Dec 06 2014 : Mirror (Mumbai)
Ambedkar's warning on inequality
AJIT RANADE
|
Political equality as enshrined in our constitution cannot coexist with widening social and economic inequality
Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar and Mohandas Gandhi are two of the tallest personalities in India’s struggle for freedom.Their influence on modern India will be long lasting. It would be inadequate to describe them merely as political leaders or social reformers. Their thinking has had a deep, abiding impression on large sections of Indian society. Even to this day they continue to inspire us, and also arouse strong and passionate criticism from some sections. Love them, hate them, but you cannot ignore them.
Interestingly, even though both Ambedkar and Gandhi worked toward a vision of India free from caste divisions, they had fundamental differences. Their differences became almost irreconcilable after the episode of the Temple Entry Bill of 1933. Prior to this in 1932, Gandhi had vehemently opposed a separate electorate for untouchables in the Legislature, as demanded by Ambedkar. Gandhi opposed it, even though he had accepted this for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Anglo-Indians. Gandhi even threatened to fast unto death. Finally, Ambedkar had to back down and compromise (the famous Poona Pact of 1932).
Ambedkar refused to support the bill Temple Entry Bill, which was to be introduced in Legislative Councils of various provinces. This bill had proposed to throw open the doors of Hindu temples to untouchables, which according to Gandhi would give dignity to the outcastes. He said that the untouchables were not begging to be let in. In fact it was a side issue. The real issue was the complete eradication of untouchability, nay the caste system. He said that untouchability is sinful and immoral, even if it is acceptable to majority of Hindus. The surest salvation for the untouchables was in higher education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living, not in getting a right to entering temples. To open their temple doors to outcastes, was for (caste) Hindus to consider, not for untouchables to agitate, said Ambedkar. If the Temple Entry Bill was passed it would entrench the caste system, and confer symbolic capital to high caste Hindus. The untouchables were determined not to be a part of a religion which tried to defend or rationalise so cial inequality. After 1933 the schism between Gandhi and Ambedkar widened, leading the latter to walk away from the Congress Party. Ambedkar also grew suspicious of all majoritarian politics because of this episode.
Ambedkar dreamt of an India based on ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. He made a prophetic speech on November 25, 1949 in the Constituent Assembly. This was when most of the debates on the Constitution were over, and India was on the verge of adopting the final version. His fight for eradication of the caste system was not so much to gain rights for the downtrodden outcastes, but much more to reach the ideal of social equality. It is worth reproducing that part of this speech: “On the January 26, 1950, we are going to en ter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be here cognizing the principle of one man, one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.“
Interestingly, even though both Ambedkar and Gandhi worked toward a vision of India free from caste divisions, they had fundamental differences. Their differences became almost irreconcilable after the episode of the Temple Entry Bill of 1933. Prior to this in 1932, Gandhi had vehemently opposed a separate electorate for untouchables in the Legislature, as demanded by Ambedkar. Gandhi opposed it, even though he had accepted this for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Anglo-Indians. Gandhi even threatened to fast unto death. Finally, Ambedkar had to back down and compromise (the famous Poona Pact of 1932).
Ambedkar refused to support the bill Temple Entry Bill, which was to be introduced in Legislative Councils of various provinces. This bill had proposed to throw open the doors of Hindu temples to untouchables, which according to Gandhi would give dignity to the outcastes. He said that the untouchables were not begging to be let in. In fact it was a side issue. The real issue was the complete eradication of untouchability, nay the caste system. He said that untouchability is sinful and immoral, even if it is acceptable to majority of Hindus. The surest salvation for the untouchables was in higher education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living, not in getting a right to entering temples. To open their temple doors to outcastes, was for (caste) Hindus to consider, not for untouchables to agitate, said Ambedkar. If the Temple Entry Bill was passed it would entrench the caste system, and confer symbolic capital to high caste Hindus. The untouchables were determined not to be a part of a religion which tried to defend or rationalise so cial inequality. After 1933 the schism between Gandhi and Ambedkar widened, leading the latter to walk away from the Congress Party. Ambedkar also grew suspicious of all majoritarian politics because of this episode.
Ambedkar dreamt of an India based on ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. He made a prophetic speech on November 25, 1949 in the Constituent Assembly. This was when most of the debates on the Constitution were over, and India was on the verge of adopting the final version. His fight for eradication of the caste system was not so much to gain rights for the downtrodden outcastes, but much more to reach the ideal of social equality. It is worth reproducing that part of this speech: “On the January 26, 1950, we are going to en ter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be here cognizing the principle of one man, one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.“
