(This is the first part of a two-part article. Second part will be coming soon.)
“...Turn in
any direction you like, caste is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot
have political reform, you cannot have economic reform, unless you kill this
monster.”
-
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Introduction
Some of the profound issues of caste discrimination were
raised for the first time by Dr. Ambedkar in his undelivered presidential
speech “Annihilation of Caste”. The speech was prepared for the
annual conference of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, a society for abolition of caste
system, at Lahore. Prior to the date of the conference, Dr. Ambedkar wrote the
speech and sent it to the anti-caste organization to enable them to print and
distribute the same. The Mandal insisted on deletion of some passages of the
speech, however, Dr. Ambedker declared that he "would not alter a comma”.
The conference was withdrawn owing to the “unbearable” views
expressed in the speech. In
May 1936 Dr. Ambedkar self-published and distributed 1,500 copies of the
text. The second edition includes a preface; a prologue, including the
correspondence between him and the Mandal; and two appendices, which includes Mahatma
Gandhi's review, “A Vindication of Caste” and Dr. Ambedkar's reply to Mahatma Gandhi.
Though the unprecedented speech is known to have some content
which may be considered to be controversial, it
has made its place in history books for its conceptual clarity and political insight. Many consider the
Annihilation of Caste to be Dr. Ambedkar’s magnum opus.
It is believed that when Saheb Kanshiram first read
the text, he read it three times in the same night. There is also a myth taht
after reading the text, the first thing he did was tbeat himself with his own
shoe out of the aggravation of being ignorant and inactive about the condition
of the Dalits in India.
Achieving
True Equality
In the speech, Dr. Ambedkar
revealed in one of the letters contained the prologue his view that “the real
method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners
and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste
was founded”.
In the speech he goes on to explain that these
religious notions are the traditional Hindu notion of caste and untouchability,
which was forcefully codified in the Smritis such as the Manu Smriti. According
to Dr. Ambedkar the notorious
Manusmriti stood as an obstacle towards abolition of untouchability, since its
contents were offensive to the lower
castes, suggesting that they must be given inferior treatment. Therefore,
Dr. Ambedkar publically burnt the Manusmriti during the
"Maha-Sangharsha" of Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 for asserting the right
of untouchables to drink water from the Chawdar tank in Mahad town in
Maharashtra, a freedom which even animals in the town were allowed. The event
marks an important day in the history of the Dalit struggle against untouchability.
Dr. Ambedkar submitted that Hinduism is a religion of
rules, in which hierarchy based on “purity” and untouchability is an inherent
characteristic. Thus caste system was incapable of any significant
transformation. Dr. Ambedkar understood that any steps taken for the
upliftment of the backward castes was futile and in order to achieve true
equality the caste system must be abolished in its entirety. The only way
to rid the evils of the caste system was not by altering it or bending the
regulations forming it, but by rooting it out completely. This was one of the
primary grounds for opposing Mahatma Gandhi's reformative outlooks.
Hinduism and
Caste System Inseparable
Dr. Ambedkar states that political and economic reform
Dr. Ambedkar's, in the ‘Annihilation of Caste’, argues that, caste is incapable
of reformation since untouchability is a inseparable characteristic of the
caste system. Furthermore, any simple reformation which may be possible, is not
of much use, therefore, only total annihilation must be sought.
The term ‘annihilation of caste’ refers to elimination
of the Hindu ideology, especially those provided in the Shastras and Smritis. Today,
these Hindu ideologies which relate to caste are of little significance. Most
believe that the part of these texts which promote caste discrimination and
untouchability are out dated and not relevant to modern times.
Flexibility
of Law vs. Rigidness of Religion
The reality of discrimination against lower castes can
be dealt with through a combination of focusing on specific aspects of
caste-based discrimination, the strategy that emerged in Bhopal, and overall
attack on the belief structure that supports caste. Despite its longetivity,
caste is susceptible to change.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote that what the Hindus refer to as religion is in fact Law or at the very
least legalized class-ethics. Thus, Hinduism is should be rightly referred to
as ‘law’. “Once you clear the minds
of the people of this misconception and enable them to realize that what they
are told as Religion is not Religion but that it is really Law, you will be in
a position to urge for its amendment or abolition. So long as people look upon
it as Religion they will not be ready for a change, because the idea of
Religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But 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, old and archaic, they will be ready
for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed.”
Caste
as a Division of labourers
Dr. Ambedkar rightly recognized caste as
division of labourers and not merely a division of labour. Dr. Ambedkar pointed
out that the gradation of labourers as was existent in India at the time, was
unique. While division of labour was deliberate and was based on one's choice
and abilities and skill, division of labourers implied a compulsory element.
Dr. Ambedkar argued that division of labourers created by caste led to
inefficiency since neither one’s heart nor one’s mind would be in their work
and since it would persistently provoke one to aversion, ill will and the
desire to evade.
Difference
between Dr. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi’s views
Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar, both had the best interest of the backward
castes in mind, however, their means and final objective were somewhat
contrasting. To call Dr. Ambedkar an extremist in comparison to Mahatma Gandhi,
with reference to their approach to the issue of caste discrimination, would
only be an over simplification of the distinction between their respective
methodologies.
While the Mahatma focused on upliftment of lower castes and abolishing
untouchability, Dr. Ambedkar preached total obliteration of the caste system.
Gandhiji sought to preserve the Varna vyavastha which he submitted was distinct
from the caste system. However, this distinction was very faint and not easy to
grasp. Contrary to this view was that of Dr. Ambedkar’s, who was convinced that
the potency of the caste system was attributed to the Vedas and Shashtras and
therefore the the Vedas and Shastras must be destroyed since the caste system
is impregnable and cannot be broken off from the Shastras. Gandhiji aimed at
changing the mental attitude of the higher castes, thereby changing the way
they treated the backward castes. Dr. Ambedkar was more focused on a strict legislation
to ensure prohibition of inequality based on caste.
Dr. Ambedkar's assessment of Hinduism
was so blunt that the Mahatma, described Dr. Ambedkar as a “challenge to
Hinduism”. Dr. Ambedkar did not shift from his stand.
Dr. Ambedkar favoured neither
socialism nor communism. The socialists of India were merely imitating their counter-parts
in Europe and were applying the economic interpretation of history to the India
scenario. In Annihilation of Caste, Dr. Ambedkar states that the fallacy of the
Socialists is that they assumed that since in the European society property was
considered a principal source of power, the same would also be true in India or
the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status and property
are all sources of power and authority, of which any one is the principal
source of power at some stage and the other is the principal source of power at
another.
Dr. Ambedkar also intensely
criticized the communists for their rigid approach to caste in treating it as
the superstructure and stated that unless they dealt with caste as a basic
structural problem, no worthwhile social change, let alone a socialist
revolution, was possible.[1]
It is respectfully submitted that the Mahatma’s approach was too
dependent on the inner goodness of the upper castes. Thus, even in the issue of
caste his ideologies are criticized ,as they have been for so many other
issues, as being too idealistic. No doubt a change in mindset of the people has
more far reaching benefits in comparison to mere changes in law. Change in
society stemming from change in the society’s attitude and not due to an
obligation under law, is more favourable. But at the time a more realistic and
practicable solution was needed. It is also a possibility that after the
Mahatma’s objectives were realized, the society would one day relapse to its then
condition.
Dr. Ambedkar stressed on the requirement of a legal remedy to the social
evil. It was in the course of his search for this remedy that he took a huge
step forward and proposed elimination of the Hindu religion as a solution.
Though it may appear to be a drastic step, what the Doctor sought was to change
the rules and regulations that have been governing the Hindu religion for centuries.
Thus, according to him there was no difference between legal reform and
religious reform with regard to Hinduism since, as discussed earlier, he was of
the opinion that even Hinduism was a religion of rules.
Dr. Ambedkar also believed that
political empowerment was essential to the social advancement of the Dalits.
Therefore, he insisted on a separate electorate for “untouchables” in the
Second Round Table Conference in 1932. When the British agreed to Dr.
Ambedkar’s demand, Mahatma Gandhi started his famous fast unto death in
Yerawada prison. Dr. Ambedkar faced pressure from all sides to quit his demand
for a separate electorate since Gandhiji’s life hung at the balance. Dr. Ambedkar
was forced to consent to having a Joint Electorate with reserved seats in legislatures
for “untouchables”.
(This is the first part of a two-part article. Second part will be coming soon.)
[1] Bhalchandra Mungekar, ‘Annihilating Caste’, Frontline Magazine, Volume 28 - Issue 15
(July 16th - 29th, 2011), available at
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2815/stories/20110729281509500.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment