his time. He had to face brickbats all his life but that did not affect
him a bit. He kept on calling a spade, a spade. He said, “My social
philosophy is a mission. I have to work for religious conversions.”
Dr. Ambedkar had no faith in God. He wanted to reorganize Indian
society, not on the basis of religion but on the basis of liberty,
equality and fraternity. He never refrained from borrowing good
things from different religions but he was inclined to Buddhism. He
admitted that his philosophy was rooted in the teachings of Buddha.
Liberty and equality were the cornerstones of his philosophy but he
also knew that unlimited freedom destroys equality, and perfect
equality undermines freedom. Law could protect freedom and
equality to an extent, but he believed it was fraternity that was the
real protector of freedom and equality. For him, there was nothing
better than religion to teach fraternity and the inclusion of the value
of fraternity in education was imperative.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR DALITS

“They [Scheduled Castes] have not progressed in science and engineering education,” Ambedkar said. “Education in arts and law cannot be of much value for the scheduled castes. They will benefit more by advanced education in science and technology.”⁶

At the time, technology and technical education were not as
advanced in India as they are now, but specialized educational
institutions in these fields had been set up. If Ambedkar emphasized
engineering and science education for the Dalits, there was a reason
for it – and that was the employability of students who had studied
engineering and science. That is true even today. In India, even now,
students who have studied science and technology stand a better
chance of securing employment than those who have been trained in
humanities. He urged the Government of India to take steps to
ensure that Dalit students are admitted to the Indian School of Mines
after he discovered that not even one of the 97 students in the school
was a Dalit.⁷
Technical education, being very costly, was out of the reach of the Dalits. According to Ambedkar, "The Government of India can do a lot for improving the future of the Dalits. The SC boys can be kept as apprentices in such industrial units [such as the Government printing press or railway workshops] which are under the control of the Government of India or are run by it, where there is a possibility of giving technical education."

## SCHOLARSHIPS FOR DALIT STUDENTS

Dr. Ambedkar demanded scholarships for Dalit students. Then, scholarships were being given only to students of religious minorities. He said, "Without Government aid, the Scheduled Castes will never be able to gain access to advanced education in science and technology and it will only be just and proper that the Government of India comes forward to extend help to them in this regard."⁸ He proposed that: "1. Such Scheduled-Caste students who take admissions in science and technology courses in universities or in other scientific and technical training institutions should be given scholarships worth Rs. 2 lakh per year. 2. Rs. 1 lakh as grant-in-aid should be provided to SC students for studying science and technology in Universities in England, Europe, America and the Dominion."⁹

Dr. Ambedkar also showed to the Government the way this could be done. He proposed that instead of grants, scholarships should be given in the form of loans.

## RESERVATIONS FOR DALIT STUDENTS

Reservations proved to be the most successful instrument for ensuring the representation of Dalits in institutions of higher learning. Ambedkar proposed "reservation of some seats for such boys of Scheduled Castes who have attained the minimum standard of education for seeking admission."¹⁰ He proposed setting aside of 10 per cent of the seats for such students. His objective was clear –
to give representation to Dalit students. He also wanted similar participation of the Dalits in statutory bodies. He raised the issue of representation of SCs in the Central Education Advisory Board.

## ASSESSING DR AMBEDKAR'S THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION

Dr. Ambedkar's ideas were challenged by Gandhi ji. Or, we could say that Dr. Ambedkar challenged the ideas of Gandhi. In the course of this debate, both refined and improved on their ideas. As Ambedkar had little interaction with other educationists, we only have Gandhi to compare him with.

Both Gandhi and Ambedkar were not only individuals; they were schools of thought, they were institutions. Since none of them believed in treading a beaten track, they triggered controversies when they were alive and continue to do so when they are long dead and gone. Their goals were almost the same, but their ways of getting there were entirely different. What is painful and unfortunate is that the followers of both have confined themselves to impermeable fortresses, leaving no scope for dialogue. Ambedkarites firmly believed that Gandhi was anti-Dalit and Gandhians are equally sure that Ambedkar was a traitor. How can we expect Gandhians to study Ambedkar when they are not ready to read even Gandhi? The Ambedkarites are no different. The fallout of this has been that the values and struggles of Ambedkar and Gandhi have been overlooked.

For the Congress and Gandhi, “emancipation of the Untouchables” was an internal problem of the Hindus while for Ambedkar; it was the most important issue. Like in the case of the zamindari system, Gandhi sought solution to the problem of untouchability in a change of heart. He was for eradicating untouchability while keeping the Varna system intact. Ambedkar held that Varna and caste were at the root of untouchability and wanted to annihilate both. Gandhi was driven by a feeling of
“mercy” and “sympathy” for Dalits, while Ambedkar wanted their rights to be restored.

Their differences were never as stark as just before the Poona Pact was signed. Gandhi's fast had created a big dilemma for Ambedkar. On the one hand was the struggle for the rights of the Dalits and on the other hand was Gandhi's life. Ultimately, a compromise was worked out.

Gandhi and Ambedkar had different views on almost everything under the sun. That was true about their views on education too. Gandhi was dead opposed to the British education system and proposed his own "Buniyadi Shiksha". Gandhiji wanted to bring about spiritual growth of students so that they could lead a life of truth and non-violence. His educational philosophy was idealistic. In contrast, Ambedkar wanted his education to reach the weakest of the weak and wanted to build a system based on liberty, equality and fraternity. His concept of Dhamma, based on the philosophy of Buddhism, stressed moral development. He was not against British education but wanted to give it a humanistic face. He was in favour of an educational system that would produce men of reason and logic; that would help build a society based on logic and reason. He wanted education to not only make a person egalitarian but to liberate his mind and make him capable of objective, logical and critical analysis. He believed that a common education system was essential for building a democratic and socialist state. He said that the curricula should be modern, based on scientific reasoning and should cover the modern means of production. He favoured nationalization of all means of production. He said that the students should be introduced to the means of production and a socialist way of life.

If one compared the thoughts of Gandhiji and Ambedkar, one would realize that despite some commonalities, the gulf between them was too wide to be bridged. Gandhiji was a respecter of
traditions; Ambedkar was opposed to almost all traditions. Both had concern for the poor but Ambedkar was more concerned with the right to equality of the weak and fought for it all his life. Gandhiji held no grudge against the elite of society; Ambedkar was against the elite and considered them a threat to humanity. Gandhiji was more concerned about the country as a whole while Ambedkar was focused on the backward classes. Gandhiji wanted the spinning wheel to reach every village and all rural residents to get a basic education. Ambedkar was concerned about those sections that had been deprived of education for centuries. He wanted that the Government provided free and compulsory primary education to all. Gandhi favoured vocational education from the primary level; Ambedkar believed that literacy should be the prime objective of primary education. Ambedkar also laid stress on cleanliness, physical education and cultural development. He believed that primary education should inculcate such cultural and civilizational values in children that would help them become part of a civilized society.

Gandhiji did not give much thought to higher education but Ambedkar talked about it in detail – so much so that he even proposed the administrative structure of an ideal university. His views on higher education are valid and relevant even today. Gandhi advocated religious education, but Ambedkar was least interested in it. The basic difference between their thoughts was that one (Gandhi) was religious while the other was secular. One was a protagonist of a life close to nature, the other for modernity. Character building was the objective of one while the other focused on building a man of reason and logic. Both, though, were for teaching in regional and local languages.

Dr. Ambedkar's thoughts are not only relevant for the Dalit community but for the entire Indian society. Today, we talk of enhancing the budgetary allocation and expenditure on education. But what we envisage is a maximum two per cent of the total
budget. Ambedkar had raised this demand long ago. While we have implemented Right to Education for the primary classes, no one is concerned about what a student will do after acquiring primary education.

If we have to pick one person from the Indian history who paved the way for education and employment for the Dalits, who made them aware of their rights, who freed them from the exploitation by other classes, who showed to the world that they were second to none in intelligence and capabilities – then there can't be anyone other than Dr. Ambedkar. He did not expound on education like Mahatma Gandhi or Dayananda Saraswati or Vivekananda but whenever an opportunity came his way, he did express his views on education explicitly. He wrote:

> "If the Government is sincere about promoting education among the Depressed Classes, there are certain measures which it must adopt:

1. Unless the Compulsory Primary Education Act is abolished and the transfer of primary education to the school boards is stopped, the education of the Depressed Classes will receive a great setback.

2. Unless primary education is made mandatory and the admission to primary schools is strictly enforced, conditions essential for the educational progress of the backward classes won't be created.

3. Unless the recommendations made by the Hunter Commission regarding the education of the Mohamedans are applied to the Depressed Classes, their educational progress will not be realized.

4. Unless entry in the public service is secured for the Depressed Classes, there will be no inducement for them to get an education."¹¹
He made such provisions in the Indian Constitution which would help the Dalits and the deprived get education and employment. Some instances are:

**Article 15(A):** Making special provisions for any community or SC/STs who are educationally backward

**Article 17:** Abolition of untouchability and equal status to all persons.

**Article 29:** About admission of weaker sections in Government educational institutions.

**Article 30:** About minority educational institutions.

**Article 30(ii):** About monetary aid to educational institutions.

**Article 39:** That the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood.

The Poona Pact between Ambedkar and Gandhi paved the way for reservations for Dalits. It was reservations that brought about a basic transformation in their educational levels and standard of living. If, today, Dalits have a presence in different walks of life, it is primarily due to reservations. Ambedkar was always concerned about the education and employment of Dalits. His ideas continue to be relevant for the Dalit community even today.

**References:**

1. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay vol 3, p 55-56

2. Ibid vol 3, p 56

3. Ibid vol 3, p 56-57

4. Ibid vol 3, p 57

5. Ibid vol 3, p 59

6. Ibid vol 19, p 2

7. School of Mines is a Dhanbad-based centre of higher learning in mining, engineering and geology under the Government of India.
8. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Sampoorna Vangmay vol 19, p 24

9. Ibid vol 19, p 24

10. Ibid vol 19, p 25

11. Ibid, vol 4, p 146

(This article is translated from Hindi by Amrish Herdenia)
# Ambedkar: A Jurist with No Equals

## Sumit

Dr. Ambedkar had a mastery over many disciplines and the law was one of them. Ambedkar would spend hours and days poring over the laws and Constitutions of different countries of the world. From his student days, he had great interest in developing an understanding of the ancient and the modern laws of India and the world. With time, he became an expert on different aspects of law and forged ahead of his contemporary jurists.

## AMBEDKAR AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICS

By the beginning of the 19th century, the law had started emerging as a profession in many countries of the world. The contours for teaching and learning law were being drawn so that specialists in the law could be produced. New laws, rules, and norms were coming into force. The countries which had thrown away the yoke of imperialism had started writing their own Constitutions. In India, studying and practising law came to be associated with prestige and influence towards the end of the 19th century. Indians, especially those from well-off, upper-caste families, began studying law. Initially, students of law had no option but to pursue their studies in foreign lands, for there were few if any, institutions teaching law in the country. By the 20th century, the law had become a very prestigious profession in India and a degree in law became the dream of students. In India, almost all the leaders at the forefront of the freedom movement were trained in law. They included Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Vallabh Bhai Patel, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad and of course, Bhimrao Ambedkar. They gave independent India a strong foundation. Ambedkar did not directly participate in the freedom struggle because other national leaders cold-shouldered him for the stand he took on social, economic and political issues. All his life, Ambedkar continued to be a bitter critic of both the British imperialists and the Indian national leaders. He was outspoken on issues, including those affecting the Untouchables (Dalits), Backwards, women, and laborers. He turned them into national issues and suggested launching movements to highlight them. But other national leaders were averse to the idea. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Ambedkar was the most brilliant jurist among all of them.

## STUDY OF LAW

In October 1916, he was admitted to Gray's Inn for Law. His quest for knowledge led to him poring over books from 8am to 5pm in different libraries of London. He was so single-minded in his pursuit of knowledge that he often skipped his meals. His thirst for knowledge wasn't quenched till his last breath. His life was characterized by rigorous scholarship, intense self-respect, great dreams, lofty ideals, incessant hard work, broadmindedness, and a spotless personality. He wanted to obtain another degree in Economics. But his study grant was for only three years. At his request, it was extended by a year. But his request for a further extension of two years was turned down and he was forced to return to India. But Ambedkar had obtained permission from the universities and institutions concerned to renew his studies within a period of four years. Shahu Maharaj offered to sponsor him.

On 30 September 1920, Ambedkar was back in London to continue his studies at Gray's Inn. He spent a lot of time among the books and documents in the University General Library, Goldsmith Library of Economics, British Museum and India Office Library. He never allowed theatres and restaurants to distract him. Karl Marx,
Lenin, Giuseppe Mazzini and Savarkar had also studied in the British Museum Library. On 28 June 1922, Ambedkar became a Bar-at-Law. What is noteworthy is that with his two doctorate degrees (PhD and DSc) in economics and Bar-at-Law, Ambedkar had the highest qualification among the Indians and Asians of his times. There was no one in the Indian sub-continent who could match his academic accomplishments. After completing his education, Ambedkar immersed himself in reflecting on the socio-economic problems of the world. There is no doubt that his life as a student was full of struggles. Gail Omvedt has described his scholarship as “Promethean” (rebelliously creative and innovative).

## AMBEDKAR AS A JUSTICE-LOVING LAWYER

After Ambedkar's return from London in 1923, he had to fend for his family, which included his wife, his children, his sister-in-law, and nephew. He wanted to practice law but for that, he needed to be registered with the Bombay High Court. He did not have the money to pay the registration fee. His friend Naval Bhatena came to his rescue and gave him the requisite Rs. 500. In 1923, he was admitted to the Bombay Bar Council and began his practice. He pleaded in the Bombay High Court as well as in the district courts of Thane, Nagpur, and Aurangabad. But soon, the economist Ambedkar overwhelmed the lawyer Ambedkar. He wanted to do social work but had no time to spare. In order to pursue his career as a lawyer, he had turned down the offer of Rs. 2500-a-month job in the British Government. He had also refused to join the Kolhapur State Services. Ambedkar wanted to have an office but again he lacked finances. With the help of his friends, he rented a small room at the Social Service League, Poyabaodi, in Bombay, and later moved to the first floor of Damodar Hall, Parel. A portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte hung from his office wall.

Now, he had an office but he was not getting cases due to the jaundiced attitude of the Hindus towards him. Some of his friends
tried to help him but it was months before he got his first case and that too of a Mahar. Lokmanya Tilak's nephew also helped him. But the greater faith of the litigants in British lawyers and non-cooperation from high caste Hindus came in the way of Ambedkar. Despite all these odds, he was determined to achieve success in the profession. "I will become a judge of the High Court", he would say. He had a penchant for buying books and that made his wife Ramabai's task of running the household more difficult. But slowly, things began looking up once his office and his library had been set up and with the support of his friends and Mahars. Due to his poverty and "low-caste" status, he had to face many bitter experiences. For the likes of Nehru, it was easy to give up practicing law to participate in the national movement, for they had the backing of their prosperous families. But for a poor and 'low-caste' person like Ambedkar, it was not easy to do so, for he had to run his family too. He had to keep working.

In 1926, Ambedkar got two important briefs. One was about Dinkarao Jawalkar's book *Deshanche Dushman* (Enemies of the Country) and the other about Philip Sprat's book *India and China*. Lokmanya Tilak, Vishnushastri Chiplunkar and their supporters had been spreading disinformation about Jyotirao Govindrao Phule. Jawalkar, in his book, described Brahmanvadis like Tilak and Chiplunkar as "enemies of the country" and declared that Gandhi was a much better alternative to them. Jawalkar had written his book to answer Phule's critics. A case was filed against Jawalkar. Despite there being no direct evidence of Phule having embraced Christianity, the judge ruled in favour of Tilak and co. Ambedkar argued that the judge who had given the judgment was prejudiced in believing that Phule was a Christian. In October 1926, Ambedkar won the "enemies of the country" case, which was perceived as a battle between the brahmanical and the non-brahmanical forces. This victory augmented Ambedkar's stature. Tilak's son Shridharpant Tilak became his follower and friend. Tilak was pro-
Brahmin but Shridharpant was the president of a branch of Samaj Samta Sangh founded by Ambedkar and, unlike his father, was opposed to untouchability and the chaturvarna system. Hounded by his relatives and brahmanical elements, he ultimately committed suicide. Ambedkar said that Tilak's son and not Tilak was the "real Lokmanya". Ambedkar also won Philip Spratt's case. Spratt was a British communist who was sent to India to spread communism here.

In 1933, Ambedkar pleaded another historic case, which had international implications. He pleaded the case of Raghunath Dhondo Karve, son of Dhondo Keshav Karve and the editor of *Region* magazine. Karve, through his magazine *Samajswasthya*, spread awareness on sex-related issues. He was charged with spreading vulgarity. Ignoring the stiff resistance of reactionaries, Ambedkar pleaded in defense of Karve. He argued that "vulgarity is not in the content but in the expression". What is vulgar and what is not does not depend on its meaning but in the way something is said or written. He marshaled extensive arguments about the meaning of vulgarity but lost the case. But his arguments showed that he was willing to study in depth and understand any issue at hand. Ambedkar was an independent thinker and a supporter of progressive ideas. He defended communist writer Spratt; he rose to the defense of Jawalkar, who had lost to the brahmanical forces; and ignoring the aggressive posturing of the conservatives, he took up the case of Karve and defended his right to spread awareness on sex-related issues. It shows that he was justice-loving, had a deep understanding of the law and was devoted to his profession.

A large number of people used to gather to see Ambedkar appear in court. His career as a lawyer was historic and inspiring. He was very generous and liberal with his clients. Hindus, Christians, Muslims, people of all castes and classes, workers, factory laborers, and small shopkeepers approached him for litigation. Even prostitutes wanted him to plead their case. He had a formidable
knowledge of the law and was capable of presenting lucid and convincing arguments. His office had copies of the crucial judgments of all the high courts in the country.

Initially, Justice John Newmont, a judge of the Bombay High Court, was hostile to Ambedkar but gradually, as Ambedkar acquired the reputation of a good lawyer, Newmont became his admirer, especially because of the way Ambedkar argued criminal appellate cases. On occasions, he invited Ambedkar for tea. Attorney-at-Law N.H. Pandiya and B.G. Kher, who were the editors of *Bombay Law Journal*, invited Ambedkar to become a member of the editorial board of the magazine. In 1927-28, he was a special invitee of the advisory and editorial committee of *Bombay Law Journal*. In October 1928, he quit the committee as he increasingly occupied himself with the task of transforming society.

By the 20th century, secular laws had started taking the place of Smriti laws. Ambedkar's laws replaced *Manusmriti*'s laws. On 25 September 1927, when Ambedkar joined his Hindu and Dalit supporters to publicly burn *Manusmriti*, he posed the biggest cultural challenge to the antiquated laws. This historic burning of the symbol of Brahmanism, casteism and cultural slavery brought Ambedkar on par with Gandhi. Although he wanted to lead the life of a professor and a scholar, circumstances sucked him into politics.

## RENOWNED PROFESSOR OF LAW

Ambedkar could not earn enough as a lawyer, so he started looking for a teaching job. From June 1925 to 1929, he taught commercial law at Batliboi Accountancy Institute as a part-time lecturer. Starting in June 1928, he taught in Government Law College, Bombay, for about a year. He also earned some extra income by evaluating the answer sheets of Bombay University examinations. Nationalist sentiment was at its zenith in the 1920s and he became a victim to it. He presented a memorandum before the Simon Commission as the representative of Dalits when the
national leaders were boycotting the commission. As a result, nationalist students began boycotting his classes. His supporters, however, declared that the memorandum was the “Manifesto of the Human Rights of Dalits”.

In 1933, Ambedkar was appointed a “scholar” in the Department of Law and Humanities of the Bombay University. In June 1934, he returned to the Government Law College as a part-time lecturer. He wrote brief comments on the British Constitution as part of preparing his lectures. Newmont was very impressed with his work as a lawyer in criminal appeals and wanted to appoint him principal of the college. He was appointed to the post on 2 June 1935. He taught jurisprudence there. Newmont was very happy with the appointment. At the time, this post was considered a stepping stone to judgeship of the High Court. One of the quips that went around then was that if Ambedkar continued teaching in the college, the walls of the college, unable to hold the intensity of his thoughts would collapse. Acharya Ishwardutt Medharithi described him as a “fearless leader of the youth”.

Ambedkar presented a plan to the Bombay Government for improving the academic standard of the college. He wrote an article titled “Thoughts on improving law education in Bombay State”. The article elaborated on various aspects of law education, including curricula, subjects, and the age at which students should begin studying the law, and on how to polish the linguistic skills and logical reasoning of the students. He believed that law should not be taught only at undergraduate and postgraduate levels but it should be introduced to the student after he passes the tenth grade examinations. He said that if that was done, students would be able to make up their mind about the profession after clearing their matriculation examinations and start specializing in the subject of their choice. He also suggested that law curricula should also include sociology, psychology, logic, and public speaking, command of language and felicity of expression. His article titled
"Dr. Ambedkar's analysis of decisions of Privy Council in the period 1829-31" dwelt on ways to develop an understanding of the law. He emphasized the interdependence of various disciplines. The January 1936 issue of the magazine of the college praised Dr. Ambedkar's deep understanding of law. "Dr. Ambedkar is a well-known scholar who has studied economics with great diligence. He is famous as an authority on Constitutionalism in India and elsewhere."

In May 1938, he resigned as principal of the Law College. The monthly bulletin of the college said, "The students had great regard for Dr. Ambedkar's knowledge and his skills as a teacher. His lectures were the thoughtful gist of his wisdom. His thoughts on jurisprudence were always revolutionary." Was this praise only a formality or did he really deserve it? His radicalism came through in his writings and speeches. For example, he wrote in *Annihilation of Caste*: "The idea of law is associated with the idea of change, and when people come to know that what is called Religion is really Law ... they will be ready for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed ... Hindus must ... recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan."

## A JURIST WITH NO EQUALS

Ambedkar was not only a professor of law and jurisprudence and an accomplished lawyer but he had a vast legislative experience as well. He was a member of the Bombay Legislative Council from 1927 to 1939 and the Labour Member of Viceroy's Executive Council from 1942 to 1946. As the Labour Member he worked for the welfare of the workers. But even earlier, he had fought against exploitation of the workers by capitalists and the Government. He analyzed caste by keeping caste at its centre. He agreed that a division of labour was essential for the functioning of any civilized society but argued that a birth-based division of labour was unnatural. He said that the caste system limited a person's capability
and skills. In Ambedkar's words, "Caste system is not merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers."

Whenever he got an opportunity, he went about doing the groundwork for laws meant for protecting the rights of labourers. In 1934, he founded the Bombay Kamgaar Sangh and in 1936 he became the president of Nagar Palika Shramik Sangh. His first political outfit was called Independent Labour Party. In 1937, he presented bills in the Legislative Council for the abolition of Khoti, Mahar Vatan and Halai systems, which were meant to perpetuate feudal, casteist and religious exploitation, and campaigned against them. He joined hands with communists and others to oppose the Industrial Disputes Act of 1938, which sought to limit the right of the workers to strike, and achieved historic success. As the Labour Member, he was in charge of labour, irrigation, power, social work and mines. He had the working hours of the industrial labourers reduced from 14 to 8. He also introduced the provision for paid leave and had employment exchanges established for skilled and semi-skilled labourers. He played a key role in getting bills on Employees State Insurance, review of the parameters for fixing wages of labourers, labour welfare fund, minimum wages, maternity leave for women and many other welfare measures passed and also had them implemented. He did not do all this for any political gain and there was no difference between what he practised and what he preached. Besides promulgation of labour laws and policymaking, he played a key role in the formulation of water and energy policies and in economic planning. All this made him the "creator of modern, scientific India" (see Babasaheb Ambedkar: Sampoorna Vangmay, Volume 18).

He was appointed the first law minister of independent India by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. As the law minister, he had laws passed to grant rights to the deprived sections, gave them equal status, strengthened their liberty and sought to end the notions of high and low. These laws were milestones in the history of India. On
29 August 1947, he was elected chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution. The Constituent Assembly had members from all classes and castes. The Shudras, the Untouchables and the women, who were considered unworthy of education, worked together along with the others to produce the best Constitution in the world. The Indian Constitution is the longest written Constitution in the world but it has enough flexibility to deal with the changing times. Ambedkar faced untouchability, humiliation and demeaning behaviour during his student days and later as a lawyer and as a professor. When he joined public life, he drew flak for criticizing Gandhi and for being a stooge of the British. But India chose this man who had burnt the *Manusmriti* – the symbol of the Varna system, caste system and social disharmony – to write its Constitution. Centuries ago, Manu had conspired to deprive the Untouchables, Shudras and women of education and other rights through his code of social conduct. But one of the Untouchables (who are now called Dalits, though untouchability continues to linger on in Indian society in many forms) became the creator of India's highest code of law. India emerged as an important democratic republic in the comity of nations. Even Ambedkar's ideological opponents could not help but praise his excellent and peerless work on the Constitution.

Some Hindu leaders compared Ambedkar with Manu and branded the Constitution as “Bhim Smriti” and “Mahar Law”. They said Ambedkar was a “Modern Manu”. But this comparison was entirely unwarranted. There were fundamental differences between Manu’s laws and the Constitution that Ambedkar had drafted. Ambedkar had a very clear and cogent understanding of the nature of the law and of laws made for and by human beings. Manu had created a set of unequal social codes that were meant to protect the privileges of the Brahmins by granting them divine status. He had scripted a conspiracy. For Ambedkar, there was nothing divine about laws. They were entirely human creations. For Manu, as the
laws were divine, they were eternal, unchangeable and infallible. For Ambedkar, laws were meant to fulfil the needs of society and could be changed to keep pace with the times. Manu's laws were meant to serve the interests of the Brahmin and Kshatriya Varnas (classes), while Ambedkar's laws were for everyone – for Hindus, for Muslims, for Christians and Sikhs – and they did not brook any discrimination on grounds of birth, gender, race, religion, caste, creed, class or region. The world wholeheartedly praised the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity embedded in the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution became the guiding light of other newer independent nations too. It became a symbol of humanism.

It was Ambedkar who laid the foundation of the laws giving equal status and rights to women. He had played a seminal role in freeing women from the shackles of patriarchy. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of Ambedkar on 9 April 1948 to study the Hindu Code Bill. The Hindu Code Bill was prepared by Benegal Narsing Rau. Ambedkar studied the earlier legislations regarding women's rights, besides Hindu scriptures, ancient texts, Smritis and other codes, and strengthened the provisions of the Bill. Ambedkar hoped to secure women's right to property, ban polygamy, allow divorce on grounds of domestic violence and infidelity, and provide for inter-caste marriages and adoption through the Bill. This epoch-making piece of legislation had to face stiff resistance from the conservative Hindus.

Initially, both Nehru and Ambedkar worked together to demolish the arguments of the conservatives but later Nehru backed out. Even women, who were living in slave-like conditions for centuries, began opposing the measures mentioned in the Bill. Faced with opposition from both inside and Parliament and Nehru's refusal to issue a whip to facilitate the passage of the Bill, Ambedkar declared that Nehru was unwilling to let the Bill pass, had divided it into many parts and had surrendered to the obscurantists. He then
resigned from his post. In his letter of resignation, Ambedkar also raised other issues like failure of the Government to set up the Backwards Classes Commission; him not being given the charge of the planning ministry; and the foreign policy of the Nehru Government. Ambedkar, who had written the world's best Constitution just a year earlier, was not even allowed to read his resignation letter in the Lok Sabha. He had to give copies of his letter to the members and journalists. He wrote in his resignation letter: "The Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure ever undertaken by the legislature in this country. No law passed by the Indian Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in the future can be compared to it in point of its significance. To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap."

A few years later, with Nehru's efforts, the bills that Ambedkar drafted for securing the interest of women were passed in bits and pieces. The Hindu Marriage Act was passed in May 1955, Hindu Succession Act in May 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in December 1956. In 1961, the Dowry Prohibition Act was passed.

After Ambedkar's unexpected defeat in the 1951-52 elections, his influence on the political scene in India started waning. But his stature continued to rise in the international arena. Two more degrees were added to the long list of his academic accomplishments. On 5 June 1952, the Columbia University conferred on him an honorary doctorate in law. The citation for the degree, besides recounting his academic achievements, described Ambedkar as the maker of the Indian Constitution, a member of the Rajya Sabha, a former minister, a leading citizen of India, a great social reformer and a vigilant protector of human rights. Osmania University conferred on him an honorary doctorate in literature on
12 January 1953 for his achievements, leadership and his role in the making of the Indian Constitution.

Ambedkar continued with his mission of reminding the people of their duties and rights and making them aware of the law. On 22 December 1952, he inaugurated the Pune district law library and gave a lecture on "Essential conditions for successful democratic functioning" to the members of the Pune Bar Association. This speech was widely discussed and debated in newspapers and magazines for many days. In his speech, he said that for the success of a democratic setup, it was essential that there was no social inequality and were no oppressed classes; the majority community should not hold sway over the minorities and there should be a powerful opposition for pointing out the mistakes of the government; all should be equal in the eyes of the law and the administration; and Constitutional morality should be adhered to and the social morality inherent in democracy should be followed. He said that there should be public goodwill and even revolutionary changes should be possible without a bloodbath. Barring exceptions, no party's Government in India has tried to follow these tenets.

As a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly, as a Labour Member of Viceroy's council and as a Rajya Sabha member, Ambedkar always had the concerns of the last man in the last row of society uppermost in his mind. He was consistently thinking about ways and means of strengthening the nation, ensuring its progress and uniting it. For instance, during the debate on the Constitution of a separate Karnataka state in Bombay Legislative Council, he insisted that national interest should get precedence over all other interests. His speech contained a clear delineation of the path towards building a prosperous nation. He said: "Personally I say openly that I do not believe that there is any place in this country for any particular culture, whether it is Hindu culture, or a Muhammadan culture, or a Kanarese culture or a Gujarati culture. There are things we cannot deny, but they are not to be cultivated as
advantages, they are to be treated as disadvantages as something which divides our loyalty and takes away from us our common goal. That common goal is the building up of a feeling that we are all Indians. I do not like what some people say, that we are Indians first and Hindus afterwards or Muslims afterwards. I am not satisfied with that; I frankly say that I am not satisfied with that. I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indians last and nothing else but Indians”. (Bombay Legislature, 1938).

He wanted Indians to have a shared identity, rising above the divisions of religion, class, caste and high or low culture – “a feeling that we are all Indians”. He was constantly on the lookout for ways to end inequality and usher in equality. He did not believe that the brahmanical Hindu religion – which was divided into castes and determined a person’s destiny on the basis of their birth – was amenable to any major reform. That was why he wanted leave the Hindu fold and associate himself with an ideology/religion that was free from dogma, rituals and inertia, a religion that could make humans the best creation of nature, a religion that aided in the progress of men and nation, a religion that was based on the universal values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity and a religion that did not thrust laws and norms of behaviour on the people.

He led the biggest religious conversion (Dhamma Parivartan) in human history (Five lakh people embraced Buddhism on 14 October 1956, another five lakhs on Parinirvan and an estimated 16-17 lakhs subsequently). Before taking this momentous decision, he did an in depth study of all the religions of the world and was drawn towards Buddhism. But he did not accept Buddhism as it is. He was well aware of the rampant corruption in Buddhist sanghas and of the division of Buddhists into Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc. At
the Dhamma Parivartan ceremony, Ambedkar took 22 oaths that he himself had written. These oaths were not shackles, they were not proscriptions. They were the way to salvation. They were about curiosity, progressiveness and emancipation. He called this way “Navayana”, that is a new vehicle for living one’s life. He envisaged a free-thinking individual who was free from all kinds of restrictions and bindings – a man who is not guided by blind faith or belief but who takes rational decisions on the basis of his own reasoning.

## CONCLUSION

When Ambedkar was the principal of the law college, he used to say half in jest, “I will become a judge one day.” Of course, he had both the opportunity and the capability to become a judge. But had he confined himself to the bench, he would not have been able to bring about the social, political and economic changes that he has now been credited with. He did not become a judge but he did establish a democratic system imbued with the values of justice and equality. He built a system in which any capable person could become a judge. It was because of his scholarship and abilities that he was chosen to head the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly. It was his juristic brilliance that made him the builder of the Constitution of India – one of the most diverse regions of the world. He accomplished the task entrusted to him with remarkable success and wrote a Constitution that freed the oppressed and suppressed, including Dalits, Tribals, Backwards, women, minorities and workers from their shackles. The laws formulated by him were not meant to limit but to remove all limitations and open the doors to true liberty and emancipation. For him, his identity as an Indian was supreme. He fought all his life for freeing men from the bondage of other men.

Dr. Ambedkar was exceptionally successful in carrying forward his transformational and emancipatory mission. He ensured that the antiquated and obscurantist laws of the land were abandoned.
Instead of them, he laid down objective laws aimed at national welfare and had them implemented. He could do this because of his deep judicial knowledge and understanding. Attempts were made to belittle his contribution and his rich legacy through appropriation, manipulation and wrong interpretation. There were attempts to constrict Ambedkar's humanistic, emancipatory and socialist democratic values based on the lofty ideal of equality. But we must recall the rich legacy of the knowledge and wisdom of Ambedkar – who was not an individual but an institution. Ambedkar had written extensively on economics, history, politics, sociology, education, religion, constitutional law and rights. His philosophy is not only relevant for India but also for the world.
# Ambedkar's 'Untouchability' in Indian Anthropology

Abhijit Guha

Western sociologists and anthropologists have largely viewed India as a society characterized by caste in which social hierarchy was translated into a biological, and hence cultural, idiom. Louis Dumont (1911-1998), for example, in his famous book *Homo Hierachicus* (1966) championed this cultural notion of hierarchy to analyze caste system in structuralist terms. On the other hand, anti-Dumont interactionist scholars like Mckim Marriott gave more emphasis to the local and regional variations in the caste hierarchy and M.N. Srinivas propounded a theory of social mobility occurring within the caste system through a process that he termed “Sanskritization”. The Marxist scholars viewed the caste system as a kind of class formation. But what was most interesting in these discourses is the absence of the contributions of one of the most original thinkers on the caste system in India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), who was not only a scholar but also one of the greatest legislators and policymakers of independent India.

Ambedkar's views on caste were also overlooked in the anthropology and sociology curricula in Indian Universities. Ambedkar still does not figure in Indian Anthropology. The students of Anthropology, Sociology, History and Political Science in the Indian Universities have to know a lot about Louis Dumont, H.H. Risely, J.H. Hutton, L.S.S. O'Malley, G.S. Ghurye, D.D. Kosambi, Nirmal Kumar Bose, Ramkrishna Mukherjee, M.N. Srinivas, Surajit Sinha, André Béteille, Rajni Kothari, Mckim Marriott, Ronald Inden, Bernard Cohn, Nicholas Dirks and Romila Thapar but not about B.R. Ambedkar! Ambedkar was treated only as a leader of the
Dalits and one of the makers of the Constitution but social scientists working on India did not give him the status of a scholar in their elite discourses. None of the Indian or Western anthropologists or other social scientists valued B.R. Ambedkar's views on caste. Ambedkar remained an "Untouchable" in the Brahmanical and European scholarly discourses on caste in India.

As early as 1916, B.R. Ambedkar made a novel attempt to explain the caste system in India in a paper he read at an Anthropology seminar that Alexander Goldenweizer (1880-1940) organized in Columbia University. Ambedkar was then 25 years old and a doctoral student of Anthropology. His paper was titled "Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development". It was an 18-page paper that contained a pure, detached academic study of the nature of the caste system in India. It had no allusions to personal experiences and was free of opinions. This was a piece of critical, lucidly argued scholarship on the then existing anthropological and sociological literature on caste. In the first part of the paper, Ambedkar dealt with the works of four famous scholars – Emile Senart (1847-1928), John Nesfield (1836-1919), S.V. Ketkar (1884-1937) and H.H. Risley (1851-1911) – and, without being biased, pointed out the shortcomings in their understanding of the essential feature of the caste system. However, even while criticizing these authorities on the subject, Ambedkar did not fail to observe the positive aspects of their contributions:

> To review these definitions is of great importance for our purpose. It will be noticed that taken individually the definitions of three of the writers include too much or too little: none is complete or correct by itself and all have missed the central point in the mechanism of the Caste system. Their mistake lies in trying to define caste as an isolated unit by itself, and not as a group within, and with definite relations to, the system of caste as a whole. Yet collectively all of them are complementary to one another, each one
emphasizing what has been obscured in the other. [Ambedkar
(1917): 1979:7].

Looking at not just caste but the caste system in which each jati
is part of the whole was definitely a step forward in social and
cultural anthropology. Ambedkar was not ready to accept the idea
that the caste system was a “division of labour” that minimized
competition among occupational groups. For him, caste system was
a division of the labouring classes rather than a division of labour.
He observed that marriage outside one’s own immediate kin-group,
or clan exogamy, was the fundamental and universal feature of
human society and in India “tribal exogamy” survived through
different stages of civilization, whereas in the modern world this
was no longer the rule. He wrote:

With the growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy, and excepting the nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar restricting the field of marriage. But regarding the peoples of India the law of exogamy is a positive injunction even today. Indian society still savours of the clan system, even though there are no clans; and this can be easily seen from the law of matrimony which centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is not that Sapindas (blood-kins) cannot marry, but a marriage even between Sagotras (of the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege. [Ibid (1917): 1979:9].

This is the logical foundation based on which Ambedkar
advanced his arguments to elucidate the caste system. He cogently
argued that since in India exogamy was the rule and not the
exception, endogamy must have been a foreign idea. But then how
could caste system, for which endogamy was a prerequisite, come
into being in India? The way Ambedkar explained this anomaly is
the most interesting part of his original paper.

Nothing is therefore more important for you to remember than
the fact that endogamy is foreign to the people of India. The various
Gotras of India are and have been exogamous: so are the other groups with totemic organization. It is no exaggeration to say that with the people of India exogamy is a creed and none dare infringe it, so much so that, in spite of the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly observed and that there are more rigorous penalties for violating exogamy than there are for violating endogamy. Consequently in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India is concerned, means the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. [Ibid (1917): 1979:9].

Ambedkar went on to explain how some of the social groups in ancient India that were classes turned into enclosed endogamous groups probably to hold on to the privileges which they accrued from the ancient class system. According to Ambedkar, since the Brahmins and the Kshtriyas were the most privileged classes it was these classes who began to enclose themselves to secure their privileges by becoming endogamous. Later other groups also emulated the higher classes and the system spread over the wider region. So, classes in India were the forerunner to castes, and castes according to Ambedkar were enclosed classes characterized by endogamy.

We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are (1) the Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class; and (4) the Shudra, or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute, groups ... The question we have to
answer in this connection is: Why did these sub-divisions or classes,
if you please, industrial, religious or otherwise, become self-
enclosed or endogamous? My answer is because the Brahmins were
so. Endogamy or the closed-door system was a fashion in the Hindu
society, and as it had originated from the Brahmin caste it was
whole-heartedly imitated by all the non-Brahmin sub-divisions or
classes, who, in their turn, became endogamous castes. It is "the
infection of imitation" that caught all these sub-divisions on their
onward march of differentiation and has turned them into castes.
(Ibid: 17-18).

Starting with the fundamental anthropological discovery of tribal
clan exogamy Ambedkar was able to show how caste endogamy
was superimposed on the former. Secondly, his exposition of caste
as an extreme form of class system as early as 1917 was also
exemplary. However, it found no mention in the works of the world-
famous scholars on caste in India. Take for example, G. S. Ghurye.
In his famous book *Caste and Class in India* (1957), Ghurye
mentioned the name of Ambedkar only once, on page 226, and that
too as "the leader of the Scheduled Caste" even though the author
discussed at length the importance of endogamy in characterizing
India's caste society. The same kind of omission of the
anthropological contributions of B.R. Ambedkar could also be
observed in the writings of Nirmal Kumar Bose.
# Mother India and Ambedkar's India

Neha Singh

Written in the early 1870s in the form of a lyrical *vandana* or a hymn, *Vande Mataram* has been, one, acclaimed as a national song and, two, “...given rise to intense contestation on account of objections raised on the ground of its imagery and rhetoric and implicit idolatry.”¹ Later, in 1881, incorporated in the book *Anandamath*, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s song depicted Mother India as a holy icon, as a “... a site for a nation and invested with the divine power”.² Emphasizing the nation state as a mother goddess, Sumathi Ramaswamy quoted Tagore as saying “have I not told you that in you, I visualize the Shakti [the female principle] of our country?” By the time Rabindranath Tagore wrote these lines in 1915-1916, the practice of imagining India as a female entity – goddess, Bharat Mata, ‘Mother India’ – had become a habit among patriotic Indians.³

This deification of Mother India necessitates an understanding of the relationship between the women and the nation and how society treated them as a separate category that had to be dealt differently. Mother India riding a lion was supposed to resemble power and represent nationalism but in reality Indian women weren't even treated with dignity, let alone given rights on par with men. They had no voice of their own and were controlled by the patriarchal norms of society.

## AMBEDKAR'S IDEA OF A NATION

Unlike his contemporaries, Ambedkar rejected the concept of Mother India. Rather, he coined the term “Bahishkrit Bharat” (Outcast India) to convey the reality of a fractured nation. India
comprised multiple identities and communities but they had to contend with the hegemony of brahmanical patriarchy. This brahmanical patriarchy not only influenced social and religious life but also the political arena. The likes of Tilak called for a united nation by raising slogans like “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram”. These nationalists had no issues with Brahmanism and strongly resented any reforms for women by the imperial power. Tilak strongly opposed the Age of Consent Bill (which rose the age of consent for sexual intercourse for both married and unmarried girls from 10 to 12 years) under the pretext of protection of Indian culture. Thus, even within the political arena, the gendered hierarchy was well maintained. Any reform that benefited women was believed to be a direct attack on the rich culture of the Indian nation and hence met with wide opposition.

The cultural and religious hegemony and the caste system were thus left intact, although with the advent of the British, Indian society was forced to accept the modern notions of a nation, citizenship and so on. According to Sir Herbert Hope Risley, “History affords no warrant for the belief that the enthusiasm of nationality can be kindled in sordid and denigrate surroundings. A society which accepts intellectual inanition and moral stagnation as the natural condition of its womankind cannot hope to develop the high qualities of courage, devotion and self-sacrifice which go to the making of nations.”⁴

Encapsulating the whole discussion on the idea of nation Partha Chatterjee wrote that the “Nationalist discourse is historical in form but ‘apologetic’ in substance”.⁵ Thus, it is difficult for the nationalists to retain the autonomy of a nation.

While studying how the idea of a nation came to be, Ambedkar developed a theoretical framework of nationhood. He studied the role of women in Indian society and how their subjugation and exclusion led to the dangerous practices like endogamy, child
marriage, female infanticide and sati. These malaises had not only
social but also political repercussions. Almost half of the citizens
were kept out of the political arena.

"For woman was at once the seed bed of and the hot house for nationalism in a degree that man could never be," Ambedkar said. "The part played by woman in sustaining nationalism had not been sufficiently noticed."⁶ For him, the idea of a nation was never only political but was also embedded in the social. He believed that, "without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile world. With mere political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not a nation, has little prospect of survival in the struggle for existence. This is especially true when everywhere nationalism – the most dynamic force of modern times – is seeking to free itself by the destruction and disruption of all mixed States. The danger to a mixed and composite State lies therefore not so much in external aggression as in the internal resurgence of nationalities which are fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their will."⁷

How were the women entrapped and suppressed? Ambedkar
said, "From time immemorial, man as compared with woman has
had the upper hand. He is a dominant figure in every group and of
the two sexes has greater prestige. With this traditional superiority
of man over woman, his wishes have always been consulted.
Woman, on the other hand, has been an easy prey to all kinds of
iniquitous injunctions, religious, social or economic. But man as a
maker of injunctions is most often above them all."⁸ He believed
that patriarchy in India started with the men controlling women in
the family but worked in such a way as to perpetuate caste
hierarchies; and the preservation of caste is the basis for the
functioning of this patriarchy.⁹ The social relation between caste and
gender was based on the exercise of power through the use of force.
"This power could have many dimensions: it could be simple and direct in its assertions; it could be complex in not permitting the space for the raising of issues outside the parameters it creates."¹⁰

Gandhi, for example, involved women in various political and national movements like Satyagraha, Non-Cooperation and created a public space for them. He addressed more and more the plight of women in India, first, by questioning existing Hindu practices that limited the involvement of women in national awakening, like the purdah, and later by affirming and establishing the distinct role that women could play in the national movement. It was a slow process that built his ideas. He linked women to the national movement through the spinning wheel, a process in which if he moves forward he also moved backwards, until by the 1920s he was able to crystallise his thoughts on this problem in a coherent fashion.¹¹ However, he always stuck to the belief in the binary of the two sexes and in the Varnashrama Dharma that sustained and promoted evil practices like sati, dowry and child marriage. For him, the participation of the women in the nationalist awakening meant spinning cotton at home.¹² Thus, even those who involved women in the national movement were drawing boundaries for them and confining them to within the four walls of their homes.

Therefore, defining the ideal woman as Bharat Mata draped in a white saree holding a flag is a farce because, as Ambedkar said, unless women as individuals were given their due rights and protected, India could never become a democratic nation. In his view, it was imperative to develop State Socialism in our country for achieving socio-economic equality and unity. He maintained that people made a nation by striving for the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. Everyone should feel that he has got an equal share in the national wealth, power and opportunities. They should not feel that they are deprived of the social benefits by others. A society of this kind, Ambedkar believed, would constitute a nation irrespective of other differences, such as in language, religion and habits.¹³
He used to say that merely calling this land Matrabhu-Pitrabhu or raising the slogan Hindu Hindu-Bandhu Bandhu was of no use. He emphasized the need for a change in the social structure and social values to turn India into a nation.¹⁴ Ambedkar warned people against the spirit of blind hero-worship because he thought that the service to the people of a nation was nobler than the worship of political heroes. He was of the opinion that “Bhakti” is a path to the salvation of the soul, but in politics, Bhakti or hero worship was a sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship. He argued that the worship of political heroes had killed the public conscience because the heroes thought only of their worshippers and neglected the common cause of mankind. Rather, he attempted to solve the political, social and religious problems of India using a democratic, humanistic method. Though educated in and impressed by Western culture, he laid stress on the need for cultural regeneration while preserving the best elements of our culture and civilization.¹⁵

During the framing of the Constitution, Ambedkar saw
democracy as an instrument for metamorphosis. The Constitution
was not merely for the Government. Rather, it operated within
society, influencing the political, economic and cultural spheres. It
envisaged the principle of “one man, one vote” giving right to
equality and freedom to the woman as an individual. Ambedkar thus
safeguarded the identity of woman as autonomous and on par with
that of the men. A progressive radical faced with a triumph of
myths, customs and religious beliefs over rationality around him,
Ambedkar proposed three unique ideas to include women in the
formation of a nation.

First, he demanded an autonomous political representation for
women not only in the political arena but also in the pursuit of the
development, preservation and reproduction. Second, since he
doubted the public conscience to allow women’s representation, he
proposed definitive constitutional measures. This would even enable
the women to address common issues and make demands
accordingly. Third, he pitched for supportive policy measures of
extending benefits to women in the process of development.

Thus his idea of a nation had an inclusive character – it protected the rights of the women. Later, he propagated the idea of Prabuddha Bharat (enlightened India) after building his Bahiskrit Bharat on the belief that the pillars of a strong India rested upon the consistency of a heterogeneous society. His idea of a strong nation was built on rationality, democracy, liberty, fraternity and equality.

According to Ambedkar, the formation of a strong nation had the identity of an individual as its centrifugal component – be it a woman or a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. This individuality is always evolving and developing, and engaging with the locality, community, nationality, humanity. The social and the political thought that is attached to this identity (here specifically targeting the woman) has an epistemological capacity to adjust with the facts. For example, the concept of freedom is significant only if the idea of nation is accommodative and pertains to the social reality. Thus Ambedkar rightly said “Educate, Agitate, and Organize” – to not only instil morality among the public but also strengthen the Indian woman to speak out and be an active agent/participant in the nation, for the progress of a nation can only be real when the progress of the woman is encouraged.

References:

1. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, *Vande Mataram: The Biography of A Song* (2013), Primus Books, New Delhi, p XIII.

2. Geeti Sen, “Iconising the Nation: Political Agendas”, *India International Centre Quarterly*, Vol 29, No 3/4, India: A National Culture? (Winter 2002-Spring 2003), p 158.

3. Sumathy Ramaswamy, “Maps and Mother Goddesses in Modern India”, *Imago Mundi*, Vol 53 (2001), p 106.

4. Sir Herbert Hope Risley, *The People of India* (1969), W. Crooke (ed), Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, Delhi, p 171.
5. Partha Chatterjee, *Nationalist Thought Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse* (1986), Oxford University Press, Delhi, p 9.

6. B.R. Ambedkar, "Pakistan or Partition of India", Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume VIII, Government of Maharashtra (1990), Bombay, p 243.

7. Ibid, pp 193-194.

8. B.R. Ambedkar, *Castes in India: Their Genesis, Mechanism and Development* (2013), Critical Quest, New Delhi p 7. Also, it was originally a seminal paper presented by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on 9 May 1916 in the Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer at The Columbia University, New York, USA.

9. Wandana Sonalkar, "An Agenda for Gender Politics", *Economic and Political Weekly*, Vol 34, No 1/2 (2-15 January 1999), p 24.

10. Vasanth Kannabiran & Kalpana Kannabiran, "Caste and Gender: Understanding Dynamics of Power and Violence", *Economic and Political Weekly*, September, (1991), p 253.

11. Sujata Patel, "Construction and Reconstruction of Woman in Gandhi", *Economic and Political Weekly*, Vol 23, No 8 (February 20, 1988), p 378.

12. Ibid, p 378.

13. Dr. Pradeep Aglave, Dr. Ambedkar on *Nation and Nationalism*, published by Dr. Ambedkar Chair, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, (2014), Nagpur, p 12.

14. Ibid, p 15.

15. *Constituent Assembly Debates* (2003), Volume XI, reprinted by Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, p 12.
# Ambedkar's Understated Feminism

Lalitha Dhara

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is hailed by many names. He is variously known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, messiah of the downtrodden, intellectual giant among giants, eminent jurist, erudite scholar but not many are aware of his commitment to the women's cause.

Ambedkar had tried to bring in gender-just laws through every avenue that was open to him. In 1928, as a member of the Legislative Council of Bombay, Ambedkar supported a Bill granting paid maternity leave to women working in factories. He held the view that since the employer was reaping profits through the women's toil, he must financially support them, at least partly, while they are on maternity leave. Babasaheb exhibited both class and gender consciousness as he drew our attention to the economic and productive dimension of childbearing and child-rearing that working-class women concerned themselves with. The other part of the maternity-leave pay, according to Ambedkar, should be borne by government as, in his words, "It is in the interests of the nation that the mother ought to get a certain amount of rest during the pre-natal period and also subsequently." There is an implicit recognition here of the social aspect of women's reproductive function.

In 1938, again as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Bombay, Ambedkar recommended that birth control facilities be made available to women. His logic was that if and when a woman was disinclined to bear a child for any reason whatsoever, she must be in a position to prevent conception. He further felt that conception ought to be entirely a woman's choice. Ambedkar was
arguing for reproductive choice, reproductive control, reproductive rights and reproductive freedom for women.

Between 1942 and 1946, as a Labour Member in the Viceroy's executive committee, Ambedkar passed several progressive legislations relating to better working conditions for women workers. These dealt with casual leave, privilege leave, earned leave compensation in case of injury and pension. These provisions were at least in part a response to the resolutions adopted by the All-India Depressed Classes Mahila Federation in its conference (parishad) held on 20 July 1942. The resolutions included demands for all of these provisions for working women.

## THE HINDU CODE BILL

On 9 April 1948, as the first law minister of independent India, Ambedkar submitted the draft Hindu Code Bill (HCB) to the Constituent Assembly. It sought to codify the law relating to the rights of the property of a Hindu, both female and male, who has died intestate. The Bill treated the widow, daughter and son of the deceased equally in the matter of inheritance. In addition, the daughter was given a share in her father's property, her share being half that of the son.

HCB recognized two forms of marriage – sacramental marriage and civil marriage. It prescribed monogamy and made provisions for the dissolution of marriage. Anyone who was married would have three remedies to end the contract of marriage. One was to have the marriage declared null and void; secondly, to have the marriage declared invalid; and thirdly, to have it dissolved. The Bill stated that even where the marriage was declared invalid by a court of law, the invalidation would not affect the legitimacy of the children born.

There were seven grounds on which divorce could be obtained 1) desertion, 2) conversion to another religion, 3) keeping a concubine or becoming a concubine, 4) incurably unsound mind, 5)
virulent and incurable form of leprosy, 6) venereal disease in communicable form, and 7) cruelty.

Two points in connection with Ambedkar's involvement with the HCB stand out. One, he was a political leader of the backward classes and hence represented their interest. Two, by the time he began drafting the HCB, he had decided to leave the Hindu fold and embrace Buddhism. Yet, he took pains to draft a Bill that would have benefited Hindu women, and among them largely those belonging to the propertied upper class\caste, demonstrating thereby a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the condition of all women irrespective of their caste\class status.

Thus we see that Ambedkar had consistently taken steps to promote gender equality using every platform available to him.

## PERSPECTIVE ON GENDER

How did Ambedkar understand gender? How did he understand caste? How did he relate the two? In his seminal paper “Castes in India” (1916), Ambedkar explains that castes emerged in the Indian context when differences (classes) developed within groups. Ambedkar refers to castes as enclosed classes characterized by endogamy, namely marriage, within the group. He believed it was the priestly class that first enclosed itself, thus shutting itself in and shutting others out. The other castes were forced to follow suit.

How was the practice of endogamy maintained in the dominant caste? According to Ambedkar, it was maintained by restraining inter-caste marriages. This involved close monitoring of and control over women's sexuality. In Ambedkar's view, gender was used in the formation, maintenance and reproduction of caste. He believed that the caste-gender nexus was the main culprit behind the oppression of the lower castes and women and that it had to be uprooted. Thus, for Ambedkar, gender elimination was an intrinsic part of caste annihilation.
Ambedkar's gender sensitivity drew upon three sources:

1. **His personal experience of caste subjugation as an 'Untouchable'**: He had had several humiliating experiences of being discriminated against. In his famous address before Untouchable women during the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927, he said in anguish, "You have given birth to us men. You know how other people consider us lower than animals. In some places even our shadow is not acceptable. Other people get respectable jobs in courts and offices, but the sons born of your wombs are held in such contempt that we cannot get a job as a lowly peon in the police department. If someone asks you why you gave birth to us, what answer will you give? What is the difference between us and the children born of Kayastha and other caste Hindu women sitting in this meeting?" It was not difficult for Ambedkar to link the downtrodden condition of his caste to women's subjugation under patriarchy.

2. **His theoretical understanding**: Given his intellectual brilliance and scholarship, and rare sensitivity, it was natural for him to arrive at a theoretical link between caste and gender as seen from the bottom of the caste hierarchy. This analysis was put forward in the paper "Castes in India" in 1916, which we have already touched upon.

3. **His leadership of the grassroots women's organizations and their impact on him**: There were three phases to the women's movement led by Ambedkar. **a) Participation of women in the general movement alongside men in the late 1920s**: This included the various temple entry movements in which women participated enthusiastically along with men. **b) Autonomous organizations of women in the 1930s**: With some experience of participation in mass movements behind them, the women became conscious of the need to build their own autonomous organizations to find their space and voice. This was when they
began to mobilize independently. c) Political organizations of women in the 1940s: These consisted of the All-India Depressed Classes Mahila Federation conferences which saw women from all over the country come together to deliberate and pass resolutions under the leadership of Ambedkar.

Ambedkar's speeches and thoughts have had a great impact on the women. In particular, his speeches at the time of the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 appear to have brought about a profound change in their lives. His advice to women to not wear the kind of clothes and ornaments that would mark them as Untouchables instilled courage in them, and they began draping their saris differently.

When Ambedkar announced his intention to change his religion in 1935, women held meetings to express support for him. They appealed to him not to lead them into a religion that would impose the purdah on them.

In one of his speeches in 1938, he declared that a woman is an individual and she must have individual freedom. In another speech the same year, he argued for women to have fewer children. He said, "If there are fewer children, women are freed from the terrible burden of childbearing and can use their strength for other tasks."

Throughout the time he led mass movements, Ambedkar was in touch with the ground realities. Heeding his request, his women followers took up low-cost marriage functions. Women were also open to the idea that girls should not be married early, and that intercaste marriages should take place. Ambedkar was as deeply influenced by the masses of women he mobilized as they were by him. That was the main source of his gender sensitivity.
# CONCLUSION

## Ambedkar's analysis of Hindu Society is that:

1. It is essentially a caste-ridden, graded, hierarchical society in which castes are arranged according to an ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt.

2. It rests on the control of women's sexuality and fertility and labour.

3. This caste-gender nexus is kept in place by Manu Dharma's twin pillars, the Varnashrama Dharma and Pativrata Dharma ideologies. We cannot get rid of one without getting rid of the other.

Ambedkar's emotional, intellectual reaction to this understanding guided him throughout his emancipatory project for women and the suppressed people.
Section 4:

Narrative after Ambedkar - what it is
and what it should be
# Reading Dr Ambedkar as a Narrative for Social Change

Jeremy A. Rinker

Much as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is seen as a father of the Indian nation and an important father of anti-caste activism, fields of study also have their respective “fathers”. In the field of Peace and Conflict Studies (PCS), many scholars and activists often see Johan Galtung as such a father. We, in the field of PCS, regularly rely on Johan Galtung’s seminal typology of violence to understand how to develop peaceful systems. Galtung, in endeavouring to define peace, clearly understood that he first had to better understand its opposite - violence. In his seminal 1969 article entitled “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”¹ he developed a typology of violence that is often represented as the three sides of an equilateral triangle. With direct, structural and cultural violence representing each side of this triangle, as if each sides understanding was equally critical to realizing and actualizing peace, Galtung’s violence triangle simultaneously complicates and clarifies any path towards sustained positive peace. Galtung’s (1969) violence triangle helped develop the base understanding for him to coin critical concepts like “structural violence” and “negative and positive peace”, which have propelled much writing and thinking on peace research and social change over the last almost half a century. Galtung’s concept of structural violence, as it is linked closely with ideas of social justice, has particularly spawned much discussion and new ideas in not just the peace studies and conflict transformation discipline, but also other disciplines as well (see Farmer (2004), Ho (2007), Caprioli (2005), among others as examples of this critical and interdisciplinary discussion).² It is argued here that the pervasive
and elusive reality of structural violence in the lives of anti-caste
activists is what mobilizes an identity for change and builds an
awareness of rights. In critically analyzing what Volkan (1997) calls
the “chosen traumas” and “chosen glories” of the anti-caste
movement we can read the narratives of Dalit activists at strategic
opportunities for social and structural change of systems of violence.
Though Dr. Ambedkar may not have talked about the realities of
caste in the language of structural violence, he understood that what
we now call structural violence represents the foundational context
to challenge in creating social change. But, how does one challenge
the agent-less and systemic beast of structural violence? This, I
believe, is the perennial question for those that revere Dr.
Ambedkar’s anti-caste activism.

Structural violence refers to systematic ways in which social
structures harm or otherwise disadvantage individuals in a society.
As systemic and structural, unlike direct or personal violence, this
form of violence does not have a clear perpetrator. It is often hidden
from those attempting to expose and eradicate it. One example
Galtung (1969) himself uses to illustrate the concept of structural
violence is the disease tuberculosis (TB). If a person died from TB
in the 18th century one could not conceive of this as a form of
violence because it might have been completely unavoidable – with
no understanding of the disease, society had no ability to cure or
control it. This lack of individual or collective agency marks such
misfortune and suffering as distinct from any form of violence. On
the other hand, if one died of TB today that would be an example of
structural violence since we (as a global society) have the means to
stop and treat TB.³ Because we are collective agency (what Porter
calls “the self-awareness to make self-chosen choices”⁴), any failure
to act is a product of structural constraints (whether financial,
logistical, or policy-oriented) that produce, for Galtung, an agentless
form of structural violence. Note that this distinction has nothing to
do with the subjectivities of suffering – no one can doubt that death
by TB in the 18th century would produce equal (if not more)
suffering as death by TB today. What marks today's death as
structural violence is the means with which we as a society have at
our disposal to foreclose such possibility. Failure to use these means
of foreclosure is an avoidable failure, even if its implementation
might be structurally complex. For Galtung, it is the absence of
structural and cultural violence that allows for the possibility of
social justice, and eventually the ideal of positive peace. This, of
course, assumes that direct violence and its historical legacies are
managed, if not transformed.

While direct violence is often the instrument of control to
maintain injustice in the present, it is structural and cultural violence
that maintains the legacy of injustice into the future. In the words of
Galtung “Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence
look, even feel, right – or at least not wrong.”⁵ Even though there is
no type of violence that seems to deserve our primary attention over
any other type of violence – it is clear that conflict transformation
demands more than the absence of simply direct violence. In the
case of the caste violence we see across India today, its eradication
demands structural change, not simply justice enforcement. In short,
we cannot definitively say that Galtung’s typology of violence
exhausts the human need to understand violence. Each instance of
violence (whether direct, structural, or some other type) is unique to
the cultural context. For this reason – as the regular litany of new
books about human violence should attest⁶ – there exists no
monopoly on a particular typology of human violence. Writers in the
field of Peace and Conflict Studies, indeed, continue to grow our
understanding of violence, and therefore, expand our means of
potentially achieving a lasting positive peace. Such growth of
knowledge is crucial to activists and scholars alike and demands
critical attention in order to listen to the unique suffering of social
actors as they narrate their lived experience of oppression and strive
to meet their full potentials.
As example of this knowledge creation, recently Sara Cobb (2013) has written of what she calls “a new kind of violence”⁷ – narrative violence. Rather than “new”, one might better call it “newly discovered”. Narrative violence is a special kind of violence that operates in the subtle spaces of storytelling and discursive communication. Cobb argues that “structural violence, by definition, is difficult to ‘story’ in that its existence does not seem to accompany specific history”.⁸ As agentless and systemic, Galtung’s sense of structural violence maintains an elusive connection to particular characters and/or settings and therefore makes plotlines blurry and amorphous. An understanding of narrative violence helps to narrow this elusive disconnection as narrative violence creates what she calls a “state of exception”⁹ for those embroiled in conflict. In describing this “state of exception” as something more than the impersonal and agentless structural violence described by Galtung, Cobb describes a context and people (or identity) that many Dalit rights activists would readily recognize as actively describing their everyday modern lives.

For Cobb, this “state of exception” is “a place where law has been used to create a place without law, a place that defies narrative itself”¹⁰. And the people that populate this “state of exception” – i.e., the victims of narrative violence – are “isolated and disenfranchised, they live in the shadows of the public sphere, their relation to state and community broken”.¹¹ The context and peoples that Cobb describes eerily map to Dr. Ambedkar’s own descriptions of the Dalit/low-caste experience and resonate closely with modern descriptions of the experience of caste oppression. In privileging the present consciousness and memory of past events, narratives can help explain how an ongoing “state of exception”¹² has been “incorporated into the temporal structure of relationships”.¹³ Thus, this “newly discovered” narrative violence provides a critical lens to understand caste oppression and anti-caste resistance. Applying this
lens of narrative violence to caste-based violence gives life to the histories and present experiences of anti-caste activists.

In *Annihilation of Caste*, Ambedkar writes: “A caste has no feeling that is affiliated to other castes, except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from others.”¹⁴ Living in such a state of exception for low-castes involve a constant process of drawing boundaries between their identity and that of others both higher and lower in rank status. In such context, the telling of stories can be understood as oblique or “hidden transcripts”¹⁵ that challenge any lack of awareness of the low-caste social predicament. In other words, narrative violence creates the boundary conditions for identity, rights, and self-awareness that become, over time, powerful discourses to attempt to challenge, or maintain, the status quo. The “newly” significant type of narrative violence that Cobb identifies is at the core of all systems of oppression and the dynamics of this narrative violence are clearly evident in caste-based oppression, as well as, within the “talk” of social movements that are aimed at ending this oppression.

## NARRATIVE VIOLENCE AMONG ANTI-CASTE ACTIVISTS

Ambedkarite activists often tell hagiographic stories about of their patriarch, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. In my experience of meeting and talking with Dalit anti-caste activists there is an unquestioned reverence and respect for the life and work of Dr. Ambedkar that can only be compared with a demi-god or modern popICON. This reverence is expressed through the telling of stories about Babasaheb's life and work. Like most interactions with Ambedkarites, my own experiences interacting with Dalit diaspora Ambedkarites on the occasion of 125th birth anniversary was no exception to my previous experiences of this phenomenon of hagiographic storytelling. On this jubilant occasion, I spoke to an audience of Ambedkarites at Michigan State University and asked
them to fully consider their own agency as speaking social agents. In
being invited to give a lecture to Ambedkarite anti-caste activists
there is always a balance between gently suggesting pragmatic
action and providing critical analysis of the ongoing anti-caste
movement. As should be evident by now, I do not think narrative is
an inanimate and agentless fact of social interaction. Nor do I think
that stories, or narratives, are just subjective expression of personal
truths devoid of any social and political relevance for social change.
Therefore, my focus in such “lecture” situations is often to draw
attention to the stories that I hear activists themselves voice. As a
social constructionist, I believe firmly in the power of stories to
influence social and structural change and I am intentional about
placing the agency for change among the people who have
experienced, and in turn, tell (and retell) such stories. I have written
elsewhere about the elliptical character of these stories and their
ability to mobilize activism.¹⁶ But, beyond movement mobilization
what do stories do? How do they work to strengthen identity
boundaries and build awareness of unmet rights and self-worth?

In the words of Michele Foucault: “People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what what they do does.”¹⁷ In endeavouring to assist anti-caste Ambedkarite activists to understand what their stories do to change (and, at times, support) the social structure, my narrative analysis aims to empower activists to make pro-social change in society. Following Sara Cobb, I believe that narratives matter and have agency – “they have gravitas; they are grave. They have weight.”¹⁸ Narratives themselves can act to change discourse, and thus, change systems. Having said that, analysis implies some level of understanding on the part of the analyst. My decade-long interaction with Dalit rights activists has developed some, albeit rudimentary, understanding of the conflict dynamics at play in India’s ongoing contentious tryst with caste. While narratives hold within them multiple interpretations and narrative violence has
complex social and psychological sources, this should not deter us
from attempting to develop further understanding through attention
to narrative's use. Narrative violence, in fact, implores us to analyze
it – now that we have learnt of its existence we must think and act in
ways that tap into narrative's power to act for social good; to build
“justpeace”. Below are a few examples that I believe show how
stories can be both opportunity and constraint for change activists.
Through a brief analysis of these formative identity narratives, I
hope that the important opportunities in Dr. Ambedkar's life story
and experience can be excavated, built upon, and reflexively mined
for their inherent and complex opportunities to create lasting
change.

STORIES IN AMBEDKARITE ANTI-CASTE CIRCLES

One of many hagiographic stories of Ambedkar's life involves
his 1934 trip to Daulatabad Fort in Maharashtra.¹⁹ Travelling with a
group of about 30 “untouchable” friends and arriving late and tired
to these historical ruins, the party stopped to wash and refresh by a
small tank of water that was near the entrance to the fort. Feeling
newly refreshed as they entered the front gate of the fort, an old
Muslim man came running to the entrance yelling “The Dheds
[meaning ‘untouchables’] have polluted the tank!”²⁰ After some
tense debate with the local authorities, the party was eventually
allowed to see the ruins of the fort, but not without an armed guard
to ensure that they did not “touch water anywhere in the fort”.²¹ Dr.
Ambedkar’s own autobiographical sketch of this episode ends with
the evaluative statement: “This will show that a person who is an
untouchable to a Hindu, also an untouchable to a Mohammedan.”²²
Such a story is retold with disbelief and frustration by Dalit activists
and recreated as street plays in many low-caste communities. But to
what actual effect?

While Dr. Ambedkar clearly told this story towards the goal of
illustrating an evaluative judgment about the dehumanizing demerits
of the caste system even outside of the Hindu fold, he also, in telling
such a story, must have soon realized how little control he would
have over this narrative going forward. Again in the words of Cobb
"narrative authorship is partial and dependent" and, therefore, we
often "arrive at narratives that we did not make."<sup>23</sup> While such a
narrative helps to build a collective identity as marginalized, it also
paradoxically positions Dalits in identities that they have little
control over. How followers and detractors use this story to make
their own evaluative judgments and build support for their own
identity concerns represents a crucial question for anti-caste activists
pushing for social change. While this story clearly communicates
the injustice and inhumanity of the situation Dalits consistently face,
it also constructs their identity as distinct from, and possibly in
opposition to, Muslims. Such a story, therefore, creates a paradox
for Dalit activists. It creates an identity of "other" that supports and
reinforces an identity and experience of self as "othered".<sup>24</sup> While it
underscores the inhumane and unjust realities of life as a Dalit or
Scheduled Caste (SC), it also closes off dialogue with others (in this
case Muslims and possibly other "downtrodden" and economically
depressed potential allies) by strengthening in-group identity, as
well as, portraying Dalits as either victims or a distinct and cohesive
community as apart from various "others" in society. Either of these
social positions leaves something to be desired for Dalit activists
working for social transformation, and, therefore, the retelling of
such a story acts to close off the narrative space to dialogue with
others. This is not to suggest that Dalits not tell this story, but rather
that it is the type of story that should be deployed selectively and
strategically in tandem with positive identity and awareness
education. Though not a strong example of Cobb's sense of
"narrative violence", this narrative does little to challenge the
perpetual narrative violence that Dalits face in the public sphere. It
does little to "thicken"<sup>25</sup> the narrative life of Dalits. In fact, due to
the ambiguity involved in Dalit listeners hearing such a story
coming from Dr. Ambedkar's *own* experience, listeners get caught
up in what Francesca Polletta calls “narrative ellipsis”²⁶ – a process
in which the stories activists tell compel other activists to retell the
story to better understand the ambiguous meaning of the events
described. The story itself has a life. Failure to engage the story as a
constantly changing system leaves activists unable to strategically
use the story to its full potentials.

By reproducing the inexplicable inhumanity in such a story, the activist unwittingly reifies the community's own sense of separated identity and victimization, and does little to open the opportunity for dialogue and narrative shift among others in the wider public sphere. In addition, high-caste detractors can, and do, use such a narrative to convince low-castes to stay within the Hindu fold reasoning that caste is not just a Hindu problem (which is indeed counter to Ambedkar's own analysis of the caste system). In short, the narrative space this story opens, as it is currently deployed by Dalits, does little to create social agency and/or even the social justice equation for Dalits or low-caste communities. So how do anti-caste activists fashion stories that will better open the space for thick narrative that engenders authentic dialogue with others? This has been the perennial challenge for modern anti-caste activists. Failure to strategically develop and systematically deploy stories of oppression that devalue separateness of identity and simultaneously value liberty, fraternity, and collective awareness of injustice, has fractured and splintered the anti-caste movement. Such fracturing among anti-caste activists has left them unable to influence the hearts and minds of higher caste Indians.

Another more mainstream and consistent narrative that one hears
when studying Ambedkarite communities worldwide is the
nationalist story of Dr. Ambedkar as the source/father of the Indian
Constitution. Yet, such a dominant narrative has divergent meanings
in different social communities and contexts. For Dalit communities,
the faith in the rule of law is strong and India's 1949 Constitution is
a source of pride as the penultimate legal resource to ensure rights
for the marginalized. This is why Ambedkar memorial statues
throughout India show the Indian Constitution tucked under his left
arm as a steadfast Dr. Ambedkar points toward a desired egalitarian
future. As the head of the drafting commission for the Constitution,
Dr. Ambedkar is seen by Dalits as *the* author of this important
document, despite the more complex negotiated realities of his co-
authorhip. Even the more complicated and revolutionary aspects of
Dr. Ambedkar's long career outside of government seem to be
sidelined in nationalist narratives about him. Dalit friends have told
me that it is the Constitution more than any other document that
Ambedkar authored, including the revered *Annihilation of Caste*,
which cements his anti-caste legacy. The narrative of Ambedkar as
first law minister and nationalist hero trumps more complicated
historical readings of him both within and outside Dalit
communities. Indeed, it is within anti-caste activist circles, that an
acritical reverence for Dr. Ambedkar as a father of the nation, as
well as the progenitor of a mass move to Buddhism, conspires to
narrow the narrative impact of Ambedkar outside of Dalit
communities. Still, in all strata of Indian society, a shallow
collective understanding of Dr. Ambedkar's legacy and impacts
exists. In heeding Cobb's call for attention to narrative patterns<sup>27</sup> we
must analyze not simply prevailing low-caste narratives of Dr.
Ambedkar and his followers, but also the narratives of high castes, if
we hope to transform future-going narrative violence.

As an important father of the nation, Dr. Ambedkar is
remembered and memorialized by members of the privileged castes
in an even more one-dimensional nationalist way than among Dalit
communities. For the privileged castes, rather than the father of a
democratic rule of law, or a social reformer, Ambedkar is one father
(among many) of an India that is independent from outside rule. In
the same league with Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and other nationalist
forefathers of the nation, in this perspective, Dr. Ambedkar is a
symbol of national unity and has little to do with caste oppression or
social reform. Here, Ambedkar is a symbol of freedom and independence, but this freedom is nationalistic and amorphous – not tied to any one community, but to India as a unified and predominantly Hindu independent nation. In turn, Dalit reverence of Dr. Ambedkar as an archetype for the rule of law is understood by privileged castes as simply supporting the nationalist narrative and in no way challenging Hindu privilege. In a sense then, as a source or a father of the Indian nation, Ambedkar legacy is mollified by both Dalits’ and privileged castes’ nationalistic narrative expressions about him. The reverence for Ambedkar is not lost, but rather transfigured into a call for national unity, as opposed to a critique of power. The dominant one-dimensional view of Ambedkar as nationalist father and author of the Constitution meld together in ways that work to mask more complicated and revolutionary narratives about him and forestall any constructive dialogue and/or criticism about his revolutionary ideas for social change.

The Babasaheb²⁸ of most Dalits’ imagination, a Dr. Ambedkar as a revolutionary-change-agent and public intellect, are secondary narratives for the majority of caste Hindus. The nationalist narrative of Ambedkar as an important father of the independent nation has relegated the intellectual and social revolution he spurred to the domain of divided and contested histories. Such divided histories go unnoticed by the dominant castes and the more radical statements of Ambedkar have become sanitized in the public sphere. Dalits’ view of B.R. Ambedkar as revolutionary activist is largely invisible to many privileged higher castes. The fact is that the Dalit conception of Babasaheb, as a change agent and radical, is not a conception most high-caste Hindus ever encounter.

But, it is the politically powerful narrative of Ambedkar as the leader of a “Democratic Revolution”, to borrow the title of one of Gail Omvedt’s many books on the anti-caste movement,²⁹ that develops a future-going narrative and provides better opportunities than stories of Ambedkar’s own experiences of injustice to
challenge narrative violence. While the nationalist narrative of Ambedkar as a father of the nation has certainly been co-opted by the Hindu right, its more complicated and “thick” retelling in anti-caste activist circles is critical to the process of creating lasting social change for the marginalized. More than stories of injustice, like the autobiographical account of Ambedkar’s experience in Daulatabad, stories of low-caste critique of the Indian democracy gain increased legitimacy through widening the circle of retelling. Low castes must, therefore, challenge the simple nationalist retelling of Dr. Ambedkar’s constitutional drafting. The foundation of Indian democracy and the dreams of “Incredible India,”³⁰ which that democracy inspires, are based on caste. High castes must be made aware of this historical trauma and develop a collective awareness of the caste grounding of modern India. In narrating Dr. Ambedkar as a revolutionary, and not just a nationalist, opportunities are created to revisit the prevailing, yet contested, history of India. In much the same way that a figure like Malcolm X represents an under-told and revolutionary impetus of the civil rights movement, Ambedkar represents both a mainstream and revolutionary response to historical injustice. How activists tell the story of Ambedkar conditions possible responses, and points towards a desired future.

In *Annihilation of Caste* (1936) Ambedkar writes: “There are, many Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation, that they are only an amorphous mass of people...Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity...”³¹ Ambedkar’s critique of an Indian nation was conditioned by his personal experience of caste and empowered by an anti-caste reading of pre-modern Indian history. Without such a complicated and multi-layered critical history, Ambedkar’s relevance too many anti-caste activists are undermined and the opportunity space for any narrative shift on caste is limited. The task of activists embedded in the ongoing dynamics of caste contention is to endeavour to understand the narratives of the marginalized as
teeming with “hidden transcripts”³² ripe for intervention towards
social change.

The nationalist story of Dr. Ambedkar must not be retold
without reference to his revolutionary critiques of caste oppression.
Ambedkar's nationalism when narrated as inseparable from his
critical anti-caste activism, challenges a “thin” narrative of him as a
national icon. More than India's first law minister and patriotic
organizer of law and order, in this telling, Dr. Ambedkar is change
agent both inside and outside the Indian government; he is
simultaneously patriot and harsh social critic of a fallible India.
More than a brilliant legal mind, Dr. Ambedkar was also an educator
on social exclusion and agitator for change! Anti-caste activists must
not let the full scope or Dr. Ambedkar's legacy as a social-change
agent and an organizer of government policy is forgotten, or denied
by those in power. This more complicated narrative of Ambedkar's
life and work expands the narrative opportunities for Dalits and
allows activists to invite others to take what Joseph Montville calls a
“walk through history”³³ with them. In thickening the narrative of
Ambedkar as a nationalist and revolutionary anti-caste activist,
modern anti-caste activists live out Dr. Ambedkar's constant refrain
to “Organize, Educate, Agitate”. Still, the fact remains that
Ambedkar's revolutionary voice often gets overlooked in
mainstream Indian society, even by well-meaning liberals and
progressive activists.³⁴

The process of taking Montville's (2001/2006) walk through
history, inviting others to participate in, is important for anti-caste
activists as it is, works to educate the oppressors, while
simultaneously developing a liberatory consciousness³⁵ and self-
estem among the oppressed. Thick narratives, such as Ambedkar as
both nationalist leader and anti-caste revolutionary, represent
opportunities to educate, build critical consciousness, as well as,
create a paradigm shift in India's thinking about history. While such
thick narratives have difficulty spreading into more privileged
segments of society, such spread is critical to the peaceful
transformation of narrative violence.

RE-APPROPRIATING AMBEDKAR

Organize, educate, and agitate! This is how Dr. B.R. Ambedkar began and ended most of his public speeches. I believe that how we live out his bequest is through the telling of complicated stories of his life and work. Dr. Ambedkar's story is one full of plot twists, unearthly attainments, and great opportunity. Student of John Dewey, prolific author, India's first law minister, agitator for separate electorates, the list could go on. Dr. Ambedkar was an archetype in many ways – he was revolutionary in the sense that he was radically new and innovative for his time. If activists aim to keep him new and innovative, even today, sixty-plus years after his death, the stories they tell about him matter greatly. Unless activists work to complicate the story of his life and work, his legacy and full impact are done a grave injustice. Ensuring his revolutionary legacy requires more than memorialization through the thousands of statues erected in low-caste bastis across India. How activists make Babasaheb new and innovative for this time hinges on how they strategically tell his story; how much they complicate and interrogate it.

As Dalit communities move into the future – as each existent
present moment is always new and pregnant with possibility – they
must learn how to strategically tell stories about the past. Much of
this strategy is developed through historic process of social learning.

³⁶ In being attentive to the collective implications of telling stories, activists can lean on their collective social learning as a resource. This is where the work of Vamik Volkan (1998) can be extremely helpful for building positive identity. Volkan (1998), in writing about the post-war Balkans, writes about collective trauma and the way it is passed through collectivities and generations by leaders and speakers telling stories about “chosen traumas” or “chosen
glories”.³⁷ A chosen trauma for Volkan “reflects a large group’s unconsciously defining its identity by the transgenerational transmission of injured selves infused with the memory of ancestors’ trauma.”³⁸ Chosen glories on the other hand are “the mental representations of a historical event that induces feelings of success and triumph”.³⁹ The stories of Babasaheb act as chosen traumas and chosen glories for anti-caste activists, but how do past traumas and glories of the Dalit rights movement inform the modern-day work for social change among anti-caste and marginalized community groups? For activists to be effective, they must attentively address this question. Unless social actors are aware of the cycles of harm and retaliation that they are caught up in, they are destined to repeat the cycles of contention. The fact is a narrative in conflict is an agent in itself, not just the data that researcher like me may choose to analyze or study. Being vigilant about the narratives we use, and critically reflective of those we hear and retell, requires active engagement and consistent analytical attention. While centuries of social learning have developed an “infrapolitics”⁴⁰ of resistance in low-caste communities, a similar social learning must be fostered in more privileged communities by the strategic selection and deployment of narrative storytelling.

What we know of conflict and past trauma, is that if you fail to address it, it will *not* go away. Its legacy will re-emerge in collectives and engender structural and cultural violence, and possibly, eventually, direct violence. It is incumbent on anti-caste activists to address conflict through critical attention to narratives, thus modelling the social justice vision they desire. Without vigilant critical attention, conflict narratives are allowed to control as opposed to being controlled. The privileged need to learn about Dalit collective trauma, and while it is not Dalit activists’ responsibility to teach this to privileged allies, it is incumbent on Dalit activists to model an awareness of the need for coexistence. The need still exists to re-story and re-appropriate Ambedkar’s
history and ideology. Anti-caste activists can do this by strategically
re-telling the Ambedkar narrative in a way that does not overlook
the complex past traumas of the Dalit masses.

Dr. Jeremy A. Rinker is assistant professor and director of
undergraduate studies at the Department of Peace and Conflict
Studies in University of North Carolina Greensboro, USA. Rinker
was a 2013 Fulbright Fellow at the Malaviya Centre for Peace
Research in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

References:

1. Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”, *Journal of Peace Research*, 6, no 3 (1969): 167–91.

2. Paul Farmer. "An Anthropology of Structural Violence," *Current Anthropology*, 45, no 3 (June 2004), 305-325; Kathleen Ho "Structural Violence as a Human Rights Violation," *Essex Human Rights Review*, 4, no. 2 (September 2007); Caprioli, "Primed for Violence: The Role of Gender Inequality in Predicting Internal Conflict" *International Studies Quarterly*, 49, no 2 (Jun, 2005), 161-178.

3. Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”, 168.

4. Elisabeth Porter, *Connecting Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation* (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2015), 47.

5. Johan Galtung, “Cultural Violence”, *Journal of Peace Research*, 27, no. 3 (1990), 291.

6. As recent examples see: David Nibert, *Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013); Mark Pilisuk and Jennifer Roundtree, *The Hidden Structure of Violence: Who Benefits from Global Violence and War* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015); and Jeff Lewis, *Media, Culture and Human Violence: From Savage Lovers to Violent Complexity* (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016); among many others.

7. Sara Cobb, *Speaking of Violence*, 27.

8. Ibid, 27.

9. Ibid, 27.

10. Ibid, 27.

11. Ibid, 27.

12. Sara Cobb, *Speaking of Violence*, 27.
13. Vena Das, "The Act of Witnessing: Violence, Poisonous Knowledge, and Subjectivity", 220.

14. Bhimrao Ambedkar, "The Annihilation of Caste: A Speech Prepared by B.R. Ambedkar" in *The Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated and Critical Edition*, edited by S. Anand (New York: Verso, 2014), 242.

15. James Scott, *Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 183.

16. See Rinker, Jeremy, "Why Should We Talk to People Who Do Not Want to Talk to Us? Inter-Caste Dialogue as a Response to Caste-Based Marginalization" *Peace and Change*, 38, no. 2 (April 2013), 237-262. See also Polletta, *It was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics*, 2006, 43-45.

17. Quoted in Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, *Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics 2nd Edition* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 187.

18. Sara Cobb, *Speaking of Violence*, 3.

19. Bhimrao Ambedkar, "The Dheds have Polluted the Tank" in *Ambedkar: Autobiographical Notes* (Chennai: Navayana Publishing, 2003), 23-25

20. Ibid, 24.

21. Ibid, 25.

22. Ibid, 25.

23. Ibid, 23.

24. For a good discussion of how processes of "othering" and exclusion relates to protracted conflict, see Marc Gopin, *Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East* (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 66-67.

25. For this idea of "thickening" a narrative, I am indebted to both Sara Cobb (2013), op cit, and Clifford Geertz, *The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays* (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 29-30.

26. Polletta, *It was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics*, 2006, 43-45.

27. Sara Cobb, *Speaking of Violence*, 99, op cit.

28. This is the honorific name and reverent term that most Dalits use to talk about Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Its derivation signifies a fatherly leader and was used by Dr. Ambedkar's followers before his death, likely as a response to the hagiographic term 'mahatma' used to describe M.K. Gandhi. For more on these honorifics see Joseph Lelyveld, *Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his Struggle with India* (New York: Knopf, 2011), 211, among other writers on the Ambedkar Buddhist movement. For example see, Christophe Jaffrelot,
*Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).

29. Gail Omvedt, *Dalits and The Democratic Revolution* (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994).

30. A prominent marketing initiative, Incredible !ndia, was conceptualized in 2002 by advertising consultant V. Sunil and Amitabh Kant, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Tourism for the Indian Government. The “Incredible !ndia” logo, where the exclamation mark that formed the “I” of India was used to generating a 16 per cent increase in tourist traffic in the first year of the advertising campaign. See http://incredibleindiacampaign.com/ – accessed October 25, 2016.

31. B.R. Ambedkar, *Annihilation of Caste: An Annotated Critical Edition*, edited by S. Anand (London: Verso, 2014) 243.

32. James Scott, *Domination and the Arts of Resistance, op cit.*

33. Joseph Montville, “Reconciliation as Realpolitik: Facing the Burdens of History in Political Conflict Resolution” in *Identity, Morality, Threat: Studies in Violent Conflict*, ed. D. Rothbart and K. Korostelina (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), 367–92; and Montville, “Justice and the Burdens of History”. In *Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence*, ed. M. Abu Nimer, (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001): 129–44.

34. For an example of this, see the writings of the Ambedkar Age Collective (2015) where the frustration over the appropriation of Ambedkar’s *Annihilation of Caste* is argued with little direct reference to his revolutionary voice. Ambedkar Age Collective, *Hatred in the Belly: Politics Behind the Appropriation of Dr. Ambedkar’s Writings* (Hyderbad: The Shared Mirror, 2015).

35. See Barbara Love, “Developing a Liberatory Consciousness” in *Readings for Diversity and Social Justice* (New York, Routledge, 2000), 599-603.

36. See Albert Bendura, *Social Learning Theory* (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977).

37. Vamik Volkan, *Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism* (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 48.

38. Ibid, 48.

39. Ibid, 81.

40. James Scott, *Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts*, 183.
Section 5:
Chronology
Life and Times of Dr B.R. Ambedkar

For a comprehensive understanding of Ambedkar's mission, a good place to start would be the sequence of events in his life. A properly drawn-up chronology of his life's events would show us the various obstacles he had to negotiate during his struggle for social justice and how various experiences informed his conclusions. Given below is such a timeline which has been put together using reliable sources:

1891: In 14 April, Bhimrao is born in the British-founded town of Mhow in Central Provinces (today's Madhya Pradesh) to Ramji Sakpal and Bhimabai; Mhow, near Indore, was and still is a cantonment.

1897: Bhimabai (Bhimrao's mother) passes away in Satara.

1900: In November, Bhimrao joins the government high school in Satara. He got his primary education at a school in Dapoli, a small town in Ratnagiri District, in Konkan Maharashtra.

1904: Bhimrao joins the Elphinstone High School, Bombay.

1907: Matriculation from Elphinstone High School, Bombay, with 382 marks out of 750. Marriage with Rami (Ramabai), daughter of Bhiku Walangkar.

Bhimrao passes the high-school exam. This is a special moment not only for Bhimrao but also for the whole community. The community organizes a celebration. Krishnaji Arjun Keluskar, well-known Marathi author and social reformer, presents him with a copy of his new book,
*Life of Gautama Buddha.* This probably is Ambedkar's first "encounter" with Buddha. Marriage follows. Bhimrao marries Rami, renamed Ramabai, at a simple ceremony in the vegetable market in Byculla.¹

1912: Graduation from Elphinstone College affiliated to University of Bombay. His BA has papers in Persian and English. He scores 449 out of 1000 marks. While he is studying for his BA, Bhim's father runs out of funds. Keluskar helps Bhim get a scholarship of Rs 25 rupees a month from the Maharaja of Baroda. In **December**, son Yeshwant is born.

1913: Joins Baroda State Force as a lieutenant. On **2 February**, Bhim's father, Ramji Sakpal, passes away. In **July**, Ambedkar arrives in New York for higher studies in Columbia University².

1915: On **June 5**, Ambedkar is awarded an MA. He majors in Economics; Sociology, History, Philosophy, Anthropology and Politics were the other subjects of study. For his MA, he wrote a thesis titled "Ancient Indian Commerce".

1916: On **9 May**, he reads a paper titled "Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" at Dr. Alexander Goldenweiser's anthropology seminar. It is published in *Indian Antiquary*, Vol XII (New York) in May 1917.

In **June**, he writes another MA thesis, *National Dividend of India – A Historic and Analytical Study*. Later that month, he goes to London, and in October, joins Gray's Inn to study Law. He also takes admission at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He requests the Maharaja of Baroda to grant him permission to pursue his studies in London.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Ambedkar with his professors and friends at the London School of Economics</figcaption></figure>

1917: He starts working on his thesis, but he is informed that the period of his scholarship is over. He returns to India after spending a year in London working on the thesis for the MSc (Economics). In **July**, he is appointed Military Secretary to the Gaikwad of Baroda; he had agreed to join the Baroda service as a condition of his scholarship³. In **September**, he travels to Baroda to take up his job.

He meets Annie Besant in Calcutta. The Indian National Congress adopts a resolution endorsing “the justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by custom upon the Depressed Classes” for the first time in its history.

1918: In the new *Journal of Indian Economics*, he reviews Bertrand Russell's book *Principles of Social Reconstruction* under the title "Mr Russell and the Reconstruction of Society".

In the new *Journal of the Indian Economic Society*, he publishes *Small Holdings in India and Their Remedies*. He publishes his paper *Castes in India* in the form of a book.
Ambedkar becomes Professor of Political Economy in the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics, in Bombay.⁴

**1919:** He testifies both orally and in writing before the Southborough Committee, which is investigating franchise matters in the light of the planned Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Ambedkar demands separate electorate and reserved seats for Depressed Classes, in proportion to their population.

He comes in contact with Shahuji Maharaj of Kolhapur through Dattoba Powar.

**1920:** On **31 January**, with the help from Dattoba Powar, Ambedkar launches *Mook Nayak* (Leader of the Dumb) newspaper. (Ambedkar was not its official editor, but he was the man behind it, and it was his mouthpiece. Nandram Bhatkar was the editor. Dyander Gholap succeeded him.)

In **March**, Ambedkar presides over a conference of Untouchables, in Mangaon in Kolhapur state. Shahuji Maharaj is in attendance, too.

In **May**, Ambedkar is a prominent personality attending the first All-India Conference convened by Untouchables presided over by Shahuji Maharaj of Kolhapur.

Ambedkar resigns from his teaching job at Sydenham College to return to London. The Maharaja of Kolhapur and Naval Bhathena provide financial support. He attends the London School of economics and also Gray's Inn to read for the Bar. He is a frequent visitor to the British Museum, where the likes of Marx, Engels, Mazzini and Lenin worked.
**1921:** On **21 June**, LSE awards Ambedkar an MSc in Economics. His thesis is titled "Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India".

**1922:** In October, he completes his thesis, "The Problem of the Rupee", and submits to LSE. He is also called to the Bar. He was not able to take the Bar examination earlier because of his work on the thesis.

**1923:** Ambedkar travels to Bonn University, Germany. However, after around 3 months there, in **March**, Professor Edwin Cannan asks him to return to London. It is because his thesis is challenged on political grounds. However, after resubmission it is finally accepted. It is at once published in London by P. S. King & Son Ltd. He dedicates this work to his father and mother. Edwin Cannan⁵ himself has written the introduction.

In **April**, he returns to India. Ambedkar decides to start practising law. He does not have money to pay for the sanad, though. In **June**, Naval Bhathena comes to his rescue.

**1924:** In **June**, he starts practising in the Bombay High Court. On **20 July**, he launches the *Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha* (Group for the Wellbeing of the Excluded), to mobilize Depressed Classes. Its motto is "Educate, Agitate, and Organise". Ambedkar is the chairman of the managing committee.

**1925:** Ambedkar's LSE MA thesis as *The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India* is published by P.S. King & Son Ltd; it is dedicated to the Gaekwad of Baroda ("for his help in the matter of my education"), and has an introduction by Columbia's Prof Edward Seligman.

**1926:** Ambedkar submits evidence before the Royal Commission on Indian Currency (Hilton Young Commission).
The Governor of Bombay nominates him as a member of the Bombay Legislative Council.

He leads the Satyagraha in Mahad to secure the right of Untouchables to draw water from the Chavdar Tank. He ceremonially takes a drink of water from the tank, after which local caste Hindus run riot, and Brahmins take elaborate measures for the ritual purification of the tank.

**1927:** On **3 April**, Ambedkar launches his Marathi fortnightly *Bahishkrit Bharat*. He himself is the editor.

On **June 8**, he is formally awarded a PhD by Columbia University. His PhD thesis is titled *The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India* (Note: different dates are given in different sources for this event, but this is the one given on his own official transcript, preserved in the Registrar's Office, Columbia University.)

In **September**, he establishes “Samaj Samata Sangh”.

On **2 October**, he presides over a conference of the students from the Depressed Classes in Poona.

On **24 December**, he addresses a second Depressed Classes Conference in Mahad.⁶

**1928:** Dr Ambedkar becomes professor at the Government Law College, Bombay; his term ends in 1929. In **March**, he introduces the “Vatan Bill” in Bombay Legislative Council. Dr. Ambedkar is selected by the Bombay Presidency Committee to work with the Simon Commission. The Congress boycotts the Simon Commission because it has no Indians in it. In **May** he submits statements to the Simon Commission on behalf of the *Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha* suggesting measures that need to be taken to improve the condition of the Depressed Classes.
**1929:** Dr. Ambedkar closes his second journal, *Bahiskrit Bharat* ("Excluded India"), which started in 1927, and replaces it with *Janata* ("The People").

On **October 23**, during a visit to Chalisgaon, he meets with an accident, and is confined to bed until the last week of December.

**1930:** In **March**, he leads a satyagraha at the Kalaram Temple in Nasik to secure for Untouchables the right of entry into the temple. On **August 8**, Dr. Ambedkar presides over the Depressed Classes Congress in Nagpur, and delivers a speech favouring Dominion status.⁷

Dr. Ambedkar is invited by the Viceroy to be part of the First Round Table Conference, and leaves for London in **October**.

**1931:** Ambedkar and Gandhi attend the Second Round Table Conference held from **7 September- 1 December**

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Ambedkar and Gandhi at the Second Round Conference in London (1931).</figcaption></figure>
**1932:** The All India Depressed Classes Conference, held at Kamptee, near Nagpur, on 6 May, backs Dr. Ambedkar's demand for separate electorates for the Untouchables, rejecting compromises proposed by others.

By **September 23**, though, a very reluctant Dr. Ambedkar is forced to accept joint electorates, with Gandhi fasting unto death in Yerwada jail, Poona, against the separate electorates granted to the Depressed Classes by Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award. The result is the Poona Pact. (In 1933, Gandhi replaces his newspaper "Young India" with "Harijan", and undertakes a 21-day "self-purification fast" against untouchability.)

**1933-34:** Dr. Ambedkar participates in the work of the Joint Committee on Indian Legislative Reform (Also Indian Constitutional reform), examining a number of significant witnesses. He also writes a treatise on the Indian Army.⁸

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Ambedkar in a family photo alongside wife Ramabai (to his left), son Yeshwant (to his right), sister-in-law Laxmibai, nephew Mukundrao and pet dog Tobby (1934).</figcaption></figure>
**1935:** On **May 26**, Dr. Ambedkar's wife Ramabai dies after a long illness. In **June**, Ambedkar is appointed as principal of Government Law College, Bombay. He is also appointed the Perry professor of Jurisprudence.

On **October 13**, Dr. Ambedkar presides over the Yeola Conversion Conference, held in Yeola, in Nashik district. He advises the Depressed Classes to abandon all agitation for temple-entry privileges; instead, he says, they should leave Hinduism entirely and embrace another religion. He vows, "I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu."

**1936:** He writes, but does not publish, a brief, moving, and largely autobiographical memoir called *Waiting for a Visa*.

On **February 29**, Dr. Ambedkar's conversion resolution is supported by the Chambers of East Khandesh.

On **13-14 April**, he addresses the Sikh Mission Conference in Amritsar and reiterates his intention of renouncing Hinduism.

In **late April**, the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal withdraws its invitation to Dr. Ambedkar to deliver the presidential address at the Mandal's annual conference in Lahore, after reading the text of his speech. On **15 May**, he publishes the speech text, with an introductory account of the whole controversy. The result is the now-famous *The Annihilation of Caste*.

On **31 May**, Dr. Ambedkar addresses a meeting of the Mumbai Elaka Mahar Parishad (Bombay Mahar Society) at Naigaum (Dadar), in Bombay – the only time he would address an audience of just the people of his community. His speech in Marathi is vivid and poignant.

On **15 June**, a conference of Devdasis is held in Bombay to support Dr. Ambedkar's resolution on conversion.
On **18 June**, Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. B.S. Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha hold talks on conversion.

In **August**, he founds the Independent Labour Party.

On **18 September** Ambedkar deputes 13 men at the Sikh Mission in Amristar to study Sikhism.

1937 Dr. Ambedkar publishes the second edition of *The Annihilation of Caste*, adding a concluding appendix that features a debate with Gandhi over the speech text. This work would be a bestseller, going through many editions and creating much controversy.

He forms the Municipal Workers' Union, Bombay.

On **17 February**, the first general election under the Government of India Act 1935 is held. Dr. Ambedkar is elected member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar's Independent Labour Party wins 17 seats.

On **17 March**, Mahad Chavdar tank case is decided, and Depressed Classes are allowed to use public wells and tanks.

Dr. Ambedkar receives a grand reception at Chalisgaon railway station.

On **17 September**, Dr. Ambedkar introduces the Bill to abolish the Mahar Watan in the Assembly.

1938: In January, Congress introduces a Bill for the amendment of the Local Boards Act in which the Untouchables are defined as Harijans, i.e., sons of God. Dr. Ambedkar criticizes the nomenclature as in his opinion the change of name would make no real change in their condition. (He is against the use of this word in legal matters. In protest of this Bill, the Labour Party members walk out of the assembly.)

On **23 January**, Dr. Ambedkar addresses a Peasants' Conference in Ahmedabad.
On **12 February**, he addresses a historic conference of railway workers at Manmad in Nasik.

In **April**, he opposes the creation of a separate state of Karnataka in the national interest.

In **May**, he resigns as principal of Government Law College, Bombay.

In **August**, he attends a meeting at R.M. Bhatt High School, Bombay that was held to expose Gandhi's discriminatory attitude towards an untouchable man.

In **September**, he speaks on "Industrial Disputes Bill" in Bombay Assembly. He opposes it because it takes away the worker's right to strike.

In **6 November**, industrial workers go on strike. Dr. Ambedkar leads a procession in Mumbai from Kamgar Maidan to Jambori Maidan (Worli).

On **10 November**, he moves a resolution for adoption of birth control measures in the Bombay Assembly.

**1939:** On **29 January**, he delivers a lecture titled *Federation versus Freedom* at the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. It is published later in the year.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Ambedkar in Bombay, 1939</figcaption></figure>
In **July**, Dr. Ambedkar addresses a meeting of the Rohidas Vidya Committee.

In **October**, Dr. Ambedkar and Nehru meet for the first time.

In **November**, the Congress leaves the government. Jinnah arranges for a celebration calling it the "Day of Deliverance", and Dr. Ambedkar enthusiastically joins him. Dr. Ambedkar is careful to emphasize, however, that this is an anti-Congress rather than an anti-Hindu move; if Congress interpreted it as anti-Hindu, the reason could only be, he says, that Congress was a Hindu body after all.

**1940:** In **May**, Dr. Ambedkar founded the Mahar Panchayat.

In **July**, he meets Subash Chandra Bose in Bombay.

In **December**, Dr. Ambedkar publishes the first edition of his *Thoughts on Pakistan*.⁹

**1941:** In **January** Dr. Ambedkar takes up the issue of recruitment of Mahars in the Army. As a result, the Mahar Battalion is created.

On **25 May**, Dr. Ambedkar forms the Mahar Dynasty Panchayat Samiti.

The viceroy appoints him a member of the Defence Advisory Committee.

**1942:** He founds his second political party, the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, which goes on to perform poorly in the 1946 elections. Dr. Ambedkar is inducted into the Viceroy's Executive Council as Labour Member, a position which he holds until his resignation in June 1946.

Congress launches the "Quit India" movement. Dr. Ambedkar severely criticizes this move.
In December, he presents a paper on *The Problems of the Untouchables in India* at the conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations held in Canada.

**1943:** Dr. Ambedkar speaks on "Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah" at the 101st Birth Celebration of Mahadev Govind Ranade held in Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona. It was published in book form in April, under the title *Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah*¹⁰.

In **September** he publishes the paper he presented the year before at the conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Canada, as the book titled *Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables*.

On **25 October**, he addresses the Reconstruction Policy Committee meeting. The speech titled *Post-War Development of Electric Power in India* is published in *Indian Information on 15 November*.

On **26 October**, he writes *Urgency of Industrialisation of India* (Times of India, 26 October).

**1944:** On **29 January**, he presides over the second meeting of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, in Kanpur.

He founds The Building Trust and the Scheduled Castes Improvement Trust.

On **May 6**, he addresses the annual conference of All-India Scheduled Castes Federation at Parel, in Mumbai. This speech is later published under the title *The Communal Deadlock and a Way to Solve it*.

**1945:** In February, he publishes a revised version of *Thoughts on Pakistan*; this second, expanded edition is titled *Pakistan or the Partition of India*. (The third edition of this book is published in 1946.)
On 6 May he addresses the annual conference of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, held in Parel, Bombay. This speech is soon published as *The Communal Deadlock and a Way to Solve It*.

In **June**, he publishes a political manifesto, detailing the problems of dealing with the Congress and accusing it of many acts of betrayal: *What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables*. (He publishes a second edition, with major revisions in one chapter, in 1946.)

In **June**, he founds Siddharth College of Art and Science, in Bombay, as an institution of the People's Education Society that he established earlier in the year.

In **July**, he exchanges letters with W. E. B. DuBois, comparing Untouchables with African Americans. In October, he publishes *Who Were the Shudras? How They Came to Be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society*. He dedicates the book to the great reformer, Jyotirao Phule. It was published in 1946 by Thacker and Co, Bombay.

His book *Mahatma and the World* is published by Thacker & Co.

**1946:** Bharat Bhushan Printing Press, founded by Dr. Ambedkar, is burnt down in a clash between Depressed Classes and Caste Hindus.

In **September**, he goes to London to urge British Government and opposition parties to provide safeguards for the Depressed Classes.

He is elected member of the Constituent Assembly. In his first speech in the Constituent Assembly, he calls for a strong and united India.

**1947:** In **March**, he publishes *States and Minorities: What Are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India*, a memorandum on fundamental rights, minority
rights, safeguards for the Depressed Classes, and the problems of Indian states.

On **29 April**, the Article 17 (forbidding and abolition of the practice of untouchability) of Indian Constitution is passed.

In **August** (after Partition and Independence), Dr. Ambedkar accepts Nehru's invitation to become Minister of Law in the first Cabinet of independent India. On **29 August**, he is appointed chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Ambedkar is sworn in as India's first law minister by president Rajendra Prasad as Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru looks on (1947).

**1948:** In the last week of **February**, Ambedkar submits the Draft Constitution for public discussion and debate.

On **15 April**, Dr. Ambedkar marries Dr. Sharda Kabir (a Saraswat Brahmin) in Delhi; she adopts the name Savita. By then he is a diabetic and frequently ill, and she takes care of him.

On **4 October**, Ambedkar presents the Draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly.
In **October**, he prepares a memorandum on Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province for submission to the Linguistic Provinces Commission. It is later published by the Maha Bodhi journal, Calcutta.

He publishes *The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origin of Untouchability* (New Delhi: Amrit Book Company), as a sequel to his book on the Shudras.

On **20 November**, the Constitution adopts Article 17 of Indian Constitution, abolishing and outlawing untouchability.

**1949:** In **September**, Dr. Ambedkar meets Madhavrao Golwalkar, chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), in Delhi

On **26 November**, the Constituent Assembly adopts the Constitution of India.

**1950:** On **11 January**, Dr. Ambedkar addresses the Siddharth College Parliament on the Hindu Code Bill.

Dr. Ambedkar speaks on Buddhism on several occasions.

He founds Milind College in Aurangabad, Maharashtra. President Dr. Rajendra Prasad lays the foundation stone.

His essay “Buddha and the Future of his religion” appears in the journal *Maha Bodhi* Vol 58, April-May.

He speaks on the merits of Buddhism at the meeting arranged on the occasion of Buddha Jayanti in Delhi.

In **December**, he goes to Colombo, Sri Lanka, as a delegate to the World Buddhist Conference.

**1951:** In **February**, he introduces in Parliament the Hindu Code Bill that he drafted to enhance rights of women; it proves very controversial, and consideration of the Bill is postponed.
In **June**, his essay "The Rise and Fall of Hindu Women" is published by the Maha Bodhi Journal, Calcutta.

In **9 September**, Dr. Ambedkar resigns from the Cabinet, embittered over the failure of Nehru and the Congress to back the Hindu Code Bill as they had earlier pledged to do. He becomes the leader of the Opposition.

On **15 April**, he lays the foundation stone for the Ambedkar Bhawan in Delhi.

In **July**, he founds Bhartiya Buddha Jan Sangh.

In **September**, he compiles the Buddhist Prayer Book *Buddha Upasana Palha*.

1952: In **January**, Dr Ambedkar suffers loss in the first Lok Sabha Election of independent India. Congress' Narayan Sadoba Kajrolkar defeats him. However, he enters the Rajya Sabha representing Bombay.

On **1 June**, he leaves for New York. Columbia University confers on him an honorary LLD, as part of its Bicentennial Special Convocation. The president of the university describes him as "one of India's leading citizens – a great social reformer and a valiant upholder of human rights".

On **22 December**, Dr. Ambedkar delivers a talk at the Bar Council, Pune, on conditions required for the successful working of Democracy.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Ambedkar and American poet Wallace Stevens after receiving honorary LLD in Columbia University (1952).

**1953:** On **12 January**, Osmania University confers the honorary degree of LLD on Dr Ambedkar.

In **April**, he contests the Lok Sabha by-election from the Bhandara Constituency of Vidharba region but is again defeated by a Congress candidate.

In **May**, Ambedkar establishes the Siddharth College of Commerce and Economics in Bombay.

His political thinking includes analysis of the issue of linguistic states; he publishes *Need for Checks and Balances* (*Times of India*, 23 April 1953) on this question. (In 1955, he is still working on the subject, as the preface (dated 23 December 1955) to *Thoughts on Linguistic States* testifies.)
**1954:** His health gives way; he is confined to bed for two months.

While dedicating a new Buddhist Vihara near Pune, Dr. Ambedkar announces that he is writing a book on Buddhism and that as soon as it is finished, he will formally convert to Buddhism. He also claims that the image of Vithoba at Pandharpur is actually an image of the Buddha, and says that he will write a thesis to prove this claim.

In **May**, he visits Rangoon, Burma, to attend a function to be held on the occasion of Buddha Jayanti.

In **June**, the Maharaja of Mysore donates 5 acres of land for Dr. Ambedkar's Proposed Buddhist Seminary in Bangalore.

In **September**, he speaks on the Untouchability (Offences) Bill in the Rajya Sabha.

In **October**, a talk by him, *My Personal Philosophy*, is broadcast on All India Radio.

In **December**, he attends the third World Buddhist conference in Rangoon.

**1955:** Dr. Ambedkar delivers a speech on "Why religion is necessary"

In **May**, He establishes the Bharatiya Baudh Mahasabha.

In **December**, his book *Thoughts on Linguistic States* is published.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Ambedkar and his second wife Savita after their conversion to Buddhism in Nagpur (1956).

**1956:** Dr. Ambedkar completes the manuscript of *The Buddha and His Dhamma*.

In **June**, he established the Siddharth College of Law in Bombay.

From **June** to **October**, he is bedridden in his Delhi residence. His eyes are failing and he suffers from the side-effects of the drugs he is taking for his diabetes; he goes into depression.

On **14 October**, his formal conversion takes place in Nagpur, a town selected for reasons he explains in his moving speech, *Why*
*Was Nagpur Chosen?* Many thousands of Mahars and other Dalits accept Buddhism along with him. The place is now known as Diksha Bhoomi.

After his conversion, *Janta* is renamed *Prabuddha Bharat*.

In **November**, he flies to Kathmandu to attend the Fourth World Buddhist Conference. Here, he delivers his speech on "Buddha and Karl Marx".

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Ambedkar speaks in Kathmandu as King Mahendra looks on (1956)

On **2 December**, he completes the manuscript of *The Buddha or Karl Marx*, and gives it for typing.

On the night of **5 December** or the early morning of **6 December**, he dies in his sleep at his residence, 26 Alipore road, New Delhi. The place is now known as Mahaparinirvan Bhoomi.

On **7 December** a huge crowd joins his funeral procession in Bombay, and he is cremated with Buddhist rites on the seashore. The place is now known as Chaitya Bhoomi.

**1957:** *The Buddha and His Dhamma*¹¹, Dr. Ambedkar's own version of a Buddhist scripture for his people, is posthumously
published, by Siddharth College Publications, Bombay. His
work *Gandhi and Gandhism* is also published this year.

**1987:** *Philosophy of Hinduism, India and Prerequisite of Communism, Revolution and Counter Revolution in India*¹²
and *Buddha and Karl Marx* published posthumously as part of *Dr. Ambedkar Writings and Speeches: Vol 3*

**1990:** Ambedkar is posthumously awarded India's highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna.

*Copy-editing: Anil*

**References:**

1. According to Dhananjay Keer, Ambedkar passed matriculation and his marriage took place afterwards. However, according to the *Encyclopedia of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar* by Raj Kumar, Marriage with Ramabai took place (in 1906) before matriculation (in 1907).

2. The Maharaja of Baroda wanted to send some students for higher studies to Columbia University, USA. On 4 June 1913, Ambedkar signed an agreement to study prescribed subjects and serve the Baroda State for 10 years after completion of studies. In July he arrived in New York. He took Political science, Moral Philosophy, Anthropology, Sociology and Economics as the subjects for his study.

3. But he did not enjoy the experience. He had to pay for his travel to Baroda, for which he used the compensation paid by Thomas Cook and Company for his luggage that was lost when the ship carrying it was torpedoed. According to his bond, he had to serve the State of Baroda for 10 years. However, he quit shortly after joining the service due to the ill treatment he faced for belonging to a low caste.

4. This position came about through the recommendation of his London acquaintance, Lord Sydenham, former Governor of Bombay. He was mostly successful with his students, but some of the other professors objected to his sharing the drinking-water jug with them.

5. Ambedkar's Economics tutors included Professor Edwin Cannan.

6. The following important resolutions were adopted here:

a) Declaration of Human Rights.
b) Condemnation of the Manusmriti. On 25 December, Untouchables placed the Manusmriti on a pyre in a specially dug pit and ceremoniously burnt it.

c) That Hindu society be reduced to one class only.

d) That the priestly profession be turned into a democratic institution.

7. In his speech he criticized Gandhi's Salt March and civil disobedience movement, saying they were ill-timed. He also criticized British colonial misgovernance that oversaw famines and economic impoverishment of the masses. He believed that the Depressed Classes must shape their course themselves.

8. Ambedkarism: Essays on Select Economic and Cultural Issues, edited by Praveen K. Jadhav.

9. In this work, he argues that though the Partition would be unfortunate, it wouldn't be the worst possible outcome, and if the Muslims wanted it they had a right to claim it. The first edition was published in 1940 and revised edition was published under the title Pakistan or Partition of India in 1945.

10. Ambedkar compared Ranade with Gandhi and Jinnah. He was of the view that personal ascendency mattered the most to Gandhi and Jinnah.

11. Ambedkar started writing the book in 1951. He began working simultaneously on 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in India' and 'Buddha and Karl Marx'.

12. Ambedkar started working on this book in 1954. He wrote how Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the president of India, washed the feet of Brahmins on the banks of the Ganges.

(Compiled by Lokesh Kumar)
Writer's Intro
**Premkumar Mani** is a leading Hindi writer and thinker. In politics, he is known for his advocacy of social justice.

**Kanwal Bharati** (born February 1953) is a progressive Ambedkarite thinker and one of the most talked-about and active contemporary writers. Dalit Sahitya Kee Avdharna and Swami Achootanand Harihar Sanchayita are his key books. He was conferred with Dr. Ambedkar Rashtriya Award in 1996 and Bhimratna Puraskar in 2001.

**Scott R. Stroud** is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies, the University of Texas at Austin. Stroud is the author of 'John Dewey and the Artful Life' (2011) and 'Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric' (2014). Currently, he is completing a book manuscript that tells the story of Bhimrao Ambedkar's brush with Deweyan pragmatism at Columbia University during 1913-1916 and how it shaped his innovative pursuit of social justice in India. Stroud's research on Ambedkar and pragmatism has appeared in 'Rhetoric Society Quarterly', 'Journal of Religion', 'Rhetorica', and 'The Pluralist'.

**Prathama Banerjee** is a professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. She is interested in political theory, intellectual history, literary studies and philosophies of time. Her earlier book was on Politics of Time: 'primitives' and history-writing in a colonial society (OUP, 2006). Her current work, on histories of the modern political in India, between late nineteenth and mid twentieth century, is forthcoming in 2020 from Duke University Press.

**Sadat Rukhsar Yusuf Sadaf** is a Research Scholar at University of Delhi. She is working on 'Narratives, Perspective and Imagination: Indic Tradition in South Asian Persian Text'.
She is currently teaching as guest faculty in Government Girls' General Degree College, Kolkata.

**Pramod Meena** is an associate professor in the Hindi Department of Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Motihari, Bihar. He has previously taught in Pondicherry University, Puducherry.

**Anirudh Deshpande** is a professor in the Department of History, University of Delhi. A former Nehru Fellow, he is the author of The British Raj and its Indian Armed Forces (2002); British Military Policy in India 1900-1945 (2005); Class, Power and Consciousness in Indian Cinema and Television (2009); and numerous articles in newspapers and magazines, and research papers and reviews in reputed peer-reviewed journals. He has recently been named Motilal Nehru Centenary Biography Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, Teen Murti. His Naval Mutiny and Street Nationalism, 1946 (Primus Books) is forthcoming.

**Cynthia Stephen** is an independent writer and development policy analyst with a focus on issues related to gender, poverty and exclusion.

**Meenakshi Meena** is the managing editor of the quarterly 'Adivasi Sahitya'.

**Sumit Kataria** is a Research Scholar in the Department of History, University of Delhi, where he is researching Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's thoughts and ideas and his contribution to the field of education.

**Abhijit Guha** is a Senior ICSSR Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata. He has co-authored a book entitled 'Criminal Tribe' to 'Primitive Tribal Group' and the Role of Welfare State: The Case of Lodhas in West Bengal, India" (2015) with Santanu Panda.
**Neha Singh** teaches Political Science in Kirori Mal College in University of Delhi. She is also a Doctoral scholar at the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The title of her doctoral thesis is “Women Subjugation in a Multi-Religious Urban Space: A Case Study of Old Delhi in the Twentieth Century.” Her M. Phil thesis was on “The Hindu Code Bill: An Idea and its Political Discourse.” For more than eight years, she has been incessantly working on the issues of caste, gender and social justice. She has worked with several research organisations such as Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. Her areas of research interest comprises of women studies, religions and urban spaces, policy analysis specially in relation to caste and gender issues, discrimination and exclusion, human rights, affirmative action. She has several articles, books published pertaining to the inter-sectionality between caste and gender in India in various books and journals.

**Lalitha Dhara** is a retired academic. She was the head of department, Statistics, and vice-principal, Dr. Ambedkar College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai. She has researched and authored a number of books, including Phules and Women's Question, Bharat Ratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Women's Question, Chhatrapati Shahu and Women's Question, Periyar and Women's Question, Lohia and Women's Question, Kavya Phule (English translation of Savitribai's first collection of poems).

**Jeremy A. Rinker** is Director of Undergraduate Studies at the University of North Carolina Greensboro's (UNCG's) Department of Peace and Conflict Studies where he is currently engaged in research that explores the intersections between marginalization, collective trauma, and systems of
oppression. Dr. Rinker's research and writings have long focused on South Asian communities, untouchability, human rights, and narrative meaning making in social justice movements. His past work emphasizes the skills and practices of nonviolent conflict transformation in decision making, justice advocacy, and identity formation. Rinker was a 2013 Fulbright Fellow at the Malaviya Centre for Peace Research in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. He is currently the editor of the Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis.

**Lokesh Kumar** is an engineering graduate and MBA in finance. He has work experience in the software Industry in India and abroad. He has authored articles on Socio-economic and political issues at and work on content editing at forward press.
This book sheds light on some hitherto unexplored aspects of the life and works of Dr Bhimarao Ambedkar, arguably the greatest influence on Indian society in modern times. It is a maiden attempt to provide authoritative and comprehensive information on these two topics.

Pramod Ranjan, a well-known scholar of Dalit-Bahujan ideology, has taken pains to produce a well-rounded volume on Ambedkar. The first section of the book throws light on the factors that shaped Ambedkar's ideology. The second section analyses Ambedkar's views on religion.

Five articles compiled in the third section spell out the significance of Ambedkar's contribution as a historian, educationist, jurist, economist, and anthropologist. This Section includes a succinct write-up on Ambedkar's feminism.

The fourth section is centered on the future of Ambedkarism and also seeks to explain what Ambedkarism is and isn't. The fifth section contains a comprehensive chronology of the life and works of Ambedkar.

This book is not only useful for university students and research scholars engaged in the study of social justice movements but is also a must-read for social workers interested in acquiring a deeper understanding of Ambedkar and Ambedkarism.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Pramod Ranjan is an Assistant Professor of Hindi at the Rabindranath Tagore School of Languages and Cultural Studies of Assam University. He has been editor of Jan Vikalp, Forward Press and many other journals. He has edited three books focused on EV Ramasamy Periyar in Hindi: Jati Vyavastha Aur Pitra Satta (Caste system and patriarchy), Dharma Aur Vishwa Drishti (Religion and worldview) and Sachchi Ramayan. Sahityetihas Ka Bahujan Paksha (Bahujan aspect of history of literature), Bahujan Sahitya Ki Prastavna (The case for Bahujan literature), Mahishashur: Ek Jannayak (Mahishasur: A people's hero), Mahishasur: Mithak Va Paramparayein (Mahishasur: myths and traditions) and Shimla Diary are among his notable works. The English translations of some of his books have also been published. They include The Case For Bahujan Literature (co-edited) and Mahishasur: A People's Hero.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

BFC PUBLICATIONS

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

BFC Publications

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

bfc_publications

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

@BfcPublications

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

www.bfcpublications.com