3. Discuss Ambedkar's theorisation on caste.

Historians and social scientists have proposed different reasons in their religious-mystical,
biological, and socio-historical theories in an attempt to comprehend the origins and
expansion of the caste system in India. The caste system is sometimes defended by claiming
that it is only a different word for labour division. But, according to Ambedkar, it was a
division of labourers.
According to Dr. Ambedkar, the established caste system is based on an immutable rule of
karma, or fate, which has nothing to do with the virtues of the individuals who live under it.
He was adamant in his refusal to recognise Chathurvarna as a model of society. He criticised
old Law books like Manusmriti and Arthshastras, who showed the inferiority and bitterness
towards the suppressed class. According to him, untouchability was not founded on the
principle of inequality. Gradation of caste generated an ascending scale of approbation and a
lowering scale of disdain in this system, which left no room for the development of those
sentiments of equality and fraternity that are so important in a democratic form of
governance. A social system based on inequality has a different foundation than one based on
graded inequality.
Dr. Ambedkar's writings were somewhat influenced by Buddha's teaching: The
reorganisation of the mind as the centre of everything. The mind is the fountain of
everything. That is all the good and evil that arises within us and befalls us from without, led
Ambedkar to affirm that the cleansing of the mind is the essence of religion. As a result, he
proposed numerous answers to religious, social, economic, and political issues.
Untouchability, he believed, was not a result of blood or rank inferiority. It was essentially a
twisted form of social psychology, a kind of social sickness pitting one group against another.
Dr. Ambedkar worked tirelessly to improve the mental well-being of the oppressed by
encouraging them to believe in and hope for their own abilities. He was justified in
reinterpreting the Buddha's Dhamma and restore it to its original purity and truth. He aspired
to rebuild Buddhism as a humanist and social religion that merged scientific understandings
with universal truth, not just as a religion for the untouchables. Dr. Ambedkar, a devout
rationalist and outspoken secularist gave Buddhism a new lease on life. He demonstrated his
unwavering courage and unwavering commitment. He made a significant contribution to
debates on Indian identity by claiming that the fundamental battle was between 'Buddhism
and Brahmanism.'
He made a plea to fight casteism amongst the scheduled caste and be passionately put
forward the arguments that the scheduled caste movement needed unity, self-reliance, and
organisational strength. He suggested women had to take an active part in it to make it a
success. He aspires to create a society without distinctions amongst men. Liberty, equality,
and fraternity would be the cornerstones of his society. The caste system must be abolished in
order to create a better society. The caste system, which is a serious stigma in our culture,
will continue to cause social dysfunction unless we break it down.
Dr. Ambedkar played a significant role for the upliftment of the downtrodden. He was
considered as a messiah for the suppressed class. As he born in Mahar community, an
untouchable caste of Maharashtra. He experienced all difficulties of caste discrimination
right from his childhood.
He saw brahmin dominated society in which no place for dalits. 
The Hindu society sagregated the untouchables.
They were not allowing the untouchables to live
inside villages. It was much beyond the case of social separation. Untouchables were a
‘dependent community’ and a ‘subject race of
hereditary bondsmen’. The untouchables
lived according to the codes laid down for
them by the dominant ‘touchable’ major
community. 

After noticing the evils of the prevailing caste system and its impacts on suppressed human
beings, the founding father of India's Constitution to create an egalitarian society wherein
justice, social, economic and political right prevails, including equality of status and
opportunity may be available to everyone irrespective of caste system.
 No doubt India has got political freedom and has political democracy, but it must be the
concerned of everyone that real freedom cannot be cherished without attainment of social and
economic democracy. It is unfortunate that the Indian society is sharply divided into various
caste and sub caste which is obstacle due to rigidity segregation and division of the society
based on rigid caste consideration. B R Ambedkar was impressed enough by the conduct and
humanism of the great social reformers like Budhha, Kabir and Jyotiba Phule. He declared
that Untouchables must leave the Hindu culture and accept another religion instead, and he
himself embraced Buddhism.
Dr. Ambedkar criticized old Law books like Manusmriti and Arthshastras who showed the
inferiority and bitterness towards the suppressed class. He also criticized the higher standard
of Brahmans who are category above of all. The Brahmans are somehow responsible for
social exploitation and the backwardness of untouchables.
 Ambedkar also rejected that there were no such invasion of Aryans as mentioned in the
ancient Vedic and Sanskrit literature. He argued that Shudras were not dark skinned, but
Shudras also belonged to the Kshatriyas class but due to the defeat in a battle with
VAISTHA, they became their subordinates. He raises many question against the political
minded Hindus such as are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a class of
your own countrymen like the untouchables to use public school, public well, public street, to
wear what apparel or ornament they like, food they want to eat, he who emerged a
revolutionary leader, approached the problem of Hindu caste system and the fate of
suppressed human being from different perspective. In estimation of Dr. Ambedkar caste is a
barrier to social progress and was the direct result of Hindu caste system.
According to him Varna and Caste were evil ideas. He was of the belief that by the
eradication of the Varna system, a cohesive and egalitarian society may emerged the concept
if equality and fraternity and viewed that every congressmen who was of the opinion that
when one country is not fit to rule, another country must admit that one class is not fit to rule
another class. If he talks about political reformation he criticized both Mahatma Gandhi as
well as Congress Party. He said that Congress to be the sole representative of people of India
including all communities’

Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does
social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and
fraternity as the principles of life.
 -DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR

 Dr. B R Ambedkar throughout his lifetime was considered to be a controversial personality.

He was a great nationalist who was less understood and more misunderstood by his own
countrymen. But his worth could not be hidden for a long time, he began to be hailed by the
people of the India as a great patriot throughout his life. 

 • Equal citizenship and fundamental rights declaring the practice of untouchability as illegal.
 • Free enjoyment of equal rights protected by adequate constitutional remedies.
 • Protection against discrimination.
 • Adequate representation to the depressed classes in the legislature. They must have the
right to elect their representative by Universal Adult Suffrage.
 • Adequate representation in the services.

Ambedkar saw the caste system as an unequal mode of organization of social

relations, with the pure and the impure at either extreme. He argued that this system
was sanctified through religious codes that forbade intermixture of castes and
confined social interaction to a regulated structure. Amedkar became a staunch anti-
oppression advocate for Dalits through his politics and writing. One of his critical
works is The Annihilation of Caste, which was an undelivered speech he wrote in
1936.
Father of the Constitution
Elected to chair the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly in
1947, Ambedkar abandoned many of his radical convictions as he steered the
Assembly through the process of drafting India's constitution. His contributions can
be seen in some of the special constitutional provisions for social equality for the
Scheduled Castes (the term for untouchables first used by the British). The practice
of untouchability was “abolished” in the constitution of independent India (articles 15
and 17), and the Untouchability (Offenses) Act of 1955 makes such discriminatory
practices punishable by law. Article 46 provides the Indian version of affirmative
action, specifically the promotion of educational and economic benefits for the
“weaker sections” of the society.
Ambedkar and Gandhi
Ambedkar became quite critical of the lack of commitment to untouchables’ rights on
the part of the Indian National Congress and the outcome of the so-called Poona
Pact of 1932 made him an implacable critic. Dalits continue to feel that Gandhi
betrayed them with his denial of the right of separate electorates, which for them
meant genuine political power.
Gandhi was a caste Hindu, a Vaishya. Ambedkar was a Mahar Dalit and knew
discrimination firsthand. Gandhi never repudiated the varna theory of four major
groups, although he fought against the idea of a group below the varnas and he held
all varnas to be equal. Ambedkar repudiated the entire caste hierarchy, dismissing
what was a current effort among untouchables to “sanskritize,” that is, adopt upper-
class customs in order to raise their status. Gandhi did not believe in political battles
for untouchables’ rights or approve their attempts to enter temples unless the temple
authorities agreed. Ambedkar felt political power was part of the solution to
untouchability. Basically, Gandhi’s faith was in change of heart; Ambedkar’s trust
was in law, political power, and education.

Caste is a system in which determination of position, rights and duties of an

individual is done on the basis of the birth of such individual in a particular group.
Under caste system an individual is not allowed to change its status.
Under a caste system and individual is compel to follow the caste occupation. Caste
system leads to untouchability.
It restricts the growth of brotherhood among people and also it hold off national unity
and create obstacles to social progress.
He is of the view that caste system is not merely division of labour perhaps; it is also
a division of labourers.
“IF I FIND THE CONSTITUTION BEING MISUSED,
I SHALL BE THE FIRST ONE TO BURN IT”

– DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR

Therefore the caste system did not come into existence all of a sudden or at a
particular date. It is the result of the long process of social evolution. A number of
factors played their part in the development of the present caste system enumerated
as follows:
• Hereditary occupation.
• The desire of the Brahmans to keep themselves pure.
• The lack of rigid, unitary control of the state.
• The unwillingness of ruler to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom and
their readiness to recognize the worrying custom of different groups as valid.
• Believe in re-incarnation and the doctrine of karma.
• Geographical isolation of the Indian peninsula.
• Static nature of Hindu society.
• Foreign invasion and rural social structure.

and an icon for the thesis of their emancipation. Human history is replete with such
icons; rather it is largely made of them.

Author: Anam Sabir & Malka Tazeen:

This Article Has been Published in Legal Desire International Journal on Law, ISSN
2347-3525 on Page no 32 and Issue no.8th

The Indian society was not a single unit.

It was divided into two sets of populations:
‘touchables’ and ‘untouchables’. The ‘touchables’
formed, what he called, ‘the major
community’ and the untouchables ‘a minor
community’. The ‘touchables’ lived inside
the village and the untouchables lived
outside the village in separate quarters.

They lived a life that was full of humiliating

experiences and dependency. There
was only one source of livelihood open to
them. It was ‘the right to beg food from
the Hindu farmers of the village. A large
majority of the untouchables in the village
were either servants or landless labourers.
As village servants, they depended upon
the Hindus for their maintenance, and had
to go from door to door every day and
collect bread or cooked food from the
Hindus in return for certain customary
services rendered by them to the Hindus’

In his typically polemical style he concluded:

This is the village republic of which the
Hindus are so proud. What is the position
of the untouchables in this Republic? They
are not merely the last but are also the
least…in this Republic there is no place
for democracy. There is no room for
equality. There is no room for liberty and
there is no room for fraternity. The Indian
village is a very negation of Republic. The
republic is an Empire of the Hindus over
the untouchables. It is a kind of colonialism
of the Hindus designed to exploit the
untouchables. The untouchables have no
rights…They have no rights because they
are outside the village republic and because
they are outside the so-called village
republic, they are outside the Hindu fold
[ibid: 25-26].
The ‘Hindu domination’ was not confined
to the village. The local power/social
structure was reflected at the macro/national
level as well.
From the capital of India down to the
village level the whole administration is
rigged by the Hindus. The Hindus are like
the omnipotent almighty pervading all over
the administration in all its branches having
its authority in all its nooks and corners
[ibid:104].

Ambedkar also contested the popular

anthropological thesis about the ideological
unity of the Hindu society that claims
that ideologically the untouchables also
subscribed to ideas of pollution and purity.
Against the idea of ‘cultural consensus’
and ‘reciprocity’ as characteristics of the
caste system, he draws an analogy between
caste and class and looks at caste exactly
in the terms in which Marx had talked
about classes.
The four varnas were animated by nothing
but a spirit of animosity towards one
another. There would not be slightest
exaggeration to say that the social history
of the Hindus is not merely of class struggle
but class war fought with such bitterness
that even the Marxists will find it difficult
to cite parallel cases to match…It seems
that the first class-struggle took place
between the brahmins, kshatriyas and
vaishyas on the one hand and the shudras
on the other [ibid:193].
There is a remarkable continuity in his
writings on the village. His critique of the
village and caste system resembles quite
closely those anthropological writings that
tried to consciously look at caste from
below [see, for example, Mencher 1975].

Conclusion
The reformist vision of Gandhi, who
wanted to construct a harmonious and selfcontained
village, uncorrupted by the
modern life of the city and western technology
continues to find its echoes in
present times.

Ambedkar was a ‘rebel’. He had neither the moral

authority of Gandhi, nor the institutional
power of Nehru. His influence, however,
cannot be underestimated. Over the years,
he has grown in stature and has emerged
as a symbol of a potent dalit identity all over
India.
When looked at from below, from the standpoint of
those who were made to live outside the
village and were treated as untouchables,
the so-called virtues of traditional living
turn into oppressive structures. The hope
for the dalits, therefore, did not lie in its
revival/reconstruction, or for that matter,
even in its development. Though he does
not suggest it explicitly, Ambedkar would
have perhaps voted against the very idea
of village where it was impossible to escape
from one’s caste identity.

Ambedkar had
from the outset no stakes in the village.
The future of dalits lay elsewhere, not in
the ‘den of ignorance’.