The Necessary Conditions for Democracy: B R Ambedkar on Nationalism, Minorities and

Pakistan
Author(s): SHABNUM TEJANI
Source: Economic and Political Weekly , DECEMBER 14, 2013, Vol. 48, No. 50 (DECEMBER
14, 2013), pp. 111-119
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24479052

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE

The Necessary Conditions for Democracy

B R Ambedkar on Nationalism, Minorities and Pakistan

SHABNUM TEJANI

B R Ambedkar's significance and continuing legacy has

B R Ambedkar has received strikingly little attention.1
been examined largely within the context of dalit
emancipation. Yet, his central philosophical concern was
As partTheofsignificance
the ofpantheon of Indian
Ambedkar as a historical figure and nationalist intellectuals,
of his continuing legacy has been examined largely within the
how to bring about democracy in a society context
so ofriven by
dalit emancipation. Scholars have studied his role as
caste hierarchy and communal division. His a leader
detailed
and advocate of Maharashtra's dalits (Gokhale 1993;
Omvedt 1994;by
consideration of the case for Pakistan was seen Zelliott 1996);
many his support of constitutional safe
guards for India's dalit communities (Verma 1999; Jaffrelot
at the time as contradicting the goals of Indian
2008; Rao 2009); and his central role in drafting India's Con
nationalism. However, his support for Pakistan
stitution fits
and the Hinduwithin
Code Bill (Austin 1966; Newbigin
his philosophy of democracy. This paper presents
2013). Ambedkar wrotea extensively
closeabout the institution of
caste and its effect on Indian society, particularly its negative
reading of Ambedkar's positions on nationalism,
impact on the possibility and conditions for creating democ
Pakistan, and the protection of minorities. While he saw
racy and a shared sense of national belonging. His clash with
Pakistan as a logical extension of a demand Mfor
K Gandhi over separate electorates for untouchables in 1932,
protection against the "tyranny of the majority",
his disagreementsit with the Congress and the Hindu Mahasab
ha's nationalism,
considers why he believed Muslims were not simply and his ultimate
one conversion to Buddhism as a
way to escape caste hierarchy have all been well examined
among many of India's minorities.
(Gore 1993; Fuchs 2001; Omvedt 1994; Viswanathan 1998).
However, his writings on the subjects of nationalism, linguistic
states, communalism, and Pakistan have been largely ignored
(exceptions include Aloysis 2007; Sarangi 2006; Teltumbde
2003). Yet his work on caste intersects with this broader com
plex of ideas in important ways. Indeed, Ambedkar's central
concern was the question of how to transform India into a po
litical community for which the annihilation of caste was a
necessary condition, but not the only goal. I maintain that one
cannot understand his contribution as a nationalist thinker

without understanding the intersection of these ideas.

In his important work, Pakistan or the Partition of India
(1990 (1946]; henceforth Ambedkar 1946), Ambedkar argued
the case for the creation of Pakistan, and for this was seen as
fundamentally contradicting the goals of nationalism (Aloysis
2007; Gaikwad 1998; Shourie 1997). His support of Pakistan
was pragmatic and represented his thinking about how to
bring about a viable political community in India. He advo
cated the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines and
constitutional reservations for dalits, both positions that
should be understood alongside his support for Pakistan as a
way to facilitate the establishment of democracy. Ambedkar
argued that populations should be transferred between lin
guistic states and between Hindustan and Pakistan as a way to
secure a national sentiment of belonging among Indians. This
would create the homogeneous populations that he believed
Shabnum Tejani (st40@soas.ac.uk) is with SOAS, University of London.
democracy required. In the context of the 20th century that

Economie & Political weekly K3353 December 14, 2013 vol xlviii no 50 HI

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
witnessed a mid-century holocaust and late-century ethnic because of their separate and distinctive values. However,
cleansing, an argument for cultural and ethnic homogeneity those that allowed the reworking of established ideas created
makes for disturbing reading. Ambedkar has been widely un- the possibility for a new like-mindedness to develop that was
derstood as the quintessential liberal politician, using the tools "representative of the interests, aims and aspirations of all the
of the law and the institutions of the state to effect social various groups". Communication and participation between
change. However, he found quite anti-liberal solutions to en- groups, Ambedkar believed, was "essential for a harmonious
gender his ideal of an egalitarian democratic society. life, social or political", but in India there was no such partici
This paper considers the apparent contradiction between pation. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Jews, each
Ambedkar's liberalism and his understanding of the necessary had their own like-mindedness, isolating them from the others,
conditions for democracy. It examines his position on how mi- and it was this isolation that was "the chief evil" (Ambedkar
norities should be protected within what he saw as India's hier- 1919: 249). Moreover, the Hindus were further divided by caste,
archical and communalised social structure, his philosophy of Castes had their own like-mindedness and were so divided from
nationality, and the importance of a federation of linguistic each other as to make the term "Hindu" practically meaning
states. Finally, it reflects on his arguments for Pakistan and less. The most profound fault line lay between those he called
why he believed the Muslim community was a nation deserv- "touchable" Hindus and the untouchables,
ing a separate territory rather than a minority requiring pro- It was on the basis of this perspective that Ambedkar made
tection, as it had been until 1940. This, I maintain, reveals an the argument to the reforms committee in 1919 for a separate
intriguing perspective on Ambedkar's politics, not born of the electorate for untouchables. The divisions of Indian society, he
pragmatism one has grown to expect. It is a perspective that argued, were at odds with a democratic system of government,
can be rationalised within the frame of his political philosophy For where a democracy had a formula of one person, one vote,
of democracy but simultaneously reveals a deep element of with the majority opinion carrying the day, in India, people's
prejudice embedded within the logic of his argument. political sympathies were determined by their community
rather than by secular concerns (Ambedkar 1919: 250). Thus,
Majorities and Minorities in a Communal Society he asked, how could one know if an elected candidate would
The highest aim of a society, Ambedkar believed, was the represent the interests of all the members of his territorial con
"growth of personality" (Ambedkar 1989 [1919]: 251; hence- stituency rather than simply those of his community? Moreo
forth Ambedkar 1919).2 Society's duty was to enable each indi- ver, in an election, if two candidates belonging to different
vidual "to assume any role he is capable of assuming provided groups claimed to represent the same issue, a voter would
it is socially desirable". For Ambedkar, democracy was the po- mark the ballot of the person belonging to his community
litical form best suited to bringing about the kind of just soci- rather than any other. In the event this was a large body of vot
ety he envisioned. But governments required people to take on ers, it would, time and again, ensure the election of its own
different social roles, he argued, which tended "to develop the candidate. Ambedkar argued that in India the communalisa
personality of the few at the cost of the many", something that tion of society meant that democracy left minority groups vul
was antithetical to democracy (Ambedkar 1919: 251). Through- nerable. Just as the newly conceived Muslim League had ar
out his writings, he sought to establish how democracy might gued in 1906 for separate electorates on the basis that only
look in India. It would have to look quite different than in the someone from the Muslim community could properly repre
West, he insisted, because the very nature of Indian society sent the interests of Muslims, so Ambedkar made the same ar
went against the individual - it was a society constituted by its gument for untouchables. The democratic formula left minori
communities. ties "without any chance of personal representation" (Ambed
Colonial officials had always maintained that India was not kar 1919: 251). For a government to
one nation but many, composed of distinct sects, religions, not only for the people, but by th
races, and tribes. Nationalists had sought to counter this, argu- torates for untouchables were n
ing that there was a cultural and geographic unity to India sonal representation.
that made its people one. Ambedkar cautioned the advocates Ambedkar was an advocate of se
of Indian independence that social divisions could not be so norities more broadly. He believe
easily brushed aside. Democracy was to create the condition should be structured to reflect t
for people to live in a community. However, he said, "men live India, their effect would not perpet
in a community by virtue of the things they have in common bringing people who would not
...aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge, a common under- service, it would foster a new like-m
standing" (Ambedkar 1919: 248-49). This "like-mindedness", become resocialised with regard t
as he called it, was crucial to creating a community of any Mohammedans, Christians, etc, and
kind. People did not become like-minded simply by living in tians, etc, become resocialised wit
proximity, nor did they lose this shared sensibility through dis- towards the Hindus, or the touc
tance. Rather, people developed shared qualities and values by the untouchables, caste and divisi
their participation in a group. A political union made up of 1919: 266-67). Importantly, the c
many different groups brought conflict between them precisely way to protect the voice of m

112 December 14, 2013 vol XLvni no 50 CEE3 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

Ambedkar, the protection of the minority was the crux of the religious or communal nexus", they were "but a mechanism
how democracy could work in India, and how a set of shared to enable a minority to return its true representative to th
political values could develop. The minority question was the Legislature" (Ambedkar 1947: 424). Moreover, who decided
fault line on which the emergence of a national sensibility what constituted nationalism, he asked. Minorities who argue
sat, for it held a mirror up to how the democratic majority for recognition did so precisely on the grounds that public lif
was constituted. and political power had been monopolised by a majority that
In "States and Minorities" (1989 [1947]; henceforth Ambed- was also Hindu and upper caste. Reser
kar 1947), a memorandum submitted to the constituent assem- their voices were not drowned out b
bly in 1947, Ambedkar outlined proposals for constitutional legitimising their citizenship, incul
safeguards for the scheduled castes (ses). Minority safeguards believed the opposition to such aspirat
were required, he wrote, because unlike in the British system more pernicious.
of government where the majority was constituted by political ,, f „ „ , , , .. . . ,. , ,. ,. ,. , ,
f ... . . Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian Nationalism has de
opinion, in India the majority is a communal majority veloped a new doctrine which may
(Ambedkar 1947: 413). In Britain, the majority party was under Majority to rule the minorities acc
no obligation to include a member of the minority party in the Any claim for the sharing of po
cabinet. However, if this were to happen in India, the conse- nalism while the monoPolismg o
. ... .. , , , . . .. . called Nationalism. Guided by such a political philosophy the majority
quences for minorities would be far reaching, especially for fa nM prepared t0 a]low the mjnorities t0
the untouchables. India would be ruled by an exclusive class willing to respect any convention mad
that could run the administration according to its own ideas, from their repudiation of the obligation
violating every principle of just government - "Such a State of the minorities in the cabinet) contained
affairs could not be called democracy. It will have to be called Act of 1935 (Ambedkar 1947:427-28, p
imperialism" (Ambedkar 1947:413). Ambedkar thus argued that the nationalism forwarded by
The communal majority, Ambedkar stressed, were Hindus. Congress and Gandhi, as well as the Hindu Mahasabha,
Untouchables faced an alarming situation as Hindus domi- really the communalism of the majority,
nated the entire administration and those in the bureaucracy
were as prejudiced against dalits as anyone outside it. T.his Nationalism
dominance of public life would continue after independence In Pakistan or the Partition of India, originally published
and so what promise did swaraj hold for untouchables? None, Thoughts on Pakistan in 1941, a year after the Lahore Res
in Ambedkar's opinion. "Swaraj would aggravate the suffer- tion or the so-called "Pakistan demand", Ambedkar consid
ings of the untouchables for in addition to a hostile adminis- at length what made a nation. The "Hindu politicians", as
tration, there will be an indifferent Legislature and a callous called the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha, were so caug
Executive... .Under Swaraj the untouchables will have no way up in the task of persuading the British that India was a na
of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus and that they had not stopped to ask themselves whether this
Hinduism have fixed for them" (Ambedkar 1947: 414; Aloysis indeed true. They took entirely for granted the link betw
2007:179). nationalism and self-government but the two were not neces
Ambedkar, like other representatives of minority communi- sarily connected. Anyone wh
ties at the constituent assembly, advocated separate elector- immediately castigated as a sto
ates as the method for safeguarding their interests after inde- it they must, for the Muslim L
pendence. Opposition in the assembly to continue separate Muslims were a separate natio
electorates for minorities - Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, sc or What, then, did it mean to b
scheduled tribes (st) - was overwhelming as such electorates cial feeling. It is a feeling of c
were seen to have fostered communalism and ultimately which makes those who are cha
partition. Independence required a unity of purpose, many kith and kin" (Ambedkar 194
argued; people had to pull together rather than apart. The ously of inclusion, "a feeling
constituent assembly voted in April 1947 to abolish separate "anti-fellowship". Its ties are s
electorates. Instead, reservations for minorities were made in class differences and separat
joint electorates. However, the assembly was generally more kind". Nationality, for Ambed
amenable to reservations for ses and sts as they were seen to tional tie, "a longing not to belon
be a temporary measure to "uplift" the so-called "backward kar 1946: 31). What would be t
classes". Opposition to separate recognition of minority ment? A shared race, culture and
religious communities continued, with members arguing that basis for a patriotism that wa
they would undermine national unity. Reservations were thus against Pakistan, Indian nation
acceptable if they recognised a community's inequality, not existed such a commonality
their identity per se.3 there was little to distinguish the Punjabi Hindu from the Pun
On the point that reservations undermined national unity, jabi Muslim, they argued. Likewise, the "Madras Musalman
Ambedkar was scathing. Electorates had "nothing to do with and the Madras Hindu" were racially closer than the "Mad

Economic & Political weekly EQQ9 December 14, 2013 vol xlviii no 50 113

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
brahmin and the Punjab brahmin" (Ambedkar 1946: 31-32). However, Ambedkar's support for the reorganisation of
Linguistically too, Muslims spoke Urdu in towns, but in mofus- states along linguistic lines came from the belief that they
sil areas spoke the language of that region. Culturally, many would create "social homogeneity" and thus "make democracy
Hindus and Muslims shared the same rites and ceremonies work better" ("Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province," 1989
and had lived side by side for centuries. [1948]: 102-3; henceforth Ambedkar 1948). History had shown,
However, while all this was true, the question remained - he argued, that to function well, democracy needed a homoge
did the Hindus and Muslims compose one nation? Had a neous society. A heterogeneous society would be divided from
shared race, language and culture "fostered in them a feeling within. In a democratic framework this would surely lead to
that they long to belong to each other?" (Ambedkar 1946: 33). inequities, "cases of discrimination, neglect, partiality, sup
Ambedkar maintained that they had not. Quoting from Ernest pression of the interests of one group at the hands of another
Renan's essay on nationality, he wrote that race should not be group which happens to capture political power" (Ambedkar
confused with nation - "human history is essentially different 1948:103). A homogeneous society was better suited to demo
from zoology", in which race tended to lose its importance cracy for there would be no social hostilities to encourage an
(Ambedkar 1946: 34). The example of Switzerland reflected abuse of power by a single group (Ambedkar 1948:103).
the same about language; the variety of languages spoken The case of Bombay demonstrated how "mixed" states failed
there had not undermined "the will of Switzerland to be the cause of democracy. The intense animosity between Guja
united." Rather, Renan pointed to the importance of "a com- ratis and Maharashtrians was explicable "not because there is
mon possession of a rich heritage of memories" and "actual any natural antipathy between the two" but because "they are
consent, the desire to live together, the will to preserve ... the put in juxtaposition and forced to take part in a common cycle
undivided inheritance which has been handed down" (Ambed- of participation, such as Government" ("Thoughts on Linguistic
kar 1946: 33-35). Did Hindus and Muslims have any such his- States," Ambedkar 1989 [1955]: 144; henceforth Ambedkar
torical memory which they shared "as matters of pride or as 1955). Likewise, the "Tamils hate Andhras and Andhras hate
matters of sorrow?" Tamils", for the same reason. Certainly, multilingual and
Again, Ambedkar answered in the negative. "There was no multicultural states existed elsewhere.
common cycle of participation for a common achievement, lingual provinces existed unnaturally,
Their past is a past of mutual destruction, a past of mutual ani- British and continued by the Congres
mosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields" But once this dominance came to an en
(Ambedkar 1946: 33-35). Hindus held up the deeds of Prithvi- will find itself engaged in civil war
raj and Shivaji whom they remembered for having protected "make easy the way to democracy a
India against Muslims. Muslims, on the other hand, remem- cultural tension" (Ambedkar 1955:144
bered rulers like Muhammad Bin Qasim and Aurangzeb. There Let us contrast Ambedkar's position
was no common historical memory, according to Ambedkar, his ideas about nationality discussed
thus "the things that divide are far more vital than the things guage, or culture was not enough, h
which unite" (Ambedkar 1946: 36). Equally, "forgetfulness" of the bonds of kith and kin required f
past divisions was as important as remembering what was discussion of linguistic provinces, he a
common to forge a national identity. Yet Ambedkar believed mogeneity necessary for democracy
that this would be impossible for the two communities as their cisely by a shared language and cul
pasts were tied to their religion and to hope that either would ity of a people depends upon their hav
give up their religion was "to hope in vain" (Ambedkar 1946: origin, in the possession of a commo
37). For nationality to exist there needed to be more than a in their pride in a common historic
common race, language or culture. There needed to be a "spir- social customs, etc." Culture was he
itual essence", a tie of kinship. Above all, it required "the will Thus a shared language reflected s
to live as a nation" (Ambedkar 1946: 39)- long way to creating "fellow-feeling" (Am
Yet, populations were not homogeneous and Ambe
Linguistic States and Democracy proposition raises a number of questions,
If the resolution of the minority question lay at the heart of them, how was this homogeneity to be
democracy in India, then the constituent political unit for this would happen to the linguistic, reli
democracy was the linguistic state. Writing in 1948 in support in such states? He argued for popu
of Maharashtra's recognition as a linguistic state, Ambedkar jects of the State must be so distrib
acknowledged the various potential problems associated with homogeneous group. ...Each Provin
linguistic provinces - they could result in many smaller natio- in its population if democracy...is
nalities emerging, each with the possibility of asserting its Province must be a linguistic unit if i
own aspirations for separation. The creation of linguistic democratic constitution" (Ambedkar
states could undermine the relationship between centre and argument to transfer populations be
province, for each state would be administered in a different ethnic and linguistic homogeneity is
language, leading to deadlock in the legislature and executive, lation of liberal government. His
114 December 14, 2013 vol XLViii no 50 EEB3 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

understanding of India as a society fundamentally divided have smaller states. In a small state, the relative size of th
communally. Multilingualism had succeeded in Switzerland majority to minority was smaller. The larger the state, t
and Canada, but it would not work in India for, he wrote, the more dilute the presence of the minority and the more vulne
genius of India, unlike that of Switzerland, is to divide (Ambed- able its position. Second, to rely on constitutional provisions
kar 1955:144). the legislature through reservations - the Constitution would
He made the same argument after Independence as he did be the ultimate safeguard for minorit
in 1919 before the Southborough Committee: that it was the kar 1955:168-69).
peculiar composition of structured social difference that made
democracy in India so hard to create. India's communal char- 0n Pakistan and Partition
acter meant that there would always be one group that became Ambedkar's support of Partition
a dominant class and sought to subordinate those weaker in trayal of the nationalist cause. Yet, h
number and social position. The only way around this was to was not incompatible with his polit
move people out of one region into another where there was a cracy and nationalism more broadl
closer social congruence (Ambedkar 1948:123-24). tending his perspective on the protecti
Ambedkar's solution was to have "one state, one language", representation to the Southborou
Each state should be a linguistic unit, but to avoid the pitfall of Ambedkar had argued that the va
creating further nationalisms, the regional language could not - Hindus, Christians, Parsis, and J
be the official language of the state, which had to be Hindi, "complete freedom of communication
Thus the administrative unit should be the linguistic state but members ... [were] perfectly like-m
the administrative language should be shared across the nation another" (Ambedkar 1919:249). Mus
(Ambedkar 1955: 145-46). Ambedkar was arguing neither for fectly like-minded" community. He
the self-determination of linguistic groups, nor for a formula- differences and Muslims who fol
tion of one language, one state (Ambedkar 1955:165). Rather, toms by "incomplete conversions" (
it was the shared language that would make such states viable, majority of Muslims in India were
His idea was that a "people speaking one language may be cut verts, and so it was inévitable that "
up into many States as is done in other parts of the world", lim community here and there rev
Thus he drew up a plan for Maharashtra to be divided into their religious and social life" (Ambe
three. The number of states a linguistic community could be Significantly, Ambedkar saw the
divided into would depend on four factors - first, on adminis- point of commonality between Hindu
trative efficiency; second, on the requirements of different point of difference among Muslims
areas; third, on the opinion within each area; and fourth, on disrupt the "like-mindedness" that
the relative size of majority and minority (Ambedkar 1955: made no mention at all of sectaria
165). Indeed, it was this last point that would have the greatest Muslims, Shia and Sunni in particular
bearing on the size of the states. Ambedkar returned once interrupted their communal solidarit
again to the crux of the democratic problem as he saw it - how For Ambedkar, Muslim aspiratio
to accommodate the minorities. fied because they were a nation calling for a home and any at
That linguistic states, even after population transfers, would tempt to deny the force of this nationalism, he believed, wou
contain minorities was to be expected - "in every area there be destructive to the state (Ambedkar 1946: 194). Undou
will always be one community which by its numbers happens edly, this call for a nation had come very late in the day. It wa
to be a dominant community" and which, by virtue of this "be- not until 1940 that Muhammad Ali Jinnah presented the tw
comes a sole heir to all political power which the area gets" nation theory and the Lahore Resolution. Until this point, t
(Ambedkar 1948: 123). Among Marathi-speaking people, the politics of the Muslim League had been about the constit
Marathas were the dominant class. In Gujarat, in some parts tional recognition of their position as a minority. Their ca
the Anavil brahmins were dominant, in others, the Patidars was akin to the other minorities in India, all of whom mai
(Ambedkar 1948: 123-24). Everywhere across India the caste tained that in any constitutional settlement their positio
system continued. Indeed, Ambedkar argued, caste thrived should be recognised through separate electorates. Indeed,
under democracy;, it was paradoxical that democracy appeared Muslims had been the first communal minority to articul
to reinforce caste's graded inequality. In democratic states, the the case for separate electorates in 1906. It was this argum
majority carried the day and in India, Ambedkar maintained, that framed all further discussions on minority protection
this majority was Hindu (Ambedkar 1955:167-69). "The Con- til Independence.
gress always wins", he wrote. "Congress always puts up candi- The Round Table conferences in London in 1931-32 were
dates which belong to castes which are in the majority. ...It is significant moment when minorities came together to disc
by exploiting the caste system that the Congress wins." How a communal settlement. They argued that separate electorat
could one ensure that linguistic states would not simply exac- were the best way to ensure their citizenship in the nation
erbate the problems of dalits under democracy? There were This moment is remembered for Gandhi's "fast unto death
two ways to safeguard against communal tyranny - first, to when faced with the prospect of dalits being made a permanent

Economic & Political weekly 1333 December 14, 2013 vol xlviii no 50 115

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE

minority, outside the community of Hindus. Yet there were fundamental concerns of each are its protection "against
many others involved - Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Christians, Eu- tyranny of the majority" (Ambedkar 1946: 335).
ropean commercial communities, and Muslims. Neither of the Ambedkar warned that there was a danger to national un
Muslim representatives, Jinnah or Muhammad Shafi, made if the distinct identity of the constituent political unit of the st
the argument during these meetings that Muslims were a na- was allowed to grow. In his discussion on linguistic states,
tion; they were still a "minority". Yet in 1930, the Muslim instance, he opposed regional languages being made into offic
League had called for a grouping of "north-west Muslim languages, for the state with its own language "may easily deve
states", in the words of Muhammad Iqbal. Iqbal argued that into an independent nationality...and the road between a
with a transfer of power imminent, the Muslim-majority prov- independent nationality and an independent State is very narr
inces should be granted regional autonomy within India to (Ambedkar 1955:145). With multiple official languages, a Ma
bolster the position of the Muslim community. rashtrian, Tamil, or Gujarati would only be Indian in a geographical
Ambedkar explained the shift in the League's argument sense, "he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the wor
from constitutional reservations by separate electorates to ter- (Ambedkar 1955: 145-46). Likewise, the geographical un
ritorial reservations through a grouping of provinces within that Hindus said existed with Muslims was inadequate. Mus
the context of different forms of federalism. were arguing for a confederation, autonomous provinces
The Muslims had an interest which ... coloured their whole vision.... within a loose national framework. But this would not un
That ...was their interest as a minority. They knew only one means of Indians into one nation. A confederation was simply "an ag
protecting themselves against the Hindu majority. That was to ask for gate of communities, and will therefore vanish SO soon as
reservation of seats with separate electorates and weightage in repre- communities which compose it separate themselves from on
sentation. In 1930 they discovered that there was another and a more
another. .. .With the individual citizen it has nothing to do, no
efficacious method of protecting the Muslim minorities. That was to
carve out new Provinces in which Muslims would be in a majorityright
and of taxing him, or judging him, or making laws for him"
Hindus in a minority as a counterblast to Provinces with Hindus as a (Ambedkar 1939: 316). His point was that if a regional identi
majority and Muslims as a minority (Ambedkar (1989 [1939k 349-50; or a religious identity were allowed to rival that of the natio
henceforth Ambedkar 1939). jt wouicj encourage nationalism and, eventually, secession.
This system of balancing provinces whs to ensure that mino
rities - Muslims in Hindu provinces and Hindus in Muslim Muslims as a Nation
provinces - were protected. It would be another decade before What, then, had turned the Muslim community into a nat
the Lahore Resolution was made. Was it by virtue of their constitutional recognition? Did each
The transition from minority to nation was one that Ambedkar minority community have the potential to become a nation
seemed fully to understand. In the introduction to Pakistan or the By the logic of his argument, Ambedkar should answer in th
Partition of India he drew out the connection between the two, affirmative. Yet, he argued that there was an important
The right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign impe- tinCtion bet Ween a community and a nation - "a community
rialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive ma- however different from and however opposed to other com
jority's nationalism are not two different things; nor does the former munities, major or minor, is one with the rest in the matter
stand on a more sacred footing than the latter. They are merely two the ultimate destiny of all" (Ambedkar 1946: 335-36). A nation
aspects of the struggle for freedom and as such equal in their moral «is nQt Qnl different from other components of the state but
import (1946:10-11). ... . , . , .... .
believes in and cherish
Ambedkar had campaigned for the reco
bles as a minority and supported separate
minority communities, including Muslims
the distinction between a community and
thin. States were composite - they had a d
with different traditions and religious code
ries of loosely associated groups" (Ambedk
"a group may mistakenly call itself a com
has in it the elements of being a nation". M
developed their national consciousness lat
wrote, a community may have "all the el
make a nation without having a fully de
Muslims had begun their path of political
the argument that they were a minority
And, Ambedkar maintained, whether a m
munity or a nation was of little conseque
thequestion of its protection - "the safegu
of a minor nation cannot be very differe
necessary for the protection of a minor
116 December 14, 2013 vol XLViii no 50 B353 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

other (Ambedkar 1946: 343). What accounted for this differ- dare to turn for fear of challenging a co-religionist (Ambedka
ence? In his words, Muslims were converted from Hindu 1946:236).
stock, and racially and culturally very similar. It was the culture
and politics of Islam itself that set them apart. Islam had created Swaraj and the Politics of Independence
stagnation among Muslims. Its customs, for instance, purdah, Ambedkar wrote that he understood Muslim fear of the Hind
created a system of segregation of women. They were confined majority but suggested that the path to an independent nation
to one room and no male could appear in their presence. To was not the only solution. Muslims could have joined with the
leave, even to pray, a Muslim woman had to wear a burka. A "many lower orders in the Hindu society whose economic
covered woman was anathema to Ambedkar's idea of freedom political and social needs are the same as those of the majority
and he railed against Islam's "evils" as he called them, of the Muslims" (Ambedkar 1946: 359). They would have been
These burka woman walking in the streets is one of the most hideous ready to make common cause with Muslims as against upper
sights one can witness. Such seclusion cannot but have its détériorât- caste Hindus who had denied their rights for centuries. How
ing effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are ever> the da seemed tQ have already been done. Pakistan,
usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhoea. Their bodies . , „ , , . 1t .
are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet Ambedkar now believed
crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. ...Purdah de- Indian nationalism. Paki
prives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment (Ambedkar from each Other. A sep
1946:230-31). society to address matters of "urgent social importance".
Purdah did not only create ill-health among Muslim women, Rather than this unending tussle for power, they coul
it also fed into a narrow-mindedness. Their segregation meant to improving the lives of ordinary people "which after
that they could not develop wider interests and became in- main object of this fight for Swaraj" (Ambedkar 1946
volved only "in petty family quarrels" (Ambedkar 1946: 231). Ambedkar's understanding of independence was
The seclusion came from a suspicion of the sexual appetites of with that of politicians of the Congress or the H
both sexes and a desire to control them. Yet a society that was sabha for whom unity was paramount, both territoria
based on the isolation of the sexes from each other would no as communal. Their vehement opposition to separa
doubt produce "an unhealthy tendency towards sexual ex- ates for untouchables, greater than for any other
cesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways" community, reflected a concern that with reservatio
(Ambedkar 1946: 231). Ambedkar acknowledged that purdah minorities, the majority would be whittled away to
also existed among Hindus, but he felt it went deeper in Mus- extent that it would itself be rendered simply one com
lim society and removing it would involve a serious conflict among others. In the balance of numbers, nationalist
with religious authority (Ambedkar 1946: 232). untouchables to be Hindus (Tejani 2007: ch 5; Dirks 2001
Muslims had also stagnated in their political life, Ambedkar Similarly, the Muslim demand for reservations and
believed. Indeed, "Muslims have no interest in politics as such, tion of Muslim majority provinces was seen as fr
Their predominant interest is religion" (Ambedkar 1946: 232). national unity and undermining the claim to swaraj
This was evidenced by the lack of a political programme or even for Ambedkar, freedom was not synonymous w
a social reform agenda from their leaders. Muslim candidates Swaraj represented the realisation of self-determina
in an election did not fight on issues for "all that the constituency individual and each community needed to be able
wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the dignity, free of oppression. The problems between Hi
old lamps of the masjid..., to supply a new carpet for the masjid Muslims in India were such that "it appears that
because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it India is incompatible with an independent India" (A
has become dilapidated". Muslim politics, he argued, had no 1946:338). The efforts it would take to secure this uni
concern for secular affairs. Politicians had nothing to say be monumental and perhaps territorial integrity was
about "the differences between rich and poor, capital and ideal worth fighting for". Even if India was to remain u
labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and "it will never be an organic whole". It would be two
superstition". They recognised "only one difference, namely that forcibly joined in "an artificial union" (Ambedkar 1
existing between Hindus and Muslims" (Ambedkar 1946:232). A forced union would require Hindus and Muslim
Ambedkar explained this resistance to social reform not by to an agreement as to how power would be shared.
an inherent conservatism among Muslims but by their position stitution to be acceptable it had to fulfil certain s
as a minority (Ambedkar 1946: 235). The surrounding envi- attachments on both sides - "a constitution which ru
ronment was predominantly Hindu and, fearing a loss of iden- ter to the strong sentiments of a determined section
tity, Muslims sought to preserve every aspect of religious prac- disaster if not invite rebellion" (Ambedkar 1946:
tice with little regard to its worth. Moreover, fearing political would Hindus do if the new Constitution provided
marginalisation, they fought to maintain legislative seats and essary safeguards for Muslims but they said they did n
posts in government service and closed ranks against Hindus, to live under Hindu rule? Would they bring out the bay
Thus "poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice enforce submission? (Ambedkar 1946: 366) Were t
from the rich", because to do so they may find themselves willing to conquer Muslims for the sake of freedom,
opposing a Muslim landlord, against whom they would not "Political unity is worth nothing, if it is not the exp

Economic & Political weekly GEE3 December 14, 2013 vol xlviii no 50

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE

real union" (Ambedkar 1946: 189). This was not swaraj. If become a homogeneous state, India would always remain
unity was to bring about profound suspicion, Ambedkar wrote, "composite" (Ambedkar 1946: 117). Muslims lived all across
"I prefer the Freedom of India to the Unity of India" (Ambed- India and it would be almost impossible to make India homo
kar 1946: 367). geneous. However, without a certain religious uniformity, "the
The fundamental question remained - would Pakistan solve problem of majority vs minority will r
the minority question? Muslim nationalism had emerged as an before and will continue to produce d
extension of the demand for their protection as a minority The politic." Without Pakistan, the Musli
League demanded an undivided Punjab and Bengal. But if the 20% of India's population. After Pak
boundaries of Punjab and Bengal remained unchanged, they population, the proportion of Muslims
would retain their "mixed" status, with all the attendant problems that Ambedkar believed that althoug
(Ambedkar 1946:113). However, "if Pakistan is made a single uni- cate the communal problem in India, "i
fied ethnic state, the evils [of a mixed state] will automatically its proportion and makes it of mino
vanish". Pakistan would have no need of separate electorates be- easier of peaceful solution" (Ambed
cause "in such a homogeneous Pakistan, there will be no majori- discussion on linguistic states, Ambe
ties to rule and no minorities to be protected ...there will be no states to increase the relative strength
majority of one community to hold, in its possession, a minority majorities . Yet, in the case of Pakista
of an opposing community" (Ambedkar 1946:113). view. He supported a solution which wou
A homogeneous Pakistan could be created, Ambedkar ar- the propor tion of Muslims in India, maki
gued, by an exchange of population. The natural segregation than less, vulnerable to social marginal
of Hindus and Muslims in Punjab and Bengal meant that rela
tively few people would have to move. In Sind and the North Marking the Exception
West Frontier Province, Hindus were scattered through the The question we must ask here is why
districts, but a concerted effort at transferring people would of Muslims in such a different light.
be worthwhile. Interestingly, where, in his case for linguistic for a nation was a logical outcome of
states Ambedkar argued that minorities and vulnerable com- minority. Yet he also saw Muslims on a
munities, particularly low castes and untouchables, would be ent path than other Indians. Their alleg
protected by constitutional safeguards, here he argued that India, he argued, as their community
they would not work. "Experience showed [in the case of Euro- Ambedkar had a deep ambivalence to
pean states] that safeguards did not save the minorities" lim League. He was often exasperated by
(Ambedkar 1946: 115). India would do well to look at the an incessant demand for concessions and
examples of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria who sought to solve power (Ambedkar 1946: 249-70). Howe
the minority problem by moving people to bring about homo- represented a nationalism that would
geneous states. Close to 20 million people were moved. India could not be brought about by forcing p
could do the same (Ambedkar 1946:115).4 Perhaps the most puzzling if not disturbing proposition
What of the Muslim minorities remaining within India? Pa- Ambedkar presented was the ethnic homogeneity of Pakist
kistan had been Jinnah's strategy to protect Muslims in minor- to ensure its success. He did not anticipate the challenge o
ity provinces. It was ironic that Pakistan would be established Bangladesh, and in light of Sindhi, Baluchi and Bengali
in the majority provinces whose people had shown little inter- nationalisms post-independence, the belief that Islam was
est in the idea, and would not help the cause of Muslims in enough to create a lasting unity now appears naïve,
minority provinces. Nor had it solved the communal problem Moreover, as Simeon has noted, such arguments for the et
in India (Ambedkar 1946: 361). Unlike Pakistan, which should nie basis of nationalism dovetailed dangerously with histor

Economic&PoliticalwEEKLY
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
March 30,2013
(Un)Settling the City: Analysing Displacement in Delhi from 1990 to 2007 -Gautam Bhan, Swathi Shivanand
Revitalising Economies of Disassembly: Informal Recyders, Development Experts
and E-Waste Reforms in Bangalore -Ftajyashree N Reddy
Biometrie Marginality: UID and the Shaping of Homeless Identities in the City -Ursula Rao
Protest, Politics, and the Middle Class in Varanasi -Jolie M F Wood

Revisiting the 74th Constitutional Amendment for Better Metropolitan Governance -K C Sivaramakrishnan

Governing India's Megacities: Governing India's Megacities -Ashima Sood

For copies write to: Circulation Manager,

Economic and Political Weekly,
320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013.
email: circulation@epw.in

118 December 14, 2013 vol XLViii no 50 DECS Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 : SPECIAL ARTICLE

of communalism in modern India, providing fertile ground systematic argument, carefully considering the future of the
for the particular form that fascism has taken in the Indian Muslim minority in India, Ambedkar seemed to have a deep
context (2013). Ambedkar also glossed over the question of resistance to Islam. After his famous declaration in 1936 that
the minorities that would, inevitably, remain in the federa- he would not die a Hindu, he embarked on a study of religions
tion of linguistic states he argued should be created. As to consider which new faith to embrace. He rejected the doc
Sarangi (2006) asked, whose language would be taken as the trinal orthodoxy of Abrahamic religions and saw a greater po
standard form? Language can be used to divide as much as tential for radical social transformation in Buddhism (Fuchs
unite, by religion as well as caste, as historians of language 2001). Significantly, he concluded, Islam and Christianity orig
movements in the modern period have shown (Isaka 2006; inated outside India and were thus not properly Indian reli
Mitchell 2009; Orsini 2002). And when used as a cultural gions (Queen 1996; Viswanathan 1998). It is striking that
bond as in the sons of the soil movement in Maharashtra, Ambedkar justified his conversion to Buddhism not only for
what would prevent cultural affinities around language what he saw as its secular ethics, but also for its connection to
from turning into a more dangerous form of exclusion? a home-grown civilisational complex. Islam and Christianity
(Blom-Hansen 1999). could not be considered indigenous to India. Perhaps it was
Yet, Ambedkar seemed to believe that regional and Unguis- Ambedkar's belief in the alien nature of
tic identities were not fundamental fault lines along which a as India's very own genius to divide, that
nation would fracture, as long as they were not encouraged. Indian Muslims were a community wi
Religion, and Islam in particular, was. For all his efforts at rather than a minority in need of protect

NOTES
Province", Statement Submitted to the LinguisticMitchell, Lisa (2009): Language, Emotion and Poli
In contrast with nationalists such as M K Gan Provinces Commission in BAWS, Vol 1 (Bom tics in South India: The Making of a Mother
dhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, there are very few
bay: Education Department, Government of Tongue (Bloomington: Indiana University
Maharashtra). Press).
critical biographies of Ambedkar; those that
exist have tended to be hagiographical in tone. - (1989 [1955]): "Thoughts on Linguistic States"Newbigin, Eleanor (2013): The Hindu Family and
An exception is Keer (1971 [1954]). in BAWS, Vol 1 (Bombay: Education Depart the Emergence of Modern India: Law, Citizen
ment, Government of Maharashtra). ship and Community (Cambridge: Cambridge
While the date refers to the year this work was
University Press).
first published, the page numbers here and in Aloysis, George (2007): "Caste and Nationalism" in
subsequent citations refer to the 21 volumes of S Thorat and Aryama (ed.), Ambedkar in RetroOmvedt, Gail (1994): Dalits and the Democratic
spect: Essays on Economics, Politics and Society Revolution: Dr Ambedkar and the Dalit Move
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches
brought out by the Education Department, (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Dalit Studies ment in Colonial India (Delhi: Sage).
Government of Maharashtra, from 1979 on and Rawat), pp 167-83. Orsini, Francesca (2002): The Hindi Public Sphere,
wards. Austin, Granville (1966): The Indian Constitution: 1920-40: Language and Literature in the Age of
I have explored this argument elsewhere: Tejani Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford: Clarendon). Nationalism (New Delhi: Oxford University
(2013). The debate on minority protection in Bajpai, Rochana (2010): Debating Difference: Press).
the constituent assembly has been discussed by Queen, Christopher S (1996): "Dr Ambedkar and
Minority Rights and Liberal Democracy in India
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press). the Hermeneutics of Buddhist Liberation" in
Bajpai (2010).
Simeon (2013) has noted how curious it was for Blom-Hansen, Thomas (1999): The Saffron Wave: C S Queen and S B King (ed.), Engaged Bud
Ambedkar to take the example of Greece and Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern dhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia
Turkey as successful attempts to create relative India (Princeton: Princeton University Press). (Albany: State University of New York Press).
ethnic homogeneity in states carved out of the Dirks, Nicholas (2001): Castes of Mind: ColonialismRao, Anupama (2009): The Caste Question: Dalits
Ottoman empire, especially when there was and the Making of Modern India (Princeton: and the Politics of Modern India (Berkeley: Uni
much evidence at the time to the contrary. The Princeton University Press). versity of California Press).
Sarangi, Asha (2006): "Ambedkar and the Linguis
only explanation, he argues, was the power ofFuchs, Martin (2001): "A Religion for Civil Society?
the idea of the nation state at mid-century. Ambedkar's Buddhism, the Dalit Issue and the tic States: A Case for Maharashtra", Economic &
Imagination of Emergent Possibilities" in Political Weekly, 41 (2), pp 151-57.
V Dalmia, A Malinar and M Christof (ed.), Shourie, Arun (1997): Worshipping False Gods:
Charisma and Canon: Essays in the Religious Ambedkar and the Facts Which Have Been
REFERENCES
History of the Indian Subcontinent (Delhi: Erased (New Delhi: ASA Publications).
Oxford
Ambedkar, B R (1941): Thoughts on Pakistan (BomUniversity Press). Simeon, Dilip (2013): "The Law of Killing: A Brief
bay: Thacker and Company Limited).Gaikwad, S M (1998): "Ambedkar and Indian Na History of Indian Fascism" in J Banaji (ed.),
South Economic & Political Weekly, 33(10), Fascism: Essays on Europe and India (New
- (1989 [1919]): "Evidence before the tionalism",
borough Committee on Franchise, 1919" in Dr
PP 515-18. Delhi: Three Essays Collective).
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches
Gokhale, Jayashree (1993): From Concessions to Tejani, Shabnum (2013): "Between Inequality and
(henceforth BAWS), Vol 1 (Bombay: Education Confrontation: The Politics of an Indian Identity: The Indian Constituent Assembly and
Department, Government of Maharashtra). Untouchable Community (Bombay: Popular the Institutionalisation of Religious Difference,
- (1989 [1939]): "Federation versus Freedom, Prakashan). 1946-50", South Asia Research, 33 (3), pp 205-21.
Kale Memorial Lecture, delivered to the Gore, M S (1993): The Social Context of an Ideology: - (2007): Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellec
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Ambedkar's Political and Social Thought (Delhi: tual History, 1890-1950 (Delhi: Permanent
Poona" in BAWS, Vol 1 (Bombay: Education Sage Publications). Black).
Department, Government of Maharashtra). Isaka, Riho (2006): "Gujarati Elites and the Con Teltumbde, Anand (2003): Ambedkar on Muslims:
- (1990 [1946]): Pakistan or the Partition of India, struction of a Regional Identity in the Late Myths and Facts (Mumbai: Vikas Adhyayan
reprinted in BAWS, Vol 8 (Bombay: Education Nineteenth Century" in C Bates (ed.), Beyond Rendra).
Department, Government of Maharashtra). Representation: Colonial and Postcolonial Con Verma, Vidhu (1999): "Colonialism and Libera
- D989 [1947]): "States and Minorities, What Are structions of Indian Identity (New Delhi: Ox tion: Ambedkar's Quest for Distributive Jus
Their Rights and How to Secure Them in the ford University Press). tice", Economic & Political Weekly, 34 (39),
Constitution of Free India, Memorandum on Jaffrelot, Christophe (2008): "Containing the Lower pp 2804-10.
the Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes sub Castes: The Constituent Assembly and the Res Viswanathan, Gauri (1998): Outside the Fold: Con
mitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf ervation Policy" in R Bhargava (ed.), Politics version, Modernity, Belief (Princeton: Princeton
of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation" and Ethics of the Indian Constitution (New Del University Press).
in BAWS, Vol 1 (Bombay: Education Depart hi: Oxford University Press). Zelliot, Eleanor (1996): From Untouchable to Dalit:
ment, Government of Maharashtra). Keer, Dhananjay (1971 [1954]): Dr Ambedkar: Life Essays on the Ambedkar Movement (Delhi:
- (1989 [1948]): "Maharashtra as a Linguistic and Mission (Bombay: Popular Prakashan). Manohar).

Economie & Political weekly IM1 December 14, 2013 vol xlviii no 50 119

This content downloaded from

202.131.110.12 on Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:49:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms