Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most recognized names in India, both within the country and in the rest of the world. But, for most people, what they know about him is what the heavy hand of the Indian state rebuilds through ceremonial memorabilia, holidays, banknotes, street names, statues, and school textbooks.
Apart from these, a series of hagiographies praising the subtlety of his sanctity and the ingenuity of his protest are all too common.
Furthermore, he is praised as the pioneer of Satyagraha, the progenitor of nonviolence, and of course the father of the nation.
In short, Gandhi has become an essential ingredient in creating the image of India around the world.
On the occasion of the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, this piece attempts to reconstruct Gandhi through the eyes of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
What did Ambedkar, the man to whom we entrust the administration of our constitution, have to say about Gandhi, the Mahatma? In a BBC interview in 1955, Ambedkar said: “Gandhi was never a Mahatma; I refuse to call him Mahatma. “
In an audio file of the interview uploaded to YouTube, Ambedkar can be heard saying that Gandhi was not a reformer. “It was just an episode in Indian history, not a vintage manufacturer,” Ambedkar said.
While some Gandhian scholars have dismissed Ambedkar’s characterization of Gandhi as mere “polemic”, I would argue that his sharp criticism stems from logical analysis and philosophical disagreement rather than hatred for Gandhi as a political opponent.
After thoroughly questioning the social and economic foundations of Gandhian philosophy, Ambedkar diagnosed Gandhism as a dangerous doctrine.
Mahatma Gandhi statue on the premises of Parliament House during the monsoon session, New Delhi. September 20, 2020. Photo: PTI / Kamal Kishore
Gandhi’s recipe for an ideal society was to establish a perfect caste system. Until 1922, Gandhi was a fervent defender of the caste system. He saw great value in the breed and openly advocated its continuation.
Gandhi glorified the caste as responsible for the durability of Hindu society; as a seed of swaraj (freedom); as a unique organizing power, as a means of providing primary education and forming a defense force; as a means of self-control; as the natural order of society; and most important of all, as the eternal principle of hereditary occupation to maintain social order.
Enunciating all these caste merits, Gandhi declares: “These being my views, I oppose all those who are willing to destroy the caste system.”
Later, Gandhi changed his terminology from caste to varna.
Around 1925, Gandhi declared that varna more than caste was his social ideal. He suggested that the smaller castes merge and “reproduce the ancient system of four varnas.” The ancient system of varna prevailing in ancient India had society divided into four vertical hierarchical orders: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras whose socially legislated occupations were learning, warfare, commerce, and service to the previous three varnas respectively. Ambedkar did not see any real change in Gandhi’s position, as Gandhi’s varna ideal carried forward the hereditary occupation of the intact caste model.
Ambedkar rightly pointed out that even within the framework of a Gandhian utopia, the Shudras would continue as a servile class. And the ati-shudras (current dalits) had to be integrated into the Shudra varna.
The economic ideal of the Gandhian model was equally repugnant to Ambedkar’s modernist sensibilities.
First of all, Gandhi was against modern machinery and civilization. In contrast, Ambedkar argues that modern machinery allows humans to have free time. And leisure, in turn, is the main precondition for culture and civilization to flourish, making human life worthy of its existence.
Second, Gandhi’s idea of ”fiduciary administration” is apparently geared towards eliminating the class struggle in the relationship between employers and employees and between landlords and tenants. Ambedkar, who was a trained economist, was very skeptical that the rich protected the interests of the poor.
Women protest in Shaheen Bagh with Ambedkar’s portrait. Photo: PTI
Ambedkar warned about Gandhism as “conservatism in excelsis” that “helps those who have, to preserve what they have and to prevent those who do not have from obtaining what they have the right to obtain.”
Ambedkar declared that Gandhian philosophy was suitable only for the privileged leisure class, which is justified by the class status of the current torchbearers of Gandhism.
Ambedkar dissects and concludes that Gandhi’s ideals do not suit the aspirations of a democratic society.
Ambedkar, from his unique point of view of being an “untouchable” and a philosopher, accuses Gandhi’s formulations of the status quoist highly brahminized. The fundamental conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi is not merely personal, but personifies the caste failures that run the length and breadth of the social fabric of India.
Today, there is no doubt that we need more of Gandhi and of course we need more of Ambedkar.
We need Gandhi to learn how a brahminized consciousness works regardless of his best intentions. On the other hand, we need Ambedkar to forge tools to deconstruct and repurpose the tactics of the Neobrahmine forces in the fight against the hydra-headed monster that is caste.
Karthik Raja Karuppusamy is a PhD candidate at the Center for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is currently co-editor The Shudras: Vision for a New Path with Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd for Penguin Publications.
.
