THE MAN
·
Ambedkar was exposed to
the sheer brutality of the caste system even when he was a child. In an undated
autobiographical note, he described what he had to endure during a family trip.
Even when he later came back from the US to take a job in the Baroda
government, Ambedkar found it hard to get accommodation in the city.
·
“As is usual among the
Hindus, the station-master asked us who we were. Without a moment’s thought I
blurted out that we were Mahars. He was stunned. His face underwent a sudden
change. We could see that he was overpowered by a strange feeling of repulsion.
As soon as he heard my reply he went away to his room, and we stood where we
were. Fifteen to twenty minutes elapsed; the sun was almost setting. Our father
had not turned up, nor had he sent his servant; and now the station-master had
also left us. We were quite bewildered, and the joy and happiness which we had
felt at the beginning of the journey gave way to a feeling of extreme sadness.
·
After half an hour, the
station-master returned and asked us what we proposed to do. We said that if we
could get a bullock-carton hire, we would go to Koregaon; and if it was not
very far, we would like to start straightway. There were many bullock-carts
plying for hire. But my reply to the station-master that we were Mahars had
gone round among the cartmen, and not one of them was prepared to suffer being
polluted, and to demean himself carrying passengers of the untouchable classes.
We were prepared to pay double the fare, but we found that money did not work.
·
The station-master who
was negotiating on our behalf stood silent, not knowing what to do. Suddenly a
thought seemed to have entered his head and he asked us, “Can you drive the
cart?” Feeling that he was finding out a solution of our difficulty, we
shouted, “Yes, we can.” With that answer he went and proposed on our behalf
that we were to pay the cartman double the fare and drive the cart, and that he
should walk on foot along with the cart on our journey. One cartman agreed,
since it gave him an opportunity to earn his fare and also saved him from being
polluted.
·
It was about 6:30pm when
we were ready to start. But we were anxious not to leave the station until we
were assured that we would reach Koregaon before it was dark. We therefore
questioned the cartman about the distance, and the time he would take to reach
Koregaon. He assured us that it would be not more than three hours. Believing
in his word, we put our luggage in the cart, thanked the station-master, and
got into the cart. One of us took the reins and the cart started, with the man
walking by our side.
·
Not very far from the
station there flowed a river. It was quite dry, except at places where there
were small pools of water. The owner of the cart proposed that we should halt
there and have our meal, as we might not get water on our way. We agreed. He
asked us to give a part of his fare to enable him to go to the village and have
his meal. My brother gave him some money and he left, promising to return soon.
We were very hungry, and were glad to have had an opportunity to have a bite...
We opened the tiffin basket and started eating.”
·
We needed water to wash
things down. One of us went to the pool of water in the river basin nearby. But
the water really was no water. It was thick with mud and urine and excreta of
the cows and buffaloes and other cattle who went to the pool for drinking. In
fact that water was not intended for human use. At any rate the stink of the
water was so strong we could not drink it. We had therefore to close our meal
before we were satisfied, and wait for the arrival of the cartman…
·
“On his advice I went to
the toll-collector’s hut and asked him if he would give us some water. ‘Who are
you?’ he inquired. I replied that we were Musalmans. I conversed with him in
Urdu (which I knew very well), so as to leave no doubt that I was a real
Musalman. But the trick did not work and his reply was very curt. ‘Who has kept
water for you? There is water on the hill, if you want to go and get it; I have
none.’ With this he dismissed me. I returned to the cart, and conveyed to my
brother his reply. I don’t know what my brother felt. All that he did was to
tell us to lie down.
·
The bullocks had been
unyoked, and the cart was placed sloping down on the ground. We spread our beds
on the bottom planks inside the cart, and laid down our bodies to rest. Now
that we had come to a place of safety we did not mind what happened. But our
minds could not help turning to the latest event. There was plenty of food with
us. There was hunger burning within us; with all this we were to sleep without
food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because
we were untouchables.”
-From an autobiographical
note, circa 1934
THE SOCIAL REFORMER
The most important
battles Ambedkar fought were for the rights of his people. The treatment given
to untouchables angered him. He attacked Hindu society for what it had done to
the untouchables, but also told social reformers from the upper castes that
caste could not be annihilated unless the old religious texts themselves are
questioned. If Ambedkar was critical of Hindu society, he was perhaps even more
critical of Muslim society, especially its regressive politics and its
treatment of women.
·
“You are right in holding
that Caste will cease to be an operative farce only when inter-dining and
inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located the
source of the disease. But is your prescription the right prescription for the
disease? Ask yourselves this question; Why is it that a large majority of
Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry? Why is it that your cause is
not popular? There can be only one answer to this question and it is that
inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which
the Hindus regard as sacred. Caste is not a physical object like a wall of
bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from co-mingling and
which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion, it is a state of
the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a
physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may be bad. Caste may lead
to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity to man. All the same, it
must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman
or wrong-headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People
are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion,
which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously
the enemy, you must grapple with is not the people who observe Caste, but the
Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste.”
·
—From the Annihilation of
Caste, 1936
“There can thus be no
manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same
social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the
social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the
compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women.
·
These burka women walking
in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such
seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical
constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis
and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones
protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones
ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this
pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives
Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment…
·
The existence of these
evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the
fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans
of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus
have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely,
that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are
actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not
realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal.
Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.
·
—From Pakistan, or the
Partition of India
THE ECONOMIST
· Ambedkar was a trained
economist with two PhD degrees. As in most other aspects of life, Ambedkar was
an uncompromising modernist in economic matters. He believed that the
industrialization of India was the best antidote to rural poverty. The first
excerpt is from one of his first academic publications as an economist and the
second is from the manifesto he drafted for the Independent Labour Party.
·
“In short, strange as it
may seem, industrialisation of India is the soundest remedy for the
agricultural problems of India. The cumulative effects of industrialisation,
namely a lessening pressure (of surplus labour) and an increasing amount of
capital and capital goods will forcibly create the economic necessity of
enlarging the holding. Not only this, but industrialisation, by destroying the
premium on land, will give rise to few occasions for its sub-division and
fragmentation. Industrialisation is a natural and powerful remedy…”
·
—From Small Holdings in
India and their Remedies, 1918
·
“The party believes that
the fragmentation of holdings and the consequent poverty of the agriculturists
are mainly due to the pressure of population on the land, and unless the
pressure is relieved by draining off the excess population subsisting on land,
fragmentation will continue, and the condition of the agriculturists will remain
as poverty-stricken as it is today. In the opinion of the party, the principal
means of helping the agriculturists and making agriculture more productive
consists in the industrialisation of the province. The party will, therefore,
endeavour to rehabilitate old industries and promote such new industries as the
natural resources of the provinces will permit… The party accepts the principle
of state management and state ownership of industry, whenever it may become
necessary in the interests of the people.”
—From the programme of
the Independent Labour Party, 1936
THE POLITICAL THINKER
·
Ambedkar was a political liberal who believed in
the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. But he also warned that
political democracy would be at risk if the underlying society remains unequal
or if Indians did not embrace what he described as constitutional morality.
·
“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in
form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we
must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and
economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.
It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation
and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for
achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of
justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods
are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods.
These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are
abandoned, the better for us.”
·
The second thing we must do is to observe the
caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the
maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of
even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their
institutions”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have
rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to
gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connell, no
man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the
cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.
This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any
other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion
or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the
part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in
religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or
hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
·
The third thing we must do is not to be content
with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social
democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the
base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of
life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of
life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be
treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the
sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of
democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be
divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from
fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few
over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative.
Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the
many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without
fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.
It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging
the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of
these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the
principle of graded inequality in which there are some who have immense wealth
as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are
going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality
and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be
recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our
social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic
structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall
we continue to live this life of contradictions?”
—From a speech in the Constituent Assembly, 1949
·
“I would not be surprised if some of you have
grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has
produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive
side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a
question that is bound to be asked of you? If you ask me, my ideal would be a
society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not? What objection
can there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be
mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one
part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests
consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of
contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social
endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy.
Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an
attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow men.”
—From the Annihilation of Caste
·
“My social philosophy may be said to be
enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however,
say that I have borrowed by philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not.
My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have
derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha. In his philosophy,
liberty and equality had a place; but he added that unlimited liberty destroyed
equality, and absolute equality left no room for liberty. In his philosophy,
law had a place only as a safeguard against the breaches of liberty or
equality; but he did not believe that law can be a guarantee for breaches of
liberty or equality. He gave the highest place to fraternity as the only real
safeguard against the denial of liberty or equality — fraternity which was
another name for brotherhood or humanity, which was again another name for
religion.”
From an address to All India Radio, 1954
THE CRITIC OF GANDHI
· Ambedkar was an unsparing critic of M.K. Gandhi.
He ended a book on whether India should be a federation or a unitary state with
an acerbic comparison between what he called the Age of Ranade and the Age of
Gandhi. Some of his warnings remain relevant even today.
·
“We are standing today at the point of time
where the old age ends and the new begins. The old age was the age of Ranade,
Agarkar, Tilak, Gokhale, Wachha, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Bannerjee.
The new age is the age of Mr. Gandhi and this generation is said to be Gandhi
generation. As one who knows something of the old age and also something of the
new I see some very definite marks of difference between the two. The type of
leadership has undergone a profound change. In the age of Ranade the leaders
struggled to modernize India. In the age of Gandhi the leaders are making her a
living specimen of antiquity. In the age of Ranade leaders depended upon
experience as a corrective method to their thoughts and their deeds. The
leaders of the present age depend upon their inner voice as their guide. Not
only is there a difference in their mental make up there is a difference even
in their viewpoint regarding external appearance. The leaders of the old age
took care to be well clad while the leaders of the present age take pride in
being half clad. The leaders of the Gandhi age are of course aware of these
differences. But far from blushing for their views and. their appearance they
claim that the India of Gandhi is superior to India of Ranade.
·
They say that the age of Mr. Gandhi is an
agitated and an expectant age, which the age of Mr. Ranade was not.
·
Those who have lived both in the age of Ranade
and the age of Gandhi will admit that there is this difference between the two.
At the same time they will be able to insist that if the India of Ranade was
less agitated it was more honest and that if it was less expectant it was more
enlightened. The age of Ranade was an age in which men and women did engage
themselves seriously in studying and examining the facts of their life, and
what is more important is that in the face of the opposition of the orthodox
mass they tried to mould their lives and their character in accordance with the
light they found as a result of their research. In the age of Ranade there was
not the same divorce between a politician and a student which one sees in the
Gandhi age. In the age of Ranade a politician, who was not a student, was
treated as an intolerable nuisance, if not a danger. In the age of Mr. Gandhi
learning, if it is not despised, is certainly not deemed to be a necessary
qualification of a politician.
·
To my mind there is no doubt that this Gandhi
age is the dark age of India. It is an age in which people instead of looking
for their ideals in the future are returning to antiquity. It is an age in
which people have ceased to think for themselves and as they have ceased to
think they have ceased to read and examine the facts of their lives. The fate
of an ignorant democracy which refuses to follow the way shown by learning and
experience and chooses to grope in the dark paths of the mystics and the
megalomaniacs is a sad thing to contemplate.”
Whatever I may deduce, Babsaheb a person with golden heart may never ever in dreams also thought that his successors will use his name and will play with his words to remain in power,will do vote bank politcs and will increase hatred among caste by increasing reservation every year or include more caste to get more votes. Sorry to say, all of the parties who, today are fighting for taking legacy of Babasaheb are in fact busy in justifying their actions of creating division between The Rich (Burjous) & The Poors(Worker) which never ever had been accepted by Ambedkar itself.
