constitution hons fundamental right over view towards abolition of untouchable

A Project Report on

“BRIEF DISCRIPTION ON ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABLITY Subject:

Constitutional Governance

Submitted to:

Ms.RAJPUT SHRADDHA BHAUSINGH (FACULTY OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE)

Submitted by:

Vivek kumar sai th

(B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 8 semester, Roll no. 146)

Date of submission: th

April 5 , 2014

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 1

HIDAYATULLAH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,RAIPUR UNIVERSITY,RAIPUR (C.G).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on this dynamic & highly popular topic O N A B OL OL I T I O N O F U N T OU OU C H A B L I T Y

“

B R I E F D I SC RI RI P TI TI O N

.I want to make it clear that I am not a master in the

subject, but, I have tried my level best to give a clear picture. This project, however, does not deal with the topic exhaustively. Not to forget the deep sense of regard and gratitude to my adviser, M S.SH .SH RADDH A

who who B. RAJPUT RAJPUT

has played the role of a protagonist, who has always

given me guidance to go ahead with my topic. I also take up this opportunity to thank my colleagues for helping me in completing this project.

Finally I would like to thank God, the Almighty without whose blessings this project would never have been a success.

VIVEK KUMAR SAI

EIGHT

SEMESTER

B.A. L.L.B.(HONS.) HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW U NIVERSITY,


Page 2

R AIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) R ESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims & Objectives:

Gandhiji and Ambedkar differed in their understanding of modernity in assessing traditions and in proposing options for India and the world. However, across their differences there was much that united them, not merely on issues and concerns, but on substantive positions as well. This project thus aims, at a study of the visions of these two constitutional giants of India. In addition to exploring the ideologies, assets and thoughts, this project shall attempt to draw out the relevance of philosophies as advocated by Gandhiji and Ambedkar respectively. Scope and Limitations:

As this project intends to dwell into the technicalities and philosophical concepts of Ambedkar and Gandhiji, a peculiar issue of untouchability has been addressed. The research is thus limited to agreements and disagreements between Ambedkar and Gandhiji on the issue of untouchability. Research Methodology:

The researcher has used descriptive method of research. Critical analysis of the policies has been done in an analytical manner. Doctrinal method is preferred for corroborating the peculiar features of the concepts adopted by Gandhiji and Ambedkar.


Page 3

Table of Contents

The Issue of ‘Untouchability’: An Introduction ............................................ ............................ 5 Untouchability: The Abolished Menace ................................................................................ 5 Forms of Untouchability ........................................................... ............................................. 5 Abolition of Untouchability under the Indian Constitution, 1950 ......................................... 6 Landmarks in Indian Legal System:....................... ................................................................ 6 The Story of Ambedkar and Gandhiji: .............................................. ..................................... 7 The Philosophies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar ................................................ ............................ 7 Gandhiji’s Concept- Untouchability ........................................ .............................................. 7 Ambedkar’s Concept- Untouchability ........................................... ................................... 10 Analysis of Ambedkar’s Concept: ............................................................. .......................... 12 The Disagreements: Analysis of written and unwritten ........................................................... 12 The Social Transformation of Ideas: A Changing Untouchability .......................................... 15 A.] Early Sensitizations against ‘Untouchability’:............................................................... 15 B.] Life Experiences and its Reflections on Anti-untouchability Sentiments: .................... 16 C.] The Social Movements: Campaigns against ‘Untouchability’:...................................... 17 D.] Oppositions and Political Campaigns: ................................................. .......................... 18 E.] Gandhiji’s Encounters with Ambedkar: Divergences and Disagreements: ................... 18 F.] Post Yeravda Divergence: .............................................................................................. 20 G.] Perceptions of Untouchability: Ambedkar and Gandhi: ................................................ 21 H.] Measures for Elimination of ‘Untouchability’:.............................................................. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................. ....................................................................... 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. ....................................................................... 24


Page 4

The Issue of ‘Untouchability’: An Introduction

"My fight against untouchability is a fight against the impure in humanity." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Untouchability: The Abolished Menace

Untouchability is a ‗direct‘ product of the caste system. It is not merely the inability to touch a human being of a certain caste or sub-caste. It is an attitude on the part of a whole group of people that relates to a deeper psychological process of thought and belief, invisible to the naked 1

eye, translated into various physical acts and behaviors, norms and practices. The problem is of 2

great amplitude and has various facets that are studied and researched time and again.

The greatest contribution of Ambedkar and the Congress, which represented the views of Gandhiji, for the cause of the Scheduled Castes, was that in the Constitution of India, the fundamental rights including equality before thelaw were made applicable to all citizens of India, irrespective of caste and creed. It should not be forgotten that Ambedkar was the only member of the Scheduled Caste in the Constituent Assembly who was elected on a nonCongress platform. The Constituent Assembly was dominated by the Congress. Although Ambedkar had a major role as Law Minister in the drafting of the Constitution, all the provisions were much debated 3

and scrutinized by various luminaries. Forms of Untouchability

Over 80 forms of untouchability have been identified, many of which are apparently free India‘s additions to the list. From time immemorial Dalits have been deprived of their right to education and the right to possess land and other forms of property. Left with nothing but their physical labor to earn their livelihood they have all along been forced to do the toughest and most menial jobs for survival. Apart from the denial of access to public roads, tanks, temples and

1

http://navsarjan.org/navsarjan/dalits/WhatIsUntouchability(last accessed on 11.08.2011); See also, H. Kotani, Caste System, Untouchability and t he Depressed , 2 The Survey by National Law School, Bangalore on „Evaluation of the Protection of Civil Rights Acts‘, 1955 and its impact on the eradication of untouchability, 2008, (http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/survey-onuntouchability-bynational-law-school-bangaluru/) (last accessed on 11.08.2011) 3 Constitutional Assembly Debates, Vol. XIV, p. 994


Page 5

burial/cremation grounds there are other forms of untouchability. While untouchability is still rampant and is taking new forms particularly in villages, the constitutional ban and compulsions of modernity and development have to some extent blunted its rigor. Rail transport has been unifying forces in society. Although all state governments claim that they have abolished manual scavenging reports reveal that this practice is very much alive in many places. Postmen have also 4

been found to practice untouchability.

Abolition of Untouchability under the Indian Constitution, 1950

The fundamental rights have been extended to every citizen of this country to guarantee the basic freedoms extended to individuals. Article 17 of the Constitution has abolished the ―practice of untouchability‖ and severely punishes those who practice it. Article 21 guarantees right to life and liberty. The Indian Supreme Court has interpreted this right to be free from degrading and inhumane treatment, the right to integrity and dignity of the person, and the right to speedy 5

justice. When read with Article 39A on equal justice and free legal aid. Article 21 also encompasses the right to legal aid for those who faced imprisonment and for those who were too 6

poor to afford at least a counsel.

Landmarks in Indian Legal System:

In 1989, the Government of India passed the Prevention of Atrocities Act (POA) which delineates specific crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as ―atrocities‖ and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. Repeated suggestions concerning reforms to be done in various provisions of POA, 1989 have been advocated by the 7

Supreme Court and other legal reform organisations. In the protective sphere, untouchability was abolished and its practice in any form was forbidden by the AntiUntouchability Act of 1955. This Act was later reviewed by the Government of India and Protection of Civil Rights Act was passed in 1976. Due to ongoing need of a further stringent legislation on the subject, Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 was passed. 4

http://azadindia.org/social-issues/untouchability-in-india.html(last accessed on 11.08.2011) S. K. Singh, Bonded Labor and the Law, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1994, p.47 6 Suk Das v. Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991 7 See Surya Narayan Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1989 Raj. 99; Rupabhai v. State of Gujarat; Ismail KalubhaiGharasia v. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/0795/2004 5


Page 6

The Story of Ambedkar and Gandhiji:

Both Gandhiji and Ambedkar were great men. While Gandhiji was the Father of the Nation, Ambedkar was the Father of the Indian Constitution. While Gandhiji was an apostle of peace and non-violence, Ambedkar became a convert to Buddhism, which preached universal peace and non-violence. Both of them work edassiduously for the emancipation of the Scheduled Castes, though their means differed. For Gandhiji, the change had to come primarily in the hearts of caste Hindus. He staked his life for retaining the Scheduled Castes within the Hindu fold. Gandhiji wanted political freedom before the rights of various classes could be secured. Ambedkar agitated for separate electorates but showed generosity of spirit and gave up this demand to save Gandhiji's life. Ambedkar was fortunate enough to see for himself the initial progress made by the Scheduled Caste arising out of the safeguards provided in the 8

Constitution.

The Philosophies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar

9

Gandhiji’s Concept- Untouchability

In 1919, when Gandhiji appeared as a shining star in an Indian political horizon, His magnetic personality gave a new life to the Indian freedom movement as well as the old congress. Under Gandhiji‘s Indian Congress got face lift and was converted into a mass organization, adopting the policies of non-cooperation and civil disobedience. In the beginning, Gandhiji was firm in his belief that if the untouchables were permitted to enter the temples, the blot of untouchability would vanish. It was this belief which prompted Gandhiji to incorporate temple entry as a part of 10

his anti-untouchability campaign which was intensified during post-Poona P act period.

Therefore Gandhiji‘s anti-untouchability campaign started when he was released from Yervada prison, Gandhiji made fervent appeals to the orthodox and Santana caste Hindus to open up their 8

Krishnan, Asha, Ambedkar and Gandhiji: Emancipators of Untouchables in Modern India, (Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House, 1997) 9 The researcher has attempted broad analysis of views of Ambedkar and Gandhiji on ―Texts and Traditions‖. The general ideology concerning specific issues seems to be a product of these divergent perceptions of fundamentals of a dynamic society. 10 11 Anil Bharadwaj, Welfare of Scheduled Caste in India, 2002, p.23 Ibid , p.24


Page 7

hearts and treat the untouchables as their brothers and sisters. He also undertook the tour which is commonly referred to as the „Harijan‟ tour during the period of November 1933 to August 1934. On this tour Gandhiji addressed 161places and covered a distance of 12650 11

miles. Gandhiji was a devoted Hindu, and strongly believed that untouchability was acorruption of Hinduism. His aim was social reform, transforming the Untouchables into a Varna and removing their former stigma, thereby rectifying the original spiritual corruption of Hinduism. He believed this would change the attitude of caste Hindu, encouraging the acceptance of Untouchables as children of God, or “harijan”, a term coined by Gandhiji in 1933, 11

and used much more by other castes than Untouchables themselves.

After a long campaign for Untouchables, Gandhiji also realized the ugly reality of the caste system and there was a considerable re-conceptualization of the issue. In 1935, he become a 12

critic of the caste system but continued to be a votary of ChaturvarnainVarna Dharma. That is the time when his all the comments still criticize by many Dalits activist to dominate and ignore what Gandhiji did for untouchables but we forget that the same Gandhiji who in 1930 fully opposed to inter-dining and inter-marriage as he felt that such things should be left to the unfettered choice of the individuals. In 1935, he was against creating artificial little groups which would neither inter-dine nor inter-marry. However, by 1946 there was a complete volte-face in his approach. It was in this year Gandhiji made a startling announcement to the effect that in Sevagram, his Ashram at Wardha, no marriage would be celebrated unless one of the parties was untouchable by 14

birth.

And he said: “Untouchability is the sin of the Hindus. They must suffer for it, they must purify themselves, and they must pay the debt they owe to their suppressed brothers and sisters. Theirs is the shame and theirs must be glory when they purged themselves of the black sin. The silent loving suffering of one single pure Hindu as such will be enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus; but the suffering of thousands of non-Hindus on behalf of the untouchables will leave the Hindus 11

Pervez, 2004, and Hardtmann, 2003, 51, Infra note 18 Based on four varna system, that‘s why is called as ‗Chaturvarna‘ system November 16, 1935 at p. 316 12


14

Harijan,

Page 8

unmoved. Their blind eyes will not be opened by outside interference, however well intentioned and generous it may be; it will not bring home to them the sense guilt. On the contrary, they would probably hang the sin all the more for such interference. All reforms to be sincere and 13

lasting must be from within”. Gandhiji in the name of reborn he also said: “I do not want to reborn, but if I have to reborn, I should be born as untouchable, so that I share their sorrow and suffering, and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may endeavour to free myself and them from the miserable conditions. I, therefore, pray that if I should be born again, I should do so not as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra, but as an Atishudra 14

(untouchable)”. Analysis of Gandhiji‘s Perspective: It is to be identified here that W.H. Morris-Jones makes a distinction between different languages in which political discourse and discussion may be couched. He refers to three such languages15

saintly, traditional and modern. It appears that Gandhiji is located in a stream of thinking that inclines towards the spiritual end of the spectrum of thought ways. If we go with the classification as has been made by Morris-Jones, it could aptly be concluded that Gandhiji had been a speaker of saintly language. For Gandhiji, what is paradoxical is that the industrial civilization does offer to everybody the promissory note of bettering his material condition through the fulfillment of ordinary life needs. Influenced by this promise, every individual unashamedly strives to attain an ever rising level of bodily comfort and luxury. However, it creates a situation in which only a few can succeed in this and that also at a great cost not only to themselves but also to others. However, the promissory note keeps alive the hopes that, if one is not able to break through the barrier of dispossession and deprivation today, perhaps he will be able to do so tomorrow. But that tomorrow never comes, and, if it comes, it comes only for a few fortunate ones among the disposed and the deprived. Looking from Gandhiji‘s vision, Untouchables are an integral part of Hindu Social Order and solution to this problem must be sought within the fold of that order. This requires removal of all social, ritual, economic 16

distractions affecting the Untouchables. Thus, it could be noted that Gandhiji was attempting to unite the society in the sense that man is equal in all respects and love can only identify the 13

The collected works of Mahatma Gandhiji (New Delhi: government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting), 1967, Vol. XXIII, p. 515-16 14 Young India, 4th May, 1921, p.144 15 These classifications are not exact however, they overlap each other at perspectives and times. 16 Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 403


Page 9

solution to all evils. He strongly advocated that ‗Untouchables‘ should not be regarded as a community separate but should be treated as a class of Hindu Social Order. Ambedkar’s Concept- Untouchability

Ambedkar was born in Mahow Indore on 14th April 1891, an untouchable Mahar, and a caste group that traditionally worked as village servants in Maharashtra. With the help of the Maharaja of Baroda who was impressed with his intellectual capacities, and due to the fact that his father had worked in the British army and had some financial means, Ambedkar gained access to an 17

education traditionally inaccessible to someone of his social position. Still, his education and later his professional life were strongly marked by the stigma of untouchability. In primary school he had to sit outside the classroom and was not allowed to drink from the common water tanks and later, at secondary school, there was objection to his studying Sanskrit, the language of the scriptures, strictly forbidden for an Untouchable. He had difficulty finding accommodation both at university hostels, and later when he was stationed in different parts of the country as a government official. Even when he was appointed Minister for Finance in Baroda (a political post never before occupied by an Untouchable), he was discriminated against by his peers, who 18

refused to touch any document he may already have handled. Based on his own experiences, Ambedkar adopted a social and political perspective contrary to Gandhiji‘s; to him, the problem of untouchability wasintrinsic to the whole construction of Hinduism, and he believed there 19

would be no emancipation of Untouchables without the destruction of the caste s ystem.

Ambedkar was popularly known after completing his education he started to work for his people. First, in 1919, he gave evidence before the South Borough Committee to constitute separate electorates for untouchables. He started a weekly paper „Mooknayak‟ (Leader of Dumb) on 31st 20

January 1920, to mobilize untouchables for their struggle.

17

Ambedkar obtained a Ph.D. in economics at Colombia University, New York, in 1916, and a D.Sc. in economics from London School of Economics and Political Science in 1923, the same year he became a barrister at law and was admitted to the British Bar. 18 Perez, R. M. (2004), Kings and Untouchables: A Study of the Caste System in Western India, (New Delhi: Chronicle Books), p.17-18 19 A full exposition of this view can be found in Ambedkar‘s “Annihilation of Caste: With a reply to Mahatma Gandhiji” (1936) 20 Kuber, W. N., 1963, p.18.


Page 10

Ambedkar deeply craved a new social order based on the lofty principals of ―liberty, equality, fraternity and justice‖. These principals are the core of his philosophy. In 1924, he established the „BahishkritHitkariniSabha‟, the untouchable‘s welfare forum. The aim of which was to prepare the untouchables for future struggle. Through this Sabha, Ambedkar gave a clarion call to his 21

peoples to ―Educate, organize, and agitate‖. He looked upon law as a vital means for social change or social engineering, the aim of which should, of course, be social justice. The concept of social justice is at the center of Ambedka r‘s socio-legal philosophy. Ambedkar‘s vision of a good social order signifies the need to have a good match between what is good for one individual and what is good for all individuals. It is this match that constitutes the foundation of social democracy that he visualizes as the most preferred social and political system. This match, has however, to be achieved and maintained in a situation where man is primarily, to use a Greek term, idiotic, that is, a being who is engaged in the sole task of meeting the demands of his own private existence, demands that have their roots in the private dimension of his existence, as separated from others of his kind in the society. Though analyses of the problems of untouchables as put forth by Ambedkar may only be an indicator of the prevailing system and condition of his times, His ideas continued to guide the successive government in formulating the welfare policies for Dalits and others depressed classes. At present, Dalit activists and NGOs who work for Dalits Human rights, using his three words ―Educate, Organized, Agitate‖ to libratesDalits. Thus, Ambedkar did not contend himself with elaborating a theory of casteswhich culminated in the idea of graded inequality; he also devised an untouchabletradition susceptible to remedy the former. If they recognized themselves assons of the soils and Buddhists, the Untouchables could better surmount theirdivisions into so many jatis and take a stand together as an ethnic groupagainst the system in its entirety. Omvedt underlines that by the end of his lifeAmbedkar was working on a grand theory of the origin of the Untouchables andthe conflict between their civilization and Hinduism. The notion of autochthonyplayed a key role in this theory. Ambedkar

21

Anil Bharadwaj, Welfare of Scheduled Caste in India, 2002, p.45


Page 11

argued that if Hindu India had beeninvaded by Muslims, Buddhist India had been subjugated by 22

Brahmins outsidersmuch before.

Analysis of Ambedkar’s Concept:

Ambedkar has vehemently opposed Gandhiji and his condemnation of machines. Ambedkar did so precisely because Gandhiji celebrated toil or at least, physical labor with a view to promoting self-dependence in fulfilling the need for food, on the one hand, and, on the other hand to counterbalance the pronounced tendency today towards intellectual voluptuousness. Ambedkar equally detested Marxists although he praised Marx for advancing a philosophy that was satisfying the lower order of the society.

23

For Ambedkar, equality did not a stop with all „varnas‟ being equal. In fact he harshly criticized the caste-system and wanted Untouchables to have no part in it. When headvocated equality, he referred to equality in the economic. While Ambedkar‘s dreams are still far from being realized, 24

his contribution was realisticand lasting. He was largely responsible for creating reserved positions for untouchablesin the civil service, legislatures and higher education. But moreimportantly, his major contribution was to have emphasized the importance of action from below: that political organization was indispensable to securing justice and basic human 25

26

rights. Ambedkar was committed to secular perspective on man and his world. His social 27

philosophy could be said to be in the words, ‗Liberty, Equality and Fraternity‘.

The Disagreements: Analysis of written and unwritten

The disagreements in the ideologies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar could be aptly illustrated in the period 1930-1940, wherein major criticisms of Gandhiji and his movements were advocated by Ambedkar. It is relevant to note that, given the socio-economic conditions of untouchables and

22

Christopher Jeffrelot, Dr.Ambedkar‟s Strategies against Untouchability and Caste System , Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, 2009, Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3 23 Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 393 24 B. R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables: who were they and why they became untouchables, p. 37-39 25 SukdeoThorat, Ambedkar‘s Role in Economic Planning 26 Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 391 27 Dr. Baba SahebAmbedkar: Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharastra, 1982, p. 222-223


Page 12

their concomitants of degradation, humiliation and exploitation, it was natural for Ambedkar as their undisputed leader to prefer their social and economic uplift. He is on record to say that, for him, the untouchables‘ interest was prior to that of the country and that he would always give 28

precedence to the former. It has been pointed out earlier in the project that ideologies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar were different in many respects. It is nonetheless relevant to state here that their approach as to untouchables and untouchability is in entirely antithetical ways. It is therefore, not surprising that Gandhiji chided Ambedkar for his particularistic obsession with the good of the untouchables alone ignoring the larger claim of the whole of which the untouchables 2930

formed only a part.

Ambedkar was however adamant in getting social, economic and political

concessions for untouchables. In his discussion with Gandhiji about the terms of speculated Poona Pact, Ambedkar insisted: “I want political power for my community. The basis of agreement should be: I should get what is due to me. I wish to tell the Hindus that I should be assured of my compensation.‖ Gandhiji‘s counter -argument that he has in his mind the interest of whole community, and that he does not like the idea of dividing the community for the benefit of the untouchables alone had no effect on Ambedkar. Influenced by this perspective, Gandhiji vehemently opposed separate electorates and argued that ―it would spell their bondage in perpetuity‖. The radical difference between Gandhiji and Ambedkar in viewing the problems of untouchables and in advancing solutions to these problems can be better appreciated by their statements. Gandhiji said: “With all my regard for Dr Ambedkar, and for his desire to see the untouchables uplifted, with all my regard for his ability, I must say in all humility, that great wrong under which he has labored and perhaps the bitter experiences that he has undergone, have for the momentwarped his judgment. It hurts me to say this, but I would be untrue to the cause of the untouchables, which is as dear to me as life itself, if I did not say this. I will not bargain away 32

their rights for the kingdom of the whole world.” Moreover, Gandhiji was convinced that Ambedkar was not at all working for the promotion of the interests of all untouchables; what he was, in fact, doing had the consequence of bringing about a double split, one among the

28

Writings and Speeches of B.R. Ambedkar, Bombay Legislative Assembly, Vol. II, p. 258 Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 403 30 November, 1931 at Minorities Committee of the Round Table Conference 29


Page 13

31

untouchables and other in Hindu social order. Responding to the observations of Gandhiji, Ambedkar in the single-minded pursuit of his mission, hinted that he treated everyone who failed to see his point of view enemies. And this was one point that pitched Ambedkar against Gandhiji. As he himself made it clear to Gandhiji when he met him in England on 22 September 1932 “I have only one quarrel with you. You are working for so-called national welfare and not for our interest alone. If you devoted yourself entirely to the welfare of the depressed classes, you 34

would then become our hero.” It is out of this attitude that Ambedkar‘s concept of politics differed sharply from that of Gandhiji. For Gandhiji, politics, devoid of its spiritual underpinning was an invitation to conflict and violence. However, Ambedkar held entirely a different view of politics. Underlying this difference was their differential understanding of what the term 32

‗political‘ signified. If Gandhiji embraced this idea of political, Ambedkar did not. For Gandhiji, the principal objective of political action was to preserve harmony and goodwill in the community. He recognized that there are conflicting interests and views; however, they could be reconciled through persuasion based on the commitment to the exploration of truth. His conception of ‗ satyagraha‟ is rooted in this perspective which he treated as not only the instrument par excellence of avoiding conflict but also of preserving order and harmony; in addition it was an apt of exploring the truth also. In contradiction to this, Ambedkar treated society simply as an aggregate of separate socio-economic groups, each of which is looking for the promotion and preservation of its own interest. In this process conflicts do emerge which have to be resolved on the basis of negotiation, bargaining and compromise. In this perspective, politics is nothing else than a process of reciprocal resistance in which superior power position and, dependent on it, the bargaining powers are crucial factors. It is neither morality nor the concern for the collective interest of the community that matters. Ambedkar‘s single minded pursuit of interest of the untouchables stemmed from this differential conception of political action. Writing about the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar, Nagraj refers to the irony of the ironies that is ―to understand the nature of Babasaheb‘s political career one has to place it along with Gandhiji‘s for the divergence between the two will highlight the unique

31

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhiji, Vol. 57, Appendix A, p. 440 34 Ibid, p. 439 32 John H. Schaar, Escape from Authority: The Perspective of Erich From on, (New York: Basic Books), 1969, p. 296


Page 14

33

problems of the former.‖ Thus, the conflict between Gandhiji and Ambedkar is not ideological; it is essentially philosophical reflecting antagonistic views on how to order human life. It is this aspect of the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar that most commentators and critics lose sight of and, therefore, fail to see the cosmic drama played out in the microcosmic event of 34

the movement of Harijan uplift. As a result, they offer seemingly credible but really highly distorting interpretation of the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar. As a result, we enter into a stage of confusion, in which anybody can easily be right because everybody else is wrong to the extent that it is sufficient to stress the opposite of what somebody else says in order 35

at least to be partially right as the opponent. This is what has happened in the case of Gandhiji. While Ambedkar‘s brand of politics has become regent, philosophical realist cannot escape the strange destiny that is his. “Uncompromising attacks are his lot and equally incomprehensible praise, at best some pragmatic misuse of his arguments for a partisan purpose, and for the rest oblivion.‖

36

Ambedkar‘s policies could best illustrated in the following terms: "But I tell you that the Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been sincere, it would have surely madethe removal of untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of 37

the Congress."

The Social Transformation of Ideas: A Changing Untouchability A.] Early Sensitizations against ‘Untouchability’:

Gandhiji has stated that his first encounter to untouchability was during his visit to India in 1896 38

from South Africa. While Ambedkar refutes, western authors explaining caste hierarchy by 39

resorting to racial factors. There were great disagreements amongst the two philosophers as to untouchability and problems appended thereto. Both Gandhiji and Ambedkar had unpromising

33

JhrglnGebhart and Thomas A. Hollweck, eds., Eric Voegelin, History of Political Ideas: The New Order and Last Orientation (Missouri University Press, Columbia), 1999, p.194 34 Bombay Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 October 1939 in Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 529 35 Ibid , at p. 197 36 Ibid at p.198-199, Loccit 37 From an article of New York Times, Nov. 30, 1930 38 M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part II, Chapters ‗XXIV Homeward‘ and ‗XXV in India‘, pp. 152– 157. 39 B.R. Ambedkar, “The Untouchables. Who were they and why they became Untouchables?” Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 7, pp. 290-303.


in

Page 15

40

views against ‗untouchability‘ and its other credentials. Ambedkar‘s observation could be analyzed from his statement: “It explains why the Untouchables regard the Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as their priests and do not even allow them to enter into their quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables. The Broken Men hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were the enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed untouchability upon the Broken Men because they would not leave Buddhism.‖

44

Similarly Gandhiji noticed the invidiousness of ‗untouchability‘ and the segregation of‗untouchables‘ in towns and villages. He refers to them as ‗some of the classeswhich render us the greatest social service, but we Hindus chose to regard as―untouchables‖‘ and they are 41

‗relegated to the remote quarters of a town or village called in Gujarati ‗ Dhedvado‘. Thus, we can see that there remains something inherent in the ideology of the philosopher deriving a lot from their experiences. To put it more accurately, we can see writings of

Wil li am James on

‗Pragmatism‘, wherein he mentions that there is an underlying truth in the philosophy of our life and to those of us as well to whom such truths remain unknown, and that such instances of truth 42

gives the coherence and direction to thoughts and actions.

B.] Life Experiences and its Reflections on Anti-untouchability Sentiments:

Gandhiji has considered the travails of Indians in South Africa to be a replica of the condition of untouchables in India. Gandhiji has recorded his abomination in the following words: „Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but 43

be a rotten part or an excrescence.‟ Ambedkar on the other hand, was confined to the leadership skill of the untouchables.Thus, Ambedkar did not contend himself with elaborating a theory of casteswhich culminated in the idea of graded inequality; he also devised an untouchabletradition susceptible to remedy the former. If they recognized themselves assons of the soils and Buddhists, the Untouchables could better surmount theirdivisions into so many jatis

40

See for example, Gandhiji‟s speech on „untouchability‟, Akola on 6 February 1927, reported in the Young India 44 of 17 February 1927, reprinted in M.K. Gandhiji (Collected Works, Vol. XXXIII, p. 49) Supra note 42 at p. 317 41 M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part IV, ‗XIV Coolie Locations or Ghettoes?‘, pp. 264-265 42 N.M. Butler, Philosophy, p. 18, 43 in Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process , 1921, (Oxford University Press, London), Lecture I, p. 4 43 M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part II, Chap. 15, pp. 125-128 48Supra note 24 at p. 8


Page 16

48

and take a stand together as an ethnic groupagainst the system in its entirety. Thus differed views were concomitantly united. C.] The Social Movements: Campaigns against ‘Untouchability’:

Gandhiji, soon after his induction to Indian National Congress, started his movement against 44

untouchability in which he motivated the untouchables to join the national movement. In fact, in the memorandum submitted by Dr.Ambedkar to the Minorities Committeeof the Round Table Conference (RTC) in 1930, he mentioned that socialboycott ‗ is the most formidable weapon in the hands of the orthodox classes with which they beat down any attempt on the part of the Depressed 45

Classes to undertake any activity if it happens to be unpalatable to them‘. In the Young India of 25 May 1921, as seen from Swami Shraddhanand‘sletterdated 23 May 1922 to the All India Congress Committee (AICC) General SecretaryVithalbhai Patel, Gandhiji put the question of 46

‗untouchability‘in the forefront of the Congress program. Many of Gandhiji‘s formulations are unrealistic, but they show that Gandhijihad become acutely aware of and seriously concerned about the Panchamasandthe practice of ‗untouchability‘ against them and took a firm stand against‗untouchability‘. During the inner practices

52

that were considered by various

commissions and meetings, Ambedkar had praised quite a few of them, more specifically 47

‗ Swami Shraddhanand‟s‟ feelings about untouchables and untouchability. It appears to be the most important instance of concurrence of Gandhi and Ambedkar while they appreciate writings 4849

of Swamiji on ‗untouchability‘.

Gandhiji came closer to the issues of SCs (depressed

classes/untouchables) and OBCs through the Vaikkom and Guruvayursatyagrahas in Kerala, his

44

Recorded in Young India, October 27, 1920 B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done,cited in Moon, 1990: 43 46 52 B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done, cited in Moon, 1990, Appendix I, pp. 298 – 301 In 1922, the Congress adopted a Constructive Programme of ‗social amelioration‘ at the meeting of its Working Committee at Bardoli, held in February, 1922, known as the Constructive Programme of social amelioration and also as the Bardoliprogramme. 47 B.R. Ambedkar refers to him as ‗the greatest and the most sincere champion of the untouchables‘ (Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done cited in Moon, 1990: 28). 45

48

Gandhiji‘s speech on ‗untouchability‘ at Akola on 6 February 1927, reported in Young India dated 17 February , reprinted in M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Volume XXXIII, p. 49; his speech at Jamui, on 27 January 1927, reported in the Search Light dated 4 February 1927, reprinted in Collected Works, pp. 23 – 24; his convocation address at Gurukul, Kangri on 19 May 1927, reported in Young India dated 31 March 1927, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XXXIII, pp. 168 – 69. 49


Page 17

interactionswithNarayanaguru and finally his famous encounters with Dr Ambedkar in the 50

Second RTC and thereafter.

D.] Oppositions and Political Campaigns:

It is worth remembering thatSwamyShraddhanand was the first person to use the term ‗dalit‘, translatingSwami Vivekananda‘s term ‗Suppressed Classes‘ to refer to the ‗untouchables‘andGandhiji adopted Vivekananda‘s term in 1920— an interesting and significantconvergence.Gandhiji continuously expressed his appreciation of the significance of this‗socio-religious movement‘ in his various articles and interviews. But, unrealistically,he held that the silent, living suffering of one single 51

pure Hindu as suchwould be enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus. The Guruvayur Krishna temple, then in the PonnaniTaluk of British Malabar andnow in the Thrissur district of Kerala, was the venue of an important satyagrahain 1932 which started with the agitation for securing the untouchables‘ entry intothe temple by a Congress leader K. Kelappan, a caste Hindu who was working forthe cause of untouchables of Malabar. This satyagraha too attracted wide participationof the victims of ‗untouchability‘ as well as upper castes. Among theparticipants were E.M.S. Namboodirippad and A.K. Gopalan, then CongressSocialists, who later became important communist leaders of Kerala and India.On the 20 September 1932, Kelappan commenced a protest fast lying in front ofthe temple in the sun. On Gandhiji‘s request he suspended his fast on 1 October1932.

52

E.] Gandhiji’s Encounters with Ambedkar: Divergences and Disagreements: 

a.) The First Interaction of Gandhiji with Ambedkar:

Gandhiji‘s first recorded notice of Dr Ambedkar is in 1927 in his article in YoungIndia dated 28 April 1927 in which he also expresses his support for the MahadSatyagraha. The exercise of their lawful right to take water from the public tankon 20 March 1927 by the

50

The Vaikkom Satyagraha, started in 1924, was the first organised mass struggle against ‗untouchability‘ conducted in Kerala by the victims of ‗untouchability‘. It was undertaken under the leadership of T.K. Madhavan, a prominent disciple of SreeNarayanaguru and a Congressman. [See P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations , Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1] 51 Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhiji, Vol. XXIII, „Vaikkom Satyagraha‟, pp. 515-519 52 Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done cited in Moon, 1990: 115 – 16 in P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations , Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1


Page 18

‗untouchables‘ gathered at a conference of depressedclasses under the leadershi p of Dr Ambedkar and the violence unleashed by a mobof ‗touchables‘ on peaceful ‗untouchables‘ was brought to the notice of Gandhiji.Gandhiji describes this incident as ‗unprovoked lawlessness on the part of the socalled higher castes.‘ Gandhiji was unequivocal about who was at fault — he said that ‗the blame is all on the side of the ―touchables‖. ‗Brute force will notsustain untouchability. It will bring about a revolution of feeling in favour of thesuppressed 53

classes.‘ Gandhiji‘s introduction to Dr Ambedkar and his work and his referenceto them were positive and showed convergence. Unfortunately, this convergencedid not continue and the divergences between the two began to find expression. 

b.) Primary Divergence- Constitutional Project and YeravdaConvergence:

The main divergence between Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar arose against the backgroundof the Constitutional reforms which the British government was contemplatingin partial response to the nationalist movement under the leadership ofGandhiji. A Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon (SimonCommission) was appointed in 1928 by the British government. After the SimonCommission‘s work, representative Indians were called to London at

a

RTC

withthe

representatives

of

the

British

parliament

and

the

British

government.DrAmbedkar and DiwanBahadur R. Srinivasan were invited to represent theuntouchables at the RTC.Thefundamentalissue in the controversy between the Congress and the untouchables, according toDrAmbedkar, is: ‗Are the untouchables a separ ate element in a 54

nation like India or are they not? They are a separate element according to Dr Ambedkar.According to the Congress and Gandhiji they are not a separate element but are a‗chip of the Hindu block‘. According to Dr Ambedkar they are not only a separateelement, but the most vulnerable section of the Indian population.From this difference arose the difference in their approach to the proposedConstitution for a free India. According to the Congress, the 55

Constitution of freeIndia would be democratic, based on adult franchise. This was followed by theprotest fast unto death against the grant of separate electorates for ‗untouchables‘,from the 20th September, 1932, undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi who was lodgedin the Yeravda prison in 53

M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Volume XXXIII, pp. 267-268 B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done, cited in Moon, 1990: 181 55 P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1, at p. 14 54


Page 19

Pune from the time he returned to India after the secondRTC. The entire national leadership rushed to Yeravda prison in a bid to find asatisfactory solution and save Gandhiji‘s life. On their request Dr Ambedkaralsowent to Yeravda. As a result of intense negotiations a compromise was struckbetween them whereby an agreement known as the Poona Pact or YeravdaPactwas signed on 24 September 1932 by which separate electorates were given upand a system of representation for the depressed classes by reservation in a largernumber of seats then provided 56

in the McDonald Award was agreed upon. In a speech in 1917, Gandhiji, referring to ‗untouchability‘ as a serpent, warnedthat ‗if Hinduism does not destroy this serpent while there 57

is yet time, it will bedevoured by it‘.

It is for the caste Hindu leaders of society,polity, economy, academia and media to show by their personal behaviorandactive social action and performance that there is no link between the Hindu religionand untouchability — unfortunately they are yet to seriously undertake thisresponsibility they owe not only to the SCs, but also to the memory of Gandhiji,Ambedkar and other great nationalists of Yeravda and to the cause ofthe Indian nation. If they are not prepared to perform this type of socialamputation, no amount of arguments will convince the victims of untouchabilitythat it is not part of Hinduism and it is not sanctioned by Hindu scriptures. Theball is in the court of the caste Hindu leaders of society, polity, economy, 58

academiaand media.

F.] Post Yeravda Divergence:

In true Yeravda spirit, within a week after the p act, at a large public meeting on30 September 1932 under PanditMadan Mohan Malaviya‘spresidentship, resolutionswere passed assuring Mahatma Gandhi that ‗a quickening of conscience hasbeen seen in the Hindu community in the last few days on the question ofUntouchability and that all possible steps will be taken to translate this enthusiasminto action with a view to remove the virus of Untouchability from theHinducommunity‘ and deciding to establish an All-India Anti-UntouchabilityLeague 59

(AIAUL). Certain actions of the Congress leaders of AIAUL, differences in approachleading to

56

Ibid at p. 15 M.K. Gandhi,Collected Works, Vol. XIV, ‘20. A Stain on India‟s Forehead ‘, p. 73 58 Supra note 60 at p. 20 59 Pyarelal, The Epic Fast , 1932, Ahmedabad: MohanlalMaganlal Bhatt, at p. 181-193 in P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations , Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1, at p. 19 57


Page 20

the resignation of Dr Ambedkar from the Central Board of the AIAUL, its renaming as „HarijanSevakSangh‟, brought about a fissure, which could havebeen avoided by Gandhians if they had strictly adhered to the Yeravda spirit. Thepost-Yeravda divergence was widened by differences in approach betweenGandhians and Dr Ambedkar on the temple entry Bill, introduced in 1933 in theCentral Legislature, which was too weak in Dr Ambedkar‘s view as it did notcondemn ‗untouchability‘ as a sin and as immoral, but only as a social evil, andthe unceremonious abandonment of even this weak Bill by Congress leaders in1934 when the Viceroy announced new elections. G.] Perceptions of Untouchability: Ambedkar and Gandhi:

The divergence of Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar in their understanding and perceptionof the phenomenon of untouchability, a difference that existed before theYeravda Pact and resurfaced soon after that pact, was basic. Many of Gandhiji‘sspeeches and letters give the impression that 60

he took untouchability almost in itsliteral sense of ‗touch-me-not-ism‘. But it is also true that he noticed untouchability as a practice of denying to the‗untouchables‘ admission to schools and use of public facilities like the road, thedrinking water, well, etc., denial of freedom to buy or 61

hold land and access tocourts. Even today, long after Dr Ambedkar made the foregoing in-depth and incisiveeconomic analysis of the position of SCs in the Indian economy, especially its ruraleconomy, villages and agriculture remain the predominant socio-geographical factofIndia. Of the SC population, the proportion in rural India is much larger than theproportion of non-SC, non-ST in the rural area out of the total non-SC, non-STpopulation.It is this economic dimension of ‗untouchability‘ that completely bypassedGandhiji or Gandhiji totally missed. The issue of landlessness of and denial oflandownership to SCs does not figure in his speeches, letters and writings, exceptfor a passing notice of the land-related grievance of ‗Panchamas‘ of

60

Gandhiji‘s notes in Navajivan dated 30 May 1920 under the head ‗Miscellaneous Issues‘, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XVII (February – June, 1920), pp. 470 – 72; his article in Navajivan dated 20 April 1924, reprinted in Collected Wor ks, Volume XXIII, ‗My Notes‘, pp. 462–66, under the heading ‗Meaning of Eradicating Untouchability‘, pp. 465– 66; his letter to C.F. Andrews dated 25 May 1920, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XVII, pp. 534 –35; his speech at a weavers‘ meeting on 31 August 1919 published in Young India of 10 September 1919, reprinted Collected Works, Volume XVI, ‗53. Speech at Weavers‘ Meeting, Dohad‘, p. 81. 61 Gandhiji‘s article in Navajivandated 20 April 1924, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XXIII, ‗My Notes‘, pp. 462 –66, under the heading ‗Meaning of Eradicating Untouchability‘, pp. 465– 66; his speech at Mayavaram in Tamil Nadu on 1 May 1915, reported in the Hindu dated 3 May 1915, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XIII, ‗69. Speech at Reception at Mayavaram‘, pp. 69 – 70.


Page 21

Mayavaramin his speech on 1 May 1915.

62

Connected with the divergence of Gandhiji and Dr

Ambedkar in their perceptionand understanding of ‗untouchability‘ was the divergence in their views onthe caste system. Gandhiji believed that caste system minus ‗untouchability‘ isauseful 63

social arrangement worth preserving.

H.] Measures for Elimination of ‘Untouchability’:

Based on their basic differences of perception of ‗untouchability‘, its meaning, itsramifications, its socio-economic functions and its political implications in thecontext of Constitution-making, the approach of Gandhiji and Dr.Ambedkartothe solution of the problem of untouchability also had certain fundamentaldifferences.Gandhiji carried out a consistent campaign, before the Yeravda Pact and moreintensely after that pact, and the resolution of 25 September 1932 against ‗untouchability‘.But

this

campaign

was

directed

against

‗touch-me-not-ism‘

and

centrallyagainst denial of entry of untouchables into temples. He believed that if templeentry was achieved, at one stroke it would open the door to the 64

achievement offreedom of education and economic advancement to the untouchables. Dr Ambedkar criticized ‗RangaIyer‘s Temple-Entry Bill‘ because it did not referto ‗untouchability‘ as a sin. Gandhiji, day in and day out, referred to ‗untouchability‘ as a sin and 65

as a crime —a significant convergence in the midst of theirdivergence on ‗untouchability‘.The decades after the Gandhi – Ambedkar controversy on this point, includingthe decades after independence has, brought home how pernicious andpersistent the caste system is. Though the Constitution does not specifically outlawthe caste system as it has outlawed ‗untouchability‘, the Supreme Court hasinterpreted the Constitution to mean that its goal is a casteless society in itsjudgment on 10 April 2008 in Central Educational Institutions (Reservation inAdmission) Act, 66

2006 case. Dr Ambedkar‘s efforts from the time of the Simon Commission onwards werein the context of the imminent constitutional reforms and focused on ensuring thatthe Constitution

62

Reported in Hindu dated 3 May, 1915; Reproduced in M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. XIII, ‘69. Speech at Reception in Mayavaram‘, pp. 69-70 63 Supra note 59 at p. 108-113 64 Gandhiji‘s interview to the Associated Press on 14 February, 1933, reproduced in What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, cited in Moon, 1990, p. 108-113 in P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising GandhiAmbedkar Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, S age Publications, 2011, 41:1, at p. 24 65 M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol XIII, p.225, 259 66 72 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Government of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 Supra, note 69 at p. 27


Page 22

which came in the shape of Government of India Act, 1935 hadin-built safeguards for the SCs, but his movement was much larger and covered abroad spectrum including education, and 72

economic measures apart from a frontalattack on caste system and ‗untouchability‘.

CONCLUSION

The contribution by both Ambedkar and Gandhiji is of utmost importance while dealing with the issues directly or in any incidental manner. For an objective study of the debate, it is essential to concentrate historical events prevalent at the time of the origins of the concept of untouchability. In order to critically analyze the importance of contributions that have been made by Ambedkar and Gandhiji, one needs to ponder over the philosophical contexts under which the authors have advocated the spirits of ‗untouchability‘ and thus pu rsued its various spirits.


Page 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ambedkar, B.R., ―Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development‖, Indian Antiquary, May 1917, Vol.61 reproduced in Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, Bombay, Government of Maharashtra, 1979. 2. Ambedkar , B.R., ―The Untouchables: Who they are and why they became Untouchables?‖ in Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 7 3. Bharadwaj, Anil, Welfare of Scheduled Castes in India, 20 02 4. Chandra, Ramesh; SanghaMitra: Untouchability and the Law 5. Constitutional Assembly Debates available at www.loksabha.nic.in, Vol. XIV 6. Gandhi Marg, January-March, 2005 7. Gandhi,

M.K. Collected

Works,

Volume

23

available

at http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL023.pdf 8. Gandhi, M.K., An Autobiography, Part III 9. Harijan, a national daily newspaper 10. Jefferlot, Christopher, Dr.Ambedkar‘s Strategies against untouchability and Caste System, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, 2009, Vol. III, No. 4 11. Kotani, H. Caste Sytem, Untouchability and the Depressed 12. Krishna, Asha, Ambedkar and Gandhi: Emancipations of Untouchables in Modern India (Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House), 1997 13. Moon, Vasant (Ed.) (1990), Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume 9, Part I (pp.240-42), Education Department, Government of Maharashtra: Mumbai. 14. Perez, R.M., Kings and Untouchables: A study of the Caste System in Western India, New Delhi: Chronicle Books, 2004 15. Purane, K D, Untouchability and the Law Singh, S.K, Bonded Labor and the Law, Deep and Deep Publications: New Delhi


Page 24

constitution hons fundamental right over view towards abolition of untouchable

Recommend Documents