CHAPTER - II

CONTROVERSIES AROUND VARNA, CASTE,

UNTOUCHABILITY AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES

2.1 Introductory Note.

2.2 Controversies between Gandhi and Ambedkar- Second Round
Table Conference.
2.3 Controversies around Poona Pact.
2.4 After Effects of the Controversy.
2.5 Controversies Through their Writings.
2.6 Controversy over the position of villages and Panchayati Raj.
2.7 Controversy over Aboriginal Tribes.
2.8 Evaluation.
 CHAPTER - II

CONTROVERSIES AROUND VARNA, CASTE,

UNTOUCHABILITY AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES

2.1. Introductory Note:

The controversies around Varna, caste and removal of

untouchability etc brought Gandhi and Ambedkar face to face with
each other and these controversies between the two of them have
assumed new dimensions since a decade or so. But interestingly
enough all those who are in the know-how of the situation feel that this
controversy between both of them is a futile affair.1 The frontline
Socialist leader of this country Sri Madhu Limaye still goes on to
consider the controversy in today’s context. In the same fashion, Prof.
Ramjee Singh, an Ex-Parliamentarian and a noted scholar of Gandhian
philosophy considers any comparison between Gandhi and Ambedkar
as unnecessary and uncalled for affair. But he still feels that their
controversy regarding the problem of caste and removal of
untouchability is not all over 2 and the problems are far from being
solved. Likewise many other scholars and activists have followed suit.
While comparing Ranade with Gandhi and Jinnah, Ambedkar states:
“Comparisons are always odious and unpleasant. At the same time it is
true that there is nothing more illuminating than comparisons. Of
course in making them one must bear in mind that to be interesting
and instructive comparisons must be between those that are alike.”3
Since Gandhi and Ambedkar are not alike, it is unwieldy to compare
them. Now that the controversies are coming to the fore, time and
again, a few vital issues, which were dear to Gandhi and Ambedkar,
have been considered for analysis.
Among others, issues like the question of nationality and
especially three items on the agenda of Gandhi’s constructive
programme caused a serious controversy between Gandhi and
 29

Ambedkar. The first was regarding the removal of untouchability, the

second was the issue of regeneration of villages and the third was the
problem of Adivasis. Their approach on these issues drastically differed
and their programmes sometimes overlapped, but most of the times led
to controversies. So the focus of this chapter will be mainly on these
three crucial issues in the background of their understanding of
nationalism.
What really brings these controversies into focus in the present
context is the way that their so-called followers view both these leaders.
More often than not their assessments are narrow partisan types. It is
exactly this growing tendency, which calls for an objective study of the
controversies between these two great leaders of 20th century. The
controversies can be better understood in the light of charges leveled
against both Gandhi and Ambedkar. Against Gandhi, it is said that, he
acted as an apologist for the caste system. And of late there have been
efforts to brand Ambedkar as anti-national and an apologist of British
imperial system.4 Of course Ambedkar had faced these charges during
freedom struggle also. But the issue is revoked once again. In this
chapter a discussion on the controversies between Gandhi and
Ambedkar is carried out. There was a third element in the form of
British rule, which very much contributed to the rise of controversies
between both of them. All these three interests are placed in a
particular historical situation of colonial rule.
In terms of their educational background both were trained as
lawyers, but their attitude to law, as an instrument of social justice was
quite different. Ambedkar reposed full faith in law and constantly
sought to sharpen it in each of his moves, for Gandhi legal profession
was not of much use in the matters of social justice, instead he
emphasized a moral regeneration of individuals and societies on a
voluntary basis. “Thus for Gandhi, unlike Ambedkar, legal intervention
to reorder civil society along more humane lines was anathema. He
never believed that it would work.”5 Both Gandhi and Ambedkar were
 30

deeply religions. Gandhi, who claimed himself to be a humble seeker

after truth, never viewed religion in a sectarian sense. For him religion
meant an ordered ethical-moral governance of the human beings and
universe at large. Ambedkar, a scholarly politician, who championed
the cause of the downtrodden necessarily believed in social justice. He
himself, being bom as an untouchable, rose to great heights because of
his sheer merit and scholarship. He was a crusader against
discrimination, who necessarily believed in rationalism and humanism.
Gandhi, born as a Vaishnava Bania, identified himself completely with
the masses and emerged as a universal leader of the suffering
humanity.
2.2 Controversies between Gandhi and Ambedkar - Second Round
Table Conference :
During the noted Kalaram Satyagraha offered at Nasik,
Maharashtra, in 1930 Ambedkar pleaded for the right of the
untouchables to enter the temple. He delivered his presidential address
to a large gathering of the depressed classes Conference at Nagpur the
same year, wherein he dealt with political issues although he had
helped and organized the Nasik Satyagraha wherein he had dealt with
religious issues. Just then he was designated as one of the two
depressed class representative at the Round Table Conference. He
represented the view that independence alone would ensure equality to
the depressed classes. He stated: “Nobody can remove your grievances
as well as you can and you cannot remove them unless you get political
power in your hands, no share of this political power can come to you
so long as the British government remains in India. It is only Swaraj
and a new constitution that can give you political power.”6 He said that,
while he agreed with Congressmen’s views that no country was good
enough to rule over another, he intended to tell the Congress “point
blank that the proposition does not end there and that it is equally true
that no class is good enough to rule over another class.”7 He also
 31

indicated that he did not intend to press for separate electorates for the
untouchables.
No Congressman could make it to the First Round Table
Conference held in 1930, owing to the non-cooperation movement of
that year. Ambedkar almost represented the views of organized
untouchable opinion of that period which was not in favour of a
demand for separate electorates. He was satisfied with reserved seats if
adult suffrage was granted to depressed classes. Ambedkar gave an
eloquent expression to his support for independence, which alone, he
argued could get the Depressed Classes a chance to share the political
power. The British rejected Ambedkar’s moderate plea for adult suffrage
to the depressed classes. At the same time Muslim demand for separate
electorates appeared unalterable. This inspired Ambedkar to shift his
position and he started pleading for separate electorates for depressed
classes along the lines of Muslims and other minorities. In the absence
of any possibility of a consensus on the issue and also owing to the
absence of the political party of the magnitude of Congress and a leader
of Gandhi’s stature, the conference was postponed. The first session of
Round Table Conference (Here after referred to as R.T.C.) was therefore
termed as “Hamlet without the prince of Denmark!”8
Prior to the Second R.T.C. Ambedkar met Gandhi on latter’s
request to workout the modalities for the 2nd R.T.C. and also to know
each other’s opinion on certain issues. The meeting was held on 14th
Aug. 1931 at Mani Bhavan, Bombay just before 2nd R.T.C. Gandhi was
keen to know whether Ambedkar was unhappy with the efforts of
Congress in dealing with the problem of untouchability. He also briefed
Ambedkar about the activities undertaken by Congress for the cause of
untouchables. Ambedkar admitted that it was because of Gandhi’s
efforts that the Congress recognized the problems of untouchables. But
he was not sure of the sincerity of Congressmen because they failed to
adopt any resolution making abolition of untouchability a pre-condition
for Congress membership, as they did in the case of wearing of
 32

Khaddar. By making such a move perhaps Congressmen thought that

they would loose the sympathy of the orthodox Hindus to their party.
Ambedkar charged that they care more for the political strength rather
than a genuine support to the cause of untouchables. Gandhi used to
say that the British heart hasn’t changed, Ambedkar wanted to know
whether Hindu heart has undergone any change with regard to their
treatment of the untouchables’ problem. Ambedkar was brutally frank
when he told Gandhi that he was not prepared to have faith in great
leaders and Mahatmas.9 As Ambedkar was quite animated during his
talks, he confessed his pathos to Gandhi saying that as an untouchable
leader he did not have a ‘home land’ worth the name. Gandhi was
taken aback, and cutting Ambedkar short he said India is as much
Ambedkar’s homeland as much as his. Gandhi also added that he has
the report of Ambedkar’s work in 1st RTC and he appreciated Ambedkar
as a patriot of sterling worth. In response, Ambedkar pointed out the
disabilities suffered by untouchables in all walks of life due to orthodox
attitude of caste Hindus. He said he would work for the welfare of his
people even if it affected the national interest. He stated, he would be
sorry for being branded as a traitor, though he never intended any such
thing but he made his point clear that gaining human rights to his
people was his first priority. However Gandhi asserted that the national
interest should come first. But Ambedkar held the view that limbs are
as much indispensable to the body as much as body to the limbs. He
contended that in many respects Muslims and Sikhs are politically and
economically more advanced compared to the untouchables. Even then
the 1st RTC recommended special political safeguards to them and
Congress gave its consent to their demands. Ambedkar pleaded that
the British Government should consider similar demands of the
depressed classes. He wanted to know Gandhi’s response. Gandhi was
equally unequivocal on this issue and told that he would not approve
any political separation of untouchables from Hindu religion and if at
all any such things happened against his will, Gandhi termed it as
suicidal. Ambedkar thanked Gandhi for his frank opinion and took
 33

leave of him. The meeting however did not lead to any understanding
between the two. This unsatisfactory meeting and the basic
disagreements between these leaders on the issue of special
representation for untouchables made negotiations during the RTC
sessions difficult.
Gandhi and Ambedkar met in London during the 2nd RTC for the
second time and the whole debate ended up in a crisis, paving way for
so many eventful happenings later on. Gandhi during his speech
claimed that it is the Congress, which represented the interests of all
classes including minorities, women, untouchables and princes and he
gave the reasons for his claim. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu totally ruled out any
outside arbitration or intervention. In this context we can recall a
suggestion by a European statesman, “Madam, keep your minorities
happy, you cannot build a nation without giving a sense of security to
your minorities.”10 In response to this suggestion, continued Mrs.
Naidu, “It is because we want to give this sense of security to the
minorities and make them feel that they are an integral part of the
nation that a majority community speaking through the mouth of
Mahatma Gandhi and if I may say so, also a minority community
speaking through the mouth of His Highness The Aga Khan, are
making an appeal that we shall not bring our small domestic quarrels
before those who are not concerned primarily with them, but that we
shall settle them ourselves with equity...justice, and a sense of self-
respect which does not permit outsiders to know of the differences
within our own house.”11 This was the Congress approach to the whole
problem of separate electorates and safeguards in nutshell.
It was during the ninth sitting of the minority committee, Gandhi
admitted and announced with deep sorrow that conversations on the
issue of special representation to untouchables were a failure. In his
view, the composition of Indian delegation was the chief cause of failure
of the talks. He held the view that all the members, including him, are
Government nominees. But he asserted that Congress alone claims to
 34

represent the whole nation, including untouchables. Gandhi confessed,

“It seems to have been represented that I am opposed to any
representation of the untouchables on the legislature. This is travesty
of the truth. What I have said, and what 1 must repeat, is that I am
opposed to their special representation. I am convinced that it can do
them no good, and may do them much harm, but the congress is
wedded to adult franchise. Therefore millions of them can be placed on
the Voters’ Roll.”12 In his response to Gandhi’s allegation that the
representatives of different groups are not elected but nominated by the
Government, Ambedkar asserted that, “...we cannot deny the allegation
that we are nominees of the Government but speaking for myself, I
have not the slightest doubt that even if the depressed classes of India
were given the chance of electing their representatives to this
conference, I would, all the same, find a place here. I say therefore that,
whether I am a nominee or not, I fully represent the claims of any
community. Let no one be under any mistaken impression as regards
that.”13 At this stage Ambedkar claimed that he has received many
telegrams in support of his claim of depressed class representation, but
he admitted that although there may be people in the Congress, who
may be showing sympathy towards the depressed classes, but he held
the view that depressed classes don’t form part of the Congress. As far
as this telegram affair is concerned, many scholars have assessed it in
very many ways. The possibility is that, some telegrams must have
been sent questioning Gandhi’s leadership and few others questioning
Ambedkar’s. But it seems more as a retaliatory action between the
supporters and opponents of both Congress and Ambedkar. However
Ambedkar proceeded to plead that the depressed classes are not
clamoring for transfer of political power. He said he was not eager to
see a shift in power. This contradicted his earlier pronouncement in 1st
RTC wherein he had pleaded for the transfer of power. He must have
been in a state of fix between Gandhi, Congress and the British. Like
the latter, he was unable to resist the Congress, which was trying to
replace the political power in India. That is why he vehemently pleaded
 35

that, if at all British transferred the power to Indian hands it should be

accompanied by such conditions that the power shall not fall into a
clique, an oligarchy, a group of people whether Muslims or Hindus. It
should be accompanied by a solution and it should be such that all
communities in their respective proportions shall share the power. All
that Ambedkar was pleading for was a diffusion of political power
among all including untouchables. To ensure that, he demanded
separated electorates for the depressed classes. In response to
Ambedkar’s demand Gandhi submitted his views, “I can understand
the claims advanced by other minorities, but the claims advanced on
behalf of the untouchables, that to me is the “Unkindest cut of all.” It
means the perpetual bar sinister. I would not seal the vital interests of
the untouchables even for the sake of winning the freedom of India. I
claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of the
untouchables. Here I speak not merely on behalf of the Congress, but I
speak on my own behalf, and I claim that I would get, if there were a
referendum of the untouchables, their vote, and that I would top the
poll. And I would work from one end of India to the other to tell the
untouchables that separate electorates and separate reservation is not
the way to remove this bar-sinister which is the shame not of them but
of orthodox Hinduism.”14

When Ambedkar ended up demanding separate electorates for

untouchables, in line with religious minorities like Muslims, it deeply
hurt Gandhi and Congressmen considered this stand of untouchable’s
representative as subjectively playing into the hands of reactionary
communal political elements. Gandhi very strongly opposed the
segregation of the untouchables into a separate electoral group, as was
the case of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. That is how he pleaded, “We
do not want on our register and on our census untouchables classified
as separate class. Sikhs may remain as such in perpetuity, so may
Mohammedans, so may Europeans. Will untouchables remain
untouchables in perpetuity? I would fear rather that Hinduism died
than that untouchability lived.”15 This emotional outburst of Gandhi
 36

“was not so much from a stance as ‘national’ leader but as a Hindu and
as one who was adamant that untouchables should be treated as part
of Hinduism.”16 However it is true that Gandhi viewed the problem as
an insider of Hinduism and this is how his contention went “...with all
my regard for Dr. Ambedkar, and for his ability, I must say in all
humility that here the great wrong under which he has labored and
perhaps the bitter experiences that he has undergone have for the
moment warped his judgment. It hurts me to have 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 it. I will not bargain away their rights for
the kingdom of the whole world.”17 Having said this, Gandhi once again
refers to the propriety of Ambedkar’s leadership of untouchables. This
stance of Gandhi has however been flayed by many critics and scholars
as unsuitable to the stature of his personality. Before parting from the
RTC Gandhi reiterated his views on separate electorates, “It will create
a division in Hinduism which I cannot possibly look forward to with any
satisfaction whatsoever. I do not mind untouchables, if they so desire,
being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I
cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are two
divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of the political rights
of untouchables do not know their India, do not know how Indian
society is today constructed, and therefore I want to say with all the
emphasis that I can commend that if I was the only person to resist
this thing I would resist it with my life.”18 When Gandhi was on political
probation for one year soon after his return from South Africa, on the
advice of his political guru Gokhale, he had come to understand the
pulse of the rural masses. Untouchables were socially segregated then,
if a further political segregation was sought to be formally implemented,
he feared grave consequences in rural India. Gandhi thought that this
would seriously hamper any religious reform as part of freedom
struggle, since his strategy was to combine the reforms with the
struggle for freedom. Any political move, affecting the unity of the
people at the grassroots’ level, in his opinion was unacceptable at that
 37

particular historical juncture. Any special treatment given to

untouchables at the social context would have led to a sense of jealousy
among the Savarna Hindus. As a result Gandhi apprehended serious
consequences in rural areas.19 Ambedkar himself had cruel experiences
of untouchability and he was quite aware of the pathetic conditions of
poor untouchables in villages. He was a direct witness to their
segregation from the mainstream population. He was equally aware of
the possible reaction of the upper castes to any assertion of
untouchables to achieve equality. He too apprehended opposition from
upper castes; since they were the ones who stood to lose their
traditional privileges. That is why he contended that the only means to
reduce the opposition from the upper castes was to ensure some
political and statutory power to the untouchables.
2.3 Controversies around Poona Pact :
British imperial rulers always considered India as an aggregation of
castes, races, religions, languages and different cultural groups. As
such they never considered India as a nation. This was perfectly in
tune with their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ and they never made any
secret of it. One can pursue all their attempts for reforms in the
background of their assumed multiplicity of Indian society. Whether it
is Minto-Moreley Reforms in 1909, Montague-Chelmsford Reforms in
1919 or the Simon Commission report of 1930, it was the usual device
of the British rulers to project divisionary frame like the problems of
Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Anglo-Indian, princes, and businessmen etc,, so
as to cut the size of the national freedom struggle under the Congress
leadership. That is why the episode of 2nd RTC in 1932 is termed as an
imperialist attempt to twist a social problem of the Hindu religious
community into a political weapon against the rise of nationalism by
many political commentators. If the controversies between Gandhi and
Ambedkar, which led to Poona Pact, are understood in this perspective,
it will be rather easy to analyze the basis of the conflict between them.
 38

Ambedkar represented his community in every opportunity to

petition the British Government for political representation to the
depressed classes. In 1919 he gave evidence before the Southborough
Reforms (Franchise) committee, claiming political rights for the
depressed classes. He appeared before Simon Commission (1930) and
gave his evidence for special representation. It was during his
examination by Indian statutory commission, the controversy over
tribal question came to the fore, which will be considered later. Out of
37 associations that placed before the commission their considered
opinion, 35 demanded Special Electorates, one favoured Joint
Electorates with adult suffrage and reservation of seats and the other
wanted nominations.20 The Communal Award provided Governments’
recognition to the following minorities: (i) Mohammedans (ii) Depressed
Classes (iii) Backward classes (iv) Indian Christians, (v) Anglo-Indian,
(vi) Europeans, (vii) Commercial and Industrial classes, (viii) Landlords,
(ix) Labour, (x) Universities, and (xi) Sikhs.21
The British wanted to see that the number of contenders for political
power in independent India is as large as possible. As a result they
nourished untouchables to widen their political influence. Gandhi had
already gathered the reports from the newspapers that British would
propose separate electorates not only for religious minorities as in the
past, but they would also extend this provision for the untouchables in
the proposed constitution. He wrote a letter on March 11th 1932 to
Samuel Hoare the Secretary of State for India stating that, “A separate
electorate for the depressed classes is harmful for them and for
Hinduism... So far as Hinduism is concerned, separate electorates
would simply vivisect and disrupt it...”22 Therefore, if the Government
decided to create separate electorates for the depressed classes, he
decided that he must fast unto death. Gandhi was a state prisoner then
and he knew this would embarrass the Government, but for me the
contemplated step was not a method, it was part of his being. The
Minister replied Gandhi on April 13th, saying that no decision had yet
been taken. But all of a sudden on 17th August 1932, the British
 39

premier, MacDonald announced Britain’s decision in favour of separate

electorates. The idea of separate electorates for Muslims was accepted
by the Congress as far back as 1916, as a part of the compromise with
the Muslim League, though Congress in principle was opposed to any
special treatment to any religion as it encouraged the communal
nation. The latest effort to separate depressed classes and treatment of
them as a separate political entity was vehemently opposed by Gandhi,
Congress and all the nationalist forces. On 18th August, Gandhi wrote
to the British Prime Minister stating that, “I have to resist your decision
with my life. The only way I can do so is by declaring a perpetual fast
unto death from food of any kind, save water with or without salt and
soda. This fast will cease, if during its progress the British Government
on its own motion or under pressure of the public opinion revise their
decision and withdraw their scheme of communal electorate for
depressed classes whose representatives should be elected by the
general electorate under the common franchise, no matter how wide it
is.”23 MacDonald in his reply stated that Gandhi had misunderstood,
and stated that the British had considered his known friendship for the
untouchables, “We felt it our duty to safeguard what we have believed
to be the right of the Depressed Classes to a fair proportion of
representation in the legislatures.”24 In his long reply MacDonald
emphasized, the untouchables would have one vote in the general
electorate and a second vote in their special / separate electorate. He
declared that the alternative method of reservation of seats had been
rejected because, though it would reserve a number of seats for
depressed classes within the larger block of Hindu seats. He contented
that, in practicality all such members would be elected by high caste
Hindu majority of voters, that being the case they might behave as
stooges of caste Hindus, they would have to keep themselves in the
good books of caste Hindus and might not be in a position to speak for
themselves. Gandhi responded by saying, “The mere fact of the
Depressed Classes having double votes does not protect them or Hindu
society in general from being disrupted. You will please permit me to
 40

say that no matter how sympathetic you may be, you cannot come to a
correct decision on a matter of vital and religious importance to the
parties concerned. I should not be against even over-representation of
the depressed classes. What I am against is their statutory separation,
even in limited form, from the Hindu fold, so long as they choose to
belong to it...”25
Ambedkar’s reaction to Gandhi’s proposed fast was rather violent.
He termed it as a ‘political stunt.’ Ambedkar’s complaint was that
Gandhi had staked his very life in order to deprive Depressed Classes of
the little they had achieved in the 2nd RTC. He counseled Gandhi to
spare the fast unto death for a far better and worthy cause. He argued
that given a choice between Hinduism and political power, the
untouchables would choose the latter. He maintained that
untouchables were separate from Hinduism and went about proving it
to great length. Ambedkar issued a statement as soon as Gandhi
declared his intention to fast unto death, in which he totally rejected
Gandhi’s case and submitted that Gandhi would not drive him to the
necessity of making a choice between his life and the rights of his
people. However the British Government responded to Gandhi’s fast by
declaring that it would approve the solutions to the representation of
the depressed classes if the settlement were arrived at between
contending parties. The British Premier attributed a political motive to
Gandhi’s fast. It seemed to the British that Gandhi was trying a stunt
to recover the prestige he had lost through the decline of civil
Disobedience.
The stunning news, that Gandhi was about to fast, shook the
country from one end to the other. As decided, Gandhi started his “Epic
Fast”26 on 20th September 1932 and it was observed as the day of
fasting and prayer throughout the country. There was bewilderment
everywhere. India witnessed something the world had never seen. In a
press statement Gandhi appealed to the Hindus: “My life, I count of no
consequence. One hundred lives given for this noble cause would, in
 41

my opinion, be poor penance done by Hindus for the atrocious wrongs

they have heaped upon helpless men and women of their own faith.”27
There was a spontaneous upsurge of feeling throughout the country.
Rajendra Prasad appealed to the Hindus to give the untouchables
access to all public places. As a result several temples, wells, tanks,
schools, burial grounds were thrown open to the untouchables. Pandit
Malaviya convened a conference of caste Hindus, untouchables and all
the nationalist leaders. Yarawada Jail occupied center stage in the
whole affair and Government allowed full consultations with Gandhi.
There was a totally unobstructed access to all national leaders and
journalists. Gandhi wrote a letter to Tagore on 20th September seeking
his approval, knowing fully well that the latter was his critical friend.
Gandhi pleaded for the poet’s blessings, if his heart approved it and
said that will sustain him. And immediately followed Tagore’s telegram
which stated that “.... it is worth sacrificing his precious life for the
sake of India’s unity and social integrity.... I fervently hope that we will
not callously allow such national tragedy to reach its extreme
length....our sorrowing hearts will follow your sublime penance with
reverence and love.”28 Gandhi acknowledged Tagore’s message saying
that his love will sustain him in the midst of the storm he was about to
enter. However a great irony of Gandhi in and around the whole
episode is worth noting. His comrade in arm, Nehru, who was in prison
when he heard about the fast came out with his first reaction, “I felt
angry with him, at his religious and sentimental approach to a political
issue, and his frequent references to God in connection with it...”29
Nehru says that he felt annoyed with him for choosing a side issue for
his final sacrifice. This reaction almost resembles that which was given
by his Communist colleague Namboodiripad. Nehru considered
untouchability as a side issue and for him freedom of the country was
the main issue, though Namboodiripad’s central concern was
something else. But however Nehru said that he was in darkness and
was surrounded by the sorrow that he would never see his beloved
Gandhi any more. The other comrade in arm of Gandhi, Sardar
 42

Vallabhabai Patel, who was considered as the pragmatic advisor of

Gandhi told him during his Harijan tour, “Why have you placed
yourself between two stones? I keep telling you not to do so. Let the two
stones grind each other. Why must you come in between?”30
Surprisingly and perhaps honestly, many people hold Gandhi
responsible for choosing Nehru as his successor of India instead of
Sardar Patel. This controversy surrounds Gandhi even now; however it
is out of place to discuss this issue here and now.
What was required during the fast was to save the life of Gandhi
and to do that the communal Award was to be amended and
Ambedkar’s approval to such amendments was to be taken. Naturally
all the leaders, the press and the general public eagerly looked forward
for Ambedkar’s response. Apart from Malaviya, Sir Sapru, M.R. Jayakar
and C. Rajagopalachari started parlays with Ambedkar so as to
persuade him to withdraw the demands for separate electorates. By the
time Gandhi started his fast he had reconciled the importance of
reserved seats. Until then Gandhi held a view that “our goal must be
the removal, at the earliest possible moment, of communal or sectional
representation. A common electorate must impartially elect its
representatives on the sole ground of merit.”31 He condemned the
Anglo-Indians and Englishmen for claiming privileges, but still felt that
the small minorities had a right to demand full civic rights. He advised
them to enter the legislature by the open door of election. He had said
the same thing to Muslims also, since separate electorates had tended
to perpetrate differences and deepen the distrust. He suggested that all
religious minorities and the depressed classes should follow the
example of the Parsees, who are a small minority, who served India to
the maximum but did not ask for separate electorates. He quoted the
example of Dadabhai Navroji and his family who dedicated their whole
life for the service of India. Apart from Navroji, people like Jamsetji
Tata, Sir Ferozeshah Mehta, Dr. Homi Bhabha, Zubin Mehta and a host
of other Parsees did a great service to India and they rightly
represented Dadabhai’s view that “whether I am a Hindu, a
 43

Mohammedan, a Parsi, a Christian, or of any other creed, I am above

all an Indian. Our country is India, our nationality is Indian.”32
Ambedkar refused to give in saying that he did not know
Gandhi’s terms for a discussion. In the initial stages Ambedkar rejected
the idea of reserved seats, which he had approved once. But this time
his analysis was similar to that of British Premier. He was apprehensive
about the depressed class representatives elected by both untouchables
and caste Hindus. He said that they would feel considerably restrained
in airing their frank grievances against Hindus. If any untouchable
representative does so too fiercely he might be defeated in the next
election and a docile representative might be replaced. To meet this
objection Sir Sapru evolved a scheme of primary and secondary
elections for a limited number of seats, while maintaining the principle
of reserved but joint electorates. According to the new formula the
untouchables were enabled to field their bravest champions in
legislatures. Finally Ambedkar accepted the proposal with a proviso
that he would draft his own formula to incorporate his own ideas plus
the Sapru plan. The next issue was about the dilation of the system of
primary and secondary elections. Ambedkar stated that the system of
primary elections would come to an end after ten years, but he was
very insistent upon the question of reserved seats and pleaded that it
should be decided by a referendum of the Depressed Classes at the end
of fifteen years. In the mean while Gandhi’s health had taken a serious
turn. After some consultations Gandhi suggested a period of five years
for referendum and appealed to Ambedkar to give a chance to Hindus
to voluntarily alter their sinful past. Ambedkar rejected the idea. “Five
years or my life” said Gandhi with a tone of finality.33 After some
consultations Ambedkar declared that he would not change his position
regarding ten years period for referendum. After an hours discussion it
was decided to make the agreement without the conditionality of
referendum and to postpone the question until future date when the
contending parties decide it by mutual agreement. The final agreement
was signed on 24th September and went down in history as a
 44

memorable event. Gandhi said he would break the fast if the British
Government accepted the pact in its original form. The Government
promptly accepted it and on 25th evening Gandhi accepted a glass of
juice from Kasturba and broke his fast.

The new arrangement in Poona Pact granted a total of 148

reserved seats in all Provincial legislatures as against 71 sanctioned in
communal award. This number of 148 seats was raised later to 151 in
making adjustment of seats for Bihar and Orissa. In fact Ambedkar
gained 77 seats more than was originally provided in the communal
award. Despite this increase, Ambedkar felt that the value of double
vote as a political weapon was beyond reckoning and concluded that
increase in seats could never compensate for the second vote given to
the untouchables in the communal award. Writing about 1937 election
in his book What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables
(1945) Ambedkar contended that the Congress made a handsome profit
on its political transactions since 78 elected untouchables belonged to
Congress and only 73 successful candidates were true and independent
representatives. With whom justice sided in this entire controversy is
very difficult to judge. But however both Gandhi and Ambedkar were
very strong in their convictions. “But the fact that Gandhi had
undertaken the fast was in itself a refutation of every thing that
Ambedkar said and could have said. It was not refutation on reason
but on sentiment and moral coercion. The result was inevitably a
compromise. Gandhi won on separate electorates; there was to be none.
The rest of the terms of the Poona Pact show that Ambedkar made the
best of a bad bargain.”34 Despite that being a bad bargain Ambedkar
submitted his grave dilemma during those days, “.... I had to make a
choice between two different alternatives. There was before me the
duty, which I owed as a part of common humanity, to save Gandhi from
sure death. There was also before me the problem of saving for the
untouchables the political rights, which the Prime Minister had given
them. I responded to the call of humanity and saved the life of Mr.
Gandhi by agreeing to alter the communal Award in a manner
 45

satisfactory to Mr. Gandhi. This agreement is known as the Poona

Pact.”35
Some scholars have reacted to this situation with a hypothetical
question. What would have been Gandhi’s reaction had Ambedkar
responded to Gandhi’s fast by himself offering fast as a strategy to
persuade the Mahatma. The possible answer tried by some scholars,
makes it clear that, self-sacrifice, as a technique of political action
requires courage, determination and conviction of the purpose. Instead
of causing harm to the opponent one sacrifices oneself, because fasting
is a moral substitute for other political actions. Such an action calls for
an upright means to meet an equally upright end. Ambedkar, however
did not believe in any such thing, instead he went for a compromise. He
must have thought that he would never be forgiven by the caste Hindus
as well as the untouchables, if Gandhi died at a juncture when he was
leading the country towards freedom. “The death of Gandhi could
completely eclipse the political career of Ambedkar. He might have
clearly anticipated the likely results of the election after the death of
Gandhi.”36
Ambedkar does not view Gandhi’s efforts to bring about Hindu-
Muslim unity with any sympathy, instead he complained, “He offered
the Muslims a blank cheque... when they were given to the Muslims...
Gandhi and the Congress did not approve of them. But when it came to
voting upon it they took the strange attitude of neither approving it nor
opposing it.”37 Ambedkar’s discontent did not end with signing the
Poona Pact; he continued his canvas against Gandhi. He says, “We are,
however, reliably informed that in carrying his negotiations with our
Muslim friends, Mr. Gandhi demanded that as one of the conditions for
his accepting their fourteen points, they should oppose the claims of
the Depressed Classes, and the small minorities.”38 Ambedkar believed
that Gandhi worked out a plot against untouchables which, he said,
was a conduct unbecoming of a Mahatma. But however Gandhi or
Congress did not respond to such charges and there are no records to
 46

prove that Gandhi had come to an understanding with Muslims to stall

the separate electorates for untouchables. Instead he consistently
maintained that he was opposed to separate electorates to any group,
but what is found true is that both Gandhi and Congress tolerated the
proposal for special representation to religious minorities only as a
necessary evil.
Some prominent Gandhians like Rajaji thought that, with the
signing of Poona Pact the problem of untouchability is over. Some
scholars also held a similar view. “The scrapping of the separate
electorates for the depressed classes was to be the beginning of the end
of untouchability.”39 The scope for debate at this point is wide open.
But all that one can say is, this episode in history paved way for socio­
religious reforms and it was a good beginning at that. In the final
analysis the controversy around 2nd RTC was considered by many as a
positive development, not only from the untouchables’ view point but
even from the point of view of the country as a whole. This can be
substantiated from the transformation of the ideas as well as the
actions of both Gandhi and Ambedkar in post Poona Pact period.
2.4 After Effects of the Controversy :

Gandhi did not allow any political work during his Harijan tour
between November 1933 and July 1934. This tour of about 12,500
miles allover India was by no means a smooth sailing one. An orthodox
Hindu, who was suspected for opposing equality of castes, threw a
bomb into a car thinking that Gandhi was physically present in it. He
was not there in that car and escaped unhurt, but seven other persons
were injured. Gandhi responded, “I am not aching (Sic) for
martyrdom,”40 he continued “but if it came in my way in the
prosecution of, what I consider to be, the supreme duty in defense of
the faith I hold in common with millions of Hindus I shall have well
earned it.”41 Though Ambedkar had criticised Gandhi on the count that
he had never risked his life for the liberation of untouchables, later
 47

protested against the attempt on Gandhi’s life, when he was told about
the incident.
After his confrontation with Ambedkar, Gandhi launched a multi­
pronged attack against the evil of untouchability. He coined a new
name for them and called them as Harijans, meaning people of God. Till
then they were called as Antyajas or the last-born. It was Narasimha
Mehta a friend of Gandhi who suggested this substitution and Gandhi
was delighted to adopt the word used by great saint like Mehta. Gandhi
confessed, “For whilst the untouchable has toiled and moiled and
dirtied his hands, so that we may live in comfort and cleanliness, we
have delighted in suppressing him... It is still open to us to be Harijan
our selves, but we can only do so by heartily repenting of our sin
against them.”42 However the orthodox Hindus resented this name and
educated untouchables, including Ambedkar, rejected the word
Harijan, as they found in the use of this word a patronizing attitude.
When Gandhi was released from Yarawada jail in 1933, he even
changed the name of his weekly Young India to Harijan and this
popular journal was devoted to the cause of abolition of untouchability.
Gandhi requested Ambedkar, in a personal meeting, to send a message
to the 1st issue of Harijan. Ambedkar’s response, though bitter, was
reproduced followed by Gandhi’s reaction to it. Ambedkar thought that
Hindus would not treat any message from him with respect. Therefore
he sent a statement (7th Feb. 1933) which read, “The out-caste is a by­
product of the caste system ... Nothing can emancipate the out-caste
except the destruction of the caste system. Nothing can help to save
Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the
purging of the Hindu faith of this odious and vicious dogma.”43
Surprisingly at the end of this statement Gandhi wrote a note in
defense of Ambedkar’s bitter tone. As an open-minded seeker after
truth Gandhi felt that Ambedkar had every reason to be bitter. However
with all his kind words Gandhi made his position clear. “...At the
present moment, it is the untouchable ...with whom all Hindu
 48

reformers, whether they believe in Varnashrama or not, have agreed to

deal. The opposition to untouchability is common to both. Therefore,
the present joint fight is restricted to the removal of untouchability and
I would invite Dr. Ambedkar and those who think with him to throw
themselves, heart and soul, into the campaign
against...untouchability.”44 As a means of communication with both
high and low castes, Harijan played a very useful role.
When Gandhi setout for his historical Harijan tour the question
before him was, where has he to go then? Where would he find a
proper base for his service? It was Jamnalal Bajaj, his old friend, who
invited him to Wardha, where the Sewagram ashram was founded. But
before he moved over to Wardha, he announced the gift of the
Sabarmati ashram to Harijan Sevak Sangh. Then on, it popularly came
to be called as Harijan Ashram. Gandhi started concentrating on Khadi
and village industries, which he thought, would better the lot of rural
poor and untouchables. He gave it an institutionalized shape and
dedicated to Charkha and other village handicrafts, keeping himself
totally away from active politics. At the Congress convention in Bombay
in December 1934, having immersed himself in Harijan and peasant
uplift work, he ceased to be a dues-paying member, let alone an office
bearer of the Congress party. One can identify possible reasons for non­
revision of Congress membership in the backdrop of his discussions in
pre and post Poona Pact period. Congress also failed to come up to the
expectations of Gandhi. He might have thought that a formal
association with Congress would not be of any help in serving the cause
of rural poor and untouchables. It is not that Gandhi totally cutoff his
relationship with Congress, but he thought it wise to remain as a
friend, philosopher and guide of the Congress organisation.

Unlike the politicians of post-Gandhian era, he had courage of

conviction to point out the shortcomings of both orthodox Hindus and
Harijans. “I do preach to the Harijans cleanliness, abstention from
carrion-eating and intoxicating drinks and drugs ...also abstention
 49

from eating the leavings from caste Hindus’ plates etc. Only, I do not
put these before Harijans as conditions precedent to the removal of
untouchability.”45 Having frankly said it to Harijans he pointed out to
caste Hindus the disappearance of these shortcomings will take
place sooner for our fraternizing with Harijans even as they are, and
then helping them to become better men and women. That is the least
penance caste Hindus can do for the past wrongs. We must approach
the Harijans as penitents or debtors, not as their patrons or creditors
extending generosity to the undeserving.”46
The province of Bihar suffered a great deal due to a massive
earthquake in 1934 when Gandhi was on Harijan tour. He immediately
interrupted the tour and visited the affected area, moved from village to
village barefoot conferring and consoling the suffering people. While
addressing the public on the disaster he termed it “as a chastisement
for people’s sins,” especially “the sin of practice of untouchability”. He
sought to trace the earthquake to the untouchability prevalent in India.
This response lead to a controversy and the rationalist school as usual
attacked Gandhi. Along with rationalists, Tagore strongly denounced
Gandhi and came out with a statement, “...physical catastrophes have
their inevitable and exclusive origin in certain combinations of physical
facts...If we associate ethical principles with cosmic phenomena then
we shall have to admit that human nature is morally superior to the
providence that preaches lessons in good behaviour in orgies of the
worst behaviour possible... We who are immensely grateful to
Mahatmaji for inducing by his wonder-working inspiration a freedom
from fear and feebleness in the minds of his countrymen, feel
profoundly hurt when any words from his mouth may emphasize the
elements of unreason in those very minds...”47 Gandhi was surprisingly
not shaken by this reaction, instead he replied, “There is an
indissoluble marriage between matter and spirit... The connection
between cosmic phenomena and human behaviour is a living faith and
draws me nearer to God.”48 This is how Gandhi used to invoke God at
crucial junctures and that used to close the argument. Even his close
 50

socialist associate, Lohia criticised Gandhi and wrote “...He was no

doubt doing so for the high aim of banishing untouchability but at the
same time was violating the human mind. I could not perceive it at that
time, for the noble aim justified the act for me. But in order to achieve a
great aim he was violating his own principle of ends and means.”49
In almost every publication of Navajivan, a note to the reader by
Gandhi is reproduced, which is taken from Harijan of post Poona Pact
period. It is worthwhile to examine that note, which is not taken care of
by many critics of Gandhi, including perhaps Ambedkar. Gandhi was
open-minded and he was prepared for changing his views as he found
new truths. He stated, “...I am not at all concerned with appearing to be
consistent. In my search after truth I have discarded many ideas and
learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I
have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the
dissolution of the flesh... therefore, when anybody finds any
inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in
my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same
subject.”50 Defending fourfold Varna model Gandhi wrote, “I do regard
Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on birth. The present
ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with
me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty.”51 All
those who questioned him on this issue were advised by Gandhi to join
him in his fight against an arrogant assumption of superiority. He
termed it as abuse of Varnashrama and pleaded for its combat, but not
Varnashrama itself. It is this view of Gandhi, which has rendered him
vulnerable for attack. Varnashrama an ‘ideal type’ of ancient India, to
put it in Waberian idiom, seemed to have given him a romantic image of
it. In ancient Varna model, each Varna was considered as a trade guild
and birth was considered as a basis of status and privilege. Gandhi
thought that the caste and untouchability are later additions and in his
view this led to the deterioration of fundamental model. He wondered
whether it could be restored to its original ideal and adapted to the
changing needs of the society. He referred more to the ideal model of
 51

the past but not to what it was in reality during his own lifetime. Closer
acquaintance with the Indian social scene convinced him that the
system was so flawed by superstition, ‘touch-me-not-ism’ social
inequality and discrimination, that it was past mending.52 In 1920 he
considered four divisions to be fundamental, natural and essential. But
later he said that innumerable castes and sub-castes, though a
convenience sometimes, are a hindrance and pleaded for the early
fusion of the system. 15 years later he went to declare that the
Varnashrama of the Shastras is non-existent in practice. “The present
caste system is the very antithesis of Varnashrama. The sooner public
opinion abolishes it, the better.”53 In 1933, Gandhi did not consider
inter-dining and inter-marriage as an essential pre-requisite for the
promotion of the spirit of brotherhood or for removal of
untouchability.54 But the same man held the view in 1946 that, “At one
time I did say that inter-dining was not an essential part of the
campaign for the removal of untouchability....Today I encourage it. In
fact...l even go further.”55 One can see a gradual change in his
positions on the same issue from time to time. It was not just a change
in terms of his ideas but it was translated in his actions also. Later he
started encouraging inter-caste marriages in ashrams. Even this was
not his final position. In January 1946 he declared, “I therefore tell all
boys and girls who want to marry that they cannot be married at
Sewagram Ashram unless one of the parties is a Harijan.”56 Earlier, he
had refused to attend a wedding unless it was an inter-caste marriage.
“From 1921 to 1946 Gandhi had gone full circle: from utter disapproval
of inter-caste marriage to approval of only inter-caste marriages.”57

He even stirred the conscience of all those who claimed

themselves to be non-participant observers. “Let me tell you that it is
not enough for you to hold the belief passively that untouchability is a
crime. He who is a passive spectator of crime is really, as in law, an
active participant in it. You must therefore...continue your agitation
along all lawful and legitimate lines.”58 He condemned inaction as he
always thought that it would ultimately result in status quo. When
 52

Gandhi’s battle was on, against untouchability, he appealed to all those

who held the view that their acts against the untouchables are
unintentional. This is how Gandhi created a band of committed
constructive workers against the evil of untouchability.
Ambedkar knew very well that there was a quarrel between
Gandhi and orthodox Hindus. “Whether the Hindu Shastras recognize
untouchability or not is only an academic quarrel between Mr. Gandhi
and the orthodox Hindu. It can do no practical good.”59, said
Ambedkar. He had rather high expectations from Harijan Sevak Sangh.
“...But I might mention that when the Sangh was started I was invited
to join. I had great desire to cooperate with the Hindus for the removal
of untouchability.”60 But in response to Sangh’s invitation Ambedkar
wrote a long letter to its Secretary Thakkar Bapa in 1932 when he was
on his way to 3rd RTC. He demanded more of action than preaching.
He, in a way agreed with Gandhi and stated so. “The touchables and
the untouchables cannot be held together by law, certainly not by any
electoral law, substituting joint electorates for separate electorates. The
only thing that can hold them together is love.”61 While recognizing
Gandhi’s ideas in many respects, he suggested the newfound
organisation to concern itself with civil rights and equal opportunities
in socio-economic matters. His views were however considered by
organizers as quite different from the proposed goal of the Sangh.
Ambedkar claimed that his letter went unanswered and he consistently
held a view that the Sangh is a political organisation. But Gandhi and
Thakkar Bapa resented such allegations. Though Ambedkar was
unhappy about ignoring his suggestions, there are a number of
instances to show that he did not reject Sangh or rule out a dialogue
with Gandhi. With all his opposition to Sangh and Gandhi, he however
conceded that “at best Gandhi is the sympathizer of untouchables and
nothing more”.62 In post Poona Pact period Ambedkar concentrated on
encouraging education among the untouchables through establishing
colleges and hostels under the Peoples’ Education Society. During this
period Ambedkar’s political ideology revealed some changes. He
 53

believed that only untouchables could lead and help their cause. He
never joined or supported any caste Hindu-led group, although he
invited high caste Hindus to his institutes and his activities.63
Ambedkar, in his analyses, considered the claims of Gandhi and
Congress in two phases, i.e., pre and post Poona Pact period. He called
the first one as the period of Bardoli programme. Ambedkar makes on
effort to examine Gandhi’s actions despite his grouse against the latter
in connection with Poona Pact. Ambedkar notes that before Gandhi’s
entry into Congress any social problem was not allowed to be placed
before it for consideration. He also notes that there was a clear
distinction between political and social questions and the deliberations
confined to purely political issues. Ambedkar almost ridiculed the pre-
Gandhian Congress as an organisation of meetings and nothing more.
With great difficulty finally Gandhi saw to it that the problem of
untouchability is considered and a resolution was passed to that effect
in 1917. Ambedkar quoted the resolution: “The Congress urges upon
the people of India the necessity, justice and righteousness of removing
all disabilities imposed by customs upon the depressed classes, the
disabilities being of most vexations and oppressive character, subjecting
those classes to considerable hardship and inconvenience.”64
Again in 1920, when Gandhi was in command of Congress, saw
to it that a resolution is passed at the ordinary session at Nagpur,
which pleaded for Hindu-Muslim unity. Ambedkar quotes the
resolution: “...Hindu delegates of this Congress call upon the leading
Hindus to settle all disputes between Brahmins and non-Brahmins,
wherever they may be existing, and to make a special effort to rid
Hinduism of the reproach of untouchability, and respectfully urges the
religious heads to help the growing desire to reform Hinduism in the
matter of its treatment of the suppressed classes.”65
Ambedkar further notes how Gandhi made the removal of
untouchability a condition precedent for achieving Swaraj. “Non­
cooperation against the Government means cooperation among the
 54

governed and if Hindus do not remove the sin of untouchability, there

will be no Swaraj in one year or one hundred years....”66 With the
adoption of constructive programme Gandhi took a further step of
making removal of untouchability a plank in the political programme.
He attempted to make Congress a really national organisation in every
sense of the term. During Nagpur session Gandhi himself presented
the Congress constitution and he was confident that if people worked
it out honestly, it would become a potent instrument of mass
education and that would bring the country the Swaraj, which it
yearned for. Gandhi thus broadened the mass base of the Congress
and made it a credible party. “Resolution about Hindu-Muslim unity,
the removal of untouchability and Khadi too were passed in the
Congress and since then the Hindu members of the Congress have
taken upon themselves the responsibility of ridding Hinduism of the
curse of untouchability.”67 Despite all these efforts Gandhi still found
himself amidst controversies. Even some modern, feminist variety
women complained that Gandhi did not offer them any specific
economic programme for their self-reliance, so also does a section of
untouchables. But with all these reservations Gandhi could involve
both these sections considerably in the freedom movement. That is
how it has been said of him that he moulded heroes and heroines out
of clay. Women and untouchables were no exceptions.
Through the writings of Ambedkar one can locate his impatience
for reform in terms of ameliorating the lot of untouchables. He
expected drastically positive results in a single or couple of years. For
a problem, which bred over centuries, for reasons known or unknown
he expected a solution to emerge even within a few months.
Throughout his assessment of the proceedings of AICC sessions, he
intended to project the failure of Gandhi and the Congress in the
matter of depressed classes. Any number of examples can be given,
but one would serve the purpose. Ambedkar refers to the resolution
passed in AICC working committee, which met at Bombay in 1923.
“Resolved that while some improvement has been effected in the
 55

treatment of the so-called untouchables in response to the policy of

the Congress, this committee is conscious that much work remains yet
to be done in this respect and in as much as this question of
untouchability concerns the Hindu community particularly, it requests
the All India Hindu Mahasabha also to take up this matter and make
strenuous efforts to remove this evil from amidst the Hindu
community.”68 Ambedkar took a serious objection to leaving the
destiny of untouchables to Hindu Mahasabha: “The work of the
amelioration of the untouchables could not have been left in worse
hands. If there is anybody, which is quite unfit for addressing itself to
the problem of the untouchables, it is the Hindu Mahasabha. It is a
militant Hindu organization. Its aim and object is to conserve in every
way everything that is Hindu, religions and culture. It is not a social
reform association...”69 Having criticized the Congress for entrusting
the responsibility to Hindu Mahasabha; he goes on, interestingly to
express his grouse against C.F. Andrews whose lifetime mission
according to Ambedkar was to popularize Gandhi in Western world. He
almost charged Andrews as a false propagandist.

Ambedkar as usual waited for a couple of months after the

adoption of Gandhi’s constructive programme and later he opined that
though the programme attempted to abolish untouchability, however
in his view it did not attempt to break the caste system and to him it
did not appear a revolutionary programme. Ambedkar searched for
some specific issues like inter-marriage or inter-dinning into it. When
he fails to find any reference to these issues in it, he surprisingly goes
on to identify certain issues like separate wells and separate schools
for untouchables and concludes that the programme pleaded for the
principle of separation of untouchables. However in the final analyses
“It was purely an ameliorative programme. And yet such a harmless
programme the Congress failed to carry through.”70

Ambedkar was either both unaware of the various shifts and

changes in Gandhi’s positions regarding caste system and
 56

untouchability or he must have refused to take note of these changes

as genuine concerns of Gandhi. However as far as constructive
programme was concerned, Gandhi said it was not exhaustive but just
illustrative, which was subject to change according to changing
situations. No one has perhaps considered the constructive
programme as lightly as Ambedkar though the Communists have
ridiculed it, but in terms of intent their views were not as severe as
that of Ambedkar’s. Though Gandhi led some great campaigns for
removal of untouchability, he relied mainly on continuous constructive
efforts. The 18-point constructive programme placed the item of
removal of untouchability in the second place i.e., immediately after
the first item Hindu-Muslim unity.
Going by Ambedkar’s analysis it appears or else he seems to
have thought that Gandhi was in total agreement with his Congress
colleagues in every respect. But the matter of fact is that Gandhi was
more often than not quite critical of his Congress colleagues on many
issues including their approach towards the removal of untouchability.
For a just understanding of Gandhi, perhaps some details regarding
the constructive programme needs to be elaborated. The programme,
which is originally- addressed to the members of the Congress,
discusses some of the concrete steps to be taken, through which that
philosophy may be put into action. “The value of this document lies in
the fact that it illustrates the point that according to Gandhi every
sound political philosophy ought to have its corresponding
constructive programme one that contributes to the betterment of the
lives of members of civil society.”71 Gandhi does not consider it
necessary to dilate upon the necessity of removing the blot of
untouchability. He claimed in the programme that Congress had done
much in the matter to free Hindus from this curse. But however he
took exception to Congressmen for looking upon this item on the
agenda as a mere political necessity. It seemed to Gandhi then that
they have not considered it as something indispensable for the very
existence of Hinduism. For Gandhi, if Congressmen took up the cause
 57

for its own sake instead of meeting some political equations, they
would influence the Sanatani Hindus far more extensively than they
had hither to done. He advised Congressmen to approach the
traditionalists in a friendly spirit befitting their non-violent approach.
And unlike Ambedkar he ruled out the militant approach to solving the
problem. Militancy for Gandhi does not help persuasion or change of
heart. He appealed to every Hindu to make common cause with his
Harijan brethren. He termed the problem as one of monstrous
intensity in the world. And this is due, in his view, because of an awful
isolation of Harijans by Hindus. And the only way to solve the problem
is for the Hindus to befriend the Harijans in their awful isolation. He
knew from his experience how difficult the talk is but he considered it
as part of the task of building the edifice of Swaraj. He warned his
followers that the road to Swaraj is steep and narrow. “There are many
slippery ascents and many deep chasms. They have all to be
negotiated with unfaltering step before we can reach the summit and
breathe the fresh air of freedom.”72
2.5 Controversies Through Their Writings :
All through Gandhi-Ambedkar controversies one can observe a
trend. Among few others like Jinnah and M.N.Roy; Ambedkar is also
considered by scholars as a thorough going critic of Gandhi. In case of
Ambedkar, some scholars have pointed out that he was not prepared
to play the second fiddle to Gandhi, as did Nehru or Patel. All those
who have tried some guesswork have concluded by saying: apart from
their primary interests, there seem to have existed the leadership
crisis. Perhaps Ambedkar always went out of his way to question
Gandhi’s leadership of untouchables. But however, more often than
not, Gandhi has never reacted to Ambedkar’s charges. That is why the
dispute between Gandhi and Ambedkar had a frill of leadership
passion.73 Ambedkar contended that Gandhi opposed the Satyagraha
at Mahad and Nasik. But he had blessed and encouraged the temple
entry Satyagraha at Vaikom. Ambedkar implies that Gandhi did so
 58

because the Vaikom Satyagraha was carried on by the untouchables

under Congress leadership and the other two were launched by
untouchables independently of the Congress. “Had the opposition of
Mr. Gandhi, something to do with this difference. As Mr. Gandhi has
given no answer I must leave the reader to make the best guess. 74
Since Ambedkar left this question wide upon for guesswork; any
numbers of guesses have been done there by causing damage to both
Gandhi and Ambedkar. The latter always held a view that as long as
untouchables have special needs, those needs must be represented in
the Government by the untouchables themselves. “His absolute refusal
to work under the leadership of any one else’s banner was inexplicable
to many caste Hindu reformers.”75 However some scholars hold this as
an idea, which is common in the leadership of minority movement.
Those who consider the issue from a wider perspective look at it as a
separatist tendency. Whatever may be the case, it is this issue, which
brought Ambedkar into direct conflict with Gandhi, who felt that he
represented the national cause and spoke for all Indians irrespective of
caste, creed, religion and sex.
One of the most controversial books by Ambedkar has been,
What the Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. It was
written after the 2nd RTC and Poona Pact, which tells the story from
his side of Gandhi’s fast and is considered as a general polemic against
Gandhi and Congress politics. For a critical appraisal we will have to
analyze it in the light of Poona Pact and formation of Congress
ministries during 1937-9 and general elections to provincial
legislatures in 1946. Congress party won most reserved seats in 1937
elections and the Congress in 1946 elections routed Ambedkar’s
Scheduled Caste Federation. With this defeat Ambedkar’s words did
not exert much influence on the British and they could not recognize
him as the sole spokesman of the SC’s. Consequently Cripps Cabinet
Mission (1946) did not provide any special rights for the untouchables
except the reserved seats in the legislatures, which they had already
given. Ambedkar questioned the validity of the results of the 1946
 59

elections held under joint electorates, and threatened direct action. He

appealed to British Premier Attlee to intervene but Attlee was advised
not to take any notice of Ambedkar’s protests.76
In his book Ambedkar has enumerated his reactions on the
activities undertaken by Gandhi and the Congress, and he is as usual
most impassionate in his critique of their programmes. This account
includes the public statements made by Congress and Gandhi and goes
about to show how Ambedkar was not convinced about the validity and
sincerity of their efforts. He contends that the political separation of
untouchables is essential for the attainment of political power and
hence pleads for separate electorates and also repents for having lost
them. He criticizes Harijan Sevak Sangh and calls it a political charity
to influence the untouchables to join Congress camp. He firmly asserts
that the salvation of the problems of untouchables can be brought
about by untouchables themselves. And for accomplishing this task he
insists upon employing technical, legal and constitutional methods. And
to do so naturally meant obtaining political power through the regular
channel of election. He ridiculed all those untouchable candidates who
went for votes along with Congress. He thought that the task of uplift of
untouchables could be accomplished only though political power. “What
makes one interest dominant over another is power. That being so,
power is needed to destroy power.”77 Hence his plea for separate
electorates continued. He almost held a view that it is the absence of
separate electorates, which led to isolation, and mistreatment of
untouchables. The Varnashramadharma is described as an unnatural
stratification of society, since it imposes an inhuman tendency to
allocate occupations by heredity. He criticized the temple entry
campaign as an issue of minor importance and also held Congress’
political interest as a cause of its lack of success. He ridicules Gandhi’s
taking to the scavenging profession as ‘an outrage and a cruel joke’. In
Ambedkar’s view “Mr. Gandhi’s attitude is that let Swaraj perish if the
cast of it is political freedom of the untouchables.”78
 60

As it is noted earlier Gandhi has hardly answered Ambedkar’s

charges directly but however some Gandhians have done it.
Surprisingly scholars have lost sight of such accounts.
Raj agopalachari directly refutes Ambedkar’s charges towards the
Congress and Gandhi. Rajaji says, “Over elaboration and repetition
have admittedly made Dr. Ambedkar’s book bulky. The refutation
attempted here is brief but it is hoped, sufficient.”79 Rajaji refers to two
fundamental points in democracy. The first is acceptance of majority
rule, unless this is accepted no popular Government is possible. The
second condition is the legal protection of every individual whether of
the majority or minority, without which, admits Rajaji, democracy
would be a sham and a tyranny. “It is idle to talk of separate
‘nationalities’ or ‘distinct elements’ of population when the persons
claiming the benefit of the principle of national self-determination do
not occupy a definable and divisible territory so as to be capable of
being formed into a separate state or sub-state. Dr. Ambedkar’s vague
attempts to imitate Mr. Jinnah are therefore inadmissible.”80 Therefore
he considers “...arguments tendered by leaders of minority
communities...against what is the fundamental of democracy, viz.
Majority-rule, really amounts to opposition to Indian freedom and
abetment of the British imperialist claim for the maintenance of the
status quo.”81 So far as Ambedkar’s complaint about post Poona Pact
election results “that the dice was loaded in favour of the congress,” is
concerned, Rajaji says, “It seems as if Dr. Ambedkar considers
overwhelming public support itself as an unfair element in political
contests. He does not see that in politics public opinion is the final
reference.”82 Rajaji narrates the story of Poona Pact and states that
Ambedkar agreed to the proposal in principle and recalls exchanging of
his pen with Ambedkar after signing the Pact. Referring to Ambedkar’s
ridicule on the slow pace of progress by Congress, he goes on to say,
all that flows from poverty in a capitalist society cannot be imputed to
the folly of the Congress. The appeal of the Congress for removal of
social disabilities of SC’s fell for long on deaf ears, it is not a reason in
 61

Rajaji’s view to discredit the honesty of either the Congress or Gandhi.

Referring to Ambedkar’s plea for fast change through coercion, Rajaji
says coercion in such affairs would fail miserably if it be attempted in
a capitalist system because one cannot make people rich by acts of
parliament. A socialist state can find remedies but the establishment
of which in India is not easier than the accomplishment of reform of
the untouchables. Referring to Ambedkar’s charges of Congress
indifference to temple entry, he says the views of Congress on this and
many other issues stood publicly declared and were not slackened in
the least measure. Rajaji makes it clear, “Dr. Ambedkar knows very
well that all the matters in which a political party is interested cannot
be put forward at every election...The time and circumstances decide
what matters must be put in issue at a particular moment.”83 As
against the Congress demand, the British stood as opponents of
transfer of power. It is this, which prompted Congress to contest the
elections, and peoples’ mandate was expected on fhis political issue.
Hence he refutes the argument that the Congress surrendered its
policy of abolition of untouchability as absurd.84 As regards
Ambedkar’s attribution of political motives to Gandhi’s activities after
1932 and regarding his charge that Gandhi was opposed to the
untouchables’ entry to temples Rajaji gives enough of evidences to
show how Gandhi had initiated activities of untouchables’ temple entry
and the like. In Rajaji’s view, “This is a sample of the manner in which
Dr. Ambedkar approaches and disposes off vital subjects. A wrong
assumption of a fact is first made and then an interesting search is
made for motives to explain it.”85 Apart from Rajaji, there are scholars
who have taken critical view of Ambedkar’s treatment of Gandhi. For
instance some have concluded that Gandhi was open to correction but
Ambedkar hid the drawbacks of his organisation. He spent much of
his energy in only safeguarding his followers. But none could be as
harsh to Ambedkar as Rajaji. He tried in his own way a materialist
explanation of Ambedkar and other educated leaders of the scheduled
castes. “They become detractors and enemies of any efforts that seek
 62

to remove the bar, for it may tend to the termination of the special
favours based on the depressed condition of their community.’*86 He
calls it a paradox but considers it natural for the favoured leaders of
untouchables to do their utmost for the continuation of the isolation of
their community. He considers this as the material explanation for the
violent dislike of Gandhi by Ambedkar “who looks upon this great and
inspired reformer as worst enemy of the ‘untouchables’, meaning
thereby of the educated and ambitions among them who find that the
depressed status furnishes a short cut to positions.” 87 He goes on to
admit that there are many Muslim and scheduled caste leaders whose
patriotism and nationalist outlook are unquestioned. Education for
such people has strengthened their urge for service and patriotism has
not given way to personal ambition. He tells it to himself and
Congressmen that “the phase in which efforts for reform stand
unappreciated and discouraged by those in enjoyment of special
concessions based on present depressed status is a necessary phase
through which we must pass with patience.”88 Gandhi did exercise
such patience.
Ambedkar seems to have derived inspiration from Justice
Movement of South India. But the objective situation of Tamil culture
and history was entirely different from the historical milieu of
Maharashtra or rest of North India. It was more a fight for the
assertion of Dravid culture and Tamil language as against Hindi,
Sanskrit. Brahmin domination was the order of the day.
E.V.Ramaswamy Naikar who was popularly known as Periyar (Great
Man) was founder of this Dravid Movement. But even after half a
century of India’s freedom his thoughts have been confined to Tamil
Nadu. Unlike the South, the problem of untouchables else where in
India was one of their ill treatment not only by Brahmins, but by other
local dominant castes as well. The non-Brahmin movement termed
Congress led freedom struggle as a Brahmin-controlled affair, at times
it was even averse to this struggle. That is why many nationalists
opposed this movement and rejected the charge that the Congress
 63

intended to replace British Raj with Brahmin Raj. However Dravid

leaders held the view that there was a democratic movement with
socio-cultural and political bearings. This movement was projected as
anti-national by the press on many occasions. So also was Ambedkar,
whose moves were portrayed as anti-national and pro-British. As late
as early 90’s, Arun Shourie conformed to this view. He comes out with
details on Ambedkar’s collaboration with the British, his hankering for
office as a member of Labour in British Viceroy’s Executive Council,
etc. Interestingly Shourie bases his analysis on the writings of
Ambedkar himself. He totally rejects Ambedkar’s positions and also
attacks his followers and ‘apologists’ who think that it was Ambedkar’s
hardship which justify his collaboration with the British against
national movement.89 However scholars like, Dr. Raghavendra Rao
have argued in some other context that accepting the goal of national
independence as the first priority did not necessarily mean totally
neglecting the social question. Efforts should be made to bring about
social change to achieve equality. Evils like poverty, famine and
epidemics be tackled without being politically independent, and yet it
would be wrong to assume that only those involved in the political
movement are real patriots. It would be equally wrong to assume that
socio-economic reforms will automatically be realized once freedom
was gained. Political freedom is necessary but not a sufficient
condition for national sustenance and progress. In fact, it could even
be argued that social evils are far worse than political slavery. That is
why political goals, as a strategy, should not be too sharply separated
from social aspirations, which are more important, in the long run.90
However, there have been interesting observations by scholars on
some of Ambedkar’s moves regarding his favourable attitude towards
the demand of Dravidstan made by Ramaswami Naikar. With reference
to Ambedkar’s demand for separate settlements to untouchables, it is
said, “Ambedkar’s demands after 1942 could have caused one more
Partition of India.”91 However the people themselves in the South did
not like the idea of separation. The Justice Party was totally routed in
 64

1936 elections. At a certain stage shock was so strong that the

leadership of the party thought of dissolving the organisation. The
nationalist appeal of Congress was so strong and its mass base was so
wide that, the urban-based upper class justice party could not stand
any chance in the elections. Having realized the popularity of Gandhi,
even the Justice Party in its Madras conference had to display the
placards containing the message that “Long live Mahatma Gandhi”.
Even its party papers appealed to the people to develop nationalist
spirit. In a nutshell it can be said of the Justice movement that it was
not opposed to nationalist movement, even if there was any opposition,
it was to the extent that independence can wait till the non-Brahmins
equaled Brahmins in terms of their status and power.92 In this sense
one need not add more meaning to Ambedkar’s positive attitude
towards justice movement.
Ambedkar veiy strongly argues that Hindus cannot be said to
form a society or a nation. It is however not that Ambedkar was the
first man to have argued this case. There were many protest
movements against Hindu chaturvama, many centuries before
Ambedkar. Of course Buddha was perhaps the first man to have
protested against the Brahmanical socio-religious order. Then many
other protests followed. But at least during the freedom struggle all
these sections, except Ambedkar, formed part of freedom struggle
despite their strong disagreement with Brahmanical social order. For
that matter Gandhi himself was a non-Brahmin. Brahmins in the
initial stages of the struggle found it difficult to accept guidance from
Gandhi. Ambedkar, who was incidentally opposed to the formation of
Karnataka state, argued that if Karnataka is formed or unified as one
linguistic unit, it would be Lingayats who would work at the expense of
others. Perhaps Ambedkar was not familiar with princely Mysore state
and the dominance of Vokkaliga community as that was away from
Bombay province. A serious effort was made during this study to trace
whether Ambedkar had ever come across a person called
Basaveshvara. But the efforts went in vein. Basaveshvara, a Brahmin
 65

himself, who rebelled against the Brahmanical social order, is the

founder of Lingayat religion in 12th century Karnataka. Lingayats had
all the reservations against joining the freedom struggle under
Congress leadership. Their major complaint was that the Brahmins
dominated the Congress organisation. But it was during the Belgaum
session of Indian National Congress in 1924 that Gandhi could
convince the Lingayats with the help of Sri Hardekar Manjappa that
neither the Congress nor the freedom struggle had any thing to do
with caste system. It was purely a forum of patriots to fight against
British rule. Within a decade of this appeal by Gandhi, the entire
scenario underwent a change and Lingayats almost took over the
leadership of Congress in their fight against British imperialism. It is
quite possible that there must have been many such changeovers in
different parts of the country. This miracle in Karnataka history was
prominently due to the indomitable leadership of Gandhi and
Congress. People in all Southern states, ultimately appreciated the
9

importance of territorial and communal integrity under the noble

influence of Gandhi and concentrated on national issues.93

As stated earlier in the last phase of freedom struggle, the

British neglected Ambedkar because of complete routing of the
Scheduled Castes Federation in 1946 elections. Driven by almost near
despondence, he sent appeals to the Tory and other British leaders,
saying that, in case they fail to help him, he threatened them; he
would even seek help from other foreign countries. In this connection
Dr. A.M. Rajasekharaiah remarked that it is very difficult to get into
the mind of Ambedkar to analyze his statement and to know what
exactly he meant by his threat of involving foreign help. He also
remarks that because of the telegrams he sent to the conservative
leaders, the ruling labour party might have developed
misunderstanding about Ambedkar and advised him to seek solace in
Constituent Assembly and try his luck there.94 With all this
Rajashekharaiah concedes that Ambedkar was a nationalist to the
core. In fact Gandhi himself did not question Ambedkar’s nationalist
 66

credentials or his personal integrity. Therefore, though a controversy is

sought to be created by some scholars around this issue, the present
study considers it out of place to go into the details. All said and done
it is true that Ambedkar did not support the freedom struggle led by
Congress. It is equally true that he did not oppose it either. His sole
wish was to get the justice to his people without opposing the
nationalist movement. Ambedkar thought that there could be room for
nationality, even without nationalist sentiments. For Ambedkar a fight
for freedom did not only mean a fight against the British imperialism,
but it was as much a fight against the internal exploitation. In his view
a fight against injustice was as good as a fight for freedom itself. That
alone, in his analysis was nationality. It was not just political
integration, which was needed, but socio-economic integration for him
was as much an essential ingredient of nationality.
Though Gandhi did not question Ambedkar’s nationalist
concerns, he did question Ambedkar’s interpretation of Hinduism.
Ambedkar triggered off the controversy through his public address on
‘Annihilation of Caste’. It should be regarded as a seminal debate as it
brings into focus two sharply divergent pictures of what modern India
is and therefore, what it has to be.95 In response to that address
Gandhi listed three questions which were examined by Ambedkar:
1) What are the scriptures?
2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them
or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorized
interpretations?
3) What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on
the question of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter­
dining and inter-marriage? 96
Ambedkar holds that "...caste is the natural outcome of certain
religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras”97 To ask the
people to give up caste is to ask them to go contrary to their
 67

fundamental religious notions. In the last analysis, this means you

must destroy the authority of the Shastras and Vedas. In simple
terms, Hinduism sanctions caste system through its scriptures. In his
response to the address Gandhi wrote, “Caste has nothing to do with
religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know and do not need to
know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it
is harmful to both spiritual and national growth.”98 Gandhi went on to
say that Vama teaches us to earn our bread by following the ancestral
calling and there was none high or none too low. “I am aware that my
interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many besides Dr.
Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. It is an interpretation by
which I have lived for nearly half a century and according to which I
have endeavored to the best of my ability to regulate my life.”99 In
Gandhi’s view Ambedkar picked out the texts of doubtful authenticity.
“Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar every known living
faith will probably fail.”100 Gandhi asked, can a religion that was
professed by Chaitanya, Jnandev, Tukram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramakrishna
Paramhansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Tagore, Vivekananda and host a
of others who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as
is made out in Dr. Ambedkar’s address? Gandhi felt a religion needs to
be judged by the best specimens not worst ones. In his reply
Ambedkar greatly appreciated Gandhi for taking note of his speech.
Ambedkar said, “I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with
my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act
otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person, I
would not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatma
himself, I feel I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he
has sought to put forth.”101
Ambedkar maintains that Gandhi had missed the issues raised
by him and he points out what he had tried in his speech in the form
of a list:
 68

1) The caste has ruined the Hindus

2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the basis of

chaturvama is impossible...It is incapable of sustaining itself by its
own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a caste
system unless there is a legal sanction behind it.
3) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the basis of
chaturvama is harmful because the effect of Vamavyavastha is to
degrade the masses by denying them opportunity.
4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis
which would recognize the principle of liberty, equality and
fraternity
5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity
behind caste and Varna must be destroyed
6) That the sanctity of caste and Varna can be destroyed only by
discarding the divine authority of the Shastras.102

In reply to the first complaint of Gandhi that the texts cited by

Ambedkar are not authentic, he confesses that he is not an authority-
on the matter but he admits that he had taken the whole of it from
Tilak whom he considered as an authority on Hindu Shastras. As
regards the second point that Shastras should be interpreted not by
the learned but by the saints and the saints did not see any support to
caste and untouchability. Ambedkar’s counter question is, does it avail
to any one if the texts are interpolations and if the saints have
differently interpreted them? The masses, he maintained do not make
a distinction between which are genuine texts and which are
interpolations. The masses, in his view, are too illiterate to know the
contents of the texts, and they simply believe what they have been
told, and accordingly they have considered it as their religious duty to
observe caste and untouchability. About the third point, that a religion
has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best, though
Ambedkar agrees, he said he could not understand thereby what
 69

Gandhi was wishing to prove. Ambedkar’s question is, why the worst
number so many and the best so few? He felt that it is a pity as to lot
many went wrong, because they are forced to adore the wrong ideals.
The few who were considered as best would have continued to be the
best in spite of wrong ideal. He considers Gandhi’s ideal of following
one’s ancestral calling as an impractical and also morally an
indefensible ideal. In the final analysis Ambedkar does not see any
difference between theory and practice in Hindu religion. He also
disagrees like many radicals with Gandhi’s assessment that, Hinduism
concedes to untouchables, is an over-estimation. This controversy is
however far from being over. However as some scholars claim it, there
is no denial of the fact that along with Gandhi, Ambedkar holds the
key to the understanding of modern Indian society.103
2.6 Controversy over the position of villages and Panchayati Raj :
Village reconstruction occupied the core of Gandhian thinking; he
always spoke of his dream of Ramarajya and Gramarajya. Gandhi very
much aspired to realize the village of his ideal dream, into a practical
reality. It was his life’s mission to build the Indian society on the basis
of village system. He wrote about it in Harijan as far back as 1936: “I
would say that if village perishes India will perish too. It will be no
more India. Her own mission in the world will get lost.” The visionary
in Gandhi ceaselessly insisted for a village where qualify of life was the
crux: “My ideal village will contain intelligent human beings. They will
not live in dirt and drunkenness as animals. There will be neither
plague nor cholera, nor small pox, no one will be idle, and no one will
wallow in luxury. Every one will have to contribute his quota of
manual labour.”104 Gandhi was quite aware of the hard realities in our
villages despite his ideal dreams about them. He wrote, “Instead of
having graceful hamlets dotting the land, we have dung heaps. The
approach to many villages is not a refreshing experience. Often one
would like to shut one’s eyes and stuff one’s nose such is the
surrounding dirt and offending smell.”105 Many leaders in post
 70

Gandhian era express their concern for villages but however the village
of Gandhi’s dream remains far from being realized. Gandhi had faced
the problem with his contemporaries, as well, that is why he wrote. If
the majority of Congressmen were derived from our villages, they
should be able to make our villages models of cleanliness in every
sense of the world. But they have never considered it their duty to
identify themselves with the villages in their daily lives. If this was the
approach of Congressmen, it can be left to anybody’s imaginations as
to what must have been Ambedkar’s approach to our villages. Going
by published works on Ambedkar, scholars have not paid adequate
attention to Ambedkar’s treatment of our villages. Somehow this
controversy between Gandhi and Ambedkar’s approaches has skipped
the grip of our scholarship. Gandhi’s ideas on village reconstruction is
unfortunately grossly misunderstood by some of his most outstanding
contemporaries.106

Panchayati Raj was a hot topic during the process of

constitution making. Intervening in the Constituent Assembly debates,
the architect of Indian constitution, Ambedkar argued for the
acceptance of the individual as the unit of society and planning as
against village.107 However everybody thought that villages will occupy
their rightful place in social reconstruction. That was a time when the
entire nation was strongly in defense of Gramarajya dream of Gandhi.
Naturally his close associates were desirous of reconstructing
independent India on the lines of Gramswaraj. But surprisingly
enough, there was no mention of it whatsoever in the draft proposal of
the constitution. There was no guarantee of rural regeneration
whatsoever in the proposed constitution. Every one thought that it was
Ambedkar who was responsible for such a stand and rightly so. He
had not included the issue of rural reconstruction in the directive
principles of the state policy either. As a result the followers of Gandhi
contended that this was not only an injustice to Indian culture but
also an offensive to Gandhi’s ideal dream of Panchayati Raj.108
 71

When the matter came before the constituent assembly for

discussion, an overwhelming majority of members took a critical view
of Ambedkar’s stand on the issue. T.Prakasham, K. Santhanam, H.V.
Kamath, Mahavir Tyagi, Prof. Ranga and others charged Ambedkar
that he had deliberately ignored Gandhi’s dream of Gram Swaraj with
an intention to humiliate the Gandhian model of development. Many of
them pleaded for considering the perspective of planning and
development on the basis of ancient and mediaeval model of
Panchayati Raj. While arguing for Gram Panchayats, some of them
went a step forward and threatened that they would even refuse the
central and state Governments if the new constitution ignored the
local self-governments.
Replying to the charges, Ambedkar stated that the village
republics in his view are responsible for the ruination of India. He said
that the village was a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow
mindedness and communalism. Village and all its offshoots, pointed
out Ambedkar, are causes for country’s ruination. He considered it a
matter of surprise that all those colleagues of him in the constituent
assembly who condemn regionalism and casteism still plead for the
revitalization of local self-governments. Ambedkar’s philosophy of
Western liberalism and democracy found its expression in Indian
constitution. As a result all through the debates of Constituent
Assembly, he pleaded relentlessly for the freedom of the individual as
against the corporate pleas of the advocates who belonged to the
Gandhian school.109 Advocates of Gandhian school persisted for
considering the village as a unit of the country and its progress but
whereas Ambedkar constantly held the view that he was not
convinced, he rejected the idea. Ultimately when the draft constitution
discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit in planning
and development, naturally Ambedkar was very glad. Members in the
Constituent Assembly were not only upset over Ambedkar’s reply but
most of them were rather inflamed about his bitter words. Then
followed a great debate about the relevance of accommodating
 72

Panchayati Raj in Indian context. As a result it culminated in K.

Santanam moving a resolution pleading for an amendment. All the
members pleaded that the Government should take necessary steps to
organize Gram Panchayats and they should be empowered to work as
Swaraj units. Everybody expected that Ambedkar would respond to the
amendment resolution, but surprisingly he said that he had nothing
else to add and kept mum. Finally Gandhi’s dream of Panchayati Raj
could only be accommodated in the directive principles of state policy
under article 40, though the original draft of the constitution had
rejected it. In a way it was a victory for both the parties.110 This can be
seen from the description of Ambedkar himself. “How fanatic are the
Hindus in their belief in the Indian village as an ideal piece of social
organisation may be seen from the angry speeches made by the Hindu
members of the Indian constituent Assembly in support of the
contention that the Indian constitution should recognize village as its
base of the constitutional pyramid of autonomous administrative units
within its own legislature, executive and judiciary. From the point of
view of the untouchables, there could have been a greater calamity.
Thank God the constituent Assembly did not adopt it.”111 In simple
terms, Ambedkar’s insistence on the individual has been incorporated
in the section on the fundamental rights; where as insistence of
Gandhians on the village has been given expression in Directive
principles of the state policy.
What must have prompted Ambedkar to take such a critical
stance towards villages? Though Ambedkar did not say much about
villages during constituent Assembly debates, he had expressed his
ideas in his writings. He necessarily calls villages as Hindu villages
and his caste perspective runs throughout his analysis. Village for him
is a working plant of Hindu social order in operation in its full swing.
Village is not a single unit but contains majority and minority in terms
of touchables against untouchables. The latter live outside the village
where as the former live inside. Untouchables are poor and dependent
on touchables since they are economically powerful. Socially
 73

touchables are rulers where as untouchables are ruled upon by

heredity, as such they are required to follow the social code of
touchables. Any violation of the code is considered as an offence.
Ambedkar makes a list of these codes and offences: (1) untouchable’s
quarters must be separated and must face south, since it is considered
as inauspicious. (2) He must observe the rule of distance in terms of
his shadow. His shadow in any way should not defile a touchable. (3)
He should not acquire wealth in terms of land or cattle and should not
build a house with tiled roof. (4) It is an offence to put on clean
attire, shoes, watch or gold. (5) They should not give high-sounding
names to their children. (6) They should not sit on a chair in the
presence of Hindus (7) He should not ride on horse or a palanquin
through the village (8) He must salute a Hindu (9) He should not enter
the village on sacred days when Hindus fast (10) He should not wear
any outward marks of high caste which may cause confusion. Then
Ambedkar considers duties of untouchables in the villages: (1) He
must carry a message of any event in the house of a Hindu, such as
death or marriage to his relative living in other villages. (2) He must
work at the Hindu house during marriages (3) He must accompany the
Hindu girl when she is going to her husbands village after marriage (4)
During festivals like Holi or Dasara he must perform all menial help to
the observance (5) untouchables must send their women on certain
festivals to the villages who will be subjected for indecent fun making.
All this has to be attended to without expecting any remuneration.
Since untouchables have no capital they cannot engage in trade.
Purchase of land is beyond their reach. They cannot demand wages,
they should be happy with their master who chooses to give whatever
he likes, either in the form of cash or kind. Ambedkar contends that
the right to beg for food from the touchable is the principle means of
livelihood for 60 millions of untouchables in India. He had exactly this
picture in mind when he says, "This is the village republic of which the
Hindus are so proud. What is the position of untouchables in this
republic? They are not merely the last but are also the least."112 In his
 74

view village is the very negation of a republic. He considers it as a kind

of colonialism of the Hindus designed to exploit the untouchables. As a
corollary to his interpretation of Indian village he submitted a
memorandum to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the Scheduled
Caste Federation, on safeguards for the SC’s (published : 1947).
Ambedkar pleaded for separate settlements to the untouchables.
Untouchables live in Ghettoes (segregated inhabitation). Identity of
untouchables becomes easy because of these Ghettoes. India being a
land of villages provides an easy method of identifying the
untouchables. Apart from this, already there exists a social separation
between touchable and untouchables. To break this nexus, Ambedkar
placed a new demand in terms of break in settlements. Untouchables
should be geographically and territorially separated and settled into
separate villages for this demand is the pitiable economic position of
untouchables. They cannot engage in trade or take other occupations,
as Hindus do not deal with them. Their poverty and exploitation will
continue as long as they live in Ghettoes as dependent part of Hindu
village. Ambedkar charged that there is an all out war against
inequality and ill-treatment everywhere, but the Hindu press is not
giving adequate publicity to it lest it should injure the cause of their
freedom in the eyes of the world. The cause of Hindu success in
suppressing the untouchables is because of the connivance of Hindu
police and Magistry with their side. “But the chief weapon in the
armory of the Hindus is economic power which they possess over the
poor untouchables living in the village. The proposal may be dubbed
escapism.”113
When he submitted this memorandum, perhaps Ambedkar was
not aware then, that he would be chosen as the chairman of drafting
committee of Indian constitution. His charges against the Panchayati
Raj, whether Ambedkar meant it or not, are considered as charges
against Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj. Gandhi’s ideal of Gramarajya is as
beautiful and fantastic as that of Ambedkar’s ideal dreams of both of
them on these issues. Ambedkar refers to the hardships of
 75

untouchables alone in the villages; he never considered the problems

of villages in general. The exploitation of villages by cities is not only a
contemporary problem but also it started much before the Indian
independence. That is why Gandhi used to say that the exploitation of
villages by cities is an organized violence. His close associate and
distinguished economist J.C. Kumarappa therefore coined a new term
known as Villagism’ as against urbanism or urban mindedness. As
regards this Gandhi said, “Villages have suffered long from neglect by
those who have had the benefit of education. They have chosen the
city life. The village movement is an attempt to establish healthy
contact with the villages by inducing those who are fired with the spirit
of service to settle in them and find self-expression in the service of
villages.”114 The ideal dream of Gandhi’s village has perhaps no
equivalent in global thinking; he was as rich a dreamer as that.
Ambedkar says that Gandhi’s ideal for the untouchables is very low
ideal and low aim is a crime.115 It is equally true that Ambedkar had
no ideal village of his dream at all, if one can reduce it to Ambedkar’s
logic it is equally criminal to have a low aim for the villages in Indian
context because with or without Gandhi and Ambedkar our villages
are totally pauperized, even after half a century of independence.
Ambedkar throughout argued that the untouchables must be
seen as minority, as separate people, so long as they are treated as
untouchables. Ambedkar’s most striking plea came from the platform
of the Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942, in which there was a call
for the transfer of SC’s to separate villages, the rationale for which has
already been discussed. His inability to find a solution to
discrimination and economic backwardness, except for his demand for
the socialization of land, is considered by scholars as a major lacunae
in his philosophy and his differing attitude to the villages which of
course brought him in direct opposition to the Gandhian stress on the
villages as the center of Indian life. Scholars have pointed out another
confusion contained in the political theory of Ambedkar. “As a liberal,
he had to accept the individual as a unit of political process, but his
 76

own view was that the significant unit in any society is not individual,
but the group, whatever is its nature and basis. For instance, his
advocacy of communal representation...was, in principle, a negation of
the notion of the individual as the basic unit of political systems.”116
He gave a call to the untouchables to quit the villages and migrate to
cities and asked them to get the education and improve their economic
status. Ambedkar thought this alone would help the lower castes from
the high caste tyranny.
Though the hard realities at the ground level have confirmed
what Ambedkar has said, the fact remains that the SC’s continue to
form part of Indian villages. The caste-based discrimination though not
as high in intensity as it used to be, still continues to bother the SC’s.
The process of politicization is fast picking up in our villages and lower
castes have subjected themselves to this process. As a result many
Dalit organizations have come up to fight for their demands. There was
a positive correlation between rural vocations and castes. There was a
time, when bonded labour was the order of the day. Though there is a
considerable reduction in such practices, still one can notice the
remnants of past evils in our villages. Does it render Ambedkar’s ideas
on villages irrelevant? Is it that lower castes are free from exploitation?
These questions call for a little more inquiry into these issues. Many
land related disputes are still reported and overwhelming number of
perpetrators of violence are invariably high caste people and the
affected parties are normally low caste ones. This indicates that there
is a positive correlationship between land disputes and caste system.
In majority of cases land related wars turnout to be caste wars also.
These are normally reported from northern states like Bihar, U.P.,
Orissa and surprisingly, down south in Andhra and Tamil Nadu also.
Though there are legislation’s for the protection of low castes, the
implementation part of it is very poor. Dominance of high caste Hindu
landlords continues and they still resort to violence whenever the SC’s
try to assert their rights. It means that wherever the feudal landed
gentry are strong, either the lower castes should subject themselves
 77

for oppression or else they must be prepared for a war. Over-whelming

majority of SC’s still reside in villages. For Ambedkar, to empower
Gram Panchayats meant empowering the landed high caste gentry.
Irrespective of Ambedkar’s views on Panchayats, some opening
was sought to be given for their regeneration, as they were totally
rendered powerless due to British rule. They took away the customary
powers of Panchayats, though later having realized their mistake, they
appointed a Royal commission on decentralization, but pretty little was
done to revitalize them. It was only after independence, the Balwant
Rai Mehta committee was appointed to recommend ways and means to
strengthen these institutions. Following the report of this committee
different state Governments came out with their own Panchayat acts.
One such initiative was taken in Karnataka during the regime of the
then Chief Minister S.Nijalingappa. Ramakrishna Hegde was the then
Rural Development minister and he prepared a bill basing himself on
the Kondajji Basappa committee report on Panchayati Raj (1962-63).
But for various reasons the Act was not passed. And as a protest
Hegde tendered his resignation to the cabinet. But 20 years later when
he assumed the charge as the Chief Minister of Karnataka in 1983, he
saw to it that an Act was passed to empower the three tiers Panchayat
system to carry out development activities in the villages. It was the
then Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Minister Abdul Nazir Sab,
who formulated the Panchayati Act basing himself on the West Bengal
Governments’, amended Panchayat Act of 1973. After this enactment
election was held for Panchayats. Since then, along with the general
category of candidates, SC’s, ST’s, OBC’s and women are getting the
reserved seats proportionate to their population. This is in a way,
partly both Ambedkar’s and Gandhian dream come true, and efforts
are under way to train the Panchayat members for their effective
participation in local bodies. Following this mode, many states have
taken initiative in this direction. They have emerged strong in some
states but the constitutional provision had no impact whatsoever in
some states like Bihar and U.P. Therefore a need was felt to put the
 78

entire system on a sound footing. Accordingly 73rd and 74th

amendments to constitution (1993) laid down certain features such as
procedure for elections, a model of devolution of powers and financial
provisions for these institutions. All the states now have enacted their
laws or amended the existing ones within the stipulated time frame.
The pace of election to these bodies, however, has not been the same.
It has not even started in some states like Bihar and Maharastra.117
The indication is that there is a gap in the relationship between the
defined policy and its implementation. Despite the constitutional
amendments our political system and bureaucracy is not ready to
empower people at the grassroots level. In the economic front, there is
a steady growth of unemployment in rural sector, and there is no zeal
whatsoever to creatively search for an appropriate technology to
develop small scale and cottage industries. Today the worst affected
sector is Khadi and village industries, if properly conceived and
implemented this sector can ensure economic self-reliance to rural
masses irrespective of caste and creed. But ever since the beginning of
recolonization in the form of economic liberalization, privatization and
globalization the future prospects of rural sector are tending to appear
bleak day by day.
As the classical Marxist economic interpretation of history could
not visualize the growth of Fascism, so also in a way Ambedkar’s ideal
polity of either parliamentary or the presidential variety could not
foresee the kind of recolonization the third world is subjected to. At
least Gandhi had a clue to this menace and he did provide a blueprint
in his own right, in his seminal writing Tlind Swaraj’ or Indian Home
Rule. As a sworn fighter against colonial rule and a bitter critic of
parliamentary democracy, he could foresee the fate of India, in case of
aping the libe western model of development. However his model of
oceanic circles of Panchayats did not find any expression in modern
Indian polity. The decentralization, which is being tried by different
state governments, is not to be equated with Gandhian model of
decentralization. What is tried is decentralization of powers in a very
 79

limited sense of the term. However it is believed to be a modest step

towards Gandhian dream. Our developmental strategy needs to be
viewed in the light of our failures to realise an egalitarian society. The
questions like why should India depend on the village system, why not
think of an alternative model were asked during and continue after
Gandhi. His answer to such questions is still relevant, “we are
inheritors of a rural civilization. The vastness of our
country...population...climate of the country has in my opinion
destined it for a rural civilization. Its defects are well known but not
one of them is irremediable. To uproot it and substitute it for an urban
civilization seems to me to be impossibility unless we are prepared by
some drastic means to reduce the population substantially. I can,
therefore, suggest remedies on the assumption that we must
perpetuate the present rural civilization and endeavour to rid it of its
acknowledged defects.”118 In a nutshell, to Gandhi rural development
was not the one segment of development as was conceived by
*

Ambedkar, but to him it was synonym of the development of all

segments of the society. Irrespective of caste, class and religion the
problem of socio-cultural and educational backwardness is still a
challenge to rural India. In this sense for Gandhi rural did not mean
geographic area only, not necessarily a more non-urban entity. It was
something much beyond that, which encompassed socio-cultural
ethos, and therefore it, requires broad comprehension of all its
ingredients while extending the process of development to this vast
area.
2.7 Controversy over Aboriginal Tribes :
Gandhi considered the service of Adivasis as part of the
constructive programme. Tribal leader Thakkar Bapa was a close
associate of Gandhi and Congress. Gandhi was quite aware of the
vastness of our countiy and he also admitted that best of Indians also
fail to know the vastness of the country in terms of its different races
and their conditions. He was quite aware of the difficulties involved in
 80

making a claim that India is one nation, unless every unit is conscious
of being one with every one else it is impossible to develop a sense of
nationality. When Gandhi pleaded his case for Indian nationality,
never did he overlook the problems of any section or group. He tried to
understand their problems in their own idioms and suggested the
constructive work accordingly.
Thakkar Bapa who began his work among the Bhils in Gujarat, the
home state of Gandhi and B.G. Kher, threw himself with zeal into
much needed service of Adivasis in Maharashtra and served as
president of the Adivasi Seva Mandal. Though Gandhi claimed that
there are several workers in other parts, but given the nature of the
problem their number was not enough. He admitted, “Truly the
harvest is rich but the laborers are few. Who can deny that all such
service is not merely humanitarian but solidly national, and brings us
nearer to true independence?”119 Who denied the problem? Or who
took it rather highly? Ambedkar is said to have taken the problem
rather lightly. It is therefore worthwhile to consider this controversy.
Ambedkar was fully aware of the plurality of Indian population on
many counts. He objected to those foreigners who considered only
Hindu-Muslim issue as prominent one. He came out with three other
categories of population who were ignored historically despite being
considerable in terms of their number. “The population of Primitive
Tribals ... according to the census of 1931 comes in round figures to
25 millions. The total population of the criminal classes...is somewhere
about 4 and 1/2 millions. The total population of the untouchables
according to the census of 1931 is 50 millions. The total of these
classes comes to 79 xh millions.”120 And the question is: what is the
position of these many souls? Ambedkar knew that Hindus did not
offer much to tribals and untouchables, along with Hindus, even the
Muslims, Parsees, Christians observed untouchability though their
religions taught quite the contrary. He felt that the condition of
untouchables and tribals is similar, but he held that their future
 81

would not be similar; because he considered that their position is

essentially different. Criminal and primitive tribes in his view were not
afflicted by untouchability. He also held a view that these tribes
observe untouchability towards the untouchables. He adds that
Hindus do not treat them as untouchables. Tribals have not advanced
because of their isolation, once they come out of the forests nothing
stands in their way, felt Ambedkar. He also held that the future of
criminal and primitive tribes is assured. Their problem, in his view, is
their lack of desire to avail the opportunities where as he felt that the
problem of untouchables is due to positive denial of opportunities.121
Madhu Limaye, a noted socialist leader quite interestingly
asserted that it was Ambedkar who rather overlooked the problem of
tribals. Quite in tune with this charge Ambedkar admitted that he did
not claim to be a leader of all suffering people. “Life was short and his
own strength slender, he concentrated on the cause of untouchables,
although he acknowledged that there wer$ other noble causes also.”122
Limaye states that, like Ambedkar, Gandhi was a strong advocate of
universal suffrage, and wanted SC’s, ST’s and women to be given the
right to vote. As clarified in the beginning the reason why active senior
politicians like Madhu Limaye are referred over here is because, they
are the people who have seen the history in its making and they are
the ones who can clarify on the false charges with political motives.
Some leaders of the SC’s and OBC’s have falsely alleged, that “Gandhi
had opposed in 1931-32 the Shudras being given right to vote and that
when they were given the vote, by the British, on 18 August 1932,
Gandhi undertook a fast.”123 Limaye argues that it is just not true that
the British granted universal franchise to SC’s, ST’s and the OBC’s.
Instead Churchill had told Ambedkar that adult franchise was not a
practical proposition. In fact the British people themselves had
achieved adult suffrage after a determined struggle, which lasted more
than a century and half. Limaye contends that the leader who had
leveled such false charges had done so on hearsay and asks him to
correct himself. But if he has made the charges knowing fully well the
 82

facts, Limaye confesses that such “malice afore thought” will not help
the oppressed people. Then he goes on to juxtapose, the attitude of
Ambedkar and Gandhi on the franchise issue. Ambedkar argued
before the Southborough Committee (1919) on franchise, in favour of a
low-pitched franchise for the SC's. Taking into account the grave
population of the untouchables he pleaded that they must aim at
lowering the franchise, and that it was wrong to confine the franchise
only to those who could “be expected to make an intelligent use” of it;
further Ambedkar pleaded that the opportunities must be given in
order to call forth the response. The exercise of participating in
popular Government itself, in his view is an education and
enfranchisement itself may precisely be the stimulus needed to
awaken interest. Nearly a decade later Ambedkar appeared for
evidence before the Simon Commission (1928) and he linked his
acceptance of joint electorate with adult franchise. The discussion that
followed later is quite instructive. Colonel Lane Fox asked Ambedkar:
“On which figure are the two memoranda which we have received
based? In each memoranda you ask for special representation for the
depressed classes. You ask for adult suffrage in one memorandum. It
is obvious it is bigger thing if you ask for it for the aborigines and
criminal tribes and so on. Are these privileges asked for the bigger
figures or for the smaller?”124 Ambedkar replied that he asked for the
depressed classes. Colonel Fox insisted, whether Ambedkar asked it
for the aborigines and criminal classes also. Ambedkar replied in the
negative and said that it was not possible to allow the aborigines the
privilege of adult suffrage. The discussion that followed makes it clear
that he would not propose to speak on behalf of aborigines.
Throughout the discussion Ambedkar claims that the untouchables
should be treated as distinct minority, “...I would submit that, as a
matter of demand for our political protection, we claim representation
on the same basis as the Mohammedan minority, we claim reserved
seats if accompanied by adult franchies.”125 The chairman asks
 83

Ambedkar what he would do, if the adult franchise were not granted.
Ambedkar replied then, that he would ask for separate electorates.
Ambedkar went on to outline a scheme of representation to
various groups in different legislatures and the shocking thing is he did
not concede any representation to the adivasis in his scheme. Any way
he did not make a secrete of it, instead he went on to say that his
proposal did not cover the Aboriginal Tribes although he knew that they
are larger in number compared to religious minorities like Sikhs, Anglo
Indians, Christians and Parsees. As late as 1945 he continued to
oppose adult suffrage and reserved seats for the tribals because he had
a view that they have not as yet developed any political sense to make
the best use of their political opportunities. He further added that if
adult suffrage is given to them “they may easily become mere
instruments in the hands of either... majority or ... minority and
thereby disturb the balance without doing any good to themselves.”126
But he did not drop the Aboriginal tribe,s from the total figure of
Depressed Classes while claiming representation to the untouchables.
Ambedkar’s whole idea was to enhance the representation of SC’s at
the expense of the caste Hindus and the aborigines. He intended to put
the SC’s in a position whereby they could play the balancing game
between caste Hindus and Muslims, through manipulation of
weightages and representation. This attitude of Ambedkar is viewed by
scholars and leftwing politicians as a blatantly sectional approach and
extremely unjust to the Scheduled Tribes. In 1945, Thakkar Bapa,
secretary of anti-untouchability campaign strongly protested against
the plan of Ambedkar. He charged Ambedkar of ignoring ST’s and
challenged the view of Ambedkar that aboriginals did not possess the
political capacity to exercise power for their own good. He reminded
Ambedkar that there were 112 Adivasi graduates.127 Ambedkar’s
evidence before the Southborough Commission, that the exercise of the
right to vote was itself an education and his contention that adivasis’
political disenfranchisement is due to their being uneducated seemed
quite contradictory. Unfortunately Ambedkar did not seem to defend
 84

the cause of ST’s as he did in the case of untouchables. When

questioned about it, he gave a strange answer, which never convinced
Thakkar Bapa and others. Ambedkar also felt that adivasis lacked
competent leadership. In fact scholars are of the view that the problems
of both SC’s and ST’s should have been considered together. Ambedkar
knew that the facilities reserved for the SC’s would be reduced if the
ST’s were granted facilities.
He always charged Thakkar Bapa of not having done anything for
the upliftment of tribals and he alleged that Thakkar’s professional
attitude towards social service has not helped his community in any
degree. Instead it is reported that Ambedkar challenged Thakkar to
take his community’s claim from the share of the Muslims.128 As noted
earlier Ambedkar was skeptical about the working of Harijan Sevak
Sangh and thought that the organisation did not help those
untouchables who were against Congress. Thakkar also advanced an
argument that the untouchables from Bombay were more advanced
and did not need help. Ambedkar charged that Congress and Gandhi
vindicated Thakkar as against his disciples. Scholars have assumed the
possibility that Ambedkar had taken an unfavourable attitude towards
the tribals because of his strained relations with Thakkar. It is also
presumed that had Ambedkar demanded the reserved seats to tribals
for which they had a justifiable claim, he could have built up the unity
of both untouchables and tribals, and then it would have been much
easier to pressurize the Congress leadership. In the power sharing
process it is observed in India that culturally advanced sections
received more share. The Brahmins claimed more share by virtue of
their education, pleading their case by saying that they were better
educated, hence must have more share. Later non-untouchable
dominant castes did the same thing against untouchables and quite
surprisingly Ambedkar continued to harp on the same thing when the
adivasis claimed their share. While launching the movement for
removal of untouchability, Ambedkar thought of consolidating all non-
Brahmins. Had he succeeded in that, he would have been able to
 85

capture political power. But however he sidetracked the issue and

ended up as a sectional leader.129 The nationality question in India is
far from being solved; even now there have been tribal upsurges in
north-eastern India. Nagas and Bodos still resort to violent outbursts
against Indian defense personal, many of these tribal groups not only
refuse to call themselves as Indians, but more often than not work
against the national interests. These tribal groups in different parts of
the country have been agitating for their rights under different political
banners. In fact tribals have formed part of many peasants’ uprisings.
Santal’s rebellion is one such case in modern history. A full-fledged
tribal revolt was reported in Maharashtra way back in 1945 under the
Communist banner. That was the period when Ambedkar pleaded that
the problem of tribals is not as serious as untouchables. The Britishers
appointed Mr. Symington to enquire and report upon the condition of
the adivasis in Maharashtra. The report said, “The conditions under
which the jungle tribes people work and live are wretched in the
extreme, and abuse to which they are subjected constitutes a blot on
the administration.”130 Similarly B.G. Kher, about whom Gandhi makes
an exclusive mention as president of Adivasi Seva Mandal, said in
1940: “The fact that such a big mass of humanity should be rotting in a
condition of life more debasing than that of slaves within 50 miles of
Bombay and that our citizens should be in complacent ignorance about
their hardships and tortures is certainly diagraceful.”131 The revolt of
Varli tribals in the thick jungles of Thane district of Bombay had
attracted even the international media. The lady who led the revolt,
Mrs. Godavari Parulekar, a Communist leader acknowledged the moral
support extended by Gandhiates in the struggle of Varlis against their
centuries old slavery. She recalls a report filed by Narahari Parekh, a
champion of the down trodden and a follower of Gandhi in the issue of
Harijan dated, 19th Jan. 1947, “the riots of Adivasis.... should be an eye
opener to us. No doubt the police and the military will suppress the
riots and peace will be restored. But that does not mean that the
problem is solved. Such riots are outward symptoms of a serious
 86

disease in the body politic...The rioters are known to be an extremely

timid people... For ages they have been exploited by the rulers of the
day, by the landlords...moneylenders...and...other parasites.... At the
back of this exploitation, there lurks frightful injustice and
suppression.... Is it any wonder if they are exasperated and resort to
violence out of a feeling of frustration and despair?” Godavari Parulekar
recalls another incident of a sympathetic report by Mr. Parekh in
Harijan and the help rendered to tribals by Sarvodaya workers. With all
this support ultimately the Varlis got themselves liberated against their
class adversaries. But to achieve that it took them twenty long years of
struggle and a lot of bloodshed. The reason why the work of Mrs.
Parulekar is refereed to is because Ambedkar holds caste Hindus
responsible for the pitiable state of aboriginals. Hindus are not a simple
unilateral category as Ambedkar tries to put it. There are many castes
and classes well within it.
Mrs. Parulekar took up the cause under Communist banner and
*

fought till the end to liberate the tribals in Ambedkar’s home province.
For every injustice caused to either untouchables or tribals Ambedkar
holds Hindus responsible. But the leader who led the movement for the
Adivasis’ cause was of course a Hindu, but to call her so, is a matter of
shame. Because she could cut across caste and class barriers and she
suffered imprisonment, at times, even she risked her life but ultimately
the cause she championed was successful. Despite such heroic
agitations, the complex tribal problem inherited from the British awaits
a lasting solution. The macro-level planning and grand schemes have
not been able to reach these simple tribal people who are unaware
about the nature of planned and forced change. Their voice is now
pretty thin and is conveniently ignored even now. That is why many
voluntary peoples’ groups are agitations against iniquitous system.
However during those days Thakkar Bapa mounted pressure for
implementation of safeguards to all oppressed sections including
tribals, as did Ambedkar on behalf of untouchables. So also it was
Gandhi’s influence that led constitution makers to guarantee reserved
 87

seats to S.C.’s and S.T.’s in proportion to their population. As Limaye

puts it: “We can no more hold Gandhi’s defense of Varna system in his
early stages against him than we can hold Dr. Ambedkar’s opposition
to adult franchise and representation for the Adivasis and the so-called
Criminal Tribes, in the period from 1928 to 1945, against him.”132 The
constitution, which was piloted by Ambedkar, gave equal treatment to
the S.C.’s and S.T.’s both in the matter of reservation of seats in
legislation and services. Limaye therefore pleads that the nation must
honour both Gandhi and Ambedkar because both of them modified
their stand on various issues as was demanded by the situation.
2.8 Evaluation :
It was not all hate between Mahatma and Babasaheb, as the
general impression seems to have been given of late. So far it appears
that most of those who have studied both of them tend to think that
Gandhi and Ambedkar were polar opposites. More often than not it is
the Dalits who try to interpret Gandhi and Ambedkar’s controversies in
such fashion. One such protagonist is Mr. V.T. Rajasekhar, editor of
Dalit Voice, who writes, “As for M.K. Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar if
one belonged to North Pole, the other belonged to South Pole... Gandhi
defends caste. His very name ‘Gandhi’ is the name of his Jati. Not only
Gandhi defended, caste, but he strengthened caste system and thereby
Hinduism.”133 Writing on Poona Pact he states, “He (Gandhi) did this
crime through Poona Pact of 1932. Dr. Ambedkar wanted a separate
electorate which was accepted by the British Government (SIC) and also
Gandhi at R.T.C. Having accepted in London he went back on his
words but went on a fast unto death against this agreement.”134 He
concludes by saying that Gandhian, Marxist, Naxalite, J.P. and every
other movement is dead. The only live and kicking movement is that of
Dalits according to him. When a protagonist of a movement refers to
certain events of historical past, truth is the biggest casualty. Above all
it is not an article published in his paper but it constitutes the content
 88

of a lecture delivered at Academic Staff College of Mysore University for

college lecturers!
There are certain statements both by Gandhi and Ambedkar;
which seem to have skipped the attention of many researchers. One
such statement was made by Ambedkar during an interesting speech at
the Bombay conference on 25th Sept. 1932, a day prior to the breaking
of Gandhi’s fast, which ratified the Poona Pact, holds a testimony to
this view. Ambedkar had all praise for Gandhi’s conciliatory attitude,
Ambedkar said. “I must confess that I was surprised, immensely
surprised, when I met him, that there was so much in common
between him and me. In fact whenever any disputes were carried to
him; and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru has told you that the disputes that
were carried to him were of a crucial character. I was astonished to see
that the man who held such divergent views from mine at he RTC came
immediately to my rescue and not to the rescue of the other side. I am
very grateful to Mahatmaji for having extricated me from what might
have been a very difficult situation.”135 Louis Fisher, noted biographer
of Gandhi, considers this not only as a polite tribute of Ambedkar at a
moment of relaxation after hectic days but also a correct description of
Gandhi’s attitude. But there are other points of views on this issue.
Had Ambedkar opposed the British and taken sides with Gandhi he
would not have gained anything substantially for his people from the
British Government, Gandhi and Congress. Therefore some scholars
consider Ambedkar’s leaning with the Britishers as logical for getting
his demands sanctioned. “The second alternative was to side with
Gandhi and to get special representation with joint electorates. But the
Mahatma was deadly against it. Had Gandhi shown this much insight,
he could have averted the disaster!”136 , analyses Keer, the biographer
of Ambedkar. “In fact he derives the inspiration to say so from the
speech of Ambedkar himself. My only regret is why did not Mahatmaji
take this attitude at the Round Table Conference? If he had shown the
same consideration for my point of view then, it would not have been
necessary for him to go through this ordeal. However these are things
 89

of the past. I am glad that I am here now to support this resolution of

ratification.”137 But however it is argued that a cold agreement on the
issue of separate electorates between the contending parties without
Gandhi’s fast would not have had any effect on the orthodox Hindus
and the people at large. Most people would not have heard of the issue,
let alone coming to terms with the problem. It was due to Gandhi’s fast
that the problem of untouchability forfeited the public approval. It was
the threat of Gandhi’s death, which stirred the public conscience and
won over the people at large to his approach. His approach as he made
it clear, the problem of untouchability was a social and religious
problem and it cannot be solved by merely political solution. Though
like British, Ambedkar also failed to fathom the depth and ethics of
Gandhi’s fast who sometime later termed it as a disguised method of
coercion, but for Gandhi his fast and the pressure it generated did not
target those who opposed him, but it was against those who believed in
him but did not practice what he had preached. It was to this loved
mass of people to whom Gandhi wanted to communicate his anguish
against the tyranny of untouchability and he was considerably
successful at that.
Ambedkar quotes a couple of instances, which bring out the
nature of the controversy in brief to its logical conclusion. When
Gandhi went to Dandi for Salt Satyagraha, some untouchables
questioned him, what happened to his declaration that removal of
untouchability was condition precedent to Swaraj. Ambedkar quotes
Gandhi’s reply as it was reported to him: “The untouchables are a part
of a whole. I am working for the whole and I therefore believe that I am
therefore working for the Untouchables who are part of the whole.”138
Another reply in Young India is referred by Ambedkar. According to him
it tallied with what Gandhi had said earlier "... though the Panchama
problem is as dear to me as life itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive
attention to non-cooperation. I feel sure that the greater include the
less”139. Ambedkar never believed these answers as sincere and never
considered that untouchables are part of the whole. As pointed out
 90

earlier Gandhi never answered the charges of Ambedkar directly but

Rajaji had done it. He refers to Ambedkar’s quotation of Gandhi (1920)
and quotes it in its entirety to convince the reader of the context:
“Untouchability cannot be given a secondary place in the programme,
without the removal of that taint, Swaraj is a meaningless term. If as a
member of a slave nation I could deliver the suppressed classes from
their slavery without freeing myself from my own I would do so today.
But it is an impossible task. The slave has not the freedom even to do
the right things. Hence, though the Panchama problem is as dear to me
as life itself, I rest satisfied with an exclusive attention to national non­
cooperation. I feel sure the greater includes the less.”140 While
elucidating this explanation Rajaji adds, “Instead of appreciating in the
context this attitude. Dr. Ambedkar gives full play to the perversity of
his outlook and charges Gandhiji with not taking the slightest interest
in the programme of amelioration!”141
Since Ambedkar himself failed to take into account Gandhi’s
priorities it is too much to expect his followers to do so. The following
instances are ample proofs for their defined priorities. Ambedkar refers
to the Congress session of Nagpur (1920) wherein the constructive
programme of Gandhi was adopted as a new line of action. Ahmedabad
Congress session in 1921 declared that Civil Disobedience is the only
civilised and effective substitute for an armed rebellion. To give effect to
this policy the working committee of the Congress met at Bardoli in
1922 and drew up a programme of action. Ambedkar reproduces the
entire text in his write up. In all eight resolutions were passed covering
wide variety of subjects like national schools, Khadi and village
industries, organizing depressed classes, temperance campaign,
organizing village panchayats, non-cooperation movement, continuing
of Tilak Memorial Swaraj Fund etc. Ambedkar makes it clear that “the
programme is very extensive and I am not concerned with what
happened to the whole of it, how it was revived and how it was worked
out. I am concerned with only one item and that which relates to the
depressed classes.”142 Without mincing words Ambedkar makes it clear
 91

that his first priority was the uplift of untouchables. His was more a
one-point programme. In a press statement he said “If the Brahmins
were justified in their attack upon the opposition to the unjust power of
the British Government, the depressed were justified a hundred times
more so in their opposition to the rulership of the Brahmins in case the
transfer of power took place.”143 A wide-ranging concern of Congress
towards national problems, Ambedkar admitted was not his problem
but the problem of Gandhi and Congressmen. Many people who talk of
the controversy between both of them lose right of this reality.
In another exchange of correspondence between Ambedkar and
Gandhi as late as 1944, Ambedkar makes his stand clear as regards
his priority. The letter reads: "... the Hindu-Muslim problem is not the
only communal problem that has to be settled .... There is a communal
problem between the Hindus and the untouchables, which is also
awaiting solution.... But, if you are anxious to solve the Hindu-
untouchable problem, I shall be glad to formulate points on which a
settlement is necessary....”144 Gandhi's response to this letter is equally
touching, “...The Hindu-Muslim question is for me a lifelong question.
There was a time when I used to think that when that question was
solved India’s political troubles would be over. Experience has taught
me that it was only partly true. Untouchability I began to abhor when I
was in my teens. But it was a question with me of religious and social
reforms.... But I know to my cost that you and I hold different views on
this very important question. And I know too, that on broad politics of
the country we see things from different angles. I would love to find a
meeting ground between us on both the questions.... If you can show
me a way to a common meeting ground between us I would like to see
it. Meanwhile I must reconcile myself to the present unfortunate
difference.”145 Priorities of Gandhi and Ambedkar remained intact for
over two decades and all those who hurl abuses at Gandhi and
Ambedkar should take note of their well-defined priorities.
 92

Many seem to think that Ambedkar’s decision to embrace

Buddhism was a sudden decision, which was not so. He declared in
1935, that he was born as a Hindu but he would not die as a Hindu.
When he ultimately decided to embrace Buddhism, he was asked by
some of his caste men to show his reasons to the changeover of
religion. Ambedkar told them that they would not get anything like an
equal status as long as they formed part of Hindu religion. Ultimately
he translated his words into action in the year 1956. He embraced
Buddhism in Nagpur and he breathed his last that very year as a
Buddhist. Ambedkar held a press conference on the eve of his
conversion, wherein the press people asked him as to why he was
embracing Buddhism, since there are universal human values in every
religion including Hinduism. Ambedkar shot back,” why cannot you
ask this question to yourself and your forefathers as to why I am
getting out of the Hindu fold and embracing Buddhism?”146 He also
briefed the newsmen that he differed with Gandhi on many counts
*

about the means of removal of untouchability. But he reminded them

that once he had assured Gandhi that despite his differences with him,
he would choose a less harmful way of shocking Hinduism. To put it in
his words, “I will choose only the least harmful way for the country.
And that is the greatest benefit I am conferring on the country by
embracing Buddhism, for Buddhism is a part and parcel of Bharatiya
culture. I have taken care that my conversion will not harm the
tradition of the culture and history of this land.”147 Some observers
have opined that Ambedkar was quite aware of the defeats of Hindus in
the past and he attributed these defeats to the inherent weakness of
Hindu religion. As a man representing a community of Indian soil, he
was quite aware of what might happen if untouchables embrace Islam
or Christianity. Ambedkar prevented his disciples from following the
model of Mallikafur, who is a noted traitor in our history. Observers
have felt that for his act of choosing Buddhism, a religion of Indian
origin, Hindus must ever remain grateful to Ambedkar.148 Gandhi had a
clue to this possible conversion of Ambedkar. He felt that Ambedkar is
 93

like a challenge to Hindu religion. A Hindu king from Baroda patronized

him. He seems to be taking revenge on those who subjected him to ill
treatment. Instead of asking Ambedkar not to convert, Gandhi said,
Hindus should try to makeup for their shortcomings. Gandhi felt that it
was an unfortunate decision, but held the view that, change of faith
would not fulfill the objectives. Perhaps Gandhi has not stated anything
beyond this. Nothing much could be traced in Gandhi’s writings on this
episode. Otherwise Gandhi came down heavily on religious conversions
on different occasions. But in response to Ambedkar’s address at Jat-
Pat-Todak Mandal, Gandhi wrote, “They knew... that he had in
unequivocal terms decided to give up Hinduism. Nothing less than the
address that Dr. Ambedkar had prepared was to be expected of him.
The committee appears to have deprived the public of an opportunity of
listening to the original views of a man, who has carved out for himself
a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future, Dr.
Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.”149 Despite
0

the differences with Gandhi, the fact that at the fag end of his career
Ambedkar recalled his assurance of choosing only least harmful way
and Gandhi, despite a clear knowledge of Ambedkar’s decision to give
up Hinduism, still appreciating him as a man who would not allow
himself to be forgotten is enough of an indicator that they reciprocated
with each other. But however Ambedkar’s prediction that within a
decade or two through the wave of mass conversion India would
become a Buddhist country and Brahmins will be the last to follow150,
did not come true. Even after half a century SC’s by and large continue
to form part of Hinduism, however half-hearted it could be. Ambedkar,
however failed to recognize the material identification of SC’s with
Hindu system in however limited sense it could be.151
Ambedkar recalls, “The separation of the untouchables from the
Hindus was insisted upon by the Muslims in a memorial to the
Government.... in which they claimed that their representation in the
political bodies of the country should be in proportion to the population
of touchable Hindus and not Hindus as a whole because they
 94

contended that the Untouchables were not Hindus.”152 Ambedkar does

not interestingly ask the question as to what might be the Muslim
interest in deciding untouchables as non-Hindus. But he continues,
“Be that as it may the census of 1911 marks the begging of the
ascertainment of the population of the Untouchables. Efforts in the
same direction were continued at the census of 1921 and 1931.”153
More often than not one comes across such compromises and strategic
understandings of Ambedkar with those whom he had already
condemned or did condemn at a later stage. His defeat in various
elections must have convinced him that it is the Congress, which would
replace British rule. And India in the meanwhile was steadily moving
towards attaining freedom. He seems to have admitted in such a crucial
juncture that the only alternative to rid the untouchables off from a
crisis situation was to accept the help from whichever quarter it was
forthcoming. That is how one can observe Ambedkar entering into
compromises and establishing friendshipp with communal forces,
British, Congressmen, etc.,154 as the situation demanded. The same
trend continued even after independence.
In his guesswork on Muslim alternative to Pakistan, Ambedkar
sounds the dangers of Communal Award and considers it to be many
degrees worse than granting Pakistan. He was fully aware of the
dangers of the communal divide. In the absence of Pakistan, Ambedkar
opines that, Muslims cannot be satisfied without 50% reservation in
legislatures through separate electorates. He also fears that the same
trend could have followed in the matters of reservation in civil services,
public bodies, national and international organizations, ministries,
defense services, etc. in free India.155 It is the Minto-Morely scheme of
1909 which paved the way for separate electorates and it is these very
reforms which later paved the way for an institutional base for the
growth of Muslim separation. Had Gandhi not challenged the separate
electorates for SC’s and had it not been modified by the Poona Pact, “It
is likely that the problem of SC’s would have added to the complexity of
 95

the negotiations in 1946-47, already bedeviled by Muslim Separatism

and princely intransigence.”156
Just four months before his appointment to the central cabinet
Ambedkar submitted a memorandum, which dealt with safeguards to
be provided for SC’s in the proposed constitution of India. But it proved
to be a very different document from the actual draft constitution he
ably defended before the constituent Assembly in November 1948. In
his earlier document Ambedkar had strongly defended the separate
electorates for SC’s. He admitted that whether the SC’s are to be
considered as minorities had become a matter of controversy. But he
still held the view that, “The scheduled castes are in a worst position as
compared to any other minority in India. As such they required and
deserve much more protection than any other minority does. The least
one can do is to treat them as minority.”157 But the infamous Mac
Donald Award, providing for separate electorate, finally resulted in the
partition of the country. Separation of Pakistan resulted in consequent
dropping of separate electorates for every section, and the provisions
provided for the reservation of seats for SC’s and ST’s in parliament
and state legislatures in Poona Pact were incorporated in the new
constitution. “The constitution of course, is a reflection of the thinking
of Congress leaders and constitutional experts more than Ambedkar’s
personal philosophy.”158 Ambedkar had also pleaded for separate
villages for SC’s and his idea did not find any favour with his
constituent Assembly colleagues during the debate. With all this
Ambedkar can be counted upon as providing just and rational
solutions to the problems of the countiy. That is why scholars have
considered him as a leader of thought than a leader of the masses. As a
thinker, and also given his temperament, he was not so well suited to
lead a mass of simple and politically inarticulate folk, as Gandhi
could.159 Gandhi on the other hand strongly believed in the
mobilization of masses and to a greater degree he was successful in his
commitment, though at times his rationality was questionable. Dr.
Ambedkar failed to mobilize the masses despite his brilliance and
 96

commitment.160 Compared to Ambedkar's alternative framework,

Gandhian paradigm, irrespective of criticisms against it is more
indigenous and rooted in Indian culture and tradition. The alternative
provided by Ambedkar is a typical western liberal model of the
parliamentary democracy. He had his own reservations about
Communist alternative. He considered it futile to expect Hindu religion
to perform the mission of social justice. Such a task, he thought might
be performed by Islam, Christianity or Buddhism. He ultimately found
solace in change of religion for gaining social justice. As to the
Communist alternative Ambedkar felt," For Untouchables to expect to
gain help from the Hindu proletariat is also a vain hope. The appeal of
the Indian Communists to the Untouchables for solidarity with the
Hindu proletariat is no doubt based on the assumption that the
proletarian does not desire advantage for himself, which he is not
willing to share with others. Is this true? Even in Europe the
proletarian are not a uniform class. It is marked by class composition;
the higher and the lower. This is reflected in their attitude towards
social change, the higher are reformist and the lower are revolutionary.
The assumption therefore is not true. So far as India is concerned it is
positively false. There is very little for a common front. Socially, there is
bound to be antagonism between them. Economically, there cannot be
much room for alliance."161
Though Ambedkar's bargain with the British appeared awkward
for many, he had to press his case for the untouchables as their leader.
He took upon his shoulders the responsibility of exposing all the
enormities of injustice suffered by millions of untouchables. In such a
process he was bound to attack Savanna Hindus and their elites. As a
result he had to question the claims of Congress directly because he
contended that the Congress was dominated by influential caste
Hindus. In attacking the Congress, as a corollary he had to target
Gandhi and his thesis on Hinduism. Most of those who have tried to
counterpoise Ambedkar-Gandhi have conveniently missed this specific
historical context in which they operated. All the efforts of those, who
 97

still try to subject Gandhi to attack as a casteist can be termed as a

historical. The problems facing the Dalits and the common masses in
general today are of different magnitudes and types, compared to the
path as about 60 to 70 years ago. Many right thinking progressive
writers and intellectuals in Karnataka and elsewhere have been
consistently advising the professional Dalit politicians and leaders not
to create an imaginary adversary in strengthening their cause in the
form of Gandhi. Most of the professional leaders seem to think for
themselves that they can strengthen their struggle and make their
organisation more revolutionary by creating an adversary in the form of
Gandhi, but as a matter of fact it might happen otherwise. One can
notice certain historical ironies in post Gandhi-Ambedkar era. Though
Ambedkar was a total critic of Gandhi and Congress, the only viable
choice for Dalits in Indian politics for quite long is the Congress party.
Congress since independence has taken the S.C. voters for granted.
Way back in 1948 Ambedkar, during his address at the United
Provincial SC conference, had said that political power was the key to
all social progress and he had advised SC's to organize themselves as
third party and hold the balance of power between the rival political
parties. But the Dalit movement and politics today is in a critical
juncture and as a political force it is not one cohesive movement
working single-mindedly in one direction, but a cauldron of currents,
often differing in character and contents, trying to pull Dalit masses in
different directions. A very interesting revelation of late among the Dalit
writers in Karnataka is that the problem of untouchables is not
specifically their problem alone. It is, both according to Gandhi and
Ambedkar, the problem of those who practice it. One can see
Ambedkar’s legacy in terms of its appeal to creative sphere. Many new
literary forms like autobiographical sketches by Dalits have found
academic recognition in Marathi literature and some of them have been
translated into Kannada and other Indian languages. The same trend,
though in a lesser degree, could be found in Kannada as well. The
creative Dalit writers and theatre artists have formed indivisible part of
 98

Bandaya Sahitya or Protest Literature, which is a forum of creative

writers and artists representing the aspirations of the apprised.
There is a considerable rise in Dalit consciousness today, but the
fact is that the problem of downtrodden masses is far from being
solved. This forces all those who are interested in the task to reconsider
their respective ideological positions in the height of changing national
and international situations. The global developments today are posing
new challenges. In the height of these challenges, the ideological
dogmatism is tending to become a laughing stock. In case of both
Gandhi and Ambedkar's thinking, analysts so far have not been able to
trace any un-Indian ideology or a distinct doctrine. In that sense their
perspectives of emancipation of oppressed, places them in the similar
directions. Though the foregoing analysis suggests that any
simplification mixing up of their models of thought and action or to
blend them together is rather hasty and uncalled for. But however an
overwhelming number of scholars in academic field as well as
professional politicians of late have been able to identify a considerable
understanding between the two, despite a seeming misunderstanding.
It is however up to their followers to derive their perspectives.
 99

Notes and References:

1. Madhu Limaye, Manu, Gandhi and Ambedkar and other Essays,
Delhi, 1995. For details see the article Gandhi Versus Ambedkar -
A Futile Controversy.
2. Ramjee Singh (Ed): The Gandhian Vision, Delhi, 1998. For details
see the article 'Ambedkar and Gandhi by himself.
3. V. Moon (compiled) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Vol. 1, Bombay, p. 225. (For now on these volumes will
be abbreviated as Dr.BAW 8s S)
4. Aran Shourie: Worshipping False Gods, Delhi, 1997. The
nationality question and Ambedkar's concerns are dealt at length
throughout this work.
5. S.K. Aggarwal: Gandhian Vision, Delhi, 1999, p.263.
6. Ibid, p. 267.
9

7. Eleanor Zelliot: Gandhi and Ambedkar - A study in Leadership,

Reprint, Pune, 1983, p.24.
8. Keer Dhananjay: Dr. Ambedkar’s Life and Mission, Bombay, 1991,
P-171.
9. Ibid, p. 166. For further details see pp. 165 to 167.
10. V. Moon, (compiled), Dr.BAW&S op.cit, Vol. 2. 1982. So far
researcher has not come across any study which has referred to
Mrs. Naidu's crucial speech which set the fore for the whole
debate. For entire text see pp. 65 to 659.
11. Ibid, pp. 659, 660.
12. Ibid, p. 66o.
13. Ibid, p. 661.
 100

14. Ibid, p. 663. Interestingly, Keer’s biography of Ambedkar does not

fully take into account this response of Gandhi, It is important
because, it is on the basis of this views that Gandhi went on a ‘fast
unto death’ which ultimately culminated in Poona Pact.
15. Ibid.
16. V. T. Patil (Ed): Studies in Ambedkar, Delhi, 1995, p. 272. Gail
Omvedts article ‘Gandhi and Ambedkar: A comparative analysis’
17. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol.2, op. cit., p. 663.
18. Ibid.
19. S. Chandrasekhar: Ambedkar Mattu Gandhi, (Kannada) Heggodu,
1992, p. 18.
20. A. K. Vakil: Gandhi Ambedkar Dispute, Delhi, 1991, p. 27, f.n.
21. Tara Chand: History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. 4, Delhi,
1983, p.182.
22. Louis Fischer: The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Part II, Bombay, 1955,
p. 70.
23. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol 50, Delhi, 1972, pp 383-
384 (Here after abbreviated as CWMG)
24. Louis Fischer, op. cit, p.71.
25. Ibid., p.72.
26. This term was used by Pyarelal in his book The Epic Fast,
Ahmedabad, 1932, and the work deals the episode from the
Gandhian point of view.
27. CWMG, Vol. 48, pp. 12-20.
28. Louis Fischer, op. cit. P. 76.
29. Ibid, p. 72, Fischer has quoted it from Nehru’s autobiography.

30. K. L. Punjabi: Indomitable Sardar, Bombay, 1962, p. 79.

 101

31. M. K. Gandhi: The way to Communal Harmony, Ahmedabad, 1963,

p. 149.

32. N. A. Palkhiwala: We the Nation the lost Decades, Delhi, 11th

Reprint, 1994, p. 320.

33. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit. p. 214.

34. V. T. Patil (Ed) op. cit. p. 26. Upendra Baxi’s article ‘Emancipation
As Justice’.

35. V. Moon (compiled):Dr.BA W&S, Vol. 5, 1989, op. cit p. 341.

36. Ravindra Verma 86 Mahendra Kumar (Eds): Gandhi Marg, Vol.21,

No.l, April-June, 1991,pp.53,54. J.N.Sharma’s article, ‘Gandhi 8s
Ambedkar on Communal Award’.

37. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. B.A.W& S, Vol. 8, p.162.

38. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit., p.178.

39. B.R. Nanda: Gandhi and His Critics, Delhi, 1985, p.23.

40. B.R. Nanda, op. cit. P. 24.

41. Ibid. p. 25.

42. Young India, 06-8-1931.

43. Harijan, 11-2-1933, p. 3.

44. Ibid.

45. Harijan, 28-9-34, pp. 257 and 258.

46. Ibid.

47. Louis Fiseher, op. cit. p. 93.

48. Ibid.

49. Ram Manohar Lohia: Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Hyderabad,

second edition-1978, p. 211.

50. Harijan, 29-4-1933, p.2.

51. Young India, 23-4-25, p. 145.

 102

52. B.R. Nanda, op. cit. p. 25.

53. Ibid.

54. Harijan, 29-4-93. p. 2.

55. Ibid, 28-7-46. p. 234.
56. Louis Fischer, op. cit. p. 109. Quoted from the publication of
Hindustan Standard.
57. Ibid, p. 109.

58. Young India, 20-10-27, p.353.

59. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. B.A W& S, Vol. 5, op. cit. p. 374.
60. Ibid, p. 367.
61. Ibid, p.376.
62. Ibid.
63. T. Panthem, K.L. Deutsch (Eds) Political Thought of Modem India,
Delhi, 1986, p. 163, Eleano Zelhoti article The social and political
thought of B.R. Ambedkar’.
64. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol.5, op.cit. p.294.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid. p. 295.

67. M. K. Gandhi: An Autobiography The story of My Experiments with

Truth, Ahmedabad, 1981, pp 380, 381.

68. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol.5, op.cit. p. 299.

69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Anthony J. Parel (Ed): Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and other writings,
Delhi, 1997 p. 170.
72. M.K. Gandhi: Constmctive Programme, Its Meaning and Place,
Ahmedabad, 1941, p.10.
 103

73. A.K. Vakil, op.cit. p. 16.

74. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit. p.307.

75. T. Pantham and K.L. Deutsch (Eds): op. cit, p. 174.

76. N Mansergh & P Moon (Eds): Transfer of Power, Vol.VIII, London,
1977, pp. 466.8.
77. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit. p.399. Certain
excerpts of What The Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the
Untouchables are incorporated in this volume.
78. Eleanor Zelliot: op.cit. p.36.
79. C. Rajagopalachari: Ambedkar Rejuted, Bombay, Second Edition.
Aug. 1946, p. not mentioned since this part forms part of the
preface of the book.
80. Ibid. p. 7.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid. p. 9.
83. Ibid. p. 23.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid, p. 26.
86. Ibid., p. 33.
87. Ibid. p. 34.
88. Ibid. p. 38.
89. Arun Shourie: Worshipping False Gods, Delhi 1997, p. 62. For
details see the 1st chapter The freedom fighter’, pp. 3 to 62. The
researcher has taken note of the chapter 19 in the same work i.e.
‘intimidation s argument, assault as proof. The entire episode
which contains the response of Arun Shourie’s and people like V.T.
Rajshekar does not fall into the category of a debate or dialogue. It
is more a quarrel of two extreme positions in which the present
study is not interested.
 104

90. Journal of SHSSHAS Shimla, Vol. Ill, No. 1, 1996, pp. 41, 42.

K. Raghvendra Rao’s article Indian Patriotism: a Discourse on

Nationalism from the Periphery’.
91. A. K. Vakil, op. cit. p. 182, Quoted by the author from Palshikar
Vasant’s Marathi source which the researcher could not consult for
want of the knowledge of that language.
92. P. Chakravarty: Justice Party (Kannada) Revised (unpublished
Doctoral thesis submitted to K.U.D) Mysore, 1981, see pp. 56, 57,
58 and 65 for source material.
93. M. M. Kalburgi (Ed): Karnataka Gandhi Hardekar Manjappa
(Kannada), Bangalore, 1989. For details see this researcher’s
article ‘Gandhi-Karnatakada Gandhi’, pp. 211 to 226.
94. A. M. Rajashekhariah: B. R. Ambedkar, The Quest for Social Justice,
Delhi, 1989, pp. 143, 145 in fact a full chapter is devoted in his
thesis B. R. Ambedkar : A study of this contribution to Political
and constitutional Education of India : which deals with some of
his failures and miscalculations.
95. V.T. Patil (Ed) op. cit. P. 6. K. Raghvendra Rao’s article, ‘Babasaheb
Ambedkar : History, Society and Polity’.
96. Harijan, July, 11, 1936.
97. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol.l, op.cit. p.69.
98. Ibid. p. 83.
99. Ibid.
100. Harijan, July, 18, 1936.
101. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&W, Vol.l. op.cit. p. 86.
102. Ibid, pp. 86, 87.
103. V.T. Patil (Ed): op. cit, p. 14, K. Raghavendra Rao’s article.
104. M. K. Gandhi: Bunch of old letters, 5-10-1945
 105

105. M. K. Gandhi: Constructive Programme, op.cit.p. 15.

106. S. K. Lai (Ed): Gandhiji and Village, Delhi, 1981, p. 1. T. K.
Oomen’s article 'Gandhi and village: Towards a critical appraisal’.
107. Dharampal: Constituent Assembly Debates on Panchayati Raj,
AVARD, New Delhi, 1961.
108. H. V. Nagesh: Gramantara (Kannada) Dharwad, 1988. p.227.
109. V. T. Patil (Ed): op. cit. p. 358, R. T. Jangam’s article ‘A study and
on estimate of Ambedkar’s Movement’..
110. H. V. Nagesh: op.cit. p.228. Though Prof. Nagesh concludes that
advocates of Gramraj won over Ambedkar, but the researcher has
found the profs other wise both considered it as their victory.
111. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit. p.19.
112. Ibid. p. 25.
113. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol.l.,, op.cit. p. 426
114. M. K. Gandhi, Panchayati Raj, Ahmedabad, Reprint, 1996 p. 3.
115. V. Moon (compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol. 5, op. cit. p.378.
116. V. T. Patil (Ed) op. cit. P. 10 K. Raghavendra Rao’s article.
117. B.D. Sharma, Whither Tribal Areas? Delhi, 1976, p. 17.
118. S. K. Lai, op. cit. p. 49. Ramachandra Poth’s article ‘Gandhi and
the villages’
119. M.K. Gandhi, Constructive Programme, op.cit. p. 26.
120. V. Moon (Compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit.p. 129.
121. Ibid. p. 144.
122. Madhu Limaye: op.cit. pp. 3, 5.
123. Ibid, p. 3.
124. V Moon (compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol. 2, op.cit. p. 436.
125. Ibid, p. 465.
 106

126. Ibid.Vol.l. p.375.

127. L.P. Vidyarthi, et. al (Eds): Gandhi and Social Sciences, Delhi,
1970, p. 138.

128. A.K. Vakil, op. cit. Pp. 23, 24. Quoted by the anther from Marathi
source, Ganjve M.F. (Ed): Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkaranchi
Bhashne, Vol. 6. Nagpur Ashok Prakashana; 1976, pp. 97, 109,
110. The researcher could not consult the original source for lack
of Marathi knowledge.
129. Ibid. p. 167.
130. Godavari Parulekar: Adivasis Revolt, Calcutta, 1975, p. 3.
131. Ibid.
132. Madhu Limaye, op cit, p. 9.
133. Jogan Shankar (Ed): Social Problems and Welfare in Indian, Delhi,
1992, p. 54, V. T. Raj shekhar’s article ‘Liberation of
Untouchables: A Comparative Analysis.’
134. Ibid. p. 55.
135. Louis Fischer, op cit, p. 85.
136. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit. p. 188.
137. Louis Fischer, op. cit.
138. V. Moon {Compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit. p.318.
139. Ibid. p. 319.
140. C. Rajagopalachari, op. cit, p. 20.
141. Ibid, p. 21.
142. V Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol.5, op.cit. p.297.
143. Times of India, Bombay, 16-1-1919.
144. CWMG, Vol. 78, 1944, p.13.
145. Ibid.
146. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit. P. 498.
147. Ibid.
148. C.B. Patil (Ed): Sankramana (Kannada Monthly) 242, Dharwad,
1993, p. 50. S. Nagavar’s article.
149. Harijan, July 11, 1936.
150. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit. P.498.
151. C. B. Patil (Ed) op. cit. P. 44, K. Raghavendra Rao’s article in
Kannada ‘Sanskritika Kranti Mattu Samajika Parivartane :
Gandhi Mattu Ambedkar Madarigala Pooraka Sambandha Mattu
Vairudhyagalu. ’
152. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 5, op.cit. p.7.
153. Ibid.
154. Dhananjay Keer, op. cit. For details see pp. 354, 394.
155. V. Moon (compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol.8, op. cit. For details see
chapter III Muslim Alternative to Pakistan pp. 195 to 203.
156. B. R. Nanda op. cit. P. 23.
157. V. Moon (compiled): Dr. BAW&S, Vol. 1, op.cit. p.428.

158. T. Panthan, K. L. Deutsch (Eds.) op. cit. P. 169.

159. A. M. Rajasekhariah: B. R. Ambedkar: A study of his Contribution
to Political and Constitutional Evolution of India: Synopsis of
Doctoral thesis, Dharwad, 1978, p. 152.
160. Reeta Bagehi: Mahatma Gandhi and Ambedkar on Islam and
Indian Muslims, Delhi, 1998, p. 92.
161. V Moon (compiled): Dr.BAW&S, Vol.5, op.cit, p.398.