Reevaluating the Ambedkar-Gandhi Debate

The Ambedkar-Gandhi dispute remains one of the thorniest and most hotly debated topics in modern Indian history. Ambedkar’s scathing critique of Gandhi and the politics espoused by him is known to one and all. In this piece, I attempt to untangle the intricacies and nuances pertaining to this debate.

“The politics of Gandhi is hollow and noisy. It is the most dishonest politics in the history of Indian polity. Gandhi was the man responsible for eliminating morality from politics and instead introduced commercialism in Indian politics. Politics has been denuded of its virtue.” These are not the words of a Hindutva zealot who salivates over Godse but of BR Ambedkar—the man who wrote the constitution of our country. Ambedkar and Gandhi had irreconcilable differences. Albeit both were opposed to untouchability and advocated for its abolition, Gandhi’s position on caste as a whole was ambiguous and performative.

Till 1922, Gandhi used to be a fervent proponent of Caste. He believed that caste was a source of strength for Hindu society; a remarkable power of organisation; the natural order of society; and a principle on which occupations should be premised. 

Asserting his casteism as unequivocally as possible, Gandhi went as far as to say he was opposed to all those who were out to destroy caste.  

It is argued by Gandhian scholars that Gandhi’s views on caste changed over time. This view is, however, historically inaccurate. Gandhi never shied away from glorifying the Varna System. It is noteworthy that Gandhi’s understanding of Varna was not very different from caste; Varna was a tongue-in-cheek euphemism for caste. Ambedkar made a useful distinction between the Vedic proposition of Varna and how it was construed by Gandhi. According to Ambedkar, the Vedic conception of Varna pertained to the pursuit of a calling that aligned with one’s natural aptitude whereas natural aptitude was absolutely extraneous in the Gandhian understanding of Varna. Ambedkar believed that there was no difference between Caste and Varna in Gandhi’s understanding.
 
Gandhi was a devout Hindu. Ambedkar called him “a full-blooded and a blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu”. 
In public life, he invoked religious symbols and markers. He strictly adhered to everything mentioned in the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas. 
Cow vigilantism ubiquitous in India today is attributable to the Gandhian conception of “Ram-Rajya.” Even if one concedes to the Gandhian scholars that Gandhi’s views changed over time, it can not be denied that Gandhi wanted to eradicate caste without attacking Hinduism per se. 
 
Ambedkar, on the other hand, believed that caste and inequality were the sine-qua-non of Hinduism. Ambedkar was of the view that obliterating caste without attacking the religious notions on which it was established, was impossible. 
Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta puts it rather pithily in his essay on Ambedkar: “For Ambedkar justice required declaring a war of sorts on Hinduism... This radical declaration is what makes Ambedkar so central to contemporary struggles. The project of achieving justice was not simply a matter of reforming a tradition, making it live up to its ideals. Justice would require the intellectual repudiation of a tradition.”
 
Ambedkar was invited by a Hindu reformist organisation, Jat-Pat Todak Mandal to preside over a conference on caste. However, when they received the draft of his speech, they were baffled by the content. Ambedkar had voraciously attacked Hinduism and Hindu scriptures. Ambedkar was asked to change the content of his address but he was unflinching. He said that he would not alter a comma. This speech, which was never delivered, was published as ‘Annihilation of Caste’ by Ambedkar himself. 
In this scintillating text, Ambedkar has scrutinized caste as critically as humanly possible. Gandhi, upon reading this text, wrote articles in Harijan—a weekly newspaper started by Gandhi himself—as a response to what he called “Dr Ambedkar’s indictment”.
Ambedkar, in response, wrote a piece titled ‘A reply to Mahatma’. In this particular text, Ambedkar ruthlessly attacked Gandhi and his flawed assessment of Caste. He provided us with a point by point rebuttal of Gandhi’s articles. 
 
There have been various attempts by Gandhians to appropriate Ambedkar but the fact remains that the differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar were truly irreconcilable. 
It would also be unfair to pigeonhole Gandhi as a casteist politician for his subpar understanding of caste. Gandhi’s approach was indeed problematic but it’s not very easy to say the same about his intentions. Dr Faisal Devji, professor of History at the University of Oxford, and author of a book on Gandhi argues that the critics of Gandhi don’t take the context of all those allegedly objectionable things that he said into consideration. “Gandhi was the first person to put discussions on caste at the heart of the freedom movement”, Faisal Devji further adds.
 
The legacy of Gandhi is contested and rightfully so, but unnecessary slandering is uncalled for. History should be approached as objectively as possible, keeping our preconceived bias behind us. 
In India, Right-leaning people have always criticised Gandhi for his alleged 'minority appeasement'. However, we have been observing a new trend of late. It's people on the left of the spectrum who are flinging epithets like casteist, racist, misogynist etc. against Gandhi. 
By doing so, we inadvertently play into the hands of the Hindutva hooligans who would leave no stone unturned to demonize Gandhi. While it's remarkable that people are going beyond the Gandhian paradigm and questioning his methods and beliefs, we must not ignore the context. We should refrain from hurling baseless and unqualified allegations at him.
 
The monster of caste is still ubiquitous in our society. Every day, one hears the news about violence being meted out to Dalits, but it fails to shake our conscience.
The fate of Krishna Tusamad is a case in point: He used to work in a jewellery shop where he was beaten to death on the accusation of theft. Albeit it is tangible that he was killed for being Dalit, there have been several attempts from all quarters to downplay the role of caste in this incident.
 
Under these circumstances, one needs to properly understand caste and how pervasive and immediate it is. If this famous debate is any guide, there can be various ways of approaching a problem, the point, however, is to implement them.

Author

Shashi

2nd Year History Hons.

Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi