Tag: Ambedkarism

The BJP May End Up Tying Itself in Knots By Attacking Udhayanidhi Stalin

The concept of sanatana dharma was given shape by the Hindu orthodoxy in the 19th century as a movement against reformist organisations like the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj, which questioned regressive practices such as sati and child marriage.

New Delhi: Tamil Nadu youth welfare and sports minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on sanatana dharma have kicked up a political storm. Stalin’s criticism of sanatana dharma has led to multiple stalwarts in the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party claiming that the Dravidian leader had called for a “genocide” of the Hindus.

At the crux of the political battle, however, is a deeply rooted disagreement between ideologues of Hindutva and social justice politics on one level, and historical differences between the Hindu orthodoxy and 19th-century reformists on another.

On Saturday (September 2), speaking at a conference titled ‘Sanatana Ozhippu Maanaadu’ [‘Sanatana Abolition Conclave’] organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association to critique the concept of sanatana dharma, Udhayanidhi Stalin said, “I congratulate the organisers for calling the conference as ‘eradication of sanatana dharma’ instead of ‘opposing sanatana dharma’…”

“There are certain things which we have to eradicate and we cannot merely oppose. Mosquitoes, dengue, corona and malaria are things which we cannot oppose, we have to eradicate them. Sanatanam is also like this. Eradication and not opposing sanatanam has to be our first task,” he continued.

The statement triggered a backlash from the BJP rank and file, with its IT cell head Amit Malviya interpreting Udhayanidhi’s remarks as a “call for [the] genocide” of sanatanis, who he claimed comprise “80% [of the] population of Bharat”.

Union home minister Amit Shah, while speaking at an election rally in Rajasthan, took the matter up to challenge the newly-formed INDIA opposition bloc.

“The son of a chief minister [a reference to Udhayanidhi, who is also the son of Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin] has called for the eradication of sanatana dharma … For vote bank and appeasement politics, these people have called for the eradication of sanatana dharma. This is an insult to our culture, history and sanatana dharma,” Shah said.

The DMK leader quickly responded to say that his statement was being twisted.

“I never called for the genocide of people who are following sanatana dharma. Sanatana dharma is a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion. Uprooting sanatana dharma is upholding humanity and human equality,” Udhayanidhi said in a statement.

“I am prepared to confront any challenges that come my way, whether in a court of law or the people’s court. Stop spreading fake news,” he continued to say, before adding that sanatana dharma was “responsible for many evils”.

Also Read: South India Is the Final Frontier in the Contest Between Hinduism and Hindutva

In fact, the Tamil Nadu minister had elaborated on his ideological challenge to sanatana dharma in the very speech that the BJP picked up for its attack.

“What is sanatanam? The very name is from Sanskrit. Sanatana is against equality and social justice and nothing else. What is the meaning of sanatana? It is eternal, that is, it cannot be changed; no one could pose any question and that is the meaning,” Udhayanidhi said.

He continued: “What did sanatana do to women? It pushed women, who lost their husbands, into the fire [the erstwhile practice of sati]; it tonsured the heads of widows and made them wear white saris; child marriages too happened.”

Udhayanidhi contrasted sanatana’s “rigidity” with Dravidian ideology, which he said strived to establish equality and fraternity.

“Our kalaignar [former party leader Karunanidhi] brought a law enabling people belonging to all castes to become archakas [temple priests], our chief minister [Stalin] has appointed people who have completed archaka training as priests at temples; this is the Dravidian model,” Udhayanidhi said. 

“What did Dravidam [the Dravidian ideology followed by the DMK] do? It gave fare-free travel to women in buses, gave Rs 1,000 monthly assistance to girl students for their college education,” he added.

Since the war of words, Udhayanidhi has refused to back down, intensifying his attack on sanatana dharma and the alleged discrimination embedded within its doctrines.

Although the matter has become yet another polarising political issue, the disagreements between the BJP’s Hindu nationalist politics and Dravidian ideology go back far in history. 

Sanatanism: Ambedkar’s view contrasts with the Hindutva groups

Sanatana dharma is often credited for defining the caste system in India, allocating duties, occupations and roles to communities. Critics say that sanatana practices speak about eternal laws but in effect have institutionalised discriminatory caste practices and sustained brahminical hegemony in Hindu society. For Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Sanatanism is the “ancient name for militant orthodox Hinduism”. In 1943, he wrote: “The Antisemitism of the Nazis against the Jews is in no way different in ideology and in effect from the Sanatanism of the Hindus against the Untouchables.”

Hindutva orgnisations have invoked sanatana dharma to standardise Hindu identity in recent times, often ignoring the diverse religious practices across India. Anti-caste organisations have naturally opposed such standardisation by Hindutva forces and have critiqued it for perpetuating casteism in the modern era.

Also Read: What Explains the Indian Desire for Homogenisation?

The BJP may have interpreted Udhayanidhi’s remarks according to its own political convenience, but it has also opened a pandora’s box. The saffron party that was often called a “Brahmin-Bania” party for a long time has made concerted attempts to shed this tag under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Hindutva and anti-caste politics have historically remained inimical to each other. The perception that Hindutva is inherently brahminical and discriminatory had kept the Dravidian, Ambedkarite and Mandal parties away from the saffron umbrella for a long time.

However, Modi weaved a political narrative around nationalism and development that could supersede these contradictions. The BJP under the leadership of Modi has taken care not to run into these contradictions in the political sphere, choosing to popularise Hindutva by mostly fuelling anti-Muslim sentiment than anything else.

In fact, the BJP’s recent victories have been attributed to the party’s successful attempts to win over a substantial section of OBC and Dalit communities, for whom caste discrimination has been a lived reality. By intensifying its attack on Udhayanidhi, who spoke against the inherent casteism of sanatana dharma, the BJP may risk giving inadvertent prominence to the social justice rhetoric that has trumped Hindutva multiple times in the past.

Tamil Nadu BJP chief K. Annamalai. Photo: Twitter/@annamalai_k

Precisely because of such possibilities, Udhayanidhi has refused to back down against persistent attacks by BJP leaders. Against such a backdrop, the most interesting response has been of Tamil Nadu BJP president K. Annamalai. Unlike Malviya and Shah, Annamalai was much more cautious in attacking Udhayanidhi, carefully choosing his words in saying that sanatana dharma was actually “misinterpreted” by the DMK leader and that it wasn’t as discriminatory as portrayed.

Annamalai defended sanatana dharma as “egalitarian”, in what was a clear effort to downplay its perceived equivalence with brahaminical hegemony in southern states. He didn’t portray Udhayanidhi’s remarks as a call for a genocide like the national BJP leaders did.

The BJP is aiming to gain a foothold in Tamil Nadu, and its state president well knows that any overt Hindutva messaging can only be detrimental to its prospects.

Moreover, the concept of sanatana dharma was given its shape by the Hindu orthodoxy in the 19th century, as a movement against reformist organisations like the Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj, which questioned regressive practices such as sati, idol worship and child marriage.

The Hindu orthodoxy formed organisations like the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Sanatana Dharma Rakshini Sabha and the Lahore Sanatan Dharma Sabha to contain the growing influence of reformist organisations. These groups mostly attempted to homogenise – and even standardise – Hindu identity according to the doctrines of sanatana dharma.

The BJP and the RSS have since then looked up to these groups as mentors, and their present advocacy of Hindu practices resembles the efforts of the 19th-century Hindu orthodoxy, despite Modi-Shah’s political outreach among OBC and Dalit communities.

Reformist organisations like the Arya Samaj and Radha Soamis, or even the Ramakrishna Mission, have evolved into different entities from their 19th-century past. The contradictions between the orthodoxy and these groups have flattened out increasingly in the contemporary era, with many of these organisations finding themselves closer to the BJP than any other party.

Yet, if the BJP persists in its efforts to standardise Hindu identity by emphasising sanatana dharma, the historical differences between the two may again become significant.

Similarly, 19th-century social reformers like Swami Vivekananda and Narayana Guru, both of whom are frequently invoked by the Sangh parivar as messengers of Hinduism, spoke and acted aggressively against casteist practices in sanatana doctrines – exactly what Udhayanidhi’s criticism of sanatana dharma hinged upon.

Speaking to The Wire, the author of the recently released book Vivekananda: The Philosopher of Freedom, Govind Krishnan V. said:

“Vivekananda considered the social and economic oppression of the Kshatriyas and Brahmins over the so-called lower castes the main reason for India’s decline and downfall from one of the leading civilisations of the world. In a series of speeches delivered in South India after his return from the West, Vivekananda called for the destruction of all caste privileges and of untouchability.”

Also Read: Vivekananda Dismissed Hindutva View That Blames Foreign Invasions for India’s Civilisational Decline

“This had a huge influence on the first non-party mass movement against caste, the Ezhava movement in Kerala. There is a good deal of similarity between Narayana Guru and Vivekananda’s views on caste, especially since they were both vedantists. Vivekananda seemed to believe that caste will eventually disappear from India. He says caste distinctions are an obstacle to India’s progress and would eventually disappear as democratic ideas advance,” he added.

However, casteist practices have anything but disappeared and remain deeply entrenched in even present-day India in its society and its politics. Udhayanidhi’s remarks have gone ahead and drawn the spotlight back on the seminal issue, which has been the historical reason for oppression, violence and deprivation.

It appears that the BJP’s persistent attack on the Dravidian leader was also forced by the fact that he unveiled a book titled RSS’s Role in the Indian Liberation War at the same Sanatana Abolition Conference. The book highlighted the assassination of Gandhi and a picture of a man licking a shoe in its cover.

The pages inside were blank entirely, where Udhayanidhi drew three big zeroes, pointing towards the minimal role of the RSS in India’s independence struggle against the British.

In Gujarat, the faultlines around sanatana dharma’s proponents and opponents have come to a flashpoint in Batod, illustrating how disputes continue to prevail in even Modi’s home state – a laboratory of Hindutva. Reports say the controversy surrounding a mural placed on the base of the largest statue of Hanumanji in Salangpur by the Swaminarayan sect is intensifying and the media has been barred from visiting the place.

The issue could be more problematic for the BJP as it tries to appropriate Ambedkar and push out its own version of Dalit politics. One of the most influential communities seen as supportive of the BJP, the Lingayats in Karnataka, have also got complex views on the subject.

When coupled with the Rohini commission on the sub-categorisation of OBCs submitting its findings and the U-turn by the Modi government on the Bihar caste survey in the Supreme Court, this is a faultline that can have a tectonic effect on India’s electoral politics.

By attacking Udayanidhi Stalin, reflexively and unthinkingly, the BJP courts not only marginalisation in Tamil Nadu, but also risks tying itself in multiple knots in the rest of the country.

 

 

Remembering V.P. Singh, Whose Short Tenure as PM Gave a New Lease of Life to Ambedkarism

Despite having a feudal savarna background with obvious privileges, V.P. Singh had a deep sense of empathy for India’s marginalised communities and validated ‘OBC’ as a constitutional category.

June 25, 2023 marked the 92nd birth anniversary of India’s former prime minister V.P. Singh. A retrospective of his life and very short tenure as PM reminds one of Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s observation: “Life should be great rather than long.”

Despite having a feudal savarna background with obvious privileges, Singh’s thought and action embodied a deep sense of empathy for marginalised communities, including the women, Adivasi (Scheduled Tribes), Dalit (Scheduled Castes) and Shudra (backward classes) citizenry of India. His choice of two towering stalwarts – Ambedkar and Nelson Mandela – for the Bharat Ratna in 1990 reflects his deep commitment to the cause of social justice.

An agent of social justice

In his maiden address to the nation after assuming the PM’s chair, aired on All India Radio and Doordarshan on December 3, 1989, Singh set the tone of his intent: 

“… a large number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe brethren are without even basic shelter. It will be our primary aim to ensure that they live lives of dignity and honour. The fire of hunger can be extinguished by food, but the fire that ignites the mind of the disinherited can only culminate in a revolution.” 

“History has placed on the agenda of the nation the imperative of economic and social justice. Lifelong suffering is the fate of the weaker sections. Nothing is worse than a life of indignity. Social justice demands that hope must light up the lives of the weaker sections. It will be our endeavour that minorities live without fear and as equal partners of our country’s progress …”

On another occasion, while addressing a national seminar on the problems of the Scheduled Tribes, he noted that Adivasis inhabiting the country have enriched its cultural diversity with their arts and crafts, including building some of the most beautiful temples. 

Nothing could have been more tragic than the same people being denied entry into those temples which they have so laboriously built. Singh drew a beautiful corollary with how Ambedkar’s portrait did not find a place in the central hall of parliament till the year he became prime minister. 

Also Read: Why Ambedkar Will Not Be Erased From Public Memory Any Time Soon

Finally, as the country was celebrating Babasaheb’s birth centenary, he ensured that his portrait found a place in the sanctum sanctorum of the Indian Republic, where the Constituent Assembly conducted extensive deliberations to make the constitution. In the same vein, in one of his meetings with the chief ministers of the states, Singh had requested them to consider ways of involving the landless in the implementation of land reforms.

Singh’s legacy is dominated by one of his most momentous decisions: the announcement of the implementation of one of the Mandal Commission Report’s recommendations, which would reserve 27% of the seats in central services for OBCs.

Ambedkar had already raised this long-pending concern of the Shudra-backward class citizens in his celebrated work Who Were the Shudras (1946), and he treasured its future possibility in Article 340 of the constitution. 

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

On August 6, 1990, a day before Singh made this historic announcement, he wrote to the members of parliament reminding them of Article 16(4) of the constitution, which mandated the states to make provisions for reservations in the appointment of backward class citizens, who in the opinion of the state, were not well represented.

Can India learn from a secular saint?

There is no denying the fact that Ambedkarism found a new lease of life following Singh’s tenure as PM. We are aware of how his tenure was cut short by right-wing Hindutva forces, which invented the ideological kamandal to scuttle the momentous ‘Mandal’ moment of social justice. 

Singh refused to budge under their pressure and chose to sacrifice his government. In his post-PM years, he turned deeply philosophical, mostly engaging in poetry and painting. But he stood with a mountainous will against the communal frenzy created by the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.

He refused the prime minister’s post offered to him jointly by the United Front in 1996. A decade later – while he was fighting deadly cancer – in an episode of NDTV’s ‘Walk the Talk’, the host Shekhar Gupta asked him how the BJP became his “enemy number one”.

Singh calmly responded, saying that he did not have personal enemies while highlighting their hatred of minorities, particularly Muslims. He sounded not just secular but saintly.

It was only V.P. Singh’s Mandal moment that validated a constitutional category called ‘OBC’. This category found such unparalleled recognition that even those forces that stood with kamandal against Mandal started harnessing the identity of this category. 

In 2014, the BJP pitched in their campaign for parliamentary elections a claim that they were the first ones to push for a prime minister belonging to the OBC category. But isn’t it ironic that a separate caste counting of OBCs is still a distant dream? 

While Singh brought Ambedkar to the centre of our national imagination, the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi attempted to mainstream V.D. Savarkar by inaugurating the new parliament on his 130th birth anniversary.

Indian politics, it can be said, is at a crucial juncture. There are currently two contending visions of nationalism at loggerheads. The new generation has a momentous and significant choice to make: will they stand for Ambedkar’s democratic, secular and progressive prabuddh Bharat, or a majoritarian, chauvinistic and jingoistic Hindu rashtra advocated by Savarkar?

Dr Arvind Kumar teaches at the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, and has served as honorary joint director, Centre for Distance and Open Learning, Jamia Millia Islamia.

The Problem of Being a Dalit in the Communist Movement

R.B. More was a bridge between Dalit and communist politics and tried to change the communist party leadership’s stand on the caste question.

As recalcitrant subjects in Indian history, Dalits were always a problem for the status quo and the politics and ideas that attempted to transform it. True to their outlier position in caste Hindu society as stigmatised beings, they endure abject poverty, and their condition is incomprehensible even to the well-meaning caste Hindu. Yet at times, they become problems for themselves and the people around them because of the swirling stigma and economic deprivations that bog them down and corrode their dignity.

The book under review, Memoirs of a Dalit Communist: The Many Worlds of R.B. More, is about the indomitable spirit of a Dalit communist named Ramachandra Babaji More who rose from an obscure background to become a remarkable political activist and public intellectual. Most importantly, throughout his life, he acted as a bridge between Dalit and communist politics and tried to change the communist party leadership’s stand on the caste question through debates and petitions within the party etiquette’s confines.

Given More’s unique life trajectory, the narrative presented in this book is also quite unusual. More left his autobiography unfinished. His son Satyendra More carried on the mantle of telling the story of his father’s journey not as a history of the family but as a political biography four times bigger than his father’s unfinished text, both written in the Marathi language. This is why the life-narrative is presented not just by the protagonist himself but by three more people.

Through her commitment to the text, English translator Wandana Sonalkar makes us feel as though it is an English original. By introducing sensitivity in the text, Anupama Rao adds historical meaning with the requisite archival cushioning to situate the text in its social and historical dynamics – of Bombay’s urban and Dalit labour politics. In this way, a translator, biographer and historian/anthropologist help us navigate the layered lives of Dalits in cosmopolitan Bombay, which makes the text more fascinating as a bottom-up account of the tumultuous period before and after India’s independence.

The account of R.B. More’s early life provides a valuable historical account of the encounter between the British colonial state and Dalits. In its nascent stage, British colonialism used all avenues indiscriminately to get a foothold and recruited Dalit Mahars as soldiers without considering caste prejudices. Historically, the entry of Mahars into the British colonial army was a turning point not only in the individual lives of Mahar soldiers themselves but also for all oppressed ‘untouchables’ across the Indian subcontinent.

The unintended consequence of the colonial state’s employment of Mahars was a new beginning in these people’s lives – to escape centuries of caste-bound occupational entrapment and access to education and employment. That historic move sowed the seeds of early Dalit enlightenment and awakened them to the drudgery of caste and armed them with the tools of emancipation.

More recounts the names and activities of Dalit pioneers like Gopal Baba Walangkar, who retired from service and started the Anarya Dosh Pariharak Mandal. In this context, More points out the importance of military cantonments like Dapoli in the Konkan region as centres of the Dalit renaissance. They provided access to education and employment, instilled a spirit of self-respect and dignity, and insulated them from everyday caste oppression.

Most importantly, the colonial state used Dalits to consolidate its power, notably at the historic battle of Bhima Koregaon, in which the Mahar regiment defeated the Brahmin Peshwa armies and subdued the ruler. However, true to its unscrupulous nature, the colonial state turned its back on Dalits and cemented its alliance with privileged caste Hindus to perpetuate its rule.

As Philip Constable eloquently demonstrated in his seminal writings, eventually, the colonial state marginalised Mang and Mahar armies and banned their military recruitment in 1893. Thus, colonialism and Brahmanism aligned and accentuated caste oppression and exploitation in modern forms.

However, in More’s gripping account, Dalit aspiration for equality and dignity and their perseverance to overcome the challenges of caste oppression come alive, especially in his struggle to get an education. School admission was not easy and he was forced to sit outside the classroom and had to wander in the town during art and physical education classes to avoid ‘touching’ caste Hindu children. The description of his daily struggle humanises the narrative towards understanding how difficult it was, and is, to be a Dalit and connects the travails of early Dalit imaginaries who paved the way for future generations.

In this way, as a self-narration, the text sets the historical background for the rise of B.R. Ambedkar and his emancipatory politics. It gives the names of people who stood on the frontlines of the movement, including More himself. Moreover, More’s move away from the Ambedkarite fold into the communist movement adds a twist and poses a critical challenge to himself and the anti-caste Ambedkarite politics.

Memoirs of a Dalit Communist
Satyendra More (ed. Anupama Rao, trans. Wandana Sonalkar)
LeftWord, 2019

Ambedkar theorised caste as an essential category to understand oppression, dehumanisation and the social hierarchy that pushes Dalits to the bottom. On the other hand, class-centric communist politics that centred its argument on economic determinism or the class-struggle viewed caste as a relic of a feudal superstructure and that ending economic inequality would obliterate caste and its accompanied discrimination and oppression.

More faced the challenging task of engaging in dialogue with those two uncompromising ideological positions and won Ambedkar and other fellow Dalits with his sheer personal integrity and political commitment. Even though More’s son Satyendra paints a fond fatherly relationship between his father and Ambedkar, it is difficult to ignore the theoretical tension between caste and class.

The text details how these ideological differences culminated in everyday fights in the mills, neighbourhoods and organisational politics of the labour movement, as both communists and the Ambedkar movement vied for dominance among Dalits. Satyendra struggled to defend communist leadership with mild criticism of their attitude and betrayal of Ambedkar. As card-holding communists, both Mores acknowledged caste as a parameter of oppression and saw true liberation for Dalits and oppressed humanity in a caste-class alliance.

As a caste-oppressed Dalit, and economically exploited, the senior More maintained an umbilical (Dalit and poor) connection with Ambedkar and his brethren while working with the communist party. Thus, everyday tensions between caste and class politics manifested in the labour movement and chawls – and are richly recreated in the text.

In this context, one can say those daily battles acted as a precursor to the radical Dalit Panther movement in the slums of Bombay in 1970, which produced a Dalit Manifesto similar to the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx by combining anti-caste radicalism with class emancipatory politics. In this way, More’s life embodies Dalit Bombay at a critical juncture in history.

As noted earlier, R.B. More did not live to complete his autobiography. His son’s narration of his father’s journey is peppered with filial admiration that changes the narration into a hagiography at times. In spite of this, one can notice the reckless adventures of R.B. More that brought unwanted trouble upon himself and his family.

Also, importantly, More’s bitter remarks about his father’s extended family being the reason for his and his mother’s sufferings make one wonder why, even as an adult, he was not responsible enough to save his wife and children from their great hardship. Instead, Satyendra makes a virtue out of the erratic actions of his father. His embracement of poverty as a badge of honour does not go well for a Dalit who escaped from the bowels of poverty in the village and again dumps his wife and children back into the arms of deprivation by refusing to make use of opportunities (some that even Ambedkar offered him).

But despite all the troubles he and his family endured, one must admire and command More’s loyalty to the party and principles. I see a perversion in the eulogisation of poverty. Communism as an ideology does not believe in keeping people in perpetual poverty. It strives to end economic exploitation and inequality in society to enable the deprived to free themselves from bondage and restore their dignity. This is where Ambedkarism and communism can intersect to end caste oppression and economic inequality predicated on anti-caste egalitarian ethics.

Chinnaiah Jangam is an associate professor in the Department of History, Carleton University, Canada.

Celebrating Ambedkar, not Compulsive Ambedkarism

On Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s birth anniversary, a message to his followers: Don’t make the mistake of reducing Ambedkar to an infallible God – a similar mistake that many Gandhians did with Gandhi.

On Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s birth anniversary, as I pay homage to him, I must confess that I began to engage with him much later in life. Even though Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore and Karl Marx occupied my politico-cognitive universe, Ambedkar did not fascinate me for quite some time.

As I begin to reflect, I feel that there are primarily two reasons for this. First, because of my accidental birth in a brahmin family, I did not experience the stigma of caste hierarchy and associated violence; possibly, as it is said these days, caste, for a ‘privileged’ person like me, remained ‘invisible’; and hence I could afford to remain indifferent to Ambedkar’s vehement critique of the caste system. Second, there was some sort of philosophic anxiety relating to ‘representation’ that the university culture generated. As an ‘oppressive outsider’, I was told, I would never be able to understand the experiential domain of a Dalit; and hence, my engagement with Ambedkar is likely to become diplomatic, strategic, a clever attempt at appropriation and falsification. 

However, the human story is that we evolve, we learn and unlearn, we seek to overcome all sorts of constraints, and we expand our horizons. Yes, as a seeker I read Ambedkar, and have begun to celebrate him. However, I have a sense of discomfort with compulsive Ambedkarism. Even though these days the strange logic of political competitiveness and even academic radicalism compels everyone to see Ambedkar as absolute/unproblematic god, my journey is somewhat different. I admire him, and I see his limitations.

This philosopher cum social activist came with a hammer and debunked the caste system, and this shock, I believe, was necessary for people like us to be disturbed, and rise up for radical existential and cultural transformation. But then, for praising Ambedkar I need not limit myself, and devalue the significance of Gandhi, or, for that matter, Marx. In other words, I distinguish enabling Ambedkar from constraining Ambedkarism.

Caste question: emancipatory Ambedkar

The state of amnesia induced a state of stupor, discouraging the painful effort of building a new culture along with the rejection of the old. Dr. Ambedkar could never tolerate this cultural inertia, and his entire life can be summed up as a relentless battle against such a mental state.

– D.R. Nagraj

Even though caste seems to be all pervading – from marital alliances to political mobilisation, from official classifications to ritualistic practices, from sociological narratives to identity politics, the fact is that caste as an institution with its hierarchical consciousness, graded inequality, purity-pollution dichotomy and psychology of violence implicit in its exclusionary practices needs to be abolished.

Yes, in a complex religious system with multiple voices, there was a seed of anti-caste consciousness in a revealing spiritual discourse of love, non-dualism and oneness, and even forward caste social reformers like Swami Vivekananda were not altogether indifferent to the evils of caste. But then, as I see, there was great intensity and authenticity in Ambedkar’s plea for the annihilation of caste. To understand the appeal of Ambedkar – the powerful assertion from below – is to appreciate three sets of arguments he made against caste.

First, he critiqued caste (or a text like Manusmriti  that sanctified it) through the paradigm of modernity: its three principles of socio-political revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity.  In the scheme of Manu, as Ambedkar pointed out, each man has his vocation preordained; and it has no relation to capacity or to inclination. Moreover, the Shudra, as this dharmashastra suggests, is born to serve the others. In a way, as Ambedkar argued, the shudra is a slave because ‘a slave as defined by Plato means a person who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct’. No wonder, caste goes against the principle of liberty. Likewise, caste is against equality because ‘Manu made inequality the vital force of life as different castes are placed in a vertical series one above the other’. And there is no question of fraternity because there is no ‘fellow feeling’, and ‘joys and sorrows of one caste are not the joys and sorrows of another’.

Second, he made economic/utilitarian arguments against caste. Modern industry needs innovative individuals who can change their occupations and cope with technological advances.  However, caste as a system of ‘division of labourers’ is a ‘harmful institution for modern/industrial economy’. The reason is that the division of labour/labourers is not a division based on choice or aptitude.  With its fixity based on ascriptive status it blocks one’s creativity and efficiency. ‘What efficiency can there be in a system’, asked Ambedkar, ‘in which neither men’s hearts nor their minds are in their work?’ Finally, it is important to understand the psychic arguments he made against caste.

Interestingly, he contrasted ‘weak/meek Hindus’ with enthusiastic ‘Sikhs and Mohammedans’ filled with a great deal of strength, vitality and community power. In the absence of fraternity or fellow feeling, Hindus fail to develop a sense of togetherness and hence courage emanating from group solidarity. To use Ambedkar’s words, ‘being one and fated to be alone a Hindu remains powerless, develops timidity and cowardice and in a fight surrenders or runs away’.

The immensely meaningful life he led – from Mahad satyagraha to his conversion into Buddhism, from his constant reminder (particularly, to the otherwise undisputed pan-Indian charismatic figure like Gandhi) of the need to take into account the fragments and cleavages within the nation to the making of the Constitution – inspired many, aroused confidence in the political agency of the marginalised, and prepared the ground for a counter-hegemonic struggle. In his search for ‘egalitarian Buddhism’, his ‘no’ to Brahminical Hinduism as a ‘religion of rules’ was immensely radical. Even though it is possible to say that Manusmriti  is only a segment of Hindu philosophy, and Ambedkar was not at his best in his understanding of the dialogic/dissenting traditions within Hinduism, I admit that his critique of Brahminism was as radical as Marx’ critique of capitalism or Gandhi’s critique of colonialism. 

Limits to Ambedkarism 

When two months after Gandhi’s death, Ambedkar married Sharada Kabir, a Brahmin doctor, (his first wife, Ramabai had died in 1935), Vallabhbhai Patel rote to him, ‘I am sure if Bapu were alive he would have given you his blessings.’ Ambedkar replied, ‘I agree that Bapu, if he had been alive, would have blessed it.’

– Rajmohan Gandhi

Even though Ambedkar’s scholarship is amazing and his contributions are irrefutable, Ambedkarism as a closed/reductionist doctrine is not necessarily liberating. In this context, I wish to make three arguments.

My first argument is related to Gandhi. It is sad that Ambedkarism as a school of thought often simplifies Gandhi, reduces him into a conspirator or a casteist. The fact is that Gandhi evolved continually. True, despite his sharp critique of untouchability as a ‘sin’, there was a time (I recall an essay written by him in 1920) when he contrasted caste in its present form with all sorts of inequality from the four divisions of varna which he romanticised as ‘ fundamental, natural and essential’. He was not favourable to inter-dining, inter-drinking and intermarrying.

However, the ‘experimental’ Gandhi did not remain static in his view on caste. In 1930s, we see a sharper and radical critique of caste. In an article in the Harijan in 1935, he seemed to be rather clear. He could say that caste has to go. He publicly affirmed his acceptance of inter-dining and inter-marriage. In fact, just before Independence, he said that he would give his blessings for a wedding between a Dalit and a non-Dalit.

Furthermore, Gandhi’s practice was more radical than his words. His own engagement with labour and dirt in his ashrams, his interrogation of the Brahminical ‘purity-pollution’ duality, his constant reminder that ‘caste Hindus have to atone for the sin of untouchability’, and , as the turbulent days of Noakhali suggest, his extraordinary affinity with ‘washermen, fishermen, cobblers and weavers’ – the rhythm of his life indicates his sadhana for self-purification. I would, therefore, say that Ambedkar’s harsh words against Gandhi (“The grace in Gandhism is a curse in its worst form; the virtue of the anti-Untouchability plank in Gandhism is quite illusory; there is no substance in it”) were unjust and anti-Buddhist in tone.

Hence, unlike the rigidity of Ambedkarism I would plead for the fusion of horizons: Gandhi’s conscience and Ambedkar’s critique, Gandhi’s urge to humanise the caste Hindus and Ambedkar’s communion with the Dalits, Gandhi’s Bhagavad Gita and Ambedkar’s Buddhism, Ambedkar’s modernist sensibilities and Gandhi’s sarvadoya. Ambedkar without Gandhi, I fear, would remain ghettoised – merely a ‘Dalit icon’. Ambedkar, his followers should realise, deserves more.

My second argument is related to a form reductionism that suspects the intention or ability of all non-Dalits to understand the pain of the marginalised. Quite often, it leads to a notion of ‘Dalit literature’ or ‘Dalit aesthetics’ distinctively different from the way the privileged castes look at the world. It is true that the ‘cultural capital’ of the privileged classes and castes tends to monopolise the domain of art and aesthetics, and there is reason for the Dalits to be apprehensive, and strive for their own space, style and articulation. Yet, if you overdo it, you become simplistic and reductionist. The domain of human creativity, we should not forget, is endowed with the ability to transcend the constraints of socially constituted identities.

I, therefore, refuse to judge the aesthetics of art on the basis of the creator’s caste/class. I have, therefore, no hesitation in learning, say, from both Om Prakash Valmiki’s Joothan – a powerful Dalit autobiography, and ‘forward caste’ Bimal Roy’s remarkably sensitive film Sujata – a film that depicts the inner turmoil of an untouchable woman and her relationship with a ‘forward caste’ man.

My third and final argument is related to the complex interplay of caste and class. Yes, we do know that Ambedkar chose Buddha not Marx. And we also know that he did not give his consent to the Marxian doctrine of the revolutionary proletariat because they too, for him, were divided on the basis of caste. ‘Can it be said that the proletariat in India, poor as it is, recognises no such distinctions of caste or creed, high or low?’ asked Ambedkar. 

Well, Ambedkar was not entirely wrong because in a caste-ridden society the notion of ritualistic status affects even the poor. But then, Ambedkar did not ask a counter question: is there any reason to believe that the rich Dalits (even if there are not many) would necessarily come forward with the struggle of the poor Dalits? I think we should ask this question, and realise that there is a dialectical interplay of caste and class, and it would be naïve to think that class/gender cleavages do not affect the Dalit community.

Moreover, without working on property, land relations and economic situations, is it possible to alter the psychology of ritualistic hierarchy? It is not a question of either/or; caste and class inequality need to be fought together. And communists need not necessarily be seen as ‘a bunch of Brahmins’. This sort of determinism closes one’s eyes, and devalues all those who speak a different language. 

While I celebrate Ambedkar as an extraordinary emancipator, I would appeal to his stubborn followers: Don’t make the mistake of reducing him to an infallible god – a similar mistake that many Gandhians did with Gandhi. Instead, spread your hands, embrace Gandhi and Marx, and evolve a more nuanced and comprehensive philosophy and practice of social justice, ecological modernity, spiritual sensibilities and economic equality. 

Avijit Pathak is a Professor of Sociology at JNU.

Review: What Ambedkar and His Legacy Mean to People Today

In ‘Contesting Marginalisations’, Vidya Bhushan Rawat has brought together different perspectives on what constitutes Ambedkarism and what it has meant to individuals and activists working in various spheres.

In Contesting Marginalisations, Vidya Bhushan Rawat has brought together different perspectives on what constitutes Ambedkarism and what it has meant to individuals and activists working in various spheres.

B.R. Ambedkar. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

B.R. Ambedkar. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

It is tempting to think of B.R. Ambedkar’s legacy as a hegemonic one, for today there is no one who contests his ideas and legacy. Just as one was a socialist of one variety or the other in the mid-20th century India (even the Bharatiya Janata Party adhered to ‘Gandhian socialism’), everyone now is an Ambedkarite, or at least not opposed to the man and his ideas. However, in the absence of a coherent ideology that could be identified as Ambedkarism, the term has been pulled in many directions, which has both diluted it and, in some ways, allowed a creative efflorescence. It remains, at best, a nebulous concept.

Much before it became an academic rage, Ambedkar’s thoughts were a beacon for activists in post-independence India. Contesting Marginalisations: Conversations on Ambedkarism and Social Justice, Vidya Bhushan Rawat’s collection of interviews with the many foot soldiers and friends of what has come to be called the ‘Ambedkarite revolution’, attempts to collate what is sometimes left out of academic studies. It brings together many different perspectives on what constitutes Ambedkarism and, more importantly, what it has meant to individuals and activists working in various spheres.

The diverse selection of the individuals interviewed in this book provides a comprehensive picture of what Ambedkarism is or can be – these include associates and inheritors of Ambedkar who helped keep his ideas alive after he passed away, as well as contemporary activists who are guided by Ambedkar’s thoughts. The ideas debated centre around the connection between caste and class, conversion to Buddhism, human rights, secularism and culture. The personal experiences of those who grew up in Dalit families add another dimension to the discussions and help the reader understand the evolution of their ideas.

Same questions, many answers

Vidya Bhushan Rawat <em>Contesting Marginalisations: Conversations on Ambedkarism and Social Justice</em> People's Literature Publication, 2017

Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Contesting Marginalisations: Conversations on Ambedkarism and Social Justice
People’s Literature Publication, 2017

There are disparate views about the Ambedkarites’ approach to caste and class. Some veer closer towards class as the central fulcrum of conflict and mobilisation. Ambedkar’s associate, Bhagwan Das, underlines that Ambedkar had much in common with the Marxist understanding of class and that he made a number of attempts at the political level to build a common platform. Das also points to the closeness and mutual respect between Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru. This is pertinent as these two modernisers are often perceived to be antagonists.

A thinker who stands out for his innovative ideas in the collection is M.C. Raj. He combines caste and the Marxian class view to conjure some very interesting ideas, some of which he has put into practice through his Adijan Panchayat Movement in Karnataka.

Opinions about one of the key directions that Ambedkar gave to his followers towards the end of his life – converting to Buddhism – are also debated, with some who have actually followed the path and others who don’t think it is an essential step for the emancipation of the Dalits. Kevin Brown even considers that conversion to Christianity might actually be helpful to put international pressure to bring changes to the caste system in India, particularly if this happens in collaboration with influential United Methodist churches in the US.

Raj thinks that Ambedkar refused to see the strengths of his people. He advocates a return to Adijan culture rather than adopting Buddhism, which he considers to be an extension of Hinduism. Raja Dhale argues against inter-caste marriage and for keeping the sense of identity among the Dalits.

Similarly, Ambedkar’s seminal contribution to the Indian constitution is perceived differently by his adherents. Anand Teltumbde thinks that the constitution had nothing to do with the thoughts of the man himself and his contribution to the supreme law of the country was merely that of a professional expert.

R.M. Pal, a radical humanist influenced by M.N. Roy’s philosophy, considers that human rights, particularly in the light of human rights violations committed on a societal level (and not just by individuals), can be the platform for unifying the fragmented sub-castes within Dalits and the minorities. He points to Roy’s call for an intellectual renaissance on the lines of the European Renaissance, which must precede social emancipation.

S.V. Rajadurai and V. Geetha provide a fascinating overview of Periyar and his legacy. They point out how his public rejection of faith enjoyed popular support but his deeper critique of faith and his “angry denunciation of caste” implicit in his denunciation of Brahmanical Hinduism have not been internalised, leading to the revival of Brahmanical practices, often to the detriment of Dalits in the state. So much so that parties like the PMK have called against the SC/ST Act and opposed inter-caste marriage between Dalits and Vanniyars.

‘Chamar pubs’ in the UK

Arun Kumar points out how caste did not matter to the early immigrants from India to the UK in the 1950s as everyone faced the same racial bias. Things, however, changed as women and children started joining the menfolk and caste segregation became important. Fights among school children started and separate temples came up as parents discouraged inter-caste alliances. There is an interesting and insightful aside on the so-called infamous ‘Chamar pub’ – as pubs frequented by working class Indians too began to be segregated on the basis of caste. Kumar explains the growth of the Ambedkarite movement in the UK, leading to the legislation against caste discrimination, which makes the UK the first Western country to enact such a legislation.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat. Courtesy: People's Bookshop

Vidya Bhushan Rawat. Courtesy: People’s Bookshop

The 22 interviewees include veteran Ambedkarites, editors, human rights activists, filmmakers and Dalit writers. There are two Ambedkarite activists from Nepal, including a leading member of the Communist Party of Nepal (ML), as well as a Chakma activist from Bangladesh and an African-American professor in the US.

There are interviews with three prominent UK-based Ambekarite activists of long standing – Arun Kumar, Santosh Dass and Bishan Dass Bains. Also included are Buddhist monk of Japanese descent, Bhadant Nagarjuna, one of the founders of the Dalit Panthers, Buddhist writer Raja Dhale and S.V. Rajadurai and V. Geetha, activist-scholars from Tamil Nadu.

Considering that all the interviewees are well versed with the writings of Ambedkar, the diversity of their kaleidoscopic views – often contradictory – is refreshing. They foster possibilities of learning from each other in a diverse society like India where no single perspective or solution can be a silver bullet for the emancipation of those at the margins.

Above all, Rawat, with his perceptive question that led the interviewees to open up their minds, shows that the middle path is not just a mid-point between extremes but can be a radical departure as the conversational Indian engages in a discussion. The conversational Indian, perhaps more than the “argumentative Indian” of the written word and certainly unlike the “trolling Indian” of social media, is driven by curiosity and concern for his or her fellow beings and an intelligent and respectful acceptance of divergent viewpoints.

Bhupinder Singh is a blogger at a reader’s words. Contesting Marginalisations can be ordered from the publisher (connect@peoplespublication.com)