01/09/2019 A Part That Parted

Friday, 30 Aug 2019 Money Business Traveller Hindi Search  Login | Signup
SUBSCRIBE

THE FULLY LOADED MAGAZINE

Magazine  India Cricket Opinion Videos Photos World Entertainment Business Society Subscription Poshan Archives CSR

Home »  Magazine »  National »  A Part That Parted

A Part That Parted

Gandhi and Ambedkar feuded over how they saw untouchability, one as just a sin of Hinduism, the other as the denial of
rights to an oppressed people

GAIL OMVEDT 20 AUGUST 2012

 Facebook  Twitter  Google +  Linkedin  Whatsapp  Comments

Mail Print AAA INCREASE TEXT SIZE

T he confrontation between Ambedkar and Gandhi was a historic one. It had its beginnings in the Round Table Conferences of 1930-32.
Ambedkar had gone for the first, as the prime representative of Dalits, or Untouchables. But when Gandhi finally decided to attend the second
conference, he argued fervently that he represented the Untouchables, because they were an integral part of the Hindu fold—which he
represented. To Ambedkar, the Untouchables were not a part of the Hindus but “a part apart” (a phrase he had once applied to himself), a
uniquely oppressed people. They could accept, even welcome, the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by the Congress (i.e. by
caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards”.

Ambedkar had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient. But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues
at the conference revolved around separate electorates. Gandhi was reconciled to giving this to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity
as a separate community. Not so for Dalits. When the Ramsay MacDonald Award gave separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast unto
death. And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar.

For Ambedkar, the problem was simple. If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms against the Dalits. They would be
massacred. Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalised this with reserved seats for Dalits—more than they would have had otherwise,
but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.

Ambedkar wrote, many years later, in What Congress and Gandhi have Done to the Untouchables: “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul
and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless
people to give up the constitutional safeguards (which had been awarded to them).” He felt the whole system of reserved seats, then, was useless.
For years afterwards, the problem of political representation remained chronic. Ambedkar continued to ask for separate electorates, but futilely.
By the end of his life, at the time of writing his Thoughts on Linguistic States in 1953, he gave these up also and looked to something like
proportional representation. But the Poona Pact remained a symbol of bitter defeat, and Gandhi from that time on was looked on as one of the
strongest enemies of the Untouchables by Ambedkar and his followers.

The Dalits saw the Following the fast, Gandhi formed what he called the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Here again, crucial differences arose.
Harijan Sevak Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organisation which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits—entry into

Sangh “as a foreign public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties—and he wanted it under the control of the Dalits themselves.
Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic
Amid Despairorganisation,
And controlled by
Twocaste Hindus
Weeks After working for the “uplift” of
body Like
set 1.2M
up by theFollow 206K followers Anger, NRC Joining BJP,
Untouchables. This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism—but not a basic part
Proponents Are Most 'Humiliated' Ex-Kolkata
of Hinduism, rather a flaw in itDisgruntled
which could be removed; upper-caste
In Assam Hindus
Mayor should atone for this, make recompense,
Sovan

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/a-part-that-parted/281929 1/2
01/09/2019 A Part That Parted

Hindus with some and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the Dalits. This included programmes of going to clean up slums,
SUBSCRIBE
ulterior motive”. preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth. For Ambedkar, all of this was worse than useless. He
condemned the Harijan Sevak Sangh in strong language: “The work of the Sangh is of the most inconsequential kind.
It does not catch anyone’s imagination. It neglects most urgent purposes for which the Untouchables need help and
assistance. The Sangh rigorously excludes the Untouchables from its management. The Untouchables are no more than beggars, mere recipients
of charity.” He concluded that the Untouchables see the Sangh “as a foreign body set up by the Hindus with some ulterior motive...the whole
object is to create a slave mentality among the Untouchables towards their Hindu masters”. This, to Ambedkar, was the major thrust of
paternalism.

This debate on the Sangh had as its background a fundamental difference in the very goals of Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar stood for the
annihilation of caste. He saw untouchability as a fundamental result of it, and believed there could be no alleviation, no uplift, no relief without
the abolition of caste. Gandhi was not simply a devoted Hindu, but also a fervent believer in his idealised version of “varnashrama dharma”. He
felt that what he considered to be the benign aspects of caste—its encouragement of a certain solidarity—could be maintained while removing
hierarchy and the evil of untouchability. This was in fact the essence of his reformism.

This was followed by a conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi over religion. Ambedkar had by now become thoroughly disillusioned with
Hinduism. He argued for conversion, and in 1936 made the historic announcement at Yeola that “I was born a Hindu and have suffered the
consequences of untouchability. I will not die a Hindu”. Two days later, Gandhi held a press conference, calling Ambedkar’s decision
“unbelievable. Religion is not like a house or cloak which can be changed at will”. On August 22, 1936, he wrote in the Harijan (the name given to
his newspaper): “One may hope we have seen the last of any bargaining between Dr Ambedkar and savarnas for the transfer to another form of
several million dumb Harijans as if they were chattel.” This way of speaking became typical of him; he could not envisage the anger and grief of
the millions of Dalits who followed Ambedkar on this issue.

B ehind this were different views of humanity. Gandhi did not see untouchables as individuals born into a particular community but rather as
somewhat unthinking members of an existing Hindu community; Hinduism he saw as their “natural” religion, their task was to reform it, they
should not leave it. Ambedkar, in contrast, put the individual and his/her development at the centre of his vision, and believed this development
was impossible without a new, true religion. The confrontation was inevitable.

The feud between Gandhi and Ambedkar did not stop here. The final difference was over India’s path of development itself. Gandhi believed, and
argued for, a village-centred model of development, one which would forsake any hard path of industrialism but seek to achieve what he called
“Ram rajya”, an idealised, harmonised traditional village community. Ambedkar, in contrast, wanted economic development and with it
industrialisation as the basic prerequisite for the abolition of poverty. He insisted always that it should be worker-friendly, not capitalistic, at
times arguing for “state socialism” (though he later accepted some forms of private ownership of industry). He remained, basically, to the end of
his life a democratic socialist. To him, villages were far from being an ideal; rather they were “cesspools”, a cauldron of backwardness, tradition
and bondage. Untouchables had to escape from the villages, and India also had to reject its village past.

In sum, there were important, irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Two great personages of Indian history, posed against
one another, giving alternative models of humanity and society. The debate goes on!

(Gail Omvedt is a veteran chronicler of the Dalit movement.)

 Facebook  Twitter  Google +  Linkedin  Whatsapp  Comments

READ MORE IN:

GAIL OMVEDT B.R. AMBEDKAR M.K. GANDHI NATIONAL ESSAYS

NEXT STORY : THE OTHER FATHER

DOWNLOAD THE OUTLOOK MAGAZINES APP. SIX MAGAZINES, WHEREVER YOU GO! PLAY STORE AND APP STORE

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/a-part-that-parted/281929 2/2