Whilst I should fall in with your scheme if it was

accepted by the provinces, I could not shoulder the burden of pressing the other provinces

to reopen the Pact in respect of the number of seats allotted in their cases.

I have been trying to do what I can to placate Bengal, but so far without success. If the

Harijan population in Bengal is as was believed at the time of the Pact they have nothing to

complain of. If as a matter of fact it is much less than the figure on whose basis the number

was fixed, I should think there would be no objection on your part to an amendment

bringing the number to the figure required.

Yours sincerely,

M. K. GANDHI

From a copy: C. W. 7949. Courtesy: G. D. Birla

Volume 64

Interview to B. R. Ambedkar

BOMBAY, June 16, 1934

In the afternoon Dr. Ambedkar interviewed Gandhiji along with Dr. Solanki and other friends

of his. Gandhiji asked Dr. Ambedkar for a criticism of the work of the Harijan Sevak Sangh.

The worthy Doctor suggested that the Sangh might economize on education and medical

relief, as these were attended to by Government and there was a risk of duplication of effort

in these matters. Again, education, in the first place, only benefited the individual; whether

it would benefit society or not would depend upon what attitude the educated individual tookup towards society. He would like the Sangh to concentrate on the primary object of securing

full civic rights for Harijans, such as the right to draw water from public wells and to send

children to public schools, without any discrimination being exercised against them. As

regards cases of maltreatment of Harijans by villagers, such as those adduced by Dr.

Ambedkar, Gandhiji said the Sangh was bound to deal with them. In fact, steps had actually

been taken in numerous cases with more or less success. But in future Gandhiji would be


10/15

glad if the Doctor was good enough to send him full facts about every incident of that

description. In course of his tour of villages he had noticed that a change for the better was

coming over them, but progress in that direction would be accelerated if he had the Doctors

valued co-operation. As regards education, Gandhiji did not think there was overlapping. In

fact, the Sangh was unable to cope with the whole demand, as the right type of teachers

was not readily available.

Harijan, 29-6-1934

G. V. Naik, Amritrao Khambe and Baburao Gaekwad.

Volume 67


WARDHA, July 9, 1935

DEAR DR. AMBEDKAR,

As you may know, Rajaram Bhole is with me just now. He wants me to advise him as to the

course he should take. Regard being had as to his precarious health; I have advised that it

would be better if he could reconcile himself to some Harijan service against... to feed and

clothe himself. The other alternative is to take up a business line. I see difficulties in his

taking it up. He must then attend regular hours and be prepared to do best work, which is

fatal for a man who is in perpetual fear of developing active T.B. But I told him that he

should take your advice and be guided by you. He tells me he has already written to you. I

know he will receive your reply in due course. But I would like you, for my sake, please, to

hasten your reply so as to enable me to tell Rajaram what to do.

Yours sincerely,

From a copy: Pyarelal Papers. Courtesy: Pyarelal

TELEGRAM TO B. R. AMBEDKAR


11/15

ANANDKUNJ, RAJKOT, April 14, 1939

DOCTOR AMBEDKAR, M. L. A.

BOMBAY

SO FAR AS I CAN SEE AT LEAST FOUR MEMBERS WILL FULLY REPRESENT DEPRESSED

CLASS INTERESTS. NAMES BEING CHOSEN BY SARDAR.

GANDHI

From a copy: C. W. 10176. Courtesy: D. B. Kalelkar


SEVAGRAM, August 6, 1944

Thank you for yours of July 31 received yesterday. The Hindu-Muslim question is for me a

lifelong question. There was a time when I used to think that when that question was solved

Indias political troubles would be over. Experience has taught me that it was only partly

true. Untouchability I began to abhor when I was in my teens, but it was a question with me

of religious and social reform. And though it has attained a great political importance its

religious and social value is for me much greater. But I know to my cost that you and I hold

different views on this very important question. And I know, too, that on broad politics of the

country we see things from different angles. I would love to find a meeting ground between

us on both the questions. I know your great ability and I would love to own you as a

colleague and co-worker. But I must admit my failure to come nearer to you. If you can

show me a way to a common meeting ground between us I would like to see it. Meanwhile, I

must reconcile myself to the present unfortunate difference.

(Source: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi- Volume 84)

The Bombay Chronicle, 3-1-1945

Vide Appendix A Resolution, before 9-8-1944.


12/15

Which inter alia read: ...the Hindu-Muslim problem is not the only communal problem that

has to be settled... there is a communal problem between the Hindus and the untouchables,

which is also awaiting solution... An all-round settlement between the Hindus and other

minorities, I am sure, will become necessary if Indias political goal is to be achieved... But,

if you are anxious to solve the Hindu-untouchable problem as you are to solve the Hindu-

Muslim problem, I shall be glad to formulate points on which a settlement is necessary...

Gandhi & Ambedkar - A comparative study by Ramachandra Guha.

'Inside every thinking Indian there is a Gandhian and a Marxist struggling for supremacy,' says noted historianand biographer RAMACHANDRA GUHA in the opening sentence of this publication, which has just beenreleased. A significant portion of the book expands on this salvo. In short, it examines and discusses all thosewho comprise the life of thinking Indians today. Exclusive extracts from the book released yesterday .

MAHATMA GANDHI was not so much the Father of the Nation as the mother of all debates regarding its future.All his life he fought in a friendly spirit with compatriots whose views on this or that topic diverged sharply fromhis. He disagreed with Communists and the bhadralok on the efficacy and morality of violence as a politicalstrategy. He fought with radical Muslims on the one side and with radical Hindus on the other, both of whomsought to build a state on theological principles. He argued with Nehru and other scientists on whether economicdevelopment in a free India should centre on the village or the factory. And with that other giant, RabindranathTagore, he disputed the merits of such varied affiliations as the English language, nationalism, and the spinningwheel.

In some ways the most intense, interesting and long-running of these debates was between Gandhi andAmbedkar. Gandhi wished to save Hinduism by abolishing untouchability, whereas Ambedkar saw a solution forhis people outside the fold of the dominant religion of the Indian people. Gandhi was a rural romantic, whowished to make the self-governing village the bedrock of free India; Ambedkar an admirer of city life and moderntechnology who dismissed the Indian village as a den of iniquity. Gandhi was a crypto-anarchist who favourednon-violent protest while being suspicious of the state; Ambedkar a steadfast constitutionalist, who worked withinthe state and sought solutions to social problems with the aid of the state.

Perhaps the most telling difference was in the choice of political instrument. For Gandhi, the Congressrepresented all of India, the Dalits too. Had he not made their cause their own from the time of his first ashram inSouth Africa? Ambedkar however made a clear distinction between freedom and power. The Congress wantedthe British to transfer power to them, but to obtain freedom the Dalits had to organise themselves as a separatebloc, to form a separate party, so as to more effectively articulate their interests in the crucible of electoralpolitics. It was thus that in his lifetime, and for long afterwards, Ambedkar came to represent a dangerouslysubversive threat to the authoritative, and sometimes authoritarian, equation: Gandhi = Congress = Nation.

Here then is the stuff of epic drama, the argument between the Hindu who did most to reform caste and the ex-Hindu who did most to do away with caste altogether. Recent accounts represent it as a fight between a heroand a villain, the writer's caste position generally determining who gets cast as hero, who as villain. In truth bothfigures should be seen as heroes, albeit tragic ones.

The tragedy, from Gandhi's point of view, was that his colleagues in the national movement either did not

understand his concern with untouchability or even actively deplored it. Priests and motley shankaracharyasthought he was going too fast in his challenge to caste - and why did he not first take their permission?Communists wondered why he wanted everyone to clean their own latrines when he could be speaking of classstruggle. And Congressmen in general thought Harijan work came in the way of an all-out effort for nationalfreedom. Thus Stanley Reid, a former editor of the Times of India quotes an Indian patriot who complained in thelate thirties that "Gandhi is wrapped up in the Harijan movement. He does not care a jot whether we live or die;whether we are bond or free."

The opposition that he faced from his fellow Hindus meant that Gandhi had perforce to move slowly, and instages. He started by accepting that untouchability was bad, but added a cautionary caveat - that inter-diningand inter-marriage were also bad. He moved on to accepting inter-mingling and inter-dining (hence the


13/15

movement for temple entry), and to arguing that all men and all varnas were equal. The last and most far-reaching step, taken only in 1946, was to challenge caste directly by accepting and sanctioning inter-marriageitself.

The tragedy, from Ambedkar's point of view, was that to fight for his people he had to make common cause withthe British. In his book, Worshipping False Gods, Arun Shourie has made much of this. Shourie takes all of 600pages to make two points: (i) that Ambedkar was a political opponent of both Gandhi and the Congress, andgenerally preferred the British to either; (ii) that Ambedkar cannot be called the "Father of the Constitution" as

that implies sole authorship, whereas several other people, such as K. M. Munshi and B. N. Rau, alsocontributed significantly to the wording of the document. Reading Worshipping False Gods, one might likewiseconclude that it has been mistakenly advertised as being the work of one hand. Entire chapters are basedentirely on one or other volume of the Transfer of Power, the collection of official papers put out some years agoby Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The editor of that series, Nicholas Mansergh, might with reason claim co-authorship of Shourie's book. In a just world he would be granted a share of the royalties too.

Practised in the arts of over-kill and over-quote, Shourie is a pamphleteer parading as a historian. He speaks onGandhi only as "Gandhiji" and of the national movement only as the "National Movement", indicating that he has

judged the case beforehand. For to use the suffix and the capitals is to simultaneously elevate and intimidate, toset up the man and his movement as the ideal, above and beyond criticism. But the Congress' claim to representall of India was always under challenge. The Communists said it was the party of landlords and capitalists. TheMuslim League said it was a party of the Hindus. Ambedkar then appended a devastating caveat, saying that theparty did not even represent all Hindus, but only the upper castes.

Shourie would deny that these critics had any valid arguments whatsoever. He is in the business of awarding,and more often withholding, certificates of patriotism. The opponents of the Congress are thus all suspect to him,simply because they dared point out that the National Movement was not always as national as it set out to be,or that the Freedom Struggle promised unfreedom for some. But how did these men outside the Congress cometo enjoy such a wide following? This is a question Shourie does not pause to answer, partly because he hadmade up his mind in advance, but also because he is woefully ill-informed. Consider now some key facts erasedor ignored by him.

That Ambedkar preferred the British to the Congress is entirely defensible. Relevant here is a remark of the 18th-Century English writer Samuel Johnson. When the American colonists asked for independence from Britain,Johnson said: "How is it that we hear the greatest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" Untouchabilitywas to the Indian freedom movement what slavery had been to the American struggle, the basic contradiction itsought to paper over. Before Ambedkar, another outstanding leader of the lower castes, Jotiba Phule, also

distrusted the Congress, in his time a party dominated by Poona Brahmins. He too preferred the British, inwhose armies and factories low castes could find opportunities denied to them in the past. The opening up of theeconomy and the growth of the colonial cities also helped many untouchables escape the tyranny of the village.The British might have been unwitting agents of change; nonetheless, under their rule life for the lower casteswas less unpleasant by far than it had been under the Peshwas.

Shourie also seems unaware of work by worthy historians on low- caste movements in other parts of India. MarkJuergensmeyer has documented the struggles of untouchables in Punjab, which under its remarkable leaderMangu Ram, rejected the Congress and the Arya Samaj to form a new sect, Adi-Dharm, which was opposed toboth. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has written of the Namasudras in Bengal, who like Ambedkar and his Mahars,were not convinced that a future Congress government would be sympathetic to their interests. And countlessscholars have documented the rise of the Dravidian movement in South India, that took as its point of departureBrahmin domination of the Congress in Madras: the movement's founder, E. V. Ramaswami "Periyar", alsofought bitterly with Gandhi.

The leaders of these movements, and the millions who followed them, worked outside the Congress and often inopposition to it. Enough reason perhaps for Shourie to dismiss them all as anti- national. Indeed, Shourie'sattitude is comparable to that of White Americans who question the patriotism of those Blacks who dare speakout against racism. For asking Blacks to stand up for their rights, men of such stature as W.E.B. Du Bois andPaul Robeson were called all kind of names, of which "anti-American" was much the politest. Later, the greatMartin Luther King was persecuted by the most powerful of American agencies, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, whose director, J. Edgar Hoover, equated patriotism with acquiescence to White domination.

Much of the time, Shourie writes as if there is a singular truth, with him as its repository and guarantor. Time andagain he equates Ambedkar with Jinnah as an "accomplice of Imperial politics". He dismisses all that Ambedkarwrote about Hinduism "caricature" and "calumnies". Not once does he acknowledge that there was much truth to


14/15

the criticisms. There is not one admission here of the horrendous and continuing sufferings of Dalit as the handsof caste Hindus that might explain and justify Ambedkar's rhetoric and political choices. For Shourie, the fact that

Ambedkar disagreed long and often with Gandhi is proof enough that he was anti-national. He even insinuatesthat Ambedkar "pushed Gandhi to the edge of death" by not interfering with the Mahatma's decision to fast incaptivity. Of the same fast other historians have written, in my view more plausibly, that by threatening to dieGandhi blackmailed Ambedkar into signing a pact with him.

Somewhere in the middle of Worshipping False Gods, the author complains that Ambedkar's "statues, dressed

in garish blue, holding a copy of the Constitution - have been put up in city after city." However, this aestheticdistaste seems rather pointless. For the background to the statues and the reverence they command lies in thecontinuing social practices of the religion to which Shourie and I belong. If caste lives, so will the memory of theman who fought to annihilate it. The remarkable thing is that 50 years after independence, the only politician,dead or alive, who has a truly pan-Indian appeal is B. R. Ambedkar. Where Gandhi is forgotten in his nativeGujarat and Nehru vilified in his native Kashmir, Ambedkar is worshipped in hamlets all across the land. ForDalits everywhere he is the symbol of their struggle, the scholar, theoretician and activist whose own liferepresented a stirring triumph over the barriers of caste.

Shourie's attacks on Dalits and their hero follow in quick succession the books he has published attackingCommunists, Christians and Muslims. Truth be told, the only category of Indians he has not attacked - and goingby his present political persuasion will not attack - are high-caste Hindus. Oddly enough, this bilious polemicistand baiter of the minorities was once an anti-religious leftist who excoriated Hinduism. To see Shourie's career inits totality is to recall these words of Issac Deutscher, on the communist turned anti-communist.

He brings to his job the lack of scruple, the narrow-mindedness, the disregard of truth, and the intense hatredwith which Stalinism has imbued him. He remains sectarian. He is an inverted Stalinist. He continues to see theworld in black and white, but now the colours are differently distributed ... The ex- communist ... is haunted by avague sense that he has betrayed either his former ideals or the ideals of bourgeois society ... He then tries tosuppress the guilt and uncertainty, or to camouflage it by a show of extraordinary certitude and franticaggressiveness. He insists that the world should recognise his uneasy conscience as the clearest conscience ofall. He may no longer be concerned with any cause except one - self- justification.

Ambedkar is a figure who commands great respect from one end of the social spectrum. But he is also, amongsome non-Dalits, an object of great resentment, chiefly for his decision to carve out a political careerindependent of and sometimes in opposition to Gandhi's Congress. That is of course the burden of Shourie'scritique but curiously, the very week his book was published, at a political rally in Lucknow the Samajvadi Party'sBeni Prasad Verma likewise dismissed Ambedkar as one who "did nothing else except create trouble for

Gandhiji". This line, that Ambedkar had no business to criticise, challenge or argue with Gandhi, was of coursemade with much vigour and malice during the national movement as well.

I think, however, that for Ambedkar to stand up to the uncrowned king and anointed Mahatma of the Indianpeople required extraordinary courage and will-power. Gandhi thought so too. Speaking at a meeting in Oxford inOctober 1931, Gandhi said he had "the highest regard for Dr. Ambedkar. He has every right to be bitter. That hedoes not break our heads is an act of self- restraint on his part." Writing to an English friend two years later, hesaid he found "nothing unnatural" in Ambedkar's hostility to the Congress and its supporters. "He has not onlywitnessed the inhuman wrongs done to the social pariahs of Hinduism", reflected this Hindu, "but in spite of allhis culture, all the honours that he has received, he has, when he is in India, still to suffer many insults to whichuntouchables are exposed." In June 1936 Gandhi pointed out once again that Dr. Ambedkar "has had to sufferhumiliations and insults which should make any one of us bitter and resentful." "Had I been in his place," heremarked, "I would have been as angry."

Gandhi's latter-day admirers might question Ambedkar's patriotism and probity, but the Mahatma had no suchsuspicions himself. Addressing a bunch of Karachi students in June 1934, he told them that "the magnitude of(Dr. Ambedkar's) sacrifice is great. He is absorbed in his own work. He leads a simple life. He is capable ofearning one to two thousand rupees a month. He is also in a position to settle down in Europe if he so desires.But he does not want to stay there. He is only concerned about the welfare of the Harijians."

To Gandhi, Ambedkar's protest held out a lesson to the upper castes. In March 1936 he said that if Ambedkarand his followers were to embrace another religion, "We deserve such treatment and our task (now) is to wakeup to the situation and purify ourselves." Not many heeded the warning, for towards the end of his life Gandhispoke with some bitterness about the indifference to Harijan work among his fellow Hindus: "The tragedy is thatthose who should have especially devoted themselves to the work of (caste) reform did not put their hearts intoit. What wonder that Harijan brethren feel suspicious, and show opposition and bitterness."


15/15

The words quoted in the preceding paragraphs have been taken from that reliable and easily accessible source:the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. The 100 volumes of that set rest lightly on my shelves as, going byother evidence, they rest on the shelves of the man who compiled Worshipping False Gods. Perhaps the mostperverse aspect of an altogether perverse book is that Shourie does not once tell us what Gandhi said or wroteabout his great adversary. A curious thing or, on reflection, a not-so-curious thing: for if that scholarly courtesywas restored to, the case that Ambedkar was an anti-national careerist would be blown sky- high.

One of the few Gandhians who understood the cogency of the Dalit critique of the Congress was C.

Rajagopalachari. In the second half of 1932, Rajaji became involved in the campaign to allow the so-calleduntouchables to enter the Guruvayoor temple in Kerala. The campaign was led by that doughty fighter for therights of the dispossessed, K. Kelappan Nair. In a speech at Guruvayoor on December 20, 1932, Rajaji told thehigh castes that it would certainly help us in the fight for Swaraj if we open the doors of the temple (to Harijans).One of the many causes that keeps Swaraj away from us is that we are divided among ourselves. Mahatmajireceived many wounds in London (during the Second Round Table Conference of 1931). But Dr. Ambedkar'sdarts were the worst. Mahatmaji did not quake before the Churchills of England. But as repressing the nation hehad to plead guilty to Dr. Ambedkar's charges.

As it was, the managers of temples across the land could count upon the support of many among their clientele,the suvarna Hindus who agreed with the Shankaracharyas that the Gandhians were dangerous revolutionarieswho had to be kept out at the gate. Unhappily, while upper-caste Hindus thought that Gandhi moved too fast,Dalits today feel he was much too slow. The Dalit politician Mayawati has, more than once, spoken of theMahatma as a shallow paternalist who sought only to smooth the path for more effective long-term domination

by the suvarna. Likewise, in his book Why I am Not a Hindu Kancha Illiah writes of Gandhi as wanting to "build amodern consent system for the continued maintenance of brahminical hegemony" - a judgment as unfair asShourie's on Ambedkar.

Whereas in their lifetime Gandhi and Ambedkar were political rivals, now, decades after their death, it should bepossible to see their contributions as complementing one another's. The Kannada critic D. R. Nagaraj oncenoted that in the narratives of Indian nationalism the "heroic stature of the caste-Hindu reformer", Gandhi,"further dwarfed the Harijan personality" of Ambedkar. In the Ramayana there is only one hero but, as Nagarajpoints out, Ambedkar was too proud, intelligent and self- respecting a man to settle for the role of Hanuman orSugreeva. By the same token, Dalit hagiographers and pamphleteers generally seek to elevate Ambedkar bydiminishing Gandhi. For the scriptwriter and the mythmaker there can only be one hero. But the historian isbound by no such constraint. The history of Dalit emancipation is unfinished, and for the most part unwritten. Itshould, and will, find space for many heroes. Ambedkar and Gandhi will do nicely for a start.

An Anthropologist Among The Marxists And Other Essays, Ramachandra Guha, Permanent Black 2001, NewDelhi, Rs. 450.

Ramachandra Guha is a historian, biographer and cricket writer. Once a visiting professor at StanfordUniversity, Oslo University and the University of California at Berkeley, he is now a full- time writer based inBangalore. His books include The Unquiet Woods and Environmentalism: A Global History. He is the editor of theforthcoming Picador Book of Cricket

gandhi and ambedkar.pdf

Documents