| Yet, Ambedkar's education did not grant him the status of a
fellow human being when he returned to India. Untouchability. practiced by an overwhelming
majority of caste Hindus as well as other religious communities, stigmatized him in the
most pernicious ways. His own analysis refuted an understanding of untouchability as a racial
oppression. He argued instead that it arose as a social, political, religious, and
economic separation and denigration of practitioners of Buddhism in the historical period
of renascent Hinduism (see his book The Untouchables, 1948). For Ambedkar,
Buddhism represented the historical revolutionary experience in India, while Hinduism
represented the counter-revolutionary experience seeking to bring back an orthodoxy
founded upon the caste system. Such an understanding of Hinduism was one of the main
causes of Ambedkar's strong differences with Gandhi's approach to the struggle against
oppressive practices such as untouchability. Throughout his active political life spanning
more than three decades, Ambedkar spearheaded an alternative movement against the
evils of the caste system--an alternative that was much more radical in content and
modern in vision than the one that Mahatma Gandhi nurtured and led by example. The
difference in their approaches is brought out by Dr. Eleanor Zelliot, a pioneer historian
of Untouchables/Dalits in Maharashtra:
Ambedkar's programs were intended to integrate the Untouchable into Indian
society in modern, not traditional ways, and on as high a level as possible. This goal
stood in marked contrast to Gandhi's "Ideal Bhangi" (Harijan, 23
November 1936) who would continue to do sanitation work even though his status would equal
that of a Brahmin. Ambedkar's ideal for the depressed [classes] was to "raise their
educational standard so that they may know their own conditions, have aspiratiosn to
rise to the level of the highest Hindu and be in a position to use political power as a
means to that end." Both reformers had a vision of equality, but for Ambedkar
equality meant not only equal status of the Varnas, but equal social, political,
and economic opportunity for all. Ambedkar planned his porgrams to bring the Untouchable
from a stat eof "dehumanization" and "slavery" into one of equality
through the use of modern methods based on education and the exercize of legal and
political rights. . . .
Ambedkar's adaptation of western concepts to the Indian scene is also reflected
int he terms he used to justify Untouchable political rights: democracy, fraternity, and
liberty. In his Marathi speeches, Ambedkar conveyed the implication of these concepts in a
single word, manuski, that was readily understood by the most illiterate Mahar
villager. Although manuski's literal meaning is "human-ness", it serves
to evoke feelings of self-respect and human attitudes towards one's fellow [humans]
(From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement, Eleanor
Zelliot, 1992, Manohar Publications: New Delhi)
Ambedkar himself delineated his differences through minute study of Gandhi's vision of
an ideal society and the specific practices which Gandhi upheld throughout his life. It is
worth quoting a couple of paragraphs from his essay titled Gandhism: The Doom of the
Untouchables, which forms part of his larger book titled What the Congress and
Gandhi have done to the Untouchables.
On Gandhi's view on the relationship between landlords and tenants
Mr. Gandhi does not wish to hurt the propertied class. He is even more opposed
to a campaign against them. He has no passsion for economic equality. referring to the
propertied class Mr. gandhi has quite recently said that he does not wish to destroy the
hen that lays the golden egg. His solution for the economic conflict between the owners
and the workers, between th erich and the poor, between the landlords and the tenants, and
between the employers and the employeesis very simple. The owners need not deprive
themselves of their porperty. All that they need to do is to declare themselves Trustees
for the poor. Of course, the Trust is to be a voluntary one carrying only a spiritual
obligation (p. 293)
On Gandhi's support for the Hindu caste system, albeit devoid of
untouchability
The social ideal of Gandhism is either caste or varna. Though
it may be difficult to say which, there can be no doubt that the social ideal of Gandhism
is not democracy. For whether one takes for comparison caste or varna
both are fundamentaly opposed to democracy (p. 297). . . . Gandhism is a paradox. It
stands for freedom from foreign domination, which means the destruction of the existing
political structure of the country. At the same time, it seeks to maintain intact a social
structure which permits the dominaiton of one class by another on a heriditary basis which
means a perpetual domination of one class by another (p. 302).
|
Mhow, Maharashtra, Ambedkar rose to become an exemplary scholar, statesman and
revolutionary leader in modern India. Fondly remembered today by Dalits as Babasaheb,
Ambedkar is a figure whose greatness the rest of India is still struggling to understand.
For those who appreciate any comparison of Ambedkar's importance to Dalits with that of
anti-racist leaders to Black America, we may say that he was a combination of the scholar
W.E.B.duBois, the slave rebel Frederick Douglas and the radical teacher/leader Malcolm X. 
