Excerpt: A Part Apart: The Life and Thought of BR Ambedkar by Ashok Gopal

The Mandal had earlier sent him a list of questions faced by it often in its anti-caste crusade, and Ambedkar dealt with these in his text. As he said in one of his letters to the Mandal, their queries were partly responsible for Annihilation (BAWS 1: 33). After the Mandal received Ambedkar’s text, there was a flurry of correspondence. The Mandal wanted two passages to be removed: on the need to destroy the Hindu religion and Ambedkar’s intention to “walk out of the fold of the Hindus” (BAWS 1: 31). Ambedkar refused to oblige, asked them to cancel the session of the conference that was to be addressed by him (35). He then arranged for the distribution of Annihilation, “to let the public know [his views] and also to dispose of the printed copies” (28). The subtitle of the booklet read, “Speech prepared by Dr BR Ambedkar for the 1936 annual conference of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal of Lahore but NOT DELIVERED owning to the cancellation of the conference by the reception committee on the ground that the views expressed in the speech would be unbearable to the conference” (36).

Running to about thirty thousand words (including a lengthy reply to objections raised by Gandhi, appended in the second edition), the text built up an argument over twenty-six sections, covering a number of subjects. First, Ambedkar reiterated the importance of social reform, which he understood as removal of caste. Then he explained how the Congress had ducked the issue. He also attacked socialists who ignored caste. Then he discussed the many ill effects of caste from the perspective of individual as well as societal progress. On that basis, he attacked the Arya Samaj defence of chaturvarna. Finally, in the last few sections, he presented what Santram had called a “new formula” for the annihilation of caste. It was, in truth, a plea for the annihilation of a certain kind of religion, and it was not directed specifically at the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal. As Ambedkar explained in a letter to Har Bhagwan, one of the office-bearers of the Mandal, he had no objections to the Mandal passing a resolution “condemning” his speech immediately after he had delivered it, but he had to retain its last part as “it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument” (BAWS 1: 33–34).

The thrust of his attack on caste was that it had prevented the emergence of a sense of belonging to a unified society. Thereby it had aborted the development of public spirit and public morality among Hindus.

A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound… There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other castes… There is appreciation of virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. (BAWS 1: 56–57)

Nationalists had a counter to Ambedkar’s argument, which had been suggested by Gandhi at the second RTC: The freedom movement led by the Congress had fostered common activity, and generated public spirit across diverse social groups. Sidestepping this possible objection, Ambedkar focused on what he thought was at the root of caste-based morality: chaturvarna. The traditional conception of chaturvarna, based on birth status, embodied the “arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus” (BAWS 1: 50). But there was another, apparently innocuous conception of chaturvarna that had been promoted by the Arya Samaj, and Ambedkar attacked it on several grounds (58–63).

First, though the Arya Samajists maintained that chaturvarna was based purely on guna or worth, they insisted on using the varna labels — Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra — which were associated with a “definite and fixed notion” of a “hierarchy based on birth”. The Arya Samajists’ unwillingness to forgo these “stinking labels” showed that their guna theory was only a “snare” to make chaturvarna acceptable to its opponents. Second, their theory was impracticable, as it required compelling people “who have acquired a higher status based on birth… to vacate that status” — a challenge ignored by the theory’s proponents.

There were also other reasons for the theory’s impracticability. Modern science had shown that it was impossible to classify individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes according to their qualities. Such a system could be enforced only with “penal sanction”, as prescribed in the Manusmriti. Moreover, the system could not be applied to women, unless its proponents were prepared to have women priests and soldiers.

Even if it was assumed that the theory was practical, it had to be rejected, as it was of the “most vicious” kind from the perspective of the Shudras. Due to the application of the theory, they had been prohibited from possessing arms and gaining education. Consequently, the higher varnas could oppress Shudras for centuries, without facing any challenge, as the Shudras did not have the three “weapons of emancipation” that had been available to the oppressed in Europe: the “physical weapon” obtained from military service, the “political weapon” obtained from suffering, and the “moral weapon” obtained through education.

Having thus established that chaturvarna was indefensible on any grounds, Ambedkar considered the prospects of its dissolution. The thrust of his reasoning was that Hindus followed horrible caste practices not because they were “inhuman”, but because they were a “deeply religious” people simply following their scriptures. It followed therefore that the “enemy” to be attacked was not the people who observed caste, but the scriptures that taught them “the religion of caste” (BAWS 1: 68). What were the chances of that happening? It was “well-nigh impossible”, Ambedkar said, giving several reasons.

One was the “hostility” shown by Brahmins towards the issue (BAWS 1: 69–71). They were “not to be found even as camp followers in the army raised to break down the barricades of caste”. This was but to be expected, as the breakdown of caste would destroy their “power and prestige”. There was no point distinguishing between “secular Brahmins” and priestly Brahmins, as both were “kith and kin”, bound to “fight for the existence of the other”. The disinclination of Brahmins to destroy caste was not a small matter, because though they formed a demographic minority, they formed the “intellectual” and “governing” class of the country, and unfortunately demonstrated only the “interest and aspiration” of their own caste.

Thirdly, there was no point appealing to the Hindus’ faculty of reason, because they were brought up to believe that their scriptures contained timeless wisdom, and ought not to be challenged. That is why the efforts of religious reformers down the centuries had not led to the annihilation of caste and untouchability. And that is why the only solution was to “apply the dynamite” to the entire lot of scriptures (BAWS 1: 75)…

At best, the core texts of the Hindu religion constituted a “legalised class-ethics”, or a “code of ordinances”. As such, it was unacceptable for several reasons. It removed freedom from the realm of the moral life, and reduced the latter to “anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules”. It was deeply unjust, as the ordinances were not applicable equally across all social classes, and it was “invested with the character of finality and fixity”, allowing for no changes according to personal and historical circumstances. Such a religion had to be “destroyed” (BAWS 1: 75–76).

There was another alternative: the rejection of religion itself. But Ambedkar was not prepared to go down that route. Consequently, he made another significant departure from Dewey’s view on the need for principles rather than rules in the moral domain. In Ethics, Dewey had not recommended any specific principles or religion as a source of principles. His plea was for choosing principles on the basis of reason. Ambedkar, on the other hand, desired a religion based on three specific principles — liberty, equality and fraternity.

(This excerpt has been published with permission from Navayana. These pictures are for one-time use in Hindustan Times online edition, and cannot be reproduced or shared anywhere without the permission of Navayana and Vijay Surwade, the archivist of the Dalit movement from Kalyan, Maharashtra.)

Key to Abbreviatons

BAWS 1 — Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume 1

Bibliography

Ambedkar, BR. 1936/2014. Annihiliation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition. Edited and annotated by S Anand. Introduced with an essay by Arundhati Roy. New Delhi: Navayana.

Dewey, John and James H Tufts. 1908. Ethics. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Ramteke, SN, J Kamble and S Tardalkar. 2010. Babasahebanchya Sahvasateel Suvarnashan (Golden Moments with Babasaheb). Pune: Sugava Prakashan.

The Mandal had earlier sent him a list of questions faced by it often in its anti-caste crusade, and Ambedkar dealt with these in his text. As he said in one of his letters to the Mandal, their queries were partly responsible for Annihilation (BAWS 1: 33). After the Mandal received Ambedkar’s text, there was a flurry of correspondence. The Mandal wanted two passages to be removed: on the need to destroy the Hindu religion and Ambedkar’s intention to “walk out of the fold of the Hindus” (BAWS 1: 31). Ambedkar refused to oblige, asked them to cancel the session of the conference that was to be addressed by him (35). He then arranged for the distribution of Annihilation, “to let the public know [his views] and also to dispose of the printed copies” (28). The subtitle of the booklet read, “Speech prepared by Dr BR Ambedkar for the 1936 annual conference of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal of Lahore but NOT DELIVERED owning to the cancellation of the conference by the reception committee on the ground that the views expressed in the speech would be unbearable to the conference” (36).

Running to about thirty thousand words (including a lengthy reply to objections raised by Gandhi, appended in the second edition), the text built up an argument over twenty-six sections, covering a number of subjects. First, Ambedkar reiterated the importance of social reform, which he understood as removal of caste. Then he explained how the Congress had ducked the issue. He also attacked socialists who ignored caste. Then he discussed the many ill effects of caste from the perspective of individual as well as societal progress. On that basis, he attacked the Arya Samaj defence of chaturvarna. Finally, in the last few sections, he presented what Santram had called a “new formula” for the annihilation of caste. It was, in truth, a plea for the annihilation of a certain kind of religion, and it was not directed specifically at the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal. As Ambedkar explained in a letter to Har Bhagwan, one of the office-bearers of the Mandal, he had no objections to the Mandal passing a resolution “condemning” his speech immediately after he had delivered it, but he had to retain its last part as “it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument” (BAWS 1: 33–34).

The thrust of his attack on caste was that it had prevented the emergence of a sense of belonging to a unified society. Thereby it had aborted the development of public spirit and public morality among Hindus.

A Hindu’s public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound… There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other castes… There is appreciation of virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. (BAWS 1: 56–57)

Nationalists had a counter to Ambedkar’s argument, which had been suggested by Gandhi at the second RTC: The freedom movement led by the Congress had fostered common activity, and generated public spirit across diverse social groups. Sidestepping this possible objection, Ambedkar focused on what he thought was at the root of caste-based morality: chaturvarna. The traditional conception of chaturvarna, based on birth status, embodied the “arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus” (BAWS 1: 50). But there was another, apparently innocuous conception of chaturvarna that had been promoted by the Arya Samaj, and Ambedkar attacked it on several grounds (58–63).

First, though the Arya Samajists maintained that chaturvarna was based purely on guna or worth, they insisted on using the varna labels — Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra — which were associated with a “definite and fixed notion” of a “hierarchy based on birth”. The Arya Samajists’ unwillingness to forgo these “stinking labels” showed that their guna theory was only a “snare” to make chaturvarna acceptable to its opponents. Second, their theory was impracticable, as it required compelling people “who have acquired a higher status based on birth… to vacate that status” — a challenge ignored by the theory’s proponents.

There were also other reasons for the theory’s impracticability. Modern science had shown that it was impossible to classify individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes according to their qualities. Such a system could be enforced only with “penal sanction”, as prescribed in the Manusmriti. Moreover, the system could not be applied to women, unless its proponents were prepared to have women priests and soldiers.

Even if it was assumed that the theory was practical, it had to be rejected, as it was of the “most vicious” kind from the perspective of the Shudras. Due to the application of the theory, they had been prohibited from possessing arms and gaining education. Consequently, the higher varnas could oppress Shudras for centuries, without facing any challenge, as the Shudras did not have the three “weapons of emancipation” that had been available to the oppressed in Europe: the “physical weapon” obtained from military service, the “political weapon” obtained from suffering, and the “moral weapon” obtained through education.

Having thus established that chaturvarna was indefensible on any grounds, Ambedkar considered the prospects of its dissolution. The thrust of his reasoning was that Hindus followed horrible caste practices not because they were “inhuman”, but because they were a “deeply religious” people simply following their scriptures. It followed therefore that the “enemy” to be attacked was not the people who observed caste, but the scriptures that taught them “the religion of caste” (BAWS 1: 68). What were the chances of that happening? It was “well-nigh impossible”, Ambedkar said, giving several reasons.

One was the “hostility” shown by Brahmins towards the issue (BAWS 1: 69–71). They were “not to be found even as camp followers in the army raised to break down the barricades of caste”. This was but to be expected, as the breakdown of caste would destroy their “power and prestige”. There was no point distinguishing between “secular Brahmins” and priestly Brahmins, as both were “kith and kin”, bound to “fight for the existence of the other”. The disinclination of Brahmins to destroy caste was not a small matter, because though they formed a demographic minority, they formed the “intellectual” and “governing” class of the country, and unfortunately demonstrated only the “interest and aspiration” of their own caste.

Thirdly, there was no point appealing to the Hindus’ faculty of reason, because they were brought up to believe that their scriptures contained timeless wisdom, and ought not to be challenged. That is why the efforts of religious reformers down the centuries had not led to the annihilation of caste and untouchability. And that is why the only solution was to “apply the dynamite” to the entire lot of scriptures (BAWS 1: 75)…

At best, the core texts of the Hindu religion constituted a “legalised class-ethics”, or a “code of ordinances”. As such, it was unacceptable for several reasons. It removed freedom from the realm of the moral life, and reduced the latter to “anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules”. It was deeply unjust, as the ordinances were not applicable equally across all social classes, and it was “invested with the character of finality and fixity”, allowing for no changes according to personal and historical circumstances. Such a religion had to be “destroyed” (BAWS 1: 75–76).

There was another alternative: the rejection of religion itself. But Ambedkar was not prepared to go down that route. Consequently, he made another significant departure from Dewey’s view on the need for principles rather than rules in the moral domain. In Ethics, Dewey had not recommended any specific principles or religion as a source of principles. His plea was for choosing principles on the basis of reason. Ambedkar, on the other hand, desired a religion based on three specific principles — liberty, equality and fraternity.

(This excerpt has been published with permission from Navayana. These pictures are for one-time use in Hindustan Times online edition, and cannot be reproduced or shared anywhere without the permission of Navayana and Vijay Surwade, the archivist of the Dalit movement from Kalyan, Maharashtra.)

Key to Abbreviatons

BAWS 1 — Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume 1

Bibliography

Ambedkar, BR. 1936/2014. Annihiliation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition. Edited and annotated by S Anand. Introduced with an essay by Arundhati Roy. New Delhi: Navayana.

Dewey, John and James H Tufts. 1908. Ethics. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Ramteke, SN, J Kamble and S Tardalkar. 2010. Babasahebanchya Sahvasateel Suvarnashan (Golden Moments with Babasaheb). Pune: Sugava Prakashan.