Gandhiji and Babasaheb Ambedkar

Gandhi and Ambedkar would have agreed an as many issues as they would have disagreed upon. They could not find much ground for co-operation and collaboration. In popular perception - and in the perception of many of their followers too-they remained opponents. Both indulged in verbal duels in order to expose the weaknesses of each other's thought and actions.

Gandhi may be seen as coming from the dominant sections of Hindu society, while Ambedkar mainly represented the mahars (although he attempted, with success, to moblilise Untouchables all over Inida) The former believed that a change of heart on the part of the caste Hindus could revitalise Hinduism and permit the development of a varna system where all sections would be equal. For Ambedkar, however, Untouchability and Hinduism were inextricably interwoven.

Ambedkar wanted to get rid of untouchability by abolishing caste system, while Gandhi aimed at abolishing practice of untouchability within caste system. Ambedkar wanted strict legislations to root out the caste system and untouchable practices, while Gandhi believed in change of attitude of upper castes towards lower castes.

Ambedkar had become thoroughly disillusioned with Hinduism. He argued for conversion, and in 1936 made the historic announcement at Yeola that “I was born a Hindu and have suffered the consequences of untouchability. I will not die a Hindu.” Two days later Gandhi held a press conference, calling Ambedkar’s decision “unbelievable….Religion is not like a house or cloak which can be changed at will.” On 22 August 1936 he wrote in the Harjan, which he had named his newspaper, that “One may hope we have seen the last of any bargaining between Dr. Ambedkar and savarnas for the transfer to another form of several million dumb Harijans as if they were chattel,” This way of speaking became typical of him; he could not envisage the anger and grief of the millions of dalits who followed Ambedkar on this issue.

The final difference between the two was over India’s path of development itself. Gandhi believed, and argued for, a village-centered model of development, one which would forsake any hard path of industrialism but seek to achieve what he called “Ram raj”, an idealized harmonized traditional village community. Ambedkar, in contrast, wanted economic development and with it industrialization as the basic prerequisite for the abolition of poverty. He insisted always that it should be worker-friendly, not capitalistic, at times arguing for “state socialism”, (though he later would accept some forms of private ownership of industry) and he remained to the end of his life basically a democratic socialist. To him, villages were far from being an ideal; rather they were “cesspools,” a cauldron of backwardness, tradition and bondage. Untouchables had to escape from villages, and India also had to reject her village past.

In sum, there were important and irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Two great personages of Indian history were posed against one another, giving alternative models of humanity and society. The debate goes on.

By: Ankush Sharma