Annihilation of Caste is the Basis for Indian Democracy

Annihilation of Caste is the Basis for Indian Democracy

The Doctor’s Diagnosis of a Chronic Indian Social Ailment

Abstract of the Essay

A total demolition of the casteist frame – the practice as well as the mindset – is the first step in the

emancipation of Indian society towards the ideal democratic State. Dr. Ambedkar’s vehement call

for annihilation of caste, to the extent of rejecting all Hindu scriptures that advocate it, is an apt

diagnosis of the root cause behind inherent inequalities plaguing Indian society. Yet Ambedkar’s

resolutions are merely the starting point in a journey towards ideal social order. This essay

advocates a layered integration of Ambedkar’s philosophy with the Gandhian model of social

consciousness along with an emphasis on universal education in order to establish an equitable and

just society.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE IS THE BASIS FOR INDIAN DEMOCRACY | Page 1

Annihilation of Caste is the Basis for Indian Democracy

“On some posit ions cowardice asks the question, is i t safe? Expediency asks , is i t po li t ic?

Vanity asks, i s i t popular? But consc ience asks the question, is i t r igh t? And there comes a

t ime when one must take a posit ion tha t i s neither safe , nor pol i t ic , nor popular but he must

take i t because conscience tel l s him i t i s r ight .”

― Martin Luther King, Jr., American pastor and civil rights activist.

1. Introduction

Casteism is the chronic plague of Indian society and untouchability its most dreadful

symptom. Caste is that cast of tradition which entraps the present and moulds it into a shape

devoid of freedom and bereft of modern values: thus rendering the present as an unjustified

prisoner of the past rather than its rationally evolved antecedent. Caste is not just an infringement

on the individuality of the enterprising Indian; it is violence upon the soul of Indian society itself.

It is worth noting that differentiation and demarcation of individuals in a society is not

unique to the Indian context, and is certainly not a present day phenomenon. Plato and Aristotle

– leading lights of the ancient world – deemed its inherence in human nature two millennia ago;1

and they were inspired by theories that had emerged more than a century before them.2

Furthermore, segregation of individuals based on various criteria like creed (for instance, Jews in

Nazi Germany, Catholic-Protestant in Christianity), sect (for instance, Shia-Sunni split in Islam),

race or colour (for instance, slavery), and gender has occurred at all times in history. Yet the

caste system as practiced in India occupies a notoriously unique position amongst all systems of

segregation – owing to its four characteristics which are not simultaneously shared by any other

arrangement prevalent anywhere else in the world. Caste system is:

a) determined by birth,

b) hierarchical in nature,

c) exploitative in practice, and

d) sanctioned by religion.

2. Ambedkar as the Ambassador for Annihilation of Caste

In so far as it is determined by birth and tends towards exploitation of individuals, it may

be deemed that caste system, as a practice, comes dangerously close to slavery, which is

unanimously and universally denounced. Yet what makes caste system difficult to remedy is its


subtlety: Ambedkar duly recognized this. Unlike slavery, it is not a clearly delineate-able evil. In

the ailing Indian society, it is not like a tumour that can be conveniently located and removed

rather a malignant cancer that is infused into the social bloodstream. And, hence, Ambedkar’s

‘chemotherapy of caste’ targeted reforms in every sphere of life: political, economic, social, and

religious.

Ambedkar’s erudition enabled him to dig deep to the root cause of casteism and devote

his entire energy and time to fomenting the sentiment of the masses towards attacking that root

cause. He emphasized that the acts of Hindus were inspired from the , and that their

attitudes would not be transformed until their belief in the sanctity of the is broken. He

believed that in order to destroy the sacredness and divinity that caste has come to be associated

with first the authority of the and the Vedas had to be annihilated.3

An illustration of Ambedkar’s root cause analysis is shown below:

Contrary to reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj, Ambedkar did

not divest himself with fighting social evils like sati, widow remarriage, child marriage, etc.

Those were, for him, issues concerning the Hindu family. Indian society transcended the mere

scope of the Hindu family and could be reformed only through abolition of the caste system.4

Caste system prevented the ‘associated mode of living’5 in Indian society, and to that extent it

robbed Indians of their sense of brotherhood. Democracy, fraternity, and ‘associated mode of

living’, were all synonymous for Ambedkar. He believed an ideal society was that which

facilitated social endosmosis – one that should incorporate channels for conveying change to all

corners, through communication and shared interests.6

2.1 Judge a Tree by its Fruits, and not its Roots.

Ambedkar was not against segregation of society per se; he only refused to accept two

aspects of it: (1) the hierarchically exploitative stratification, and (2) the categorization of classes

into strictly demarcated and watertight compartments. While the former was outright abusive, the

latter betrayed the uniqueness of individuals who, owing to their multifarious capabilities,

transcend categorical boundaries and embody classes in their own right.7


Caste system divides labour (rather labourers) not on the basis of worth, but birth. And

selection on the basis of birth or inheritance is selection not of the able, but of the privileged.8

This violates the basic tenets of both utilitarian and deontological views of social morality.

Deontology presupposes an inherent dignity in human life which implies a respect for humans as

ends in themselves and not merely as means to ulterior ends. Utilitarianism advocates greatest

good of the greatest number which implies State responsibility towards ensuring optimum

fulfilment of every individual’s potential, as the State’s capability is primarily funded through a

summation of the abilities of its individuals. Caste system is a spanner in the wheel of ‘social

efficiency’9 – a fundamental obstacle to socio-economic development, as it comes in the way of

the State endeavouring to provide favourable conditions for harnessing every individual’s ability

and aptitude to the maximum.

3. An Agitated Saint versus the Saint of Agitations

Ambedkar was a saint agitated. His own experiences with untouchability had stoked in

him an existential angst against any form of authoritative control exercised by one individual or

group over another. This is amply displayed in one of his retorts to Gandhi where he claims that

he responds “not because what [Gandhi] has said is so weighty as to deserve a reply, but because

to many a Hindu he is an oracle, so great that when he opens his lips it is expected that the

argument must close and no dog must bark.”10

For a man who had witnessed discrimination first

hand all his life, and whose initial career jumpstart was trounced by caste Hindus that were

supposed to treat him as colleagues, patience had run thin and compromise was anathema.

3.1 Ambedkar and Gandhi ought to be Integrated, not Reconciled

Though Ambedkar and Gandhi had obvious differences at the fore, they seem to be in

agreement on a fundamental level: both were driven by utopian ideals, yet practically oriented in

their approach. The solutions they promulgated were sociologically holistic and rightly targeted

at due root causes, yet their implementation was thwarted, not by each other, but by their own

preoccupations. While Gandhi was consumed by his prioritizing of the freedom struggle and the

weight of his religious imbibitions, Ambedkar was derailed by an insurgent impatience towards

any form of compromise. Gandhi worked by being a part of the system, while Ambedkar was a

‘part apart’.

Both stuck to their stand, resisted reconciliation, and hence missed the point that their

differences were merely perspective driven and methodological. On scratching beneath the

surface, one can witness several commonalities between the two:

a) An egalitarian society based on liberty and fraternity was the ideal pursued by both.


b) Ambedkar envisioned sovereignty based on people’s moral authority, which was the

basic principle in Gandhi’s model of too (save for the seemingly religious label

of ).

c) What Gandhi called – a rule primarily over the self – was for Ambedkar the

capacity of discernment in an individual towards acting as per one’s own will.

d) The individual was at the center of Gandhi’s ‘oceanic circle’11

as well as Ambedkar’s

‘consciousness of kind’12

. And in both cases, the individual related with society as an

extension of his or her own self.

e) Gandhi agreed with Ambedkar that the interpretation of the needs to

be rejected.13

f) Both stressed on a life and acts based on principles, as it was imperative for a moral life

of freedom and spontaneity.

g) Both advocated the importance of role-models in guiding the masses, emphasizing upon

the impeccable moral integrity of such leaders.14

Despite the above similarities, Gandhi and Ambedkar tended to differ, and debated vociferously

in their defence. This, in my opinion, was due to a dichotomy reflected primarily in their

contrary conception of the meaning of dharma. This issue derives essentially from the

ambivalent nature of the definition of dharma itself, which in turn is due in large part to the

complex nature of human morality and its semantics.

Yet, the views of Gandhi and Ambedkar regarding dharma were in no measure

irreconcilably disparate; they were indeed two faces of the same coin, as illustrated below:


Given the above dichotomous, yet correlative, conception of dharma, one ought to infer

that Gandhi and Ambedkar, contrary to being seen at loggerheads with each other, were actually

supplementary in their discourse. An attempt to reconcile them would focus on suppressing

differences rather than acknowledging complementarity, and hence the imperative is to integrate

Gandhi and Ambedkar into a unified model. Ambedkar viewed society rationally and reserved

his emotions solely for the plight of the untouchables; while Gandhi espoused a uniform

emotional attachment with all living beings and put the tenets of his own religion to a rigorous

rational evaluation. An integration of Gandhi and Ambedkar would, hence, create a model of

metaphysical holism by striking an enduring balance between rational and emotional social

perspectives.

4. Bridging the Gandhi-Ambedkar Divide for Effective Action

Ambedkar stressed on constitutional methods to secure emancipation of untouchables and

exhorted the masses to coalesce their might and push for stronger political representation.

Gandhi, on the contrary, was a philosophical anarchist15

who sought to keep State control at a

minimum and instead worked directly with village communities to guide them towards self-

sufficiency. Both attacked exploitative socio-economic systems. While Ambedkar fought for

reform to be pushed from the top, viz. the constitutional machinery, Gandhi worked to initiate

the same from grassroots up. Ambedkar attempted to set right a historical mistake, as Gandhi

sought to plug loopholes of the modern world, where he viewed the caste system as interleaved

with other perceived socio-economic evils.

Ambedkar believed in a classless society,16

where the function of the State was secondary

to functioning of society. The State was merely a means – working as a servant of the masses

and not their master17

– to create safeguards and enforce standards that ensured the basic tenets

of social justice – which for Ambedkar were equality, liberty, and fraternity – were manifested.

Gandhi believed in a stateless democracy,18

where the State had no affirmative role and existed

only to protect key productive resources and non-violently ensure the practice of trusteeship on

the part of private owners.19

One may, hence, view Gandhi and Ambedkar not as positioned at diametrically opposite

points on the circle of social justice but rather as two wheels of a cart that, when properly aligned

and balanced, can empower the yoke of struggle against inequality to be carried forward.

Ambedkar provides a diagnostic-curative analysis of inequality in Indian society, while Gandhi

lends a spiritual-philosophical insight to the same. I believe an integrated approach that combines

both Ambedkarian and Gandhian models would provide a better agenda of action than either of

the models working individually.


Given the depth to which casteism permeates the Indian mindset, one can reasonably

fathom that its eradication would not be straightforward. Caste system is not merely a thorn in

the flesh of Indian society, it is a disease afflicting the flesh altogether. Adopting a two-pronged

strategy – Ambedkar’s constitutional morality on the one hand and Gandhian practical

philosophy of social emancipation on the other – provides an effective balance between

individual participation and State engagement.

4.1 Analogy of the Flowering Plant

Ambedkar’s assertions over the annihilation of caste are an incontestably necessary

premise for the movement towards eradicating inequality, yet his complete faith in a political

solution for achieving his social ideals falls short of practicability.20

Merely creating a secular

State does not ensure that its individuals follow suit;21

while placing too many safeguards

amounts to excessive State interference that may border upon State absolutism, which goes

against Ambedkar’s own political philosophy.

Gandhi’s model incorporates grassroots level practicality. The cardinal aspects of his

social philosophy – namely, as a peaceful disposition, sv j as the rule of self-

discipline, as the primacy of local community, as a moral weapon of truth,

and sarvodaya as equality in opportunity – provide a comprehensive platform for implementing

a framework of social equality. Yet, Gandhi’s model suffered from an inability to detach from its

religious underpinnings.

An integrated model, taking Ambedkar’s rational analysis as its basis and Gandhi’s social

package as its practice, is proposed towards a hybrid model that serves to provide a holistic

social ideal. Ambedkar’s political solution joins

hands with the Gandhian socio-economic agenda.

This, in my opinion, can be demonstrated with the

analogy of a growing plant (illustrated alongside).

Ambedkar sows the seeds of the revolution and

Gandhi germinates it into reality. Both duly

recognize the imperative of education in bringing

out essential reform and, hence, once the framework

of social equality begins to gain foothold, education

provides the light to blossom it further and keeps it

inherently sustainable through an ever-widening

stream of discernment and awareness. True

education is that which provides direction to the ignorant soul in its quest for truth and it is not

mere coincidence that education has been equated with light in the above analogy.


It is well worth noting that the above reference to education is not towards mere basic,

formal or technical education. An effective model of education is one that draws upon a synthetic

conception of the human personality and serves to harmonize its various elements; whose ideals

and methods address and acknowledge every dimension of the human person. Such a model

would enrich the conception of dharma within every individual.22

4.2 Dharma Lives in the Heart of Every Man23

The first premise of any system of morality has to be the conviction that human beings

are essentially moral. In an ideal social setup, individual morality seamlessly transcends into a

harmonized group morality. Owing to an over-emphasis upon constitutional processes,

Ambedkar’s model failed to deliver a well-rounded focus upon individual dharma.

Yet the core of dharma was not totally lost upon Ambedkar. While he criticized the

ritualistic and obligatory aspects of dharma, he acknowledged its moral implication in the

genuineness of kinship. He beseeched the masses to embody a consciousness of kind – a social

connection that does not manifest merely through the blind passing of rituals and customs. He

called for commonality over similarity.24

A society based on consensual understanding of

dharma invariably establishes channels of common purpose and shared understanding. In such a

society, enforcement gets replaced by endorsement; compliance gets replaced by commitment;

and human beings naturally establish an equitable and just social order.

Universal brotherhood was Gandhi’s mission; an all encompassing fraternity was

Ambedkar’s vision. Both vision and mission come together in the integrated model advocated by

this essay, like two banks to the river of dharma.

5. Conclusion

Establishment of the ideal democratic Indian State presupposes two paradigm shifts: (1) a

reform in the interpretation of the -S 25

as an organic conception of society26

and that,

seen biologically, the feet are no less important – hence in no mean position – with regard to the

mouth, arms, or the thighs, and (2) removal of all those socio-economic barriers that allow one

social group to dominate over another and, hence, create an unjust disparity – that of the

privileged and the marginalized – between equally deserving individuals. Ambedkar’s movement

targeted both: while he personally overtly attacked the former, his socialist ideals and political

beliefs aimed for the latter. Thus, to the extent that Ambedkar’s attack on the caste system

created a starting point for establishing socio-economic equality in Indian society, his social

movement forms the basis for an ideal Indian democratic State.


Notes

1 Plato postulates his tripartite theory of soul – split into rational, spirited, and appetitive – in his works Republic and

Phaedrus, while Aristotle’s somewhat similar three-party division – into rational, sensitive, and nutritive –

is described in his book De Anima. Interestingly, the Greek divisions seem to be conveniently correlated

with theory of school of Indian philosophy, which is summoned by various Indian

thinkers, including Gandhi, as a justification for or social segregation.

2 Reference here is to the Pythagorean doctrine of three classes of men – tradesmen, artists, and philosophers – that

he explained with an analogy of the Olympic Games.

3 See Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 287-289.

4 Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 219.

5 Ambedkar borrows this term from John Dewey. See Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 256.




9 A term originally coined by Benjamin Kidd. For a discussion of Ambedkar’s interpretation of it, see Ambedkar,

Annihilation of Caste, pg. 210.

10 Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, Preface to Second Edition, 1937.

11 For more about oceanic circle, see Pruthi and Chaturvedi, Social Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, pg. 277.

12 For more about consciousness of kind, see Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 242-244.

13 Pruthi and Chaturvedi, Social Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, pg. 7.

14 For Ambedkar’s argument on role-models, see Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 293. And for Gandhi’s thesis

on the same, see Pruthi and Chaturvedi, Social Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, pg. 74.


16 Jadhav, “Neglected Economic Thought of Babasaheb Ambedkar,” pg. 982.

17 Rajasekhariah and Jayaraj, “Political Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,” pg. 365.



20 The flaw in practicability of Ambedkar’s political vision was apparent from his defeat in the general elections of

India held in 1951. See Gehlot, “Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dalit Movement,” pg. 385.

21 Sirnate, Vasundhara. “Building a Culture of Tolerance.” The Hindu, Bangalore ed., op-ed page. April 10, 2014.

22 The implication here is to endorse Tagore’s educational theory and model. For a detailed discussion, see Cenkner,

The Hindu Personality in Education, pg. 43-69.


23

Derived from Nani Palkhivala’s quote – “Dharma lives in the hearts of public men; when it dies, no constitution,

no law, no amendment can save it.” – quoted in Sorabjee, Soli J. “Palkhivala and the Constitution of India”

in Nani Palkhivala: A Role Model, ed. Nilendra Kumar, 3rd edition, 46-60. Delhi: Universal Law

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2009.

24 Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, pg. 242-244.

25 Hymn [X, 90] of the , which postulates emanation of various castes from the body of the divine

: hmins having emanated from the mouth, from the arms, from the thighs, and

from the feet.

26 See Jaiswal, “Caste, Gender and Ideology in the Making of India,” pg. 7.

Bibliography and References

Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition, ed. S. Anand. New Delhi: Navayana

Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 2013.

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar, ed. Valerian Rodrigues. New Delhi: Oxford

University Publications, 2007.

Cenkner, William. The Hindu Personality in Education. New Delhi: Manohar, 1994.

Dwivedi, H. S. and Ratan Sinha. “Dr. Ambedkar: The Pioneer of Social Democracy.” The Indian Journal of

Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July-Sept., 2005), pp. 661-666.

Gandhi, M. K. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, trans. Mahadev Desai. Auckland, NZ:

The Floating Press, 2009.

Gandhi, M. K. Teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, ed. Jag Pravesh Chander. Lahore: The Indian Printing Works, 1945.

Gehlot, N. S. “Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi and Dalit Movement.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.

54, No. 3/4 (July – Dec., 1993), pp. 382-387.

Jadhav, Narendra. “Neglected Economic Thought of Babasaheb Ambedkar.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.

26, No. 15 (Apr. 13, 1991), pp. 980-982.

Jaiswal, Suvira. “Caste, Gender and Ideology in the Making of India.” Social Scientist, Vol. 36, No. 1/2 (Jan. – Feb.,

2008), pp. 3-39.

Palshikar, Suhas. “Gandhi-Ambedkar Interface:… Where the Twain Shall Meet?” Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol. 31, No. 31 (Aug. 3, 1996), pp. 2070-2072.

Pruthi, R. K. and Archna Chaturvedi, Social Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Commonwealth

Publishers, 2009.

Rajasekhariah, A. M. and Hemalata Jayaraj. “Political Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.” The Indian Journal of

Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 3 (July – Sept., 1991), pp. 357-375.

Annihilation of Caste is the Basis for Indian Democracy

Documents

Transcript of Annihilation of Caste is the Basis for Indian Democracy