1

Ambedkar’sAgonism,SovereignViolenceandPakistanasPeace

ShrutiKapila(UniversityofCambridge)

OnDecember16,1946,inhisinitialresponsetoJawaharlal’sNehru’sfamous

ObjectivesResolutionthathaddeclaredIndiaasovereignrepublic,B.R.

AmbedkarfoundtheprospectiveclaimonIndia’sfutureformas

‘uncontroversial’if‘disappointing’.AskedtorespondtoitbyRajendraPrasad

whowaschairingthefreshlyformedConstituentAssembly,Ambedkar

recognizedNehru’sproclamationasakintotheDeclarationofRightsofthe

FrenchConstitutionasitfocusedon‘rights’totheexclusionof‘remedies’and

choseinreturntoinvokeandcitetheFrenchrevolution’sfiercestcriticandthe

figureheadofBritishconservatism,EdmundBurke.Piratingfiguresfromthe

canonofmodernpoliticseitherasevidence,cautionorforinsightintothefuture

politicalformationofIndiahadbeenoneofthestrikingsignaturesof

Ambedkar’swide-rangingwritings.Thiswasnot,however,toseekthe

preservationofanoldorderoreventorightremediesthatheindeedinstituted

bydraftingtheIndianconstitution.ButbyinvokingBurke,Ambedkaralertedto

thedangersofwarandviolenceinitsforceandabilitytodegrade,wasteand

evenconsumetheveryobjectofcontest.DrawingattentiontotheMuslim

League’sabsencefromtheAssembly,Ambedkarclarifiedthatthestakesof

HinduandMuslimrelationsportendedwarandpeacewithapotentialof

perpetualwarthatcouldrendertheobjectofrecovery–namelyIndia–

becomingentirelyconsumedbyviolence.Ambedkarconcludedhisshort

interventionbywarninghisassembledpoliticalpeersoftheirownfantasies,

IfthereisanybodywhohasinmindtheprojectofsolvingtheHindu-

Muslimproblembyforce,whichisanothernameofsolvingitbywar,in

orderthattheMuslimsmaybesubjugatedandmadetosurrendertothe

Constitutionthatmightbepreparedwithouttheirconsent,thiscountry

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Apollo

2

wouldbeinvolvedinperpetuallyconqueringthem.Thisconquestwould

notbeonceandforever.1

Whilehiswarningwasmetwithsilenceonthatoccasion,Ambedkar’sviews

oughttohavebeenfamiliargiventhatonlyafewyearspriortothisAssembly

andin1940hehadpublishedhisdisquisitionontheprospectofPakistan.The

reactionintheAssemblyconformedtothereceptionofthisearlierexplicationof

hisideasonPakistan.InthesecondeditionofPakistanorthePartitionofIndia,

publishedin1945,Ambedkarreprisedwhatwasbyhisownadmissionthe

‘singular’natureofhisenterprise.InthesecondeditionofhisPakistanorthe

PartitionofIndia,publishedin1945,Ambedkarreprisedwhatwasbyhisown

admissionthe‘singular’natureofhisenterprise.Hisbookwas‘disownedbythe

HindusandunownedbytheMuslims’,whichonlyemboldenedhisclaimtonon-

partisanshipregardingaviscerallydivisiveideaandhistory.2

Althoughmuchbelated,Ambedkar’sbookontheideaofPakistanistoday

enjoyinganewkindofattention.Aboveall,thebookstands,asdemonstratedin

FaisalDevji’sMuslimZion,asatestamenttothetriangulatedhistoryofthe

formationofPakistaninthatitwasconditionedbythecastequestioninasmuch

asbytheinternationalizationoftheminority,thusrefreshinglyenablingthe

understandingoftheformationofPakistanasanideathatcannotbeexhausted

byorfullyequatedwiththequestionofreligion.3Forthemoreliteralminded,it

continuestobemarshaled–-muchasitwasinthedefiningdecadeofitsinitial

publication--asevidencethatfunctionsasproofinalawyer’scaseprosecuted

bythehistorianfororagainstpartition.4

1B.R.AmbedkarintheConstituentAssemblyofIndiaDebates,Vol.1(16December1946),accessedonlineat:http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol1p6.htm.OnJawaharlalNehru,seePurushotham,‘WorldHistoryintheAtomicAge’.OnAmbedkarandcaste,seeRao,TheCasteQuestion,andonhispoliticalideasespeciallyonequalityKumar,RadicalEqualityandCháirez-Garza,‘TouchingSpace’,tociteselectivelyfromagrowingbodyofworks.OnthecontextandcausesofAmbedkar’smembershipoftheAssemblyseeBandyopadhyay,‘OrchestratingaSignalVictory’. 2Ambedkar,PakistanorthePartitionofIndia;Mood(ed.),Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarWritingsandSpeeches[hereafterBAWS],Vol.8,2.3Devji,MuslimZion.4Dhulipalia,CreatingANewMedina,123-93.

3

InfocusingprimarilyonAmbedkar,thisarticlewillreconstructand

interprettheworkofhostilityandantagonismthatwascentraltohispolitical

thoughtandwritings.Asathinker,Ambedkarremainedsingularintaking

accountofthefullandpotentialmeasureofviolencepredominantlyincaste

relationsbutbeyondinthecomparativecontextsofrevolutionsandformations

ofnation-statesinthemodernworld.AsIhaveelaboratedelsewhere,

Ambedkar’sideaofthepoliticalradicallyappraisedthequestionofsocial

antagonismandconvertedinherenthostilityandthepotentialityofviolenceinto

institutionalisedcompetition,thusconvertingantagonistsintoadversaries.5In

thissenseandinshort,Ambedkar’sideaofthepoliticalconvertedantagonism

intoagonism,acentralthemeofthisarticle.Thepoliticalherereferstothe

considerationandthedomainofpower,conflictandantagonismratherthanto

eithertheinstitutionalmanagementorrepresentationof‘interests’commonly

understoodas‘politics’orevenasthedomainofdeliberationandfreedom

associatedwithawiderangeoftraditionsfromclassicalliberalismtoHannah

Arendt.6

Strikingly,Ambedkar’sbookonPakistanrecognisedsuchadistinction

betweenthepoliticalandpolitics.Atoneregister,itdocumentedthedetailof

contentionsthathavegonedowninhistoryandhistoriographyas‘bargaining

counters’betweendominantprotagonistsandpartiesrangingfromapieceof

territorytoinstitutionalmechanicsandrepresentation.Suffusedasthesewere

withtheinstrumentalityofinterest,andevenasAmbedkarassiduouslyrecorded

thecontentiousviewsandissuesofallparties,herightlyassertedthatthebook

wasnotsimply‘theX,Y,ZofPakistan.’Inarelatedregister,Ambedkar’sbook

soughttoprovideananalyticalandconceptualframeworkfortheissueof

Muslimnationalityinrelationtothepoliticalwiththesub-titleofthebookThe

IndianPoliticalWhat’sWhatindeedbetrayingitsintentionsinasmanywords.In

hisownwordsthenthe‘analyticalpresentation’ofthebookintended‘toexplain

theA,B,CofPakistan.’7Thefollowingdiscussionwillengageprimarilywiththe

5Kapila,‘GlobalIntellectualHistoryandtheIndianPolitical’.6Mouffe,OnthePolitical.ButseeLukes,Powerthatintegratespowerwithdeliberationoraimstostitchtheregistersofthepoliticalwithpolitics.7Ambedkar,Pakistan,2.

4

secondaspectelaboratingthehorizonsofhostility,thepotentialityofwarand

thepromiseofPakistanaspeace.8

Ambedkarwasapreeminentnonviolentthinkerpreciselybecausehe

understoodthefullmeasure,potentialandconsequencesofviolence.Crucially,

unlikehisglobalandhistoricalinterlocutorswhetheritwasconstitutional

expertsorKarlMarx,thenationbecametheidentifiedcontainerofthepolitical

intheformofanagnonisticandradicaldemocracy.Asopposedto

cosmopolitanismforwhich‘humanity’isthebasisofpoliticalethicsand

universalhorizon,fordemocracy‘thepeople’orpopularsovereigntyremainsthe

basicunitofpolitics.Ambedkar’sagonismwasconstitutivelyelaboratedand

attachedtothequestionofnationalityinthiscrucialsenseratherthantoany

universalisticframeworkorhumanrightsandismostclearlyelaboratedinhis

bookonPakistaninasmuchasitwasbyhisdisquisitionsoncaste.Moreover,

unlikehispoliticalrivalMahtamaGandhi,Ambedkar’spoliticalvisionwasstaked

onthereproductivecapacityofpoliticalideasthroughaninstitutionaldesignin

whichthesubject--nationalanddalit--wasembeddedinpopularsovereignty.

Agonismortherecognitionofhostiledistinctionsasopposedtotheirviolent

eradicationorwillfulneglect,ineffectbecamethenonviolentconditionforthe

lifeoftheIndiannationanddemocracy.9

Whilecognizantofextantdiscussionsonagonisminrelationto

democracyandliberalism,thisessaydepartsfromthoseperspectivesinitsfocus

onmodernIndia.ForthemodernWest,thequestionofagonismhasre-emerged

afteritsinitialreckoningbyNietzschetodislodgethecoerciveemphasisof

consensusintheso-called‘postpolitical’eraofglobalizationandlate-capitalism,

enablingtherecognitionofdistinctionsandpromisingtorenewliberal

8Dhulipalia,CreatingaNewMedinadeploysAmbedkar’sbookpreciselyinthefirstregisterandtotheexclusionoftheconceptualstakesandelaborations,withoutwhichitisrenderedamererecordandassuperficialproofforpartition.9Mouffe,Agonistics;forrelateddiscussionsofagonismseeConnolly,Pluralism,andArendt,CrisesoftheRepublic.MyargumentisalsoinoppositiontomulticulturalismandequallyitsNehruvianrenditionofa‘unityindiversity’thatrecognizesbutrendersdistinctionstotheculturaldomain.ForthecontemporaryconsequencesofthisdebateandIndiandemocracyseeShrutiKapila,‘TheMajorityofDemocracy’,SocialText(Periscopedigitalissueon‘PoliticsunderModi’),February27,2015,https://socialtextjournal.org/periscope_article/the-majority-of-democracy/.

5

democracy.10Bycontrast,theconsiderationsofdistinction--especiallyintheir

potentialforandformsofantagonismandhostility--framedthepolitical

foundationsofIndia.Inshort,whetheritwasaGandhioranAmbedkarthe

considerationofviolenceinthecontextofdistinctionswhetherofcasteor

religionremainedpre-eminentandconstitutiveratherthanonethatemergedas

anafter-effectofahistoryofconsensus.Moreover,andsignificantly,thequestion

ofenmityorevenantagonismwasdefinedbyintimacyandfamiliarityrather

thantheexternalityofthecategoryoftheforeigner--howeverfabricatedor

invented--asthepotentialenemyoroppositionalfigurethathasanimated

modernpoliticalthoughtelsewhereandprimarilyinthemodernWest.11

Nevertheless,theresurrectionofthecontroversialworksandideasof

CarlSchmittonthedimensionsofthepoliticalinthecontemporaryappraisalof

bothdemocracyandCommunismonaglobalstageisundeniable.Toclarify,for

Schmittantagonismorientedthepoliticalhorizonthatwasstakedonthe

distinctionofthefriendandtheenemywiththepossibleandrealdestructionof

theenemyasitscondition.Whilethesalienceofantagonismforthepolitical

domainisintegratedbutthedeparturewithSchmittlieshereprimarilyasfor

himhomogeneityandunityarenotonlyinter-changeablebutarealsothe

ultimateendsoforderandsovereignty.HeconcludedhisfamousbookThe

ConceptofthePoliticalquotingVirgil’sverse‘abintegronasciturordo’(‘from

unity/integrity/homogeneityorderisborn’).12TheIndianpoliticalbyitsvery

conditionsofheterogeneityanddivisionmilitatedagainstthemountingof

sovereigntytowardsahomogenousendwhileretainingafocusonunity.

Ambedkar’sagonismbecameasalientpreceptandhiscritiqueofVinayak

Savarkar’sHindutvainthiscontext,discussedbelow,remainsinstructive.

PreciselybecauseAmbedkar’spoliticalthoughtwasanimatedbyquestionsof

antagonisminrelationtosovereigntyorevenunity,Pakistanandits

considerationprovedtobeinescapable.

10Honig,DemocracyandtheForeigner;Tully,StrangeMultiplicity;andTully,PublicPhilosophyinaNewKey,especiallyVolumeII.11Kapila,‘AHistoryofViolence’.12Schmitt,TheConceptofthePolitical,96.

6

ABelatedDiscoveryofSovereignty

Thedifferencecomestothis:acommunityhasarighttosafeguards,

anationhasarighttodemandseparation.13

B.R.Ambedkar

Ambedkar’sinterventionwasexemplaryinnotingthatPakistanwaspremised

onthepoweroftheideaitself;thisqualitymadeitnotonlyinevitablebutalso

chargedwithaforceofpersuasionthatcouldnotbecontainedbydiscountingit.

YethewaspreciseindatingtheideaofMuslimnationalitytotheveryrecent

past.Emphasizingthesomewhatbelated‘philosophicaljustification’for

Pakistan,Ambedkarnotedthattheimperialconstitutionalparleysofthe

interwarperiodthathadstructuredpoliticalsettlementsandrepresentationof

HindusandMuslimsinthelanguageof‘majority’and‘minority’couldnot,

however,exhaustletalonetakeafullaccountofthe‘politicalsentiment’of

Muslims.

Asiswellknown,initialifpiecemealrepresentationforIndiansinthe

openingdecadeofthetwentiethcenturyinstituted‘separateelectorates’for

HindusandMuslimsthatwereamplifiedinperiodicconstitutionaldiscussions

rangingfromthefuturenatureoffranchisetolocalbodygovernance.Itwas

however,theRoundTablediscussionsheldatthehighestimperialtablein1930-

32andinLondonwiththeBritishPrimeMinisterRamsayMacDonaldheavily

involvedthatbroughtthequestionoftheminoritytoaheadyifdivisivehead.14

Ambedkaratthatpointraisedthequestionoftheuntouchabletobeofficially

identifiedasa‘minority’inthemannerinwhichitbeendesignatedforMuslims.

ThisledtoGandhi’sopendebatewithAmbedkarwiththeMahatmadeclaringa

fastuntodeathuntilAmbedkardroppedthisdemandaltogether.Thisdefining

differencewasultimatelystakedontwoissues:theboundariesandendsofwhat

Hinduismmightbeandsecondly,whatmightbethebestmeasurestoaffectthe

endofuntouchability.Gandhiwonthenandanententebetweenthetwomen

wasestablishedthroughthePoonaPact(1932)withAmbedkardroppingthe

13Ambedkar,Pakistan,327.14Sarkar,ModernIndiaasocio-historicalaccountwrittenfromaMarxistperspectiveofnationalistpoliticsremainsamostexhaustiveaccount.

7

idea,atleastforthatmoment.Gandhi’swasapyrrhicvictory.By1950,

Ambedkarhadinstitutednotonlyradicalremediesoncastebutdecisivelyalso

provetobemoreinfluentialasbothathinkerofMuslimnationalitywhilealso

bequeathingtheinstitutionalarchitectureofIndiandemocracy.15

Theinterwarperiodmarkedhowever,asitwasalsobystrifeand

unprecedentedmajority-minoritytalkhadcruciallycausedabreachinMuslim

history.Their‘philosophical’discoveryofnationalsentimentshadirrevocably

transformedthepoliticallanguageoftheirself-understandingandintheir

interfacewithothers.

The‘nationalfeeling’prevalentamongMuslims,Ambedkarwrote,though

recentwasneverthelesssopowerfulthatMuslimswereaboveallnolonger

‘contenttocallthemselvesacommunity.’16The‘fundamentaldifference’

betweenthisconceptionofcommunityversusthatofnationalityasAmbedkar

identifiedwasthecategoryofthepeople,--popularorgeneralwillor

sovereigntyitself.Hitherto,heargued‘politicalphilosophers’hadbeensatisfied,

ifnotcomplacent,inrecognizing‘communities’asdifferentiatedbutintegralto

thepoliticalunitofthe‘governed’.Yetunderconditionsofdistress,

‘communities’,henoted,hadthenaturalrightto‘insurrection’butwerelimited

toasearchforchangesinthemodalitiesofgovernment.Thus,critically,

insurrectionsremainedinternaltoagivenpoliticaldispensation.

Underlyingthisdistinctionofarightto‘insurrection’towardsagiven

politicalorderanda‘disruption’orientedtowardsaseparationwasa

considerationofself-preservationasfundamentalto‘naturalrights’ratherthan

asamoralprinciplealone.ThoughAmbedkarinthiscontextwouldlengthilyand

approvinglycitetheBritishmoralphilosopherHenrySidgwick,hewas

neverthelesspointingtothelimitsofcoercionandforceinmaintainingunityand

underscoredthat‘disruption’orseparationeveninhistoricallyboundedunitsof

territoryheldtogetherunderevenpatrioticconditions,hadpotentialitiesfor

15Kapila,ViolentFraternity.16Ambedkar,Pakistan,37.

8

peaceifdestinieshadbecomedivergentsomuchsothatthe‘trueinterestsofthe

wholemaybepromotedbydisruption.’17

Moreover,aselaboratedbelow,Ambedkarwasequallyfixatedonthe

questionofviolencebothinthemaintenanceofsovereignorder–asithad

emergedinrelationtocaste–andinitsforcefordisorder,especiallyinrelation

toHinduandMuslimrelationsinthetwentiethcentury.Aspartofhis

understandingonnaturalrights,however,Ambedkarunderstoodthegenerative

powerofviolence.Iftoofew,inshort,hadmeanstoviolence,asinthecaseof

uppercasteBrahmins,itwouldmilitateagainsttheformationofand/ordestroy

thesocialorder.Conversely,iftherewaswidespreadviolence,thattoowould

destroythesocialorder,aconditionhedescribedatlengthasthestateofaffairs

betweenHindusandMuslimsininterwarIndiaandastestifiedbyhisfirst

interventiontotheConstituentAssemblyandwillbefurtherelaboratedbelow.

ThepointofemphasishereisthatAmbedkar,unlikenaturalrights

theoristssuchasHugoGrotiusandeventhearchfoundationalthinkerof

sovereigntyThomasHobbes,wasnotseekinganArchimedeanpointof

equilibriumonthequestionofviolence.18Instead,hewasmakingexplicitthe

altogetherradicalpotentialfordiscoveringandinstitutingsovereigntyanewand

brookednosqueamishnesstowardseitherthequestionofseparationorindeed

violence.Insuchaperspective,Ambedkarislessamenabletobecastoutasa

‘communitarianliberal’oraproponentof‘grouprights’.19Instead,hecanmore

accuratelybeapproachedandunderstoodasathinkerofmodernsovereignty.

ForAmbedkar,onlythe‘nation’hasthe‘righttodisruption’and

‘secession’,heargued,whichwentfarbeyondanyrighttoinsurrection.This

distinction,whilebeing‘fundamental’,couldonlybedeterminedonthebasisof

‘ultimatedestiny’orgoals.Itisinthisvein,Ambedkarconcluded,thatboth

‘prudenceandethicsdemandsthatbondsshallbedissolved’,sothatthe

potentialitiesare‘freed’insuchamannersoasto‘pursueits[own]destinies.’

Thenation,asopposedtocommunity,Ambedkarrealized,wasthecrucibleofthe

17Ambedkar,Pakistan,327,citingHenrySidgwick’sElementsofPolitics[1929],648-49.18Tuck,TheSleepingSovereign;Strauss,ThePoliticalPhilosophyofHobbes;andSkinner,‘HobbesonSovereignty’.19Bayly,RecoveringLiberties;andBajpai,DebatingDifference.

9

ideaofthepeople,ormorepreciselyitwasthenationthatconverted‘thepeople’

intoapoliticalcategoryanddislodgeditfrom‘community’.Thistransformation

wascategorically–accordingtohimandasrecognizedlaterbyhistoriansof

nationalism–theworkofimagination.

AmbedkarnotedadistinctanticipatoryresolutenessinMuslimpolitical

thoughtonthequestionofPakistan.Notingsurpriseandevenperplexitythat

Muslimleadership‘didnotpressforPakistan’attheRoundTablenegotiations

betweenempireandits‘minorities’in1930,heneverthelessapprehendedthe

interwarperiodasthedefiningmomentofdepartureinMuslimpolitical

aspirations.20Whetheritwastheofficialdesignationofmajority-minorityorthe

statusofIndianMuslimsasa‘community’,neitherofthese,accordingto

Ambedkar,couldexhaustthewilltoapoliticalanddistinctentitythat,however

belatedithadneverthelessbecomesalient.Inafurthernotethatwasnot

generallyacceptedbyhiscontemporaries--orindeed--bythereceived

historiographythatconsidersthearrivalofPakistanasalast-ditchandtragic

outcomeofbrinksmanship,Ambedkarturnedtheconventionaltermsontheir

heads.

Whileofficialdiscussionsfocusedonthecolonialcensusthathad

corralledsubjectsintopoliticallyconstituted‘groups’ratherthanconsidering

themaspeople,thismovehadanoverwhelmingpowerindeterminingtheterms

ofthedebatethathadrepeatedlydiscussednationalityasnomorethana

functionofdemographics.21Itsmostpowerfuleffectwasthatthenational

questionwasconsideredthroughtheprismofideasof‘majority’and‘minority’.

Strikingly,Ambedkararguedthatonceseparateelectorateshadbeenrecognized,

therecognitionof‘minority’had,ineffect,createda‘statutorymajority’.22Tobe

sure,Ambedkardismissedtheclaimsofthe‘majority’toconstituteanactual

politicalunit,recognizingthatsuchaspirationswereassociatedwithHindutva.

HedismissedtheseclaimspartlybecauseherecognizedHindutva’sthenpolitical

bodyHinduMahasabhaasamirrorimageoftheMuslimLeagueandbelieved

ratherprescientlythatbothwoulddisappearwiththerecognitionofPakistan.20Ambedkar,Pakistan,326-28and334.21Appadurai,‘NumberintheColonialImagination’;andmorerecentlyDevji,MuslimZion,49-88.22Ambedkar,Pakistan,107.

10

Moreimportantly,asarguedhere,castemilitatedagainstanyimaginedunity

withintheHindusocial.Instead,theemphasisfellonthequestionofthe

‘minority’,andAmbedkarunderstoodthe‘minority’notonlyintheterms

ordainedbycolonialrulebutrelatedcentrallytohostilityandviolence.Inthe

firstinstance,however,herecognizedthatthenationalquestionwasofsalience

toMuslimpoliticalaspirationsthemselves.

Ambedkararguedthat‘thedelayindiscoveringthephilosophical

justificationforPakistanis[precisely]duetothefactthattheMuslimleadershad

becomehabituatedtospeakingofMuslimsasacommunityandasaminority.’To

himthis‘terminology’hadtakenMuslimaspirationsina‘falsedirectionandhad

broughtthemtoadeadend.’Moreover,hearguedthatwhilethisrecent

philosophicaldiscoveryofPakistanrepresented‘acompletetransformation’

amongstMuslims,itwas‘brought[about]notbyanycriminalinducementbutby

thediscoveryofwhatistheirtrueandultimatedestiny.’23

Stakedonafuturityratherthanasthebelatedexpressionofarepressed

idealinthesubcontinentalscript,Pakistanasanideawasnotpossessedbythe

past.Thiswaspreciselybecausethefuturebydefinitioncannotbe‘observed’or

‘checked’letalone‘experienced’andfuturityisthus,afeatoftheimagination

that‘breaksfree’from‘spatialcontrols’.24Unsurprisingly,giventhedensityof

imperialnegotiationsandsettlements,theterritorialmooringsanddebatesover

Pakistanhaveheldswayinreceivedhistoriesanddominantaccounts.Ambedkar

wasdistinctiveinrecognizingthatmorethanevenaspatialideaorterritorial

telos,Pakistanwasstakedonthereckoningoftemporalitythatwasentirely

future-oriented.Suchafuturitywasbothabreakinhistoricaltimeasitwasa

departurefromimperium--bothMughalandBritish--thatultimately

conditionedtheinadequacyifnotthedestructionofprevailingcategories

whetherof‘community’or‘minority’thathadhideboundMuslimaspirations.25

InitsmostrecentappraisalbyFaisalDevji,Pakistanasapoliticalideais

23Ambedkar,Pakistan,336-7.24Koselleck,ThePracticeofConceptualHistory,87,andHartog,RegimesofHistoricity,fortwoverydifferenttreatmentsontemporalityandpoliticalutopias.25IargueforthecentralityofMohammadIqbal’s’philosophicaldiscoveryofMuslimrepublicanismthatispremisedaboveallontherejectionofbothglobalIslamandtheCaliphateandtheideaofthe‘minority’inKapila,ViolentFraternity

11

heretoobestunderstoodastheapprehensionofthefuture.Radicalinitscapture

ofanuntoldfuture,theformationofPakistanwasonlypossible,asheargues,by

therejectionofdominantpoliticallanguagesinwhichputativeattachmentsto

soil,bloodandevenhistoryareforsakenforthenegationofbothIndian

nationalismandimperialendgames.ForDevji,though,theemphasisliesonthe

postwarreconstitutionoftheworldorder:aMuslimZionorPakistanoperatesas

afittingifcontrastingpairtoIsraelasthe‘minority’formacquiredthehistorical

destinyofthenational.26

Intheidentificationofdestinyoreventhefutureasthevantagepointof

Pakistan,Ambedkarwouldhowever,reprisecontemporaryandcomparative

historyandequallyancientIndianhistorytodiscoveranduncoverthebasisof

sovereignpoweranditseffects.Inshort,inseparatedisquisitionsoncaste

AmbedkarsoughttoexplicatethehistoricalandIndiansovereignorder

especiallyinrelationtoviolence.Suchanuncoveringwasultimatelydirected

towardssecuringnewandnonviolentpoliticalfoundationsforIndiawithdirect

consequencesforhisconsiderationsofPakistanandthusthesemustbeapprised

here.

ForAmbedkar,casteportendedthehistoricalhorizonofbothextreme

separationanddeepsovereignty.Unlikedominantdiscussionsoncasteand

Ambedkarthattakethefigureofthedalitoruntouchableascentral,thefocus

hereisontheAmbedkar’srenditionoftheBrahminasadispersedmonarchy

shroudedinviolence,andinthepolicingofseparationbetweenBrahminsand

othersthathesoughttonotonlyuncoverbutundo.

TheSovereignOrderofCaste

TheNazishadindeedagreatdealtolearnfromtheHindus.

Iftheyhadadoptedthetechniqueofsuppressingthe

massesdevisedbytheHindustheywouldhavebeenableto

26Devji,MuslimZion.SeealsoZaman,FuturityandthePoliticalThoughtofNorthIndianMuslims,andHussain,LegalAntagonismandtheMakingofMuslimPoliticalThoughtinIndia.

12

crushtheJewswithoutopencrueltyandwouldhavealso

exhibitedthemselvesashumanemasters.27

B.R.Ambedkar

Inthemid-twentiethcenturyworld-historicalcontextofNazismandthe

holocaust,Ambedkarelaboratedthenatureofviolencethatpremisedandhad

madeperpetualthepoweroftheBrahmin.DesignatingtheBrahminas

Superman,theHindusocialforAmbedkarwas,‘nothingbutNietzsche’sGospel

putinaction.’Intacklingtheissueofviolenceandpower,Ambedkaruncovered

theBrahminassovereignbutimportantlynotintheformofakingormonarch.

Inotherwords,inAmbedkar’srenditionofcaste,theBrahminhademergedas

theSuperman,afigurewhocouldkillbutnotdie.Insodoing,heelaboratedthe

questionofviolenceashistoricallysystemicbypointingouttoitsmeans,

instrumentsandends.

InshowingtheintersectionbetweenNietzsche’sideaoftheSuperman

andtheBrahmin,aswellasthecatastropheofviolencethatthisideaentailed,

Ambedkarstarklyarticulatedthepositionoftheuntouchable.‘Asagainstthe

Superman,’theuntouchable,‘hasnorighttolife,libertyorpropertyorthe

pursuitofhappiness.Hemustbereadytosacrificeeverythingforthesustenance

ofthelifeanddignityoftheSuperman.’Thequestionofsacrificeherewas

understoodintermsoflifeitself.Infact,theuntouchablewasinculcated,ashe

wrote,withthebeliefthatheshould‘respondtosuchcallforsacrificeinthe

interestofthesupermanashissupremeduty.’28

Theabilitytotakelife,inotherwords,wasatthecoreoftheBrahminas

sovereign.Bycontrast,ashewrote,‘TheUntouchablesaretheweariest,most

loathedthemostmiserablepeoplethathistorycanwitness.Theyareaspentand

sacrificedpeople.’29WhereasNietzschewasinterestedincreatingabravenew

‘race’,theHinduorderofthingswas,asAmbedkarargued,‘interestedin

maintainingtheprivilege’oftheBrahminwhohad‘cometoarrogatetoitselfthe

27Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesofCommunism[n.d.publishedposthumously]inBAWSVol.3,127.28Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,116and123.29Ambedkar,‘Frustration’in‘MiscellaneousNotes’,UnpublishedWritings,inBAWSVol.12,733.

13

claimofbeingSuperman.’30Whileitisoutofboundsforthisdiscussion,itis

importanttopointoutthatAmbedkarhadrepeatedlydismissedcasteasaform

ofraceandhaddisputedcolonialethnographersandemerginganthropological

debatesonthesame.31Equally,forAmbedkar,castewasuniquetoIndiaanda

formationthatashepointedout‘marksoffHindusfromotherpeoples.’32

ThearrogationoftheBrahminassovereignwasanoutcomeofaregicide.

InthedepthofIndia’santiquitylaytheoriginsoftheBrahmin’spowerthathad,

inthefirstinstance,emergedthroughthekillingofaBuddhistking.33Thisturn

tohistorybyAmbedkarwasnotanantiquarianinterestorarecuperative

exercise.Likeotherideologuesoftheperiod,beitB.G.TilakorJawaharlalNehru

andindeedSavarkar,historywasthetemplatethroughwhichpoliticalfutures

wereimagined.Importantly,asheexplained,thishistoryofregicideis‘even

morethanapast[but]ofthepresent.Itisa‘livingpast’andthereforeasreally

presentasanypresentcanbe.’34

ItisstrikingthatAmbedkarinterpretsIndia’spastandthedestructionof

BuddhisminparticularasconstitutiveoftheviolentpoweroftheBrahminas

sovereign.Withrhetoricalflourishandconsiderableconvictionandincontrast

toHindutvanarrativesofhistoryandtheirfocusontheoppressivenatureof

MuslimruleAmbedkarwrote,

‘[T]heeffectsofMusliminvasionsonHinduIndiahavebeenreally

superficialandephemeral.TheMusliminvadersdestroyedonlythe

outwardsymbolsofHindureligionsuchastemplesandMathsetc.They

didnotextirpateHinduismnordidtheycauseanysubversionofthe

principlesordoctrineswhichgovernedthespirituallifeofthepeople…To

alterthemetaphortheMuslimsonlystirredthewatersinthebathand

thattooonlyforawhile.Thereaftertheygottiredofstirringandleftthe

30Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,116.31Seeforinstance‘BrahminsversusKshatriyas’inBAWSVol.3,419,wherebyAmbedkararguesthatAryanswerenotarace.HealsoarguedthattherewerenoracialdifferencesbetweenBrahminsanduntouchables.Ambedkar,WhoaretheUntouchablesinBAWSVol.7,242,303-7.32Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,14133Ambedkar,RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninIndiainBAWSVol.3,269-70.34Ambedkar,‘ManuandtheShudras’inBAWSVol.12,719.

14

waterwithsedimentstosettle…[Incontrast]…Brahmanisminitsconflict

withBuddhismmadeacleansweep.Itemptiedthebathwiththe

BuddhistBabyinitandfilledthebathwithitsownwatersandinitits

ownbaby.’35

ThequestionofHindusandMuslimswasnotnecessarilyanantagonisticonefor

Ambedkar,primarilyduetotheircommonhistoricexperienceasrulers;thistied

themsymbolically,attheveryleast.Moresignificantly,casteandespeciallythe

poweroftheBrahminhadremainedintactdespitethechangeinimperial

dispensations.UnliketheHindutvathinkerSavarkar,inturningtohistorythe

aimwasnottoforgeantagonismsanewbutrathertoexplainthesource,

preservationandperpetuationofsovereignpower.Itisinthiscontextthat

AmbedkaridentifiedBuddhismratherthanIslamasthecriticalpointof

antagonisminrelationtoHinduism.

‘ThehistoryofIndia’,Ambedkarwrote,‘isnothingbutahistoryofmortal

conflictbetween–BuddhismandBrahmanism.’TheregicideoftheBuddhist

kingPushyamitaandthedestructionoftheBuddhiststateintheclassicalpast

wereunderstoodbyAmbedkarastheoriginarymomentoftheinstallationofthe

Brahminassovereign.Akeyconsequencewasthepromulgationofcastelaws

andtaboosasenshrinedbyManuthathadmadeuntouchabilitypermanent.

Ambedkardelineatesanddetailsseveralfeaturesofthisprobleminwhich

Brahminismwasdeemedthe‘counter-revolution’totheBuddhist‘revolution’in

India.EquallyheraisestheproblemofthehistoricconflictbetweenBrahminand

Kshatriyas(thewarriorcaste)especiallyonthequestionofkingshipandpower.

ThreerelatedissuesthatemergefromAmbedkar’sdisquisitionsarepertinent

here.

Inthefirstinstance,andasaconsequenceoftheregicide,taboosand

codesbetweencasteswereredistributedespeciallyinrelationtotherightsto

beararms.AccordingtoAmbedkar,thetabooonBrahminstobeararmsand

holdkinglypowerwaslifted.36Moreover,theBrahminwasmadeimmunefrom

35Ambedkar,RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninBAWSVol.3,274.36Ambedkar,RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninBAWSVol.3,267,269-71and276-7.

15

capitalpunishment,regardlessofthecrimehehadcommitted.37Therightto

beararmsandtorulewasfurtheramplifiedfortheBrahminbytherightsto

regicideandrebellion.Critically,however,theserightswerecircumscribedby

theconditionthattheycouldonlybeinvokedwhenthe(kshatriya)kingorruler

hadfailedtoupholdthesocialorder.38Thusthekingorrulerbecame,as

Ambedkarputit,‘liableforprosecutionandpunishmentlikeacommonfelon.’39

WiththedestructionofBuddhism,codesandtaboosenshrinedandembedded

thesovereigntyoftheBrahminandconsequentlymadethequestionofdirect

ruler-shiporkingshipnotirrelevant,butmorepreciselysubornedthekingtothe

Brahmin.

Secondly,aseparationwasforgedbetweenBrahminandnon-Brahmins.

Throughtheprinciplesof‘gradedinequality’,thefoundationalsourceof

separationanditsoutcomewasthedisarmingoftheShudra,whowasnotonly

deprivedofmeanstoviolencebytherestrictionontherighttobeararms,but

waseffectivelybarredfromanyformofself-protection.40Adivisionnotonlyof

labororoccupationheldisolationandfixitythathadformedthenatureand

principlesoftheHindusocialbutultimatelywasvestedinviolenceasa

fundamentalaspectofsovereignty.Withnuanceandcomplexity,Ambedkar

outlinedhowtheerstwhilehostilitybetweenKshatriyasandBrahminswas

convertedintoan‘entente’thatultimatelyclosedofftheranksofpowertothe

lowerordersandtheshudrasinparticular.41

Inshort,thisoriginaryregicide,withtheconsequentredistributionof

ritualandsacramentalpower,hadtwoenduringeffects.Whileitdilutedthe

sovereigntyoftheking,italsomadethekingdependentontheBrahmin.42

Equally,ittotalizedandcontrolledtheinstrumentsandmeansofviolence

againstothersandintheendmadeagroup(orvarna)intotheuntouchable

(caste).Forafterall,asAmbedkarargued,theshudraswereoncewarriorsand

37Ambedkar,‘ManuandtheShudras’inBAWSVol.12,722.38Ambedkar,RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninBAWSVol.3,277.39Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,124-5.40Ambedkar,IndiaandPre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,26,andRevolutionandCounter-Revolutioninsamevolume,308-20.41Ambedkar,RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninBAWSVol.3,392-415.42AmbedkardescribesthedifficultyofShivaji’scoronationandtheconflictofKshatriyasandBrahminsinWhoaretheShudras,BAWSVol.7,175-85.

16

throughinternecinewarfareandasanoutcomeofthebanishmentofBuddhism

werereducedtothelowestandthemostabjectsubjectsofHinduism.The

Buddhistcommitmenttononviolencehadneverthelessproducednewnormsfor

theBrahmin,especiallyinrelationtomeat-eating,whichwereprojected

outwardanddeployedagainsttheuntouchable.43SotheBrahminincorporated

principlesofnonviolencefromtheveryregimeofBuddhismthathedisplaced,

withstricttaboosonvegetarianism.ThisallowedfortheBrahmintoemerge

sovereign,butwithoutkilling,orindeed,dying,andwasensuredasanimmortal

ratherthanasleepingsovereign.

Finally,unlikeotherversionsofkingship(WesternandIslamic)that

derivedsomeoftheirstatusfromthedivine,thelawsofManu,asinterpretedby

Ambedkar,hadmadecastedivinebutcruciallynotkingship.Caste,hewrote,‘is

sacred,notopentoabrogation,amendmentandnoteventocriticism.’44Through

thisthree-tieredapproach,wheretheBrahminhadthecapacitytopunishand

evenkilltheking,withnomeansofviolenceorrebellionlefttothelowerorders

andwithcasteasthedispensationofthedivine,theBrahminemergedas

sovereignthoughnotsingularizedasthemonarch.Thismadethepowerofthe

Brahminperpetualwiththeresponsibilityofthesocialdepositedontheking.

Significantly,the‘social’wasnotonlyisolatedandseparateinnaturebut

incorporatedthediffusedmonarchyoftheBrahmin.

Suchaninterpretation,whileitwasdirectedtowardstheproblemof

untouchabilityinIndia,neverthelesshelpsexplainthecontextoftheformation

oftherepublicinIndia.Asarguedelsewhere,therepublicwouldnotbea

questionofsimplydisplacingthevariouskingsandprincesormonarchy.It

wouldrequireanotherequallyambitioustask,namelythecreationofthe

‘people’orafraternitythatcouldonlybepossibleunderdemocraticconditions.

Forafraternitytobeconstituted,Ambedkaridentifiedtheantagonismand

violencebetweentheBrahminandtheuntouchableasthecrucibleof

sovereigntyinIndia.Indeed,accordingtoAmbedkar,Brahminismwasthe

counter-revolutiontotherevolutionofBuddhismthathadenshrinedequality

andnonviolence.Thisidentificationofadispersedsovereignorderratherthan

43Ambedkar,WhoaretheShudrasinBAWSVol.7,318-55.44Ambedkar,IndiaandthePre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,127.

17

thefigureofthekingormonarchexplainedtheperpetualandsystemicpowerof

thecastesystemwhichwasboundedinviolence.

Ambedkar,withpolemicalflourishwrotethatthissystemwasperfected

totheextentthattheNietzscheandoctrineof‘Realizetheidealandidealizethe

real’hadbeenactualizedinIndia.45Asa‘permanentdifficulty’,castecutthrough

time’sarrowofthepresentandthepast.46Historicallyunderstood,thequestion

ofcaste(Brahmin)assovereignpoweranditsperpetuationwasthus,neithera

doctrineof‘socialutility’,norof‘individualjustice’.Inshort,castewas

understoodaspoliticalinthestarksenseasitwaspreoccupiedwithandcohered

bythequestionofviolenceandpower.Thisispreciselywhyhecomparedcaste,

howsoeverheuristically,withNazism.Thecriticalpointofdeparturewas,as

pointedoutintheepigramabove,thattheviolenceofcastewasatoncehidden

asitwasobvious.Deployingthemoderntriadofpoliticsinrelationtocasteand

Hinduism,Ambedkardenounceditas‘inimicaltoequality,antagonistictoliberty

andopposedtofraternity.’47

Systemic,withritualandsacramentaslegitimacy,comprisingthedenial

offreedomofopportunityandknowledgeand,aboveall,therighttobeararms,

castewasnotonlya‘cruelwrong’butwasalsothe‘mostshamelessmethodof

preservingtheestablishedorder’andpower.48Whilethelowerandsubjugated

ordersexperiencedthispowerfulorderofthingsas‘fate’therewasindeed

nothingrandomaboutcaste.Delinkingthearbitrarinessoffortuneandfatethat

isinherenttotheunderstandingofviolenceandpower,Ambedkarinstead

denaturalizedthefamiliar,acceptedandconsensualunderstandingofcaste.49

Throughastudyoftheclassicalpastorwhathetermedthe‘exhumationof

debris’,ofAncientIndianhistory,Ambedkarunderstoodthatviolencewasnot

necessarilyequaltopower.Instead,insodoingheuncoveredanargumentthatif

meansandinstrumentswerethecategoricalconditionofviolence,thencaste

wasnotasocial,butapoliticaldoctrinethatcontrolledandmonopolized

violence.

45Ambedkar,PhilosophyofHinduisminBAWSVol.3,67.46Ambedkar,WhoaretheShudrasinBAWSVol.7,16.47Ambedkar,PhilosophyofHinduisminBAWSVol.3,71and66.48Ambedkar,Indiaandthepre-RequisitesinBAWSVol.3,126.49Onfortuneandthearbitrarynatureofviolence,seeArendt,OnViolence,4-5.

18

Thepast,inthissense,forAmbedkar,mostovertlycarriedrevolutionary

potential.Aboveall,thisallowedAmbedkartoidentifythatthesourceof

sovereigntyinIndialaywiththeBrahmin.Preciselybecausecastemilitated

againstfraternityandalsobecausetheBrahminwasdispersed,yetlocatedabove

themonarch,thediscoveryofthe‘people’becameessentialtoAmbedkar’s

politicalproject.Thiswasbecause,unliketheFrenchrevolution,therewasno

automaticreplacementofthesingularmonarchorsovereignwiththegeneral

will.

Arevolutionarydiscoveryofthepeopleorthecommitmenttotheideaof

therepublicpremisedonpopularwillwasexpressedmoreforcefullyandfully

ondiscussionsofnationality.Thequestionofnationalityrenewedthequestion

oftherecognitionofdifferencethathadmarkedtheinfamoushostilityof

relationsbetweenGandhiandAmbedkar.Theententebetweenthetwopolitical

rivalswasnotonlyshort-livedbutdestroyedandmaderedundantinthemaking

ofanewandpowerfulpoliticallanguageofbothnonviolenceandnationality

especiallyinrelationtoMuslims.Significantly,itwasnotonlyaquestionofthe

nationbutofthe‘people’orpopularwillandsovereigntyitself.Thisquestion

entailednotonlythequestionofthehistoricsourceofsovereigntybutalso

demandedtherecognitionofanewnationalityandits‘people,’namelyPakistan.

PakistanandPeace

IfPakistanhasthedemeritofcuttingawaypartsofIndia,it

hasalsothemeritofintroducingharmonyinplaceof

conflict.50

B.R.Ambedkar

IfAmbedkar’sdiscussionofcasteuncoveredtheviolentsourceofsovereigntyin

India,thenitisstrikingthatthequestionofPakistan,onthecontrary,openedup

forhimthepossibilityofpeacebetweenHindusandMuslims.Whileconsidering

therespective‘Hindu’and‘Muslim’casesforandagainstPakistan,Ambedkar

reprisedtherecenthistoryofrelationsbetweenthetwoandtheir50Ambedkar,Pakistan,220.

19

representatives.Armedwithabatteryofstatisticsofkillings,Ambedkarnoted

thattheinterwarperiodhadseenHindusandMuslims‘engagedinasanguinary

warfare’.Thehighnationalisteraorthedecadesfrom1920-40,despiteGandhi’s

effortsto‘bringunity’,Ambedkarargued,hadbeenaneraof‘civilwarbetween

theHindusandMuslimsofIndia’thatwasonly‘interruptedbybriefintervalsof

armedpeace.’BythecriticalmomentattheendoftheSecondWorldWar,‘the

‘depthofantagonism’hadensuredthatthe‘mirage’ofHindu-Muslim‘unity’had

vanishedandwasboth‘outofsightandalsooutofmind.’51Withthiscontext

beforehim,Ambedkarexaminedthequestionofunityandseparationoncemore,

settingouttherelationshipintermsofthesocialandthepoliticalinthesame

mannerinwhichhehadposedthequestionofcaste.

Theissueofthesocialandpolitical–especiallyasitwascouchedinterms

ofthepossibilityofunionandseparationontheissueofPakistan–emergedin

Ambedkar’sbookindirectcontrasttothecaseofcaste.Aswehaveseen,caste

forAmbedkarwasapoliticalunionboundingradedsovereigntymarkedbythe

divinedispensationofsocialseparation.Bycontrast,HindusandMuslimshad

maintainedacomplexsocialunionthroughtheirlonghistory.Yetinthe

contemporaryeraofthenation-state,theirsocialrelationshipdefiedbeing

translatedintoapoliticalunion.52Andwhatisequallystaggeringlysingular,but

whichgenerallygoesunnoticedisthatAmbedkarmarkedoutM.AJinnah--so

oftenseenasthearchmanipulativeleaderofthetimes--asentirely

‘incorruptible.’53ThequestionofMuslimnationalityasapoliticallyseparate

forcewas,inAmbedkar’seyes,notanoutcomeofcynicalmachinationorbad

faith.

SincethedaysofthePoonaPactatleast,theconceptofseparationdidnot

initselfcauseanxietyorsqueamishnessinAmbedkar.Inthecontextofthe

RoundTableConferenceandthePact,hehadcertainlyarguedthatHindusand

Muslims,unlikeDalits,wereestranged,butnotimperativelyseparate.Hedidnot

revisethispositionorargueintheimperialmodethatHindusandMuslimswere

51Ambedkar,Pakistan,184and186-7.52Ambedkar,Pakistan,26-35.53Ambedkar,Pakistan,328.HefurtherdismissedGandhi’sclaimthatJinnahdidnotrepresentallMuslimsofIndiaandwentasfarastosaythat‘NeverbeforewasMr.Jinnahamanofthemasses.’Ibid.,407.

20

primordiallydistinctandseparatesothatthenewlyarticulatedMuslimdemand

forthenationstatesimplyenabledMuslimstofulfilltheirseparatehistorical

destiny.

Incontrasttothecastequestion,AmbedkarrecognizedthatHindusand

Muslimshadalonghistoryofwhathetermedsocialunion.Whetheritwas

language,‘race’orcustom,hearguedthattherewasconsiderablecommonality

betweenHindusandMuslimsandinseveralsocialandculturalrespects,their

relationswere‘honeycombed.’Yetitwashistoryandparticularlythe‘inabilityto

forget’thatmilitatedagainstapoliticalunionbetweenHindusandMuslims.

BuildingontheinsightsoncemoreoftheFrenchexperience–andinparticular

thenineteenthcenturyphilosopherErnestRenan’sworksonnationalityand

nationalism–Ambedkarpositedthenecessityofforgettingthepasttoconstitute

anationalunion.54Unlikeothernationalists,whetheraNehruoraSavarkar,who

turnedtohistorytotestifytoIndia’scredentialsformodernnationality,for

Ambedkartheholdofhistoryhadbecomeanimpedimenttoanyunionbetween

HindusandMuslims.

‘Thecruxoftheproblem’,Ambedkarwrote,wasthat‘commonhistorical

antecedents’weredifficultto‘sharetogether.’Whetheritwasshroudedin

violenceorpastruler-ship,historyhadbecometheinsuperableobstacle.‘The

pityofitis’,hewrote‘thatthetwocommunitiescanneverforgetorobliterate

theirpast.’HecitedRenanwhohadarguedthat‘deedsofviolencehavetaken

placeatthecommencementofallpoliticalformations’,eventhosewhose

‘consequenceshavebeenmostbeneficial.’Yet,asRenanwrote,andAmbedkar

repeated,itwas‘forgetfulnessandIshallevensayhistoricalerror,[that]forman

essentialfactorinthecreationofanation.’55TheHindusandMuslims,Ambedkar

surmised,had‘nosuchlonging’wherebythepastanditsantagonismscouldbe

forgottenintheforgingofaunion.56

54Ambedkar,Pakistan,32-6.55ErnestRenancitedinAmbedkar,Pakistan,35-7.SeeBalibar,ViolenceandCivility,forarecentappraisalonoriginaryviolenceanditsconversiontopoliticalorder,historicityandcivility.56Ambedkar,Pakistan,37.Herehecitedthequestionof‘invasions’andthefearofbecomingmeresubjectsascriticaltoHinduandMuslimanxietiesthatwererootedinhistory,seeibid.,49.

21

Theimplicationwasthatinthecaseofcaste,historyhadobfuscatedand

repressedthetruenatureofsovereigntythatAmbedkarassiduouslyrevealed.By

contrast,forHindusandMuslims,thepastwasever-presentandconstantly

articulate,allowinglittleornocapacityforitsownrepression.Suchrepression

andforgetting,haditexisted,wouldhaveenabledthesuturingofviolentpast

eventsandthecreationofanewrelationshipofunity.Butthiswasnownotto

be.

Thepowerofhistorycoupledwiththe‘tyranny’ofnumbershadrendered

theHindu-Muslimrelationshostileandantagonistic.The‘communalproblem’

wasnotamatterofdisposition,whetherthiswasthemuch-rehearsedpolemics

of‘insolent’demandsand‘meanness’onthepartofeitherMuslimsorHindus.

Instead,Ambedkardirectlyaddressedthequestionofmajorityandminorityand

thepotentialityofviolenceandthroughit,peace.

It[thecommunalproblem]existsandwillexistwhereverahostile

majorityisbroughtfacetofaceagainstahostileminority.Controversies

relatingtoseparatevs.jointelectorates,controversiesrelatingto

populationratiovs.weightageareallinherentinasituationwherea

minorityispittedagainstamajority.Thebestsolutionofthecommunal

problemisnottohavetwocommunitiesfacingeachother,oneamajority

andotheraminority,weldedinthesteelframeofasinglegovernment.57

Asthisextractclarifies,thecoercionor‘steelframeofasinglegovernment’could

notonitsownresolvethedepthofantagonismnorthepowerfulwillto

nationhoodwhichwaspresentonbothsides.Infact,thepoliticalmechanisms

describedbyAmbedkaras‘controversies’wouldonlycreateconditionsinwhich

hostilitywouldbeperpetuated.

InAmbedkar’sreckoning,theserelationsbetweenBrahminsand

untouchablesandHindusandMuslimsweremirroropposites.Aseparation

foundedonandpreservedinviolencehadconstitutedtheorderofthingsfor

caste.Theworkoftherepublic,then,wouldbetoensurethateventhoughcastes

couldnotbe‘dissolved’arelationship,howevercompetitiveandadversarial,57Ambedkar,Pakistan,111.

22

couldbeestablishedbetweencastesthathadhithertobeenmarkedonlyby

separation.Bycontrast,whileadensityofsocialrelationshipindeedexisted

betweenHindusandMuslims,theirantagonismwhenencounteredcouldnotbe

sublimatedbutonlyexpressedinviolence.FromhisworkonPakistan,itisclear

thatpoliticalseparationforAmbedkarofferedthepossibilityofpeace.‘Integral

India’,heconcludedwas‘incompatiblewithanindependent[India]orevenwith

Indiaasadominion.’

TheantagonismbetweenHindusandMuslims,asAmbedkarinterpreted

it,wasnotifthesamekindorevendegreeoftheantagonismbetweenBrahmins

andtheuntouchables.Theirantagonismexistedonthesurface,wasambientand

giventoeasymobilization,HindusandMuslimswerethusinastateofcivilwar.

Thiscalledforsomeformofseparationofhistoricalbrotherhoodthathadtaken

onamurderouslogic.Whiletheviolentantagonismsteepedinseparationof

casteswassocompletethatitbecomebothobviousandinvisible.Caste

antagonismthuscouldonlybemanagedifnotovercomethroughafacingof

differentcastegroupswithinthesamepoliticalhorizonandtherecognitionofa

historicsovereignorderthathadtobedisplaced.WhetheritwasMuslin

nationalityorcaste,Ambedkar’sinfluentialpoliticalpursuitwouldbethus

overwhelminglyagonisticandzealouslynonviolent.

Readtogether,Ambedkar’sinterventionsoncasteandPakistanwere,

thoughdiametricallyopposed,amatteroftherecognitionofseparation.For

caste,theprincipleofseparationremainedadeliberateblindspot,whichhe

undertooktoilluminate,summoninguphistory,socialpracticeandtheissueof

deeplyembeddedviolence.Bycontrast,HindusandMuslimswereoften

describedasandrecognizedasaunionorafraternity,butaccordingtohimthis

wasmerely‘display’.58Asenseofmutual‘antagonism,’heconcluded,wasthe

essentialformofthisrelationship,whichwouldconstantlycometothesurfacein

a‘commontheatre.’‘Itisthecommontheatre’–thatis,unitedIndiaitself–he

argued,‘whichcallsthisantagonismintoaction.’‘Pakistan’thushadthe

‘advantage’of‘defanging’theantagonismbyexcludingthepossibilityofa

commonplatformthatwasboththesiteandthecauseofdeadlyconfrontation.

58Ambedkar,Pakistan,339-341.

23

Pakistanofferedthepossibilityofremovingthis‘disturbanceofthepeace’and

ensuringanenduring‘tranquility’throughtheseparationoftheantagonists.

CritiquingtheHindutvaideologues’hostilitytothecreationofPakistan,

Ambedkardirectlyreintroducedthequestionofcaste.59DismissingHarDayal,

whomhecategorizednotasananarchistorarevolutionarybutaspartofthe

ideologicalworldofHindutva,hechastisedhimforhisviewsonMuslim

conversionorwhatwastermedas‘shuddhi’[reconversion/purification].60In

otherwords,hedismissedtheHindutvadesiretoincorporatetheMuslimas

Hinduonthebasisnotofreligionbutofcasteitself.TheHindutvaideaof

‘assimilation’,heremindedHarDayalandothers,wasanaffronttoHinduism

itselfsince‘casteisincompatiblewithconversion.’Morestridently,heironically

identifiedSavarkar’sclaimstobecompatiblewiththeideaofPakistanitself.If,

accordingtoSavarkar’sassertion,‘Hindusareanationbythemselves,’Ambedkar

arguedthat‘thisofcoursemeansthattheMuslimsareaseparatenationby

themselves.’61Infact,preciselybecauseoftheirbeliefintheexistenceofthe

HinduandMuslimnationsinIndia,AmbedkarsurmisedthatJinnahand

Savarkar,werealikeandinagreement.Thekeydifferencewasseparationand

violence,onceagain.Jinnah,heaverred,wantedseparation.OftheHindutva

proponents,ontheotherhand,hewrote,

Mr.Savarkar…wantsHindusandtheMuslimstolivetwoseparatenations,

inonecountry,eachmaintainingitsownreligion,languageandculture.

Onecanunderstandandevenappreciatethewisdom…becausethe

ultimateaimistobringintobeingonenation...Onecanjustifythis

attitudeonlyifthetwonationsweretoliveaspartnersinfriendly

intercoursewithmutualrespectandaccord.Butthatitcannotbe,

becauseMr.SavarkarwillnotallowtheMuslimnationtobeco-equal…he

wantstheHindunationtobethedominantnationandtheMuslimnation

tobetheservient[sic!]nation.WhyMr.Savarkar,aftersowingtheseedof

enmitybetweentheHindunationandMuslimnationshouldwantthat

59Ambedkar,Pakistan,336-43and129-33.60OnHindunationalismseeBlomHansen,WagesofViolence,andGupta,Sexuality,Obscenity,Community.61Ambedkar,Pakistan,130and141.

24

theyshouldliveunderoneconstitutionandoccupyonecountryis

difficulttoexplain.62

Thesewerenotstrayorhaplessremarks.Throughadiscussionofterritoryand

nationality,Ambedkarhadtakenfullaccountofragingpolemics,partypositions

andconstitutionalconsiderations.Theseparationofcastethoughimmanenthad

renderedtheHindusocialasanasocialbodypolitic.Confrontingthatfactand

ensuringtheproperrelationbetweencasteshadthepotentialityofconvertinga

separationthatwassingulartoIndiaintoapoliticalunion.‘Unity’or‘thepeople’

orpopularsovereignty,Ambedkarastutelyrealized,wascontainedwithinthe

nationalform.63

Thecentralissuewastheproblemofhostilityandantagonismandits

correctrecognitionforanonviolentandevenpeacefulemergenceofanew

politics.HisrecognitionofPakistanwasconstitutiveofanagonisticpoliticsthat

tooktwomutuallyconstitutivedirections.Whetheritwastheantagonismof

casteorofreligion,hesoughttoconvertthatrelationship,withouttheerasureof

thosefundamentaldifferences,intoanadversarialrelationship,whichwould

becomepeaceful.Onedimensionrequiredtherecognitionofseparation,namely

Muslimnationality,andtheother,theendofseparationnamelyacompact

betweencastes.TheoverallconcernthatemergesinthetotalityofAmbedkar’s

writingisthemakingof‘people’asthesubjectofpolitics.Moreprecisely,he

soughtthecorrect‘container’foranexpressionofpopularsovereigntyandas

suchhiswasaradicalrepublicanproject.

Inamajordeparturefromthesubjectoriented-politicalthoughtand

practiceofGandhi,orevenTilak,thathadlocatedsovereigntyintheindividual

subject,forAmbedkaritsrightfulplacewaswiththegeneralwill.Ironically,the

workofseparation,initsfullmeasure,enabledthephilosophicaldiscoveryofthe

generalwilloratruepopularsovereignty.64Boththenatureofcasteandthe

recentbutdeadlyantagonismbetweenHindusandMuslimscalledforthe

62Ambedkar,Pakistan,144.HefurtherwarnedthattheinternationalexamplessuchaTurkey,CzechoslovakiaandAustriathatwereapprovinglycitedbySavarkaronlyillustratedtheproblemofseparation.63Mouffe,DemocraticParadox,38-43,criticallyexaminesCarlSchmitt’sworkonantagonismandparliamentarydemocracy.

64Devji,TheImpossibleIndian;andKapila,‘AHistoryofViolence’.

25

recognitionofviolenceandhostility.ButinAmbedkar’scase,thiswasnotforan

ethicalresolutionorpersonaltransformation,butfortheinstitutionof

nonviolentpolitics.Theexistenceofenemiesandantagonists,indistinctionto

Gandhi,offeredforhimnottheopportunityforself-transformation,butthe

conversionofthoserelationsintoagonisticpolitics.

Assuch,thedestructionofthedispersedmonarchyoftheBrahminand

therecognitionofMuslimnationalityweretwosidesofthesamepolitical

consideration.Theconversionofviolenceandhostilityintothenonviolent

separationofhistoricalbrothersandtheassumptionofanewfraternity--

thoughnotentirelyrecognizedtodayasAmbedkar’spoliticalthoughtandwork-

-abovealllaidthefoundationsfortheassumptionofnotonebuttwoagonistic

republics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

IamthankfultoChrisMoffatfortheinvitationtocontributeandsharethiswork

andtheanonymousrefereesofthisarticlefortheirhelpfulcomments.Earlier

versionswerepresentedataColloquiumon‘IndianPoliticalThoughtintheNehru

Age’jointlyconvenedbythelateChrisBaylyandDipeshChakrabartyatthe

UniversityofChicago,April2015,theFacultyResearchSeminar,PoliticalScience

Faculty,DelhiUniversity,February2015andtheHistoryofPoliticalThought

Seminar,IHRLondon,October2017,andasoneoftheInauguralAmbedkar

MemorialLecturesheldatSOASLondon,May2018andIremainindebtedtoSaroj

Giri,Aline-FlorenceManent,SurajTelangandAsangWankhedeforthese

wonderfulinvitations.TheintellectualengagementofFaisalDevji,DarianLeader,

MartinRuehlandSamuelGarrettZeitlinmadeallthedifferencethatcannotbe

thankedenoughmuchlessrepaid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ambedkar,B.R.,PakistanorthePartitionofIndia:TheIndianPoliticalWhat’sWhat!,1946.Appadurai,Arjun,‘NumberintheColonialImagination.’InOrientalismandthePostcolonialPredicament,editedbyCarolBreckenridgeandPetervanderVeer,314-39.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1993.

26

Arendt,Hannah.CrisesoftheRepublic.NewYork:HarvestBooks,1969.Bajpai,Rochana.DebatingDifference:GroupRightsandLiberalDemocracyinIndia.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2011.Balibar,Etienne.ViolenceandCivility:OntheLimitsofPoliticalPhilosophy.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2015.AnirbanBandyopadhyay.‘OrchestratingaSignalVictory:Ambedkar,Mandalandthe1946ConstituentAssembly’InvokingAmbedkar:Contributions,Receptions,LegacieseditedbyBiswamoyPati,33-57.NewDelhi:PrimusBooks,2014. Bayly,C.A.RecoveringLiberties:IndianThoughtintheAgeofLiberalismandEmpire.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011.BlomHansen,Thomas.WagesofViolence:NamingandIdentityinPostcolonialBombay.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.Cháirez-Garza,JesúsF.‘TouchingSpace:Ambedkaronthespatialfeaturesofuntouchability.’ContemporarySouthAsia22:2,1-14,2014.Connolly,WilliamE.Pluralism.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2005.Devji,Faisal.TheImpossibleIndian:GandhiandtheTemptationsofViolence.London:Hurst&Co.,2012.Devji,Faisal.MuslimZion:PakistanasaPoliticalIdea.London:Hurst&Co.,2013.Dhulipalia,Venkat.CreatingaNewMedina:StatePower,IslamandtheQuestforPakistaninLateColonialNorthIndia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.Gupta,Charu.Sexuality,Obscenity,Community:Women,MuslimsandtheHinduPublicinColonialIndia.LondonandNewYork:PalgravePress,2001.Hartog,Francois.RegimesofHistoricity:PresentismandExperiencesofTime.TranslatedbySaskiaBrown.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2015.Honig,Bonnie.DemocracyandtheForeigner.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2003.Hussain,Adeel.‘LegalAntagonismandtheMakingofMuslimPoliticalThoughtinIndia.,c1927-40.’PhDdiss.,UniversityofCambridge,2017.Kapila,Shruti.‘AHistoryofViolence’.ModernIntellectualHistory7:2(2010):437-57.

27

Kapila,ShrutiandFaisalDevji(eds.).PoliticalThoughtinAction:TheBhagavadGitaandModernIndia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.Kapila,Shruti.‘GlobalIntellectualHistoryandtheIndianPolitical’.InRethinkingModernIntellectualHistory,editedbyDarrinMcMahonandSamuelMoyn,253-74.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2013.Kapila,Shruti.ViolentFraternity:GlobalPoliticalThoughtintheIndianAge.Underreview,contractedwithPrincetonUniversityPress,forthcoming,2019.Koselleck,Reinhart.ThePracticeofConceptualHistory:Timing,History,SpacingConcepts.TranslatedbyToddSamuelPresnerandothers.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2002.Kumar,Aishwary.RadicalEquality:Ambedkar,GandhiandtheRiskofDemocracy.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2015.Lukes,Steven.Power:ARadicalView. London:PalgraveMacmillan,2ndEdition,2005.Mood,Vasant(ed.).DrBabasahebAmbedkarWritingsandSpeeches.MultipleVolumes.Mumbai:GovernmentofMaharashtra,2010.Mouffe,Chantal.DemocraticParadox.London:Verso,2000.Mouffe,Chantal.OnthePolitical.LondonandNewYork:RoutledgePress,2005.Mouffe,Chantal.Agonistics:ThinkingtheWorldPolitically.London:Verso,2013.Purushotham,Sunil.‘WorldHistoryintheAtomicAge:Past,PresentandFutureinthePoliticalThoughtofJawaharlalNehru.’ModernIntellectualHistory14:3,837-57,2017.Rao,Anupama.TheCasteQuestion:DalitsandthePoliticsofModernIndia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2009.Sarkar,Sumit.ModernIndia,1885-1947.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillanUK,1989.Schmitt,Carl.TheConceptofthePolitical.TranslatedbyGeorgeSchwab.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996.Skinner,Quentin.‘HobbesonSovereignty:AnUnknownDiscussion.’PoliticalStudies13(1965):213-18.Strauss,Leo.ThePoliticalPhilosophyofHobbes:ItsBasisandGenesis.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1952[1936].

28

Tuck,Richard.TheSleepingSovereign:TheInventionofModernDemocracy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016.Tully,James.StrangeMultiplicity:ConstitutionalismintheAgeofDiversity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.Tully,James,PublicPhilosophyinaNewKey.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.Zaman,Faridah.‘FuturityandthePoliticalThoughtofNorthIndianMuslims,c.1900-1925.’PhDdiss.,UniversityofCambridge,2014.