<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Ambedkar and Ambedkarism: Foundation, Building Blocks and Relevance

Pramod Ranjan

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Pramod Ranjan (Dir.). Ambedkar and Ambedkarism: Foundation, Building Blocks and Relevance. 2022, 9789356320222. 10.17613/ff2n-1a87. hal-03700564

HAL Id: hal-03700564

https://hal.science/hal-03700564

Submitted on 27 Jul 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

AMBEDKAR
AND
AMBEDKARISM

EDITOR
PRAMOD RANJAN
AMBEDKAR
AND
AMBEDKARISM

Foundation, Building Blocks and Relevance

Editor

PRAMOD RANJAN

BFC PUBLICATIONS

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
BFC PUBLICATIONS

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Published in India by BFC Publications Private Limited

CP-61, Viraj Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh, India

www.bfcpublications.com

ISBN – 978-93-5632-022-2

Copyright (©) **Pramod Ranjan** (2022)

*All rights reserved worldwide.*

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means (electronic, digital, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior permission of the publisher.

*Disclaimer*

The views expressed in this book are solely those of the author, and presented by the publisher in good faith.
## About this book

The past few years have witnessed growing interest in the life and works of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. Several Indian Universities have set up Ambedkar Study Centres and content on and about Ambedkar has been included in the curricula of several disciplines including literature, political science and sociology. I have edited different newspapers and magazines for more than one and a half decades and am teaching in a University for the last couple of years. My experience tells me that quality academic material about Ambedkar is still scarce. The published material on Ambedkar is mostly emotional and does not do justice to his multi-dimensional personality, his complex thought process and his formidable analytical skills.

It was to fill this void that this book was planned. Over the past some years, I have been requesting writers and scholars who are authorities on Ambedkar and his thoughts to write articles on related topics. Most of these articles were published in Forward Press, Delhi from 2016-18 during my editorship of the monthly magazine.

The idea behind compiling these articles in a book is to make quality material on Ambedkar available to students and scholars researching topics related to social justice and to introduce them to the comparatively lesser-known aspects of Ambedkar's ideas and beliefs.

The articles compiled in the first section of the book throw light on the factors that shaped Ambedkar's ideology. The first article in this section underlines Ambedkar's significance for the present-day India. The other two articles are about the influence of Kabir's Nirgunvaad and the thoughts of John Dewey on Ambedkar's ideology. It also includes a comparative study on how Ambedkar and Gandhi saw religious conversions.
The four articles compiled in the third section throw light on the significance of Ambedkar's work as a historian, educationist, jurist and anthropologist. The articles include succinct write-ups by two women scholars on Ambedkar's concept of nation and feminism.

The focus of the fourth section is on the future of Ambedkarism and what Ambedkarism is and what it isn't. The seventh and the last section are about the chronology of Ambedkar's life and his writings.

If this book aids a comprehensive understanding of the different aspects of Ambedkar's personality and the diverse dimensions of Ambedkarism, I will consider this endeavour a success.

I am grateful to the writers, translators and others who have contributed in the making of this book

-Pramod Ranjan

April 14, 2022
# Contents

<table><tr><td>About this Book</td><td>iii</td></tr><tr><td>Section 1: The Making of Babasaheb</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar's India: Premkumar Mani</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Significance of Kabir's 'Nirgunvad' on Ambedkar - Kanwal Bharati</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>The like-mindedness of Dewey and Ambedkar - Scott R. Stroud</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Section 2: Ambedkar on the question of Religion</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar rethinking on religion - Prathma Banerjee</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Epistemological bases of Ambedkar's Navyana - Sadaf Rukhsar Yusuf</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar, Gandhi and the right to conversion - Pramod Meena</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Section 3: Different Aspects of Ambedkar</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar: The Unsentimental Historian: Anirudh Deshpande</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>An educationist of Marginalized - Minakshi Meena</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar: Jurist with no equal - Sumit</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar's 'untouchability' in Indian Anthropology - Abhijit Guha</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td>Mother India and Ambedkar's India - Neha Singh</td><td>136</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar's understated feminism: Lalitha Dhara</td><td>143</td></tr><tr><td>Section 4: Narrative after Ambedkar - what it is and what it should be</td><td>149</td></tr><tr><td>Ambedkar as a narrative of social change - Rinker</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>Section 5: Chronology</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>Life and times of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar - Lokesh Kumar</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>Writers Intro</td><td>195</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Section 1:

The Making of Babasaheb
# Ambedkar's India

## Premkumar Mani

Who has built today's India? Who has contributed the most to her transformation? In other words, whose is the biggest influence on contemporary India? If you pose this question to a 'Savarna' Hindu, the answer will invariably be either Gandhi or Nehru. Some middle class people might well say that many personalities have influenced India. Their list may carry other names but Gandhi and Nehru will definitely figure in it. Very few will put Ambedkar in that list.

But, if you ask the same question of Dalits and members of educationally and socially backward classes, now generally described as OBCs, most of them will name Ambedkar. The educated section of the Dalits and Backwards owes its thought process and mental make-up to the Ambedkarite ideology, either directly or (mostly) indirectly.

Baba Saheb died in Delhi on 6 December 1956. He was working till late in the night. In the morning, he was found lying lifeless on the heap of documents he was working on. His death sent a wave of sorrow in a small circle in Delhi. I say a small circle because at that time, there was no big group of Dalits and Backwards in Delhi. There is none even today but things have changed considerably.

But yes, Mumbai and Maharashtra were immersed in grief and the huge turnout for his funeral procession is remembered even today. Newspapers wrote editorials on him and a clutch of dignitaries, including President Rajendra Prasad and Prime Minister
Nehru, mourned his demise. But still, that was nothing as compared to the respect Ambedkar commands today.

Till 1960, the biography of even Vinoba Bhave was taught in schools and colleges but Ambedkar was not even mentioned. Ambedkar gradually came on the centre stage – not courtesy the media or the government publicity machinery but on his own strength. As education spread among the Dalits and OBCs, the influence of Gandhi and Nehru, who were thrust upon them, began waning and Ambedkar took their place. If there is any single personality whose statues dot the villages and hamlets, cities and towns across the country, it is Ambedkar’s. His statues outnumber those of every other leader. And very few of these statues have been installed by the government. Most have been put up by that class which regards him as its liberator. The fact that the highest number of statues in the country are of modern India’s biggest iconoclast, is in itself, a moot point. But then, one cannot wash away the reality. In this race, Nehru stands nowhere and even Gandhi has been left far behind and the gap is widening by the day. No leader can match Ambedkar’s popularity in the country today. Besides mythological-historical personalities like Ram, Krishna and Buddha, there are only two individuals on whose birthdays the country observes a national holiday – Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s.

In the initial days, Ambedkar’s popularity and influence was not a patch on Gandhi’s. The Indian bourgeoisie class tried its best to give Gandhi the status of an international personality. Dozens of ‘Gandhi Prathisthans’, hundreds of Universities and thousands even lakhs of writers-intellectuals tried hard to build his image as that of a messiah of the oppressed. But they did not succeed. Today, Gandhi may be seen as an anti-imperialist and a leading light of the national movement but as far as the striving for the modern values of liberty, equality and fraternity goes, Gandhi seems to be a pygmy before Ambedkar – and sometimes even an anti-hero. For instance, a contemporary intellectual may find it difficult to believe that an
Indian national hero of the 20th century was a supporter of the Varna and Caste system. After 1940, Gandhi did emerge as a liberal nationalist leader but science, modernism and logic still did not have the needed space in his ideology. After Gandhi's death, Vinoba Bhave inherited his mantle and ultimately he began being described as 'Sarkari Sant' (Government saint). Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul, in his famous book "India: A wounded civilisation", has portrayed Vinoba as an anti-hero. We will have to decide whether Nehru or Lohia were the real inheritors of Gandhi or whether it was Vinoba. Nehru had made his differences with Gandhi on many issues very public and Lohia described himself as an 'outcaste' Gandhian. It is my firm belief that had Lohia broken away from Gandhi completely, he would have been a greater thinker. The inheritors of Gandhi's legacy today are either busy giving a modern veneer to their conservative notions of Hindu society or, like Anna Hazare, are militating against corruption in government or for establishment of 'Gram Swaraj' or other similar campaigns raising slogans like 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' or 'Vande Mataram'. There is no doubt that they enjoy the support of a big section of civil society or the middle class but social transformation, building a better society which is just and egalitarian, is not the objective of this section. It has no vision regarding it either.

Ambedkar's legacy has no fixed shape or structure. But it is expanding with each passing day. Dalits, OBCs and even a section of the general category 'Savarna' classes have become the carriers of Ambedkar's legacy. They have their own opinion on every issue, whether big or small. They have their own firm beliefs, their own vision. This vision encompasses scientific and logical thinking. They have completely rejected the entire system of Varna, caste and rural hierarchy. They see Gandhi more as a mythological figure than as a historical one. Mythological personalities are worshipped; we do not learn things from them. Also, they are never the subject matter of any debate. It is Ambedkar who is the subject matter of
debates and discussions. He interests them and they can learn a lot
from him. Today, lakhs and crores of Indian youth are coming under
the influence of Ambedkar's thoughts and his vision. Ambedkar is
inspiring them to build a new, modern India based on the principles
of equality, liberty and fraternity.

The new generation, upholding the legacy of Ambedkar, is
strengthening Indian nationalism – a nationalism which is scientific
and just in the true sense. Their nationalism is not the nationalism
that takes pride in rivers and mountains. It is not ‘Shujalam,
Shufalam’ (richly-watered, richly-fruited) nation of ‘Vande
Mataram’. This is the nation of crores of workers, farmers, dalits
and artisans. Those bent upon distorting the concept of nation may
think that corruption is the biggest problem besetting the nation but
that is not true. The biggest problem is the exploitation of men, the
exploitation of the entire nation by a particular section. Where is this
section?

Ambedkar had worked in very difficult circumstances. He had
no interest in becoming Gandhi-Vinoba. He was interested in
becoming Voltaire, Rousseau and Marx. He worked silently. He
brought the Dalit problem to the centre stage of the nation. After
1932, even leaders like Gandhi turned towards him. It was
Ambedkar who drew Gandhi's attention. The so-called modern anti-
imperialist leaders like Nehru and Subhash did not like this. But
Ambedkar continued his work. He had studied Marxism extensively
but he had no interest in becoming a rigid Marxist His work was
more challenging than that of Italian thinker-warrior Antonio
Gramsci. Like Marxists, he believed that politics is only a super-
structure. Nothing would change by bringing about changes in
politics. It is the society which needs to be changed. Once the
society changes, the super-structure of politics will also change.
Hence, his emphasis was on social change. For him, social change
meant a change in the way the society thought. He did not mince
words in slamming the thought and philosophy based on
superstitions and rites and rituals. As far as thoughts were concerned, the country of their origin, the era to which they belonged and the direction from which they came never mattered to him. Many conservatives – and Gandhi joined their ranks sometimes – branded some thoughts as Western and rejected them. “Hind Swaraj” is based on this negation. Ambedkar flayed all this in his book ‘What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables’. It was the first systematic repudiation of Gandhism. Another key contribution of his was pitting Buddhist common sense against Vedic classicism that had become the nucleus of the Indian Renaissance.

He was a Minister in the Government of India for a very short time but he did important things in that brief period. His key role in the drafting of the Constitution of India is well known. And so is the historic tabling of the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament by him in his capacity as Law Minister. But few people know that he played an important role in the launching of irrigation and power generation projects and in reforming the financial system of the states. The Damodar valley project and Hirakud dam were the result of his vision. He was one of the persons who ensured that the Gandhian model of development did not come in the way of the Five Year plans.

That is why, today’s India appears to be more of Ambedkar’s than Gandhi’s. The deepening roots of India’s democratic polity are a legacy of Ambedkar. The growing interest of the younger generation in modernity and science is the legacy of Ambedkar. It was Ambedkar who laid the foundation of social justice. And today, the concept of social justice dominates every single political stream of the country. There is, of course, a section which wants to brand Ambedkar as a leader of the Dalits. There are also some who want him to be confined as a leader of the ‘Mahars’. I can only speculate on their understanding of Ambedkar. Those who want to confine a leader who was an advocate of constant change to a limited arena
are definitely not carrying his legacy forward. Ambedkar had said once, "The Indian tendency to accord the status of 'Guru' to demigods is more injurious to democracy than anything else. In politics, the tendency to worship is bound to lead to degradation and ultimately to dictatorship". (This article is translated from Hindi by Amrish Herdenia)
# Kabir's 'Nirgunvad' influenced Ambedkar

## Kanwal Bharti

There are many similarities between Ambedkar and Kabir. Both were staunch opponents of Brahmanism and both opened the doors to growth and progress for the deprived. Both faced almost the same kind of challenges in their lives.

Ambedkar considered three people his gurus and Kabir was the first and the foremost among them. Clearly, Kabir had influenced him greatly. But what in Kabir had impressed him? What role had Kabir played in shaping the personality of Ambedkar? It is said that Ambedkar's family was Kabirpanthi. He must have come to know about Kabir in his childhood. But it is difficult to say whether Ambedkar was introduced to Kabir, the saint or Kabir, the philosopher. It is also not clear whether Marathi translations of Kabir's works were available then. Kabir's complete works were first published in Hindi in 1930 under the editorship of Babu Shyamsundar Das. But it is more likely that Ambedkar was introduced to the questioning, philosopher Kabir through *Hundred Poems of Kabir*, a book published by Macmillan, London in 1915, which contained 100 poems of Kabir translated into English by Rabindranath Tagore. When this book was published, Ambedkar was a student of political science in London. He was a voracious reader, always on the lookout for new books. Needless to say, this book must have had a profound influence on him.

But it wasn't just Kabir's philosophy that drew Ambedkar towards him. The most important reason for Kabir's appeal to Ambedkar was the identical social and religious ambiences of the times in which they lived. That was why Kabir's personality gave a
new edge to Ambedkar's leadership abilities. We need to dwell a little more on this factor. Though 500 years separated Ambedkar and Kabir, if a student of history carefully compares the situations prevailing in India in the 15th and 20th centuries, he will realize that things came full circle in these five centuries. It was as if history was repeating itself.

Let us first try to understand Kabir's times. Kabir was a poet and thinker of the 15th century, born into a poor Julaha family. At the time, Julaha was an untouchable caste. The Mughal rule had been well established during Kabir's lifetime. Islam had opened many new doors for the Shudras and the Ati-Shudras. The madrasas were not out of bounds for them, and influenced by the message of love and equality of the Sufi saints, the backward castes were embracing Islam. At the same time, the brahmanical counter-revolution had emerged. It was aimed at saving Hinduism from the onslaught of Islam. Advaitvad, which Adi Shankaracharya had propounded in the 11th century to counter Islam, had taken the form of a powerful Vaishnav Bhakti Movement by the 15th century. Ramanuj was the founder of this movement. One of his disciples, Ramanand, had shifted base from South India to Kashi (Varanasi) to convert Dalit castes to Vaishnavism<fnref n="1" />. To stop Dalits, especially Chandals, from converting to Islam, he turned them into adherents of Vaishnavism by giving them the mantra of “Ram Ram”. He did this in the most bizarre way. Ensuring that his body did not touch that Dalits' bodies, he whispered the word Ram twice into their ears, which, according to him, made them Vaishnavites.

<footnote n="1">¹ Vaishnavism is focused on worship of Vishnu. Vaishnavites lead a way of life promoting differentiated monotheism, which gives importance to Lord Vishnu and his incarnations. Its beliefs and practices, especially the concepts of Bhakti and Bhakti Yoga, are based largely on the Upanishads, and associated with the Vedas and Puranas.</footnote>
Though Swami Ramanand used to say, “Jaatpaat puche nahi koyee, Hari ko bhaje, so Hari ka hoyee” (Caste is of no consequence, the one who worships God, belongs to him), the fact was that the Vaishnav sect believed in the Varna system. It did not practice what it preached. That was why conversion to Vaishnavism did not translate into any change in the social status of the Dalits. They were not allowed entry into the sanctum sanctorum of the temples. They could have a glimpse of their Thakur (Krishna) from a distance. One should read Sau Chaurasi Vaishnavan Ki Varta<fnref n="2" /> to know what status the Vaishnav sect accorded to the Dalits. The book talks of freeing Dalits from the practice of eating the leftovers of Brahmins! The same was the condition of the Dalits who had joined the Shakt<fnref n="3" /> sect. Sympathizing with Shakts and Vaishnavs, Kabir wrote:

> Shakat Brahman na milo, Baisno milo chandal

> Ank maal de bhetiye, mano mile Gopal (Kabir Granthanvali), p 28.

Kabir was saying, “Don’t meet the Shakts and the Vaishnavs. But if you come across a Chandal Vaishnav, embrace him as if you have met Gopal (Krishna).” These lines are satirical but they also contain a message: “Love your Dalit brother; even he has lost his way.”

For Kabir, there were two power centres in society – the Mullah and the Pandit. Coincidentally, Ambedkar held the same belief. Mullahs and Pandits were the undisputed leaders of their respective

<footnote n="2">² Written by Gokulnath. He is known for his ‘Varta’ Literature.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Shakt Sect Shaktas focus most or all worship on Shakti, as the dynamic feminine aspect of the Supreme Divine. Shaktism or Shakta focuses on focuses worship upon Shakti or Devi – the Hindu Divine Mother – as the absolute, ultimate Godhead. Shaktism regards Devi as the Supreme Brahman.</footnote>
communities and no one dared to question them. Kabir could see
how the Pandits and the Mullahs were feeding bunkum to the
masses in the name of Varna system – haj, puja, namaz, pilgrimage
and the other world – and how the feudal lords, moneylenders and
traders had turned the life of the common man – fed on this
nonsense – into hell by exploiting them. Kabir could see through
the sham of the Pandits and the Mullahs. He could realize that there
was a wide chasm between what they preached and what they
practised.

Karl Marx had said: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every
epoch the ruling ideas, ie the class which is the ruling material force
of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." Similarly,
Kabir could see that the Mullahs and the Pandits were not only the
ruling material force but also the ruling intellectual force of society.
He understood that the people needed a new intellectual stream
based on the principle "seeing is believing". Kabir held dialogues
with both the Mullahs and the Pandits, but to no avail. So, he turned
to the principle of "neither Hindu, nor Muslim" and, negating both
the religions, provided a revolutionary leadership to the people. He
developed his own aesthetics, his own way of seeing religion and
society, which was in sharp contrast to the worldview of the *Quran*
and the Vedas and Puranas. He wrote: "*Allah Ram ka gham nahin,
taham ghar kiya Kabir*" (ibid p 411). He says that Vaishnav's deity
is Raja Ram, who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, and so
unacceptable to him. In his view, both Ram and Allah are "sagun"
(having attributes). Kabir then came up with the revolutionary
concept of "Nirgun" (attributeless) that militated against the belief in
the Varna system and in the other world. He said, "*Hamra jhagra
raha na kou, Pandit, Mullah chhode dohu.*" (ibid p 206). He realized
that no revolution is possible without abandoning both the Pandit
and the Mullah. This aspect of Kabir's thought influenced Dr.
Ambedkar. In the 20th century, Dr. Ambedkar was facing the same
challenges that Kabir had faced in his time. That was why Kabir's
concept of “seeing is believing” gave him the vision he was looking for. This third stream of criticism became the foundation of Bahujan thought and Kabir was undoubtedly its proponent. It formed the departure point of Ambedkar’s thoughts.

Kabir never accepted the Brahmin as his leader though the Brahmin considered himself the teacher of the entire world. “Brahman guru jagat ka, Sadhu ka guru nahin, urjhi-purjhi kar mari rahya, charion veda mahin” (ibid p 28). At the time, this was the biggest revolution in the realm of ideas, and it touched Ambedkar deeply. Though Ramananda was no longer alive when Kabir lived, Ramananda’s ideology was, and it had given rise to big mutts. But Kabir attacked these mutts mercilessly and ensured that no “sagun”<fnref n="4" /> mutt of Dalits come into existence. This revolutionary step influenced Ambedkar. In the 20th century, treading the path of Kabir, Ambedkar too followed the principle of “na Hindu, na Musalman” and did not accept the leadership of anyone, including Gandhi. He attacked both the Hindu and Muslim establishments with equal ferocity. That was why he could caution the Dalits against accepting the leadership of either the Hindus or the Muslims.

Dr. Ambedkar’s quest for a religion that conformed to this belief ended in Buddhism. It was Kabir’s logic and reason that led him to Buddhism. He could never develop respect for any Hindu saint. It was Kabir’s Nirgunvad that took Ambedkar to atheism. Some may find this assertion unbelievable but it is true. Kabir’s Nirgunvad may, on the surface, appear theological but in reality it is atheistic. It is the only theology that rejects the concepts of Heaven and Hell, of rebirth, of salvation, incarnation, puja, pilgrimage and fasting and has no faith in any scripture. Which other theology does so? Kabir’s

<footnote n="4">⁴ Sagun Bhakti considers God with attributes.</footnote>
Nirgunvad urges the people not to believe in fate and scriptures. It says:

Kaun mare, kaun janme bhai,
Sarag, narak kaune gati payee,
Panchtat avigat thein utpana, ekai kiya nivasa,
Bichure tat phiti sahaji samana, rekh rahi nahin aasa,
Jal mein kumbh, kumbh mein jal hai, bahari bhiter pani,
Phute kumbh jal jalhein samana, yah tat katho giyani,
Aade gagna, ante gagna, madhe gagna bhai,
Kahe Kabir karma kis laage, jhoothi sank upayee. (ibid p 80)

Nirgunvad<fnref n="5" /> influenced Ambedkar deeply. He discovered the same kind of logic in Buddha's philosophy, too. Babasaheb saw in the following verse of Kabir the preaching of Buddha to Kalams, in which Buddha had emphasized realized knowledge rather than scripturalism and individualism.

Mera tera manua kais eek hoyee re,
Mein kahta hon aakhan dekhi,
Tu kahta kagad ki lekhi (Kabir p 247)

Here, “kagad lekhi” negates scripturalism and individualism both while “aakhin dekhi” approves of realized knowledge. This verse of Kabir was the foundation of Ambedkar’s political leadership and using which Ambedkar held the mirror up to Gandhi

<footnote n="5">⁵ Nirgunvad considers God without attributes.</footnote>
and the Congress by putting before them the socio-economic status
of the Dalits.

Kabir is present in Ambedkar's *Annihilation of Caste* speech
from the beginning to the end. The irrefutable logic used in the
speech by Ambedkar to attack the caste and the Varna system may
make one feel that five hundred years on, Kabir was speaking in his
new avatar.

‘When the God does not have any Varna, how can men have
one?’ Kabir would argue. He put forth a very scientific argument:
“Nati saroop Varna nahi jake, ghati-ghati rahyo samayee”. Kabir
said, what Buddha had said centuries earlier: “Ek boond ek
malmutra, ek cham ek guda; ek jot se sab utpanna, ko Brahman ko
Suda”. When Ambedkar said that no caste is pure, when he said that
there was an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior
classes – the Rajputs and the Marathas – but also among the
Brahmins and so no one can be Brahmin or Shudra; when he said
that Brahmins and the Untouchables belong to the same stock, was
he not taking Kabir’s argument’s forward? When Ambedkar asked
the Vedas and the Shastras to be destroyed with dynamites, was he
not repeating what Kabir said to Brahmins “Ved-kiteb chadi deu
pande, ee sab man ke bharma” (ibid p 242). When Ambedkar
criticized Hindu saints for saying that God and humans were equal
but not raising their voice against the inequality between man and
man perpetuated by the caste system, was he not echoing Kabir who
said that one who had not given up his caste and Varna couldn’t
perform ‘bhakti':

Jab lang naata jati ka, tab lang bhakti na hoye,

Bhakti kare koyee surma, jati baran kul khoye,

Jahan bhakti wahan bhesh nahin, varnashram hoon nahin,

Naam bhakti jo prem son, sau durlabh jag mahin
*(Kabir Samagra p 404-05).*

Kabir never supported the spiritualism that considered this world an illusion and the other world as truth. There are two streams of philosophical thought in brahmanical spiritualism – Dvaitvad (Dualism) and Advaitvad (Monism). Dvaitvad argues that the soul and the Brahma are different while Advaitvad says that they are one. But both talk about the other world. It would be interesting to find out what Kabir's spiritualism was and to what extent it influenced Ambedkar.

For Ambedkar, social justice was the touchstone for any philosophy or spiritualism. This touchstone had three parameters – liberty, equality and fraternity. He had tested all religions – especially Hinduism – on this touchstone and discovered that not only Hinduism but also Islam and Christianity did not pass muster. His book *Philosophy of Hinduism* underlines this fact. Kabir's emphasis is on love. Without love, there can be no equality, no liberty and no fraternity. It was Kabir who declared that it is useless being tall like a date palm, which does not provide shade to the passerby and the fruits of which hang too high to pick. It was Kabir who said, “Preme ko premi mile, tab sab vish amrit hoyee.” Only love can convert the poison inside a person into the nectar of life. Then, people will not only grieve for their dead but also for slaves – “Muon ko kya roiye, jo apne ghar jaye; roieye bandivan ko, jo hate hat bikay” (Kabir Granthavali, p 63). Kabir had no patience for people who were proud about Brahma and subjectivism but thought of humans not as humans but as Shudras and mlecchas.

“Bahut garab garbe sanyasi, brahmacharit nahin paasi; sudra maleccha base man mahin, aatamraam su cheenha nahin” (ibid p 112). These lines are very popular among Dalits. Kabir had transformed the majority population of the country. Today, if Ram forms the part of names of most Dalits, it is because of the influence of Kabir and Raidas. This influence was so deep that “Ram” figured
in the name of Babasaheb's father too. This “Nirgun” Ram of Kabir
created repulsion for the “Sagun” deities adorning Hindu temples.
But who could predict that in the 16th century, Goswami Tulsidas,
by hailing Thakur ji, would convert Kabir's Nirgun Ram into Sagun
Ram and the moneybag patrons of Brahmanism would loosen their
pulse strings to promote it.

Ambedkar's critics might say that nowhere in his works he has
quoted Kabir. But then, he has not quoted Phule either. But did he
not consider Phule his guru? (This article is translated from Hindi by
Amrish Herdenia)
# The Like-Mindedness of John Dewey and Bhimrao Ambedkar

Scott R. Stroud

By the 1950s, Bhimrao Ambedkar had experienced all the ranges of life's vicissitudes. He had felt the exclusion and pain of being an "Untouchable" in the Hindu caste system. He had seen electoral successes and setbacks as a representative of his people, now called by the labels of *Dalits* or *Dalit-Bahujans*. He had come close to the sources of power, being the architect of independent India's Constitution and an advisor, albeit an eventually estranged one, to Prime Minister Nehru. Few formally celebrated his legislative accomplishments in India, but the story was different elsewhere. In June 1952, Ambedkar was recognized by his alma mater, Columbia University in New York, with an honorary degree in recognition of his role in framing the Indian Constitution. New York was worlds away from his normal haunts in Bombay or New Delhi, but Ambedkar surely recognized its charms and vivacity – he studied there from 1913 to 1916 under some of the best professors America had to offer. But on his visit in June 1952, there was one person whose absence he felt deeply: John Dewey<fnref n="6" />, the American pragmatist <fnref n="7" /> philosopher and former teacher of Ambedkar from his

<footnote n="6">⁶ John Dewey (20 October 1859 – 2 June 1952) was a proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism. Due to his philosophical reputation, he was invited to join the department of philosophy at Columbia University, where he taught Dr. Ambedkar. Dewey authored the book named *Ethics* (1908) with another important philosophical collaborator, James Hayden Tufts. This book had a profound influence on Dr. Ambedkar.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition. Though it has many figures who theorize different senses of "pragmatist philosophy, all tend to agree that ideas are</footnote>
days at Columbia University. As fate would have it, Dewey died after a short illness 2nd June 1952, as Ambedkar was on his way to New York. Writing to his wife, Savita, he lamented that "there are many old friends who have gathered around me and [are] helping me in all sorts of ways. I was looking forward to meet [ing] Prof Dewey. But he died on the 2nd when our plane was in Rome." Ambedkar had many teachers in New York, but none compared to Dewey, as his next words to his wife reveal: "I am so sorry. I owe all my intellectual life to him. He was a wonderful man."<fnref n="8" /> At this stage in his accomplished life, Ambedkar rarely showed absolute humility or inaccuracy, at least not in his private letters. We must take his words seriously and explore Ambedkar's debt to Dewey.

Other scholars have noticed this debt, but more must be said about its specifics. In the 1930s, Ambedkar would write that "The best friends I have had in my life were some of my classmates at Columbia and my great professors, John Dewey, James Shotwell, Edwin Seligman, and James Harvey Robinson." <fnref n="9" /> Eleanor Zelliot concludes her study of Ambedkar's education with the judgment that "John Dewey seems to have had the greatest influence on

true if they “work” satisfactorily, or that the meaning of the proposition is to be found in practical consequences of accepting it and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. It is thinking about solving problems in a practical and sensible way rather than by having fixed ideas and theories. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics - such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science - are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and implications. It rejects the idea that the function of thoughts is to represent, describe or mirror reality. This school of thought originated in the United States of America and is most often linked to the philosophers John Dewey, William James, and Charles Sanders Peirce.

<footnote n="8">⁸ Nanak Chand Rattu, *Last Few Years of Dr. Ambedkar* (New Delhi: Amrit Publishing House, 1997), 35.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ *Columbia Alumni News*, 19 December 1930, 12</footnote>
Ambedkar".<fnref n="10" /> K.N. Kadam tells us that "Dr. Ambedkar took down every word uttered by his great teacher [Dewey] in the course of his lectures; and it seems that Ambedkar used to tell his friends that, if unfortunately, Dewey died all of a sudden, 'I could reproduce every lecture verbatim.' "<fnref n="11" /> Dewey clearly influenced Ambedkar, but how? If we look at the relationship between these two original thinkers, we will see that Ambedkar is best understood as a pragmatist following in the line of John Dewey's philosophy, but with emphases and creative additions that could only come from his status as a Dalit-Bahujan located in the Indian context. Ambedkar's urges to be an activist and an advocate also bring a communicative flavor to his form of pragmatism, something that is not emphasized in just this fashion in the thought of John Dewey. Ambedkar's pragmatism is a novel philosophical orientation that encourages vigorous engagement with others through persuasive communication.

## A GIANT AMONG PHILOSOPHERS

Who was John Dewey? This may be a useful question to ask now, given the proliferation of philosophers and philosophies in the stories we tell about humankind's intellectual explorations, but in the 1910s, this query would be asking for the obvious. Dewey was a giant in philosophical circles. Having honed his philosophical theories at the University of Michigan, explored education by running the "Laboratory School" at the University of Chicago, Dewey was hired by Columbia University with a halo of philosophical fame surrounding him. Like his fellow pragmatists

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Eleanor Zelliot, *Ambedkar's World* (New Delhi: Navayana, 2013), 69.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ K.N. Kadam, *The Meaning of the Ambedkarite Conversion to Buddhism and Other Essays* (New Delhi: Popular Prakashan, 1997), 1.</footnote>
William James (1842-1910) and Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), John Dewey (1859-1952) emphasized community and experience in his philosophical writings. Rebelling against age-old European tendencies to fixate on the permanent, the changeless, and the certain, Dewey's philosophy emphasized the changing and uncertain nature of the world. He emphasized the transactional character of our activities, including that of "knowing", by frequently employing the notion of "experience". The experience was an interaction between organism and environment and not simply a series of images inside an agent's head as an idealist would put things. Human being living organisms, shared much in common with the rest of the natural world: we are animated by purposes and desires and impulses, and these translate into paths of activities that make use of some aspect of our environment. These are called "habits" by the pragmatists. Habits are not merely physical, as there can be habits of how we talk to others or how we solve problems that perplex us. They are not negative traits since habits serve as a means to get to the ends we want. Life, for Dewey, was best seen as a quest to intelligently shape our habits such that we get the individual and group goals that we see as worthy of our pursuit. Philosophy on such a scheme does not capture or recite timeless truths about the ever-changing world; instead, it serves as one tool among many to get what we want out of an uncertain environment.

## FIRST LESSON IN LIBERTY, EQUALITY & FRATERNITY

Dewey lived a very long life, so this brief account of his philosophy is necessarily a simplification. But it captures its general orientation, and it also is an apt description of what Dewey was thinking when young Ambedkar first stumbled into his classes at Columbia University. Even though Ambedkar started his education at Columbia University in 1913, I have found no concrete evidence that he was exposed to Dewey until 1914. Using a course list from Ambedkar's transcripts in connection with the original Columbia University Bulletins, I determined that the first Dewey class
Ambedkar took was in fall 1914 titled “Philosophy 231: Psychological Ethics and Moral and Political Philosophy”. This was part of a yearlong sequence of two courses, Philosophy 231 and 232, but the second course is not listed on the copies of Ambedkar's transcripts that we possess. Ambedkar is noted as taking two other courses in 1915-1916 that we can verify as Dewey's courses: Philosophy 131 and 132, “Moral and Political Philosophy”.<fnref n="12" /> I have found the student lecture notes for the Philosophy 131-132 courses that Ambedkar enrolled in, a fact verified by him being listed in the notes as a substitute note-taker for three days.<fnref n="13" /> It was in the spring of 1916 that Ambedkar heard – perhaps for the first time – the motto of the French revolution <fnref n="14" /> from Dewey: “the moral standard, aim, as a common good ... the notion consequently of the control of the individual in the name of the common good. Liberty, equality, fraternity, and the name fraternity means common good.”<fnref n="15" /> These

<footnote n="12">¹² For the courses that Ambedkar enrolled in while at Columbia, see Frances W. Pritchett, “Courses Taken at Columbia”. Available online at: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/courses.html. I have gathered the course instructors from materials contained in *Columbia University Bulletin of Information: Division of Philosophy, Psychology, and Anthropology Announcement*, 1914-1915 (New York: Columbia University, May 30, 1914); *Columbia University Bulletin of Information: Division of Philosophy, Psychology, and Anthropology Announcement*, 1915-1916 (New York: Columbia University, 27 February 1915).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ For more details on these notes and the courses involved, see Scott R. Stroud, “Pragmatism, Persuasion, and Force in Bhimrao Ambedkar’s Reconstruction of Buddhism”, *Journal of Religion*, 97 (2), 204-243.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ The French Revolution (1789-1799) was an unprecedented effort to break with the past and to forge a new state and new national community based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Even though it leads to errors by those who gained power, the revolution provided to the French and to the world a new and enduring political hope: at the heart of progress lay liberation from the past, equality and a representative government.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The original typed notes from Homer H. Dubs can be found at the Center for Dewey Studies in Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. The original</footnote>
concepts would assume prominence later in Ambedkar's life, guiding his quest for social reform. Pragmatists such as Dewey were not concerned with only one of these values, such as the individual notion of liberty or freedom of action. Such freedom must also be pursued with the idea of creating certain sorts of community. Thus, the values of equality and the creation of feelings of the fraternity are also important. Ambedkar listened to this American philosopher expound on the motto from Europe, but surely he was mentally connecting it to his past and future battles for social justice in the Indian context. Can one achieve equal rights for *Dalit-Bahujans* without sacrificing fraternity? This would be one of the most prominent balancing points in Ambedkar's later struggles against communism, a philosophical orientation that he believed could achieve equality (at least in terms of material wealth) only at the cost of fraternity among community members. One cannot achieve one goal while destroying the hope of achieving the other goals, the pragmatist line of thought goes. Ambedkar thereby always sought to achieve freedom and equality for *Dalit-Bahujans* while preserving the conditions for fraternity or fellow-feeling among individuals. I submit that he gained this idea from such sources as Dewey's lectures, even though Ambedkar would change and alter this way of thinking to fit the Indian context of caste oppression later in his life. Ambedkar's creativity and genius was evident in how he appropriated and used vital values from American pragmatism in an Indian context that thinkers like Dewey knew little about back in America.

DEMOCRACY AS A WAY OF LIFE

Another way in which Ambedkar was influenced by Dewey's form of pragmatism was through his books. Ambedkar was a

<footnote>handwritten notes taken by Robert Lee Hale are located in the Butler Library Rare Book and Manuscript Collection at Columbia University.</footnote>
voracious reader, consuming knowledge from a huge range of areas
in the form of books. One of his letters on the way to London later
in his life complains of being unable to get into his trunk full of
books, thereby forcing him to "enjoy" the voyage without reading.
What is left of Ambedkar's personal library is now largely preserved
at Siddharth College in Mumbai, an institution his People's
Educational Society<fnref n="16" /> founded in 1946. Some other books owned by
Ambedkar can be found at the Symbiosis Institute in Pune and at
Milind College in Aurangabad. In browsing all of these caches of
books, I have come to the conclusion that no modern author is more
represented than John Dewey. At Siddharth College, I discovered
the following books written by Dewey: *Ethics* (1908), *The Influence
of Darwin on Philosophy* (1910), *German Philosophy and Politics*
(1915), three copies of *Democracy and Education* (1916),
*Experience and Nature* (1929), *The Quest for Certainty* (1930),
*Freedom and Culture* (1939), and *Problems of Men* (1946). Books
about Dewey and his pragmatism are also included in this
collection: Sidney Hook's *John Dewey: Philosopher of Science and
Freedom* (1950), Jerome Nathanson's *John Dewey: The
Reconstruction of the Democratic Life* (1951), Paul Arthur Schilp's
*The Philosophy of John Dewey* (1951), and A. H. Johnson's *The Wit
and Wisdom of John Dewey* (1949). At the Symbiosis Institute, I
came across two additional books related to pragmatism: Dewey's
*Essays in Experimental Logic* (1953)<fnref n="17" /> and Joseph Ratner's
collection of Dewey's essays, *Intelligence in the Modern World*:

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Ambedkar established the People’s Education Society at Bombay in 1945. Under this organization, he established a number of colleges such as Siddharth College, Milind College at Aurangabad (1950), and Siddharth College of Law at Bombay (1956). Ambedkar’s *The Buddha and Dhamma* were published by the People’s Education Society and Siddharth College, Bombay in 1957.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Experimental logic means enquiry which, pursuing genetic and functional methods, investigates thinking with a view to tracing the deviation, development and embodiment of beliefs.</footnote>
*John Dewey's Philosophy* (1939). The collection housed at Ambedkar's Milind College in Aurangabad contains Dewey's *Human Nature and Conduct* (1948) and William James's *Talks to Teachers on Psychology* (1913).

Of all of Ambedkar's surviving books, two of the most extensively annotated and underlined are works by Dewey: *Democracy and Education* (1916) and *Ethics* (1908, co-authored with James Hayden Tufts). As noted by his own hand inside the cover, Ambedkar acquired Dewey's *Democracy and Education* (1916) in January 1917, while he was in London.<fnref n="18" /> This book is an important work, as it presents much of Dewey's thought in one place. It relates moral philosophy, science, history, and career training to the general category of education. Education, according to Dewey's revision of his concept, involves how societies transmit and preserve themselves. New members of a society are created in and through their experience in schools. Dewey argues in this work that not only environments can educate individuals, but that agents can also take a role in purposively shaping environments – such as that of the classroom – to make them more effective in creating the sorts of habits that we need in a democracy. Education relates to democracy insofar as democracy denotes a *habit* of interacting with others and in solving problems in concert with one's peers. Democracy was a habit, or a way of life, and it was for Dewey an intensely personal affair that conditioned and created publics.

This notion of democracy as a way of life among others resonated with Ambedkar. The caste system violated such a communal situation and orientation by separating and ranking individuals based upon birth castes. This ideal of democratic habits

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ For more on Ambedkar's engagement with this book, see Scott R. Stroud, "What Did Bhimrao Ambedkar Learn from John Dewey's *Democracy and Education?" *The Pluralist*, 12 (2), 2017, 78-103.</footnote>
leading to democratic communities sank into his mindset to the extent that he began to make these arguments naturally. For instance, in his 1919 testimony to the Southborough Committee<fnref n="19" /> on the issue of extending the franchise to Indians, Ambedkar included a criticism of the caste system as destroying democratic like-mindedness:

> Men live in a community by virtue of the things they have in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge, a common understanding; or to use the language of the Sociologists, they must be like-minded. But how do they come to have these things in common or how do they become like-minded? Certainly, not by sharing with another, as one would do in the case of a piece of cake. To cultivate an attitude similar to others or to be like-minded with others is to be in communication with them or to participate in their activity. Persons do not become like-minded by merely living in physical proximity, any more than they cease to be like-minded by being distant from each other.<fnref n="20" />

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The Southborough Committee (referred to at the time as the Franchise Committee) was one of three British committees convened in India from 1918 to 1919, alongside of the Committee on Home Administration and the Feetham Function Committee. The Franchise committee was headed by Lord Southborough, hence its title as the Southborough Committee. The Functions Committee was chaired by Richard Feetam and the Home Administration Committee was headed by Lord Crew. These committees were created to give the Montague-Chelmsford report a constitutional form. This report formed the basis of Government of India Act of 1919. The act indicated that the objective of British Government was the gradual introduction of responsible government in India. The act included a provision that a commission would be set up after 10 years which shall evaluate governmental functioning. The Simon commission of 1927 was the outcome of this provision. The Simon Commission promised to consider the demands of right of depressed class sympathetically. However, Gandhi and Congress opposed the efforts of this commission.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Bhimrao R. Ambedkar, “Evidence before the Southborough Committee,” *Writings and Speeches*, vol 1 (Government of Maharashtra, 2014), 248–49. For</footnote>
These are largely Dewey’s words from *Democracy and Education*, adapted to fit an instance of religious discrimination that Dewey was not aware of that operated through the mechanism of caste. Dewey’s conception of democracy clearly affected Ambedkar when he was asked to explain the evils of the caste system to a committee charged with extending the mechanisms of democracy to the various publics in India.

A central part of Dewey’s philosophy of democracy, however, was that democracy did not begin and end at the voting booth. It was more than this as a habit of interaction that we could have or fail to possess. Indeed, Ambedkar saw this from his reading of *Democracy and Education*, noting in his own hand a vital line in his copy of this book: “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.”<sup>21</sup> Caste destroys this habit that could create the shared interests and cooperation denoted by like-mindedness, and in the Indian context, Ambedkar saw that this schism between groups was furthered by a certain use of religion. Thus, in his controversial undelivered speech from 1936, “Annihilation of Caste”, he shows the enduring importance of this democratic ideal as a way of life by echoing this very line from his teacher’s great book. Ambedkar spoke Dewey’s words, but in a different context – that of the battle against caste-based injustice. He did note his debt to Dewey in that speech, however, in one specific passage. This passage is also

the passage of Dewey’s work that he is drawing up, see John Dewey, *Democracy and Education*, in *The Middle Works of John Dewey*, vol 9, edited by Jo Ann Boydston (Southern Illinois UP, 1985), 7.

<footnote n="21"><sup>21</sup> John Dewey, *Democracy and Education*, 93</footnote>
notable because it introduces the concept of *reconstruction*<sup>22</sup> as a
method of social change.

Prof John Dewey, who was my teacher and to whom I owe so
much, has said: “Every society gets encumbered with what is trivial,
with dead wood from the past, and with what is positively perverse.
... As a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes that it is
responsible *not* to conserve and transmit, the whole of its existing
achievements, but only such as make for a better future society.<sup>23</sup>

The ellipses are Ambedkar's own insertion, and they excise a
phrase dealing with education and the school in Dewey's original
passage in *Democracy and Education*. This shows that Ambedkar
was enamoured with Dewey's pragmatism, but also that he wanted
to extend it and change it into a vehicle of reform that would be up
to the challenges of the Indian context. What remains common,
however, is the pragmatist's urge to not throw out everything from
one's past tradition; one must save what is useful, fix what is
damaged, and abandon that which is harmful. In other words, one
does not *revolt* against the past in the present, one *reconstructs* the
past for the needs of the present. This is why Ambedkar asks his
high-caste audience of reformers in this speech text to abandon
pernicious shastras in an attempt to change the religiously infused
mental habits that result in caste separation. Without such
reconstruction, the hopes for instilling habits that create like-minded
community members are minimal. This emphasis on reconstruction
of the past as a way to a democratic future is a Deweyan trace in the
social outlook of Ambedkar.

<footnote n="22"><sup>22</sup> Social reconstruction means creatively using past resources to improve future social experience and to create a better society.</footnote>

<footnote n="23"><sup>23</sup> Bhimrao R. Ambedkar, "Annihilation of Caste", *Writings and Speeches*, vol 1 (Government of Maharashtra, 1989), 57</footnote>
## RELIGION, PRINCIPLES AND RULES

Religion is not only a cause of social injustice for Ambedkar. It also assumes an increasing prominence as a means for the alleviation of social injustice. This faith in the reconstructive power-and perhaps necessity--of religion is a major difference between Ambedkar's pragmatism and Dewey's philosophical thought. Later in Ambedkar's life, one sees him talk more and more about Buddhism and how it can be thought of as an egalitarian religion that guarantees equality, liberty and fraternity among all members of society. It does this through doctrinal commitments, such as to the fundamental equality of all humans, but it receives a boost in these endeavours through a methodological tool that Ambedkar took from Dewey. The other pragmatic book that Ambedkar heavily annotated was *Ethics*, a book authored by John Dewey and James H. Tufts. The edition of the book that Ambedkar possessed was the 1908 version (it was also published in a heavily-changed second edition in 1932). The origins of this book in his collection are mysterious, but there is evidence that the activist, K.A. Keluskar, had gifted it to Ambedkar at an unknown time.<fnref n="24" /> This book is important because it shows Dewey's commitment to an individual transition from customary morality<fnref n="25" /> to reflective or reason-based morality<fnref n="26" />. Moral progress happens, on this account, when individuals break free from custom and past ways of doing things and start to evaluate the comparative usefulness and worth of doing things in those ways. One may return to one's customary habits of thought and action, but

<footnote n="24">²⁴ For my speculations on the dating of this gift from Keluskar, see Scott R. Stroud, "The Influence of John Dewey and James Tufts' *Ethics* on Ambedkar's Quest for Social Justice", *Relevance of Dr. Ambedkar: Today and Tomorrow*, Pradeep Aglave (Ed) (Nagpur: Nagpur University, 2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Customary morality is based on customs, tradition, religion, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Reflective morality is based on logical examination and testing.</footnote>
only after reflectively analyzing them. This surely grounds
Ambedkar's critique in "Annihilation of Caste", since his goal there
was to get orthodox Hindus to think about the roots of oppression
within their customs and traditional texts.

Later in his life, Ambedkar reaches back to Dewey’s 1908 *Ethics*
for a vital concept – the distinction between principles and rules in
moral activity. Ambedkar extends this conceptual tool to fit his
notion of religion and religious change. In his magisterial work, *The
Buddha and His Dhamma* (1957), Ambedkar engages the
challenging topic of *ahimsa* or nonviolence using Dewey’s
distinction between principles and rules in his *Ethics*. In his
posthumous work on the Buddha’s doctrines, Ambedkar asks
“whether His Ahimsa was absolute in its obligation or only relative.
Was it only a principle? Or was it a rule?”<fnref n="27" /> What Ambedkar is
appealing to is a passage – underlined by Ambedkar in his personal
copy of *Ethics* – authored by Dewey and Tufts: “*Rules are
practical; they are habitual ways of doing things. But principles are
intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things.*”<fnref n="28" /> Rules are
straightforward, but what they gain in explicitness they lose in
flexibility and range of application. A rule may state “Do not kill”,
but one wonders what that means in situations of less-than-lethal
harm. Rules simply tell one to do or not do some specific action. On
the other hand, principles serve as methods to judge actions,
situations and events. These are more useful as they cover a variety
of situations. Both the Buddha’s and Dewey’s views of experience

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Bhimrao R. Ambedkar, “The Buddha and his Dhamma”, *Writings and Speeches*, vol 11 (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1992), 345.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ John Dewey and James H. Tufts, “Ethics”, in Jo Ann Boydston (Ed), *The Middle Works of John Dewey*, vol 5 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1908/1985), 301.</footnote>
entailed its ever-changing nature, a fact that rendered much of present and future life uncertain. Principles become our best intellectual tool to coalesce what we have learnt from our past experiences and to utilize those resources for future success in unpredicted situations. Principles are more pragmatic and reflective than merely following the customary lines of acting and judging.

Ambedkar appropriates this distinction in reconstructing the concept of ahimsa, indicating that it should be seen in the Buddha's hands as a principle, not as a rule. According to Ambedkar, the Buddha's teaching is to "'Love all so that you may not wish to kill any'. This is a positive way of stating the principle of Ahimsa ... the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say 'Kill not. It says love all.' "<fnref n="29" /> Love is a much more malleable and adaptive term, especially when compared to a mere prohibition on killing. One could refrain from killing another, yet still not instantiate a true Deweyan community of shared interests with that other person. This is the way that Ambedkar adapts Dewey's thought into his view of Buddhism. Buddha was proffering love, Ambedkar maintains, and this principle should be useful in a range of situations. A mere rule to not harm would not enable the rich and deep sense of community that Ambedkar sought among all the publics in India.

One of the most important situations, of course, comes in the case of solving disagreements in situations of community. Ambedkar's reconstruction of Buddhism speaks to this challenge. At one point in *The Buddha and His Dhamma*, Ambedkar explains all the aspects to right speech in a way that is animated by the principle of loving others.

One should speak only that which is true; that one should not speak what is false; that one should not speak evil of others; that one

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Ibid, 346.</footnote>
should refrain from slander; that one should not use angry and abusive language towards any fellow man; that one should speak kindly and courteously to all that one should not indulge in pointless, foolish talk, but let his speech be sensible and to the purpose.<fnref n="30" />

Lying behind this argument is the idea that we should constantly be seeking ways to still our self-focused anger and instead love others, even our enemies or those who disagree vehemently with us. This is nonviolence, but a reconstructed form of it that de-emphasizes harm. Instead of killing, it centres on the maintenance and creation of *fraternity* among community members, now and in the future. Ambedkar's vision takes the Deweyan ideas of democracy, reconstruction, and reflective method and merges them with the distinctively Indian tradition of Buddhism. What emerges is a reconstructed sense of Buddhism that can serve as a vehicle to empower *Dalit-Bahujans* and as a doctrine that hopefully creates more common ground among communal members. Ambedkar, like Dewey, did not want to solve a specific problem and create future ones by destroying needed relationships within one's community.

Instead, Ambedkar combines these lines of Deweyan thought and sees the Buddhist religious orientation as a way to communicatively solve one's problems now while maintaining needed relationships for future success. This was a point he noted even during the height of his political activity. When he addressed the student parliament of his newly formed Siddharth College on 25 September 1947, he encouraged the attentive student leaders to respect their opponents:

> [A tyrant] need not pay any attention to eloquence because his will is law. But in a parliament where laws are made, no doubt by

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Bhimrao R. Ambedkar, "The Buddha and his Dhamma", 71.</footnote>
the wishes of the people, the man who succeeds in winning our opposition is the man who possesses the art to persuade his opponent. You cannot win over a majority in this House by giving a black eye to your opponent ... You will have to carry a proposition only by the art of speaking, by persuading [your] opponent, by winning him over his side by argument, either gentle or strong, but always logically and instructively.<fnref n="31" />

Persuasion, communication, and advocacy can be vigorous, but they must not destroy the hope of creating common ground with one's opponents. Ambedkar's own heated rhetoric did not always live up to this charge, but one can see the Deweyan ideal that he shaped in the Indian context. If democracy is a matter of habits of interaction that preserve and promote community, and matters of community involve some amount of shared interest and like-mindedness, then one cannot totally disrespect or write-off one's opponents in their quest for social justice. Justice is more than a matter of *equality* or *liberty*, it depends upon and requires *fraternity* among community members. Thus, communication becomes vitally important in Ambedkar's scheme of Buddhism because it is a means of social change that is susceptible to guidance by Buddhist views of loving one's interlocutors and opponents.

Much has been written on Ambedkar's innovative programme of social reform.<fnref n="32" /> This short essay points out valuable aspects to what

<footnote n="31">³¹ Bhimrao R. Ambedkar, "The Minority must always be won over, it must never be dictated to" *Writings and Speeches*, vol 17 part 3 (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 2003), 378.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² See Christopher S. Queen, "Ambedkar's Dhamma: Source and Method in the Construction of Engaged Buddhism", and Adele Fiske & Christoph Emmrich, "The Use of Buddhist Scriptures in B.R. Ambedkar's *The Buddha and His Dhamma*", in Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz (eds), *Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India* (New Delhi: Oxford, 2004); Dhananjay Keer, *Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission* (Bombay: Popular Prakashan,</footnote>
Ambedkar was pursuing, and why he did things in those ways. The point that I have tried to make in various places, and to which I gesture here, is that we are best served to also consider Ambedkar's efforts in light of his continuous dialogue with pragmatism.<fnref n="33" /> As I have shown, there is reason to believe that Ambedkar admired and internalized Dewey's ideas of deep democracy, reconstruction, and reflective morality and wove these into the tapestry of reform that his life represented. He was a pragmatist, albeit one with a distinctively Indian concern with the problems and boons of religions in a pluralistic community. Much more can be said about the relationship between Ambedkar the caste reformer and the American pragmatist Dewey, but it is now clear that Dewey's influence can be charted in specific and traceable ways in Ambedkar's writings, speeches, and activities. Like Dewey, Ambedkar was firmly committed to achieving equality, liberty and fraternity; unlike Dewey, Ambedkar had the traditional materials and imaginative resources to see Buddhism as the religious means that could be reconstructed and used for these meliorative ends. It is in acknowledging this debt and foundation that we can start to appreciate what Ambedkar does with pragmatist philosophy when he adapts it to the Indian context and allows it to blossom in his work.

<footnote n="1990">1990); Christophe Jaffrelot, *Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ For other explorations of this aspect to Ambedkar's development, see Scott R. Stroud, “Pragmatism and the Pursuit of Social Justice in India: Bhimrao Ambedkar and the Rhetoric of Religious Reorientation”, *Rhetoric Society Quarterly* 46 (1), 2016, 5-27; Scott R. Stroud, “Echoes of Pragmatism in India: Bhimrao Ambedkar and Reconstructive Rhetoric,” in Robert Danisch (ed), *Recovering Overlooked Pragmatists in Communication: Extending the Living Conversation about Pragmatism and Rhetoric* (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019; Arun P. Mukherjee, “B. R. Ambedkar, John Dewey, and the Meaning of Democracy”, *New Literary History* 40 (2), 2009, 347-348; Keya Maitra, “Ambedkar and the Constitution of India: A Deweyan Experiment”, *Contemporary Pragmatism* 9 (2), 2012, 301-320.</footnote>
Section 2:

Ambedkar on the question of Religion
# Ambedkar's Rethinking of Religion

Prathama Banerjee

It is urgent that we return to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar's thoughts on religion today. He helps us in our immediate fight against a resurgent Hindutva that targets Dalits, Muslims and dissenters in general. More generally, he helps us develop both a critique and an understanding of religion as a phenomenon. Ambedkar's rethinking of religion has not been studied enough. One, because the religion question in India has historically been reduced to the "Hindu-Muslim question". And two, because "progressives" have always neglected religion – liberals by insisting that religion is or should be a matter of private faith and Marxists by insisting that religion is false consciousness of people who do not recognize their own true economic interest. Yet religion continues to play a determining role in our contemporary society – both in politics and in ordinary people's everyday lives – and most of us remain but helpless witnesses to this fact.

Ambedkar's rethinking of religion is a vast subject. Here, I can only foreground a few important aspects of it and invite the readers to elaborate on them further. First, Ambedkar combined fearless and trenchant criticism of religion with a deep sympathy and understanding of it. This was unique – because in his times, public figures either criticized religion for being a divisive or irrational force, or like Gandhi, felt that all religions were true and worthy of respect. Our modern-day sensibility of *sarvadharmasamabhava* – equal treatment of all religions by the state, which stands in for Indian secularism – partakes precisely of this idea that all religions are intrinsically good. While Ambedkar insisted that religion was both inevitable to and necessary for public life, he strongly denied
that all religions are good. When he diagnosed Hinduism as a religion of inequality because it sanctified caste or when he converted to Buddhism with his followers, Ambedkar (even at the cost of alienating sympathizers such as the Jatpat Todak Mandal of Lahore, which then refused to let him deliver his *Annihilation of Caste* lecture) was saying that religion can be and must be criticized. This was not to reject religion but to actually arrive at a more just and righteous religion.

Secondly, Ambedkar fought against the reduction of religion to identity. Modernity, we know, emerged in Europe by pitting Reason against Religion and State against Church. Yet modernity failed to either abolish religion or turn it into private faith. Religion continued to play a role in public life, including in the shaping of the modern European state, as the German philosopher Carl Schmitt pointed out, and philosophers of modernity, such as Hegel, conceptualized the world as a map of religious units (Christianity/Europe, Hinduism/India, Confucianism/China, Islam/Near East and so on). Religion thus re-entered discourses of modernity, but through the backdoor as it were. Religion was now recognized not as religion per se but as the mark of culture/civilization. This (patently false) equation between culture and religion came to be universalized through colonial rule, which anthropologized and administered people across the world as religio-cultural communities. Consequently, nationalism, such as in India, also predominantly took on the form of religious nationalism.

Hence, in Ambedkar's times, criticism of religion had become a doubly difficult task because it was perceived as a criticism of national culture. So when Ambedkar criticized Hinduism, it offended many of his contemporaries, including Gandhi, because it appeared to be also a criticism of Indian nationalism. But this did not deter Ambedkar. He openly stated that a nationalism that excluded and persecuted a large section of the nation's people – namely, the Untouchables – was hardly nationalism worth its name.
Along with Rabindranath Tagore, Ambedkar was a rare courageous individual who dared critique nationalism at the height of India's nationalist movement – a risky enterprise for any public figure. “I have no country,” he said to Gandhi. (This reminds us of Marx's famous statement that the working classes have no country.) Importantly, when Ambedkar called Untouchables a “social minority” and asked for separate electorates for Depressed Classes, on a par with separate electorates for Muslims, he actually redefined the categories of majority and minority from being religio-cultural to being juridico-constitutional categories. This, as we know, was crucial for the history of our democracy in post-1947 India.

But this was not all. Ambedkar also argued that to reduce religion to cultural identity was really to empty religion of its real significance. His task then was to rescue religion from self-proclaimed religionists, who had reduced religion to merely a set of cultural markers and practices, and return to religion the two critical dimensions of philosophy and theology. This was the third important aspect of Ambedkar's rethinking of religion that we must turn to. In his text *Philosophy of Hinduism*, Ambedkar said that religion was constitutive of the human condition because it dealt with elemental questions of life such as of birth and death, nourishment and disease. But to say that religion is part of human ontology does not at all mean that religion is basically the same in all places and at all times. Quite to the contrary. The history of religion is a history of revolutions, Ambedkar said, and to understand religion we must pay attention to the convulsive changes that religion has gone through in the world. “Revolution is the mother of philosophy,” Ambedkar said. Interestingly, Ambedkar did not go by the conventional narrative of modernity. The rise of science and its alleged triumph over religion was not really the defining event of his story. To Ambedkar, the most important revolution in the history of religion was the invention of God!
This is the most fascinating aspect of Ambedkar's account of religion. Through an anthropological study of “primitive” religions, Ambedkar argued that early forms of religion did not have a concept of God or even of morality. Religion, concerned as it was with death, disease, birth, growth, food, scarcity and so on, propitiated forces of nature, such as sun, rain, wind, pestilence, etc. These forces were neither good nor evil. They were a-moral; they were simply there to be placated, harnessed, and sometimes even fought. Morality did exist in society in the form of norms of human interaction, but that was a domain separate from that of religion. In other words, religion was simply about life in all its exigencies, dangers and flourishing.

## GOD AND A ‘POLITICAL SOCIETY’

It was only in ancient, as opposed to primitive, times that the idea of God came to be integrated into religion – leading to the first revolution in the history of religion. The concept of god had an extra-religious origin. It probably emerged from out of deference to great and powerful men – heroes and kings – or from out of pure philosophical speculation about the author/architect of the world. The invention of God was followed by a second major revolution. That was the integration of religion with morality. In earlier times, the relationship between God and humans was imagined as a form of kinship – Gods often called fathers/mothers. “Political society” – a term Ambedkar uses here – was thus composed of descendants and worshippers of a common progenitor-god – and consequently, competing polities had competing gods. In other words, lineage and kinship rules applied to human interaction more than abstract moral rules. In later times, however, once society came to be imagined as composed only of humans, and God became transcendental figure lying outside political society, the God-human relationship changed from being that of kinship to that of faith and belief. Instead of watching over public and civic life of the community, God now appeared to watch over the individual – and regulate his/her personal
conscience and conduct. Lineage loyalties came to be replaced by
moral injunctions. Morality and religiosity came to coincide.
Henceforth, it also became possible to imagine a polity composed of
people worshipping different forms of God, just as it became possible
to imagine a universal God, overseeing the affairs of a universal
humanity irrespective of the fact that humanity was divided between
different nations or polities. From then on, a change of religion no
longer implied a necessary change of nationality.

Notice that Ambedkar's is not the standard story of
secularization, but a more complex story of change in the
relationship between politics and religion. It is not as if religion
becomes irrelevant to politics in modern times. Rather because of
the change in the nature of religion and in the nature of human-god
relationship, in modernity, religious belonging and political
belonging no longer have a straightforward relationship. They come
together in complicated ways, and sometimes even compete with
each other. Religion continues to have a role in public life but in
terms of very different normative principles. To quote Ambedkar,

The Religious Revolution was not thus a revolution in the
religious organization of Society resulting in a shifting of the centre
– from society to the individual – it was a revolution in the norms.
... There may be controversy as to which of the two norms is
morally superior. But I do not think there can be any serious
controversy that these are not the norms. [p 22]

In other words, in modernity, debates around religion take the
form of debates around the normative framework of public life –
when, that is, religion is not reduced to mere cultural identity.

This brings us to the fourth important aspect of Ambedkar's
rethinking of religion – namely, his take on the relationship between
religion and morality. On the face of it, Ambedkar was saying
something very simple – that a religion must be judged in terms of
the morality it fosters among its followers. On those terms,
Hinduism is clearly wanting, because it sanctifies hierarchy, inequality and untouchability. Buddhism, on the other hand, is a moral religion because it does not discriminate on grounds of caste, gender and species – it historically admitted low-castes and women into the sangha and critiqued the sacrifice of innocent animals in the Vedic fire. But Ambedkar, clearly, is making a far more complex move here than just valorizing morality in the name of religion. In *The Buddha and his Dhamma*, written just before his death, Ambedkar offers us a conception of religion in its purest and barest form, ie a religion without the mediation of God and prophets and without grounding in any notion of an eternal inner being such as soul or *atman*. For him, the religious subject and the subject of religion is not god, not soul, but the ordinary, mortal, finite human being in his or her everyday life. He distinguished Buddha from Krishna, Christ and Muhammad based on the fact the Buddha never claimed to be either God or God's messenger. Neither were his words of the nature of revelations or god's words. Nor did Buddha claim any miraculous powers or special insights into extra-worldly questions (such as what happens after life, what is the nature of the self and so on). Buddhist texts were simply meditations on the human condition, no more and no less – centred around the philosophical concepts of *shunyata* (emptiness), *dukkha* (suffering, both social and personal), impermanence of the world, “dependent origination” (ie the interconnected and inessential nature of all things) and *ahimsa* or non-violence. Based on this understanding of the world as ephemeral and ever-changing, without the guarantees of God's grace and of an afterlife of the soul, but for that very same reason, imbued with the infinite possibility of transformation, Ambedkar proposed new Buddhism as a religion of the world, meant to change lives for the better right here right now, by inspiring responsible action and moral conduct among its followers. Hence his emphasis on *sila* – without which even knowledge was futile. And hence Ambedkar's statement that in *navayana*, religion is morality and morality religion.
REVISION OF THE KARMA THEORY

As we know, Ambedkar was a trenchant critic of the traditional,
brahmanical conception of *karma* – which said that sufferings in this
life were the result of sins in a previous life. He was also a sharp
critic of the modern nationalist theory of *karma* – which said that
one should undertake action as sacrifice, without either fear of or
desire for the fruits of action. According to Ambedkar, the former
justified the current plight of the Untouchables as caused by their
own prior failings and the latter denied political status to the
Untouchables' efforts at liberation, because it was evidently desirous
and interested action. Through a critique of the *Bhagavadgita* in his
*Revolution and Counter-Revolution in India* and through a
reframing of Buddhist texts, Ambedkar proposed a revised theory of
*karma* to imply that every action had an inescapable consequence,
however delayed or deferred it might be, which fructified right here
in the world and affected collective lives. In other words, every actor
was ultimately responsible for his or her actions because it came to
bear not only upon themself but upon the world in general. To own
up responsibility was thus to be moral. Through this revision of the
*karma* theory, what Ambedkar did was to foreground ordinary,
everyday activities of life as the critical site of moral judgments –
the realm of the quotidian, where caste really played out in all its
violence and discrimination – thus denying the centrality ascribed by
the nationalist elite to spectacular revolutionary, exceptional or
sacrificial action.

But to be moral, Ambedkar further argued, was not simply to
follow the right rules. In fact, morality was not about rules at all. It
was about principles. Rules told us exactly what to do and how to do
it. Rules called for conformity. *Manusmriti* was precisely such a set
of elaborate rules that demanded faithful following. Principles
however do not tell us what to do. They call for interpretation and
judgment. Rules generate obedience, principles generate creativity.
Rules determine, principles produce a responsible freedom. A true
religion is a religion of principles rather than rules, because it fosters
a creative, responsible and free religious subject. To quote from *The
Annihilation of Caste*:

The principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and
responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. *A
religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a
responsible act.*

A remarkable and counter-intuitive statement if anything – that
an act qualifies to be a religious act when, wrong or right, it is
undertaken in responsibility!

## RELIGION FOR SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION

It could of course be asked that if Ambedkar's real stake was in
morality as responsible action, then why call it religion at all. The
story becomes even more interesting here. It is clear that Ambedkar
had quietly moved away from the modern Kant-ian sense of
morality as a purely mentalist and rational judgment (Kant said that
morality needed no religious backing). Ambedkar's morality clearly
called for certain sanctity, which was beyond merely the sanctity of
reason. It required a commitment that was akin to religious faith,
inspiring, if necessary, a fight to the end, even sacrifice. This was
not because Ambedkar was a traditionalist in the conventional sense
(though he did take tradition quite seriously, both as an object of
critique and as a source of new ideas, as proven by his lifelong
engagement with Sanskrit and Pali texts). This was because, as
Ambedkar said in his 1950 essay *Buddha and the Future of his
Religion*, "the new world needs a religion far more than the old
world did". That is, morality as religion is particularly the need of
modernity. Harking back to his earlier distinction between rules and
principles, Ambedkar said that the new world needed a religion
because law (the regime of rules as it were), in which we as moderns
put too much faith, was an ineffective and unreliable instrument for
the transformation of society. To quote him again:
[The law] is intended to keep the minority within the range of social discipline. The majority is left and has to be left to sustain its social life by the postulates and sanction of morality. Religion in the sense of morality, must therefore, remain the governing principle in every society.

This, coming from the greatest constitutionalist and legal reformer of our times, unmistakably tells us that Ambedkar was rethinking religion here with reference to the limits of the modern state and modern liberalism’s “rule of law”. (It was not accidental that he finally converted to Buddhism after his resignation as law minister from Nehru’s cabinet, having experienced the impossibility of fully reforming the Hindu joint family, the crux of both caste and gender discrimination in India, by law.)

This then is the last important aspect of Ambedkar’s rethinking of religion that I want to emphasize – namely, that Ambedkar posits religion as a force that operates at the limits of state and law. The greatest testament to this fact is that on 2 December 1956, just four days before he died, Ambedkar wrote up “Buddha or Marx”! In this essay, he shows how Buddhism and Marxism share some basics – including the understanding that private property is the source of all inequalities (hence the Buddhist conception of the *bhikshu* and the Marxist conception of the proletariat, referring to those who have nothing to lose and therefore those who potentially are the real force of change). But Marxism parts ways with Buddhism, because having wished away religion as the “opium of the people”, it inevitably turns to the State as the primary instrument of social change (as did, in his times, both Soviet socialism and Nehruvian socialism). The result, as we know, is dictatorship and violence. To ensure equality, thus, Marxism sacrifices liberty. Ambedkar contrasts the “dictatorship of the proletariat” with the ancient Buddhist *sangha*, which, according to him, institutionalized democratic governance of those who voluntarily entered the community of the adept. Buddha, he said, was more flexible about the principle of non-violence than
he was about the principle of democracy. Unlike Gandhi and the orthodox Jains, Buddha understood that in some cases violence was inevitable and even just. But Buddha never condoned dictatorship – for he believed that right conduct could never be enforced or coerced; it had to emerge from changed dispositions. The changing of disposition required not law but religion. The following is as clear a statement as can be, of Ambedkar's argument that religion emerges where the jurisdiction of the state ends:

> The Communists themselves admit that their theory of the State as a permanent dictatorship is a weakness in their political philosophy. They take shelter under the plea that the State will ultimately wither away. There are two questions, which they have to answer. When will it wither away? What will take the place of the State when it withers away? ... The Communists have given no answer. At any rate no satisfactory answer to the question what would take the place of the State when it withers away, though this question is more important than the question when the State will wither away. Will it be succeeded by Anarchy? If so the building up of the Communist State is a useless effort. ... The only thing, which could sustain it after force is withdrawn, is Religion.

Let me end here by pointing out Ambedkar's unmatched originality in the rethinking of religion. As opposed to the modern secularization thesis, which sees pure politics emerging after the cessation of religion, Ambedkar's proposition is that religion comes into play precisely when secular politics fails or is exhausted. It is therefore a mistake to believe, as many do, that Ambedkar conceptualized religion as a subordinate instrument for politics. It is true that he named "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" – the unmistakably political slogan of the French Revolution – as ideals of his religion. But it must not be forgotten that unlike anybody else, he made Fraternity the basis on which Equality and Liberty became possible. Fraternity was a community of understanding and compassion (karuna in Buddhist terms), which could only be
ensured by good faith and *silata* towards others, i.e., by a religious
disposition and not by mere disciplined or rule-governed behaviour,
nor by pure political rationality. In other words, Ambedkar's
rethinking of religion cannot be understood within liberalism's
framework of secularism and religious tolerance. It cannot also be
understood, as some seek to do, within the framework of "civil
religion", as proposed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in *The Social
Contract*. For one, civil religion is a religion, shorn of the church
and of theological elaboration, clearly in service of the modern state.
For the other, civil religion is based on a concept of a natural and
originary equality of all humans – as Rousseau famously said, “all
men are born equal” – thus making possible the imagination of a
primordial and pre-given political community. But as Ambedkar
never failed to remind us, all men, rather humans, are not born
equal. There is no prior political community that gets corrupted in
later times and can therefore be recovered from an earlier pristine
and primitive state. Political community has to be built,
paintakingly, against all odds and for the first time ever, from an
ancient condition of hierarchy and exploitation. Hence, the need for
a new and unprecedented religion, because nothing short of or less
than religion will do.
# Epistemological basis of Ambedkar's Navyana

Sadaf Rukhsar Yusuf

On 6 October 1956, barely two months before his death, in a hotel in Nagpur, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar declared, “I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people (Mahars) away from the different opinions of Hinyana<fnref n="34" /> and Mahayana<fnref n="35" />, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, *Navayana*.”<fnref n="36" /> He founded *Navayana*, the “New Way”, as a sect of modern Indian Buddhism. It was meant to be the vehicle for the emancipation of the Untouchables. Anne M. Blackburn, a historian of Buddhism, has argued that Ambedkar understood Buddhism, religion, kinship and nationalism as a related set of terms

<footnote n="34">³⁴ **Hīnayāna**, (Sanskrit: “Lesser Vehicle”) the more orthodox, conservative schools of Buddhism; the name Hīnayāna was applied to these schools by the followers of the Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition in ancient India. The name reflected the Mahāyānists’ evaluation of their own tradition as a superior method, surpassing the others in universality and compassion; but the name was not accepted by the conservative schools as referring to a common tradition. In one sense, all of the so-called 18 schools of ancient Buddhism are Hīnayānist, in that they predate the emergence of Mahāyāna ideas as a separate doctrine. The modern upholders of the ancient Hīnayāna tradition are the Theravādins (followers of the Way of the Elders), who are but one of the 18 ancient schools.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ **Mahayana**, (Sanskrit: “Greater Vehicle”) movement that arose within Indian Buddhism around the beginning of the Common Era and became by the 9th century the dominant influence on the Buddhist cultures of Central and East Asia, which it remains today. It spread at one point also to Southeast Asia, including Myanmar (Burma) and Sri Lanka, but has not survived there. The movement is characterized by a grandiose cosmology, often complex ritualism, paradoxical metaphysics, and universal ethics.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Press interview on 13October 1956 at Sham Hotel, Nagpur, Navayan: Homeland for Ambedkarite Buddhism.</footnote>
with social and political implications and drew upon Buddhism to
create a model for a moral community ideologically coexistent with,
although not subordinate to, Brahmanical Hinduism and Indian
nationalism.<fnref n="37" />

According to historian C.A. Bayly, even before Ambedkar's
announcement of his intention to renounce Hinduism, he had
grappled with the idea of constitutionalism and argued in favour of
"legal recognition" over "social recognition", stating that he was
dealing with the case of a society where dominant groups didn't
accord even common humanity to Untouchables and many other
lower castes. Ambedkar's idea of nationality built on common
memories, myths of origin and history seemed to have hinted at a
common identity that could have prescribed equality to the
Untouchables.<fnref n="38" /> Author and academic Ananaya Vajpeyi maintains
that the failure of law, legislations and politics to solve the problems
of untouchability made him seek the conversion of Untouchables to
Buddhism, which provided a religious identity and self-respect to
the Untouchables. Implied here is the centrality of the State in
Ambedkar's beliefs and philosophy. He had concluded that the
majority had lost the will to reform itself by 1951, when Nehru's
cabinet withdrew its support to the Hindu Code Bill (a watered-
down version of which was passed subsequently in 1955); he had
resigned as law minister on this issue. The conviction grew on him
that the liberation of Dalits no longer lay within Hinduism but rather

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Anne M. Blackburn, 'Religion, Kinship and Buddhism: Ambedkar's Vision of a Moral Community', *The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies*, Vol 16, No 1, (1993), pp 1-2.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ C.A. Bayly, Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2012, p 29</footnote>
it was Hinduism from which Dalits needed liberation.<fnref n="39" /> The role of
the State becomes relevant here.

Hermeneutic<fnref n="40" /> criticism is also evident. In the final section of
*Annihilation of Caste*, he not only explained the absurdities and
inequities propagated in ancient Sanskrit texts of Hindu law, the
Vedas and the Shastras, but also their inadequacy to act as a guide to
life and India's independence struggle. In Ambedkar's words,
"Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the whole of
their social heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to future
generations only that much and no more."<fnref n="41" /> Ambedkar elaborately
engaged with the Hindu "sacred" texts: He critiqued Vedas from all
possible angles; he questioned the origin of the "Aryans" who
composed it (asked whether there existed an "Aryan invasion") and
the subjugation of the Untouchables in these texts by analyzing the
origin of the terms such as *dasas* and *dasyus*.<fnref n="42" />

"Prof. John Dewey, who was my teacher and to whom I owe so
much, has said: 'Every society gets encumbered with what is trivial,
with dead wood from the past, and with what is positively perverse
... As a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes that it is

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Arvind Sharma, 'Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the Aryan Invasion and the Emergence of the Caste System in India', *Journal of the American Academy of Religion*, Vol 73, No 3 (2005), p 865.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ The term *hermeneutics* refers to the interpretation of a given text, speech, or symbolic expression (such as art). However, it is also used to designate attempts to theorize the conditions under which such interpretation is possible.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ B. R. Ambedkar, 'Annihilation of Caste with a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi' (1936), in *Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches*, Vol 1, compiled by Vasant Moon (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979), p 79.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Arvind Sharma, 'Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the Aryan Invasion and the Emergence of the Caste System in India', *Journal of the American Academy of Religion*, Vol 73, No 3 (2005), pp 843-870.</footnote>
responsible not to conserve and transmit the whole of its existing
achievements but only such as to make a better future society.”

⁴³These words provide ample hint towards the influence that
philosopher John Dewey had on Ambedkar. It must also be noted
that Ambedkar had also tried to accommodate Dewey’s concept of
“endosmosis”<fnref n="44" />. Ambedkar employed it frequently in his writing as
a metaphor for communication in a democratic society. It referred to
the fluidity of the channels through which groups and individuals in
a democracy are linked and interact with each other freely.
Ambedkar argued that “social endosmosis” is blocked because of
the societal division between the “privileged and the subject class”.
This division surfaces wherever one group has interests “of its own”,
which prevents it from having a full interaction with other groups.
The group safeguards its own interests, instead of choosing to
reorganize and progress through wider relationships. This explains
the exclusiveness of India’s high-caste groups and the failure of
“social endosmosis”. In contrast, Ambedkar said, “in an ideal
society there should be many interests consciously communicated
and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with
other modes of association. In other words there must be social
endosmosis.” Dewey’s influence is being discussed here, because
his ideas and methodology shaped, to some extent, Ambedkar’s
earliest analysis of the caste hierarchy (and its evils) and the ways to
do away with it. Ambedkar also inherited from Dewey the notions
of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ (which Dewey discussed as a part
of his lectures but did not endorse in his books).

According to Bayly, Ambedkar diverged from classical
liberalism in the sense that in his formulation as a constitutional

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Ibid</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ ‘Endosmosis’ or **Social endosmosis**’ is the natural flow and exchange of ideas, values, practices, knowledge and energies between and across groups.</footnote>
liberal thinker, the Universalist idea of rights paved way for a
positive discrimination in favour of the oppressed.⁴⁵Equality would
imply the equal treatment of and equal opportunities to the
Untouchables and liberation from the dominance of high-caste
Hindus (as seen in his concept of Nirvana). Fraternity to him, meant
democracy, not merely a form of government but a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience with an
attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.⁴⁶His idea of
fraternity is also evident in his consistent emphasis on the
“collective” and the notion of kinship.

Bayly has written that even before Ambedkar's endorsement of
conversion of the Untouchables to Buddhism as a social tactic, he
had been attracted to it for its emphasis on social harmony,
promoting reverence rather than worship.⁴⁷Ananya Vajpeyi
recognizes a few reasons for Ambedkar's choice of Buddhism – it
being one of the first religious systems in the history of Indian to
challenge the caste system, its inclusive nature, its global character
and the revivalism Buddhism underwent in different regions
(Buddhism witnessed renaissance in the 20th century in Victorian
Britain and its colonies in South Asia; Sir Edwin Arnold published
his poem on Buddha, “The Light of Asia” in 1879; T.W. Rhys
Davids founded the Pali Text Society in England in 1881, etc).⁴⁸On
the eve of his conversion, Ambedkar described his conversion as the

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ C.A. Bayly, *Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire*, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2012, p 306 and p 310.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Arun Mukherjee, ‘B.R. Ambedkar, John Dewey, and the Meaning of Democracy’, *New Literary History*, Vol 40, No 2 (2009), pp 345-370.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ C.A. Bayly, *Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire*, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2012, p 303.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Ananya Vajpeyi, *Righteous Republic: The Political Foundations of Modern India*, Cambridge, MA, 2012, p 216.</footnote>
least harmful route for the country since Buddhism was indigenous.<fnref n="49" /> Ambedkar wanted inclusion and parity for the Untouchables and not seclusion within the Hindu India. Therefore, he refrained from conversion into Christianity or Islam (which would perhaps “denationalize” the Untouchables).<fnref n="50" />

Ambedkar believed that Untouchables in the caste order were erstwhile Buddhists who were incorporated by the Hindus into their own social order as servants and slaves; thus, a return to Buddhism for the Untouchables would be to claim their rightful home.<fnref n="51" /> Ambedkar, as mentioned in his declaration, departed to a large extent from the earlier sects of Buddhism. Ambedkar’s Buddha was a *marga data* (giver of a path, guide) and not a *moksa data* (giver of the transcendental emancipation, deliverer), who did leave to attain enlightenment but with full knowledge and consent of his family members who, later, themselves became the earliest converts to Buddhism. Buddha, to him, was a mortal who didn’t transcend human conditions; rationality, verifiability, humanism and “scientific temper” in Buddha’s teachings drew his attention. According to Ananya Vajpeyi, Ambedkar found in Buddhists elements of intellectual curiosity, ethical doubt, rich and diverse life experiences and questions about the larger meaning of moral existence and a range of human emotions; they tried to disassociate

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Anne M. Blackburn, 'Religion, Kinship, and Buddhism: Ambedkar's Vision of a Moral Community', *The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies*, Vol 16, No 1, (1993), p 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ According to Ananya Vajpeyi, for Ambedkar, Christianity was “alien” to Indians mainly because of its association with colonialism. He turned down Islam largely because of the experience of the Partition; conversion to Islam would have sent the message that Untouchables too were opting out of India; the millions of Muslims who had stayed behind in India became a numerically as well politically diminished minority.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Ananya Vajpeyi, *Righteous Republic: The Political Foundations of Modern India* (Cambridge, MA, 2012).</footnote>
themselves from the base and humiliating roles assigned to them in
the Hindu narratives. Thus, she concluded that Ambedkar's choice
of Buddhism wasn't positive (an attraction towards Buddhism) and
negative (a rejection of other religions especially Hinduism).<fnref n="52" />

The doctrine of “selflessness” or “no selfhood” of original
Buddhism that rejected the notion of unitary, stable and identifiable
self, which could be used in favour of the collective, also appealed
to him.⁵³Thus, most of the modifications and alterations in the basic
tenets of Buddhism introduced by Ambedkar’s *Navayana* were
aimed at paving way for the collective.

Ambedkar's *Navayana* didn't accept the Four Noble Truths
because if suffering was everything, a social order could never be
established. Ambedkar interpreted *dukkha* as collective social
suffering – suffering that is socially constituted and historically
specific and conquered only via a creed that placed suffering at the
centre of its ethical structure – i.e., it was Buddhism that could
relieve the Untouchables from their discrimination and denigration
at the hands of caste Hindus.<fnref n="54" />

*Navayana* rejected the concept of rebirth; it was oriented
towards collective deliverance and not individual liberation, the
purpose being a better “this life” and not the care of the afterlife.
*Navayana* provided a new dimension to the concept of *nirvana*,
aiming at the anchoring of the experientially knowledgeable self
within its material surrounding rather than in the abstract imaginings
of a Universal Self or other selves conceived outside of humanly
cognizable space and time. *Nirvana*, therefore, lay not in self-

<footnote n="52">⁵² Ibid, pp 214 – 215.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Ibid, p 232.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Ananya Vajpeyi, *Righteous Republic: The Political Foundations of Modern India* (Cambridge, MA, 2012).</footnote>
realization but in an equal society; it emphasized understanding of suffering, knowledge, etc, on a social – instead of an individual – basis.<fnref n="55" />

Ambedkar realized that if Buddhism continued to be an intimidating and highly institutionalized order of renunciants, priests and intellectuals, it would never be able to absorb India's Untouchables. Hence, *Navayana* also intended to rearrange the sangha or Buddhist community in a way that the *bhikkhu* (monk) and *bhikkhuni* (nun) are on an equal footing with the lay practitioner (*upasak/upasika*); it further alluded to associating the figure of the *bhikkhu* with an ethic of social service rather than with the highly anti-social discipline of self-knowledge and self-realization.<fnref n="56" />

However, Anne M. Blackburn assumes a different stance. According to her, Ambedkar articulated a view that the forces of kinship and religious sanction generate and sanction feelings of individual self-worth and moral responsibility, which would redress social inequality. This strength doesn't, however, proceed simply from a sense of unity. Ambedkar's vision of ancient Buddhism as a tradition of egalitarian social reform and his exegesis of key Buddhist concepts are clearly crucial to his belief that Buddhism would, indeed, protect such values. Although Ambedkar doesn't explicitly link these views to political mobilization, it appears from his continued involvement in political affairs as well as his views on nationalism that Buddhists, fortified by the forces of religious kinship, are expected to contest social inequality in the political

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Ibid, p 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Ibid</footnote>
arena rather than in an area of shared morality.<fnref n="57" /> Thus, *Navayana*
not only had social and moral but also political.

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ Anne M. Blackburn, 'Religion, Kinship and Buddhism: Ambedkar's Vision of a Moral Community', *The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies*, Vol 16, No 1 (1993), p 10.</footnote>
Ambedkar, Gandhi and the Right to
Conversion

Pramod Meena

Backed by the BJP, the RSS and its ancillary organizations have
launched a concerted attempt to inject the poison of communal
hatred into society and have been running a “Ghar Wapsi”
(homecoming) re-conversion campaign, a new form of the Shuddhi
movement. They have launched a jihad against the Dalits and
Tribals embracing Islam or Christianity. This campaign has emerged
as a new, potent threat to national integrity and unity. On the one
hand, the BJP is trying to get a foothold among the Dalits using the
name of Ambedkar, while on the other hand, by launching a
campaign against conversions and for Hinduizing converted Tribals
and Dalits, it is going against the grain of Ambedkar’s firm belief
that emancipation of the Dalits lay in abandoning the Hindu religion.
The Hindutvavadi political and so-called cultural organizations like
the BJP and the RSS, which do not tire of describing themselves as
nationalists, forget that Ambedkar was for annihilation of caste.
Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of history and politics
knows that the caste system, which enjoys the patronage of
Hinduism, is at the root of the practice of untouchability and
justifies the inhuman discrimination against Dalits. That is why
Ambedkar saw quitting Hinduism as the way for the emancipation
the Dalits. But the Hindutvavadi organizations, despite being well
aware of these facts, are trying to ignore this basic truth in their
political ideology. It is the responsibility of every true nationalist to
expose the saffron conspiracy, which is aimed at pitting Dalits and
the Tribals against Muslims and Christians. In fact, exposing this
conspiracy is imperative if we are to protect our country from being
torn asunder. Today, Ambedkar has become the symbol of Dalit identity. Given the central government is trying to divert attention from the basic socio-economic ills plaguing the country by raising unwarranted issues like conversions of Dalits and Ghar Wapsi, we need to revisit the exchanges or disputes between Ambedkar and Gandhi on the issue of religious conversions. This is also necessary to puncture the saffron propaganda that the Congress and Gandhi were anti-Hindu and that the RSS and the BJP are the only true saviours of the majority community.

## AMBEDKAR'S WELL-THOUGHT-OUT CONVERSION

All of us know that on 14 October 1956 Ambedkar embraced Buddhism with lakhs of his followers in Nagpur. This fact needs to be remembered by all Dalits and the Hindus, for it is of great consequence to them. A mature thinker and Dalit leader like Ambedkar would not have switched to Buddhism on the spur of the moment. This backdrop of this conversion is the exploitation and oppression of the Dalits for centuries, Ambedkar's disillusionment with the Hindu reformists and Gandhi's adamant attitude. All these factors had forced Ambedkar to quit the Hindu religion. Despite being aware of Ambedkar's formidable following among the Dalits, Gandhi could never really reconcile himself to the fact that Ambedkar was the unquestioned leader of the Dalits. Gandhi's refusal to accept Ambedkar as the representative of the Dalits and his 1932 fast-unto-death against a separate electorate for Dalits challenged the self-respect of Ambedkar and the Dalits. Next, as part of a strategy to obliterate the distinct identity of the Dalits, Gandhi and the Congress started using the word "Harijan" to denote the Dalits. This left Ambedkar with no option but to end his association with the Hindu religion. But all this should not be seen as merely a clash of egos. Ambedkar had arrived at the decision of quitting Hinduism after a long and serious study of the realities of the life of Dalits.
Like his father and his other family members, Ambedkar had great reverence for Hindu saints and in the evening of his life, he was even working on a book on them. But death intervened. He did quit Hinduism but he was never an atheist like Bhagat Singh. Bhagwandas has claimed in one of his articles that in the conference of Dalits convened in Bombay after his return from Britain, where he had been to study for his PhD, Ambedkar was requested not to embrace any other religion, especially Islam, as it would lead to an alien culture dominating the Aryan culture of this country.¹ One cannot vouch for the truth or otherwise of Bhagwandas' claim but what we know for a fact that Ambedkar had talked about quitting Hinduism publicly for the first time at a convention of the Untouchables held in Yevla (Maharashtra) on 13 October 1935. That was after the 1932 Poona Pact. It is clear that while Ambedkar might not have been against conversions of Dalits but he was not for it either. He had even led an agitation demanding that Dalits be allowed to enter the Kalaram Temple in Nasik.

It is apparent that the Poona Pact had much to do with Ambedkar's decision to break free from the Hindu religion. It was due to Ambedkar's intense efforts that the British government, under the Communal Award of 1932, agreed for separate representation for the Dalits. However, Gandhi outmanoeuvred Ambedkar by embarking on a fast-unto-death against it and Ambedkar was forced to agree to a joint electorate, with some constituencies reserved for the Dalits. Gandhi did not stop at that. To nip the emerging independent political consciousness among the Dalits in the bud, he launched an aggressive movement for the emancipation of the "Harijans". Ambedkar's Dalit perspective saw in Gandhi the tallest Hindu leader after Shankaracharya. Gandhi was about to extinguish the spark of independent consciousness of the Dalits in the name of the Harijan movement. Rather than compromise his Dalit consciousness and self-respect, Ambedkar decided to quit the Hindu religion. It is pertinent to note here that at
the Yevla conference, Ambedkar blamed the Hindu reactionary leadership, which had failed the movement of the Dalits demanding their rights as members of the Hindu community, for his decision.² Ambedkar, who had earlier agitated for the Dalits' right to enter Hindu temples, said from the dais that the money, time and effort spent on that movement had gone waste.

Citing the antiquity and survival instinct of the Hindu religion as a mark of its greatness, Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan and Gandhi showered profuse praises on it. It seemed as if they were advising Dalits not to convert to any other religion given the proven greatness of Hinduism. Writing in *Young India* (24 November, 1927) Gandhi said, “After all, there is something in Hinduism that has kept it alive up till now. It has witnessed the fall of the Babylonian, Syrian, Persian and Egyptian civilization. Cast a look around you – where is Rome and where is Greece? Can you find anywhere today the Italy of Gibbon or ancient Rome, for Rome was Italy?”³ But Ambedkar, while conceding Gandhi’s point about the comparative antiquity of Hinduism, emphasized the difference between just being alive and living with dignity.⁴ He stressed that Hinduism did not give the majority backward castes, including Dalits, the right to live with dignity. Brahmins had thrust ignorance and poverty on the Shudras.

Gandhi believed that the Dalits' emancipation was possible only if they continued in the Hindu fold. He did not blame the caste system for their plight. In fact, he was of the view that it was the caste system that had saved Hinduism from disintegration. Gandhi used to support the caste divisions on the ground that they were a natural division of work, approved by the Varnashram Dharma. Ambedkar considered the caste system not a division of labour but of labourers. He believed that inequality and discrimination were in the DNA of Hinduism and was of the strong view that Dalits cannot be emancipated if they remain in Hinduism. That was why, in a convention of Mahars in Bombay in 1936, he appealed to them to give up the Hindu religion and its rituals.
SIKHS EYED AMBEDKAR AND CO

Ambedkar's decision to quit Hinduism and begin dialogues with representatives of other religions triggered a political tumult. The Hindus feared that it would dilute their numerical superiority. The Muslim communalists were lying in wait for such an opportunity. They had always insisted that Dalits should be seen as separate from the Hindus. This was their response when the Hindus boasted of their superior numerical strength. Although Ambedkar did not want his Dalit brothers to become pawns of Muslim politics, his move did make the Muslims more sympathetic towards the Dalits. Christian missionaries launched a fund collection drive in the Western nations, eyeing the vast Dalit population as potential converts to Christianity. Bhagwandas writes that the community which was most enthused by the announcement was the Sikhs because they thought that they would become the third biggest religious community in the country if Dalits took to Sikhism.⁵ The possibility of an increase in the number of reserved seats in the legislatures must have encouraged the Sikh community leaders to bring Dalits into their fold.

Gandhi's attitude towards the different communities drooling over Dalits seemed to be somewhat illogical. In 1940, in reply to a question from a Muslim, he said that untouchability was an internal problem of the Hindus; the savarna Hindus had committed this sin and they would have to atone for it. Gandhi was strictly against any interference of other religionists, as far as the question of untouchability was concerned. Gandhi insisted that the savarnas had the responsibility of banishing untouchability. However, Ambedkar had given up on Hindu social reformers and did not want to turn to savarna Hindus for bringing untouchability to an end. In any case, why would a self-respecting person wait for someone else to take the initiative to solve his problems?
At the root of the sharp differences between Ambedkar and Gandhi on the issue of conversion of Dalits were their different primary commitments. Gandhi said that he represented India as a whole but Ambedkar was not ready to accept him as a representative of Dalits. Ambedkar said that Gandhi was the most prominent protector of Hindu interests since Shankaracharya. Ambedkar was proven right when Gandhi opposed a separate electorate. Gandhi was not ready to accept any division of Hindus, even at the cost of Dalits. Conveying his firm resolve to go ahead with his fast-unto-death to protest the proposed separate constituencies, Gandhi wrote to the British prime minister warning him that he was an outsider and should not interfere in any issue that divides the Hindus. "In establishment of a separate electorate at all for 'Depressed' classes I sense the injection of a poison that is calculated to destroy Hinduism and to do no good whatsoever to 'Depressed' classes. You will please permit me to say that no matter how sympathetic you may be, you cannot come to a correct decision on a matter of such vital and religious importance to the parties concerned."⁶ Clearly, for Gandhi, the interests of the Dalits were secondary. His first priority was saving Hinduism from the so-called destruction. On the other hand, Ambedkar considered upliftment of the Dalits his foremost responsibility. He had nothing to do with Hinduism.

## RELIGION, SPIRITUALITY AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY

Just as their respective commitments defined Gandhi and Ambedkar's attitude towards conversions, they had different views on religion. Gandhi saw conversion as a fruitless exercise while for Ambedkar it was the path to the emancipation of the Dalits. After all, Dalits were seeking freedom from social and economic inequalities and biases. Ambedkar had reservations about Gandhi's concept of religion being a private affair between man and the Almighty. He also did not agree with the contention that religion does not have any social aspect.⁷ Ambedkar held that the theological aspect of a religion is secondary. What is of primary importance is
its customs, traditions and rituals. Ambedkar felt that the attitude of
the Hindus towards Dalits was not determined as much by the
theology of Hinduism as by its rules of conduct and behaviour.
According to him, life and its preservation was the gist of all
religions. He insisted that even the religions of barbaric societies
were not confined to superstitious rituals but were related to the
exercise of survival. He said that the gist of the modern religions
was also the same. "It is true that the real gist of the religion has
been lost in the dazzle of science in the modern society and has
passed out from our memory. But it is an incontrovertible fact that in
the modern society also, life and its preservation is the gist of
religion."⁸

Clearly, Hinduism could never be the religion of Dalits in terms
of Ambedkar's definition of religion – for the Hindu caste system
deprived the Dalits of their right to live with dignity. The
*Manusmriti* prescribes harsh punishments for the Untouchables and
the Shudras even for petty crimes. The Hindu caste system
scrupulously deprives them of education, owning property and
conducting cultural activities. Despite being a part of Hindu
community, Dalits were forced to lead the life of an ostracized
people. Ambedkar explained why Dalits cannot consider Hinduism
their religion. As a representative of the Dalits, he wanted to know
from the Hindus: "Does the Hindu religion accept them as human
beings? Does it support their equality? Does it want to give them
freedom? Does it strengthen the ties between Hindus and them?
Does it teach Hindus that the Untouchables are one of them? Does it
tell the Hindus that it is a sin to treat them worse than animals?"⁹
Unfortunately, the Hindu community was not in a position to answer
any of these questions in the affirmative. Given this situation, how
could the Dalits have felt any affinity at all with the Hindus?

Unlike Gandhi, for Ambedkar, religion was not important
because it made a person spiritual. It was important for him because
it universalized social values; it deeply ingrained these values in the
mind of a person and decided what a person would do for the wider
social good. For Ambedkar, it was the social values of a religion that
were the touchstone of spiritualism. The traditional concept of
spiritualism had no meaning for him. Ambedkarite spiritualism was
the one that prioritized social good over personal interests. As
religion exercised much stronger control over people than any
government or law, the Hindu upper castes could not have been
forced to embrace Dalits and given up the biases against them by
making a law proscribing caste system and untouchability, which
enjoy the sanction of Hindu religion. Clearly, the social structure of
Hindu religion was seething with the bacteria of untouchability and
discrimination and no soap of Gandhian spiritualism could cleanse
it. Hence, Ambedkar believed that the salvation of the Dalits lay in
becoming the part of a religion that emphasized egalitarian social
values.

Gandhi saw religion as the path to spiritual salvation and was a
bitter critic of conversion of Dalits carried out with allurements. The
fact is that Gandhi couldn't bear to see Dalits, influenced by the
service of Christian missionaries, converting to Christianity. He
believed that it was not pure humanistic feeling but the disguised
objective of increasing the number of their followers that was
behind the service of the missionaries. He also saw foreign funds
and governments behind the work of the missionaries. According to
a report published in *Young India*, in a discussion with a Christian
missionary Dr Siresol at Wardha, he straight away levelled the
charge that missionaries do not do social service to serve humanity
but to proselytize. "Why should not service be its own reward?" he
wondered.¹⁰ Gandhi might be charging the Christian missionaries
with converting Dalits into Christianity by luring them with promise
of material gain or facilities¹¹ but Ambedkar did not agree with him
and his followers. Ambedkar said, "It is an indisputable fact that the
Christian missionaries are trying to give healthy body to Indians and
healthy mind to those taking refuge in them."¹² He also sought to
remind the Hindus that their religion had nothing to do with serving society, that it was dominated by customs and rituals. While Ambedkar praised the missionaries for their work in the fields of education and health, he wasn't oblivious to the fact that it was mostly the savarnas who had benefited from the work done by the missionaries in the fields of education and health.¹³ From the angle of Dalit Christians, he considered the money being spent by Christian missionaries in running schools, colleges and hostels as a waste. In a satirical tone, he said that Gandhi and his Hindu religion had no problem in accepting the material things and services offered by the missionaries but they did not want to give anything in return.

## ‘ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME’

One argument used by Gandhi to oppose conversions was that all religions are equally true and none is superior to another. Hence, he believed that one should not switch to other religions. Rather, he said, one should follow one's own religion with complete sincerity: That if one follows the basic tenets of one's religion with complete faith and with a pure heart, one is sure to attain salvation. Clearly, this implied that as the caste system is a part of the Hindu religion, a Dalit, if he wants freedom from the cycle of rebirth, should fulfil the responsibilities enjoined on him by the caste system with a pure heart and with complete faith! But did Gandhi not know that the objective of the Dalit movement was not to attain spiritual salvation but salvation from the hell of untouchability and from the compulsion to perform a certain set of tasks? But as Gandhi considered all religions as different paths leading to the truth, his advice to Hindus, Muslims and Christians was to keep away from trying to convert other religionists to their faith and instead prove themselves as true followers of their own religion. He wrote in *Young India*, "If you are a Hindu, you should not pray that a Christian should turn a Hindu and if you are a Muslim, you should not pray that Hindus or Christians should become Muslims. Even in solitude we should not pray for anybody's conversion. Instead, we
should pray from the depths of our heart that one who is a Hindu
should become a better and truer Hindu, one who is a Muslim
should become a better Muslim and one who is a Christian should
become a truer Christian."¹⁴

Gandhi might have advocated for considering all religions equal
and believing in Sarva Dharma Sambhav, keeping in mind his wider
objective of forging Hindu-Muslim unity, but Ambedkar considered
all religions equal only up to the point that all of them say that doing
“good” is what makes life meaningful. But then, Ambedkar argued,
different religions have their own concepts of “good” and they use
different means to spread their version of “good”. Quoting Professor
Tilley, Ambedkar argued that religion has played both positive and
negative roles.¹⁵ Some religions are violent, some are non-violent.
Some religions make their followers human, others turn them into
barbarians. Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar did not believe that religions
were paths leading to God. Say, for argument’s sake, all religions
are paths that take one to God, still, “It cannot be said that all
religions will definitely take one to god and neither can it be said
that any path, even if it leads to god, is the right one.”¹⁶

Here, you can see a marked difference between the approaches
of Gandhi and Ambedkar. Gandhi might have believed more in the
purity of the means of attaining an objective than attaining the
objective itself but while talking of all religions as being different
paths leading to God, he ignores the differences in the means. On
the other hand, Ambedkar, who was considered a practical leader,
wanted that the paths shown by different religions to be tested on the
touchstone of morality. Ambedkar saw shrewd diplomacy in Gandhi
declaring all religions equal. He thought that it was a stratagem for
brushing aside the demands of the Dalits to examine the tenets of
Hinduism on their merit. The theory of all religions being the same
is the gift of comparative theology, which while seeking to debunk
the illogical concept that the religions not founded by human beings
were superior, brought the new religions, which cannot claim a
divine origin, on a par with the ancient religions. A logical person
like Ambedkar also did not accept that religions that were not
created by men were superior to the others but he did not, to the
extent that Gandhi did, consider all religions equal. Ambedkar
believed that religions could be better or worse in terms of their
merits. This justified the decision of the Dalits to quit Hinduism and
embrace another religion that was better for them.

Ambedkar believed that conversion to another religion was the
only way Dalits could be emancipated from their ostracization and
the inferiority complex generated by it, provided, of course, that
their new religion was free from the boycott, indifference and biases
which they faced in Hinduism. He said that once the Dalits started
believing that they are equal to others, the ingrained inferiority
complex would wither away.¹⁷ Ambedkar took great pains to
emphasize that Dalits could be freed from their alienation by
becoming part of a religion free from the concept of caste. He said
that once Dalits started believing in the god of the new religious
community, the community would start considering them its
members and that would benefit the Dalits just as a family would.
He said blood relation was a mandatory condition for becoming the
member of a community and now, commonality of religious beliefs
has taken the place of blood relation. Ambedkar considered it
important for Dalits to become members of a community that
believed in egalitarianism because that would secure them the
support of a group in fighting the oppression by the Hindus.
Remaining in the Hindu religion was a double blow to the Dalits.
They were ostracized by the savarna Hindus while non-Hindus
maintained a distance from them because in the eyes of the non-
Hindus they were Hindus. Ambedkar told Dalits that they would
have to quit Hinduism for their emancipation. Otherwise, they
would never get justice. Ambedkar considered justice as something
that only a community could give to its members; the Untouchables
would never get justice, as Hindus did not consider them part of
their community. In Hinduism, justice is a privilege that only savarnas enjoy.

Ambedkar saw the futility of the attempts by some Dalits to break free from their Dalit identity by changing their names or by not disclosing their caste. It was not that Ambedkar, like Shakespeare, was asking “What’s in a name?” He was in favour of a new name for Dalits only if it belonged to “a community other than the Hindus. It should be such that Hinduism cannot distort or deride it.”¹⁸ The experience shared by Dalit autobiography writers in Hindi and other languages has been that if Dalits think that they can win respect by keeping savanrna-like names, they are only chasing a mirage because by hook or by crook, the Brahmanvadis will discover their caste and deride them for keeping savarna names.

## ON SHUDDHI AND GHAR WAPSI

In the context of the Shuddhi movement launched by the Arya Samaj and its contemporary saffron form called Ghar Wapsi, it is important for not only the Dalits but for all Indians to understand that neither Gandhi nor Ambedkar was a supporter of the Shuddhi movement. As we have seen earlier, Gandhi did not believe that conversion induced by hunger or force or the lure of money was a change of heart and if such converted Hindus wanted to atone for their sham conversion and return to Hindu religion voluntarily, they need not undergo any process of “Shuddhi”.¹⁹ Here, we must keep this possibility in mind that Gandhi might have been showed his disagreement with the Shuddhi movement to preserve and promote Hindu-Muslim solidarity.

Arya Samaj and some other organizations had launched the Shuddhi movement to counter the dilution of the numerical strength of Hindus with Dalits converting or being made to convert to Islam due to historical and socio-religious reasons. Some conservative Hindus had reservations about the movement as they believed that the Hinduism has an inherent strength that had always protected its
religion and culture and there was no place for conversions or for
propagation of religion in Hinduism. Ambedkar could not have
agreed with this egotism of conservative Hindus. Quoting Prof Jolly
and other scholars, Ambedkar argued that some time in the past,
Hinduism must have been a proselytizing religion; otherwise, he
said, it could not have spread to all parts of the Indian sub-continent.
However²⁰, he was aware that the Hindu religion had lost the
capacity and will to propagate. Ambedkar also threw light on the
factors that had led to Hinduism losing its proselytizing capacity. He
held the varnashram system, and the caste system born of it,
responsible for it. There is no place in Hinduism for a person of
another religion or country because its rigid caste system leaves no
space for them in the Hindu societal set-up. Ambedkar felt that there
was scope for only mass conversion in Hinduism so that the
converted people could form a new, separate caste. But communities
rarely converted to another religion en masse those days.

Ambedkar saw Hinduism as a confederation of castes in which
every caste was confined to within its boundaries. Clearly, such a
regimented religion cannot assimilate a person from another faith.
With the Hindu religion being a closed system, some reactionary
elements used to raise the bogey of Shuddhi movement, etc to
counter the numerical strength of the Muslims and the Islamization
of the Dalits. Like Gandhi, Ambedkar too was not in agreement with
the movement. Gandhi rejected the possibility of conversion of
Dalits, hence he considered Shuddhi movement theoretically flawed
and against religious harmony. Ambedkar believed that Hindu
religion and society have no place for conversions. For different
reasons, both believed that Shuddhi or Ghar Wapsi were untenable.

Commenting on the futility of the Shuddhi Movement, which
was aimed at increasing the Hindu population of the country,
Ambedkar said that numbers are not the determinants of the strength
of a community. He wanted the Hindus to accept the fact that
despite being less in number, the Muslims were able to overwhelm
them. The secret of the strength of the Muslims did not lie in their numbers but in the superior organization of their society. Therefore, Ambedkar's advice to the Hindus was that if they wanted to emerge powerful and build a bright future for Hinduism, they would have to strengthen the unity of the Hindu community. He said that eliminating the divisive caste system was an essential pre-condition for uniting Hindus – the more the number of castes, the more scattered and divided the Hindus would be. Ambedkar felt that the Shuddhi Movement would only serve to quicken the pace of disintegration of the Hindu community²¹, as on the hand, it would antagonize the Muslims and the person who was brought back into the Hindu fold through Shuddhi would be left out in the cold. He would quit his religion only to discover that he is a stranger in the socio-religious life of Hindus – his new religious community.

## ‘DALITS CAN’T UNDERSTAND THEOLOGY’

Gandhi had a biased view on the wisdom and analytical capabilities of the Dalits. He did not think they were capable of objectively comparing the merits and demerits of different religions and arrive at a logical decision regarding the religion they should adopt. Discussing conversion to Christianity with Dr. John Mott, chairman of International Missionary Council, Gandhi said, “Had you prayed for the welfare of the Harijans, I would have understood. But you make an appeal to become Christians to people who lack the capacity to understand what you are telling them. I am sure they are not capable enough to understand the differences between Jesus and Mohammed and Nanak and founders of other religions.”²²

If here, Gandhi was referring to the philosophical aspects of religions or to theological debates, obviously, the majority Dalit community, which was largely unlettered, could not have grasped the complicated arguments and the fine reasoning on these complex issues. In any case, the toilers hardly have the time and the energy to indulge in intellectual hair-splitting. But then, the objective of the
Dalits was not to master the spiritual and philosophical aspects of religions. Their problem was the socio-economic system of the Hindu religion that gave them the status of a second-rate citizen, which meant being considered less than a human being. The discourse of the lower classes today has little to do with Gandhi's contention that the Dalits do not have the wisdom to analyze what is good and what is bad for them and choose a religion suited to them. On the other hand, Ambedkar believed that the conversion of Dalits was the first ever real conversion in the history where the people had decided to switch religions after evaluating their comparative merits and values.²³ Ambedkar wanted to know why Gandhi had doubts about the propriety of the Untouchables' conversion.

## FOR AND AGAINST CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES

As we have already seen, Gandhi's statements had the air of the Dalits' self-proclaimed messiah. He was dead against Christian missionaries converting Dalits by providing them educational and medical services and luring them with the promise of pecuniary benefits. But Ambedkar saw in Gandhi's stand a somewhat soft corner for the conversions done by Muslims. It is a historical truth that one of the objectives of the Muslims who invaded India was to forcibly convert the Hindu inhabitants of the country to Islam.²⁴ Even during the contemporary freedom movement, the plans of the Muslim communal elements to convert the Untouchables to Islam were no secret. At the 1923 annual session of the Indian National Congress at Kakinada, Dr. Mohammed Ali, who was the chair, had presented a programme to this effect, which Ambedkar quoted as an example. Ambedkar wanted to know from Gandhi why he did not oppose the drafting of Untouchables into Islam with as much clarity and firmness that he did the conversion of Dalits by Christian missionaries. Gandhi could not have answered this question owing to his political compulsions. Ambedkar sheds light on the political compulsions and dual stand of Gandhi. Ambedkar knew very well that the answer to the question lay in the numerical strength of the
Muslims. Being friendly with the Muslims was politically beneficial for the Congress and Gandhi, as otherwise the Muslims could have put hurdles in the path of the nationalist movement. But Gandhi should have realized that compromising with communal powers gave them the much-needed sanction and validity. We had to pay the price for it in the form of the Partition.

Ambedkar did criticize Gandhi for his double standards on conversion but it cannot be said that he (Ambedkar) preferred the conversion of Dalits into Christianity to their conversion into Islam. While Ambedkar regretted that the missionaries had adopted the wrong strategy on conversions in India by prioritizing Brahmins and other upper castes over the Dalits²⁵, he also condemned the caste-based inequality among the Christians. Thus, Ambedkar's Dalit perspective neither gives any special treatment to Christianity and nor, unlike Gandhi, allows Muslims to proselytize. According to Ambedkar, one reason the missionaries could not get expected success in India was that in their initial days, they tried to draw Brahmins to Christianity by engaging them in debates over the merits and demerits of Christianity and Islam. The missionaries thought that once they succeeded in winning over the Brahmins, other castes would follow them into Christianity. This might have happened but what the missionaries forgot was that the Brahmins, who saw that the Chaturvarna system protected their interests, would never embrace a religion that sent out the message of brotherhood. That is why Ambedkar wanted the missionaries to stop luring the upper castes and concentrate on the Dalits instead.

But Ambedkar was not very hopeful of the Dalits gaining anything from becoming Christians. He had had a personal experience²⁶ that casteism lingered even among the converted Christians. That was because the missionaries gave them some concessions. They were allowed to continue worshipping idols and were not persuaded to give up their caste identities completely. That was why when the Hindus became Christians they took their castes
along with them into their new religion. Thus, there were Dalit Christians and savarna Christians. The result was that the Dalit Christians were the victims of hatred of the savarna Christians and the savarna Hindus both. To make matters worse, they had to endure the boycott by their Hindu counterparts' too.²⁷ Ambedkar observed that casteism was more rampant among the Christians in south India than in the north and that the Catholics were more casteist than the Protestants. Like Gandhi, Ambedkar too believed that embracing Christianity did not bring about any improvement in the social status of the Dalits and did not free them from the scourge of untouchability.²⁸ But while Gandhi, due to this and some other reasons, was strongly opposed to the conversion of Dalits, Ambedkar wasn't. He only wanted the missionaries to correct their mistakes and he regretted, as has been mentioned earlier, that the missionaries did not pay adequate attention to the Dalits.

## THE ALOOF DALIT CHRISTIAN

Ambedkar was disappointed to find that the Dalits who had converted to Christianity lacked Dalit consciousness and kept away from political and social movements and gatherings of the other Dalits aimed at liberating them from untouchability and other social evils.²⁹ Ambedkar blamed the basic character of Christianity for this attitude. The missionaries wanted their religion to be basically spiritual. The missionaries did not allow the converted Dalits to feel angry or resentful about their pitiable social status. They held the Dalits' sins and not the social system responsible for their situation. On this point, there was no distinction between Hinduism and Christianity as far as the Dalits were concerned. While the former blamed the sins committed by them in their earlier births for their fate, the latter declared that it was the outcome of the sins of their ancestors.³⁰ Ambedkar saw that even after becoming Christians; the Dalits could not free themselves from the Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Though the Christians were the most educated and awakened community, they still had the tendency of discriminating
against Dalits. Ambedkar believed that this was because of the lack of interaction between the educated and the uneducated Christians. While the educated Christians were converts from the savarna castes, most of the uneducated Christians were Dalits. Thus, there was a class difference between the savarna and the Dalits among the Christians too.

While Ambedkar believed that the lack of community consciousness among Indian Christians was due to the caste system, he also noted that they lacked the capacity and the will to join political struggles. That was because the Indian Christians of that era were living under the patronage of the foreign missionaries and the British Government. While Ambedkar never questioned the patriotism of the Christians as Gandhi did, he found that they were cut off from the mainstream public life due to their obsequiousness.31 Gandhi was opposed to the conversion of Dalits to Christianity as he believed that it would promote anationalism. He saw that the Indian Christians felt ashamed about being Indians and were not comfortable with the families they were born into. They had divorced themselves from the mother tongues and hated their ancestral religion and dresses.32

At the end, we should not forget that despite being a modernist and moralist, Ambedkar was never under the illusion that modern education and religious morality would end untouchability.33 Ambedkar was too intelligent not to realize the limitations of the wisdom born of education. He took with a pinch of salt this claim of the intellectuals that once everyone became educated, untouchability would automatically vanish. He used to ask how many educated Brahmins had stopped believing in or practising untouchability. He knew only too well that the wisdom one acquired through education stood no chance against vested interests, and that untouchability was in the interest of the Brahmin. Similarly, Ambedkar could have called upon the believers in religious morality to realize that practising untouchability was morally untenable, but he believed
that the force of religious morality would remain confined to within
the four walls of one's own community. Since the savarnas did not
consider Untouchables part of their community, Dalits could
harbour no hopes from Hindu religious morality.

Ambedkar thus held no bias against any religion, including Hinduism. He had irreconcilable differences with Gandhi on the issue of conversions. He saw the emancipation of Dalits in walking out of Hinduism. But he wanted that the Dalits to retain their independent identity. Therefore he wanted the Dalits to embrace a religion that accepted them as humans and didn't make them a pawn of its own politics. Ambedkar's finally concluded that Buddhism was the only religion that fit the bill on both these counts. Still, he made many necessary changes to Buddhism in keeping with the expectations and the needs of Dalits.

The differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar over the issue of conversions and related questions can show us the right path amid the din of the state-sponsored Ghar Wapsi campaign.

References:

1. Bhagwandas, *Ambedkar Dhartmantaran Ke Path Par* (Ambedkar on the Road to Conversion), Ed Devendra Swaroop, *Manthan*, Issue 1, Volume 5, p 60.

2. Ambedkar, *Speeches and Writings*, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979, Volume 1, p 80.

3. *Young India*, 24 November 1927.

4. Ambedkar, 'Annihilation of Caste', *Speeches and Writings*, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979 Volume 2, p 66.

5. Bhagwandas, *Ambedkar Dhartmantaran Ke Path Par*, Ed Devendra Swaroop, *Manthan*, Issue 1, year 5, p 68.

6. Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, *Sampoorna Vangmay* (The Complete Works of Ambedkar), Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10, p 260.

7. ibid, p 337.

8. ibid, p 338.
9. ibid, p 343.

10. Quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani, 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya' (Gandhiji and the Problem of Conversion), Devendra Swaroop Ed, *Manthan*, Issue 1, Year 5, p 86.

11. *Harijan*; 1926, p 140-141

12. ibid, p 392.

13. ibid, p 392.

14. Quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani, 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya', Devendra Swaroop Ed, *Manthan*, Issue 1, Year 5, p 76.

15. *Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay*, Dr Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10, p 336.

16. ibid, p 390.

17. ibid, p 350.

18. *Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay*, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10, p 351.

19. 'Christian Mishanon Ke Sath Gandhiji Ka Samvad' (Gandhiji's Dialogue with Christian Missions), Quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani; 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya'; Devendra Swaroop Ed, *Manthan*, Issue 1, Year 5, p 100.

20. *Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay*, Dr Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi; volume 10, p 356-357.

21. ibid, p 359.

22. 'Christian Mishanon Ke Sath Gandhiji Ka Samvad', Quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani, 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya'; Devendra Swaroop Ed, *Manthan*, Issue 1, Year 5, p 192.

23. *Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay*, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi; volume 10, p 335.

24. In his book *Pakistan Athva Bharat Ka Vibhajan* (Pakistan or the Partition of India), Ambedkar has given a detailed historical account of the invasions of India and forced conversions by Muslim assailants and has argued that the myth of Hindu-Muslim unity in the past will not be able to stand the heat of solid historical facts. For detailed description, see Chapter 4 of the book titled Ekta Ka Vightan, *Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay*, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi; volume 15.
25. Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi; volume 10, p 376-377.

26. In this context, Ambedkar has quoted a memorandum submitted by the Dalit Christians to the Simon Commission. In South India, Dalits Christians were deprecatingly addressed as pancham or periya. See Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi; volume 10, p 397-397.

27. Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10, p 396.

28. Harijan, 25, quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani, 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya', Devendra Swaroop Ed, Manthan, Issue 1, Year 5, p 86.

29. Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10, p 416-417.

30. ibid, p 418.

31. ibid, p 421.

32. Young India, 20, quoted in Prof K.S. Vasvani, 'Gandhiji Aur Dharmantaran Ki Samasya', Devendra Swaroop Ed, Manthan, Issue 1, Year 5, p 96.

33. 'Asprashyon Ko Chetavani' (A Warning to the Untouchables), Dr. Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay, Dr. Ambedkar Prathishthan, New Delhi, volume 10.

(This article is translated from Hindi by Amrish Herdenia).
Section 3:

Different Aspects of Ambedkar
# Ambedkar: The Unsentimental Historian

Anirudh Deshpande

There is nothing that I have urged in support of my thesis which I have asked my readers to accept on trust. I have at least shown that there exists a preponderance of probability in favor of what I have asserted. *It would be nothing but pedantry to say that a preponderance of probability is not a sufficient basis for a valid decision* ... I am not so vain as to claim any finality for my thesis ... my critics [should] consider whether this thesis is not a workable and therefore, for the time being, a valid hypothesis if the test of a valid hypothesis is that it should fit in with all surrounding facts, explain them and give them a meaning which in its absence they do not appear to have. I do not want anything more from my critics than a fair and unbiased appraisal. [Emphasis Added]

- B. R. Ambedkar, Preface to *The Untouchables*, 1948

This article is a commentary on Ambedkar's historical method from the perspective of a professional historian educated, trained and employed in India. It presumes that the establishment of Indian historians has not, so far, acknowledged his historical approach to politics as a legacy of his prodigious intellect. I don't remember my respected *Marxist* professors referring to him as a historian during my student days at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU – the premier establishment for historical research in India – in the 1980s. Nor do I remember his name being taken alongside Jawaharlal Nehru's as a historian of India either in college or in any Indian university. Even in the Department of History, Delhi University, where I have taught history to post-graduate and research students since 2009, Ambedkar is usually not recognized as a historian
despite the deep historicity of his overall work on the Indian caste
system.

This state of affairs has come to pass because of the following
causes. First, questions of caste and untouchability, in general, have
not been accorded the importance they deserve in Indian
historiography despite the rise of the Subaltern Studies in the 1980s
and 1990s. Generally, in Indian social sciences, sociologists or
anthropologists deal with matters of caste. Two, most Indian history
departments teach historical methodology in a Eurocentric context.
The “models” of history writing included in their methodology and
theory curriculum are usually Western: Whig, Utilitarian, Marxist,
Prussian, Annales, Structuralist, Post-Structuralist, Postmodern, etc.
This in itself is not unproductive but leaves little scope to teach
historical methods arising from modern Indian thinkers like Phule,
Periyar and Ambedkar. For instance, whenever Indian history
departments raise the importance of hermeneutics they may refer to
R.G. Collingwood or William Dilthey or Martin Heidegger but
never a tradition of modern hermeneutics going back to at least
Jotiba Phule in the 19th century.

This article seeks a redress of this imbalance by drawing
attention to the immense hermeneutic potential of Ambedkar's
writings on caste and other political and economic matters. It
proceeds on the assumption that in engaging with the theory and
structure of caste and the problem of untouchability in India,
Ambedkar had pioneered a constructive method of deconstruction
long before the relativism and subjectivism of postmodernism and
deconstruction developed by anti-Marxist philosophers like Michel
Foucault and Jacques Derrida confounded the practice of history
writing post 1945. By the 1980s, an influential section of Indian
social scientists, including historians, were affected by the linguistic,
cultural and feminist turns. In such conditions, the question of
seriously taking Ambedkar as a historian did not arise. In the 1950s,
1960s and 1970s he was not paid enough attention because
nationalists and Marxists held sway over Indian historiography. To
the nationalist the Nation, and to the Marxists Class remained
central; both tended to underestimate the role of caste in Indian
history and the specific problems of the *Antyaja Jatis*.

NATIONALIST AND MARXIST HISTORY OVERLOOK
CASTE

To understand Ambedkar as a historian, a visit to the intellectual
climate of late colonial India is necessary. This period of Indian
history was dominated by the rise of nationalisms that either
militated against colonialism or each other. Since these ideologies
were socially aggregative in character and objective, they usually
undermined the divisiveness and oppression caused in Indian society
by caste. The writing of history followed this political trend. Further,
it was unusual for Indian historians to debate questions of historical
methods in the 1940s; the official archive and colonial historical
methods reigned supreme over their imagination and the difference
between the Imperialist and Nationalist historians was one of
objectives and not methods. Most Indian historians were content
with the canons of historiography taught to them by their British
professors who, in turn, were mostly Whig in orientation. The Indian
nationalist historians of all hues wrote history with the help of these
canons, which had influenced their minds to favour Western
historiography. Perhaps, some exceptions to this rule were the
Marxists, like D. D. Kosambi, who applied Marxism and field work
to the study of Indian history in the first few decades of the 20th
century. Notwithstanding the remarkable advance in historical
insights achieved by the Indian Marxists, much of their work
concentrated on the *working class as a class* to the detriment of
caste-based studies.

Indian historiography in the 1940s rarely dealt with the questions
of caste, tribe and gender, which were generally left to the
sociologists many of whom were interested in divesting these topics
of politics altogether. The model of *Sanskritization* emanated from
Indian sociology and underestimated the contradictory nature of
caste relations in the Indian everyday life. B. R. Ambedkar's
innovative views on the conception of, and writing, history appear
nothing less than astonishing in this context. At a time when the
“salt and pepper” professional Indian historians like Sir Jadunath
Sarkar rarely ventured beyond the narratives of historical individuals
and events in their writings, Ambedkar reflected on those aspects of
historiography that exercise our minds today. He conceived history
as a synthesis of art, science and storytelling underscored by the
historian's fertile and creative imagination as early as 1948 when
history departments in the Indian universities rarely taught
historiography as a subject unto itself; history innocently existed in
the official archive for them to be discovered and narrated as
professionally as possible. In this context, his suggestion that the
historian must be self-conscious in the task of raising scientific
consciousness among his readers rings true for all time. The fact that
only by a conscious critical engagement with the historian's sources,
which in Ambedkar's case comprised the texts produced by
Brahmans and Buddhists in Ancient India, could social history as a
subject be conceived, underlines his entire corpus of writing. Since
the historian always makes an argument his view of the sources can
never be informed by simple positivism, which drives history
towards individuals and events to the detriment of the interpretative
contexts within which they are always located.

A TUG OF WAR FOR AMBEDKAR

Dr B. R. Ambedkar's legacy thrives in an intriguing intellectual
and political milieu. His differences with the Congress, on questions
of caste and the Congress leaders' attitudes towards the Dalits, and
other matters like the Hindu Code Bill, have not deterred the
Congress leaders from manufacturing and appropriating a false
image of him. Since its rout in the 2014 General Elections the
Congress is hard pressed to regain its image as India's premier
centrist-liberal party. Therefore, it is desperate to claim Ambedkar primarily as a constitutional expert. It is true that Ambedkar collaborated with Nehru in laying down the foundations of post-colonial India but this collaboration between two modernists should not make us gloss over the fundamental differences between Ambedkar's politics and the Gandhian morality that guided the Congress at least till 1947. On the other hand, the *Hindutva* forces that rule India today are trying to appropriate Ambedkar to their cause. In 1997, right-wing journalist Arun Shourie had called Ambedkar a pro-British false god unworthy of worship. Now that position is passé. These days, the BJP-RSS wants to convert the millions of Dalit and Shudra followers of Babasaheb to its mission of creating a Hindu Rashtra. At the same time, the Indian state and the educational institutions, under Hindutva influence, continue the policy of persecuting and ostracizing Dalit students and activists. The newfound BJP's love for Ambedkar demonstrates nothing but the politics of symbolism best summarized in the Hindi adage 'Muhmein Ram, bagalmeinchuri'. The Hindutva ideologues know that India cannot be turned into a Hindu Rashtra by only alienating and demonizing the Muslims. The BJP's 2015 defeat in Bihar, preceded as it was by the tactless pronouncements of the arrogant RSS chief on reservations, forced it to reconsider its hostility to Ambedkar. However, the impressive electoral success of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh in 2017 and the appointment of a “Yogi” as the state's chief minister has infused more energy in the anti-Dalit Hindutva forces in the state. Despite these developments, the symbolic RSS appropriation of Ambedkar proceeds in line with the objectives of the Hindu Rashtra. However, these selective misleading appropriations of Ambedkar do not square with his critical reading of Indian history; Babasaheb nether squares with the RSS nor the Congress.

These attempted appropriations of Ambedkar necessitate periodic visits to his multifarious and prodigious intellect. So far he
has been examined and accepted as an expert on the Indian caste
system, the politics of constitutionalism and an organic intellectual
of the Indian untouchable and lower castes. There is no doubt that
these are germane aspects of his overall thought but I would argue
that the sum total of his razor sharp intellect exceeds these
achievements and rises to a level of philosophical reasoning rarely
achieved by learned Indians in colonial and even post-colonial India.
His belief in the universal *Enlightenment* values made him a
modernist and a lifelong adversary of *Sanatan* Hinduism – there was
no room for a flirtation with romanticism, superstition or mysticism
in his historical vision. He was of the belief that God did not create
society and its various grotesque features like caste and
untouchability. His critical understanding of Indian history also
negated the sentimentality that Gandhi demonstrated for the Hindu
*Varnashramdharma* and the idyllic pre-modern village – clearly a
myth suited to Savarna hegemony and the notion of *Ramrajya*. All
this makes the appropriation of Ambedkar by the Congress from a
liberal-Hindu viewpoint impossible; Ambedkar viewed Indian
society and the Indian village from the viewpoint of the oppressed
castes. Unlike Gandhi and other Congress leaders, he did not favour
caste reconciliation but desired the complete abolition of caste.
Gandhi, for instance, favoured a reform of the caste system but not
its abolition. In contrast, Ambedkar's objective was the abolition of
the caste system. Gandhi was a reformer from above, Ambedkar a
revolutionary from below. The historical explanation of India
offered by both men differed in accordance with their political
objectives.

This brief intervention in the omnipresent vexed dialogue which
post-colonial Indian modernity has with Ambedkar asserts that his
profound engagement with the universal and scientific values of the
Enlightenment, with a mix of dialectics, logic and reason at their
centre, made him an “anti-myth” historian par excellence much
before history moved in the direction of becoming a critical
discipline in select Indian universities post 1947¹. His writings as a historian and essayist, pace Voltaire, Goethe and Gorky, who influenced his thinking, are too critical of the Hindu religion and therefore cannot be appropriated by the descendants of those who he criticized with an academic rigour rare in his day. In his hands the craft of history assumed a unique ambition; the destruction of an unjust order based on caste distinctions. Since his politics were a product of his unsentimental vision of Indian history and *vice versa*, his historical views and method need a reappraisal in the context of a cow-worshipping, caste valorizing and anti-Dalit Vedic *paligenetic nationalism* which governs popular historical imagination in the times of globalization². The *Annihilation of Caste* and several of his rigorously argued essays places him in the rich tradition of counter-culture omnipresent, but under-taught, in India.

## STARTING WITH CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL QUESTIONS

A full examination of Ambedkar's writings, spread over thousands of pages, from the viewpoint of discovering him as a historian is beyond the scope of this article. Though such an enterprise might prove fruitful in future, at hand I have one text, *The Untouchables*, the preface of which comprises a succinct comment on the historical method that Ambedkar followed as he set out to deconstruct the scriptural shibboleths of caste and thereby the basis of Hinduism³.

The essays in *The Untouchables* and the method of history outlined in its preface demonstrate at least three crucial attributes of Ambedkar's historical thought. One, and here we are reminded of the idea of history visualized by R. G. Collingwood, Babasaheb's historical inquiries began with contemporary political questions directly related to power. This political approach to history places him in the category of scholars like Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci and Paul Thompson, for whom the study of history, ie the
examination of causes, consequences and discourse, was related to
the exercise of power and its legitimization by the ruling classes.
The tension and resolution of social contradiction is central to this
historical approach. The primary political questions, and the
dominant view of a subject pertinent to them, exercised Ambedkar's
intellect and he embarked on a vigorous mental journey to answer
them.

Two, and in this respect Ambedkar's method came close to his
contemporary, and the founder of the Annales School, Marc Bloch,
was his pursuit of a regressive method of historical analysis. His
historiography was interdisciplinary. Its objective was to prove or
disprove generalizations regarding the present and possible future of
Indian society. His salutary research aim was to show how the
present was produced by the past – there is no room for studying the
past for its own sake or entertainment in his historiography. The
mythology of the nation or community is absent from his work. His
view of Indian society was structural and caste appears in it as a
*longue duree* factor (long term historical phenomena).⁴ Caste is both
the base and superstructure of Indian society; both relations of
production and power are mediated through it. His essays confirm
his deep understanding of the interaction of the past and the present
– the hallmark of a good historian forever alert to the politics of his
age.

Three, his essays convey his fertile historical imagination and
superb command over language – qualities essential to the practice
of any meaningful social science. Here, it should be remembered
that while majoring in Economics at Columbia he had read history
and sociology as ancillary subjects. This inter-disciplinary training
enriched his approach to the problems of inequality in Indian society
throughout his career. His insightful essays prove that he applied a
lawyer's skill of cross-examination to the sources of history and
tradition to arrive at conclusions with which it is difficult to
disagree. Some of these conclusions *may* appear dated or overstated
today but that in no way diminishes the *hermeneutic* method he used
to arrive at them.

Since Ambedkar's becoming a historian of Indian society was
intimately connected with his negation of caste and thereby the
Hindu religion, he began the preface by coming to the point
straightaway by raising the political question which inspired his
historical research. The preface shows that what Marx is to
Capitalism, Ambedkar is to Hinduism; to the former, the relations of
production produced by capitalism comprised the core of any
meaningful analysis of capitalism and to the latter caste were at the
heart of the relations of power that sustained Sanatan Hinduism.
According to the preface, the “Hindu Civilization” is “a diabolical
contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name
would be Infamy.”

Furthermore, the Hindus, throughout history, had neither
searched for nor *rationally* investigated the origin of their own
civilization, ie the *varna-jati* system. Hence the first question: Why
did the Hindu not scientifically investigate his so-called civilization?
Because the Hindu did not consider the existence of the caste system
and untouchability a “matter of apology or shame”. He felt “no
responsibility either to atone for it or to enquire into its origin and
growth”. Reminiscent of what Alberuni wrote of the Hindus in his
*India*, he explains that “every Hindu is taught to believe that his
civilization is not only the most ancient but that it is also in many
respects altogether unique. No Hindu ever feels tired of repeating
these claims ... The inculcation of these false beliefs in the sanity,
superiority and sanctity of Hindu Civilization is due entirely to the
*peculiar social psychology* of Hindu scholars.” [emphasis added].
This social psychology was a product of the long-term pedagogical
hegemony that the Brahmans in India have wielded since time
immemorial. This hegemony had given them a scriptural and ritual
authority in Indian society and the British rule, among other things,
reinforced this scriptural-ritual authority.
‘LEARNED MEN, NOT INTELLECTUALS’

The Brahmans were learned men no doubt, but not intellectuals
in the true sense of the term. To understand the unenlightened
approach of these learned men to their own historical condition,
Ambedkar delved into comparative history and the history of ideas.
“Today”, he mentioned in 1948, “all scholarship is confined to the
Brahmins. But unfortunately no Brahmin scholar has so far come
forward to play the part of a Voltaire who had the intellectual
honesty to rise against the doctrines of the Catholic Church in which
he was brought up; nor is one likely to appear on the scene in future.
It is a grave reflection on the scholarship of the Brahmins that they
should not have produced a Voltaire.” For an intellectual to arise
and gain respect in society certain necessary and sufficient historical
conditions must prevail; these conditions were absent from Indian
history. Critical introspection of the self happens in peculiar
historical circumstances and the Brahmins, by virtue of their
addiction to their traditional learning, had proved themselves
incapable of such an effort. Therefore, the Brahmin scholar was
“only a learned man” and “not an intellectual”, though he claimed to
be a social reformer in colonial conditions; on closer inspection this
claim appeared false.

Having written this, Ambedkar drew upon European history and
the Enlightenment to dilate on the meaning of the word intellectual:
“There is a world of difference between one who is learned and one
who is an intellectual. The former is class-conscious and is alive to
the interests of his class. The latter is an emancipated being who is
free to act without being swayed by class considerations. It is
because the Brahmins have been only learned men that they have
not produced a Voltaire.” The ability of an individual to grasp
objective reality with the help of critical thought was central to this
Enlightenment-informed approach to society and history. The
difference between subject and object was central to the philosophy
of Ambedkar; he did not oppose caste just because he was a Mahar but because he was genuinely enlightened.

According to Ambedkar, the only way to disprove the unreasonable assertions of the Brahmins and the so-called scholars aligned with them was to raise questions and answer them by developing a “new way of looking at old things”. Admittedly, his own answers to the questions raised by untouchability in India were a “result” of the “historical research” he conducted. Further, he consciously followed the ideal of objective history writing laid down by the German statesman-historian-philosopher-poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe with whose maxims and reflections he was familiar. According to Goethe’s prescription, the historian’s duty is to “separate the true from the false, the certain from the uncertain, and the doubtful from that which cannot be accepted”.

## IMAGINATION AND INTUITION

Ambedkar took seriously Goethe’s comparison of a historian with a juror: “Every investigator must before all things look upon himself as one who is summoned to serve on a jury. He has only to consider how far the statement of the case is complete and clearly set forth by the evidence. Then he draws his conclusion and gives his vote, whether it be that his opinion coincides with that of the foreman or not.” Goethe inspired but did not constrain Ambedkar. The latter was alert to the possibility of missing links arising in the study of the past events. What should the historian do in cases where “relevant and necessary facts” and “direct evidence of connected relations between important events” are not available to him? Should he stop working “until the link is discovered?” Ambedkar’s answer to this question is a valid negation of academic pedantism:

> I believe that in such cases it is permissible for him to use his imagination and intuition to bridge the gaps left in the chain of facts by links not yet discovered and to propound a working hypothesis
suggesting how facts which cannot be connected by known facts
might have been interconnected.

The point, according to Ambedkar, was not to quibble over the
distinction between direct and inferential evidence to examine
whether a thesis violated “the canons of historical research” but to
avoid a “thesis based on pure conjecture”. Thus the difference
between creative imagination and fantasy was maintained in his
historical method. The crucial difference between *pure conjecture*
and a *possible thesis* led him to a deconstruction of the sources to
“divine what the texts conceal” and the “task of gathering survivals
of the past, placing them together and *making them tell the story of*
*their birth*”. This work of the historian, in Ambedkar’s words, is:

analogous to that of the archaeologist who constructs a city
from broken stones or of the palaeontologist who conceives an
extinct animal from scattered bones and teeth or of a painter who
reads the line of the horizon and the smallest vestiges on the slopes
of the hill to make up a scene. In this sense the book is a work of art
even more than history... It cannot but be that imagination and
hypothesis should play a large part in such a work. But that in itself
cannot be a ground for the condemnation of the thesis. For without
trained imagination no scientific inquiry can be fruitful and
hypothesis is the very soul of science.

In conclusion, it can be said that the revolutionary philosophy of
Ambedkar was predicated upon a patient, laborious and critical
reading of the primary sources he selected to fashion a rational
argument debunking the caste system in general and untouchability
in particular. His articles prove that deconstructing the discourse of
the ruling classes/castes is the primary objective of the historian. By
claiming no “finality” for his thesis and underlining the difference
between pure conjecture and theoretical possibilities in a system of
historical analysis, Ambedkar pioneered an *open-ended* approach to
social history at a time when most Indian historians rarely ventured
beyond the ideology of nationalism and the battlefields of the past. Ambedkar's historical method remains resilient and alluring in our times because his reflections highlighted the important political difference between imagination *and* fantasy, conjecture *and* possibility and a credible story *and* academic pedantry in the formulation of his historical submissions. As a modernist, he desired rational knowledge and a new egalitarian society, and not another myth, to replace the sophistry of the establishment. Hence, the task of deconstructing the ideology of Indian society did not begin and end with deconstruction in his thought. Reading a text critically was a means to a political end for Ambedkar and not an end in itself as it has become in much of anti-Marxist theory since 1945; deconstructing the ideological representation of history was crucial to his mission of reconstructing a new progressive society. The question of power remained important to him, and, like Lenin and other revolutionary intellectuals, he did not evince a cynical view of power that became the hallmark of the postmodern approach after 1945. He urged his followers to read, criticize what they read and evolve a new way of life based on a rational critique of the past. He worked in an age when the professional historians of India wore the Prussian straightjacket of Leopold von Ranke with aplomb and the method of positivism reigned supreme over their narrow, pretentiously apolitical minds. To accept and validate history as a credible artistic and scientific story told by the imaginative historian on the basis of a critical reading of contemporary and historical sources in 1948 was to anticipate many future and exciting developments in historiography. It is a pity that Ambedkar has been, perhaps unwittingly or conveniently, reduced to a "Dalit" intellectual-philosopher in the Indian schools and universities. Indeed, this *anti-myth* Indian pioneer of *revolutionary deconstruction* should have been taken seriously by this country's fraternity of historian's decades ago. That would have given history writing a different purpose in a country obsessed with national and regional identities and the projection of these on the past.
References:

1. Dorothy M. Fugeira's characterization of Phule and Ambedkar in *Aryans, Jews Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through Myths of Identity*, Navayana, New Delhi, 2015.

2. The word *paligenetic* means the discovery of an ancient mythical romanticized nation in the hoary past. In some senses all nationalisms are *paligenetic* but Fascist and Nazi nations, following Roger Griffin's submissions on the subject, more so.

3. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, *The Untouchables*, Siddharth Books, Delhi, 2008 [First Published 1948].

4. The concept of *longue duree* was pioneered by the French Annales historians. It refers to the long-term influences on human history like geography but some scholars include culture in this definition. According to the French historian Fernand Braudel, geography, demography and economy comprised the *longue duree* but scholars also insist that *mentality*, ie cultural attitudes which would include caste in India, is also a long-term phenomenon which changes imperceptibly.
# Ambedkar: An Educationist of the
Marginalized

## Meenakshi Meena

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar's writings played an important role in turning him into an international figure. For the Dalit community, Dr. Ambedkar was a hero towering over all others and a social activist, but for the world at large, Ambedkar was an alert and alive thinker. His credentials as a thinker were established through his articles, books and magazines, and also the newspapers that he published. Among his own books were *The Problem of Rupee, Provincial Finance in British India, Annihilation of Caste and Who were the Shudras?* The Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra has published a compilation of his writings and speeches in 21 volumes.

Some of his books have been translated into and published in Hindi. They include *Achoot Kaun Aur Kaise*; *Shudron Kee Khoj*; *Buddh Ya Karl Marx*; *Dharmantarana Kyon*; *Hindu Nari Ka Utthan Aur Patan*; *Hindu Dharma Ki Riddle*; *Ranade, Gandhi Aur Jinnah*; *Buddh Aur Unka Dhamma*; *Jatibhed Ka Uchhed*; *East India Company Ka Prashashan Aur Vitt*; and *Pracheen Bharatiya Vanijya*.

Ambedkar's writings on education include his deposition before the Indian Statutory Commission in the Bombay Presidency on "State of Education of the Dalits". His deposition forms part of the compilation *Dr. Ambedkar: Sampoorna Vangmay* (Volume 4). In addition, his article titled "Subsidy for Education" has been included in *Dr. Ambedkar: Sampoorna Vangmay* (Volume 3); this is based on his speech to the Bombay Legislative Council, delivered on 12
March 1927, in which he pleads for increased subsidy from the
Government on education and also underlines the need for
inexpensive education for the deprived sections. In Dr. Ambedkar:
*Sampoorna Vangmay* (Volume 19), among other concerns of the
SCs, their concerns on education is also listed. They are divided into
two parts – under ‘lack of assistance for higher education’ and ‘lack
of facilities for technical training’.

STRUGGLE FOR DALITS’ EDUCATION

Whenever we talk of freedom, we forget about the freedom of
Dalits. Shortly, we are going to celebrate the anniversary of our
freedom from the British. This is the perfect time for talking about
the freedom of Dalits. The Dalits were victims of double slavery –
and it was Ambedkar who freed them from it. Shaken to the core by
Gandhiji’s Civil Disobedience Movement, the British Government
convened a Round Table Conference in London on 12 November
1930. A young barrister attending the conference startled everyone
by refusing to acknowledge Gandhiji as the leader of all Indians. His
name was Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. He said that most of the Congress
leaders believed in caste-based discrimination and they would not
allow the Dalits any say in constitutional processes. That was why,
he added, there was a need for separate electorates where the
candidates and the electors both would only be Dalits.

On 6 August 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald
announced the Communal Award, under which the Dalits were
recognized as distinct from the Hindus and a provision was made for
a separate electorate for them. At the time, Gandhiji was
incarcerated in the Poona jail. He saw this announcement as a
conspiracy to alienate Dalits from the Hindus. On 20 September
1932, Gandhiji began a fast-unto-death in protest against the
Communal Award, sending the nation into a tizzy. Dr. Ambedkar
was urged to save the life of Gandhiji. Bowing to the pressure
mounted on him from all sides, Ambedkar agreed for a compromise
but on the condition that the Dalits are provided reservations at all levels. Gandhiji agreed, and he broke his fast on 26 September.

In the second half of the 19th century, social reformers had launched an acerbic attack on brahmanical rituals through their books. Jyotirao Phule's *Gulamgiri* was one of them. In the South, Periyar and Narayan Guru sounded the bugle against the Varna system. A few decades later, Ambedkar was given the responsibility of drafting the Constitution of the newly independent India in due recognition of his merit and scholarship. He became the country's first law minister. Since then, Ambedkar's thoughts have grown in relevance with each passing year.

Even before Independence, he was recognized as a jurist of rare intellect. He raised some pertinent questions about education in Indian society while speaking in the Bombay Legislative Council on 12 March 1927. He was deeply concerned that India was lagging behind in education.

Referring to a report of the Government of India, which said that if the progress of education went on at the rate at which it is going on then, it would take 40 years for boys and 300 years for girls of school-going age to be brought under education, Dr. Ambedkar said, "We have in this presidency two departments, which if I may say so, are working at cross purposes. We have the Department of Education, the purpose of which is to moralise and socialise the people. We have, on the other hand, the Department of Excise which is working, if I may say so, in the reverse direction. Sir, I think that it is not asking too much if I plead that we should at least spend on education the same amount that we take from the people in the form of excise revenue. The amount of expenditure that we incur per individual in this presidency on education is only 14 annas, but the amount of money that we recover in the form of excise revenue is Rs 2.17 [35 annas]. I think it is only fair that our educational expenditure should be so adjusted that we should spend on the
education of the people as much as we take from them in the form of excise."¹ Today, when, besides students, other pro-change sections are also taking to the streets demanding more budgetary allocation for education, Ambedkar's thoughts can show us the right direction.

Raising another issue in the same debate, Dr. Ambedkar said, “At present, the amount of money which we are spending on primary education is to a large extent really wasted. The object of primary education is to see that every child that enters the portals of a primary school does leave it only at a stage when it becomes literate and continues to be literate throughout the rest of his life. But if we take the statistics, we find that out of every hundred children that enter a primary school only eighteen reach the fourth standard; the rest of them, that is to say, 82 out of every 100, relapse into the state of illiteracy.”²

We have yet to overcome the problem of school dropouts. Dr. Ambedkar had grasped this problem long ago. He realized that only sending a child to school was not enough. It is also important to keep them in school till they have attained primary education. Only planting a sapling is not enough. It is also necessary to tend it with water and fertilizers; otherwise it will die sooner or later. That is why, Ambedkar said, “I therefore request the honourable education minister to spend more money on primary education, if for nothing else, at least for the purpose of seeing that what he spends bears some fruit ultimately.”

Dr. Ambedkar also dwelt on the commercialization of education. He said, “Going over the figures which give us information as to the manner by which we finance education in this presidency I find that out of the total expenditure, which we incur on arts colleges, something like 36 per cent is financed from fees; out of the expenditure that we incur on high schools, something like 31 per cent. is financed from fees; out of the expenditure that we incur on middle schools, something like 26 per cent is derived from fees.
Now, Sir, I submit that this is commercialization of education.
Education is something which ought to be brought within the reach
of everyone.”³ As Dr. Ambedkar had deep concern for the lower
sections of society, he added, “We are arriving at a stage when the
lower orders of society are just getting into the high schools, middle
schools and colleges, and the policy of this department therefore
ought to be to make higher education as cheap to the lower classes
as it can possibly be made.”

He cites another important issue: “The census report of this
presidency has, for the purpose of comparing the advancement of
the different communities in the matter of education, divided the
total population into four different classes. The first class is called
“advanced Hindus”, the second class is called “intermediate Hindus”
and it includes those people, who, for political purposes, have now
been designated as non-Brahmins, i.e., Marathas and allied castes.
There is a third class called the backward classes which includes the
depressed classes, Hill Tribes and the Criminal Tribes. Then, we
have the fourth class which covers the Mahomedans. Bearing these
divisions in mind, one sees a great disparity in the comparative
advancement of these different communities in the matter of
education.”⁴ The disparities informing Indian society were the main
cause for concern for Dr. Ambedkar. He said, “This country is
composed of different communities. All these communities are
unequal in their status and progress ... Economically speaking or
socially speaking, backward classes are handicapped in a manner in
which no other community is handicapped. I, therefore, think that
the principle of favoured treatment must be adopted in their case. As
I have shown, their position is worse than that of the Mahomedans
and my only pleading is that if the most favoured treatment is to be
given to those who deserve it and need it most, then the backward
classes deserve more attention of Government than do the
Mahomedans.”⁵
To sum up, Dr. Ambedkar's views on education were in consonance with India's geographical, social and economic situation and reflected scientific reasoning.

## 'EDUCATE, UNITE, STRUGGLE'

Dr. Ambedkar's views on education have yet to be studied deeply – this despite the fact that he had been working in the field of education since he founded the Hitkarini Sabha in 1924. Ensuring that more and more of the backward classes got an education was among the priorities of the Sabha and with that purpose, it established a number of colleges, hostels, libraries and reading centres. At the initiative of the students and under the guidance of the Sabha, a monthly titled *Saraswati Belas* was launched. The Sabha established hostels in Sholapur and Belgaun in 1935 and a free reading centre, a hockey club and two hostels in Bombay. In 1928, Dr Ambedkar constituted the Depressed Classes Educational Society. In 1945, he founded the Lok Shaikshik Samaj for to ensure that the backward classes got higher education. This organization started a number of colleges and middle schools. It also extended financial assistance to hostels. In brief, the Lok Shaikshik Samaj played an important role in making higher education accessible to the Dalits.

Dr. Ambedkar's writings pertained not only to economics, the law, the Constitution and political science, but also to sociology, philosophy, religion, anthropology, etc. He also had an abiding interest in education. It was not limited to theorizing. He took pains to give a practical shape to his views.

Ambedkar believed that education was the most important means of raising the people's standard of living. His slogan was "Educate, unite, struggle". However, his views on education were eclipsed by his seminal work for Dalit emancipation.
“Educate” is the first word of his famous slogan. The reason is education’s undeniable role in the building of human character and consciousness. Only an educated person can understand his class interests and bring about class unity. Education propels a person on the path of struggle. Dr. Ambedkar said, “Education is what makes a person fearless, teaches him the lesson of unity, makes him aware of his rights and inspires him to struggle for his rights.” He believed that education is a movement. If it does not fulfil its objectives, it is useless. Dr. Ambedkar unambiguously stated that an education that does not make a person capable, that does not teach him equality and morality, is not true education. True education cradles humanity, generates sources of livelihood, imparts wisdom and imbues us with egalitarianism. True education makes society alive.

## OBJECTIVES OF EDUCATION

Ambedkar’s social-philosophical views rested on the bedrock of egalitarianism. Human dignity and self-respect were central to his social philosophy. He wanted to use education to establish justice, equality, fraternity, freedom and fearlessness in society. He wanted to replace the birth-based society with a value-based one. It goes without saying that these moral values can be promoted only through education.

Ambedkar was deeply influenced by Buddhist philosophy and he advocated development of morality in all people. He said only such objectives of education are meaningful that aid in making humans happy and prosperous and helping society progress. He was also in favour of making education relevant to employment. Education can help make society stable. Good behaviour and good conduct arise from logical reasoning and that can be acquired only through education, experience and dialogue. Ambedkar’s objectives of education were the same as his social, economic and political objectives. He was a strong proponent of logical and scientific education.
ON CURRICULA

Dr. Ambekar has had a practical approach regarding curricula. He believed that utility should be the basis for deciding curricula. But he was not in favour of inflexible curricula. He said, “Nothing is immortal. Nothing is binding for an indefinite period of time, everything needs to be tested and examined, nothing is final, everything is bound by the cause-effect relationship, nothing is everlasting; everything is changeable. Things are happening continuously.”

The Bombay University Reforms Committee had sent a questionnaire to Dr. Ambedkar to seek his opinion on various issues. Among the questions were:

* Are you generally satisfied with the subject and curricula at present prescribed for the various University examinations? If not, can you indicate the changes you desire?

* Are you in favour of establishing (a) an absolute or (b) a greater differentiation of the pass and honours courses? How would such differentiation affect the colleges and students?

* Would you approve of an absolute exclusion of science from the arts courses? Do you approve of the present dissociation of literature and arts from the study of science?

* Do you consider the existing courses for the graduate and postgraduate degrees provide a sufficient variety of options and satisfactory combinations and correlations of courses for study?

In answer to these questions, Dr. Ambedkar wrote: “I should leave these questions to the newly constituted faculties. My opinion is that the curricula, even of the honours course, provide a poor fare to the students.”
It is clear that Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of an external agency imposing curricula on an educational institution. He believed that the teachers concerned should design it themselves. He believed in democratic curricula, which should be put together by teachers concerned, in keeping with the demands of the subject and the students. He was in favour of curricula that would help students get employment and would make them capable. Dr. Ambedkar emphasized on complete and compulsory education. For him, technical education was a priority, as were scholarships for the weaker sections and higher education in general.

Ambedkar took a pragmatic view of things. He considered education as a means for self-expression, for building self-esteem and character, for determining proper conduct and for learning through experience. He believed that the students should try to understand and unravel earthly and transcendental mysteries. He advocated instructing children in different regional languages. Despite having respect for all languages, he felt the need for a common language that would become the means of communication between people of different parts of the country and thus promote unity and integrity. He was for scientific methods of teaching, especially vis-à-vis higher education. He said that real education should not awe us; it should appeal to our logic and reason. He believed that religious instruction had no place in curricula. He was for using a worldly yardstick to assess the value of education. He stood for a uniform education for all classes and that was why he advocated scientific and progressive curricula, based on the principles of social democracy.

## THE IDEAL TEACHER

In Dr. Ambedkar's scheme of things, the teacher had a big role to play in the process of learning and imbibing. He himself was deeply influenced by his teachers; in fact, he had added the surname "Ambedkar" of one of his teachers to his name. That teacher,
incidentally, was a Brahmin. This shows the great respect Ambedkar had for his teachers. He was not against the Brahmins as a caste. He was against brahmanical ideology. Talking about the ideal teacher, Ambedkar said, "He must not only be well-read but also a good orator and an experienced person." In Dr. Ambedkar's view, "It is not necessary that we should agree with the conclusions of our teacher, and the teacher who recognizes this fact is the true teacher. The teacher's job is to understand the mental abilities of the students and to develop them. He should guide his students. A good teacher is the friend, philosopher and guide of his students." According to Ambedkar, a teacher should be knowledgeable about the reality of society so that they can interperse their teaching with anecdotes and make it relevant to the real world. Such a teacher deserves the respect of his students.

## TEACHING METHODOLOGIES

Dr. Ambedkar favoured the use of scientific teaching methodologies starting with primary education. Good health is key, he said, and the emphasis should be on hygiene and physical education. As for the children of the deprived classes, he said, "The first daily lesson in a school for these children should be a bath followed by changing into clean clothes; and the second should be a meal of clean, wholesome food; those who do this should be encouraged so that others learn from them." He also emphasized on inculcating the right values and the right habits in the children from the beginning.

According to him, "Good manners, for instance, are the result of continual and rigid self-control, and of consideration for the comfort and convenience of others; children learn manners chiefly by imitation from well-bred parents and teachers and, secondarily, by suitable precept and reproof. If, at the school, they are to be made to associate with children not thus trained, they will quickly fall into the ways which they see around them. For, until good habits are
rendered fixed by long practice, it is far easier to be slipshod than accurate, to be careless than careful. Gentle speech, well-modulated voice, pleasant ways, these are the valuable results of long culture.”

Dr. Ambedkar was not a professional educationist and he has not made any theoretical analysis of teaching methodologies. But despite that, he has put forward excellent ideas on education. He was convinced that there shouldn't be much difference between the teaching methodologies for graduate and postgraduate classes. He believed that teaching shouldn't be separated from research. He advocated autonomy of Universities in admissions, teaching, examinations and appointments.

## WOMEN'S EDUCATION

For Dr. Ambedkar, the lack of education among women was the biggest problem facing Indian society. He held Brahmanism responsible for the pitiable state of women in India. He believed that Brahmanism and masculism were inextricably linked. “There is no social evil and no social wrong to which the Brahmin has not given his support. Man's inhumanity to man, such as the feeling of caste, untouchability, unapproachability and unseeability is a religion to him. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that only the wrongs of man are a religion to him. The Brahmin has given his support to some of the worst wrongs that women have suffered from in any part of the world. In India widows were burnt alive as satis and the Brahmin gave his fullest support to the practice. Widows were not allowed to remarry. The Brahmins upheld the doctrine. Girls were required to be married before 8 and the husbands were permitted to claim the right to consummate the marriage at any time thereafter.”

It is believed that women enjoyed many rights in the Vedic age, but that their position deteriorated afterwards. Dr Ambedkar showed that the *Manusmriti* had accorded women a status even lower than that of servants. They were deprived of education and the right to
own property was snatched away from them. He insisted that women be treated with dignity and given adequate opportunities for growth.

He drafted the Hindi Marriage Act, which didn't permit men to have more than one wife. It also gave women succession rights and the right to hold property, which had been denied to them by the *Manusmriti*. Ambedkar's Constitution gave women equal status in the eyes of the law. He bitterly criticized all such traditions and norms which militated against equality of women. He favoured economic independence of women. Madanmohan Malaviya and Dr. Shyamaprasad Mukherjee had opposed the Hindu Marriage Bill. But despite that it was passed. Its passage marked a milestone in the history of women's struggle in the 20th century. Articles 14, 15(3), 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution have provisions to ensure that women are not discriminated against. Ambedkar's views on women's education and development of their personalities were no less radical than those of the feminist movements under way today. He was in favour of compulsory education for women, but only up to the matriculation level, after which, he suggested that they acquire home-management skills. He was not in favour of uniform education for men and women. He felt that both have different roles in society, hence their education should also be different.

However, as the chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution, he made ample provisions for development of women and their economic self-dependence. These provisions enabled women claim a status equal to that of men in independent India.

## RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

Most of the educationists have not clarified their views on religious education for the fear of offending the religious feelings of the masses. They fear the opprobrium it would earn them. But Dr. Ambedkar was not a timid man. He took a clear-cut stand on the issue. He had already emerged as the most controversial Hindu of