Annihilation of caste Dr.B.r.ambedkar.pdf

Praiseforthebook

‘AnnihilationofCastehastobereadonlybecauseit isopentoseriousobjection.Dr Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism … No Hindu who prizes his faithabovelifeitselfcanaffordtounderratetheimportanceofthisindictment’M.K.Gandhi

‘WhatCommunistManifesto is to the capitalistworld,Annihilation ofCaste is tocasteIndia.ArundhatiRoy’sintroductionisexpansiveandexcellent.S.Anand’sannotations have style and perfection’ Anand Teltumbde, author of ThePersistenceofCaste:TheKhairlanjiMurders&India’sHiddenApartheid

‘For the 1930s, Annihilation of Caste was a case of marvellous writing withconceptual clarity and political understanding—something the world shouldknowabout.Theannotationsilluminethewholebook.Roy’sessayhasthesharppoliticalthrustonehascometoexpectfromher’UmaChakravarti,authorofEverydayLives,EverydayHistories:BeyondtheKingsandBrahmanasof‘Ancient’IndiaandPanditaRamabai:ALifeandaTime

‘Arundhati Roy’s The Doctor and the Saint works both at an emotive and anargumentativelevel.Shemanagestoconveyanintimateanddeeplyfeltsensitivityto the history that produced Annihilation of Caste. Her essay is both welldocumentedandcloselyargued.Theannotationsdoanexcellentjobofprovidingsupplementary information, corroboration and relevant citations … A robustedition of an under-appreciated classic’ Satish Deshpande, Professor ofSociology,DelhiUniversity

‘S.Anand’sannotationsarevery thoroughandonthewholebasedon first-rateandcurrent scholarshiponSouthAsia andelsewhere.Their toneand stylewillappeal to a scholarly as well as lay audience… an important accomplishment.ArundhatiRoy’sessayispunchy,eye-openingandprovocative…ThereisverylittleleftofthesaintlystatureoftheMahatmaonceRoyisdonewithhim,whileAmbedkar,quite rightly, is left standingas theman in full controlofhis sensesandhisveryconsiderableintellect’ThomasBlomHansen,Director,Stanford’s

CenterforSouthAsia

‘This annotated edition of Annihilation of Caste was long overdue. It makesavailabletoallamajortextofDrAmbedkar’s,wherehisintellectualengagementwithcaste isbestarticulated…thecopiousfootnotesgivethereaderasenseofdirectionandalltheadditionalinformationneededformakingsenseofthetext—includingthetranslationoftheSanskritshlokasAmbedkarusedtodocumenthisanalysis.This edition is truly a remarkable achievement’Christophe Jaffrelot,authorofDrAmbedkarandUntouchability:AnalysingandFightingCaste

‘This edition, with Ambedkar’s words in Nietzschean aphoristic format, isextremelyuseful.IthelpsusdiscovernewdimensionsofAmbedkar’ssubversivepower. The annotations—many times orthogonal and tangential—enhance thevalueofthisbook.ThosewhohavereadAnnihilationofCastemanytimesbeforewill still read this work for the sake of the annotations and reference-basedclarifications of Ambedkar’s thoughts. This edition will foster a more criticalengagementamongreaders’AyyathuraiGajendran,anthropologist

BhimraoRamjiAmbedkarwasborn in1891 intoan ‘Untouchable’ familyofmodestmeans.

One of India’s most radical thinkers, he transformed the social and political landscape in the

struggleagainstBritishcolonialism.HewasaprolificwriterwhooversawthedraftingoftheIndian

ConstitutionandservedasIndia’sfirstLawMinister.In1935,hepubliclydeclaredthatthoughhe

was born aHindu, hewould not die as one.Ambedkar eventually embracedBuddhism, a few

monthsbeforehisdeathin1956.

ArundhatiRoy is the author of the novelTheGod of SmallThings.Collections of her recent

politicalwritingshavebeenpublishedasListeningtoGrasshoppersandBrokenRepublic.

S.Anand is the founder-publisher ofNavayana.He is the co-author ofBhimayana, a graphic

biographyofAmbedkar.

ThiseditionfirstpublishedintheUK,USandCanadabyVerso2014

ThiseditionfirstpublishedinIndia

Edition©NavayanaPublishingPvtLtd2014

Introduction©ArundhatiRoy2014

Annotations©S.Anand2014

Researchassistance:JuliaPerczel

Allrightsreserved

Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted

Verso

UK:6MeardStreet,LondonW1F0EG

US:20JayStreet,Suite1010,Brooklyn,NY11201

www.versobooks.com

Versoistheimprintofnewleftbooks

eBookISBN:978-1-78168-832-8(US)

eBookISBN:978-1-78168-830-4(UK)

HardcoverISBN:978-1-78168-831-1

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData

AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Acatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromthelibraryofcongress

v3.1

Contents

CoverTitlePageCopyrightAbouttheAuthor

Editor’sNote

TheDoctorandtheSaintArundhatiRoy

Notes

Bibliography

AnnihilationofCaste1.PrefacetoSecondEdition,1937

2.PrefacetoThirdEdition,1944

3.Prologue

4.AnnihilationofCaste:AnUndeliveredSpeech,1936

TheAmbedkar–Gandhidebate5.AVindicationofCastebyMahatmaGandhi

6.SantRamrespondstoGandhi

7.AReplytotheMahatmabyB.R.Ambedkar

ANoteonthePoonaPactBibliographyAcknowledgementsIndex

Editor’sNote

DrB.R.Ambedkar’sAnnihilationofCasteisatextinsearchoftheaudienceitwaswrittenfor.Itsurvivedanearlyassassinationattempttobecomewhatitistoday—alegend.WhentheHindureformistgroup,theJat-PatTodakMandal(Forumfor Break-up of Caste) of Lahore, which had invited Ambedkar to deliver itsannuallecturein1936,askedforandreceivedthetextofthespeechinadvance,itfoundthecontents“unbearable”.TheMandalrealisedthatAmbedkarintendedtouseitsplatformnotmerelytocriticisethepracticeofcaste,buttodenounceHinduism itself, and withdrew its invitation. InMay 1936, Ambedkar printed1,500copiesofthetextofhisspeechathisownexpense.Itwassoontranslatedinto six languages. While the majority of the privileged castes are blissfullyignorantof its existence,Annihilation ofCaste has beenprinted and reprinted—likemostofAmbedkar’slargeoeuvre—bysmall,mostlyDalit-ownedpresses,andread by mostly Dalit readers over seven decades. It now has the curiousdistinctionofbeingoneof themostobscureaswell asoneof themostwidelyreadbooksinIndia.Thisinitselfilluminatestheirongridofthecastesystem.

However, Annihilation of Caste was a speech that Ambedkar wrote for aprimarilyprivileged-casteaudience.Thisaudiencehaseludedit.Thisannotated,criticaleditionisanattempttogivehisworkthecriticalandscholarlyattentionitdeserves.

As I read and reread the text, I realised how rich it was, and how muchpresent-day readers would enjoy and learn from it if they could place it in ahistoricalcontext:WhohadfoundedtheJat-PatTodakMandal?WhowasSantRam,themanwhovaliantlyswamagainstthetideofthedominantAryaSamajopinion?WhatwastheincidentinKavithathatAmbedkarmentionsbutdoesnotelaborate upon? From where was he drawing the ideas of “social efficiency”,“associatedmodeof living”or“socialendosmosis”?What is theconnectionhesuggestsbetweentheRomanComitiaCenturiataandtheCommunalAwardof1932? What is the connection between the American feminist anarchistVoltairine de Cleyre and Ambedkar’s advocacy of direct action? To try and

answerthesequestions,Ibeganthetaskofannotatingthetext.Intheprocess,Irealised thatby the timehepublisheda secondedition in1937,Ambedkarhadmadearangeofsubtleanddeftchangestothefirstedition.ThesecondeditionincludedhisexchangewithM.K.Gandhi.Ambedkarmadefurtherchangesinthe1944 edition. All these are highlighted where necessary. Ambedkar’s originaledition tended touse longparagraphs that sometimes ran topages.Thesehavebeendividedwithappropriatebreaks.WhilethesectionnumbersthatAmbedkarprovideshavebeenretained,thenewparagraphshavebeennumbered.Spellingsandcapitalisationhavebeenstandardised.

AnnihilationofCaste ispepperedwithSanskritcouplets.Ambedkarcites themwithauthority,neverbotheringtounpackthemforhisprivilegedaudience.Totranslate these, I turnedto the scholarBibekDebroy,whorespondedwithrareenthusiasm.Hetreatedeveryverseasapuzzle.

ArundhatiRoy’s introduction“TheDoctor and theSaint”, is abook-lengthessaythatfamiliarisesthereaderwithcasteasitplaysoutincontemporaryIndia,and with the historical context of the public debate between Ambedkar andGandhithatfollowedthepublicationofAnnihilationofCaste.InherintroductionRoydescribesalittle-knownsideofGandhi.SheshowshowhisdisturbingviewsonraceduringhisyearsinSouthAfricapresagedhispublicpronouncementsoncaste. As she puts it: “Ambedkar was Gandhi’s most formidable adversary. Hechallenged him not just politically or intellectually, but also morally. To haveexcisedAmbedkarfromGandhi’sstory,whichisthestoryweallgrewupon,isatravesty. Equally, to ignore Gandhi while writing about Ambedkar is to doAmbedkar a disservice, because Gandhi loomed over Ambedkar’s world inmyriadandun-wonderfulways.”

Themanuscripthasbeenpeerreviewedbysomeofthefinestscholarsworkinginthis field:ChristopheJaffrelot,ThomasBlomHansen,AyyathuraiGajendran,Anand Teltumbde, Satish Deshpande and Uma Chakravarti. Each of themrespondedwithempathy,diligenceandcarethathashelpedmetorefine,polishandenrichthework.

S.Anand

26January2014

NewDelhi

TheDoctorandtheSaint

ARUNDHATIROY

AnnihilationofCasteisthenearlyeighty-year-oldtextofaspeechthatwasneverdelivered.WhenIfirstreaditIfeltasthoughsomebodyhadwalkedintoadimroomandopenedthewindows.ReadingDrBhimraoRamjiAmbedkarbridgesthegapbetweenwhatmostIndiansareschooledtobelieveinandtherealityweexperienceeverydayofourlives.

My fatherwas aHindu, aBrahmo. I nevermet himuntil Iwas an adult. Igrew up withmymother in a SyrianChristian family in Ayemenem, a smallvillageincommunist-ruledKerala.Andyetallaroundmewerethefissuresandcracks of caste. Ayemenem had its own separate ‘Paraiyan’ church where‘Paraiyan’priestspreachedtoan‘Untouchable’congregation.Castewasimpliedinpeople’snames,inthewaypeoplereferredtoeachother,intheworktheydid,in the clothes theywore, in themarriages thatwere arranged, in the languagetheyspoke.Evenso,Ineverencounteredthenotionofcaste inasingleschooltextbook. Reading Ambedkar alerted me to a gaping hole in our pedagogicaluniverse.Reading him alsomade it clearwhy that hole exists andwhy itwillcontinuetoexistuntilIndiansocietyundergoesradical,revolutionarychange.

Revolutionscan,andoftenhave,begunwithreading.IfyouhaveheardofMalalaYousafzaibutnotofSurekhaBhotmange,thendo

readAmbedkar.Malalawasonly fifteenbuthad alreadycommitted several crimes.Shewas a

girl,shelivedintheSwatValleyinPakistan,shewasaBBCblogger,shewasinaNewYorkTimesvideo,andshewenttoschool.Malalawantedtobeadoctor;herfatherwantedhertobeapolitician.Shewasabravechild.She(andherfather)didn’ttakeheedwhentheTalibandeclaredthatschoolswerenotmeantforgirlsand threatened to kill her if she didnot stop speakingout against them.On9October2012,agunmantookheroffherschoolbusandputabulletthroughherhead. Malala was flown to England, where, after receiving the best possiblemedicalcare,shesurvived.Itwasamiracle.

The US President and the Secretary of State sent messages of support andsolidarity.Madonnadedicatedasongtoher.AngelinaJoliewroteanarticleabouther.Malalawasnominated for theNobelPeacePrize; shewasonthecoverofTime.Withindaysoftheattemptedassassination,GordonBrown,formerBritishPrimeMinisterandtheUNSpecialEnvoyforGlobalEducation,launchedan‘Iam Malala’ petition that called on the Government of Pakistan to delivereducation to every girl child. TheUS drone strikes in Pakistan continuewiththeirfeministmissionto‘takeout’misogynist,Islamistterrorists.

SurekhaBhotmangewasfortyyearsoldandhadcommittedseveralcrimestoo.

Shewasawoman—an‘Untouchable’,Dalitwoman—wholivedinIndia,andshewasn’tdirtpoor.Shewasmoreeducatedthanherhusband,soshefunctionedasthe head of her family.DrAmbedkarwas her hero. Like him, her family hadrenounced Hinduism and converted to Buddhism. Surekha’s children wereeducated.Her two sonsSudhir andRoshanhadbeen tocollege.HerdaughterPriyankawasseventeen,andfinishinghighschool.SurekhaandherhusbandhadboughtalittleplotoflandinthevillageofKhairlanjiinthestateofMaharashtra.It was surrounded by farms belonging to castes that considered themselvessuperiortotheMaharcastethatSurekhabelongedto.BecauseshewasDalitandhadnorighttoaspiretoagoodlife,thevillagepanchayatdidnotpermithertogetanelectricityconnection,or turnher thatchedmudhut intoabrickhouse.Thevillagerswouldnotallowherfamilytoirrigatetheirfieldswithwaterfromthecanal,ordrawwaterfromthepublicwell.Theytriedtobuildapublicroadthroughherland,andwhensheprotested,theydrovetheirbullockcartsthroughherfields.Theylettheircattleloosetofeedonherstandingcrop.

StillSurekhadidnotbackdown.Shecomplainedtothepolicewhopaidnoattentiontoher.Overthemonths,thetensioninthevillagebuilttofeverpitch.Asawarningtoher,thevillagersattackedarelativeofhersandlefthimfordead.Shefiledanotherpolicecomplaint.Thistime,thepolicemadesomearrests,buttheaccusedwerereleasedonbailalmostimmediately.Ataboutsixintheeveningof the day they were released (29 September 2006), about seventy incensedvillagers,menandwomen, arrived in tractors and surrounded theBhotmanges’house.HerhusbandBhaiyalal,whowasoutinthefields,heardthenoiseandranhome.Hehidbehindabushandwatchedthemobattackhisfamily.HerantoDusala,thenearesttown,andthrougharelativemanagedtocallthepolice.(Youneedcontacts toget thepolice toevenpickup thephone.)Theynevercame.Themob dragged Surekha, Priyanka and the two boys, one of them partiallyblind,outofthehouse.Theboyswereorderedtorapetheirmotherandsister;when they refused, their genitals were mutilated, and eventually they werelynched.SurekhaandPriyankaweregang-rapedandbeaten todeath.The fourbodiesweredumpedinanearbycanal,wheretheywerefoundthenextday.1

Atfirst,thepressreporteditasa‘morality’murder,suggestingthatthevillagerswereupset becauseSurekhawashaving an affairwith a relative (themanwhohad previously been assaulted). Mass protests by Dalit organisations eventuallyprodded the legal system into taking cognisance of the crime. Citizens’ fact-findingcommitteesreportedhowevidencehadbeentamperedwithandfudged.When the lower court finally pronounced a judgement, it sentenced themain

perpetratorstodeathbutrefusedtoinvoketheScheduledCastesandScheduledTribesPreventionofAtrocitiesAct—thejudgeheldthattheKhairlanjimassacrewasacrimespurredbyadesirefor‘revenge’.Hesaidtherewasnoevidenceofrape and no caste angle to the killing.2 For a judgement to weaken the legalframework in which it presents a crime, for which it then awards the deathsentence,makesiteasyforahighercourttoeventuallyreduce,orevencommute,thesentence.This isnotuncommonpracticeinIndia.3Foracourt to sentencepeople to death, however heinous their crime, can hardly be called just. For acourt to acknowledge that caste prejudice continues to be a horrific reality inIndiawouldhavecountedasagesturetowardsjustice.Instead,thejudgesimplyairbrushedcasteoutofthepicture.

SurekhaBhotmangeandherchildrenlivedinamarket-friendlydemocracy.Sotherewereno ‘I amSurekha’ petitions from theUnitedNations to the Indiangovernment,noranyfiatsormessagesofoutragefromheadsofstate.Whichwasjustaswell,becausewedon’twantdaisy-cuttersdroppedonusjustbecausewepractisecaste.4

“To theUntouchables,”Ambedkar said,with the sortofnerve thatpresent-dayintellectualsinIndiafindhardtosummon,“Hinduismisaveritablechamberofhorrors.”5

For a writer to have to use terms like ‘Untouchable’, ‘Scheduled Caste’,‘BackwardClass’and‘OtherBackwardClasses’todescribefellowhumanbeingsis like living in a chamber of horrors. Since Ambedkar used the word‘Untouchable’ with a cold rage, and without flinching, so must I. Today‘Untouchable’ has been substituted with the Marathi word ‘Dalit’ (BrokenPeople),whichis,inturn,usedinterchangeablywith‘ScheduledCaste’.This,asthe scholarRupaViswanath points out, is incorrect practice, because the term‘Dalit’ includesUntouchableswho have converted to other religions to escapethe stigma of caste (like the Paraiyans in my village who had converted toChristianity),whereas‘ScheduledCaste’doesnot.6Theofficialnomenclatureofprejudiceisamazethatcanmakeeverythingreadlikeabigotedbureaucrat’sfilenotings.Totryandavoidthis,Ihave,mostly,thoughnotalways,usedtheword‘Untouchable’whenIwriteabout thepast, and ‘Dalit’whenIwriteabout thepresent. When I write about Dalits who have converted to other religions, IspecificallysayDalitSikhs,DalitMuslimsorDalitChristians.

LetmenowreturntoAmbedkar’spointaboutthechamberofhorrors.According to the National Crime Records Bureau, a crime is committed

againstaDalitbyanon-Daliteverysixteenminutes;everyday,morethanfour

Untouchablewomen are raped byTouchables; everyweek, thirteenDalits aremurderedandsixDalitsarekidnapped.In2012alone,theyearoftheDelhigang-rapeandmurder,71,574Dalitwomenwereraped(theruleofthumbisthatonly10 per cent of rapes or other crimes againstDalits are ever reported), and 651Dalitsweremurdered.8That’sjusttherapeandbutchery.Notthestrippingandparadingnaked, the forced shit-eating (literally),9 the seizing of land, the socialboycotts, the restriction of access to drinking water. These statistics wouldn’tinclude, say, Bant Singh of Punjab, aMazhabiDalit Sikh,10who in 2005 hadbothhisarmsandalegcleavedofffordaringtofileacaseagainstthemenwhogang-rapedhisdaughter.Therearenoseparatestatisticsfortripleamputees.

“If the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no Law, noParliament,noJudiciarycanguaranteethemintherealsenseoftheword,”saidAmbedkar.“WhatistheuseoffundamentalrightstotheNegro inAmerica, totheJewsinGermanyandtotheUntouchablesinIndia?AsBurkesaid,thereisnomethodfoundforpunishingthemultitude.”11

AskanyvillagepolicemaninIndiawhathisjobisandhe’llprobablytellyouitis to ‘keep the peace’.That is done,most of the time, by upholding the castesystem.Dalitaspirationsareabreachofpeace.

AnnihilationofCasteisabreachofpeace.

Other contemporary abominations like apartheid, racism, sexism, economicimperialismandreligiousfundamentalismhavebeenpoliticallyandintellectuallychallengedatinternationalforums.HowisitthatthepracticeofcasteinIndia—one of the most brutal modes of hierarchical social organisation that humansocietyhasknown—hasmanagedtoescapesimilarscrutinyandcensure?Perhapsbecause it has come to be so fusedwithHinduism, and by extensionwith somuch that is seen to be kind and good—mysticism, spiritualism, non-violence,tolerance,vegetarianism,Gandhi,yoga,backpackers,theBeatles—that,atleasttooutsiders,itseemsimpossibletopryitlooseandtrytounderstandit.

To compound theproblem, caste, unlike say apartheid, is not colour-coded,andthereforenoteasytosee.Also,unlikeapartheid,thecastesystemhasbuoyantadmirersinhighplaces.Theyargue,quiteopenly,thatcasteisasocialgluethatbinds as well as separates people and communities in interesting and, on thewhole, positive ways. That it has given Indian society the strength and theflexibility to withstand the many challenges it has had to face.12 The Indianestablishmentblanchesattheideathatdiscriminationandviolenceonthebasisof

castecanbecomparedtoracismortoapartheid.ItcamedownheavilyonDalitswhotriedtoraisecasteasanissueatthe2001WorldConferenceagainstRacisminDurban, insisting that castewas an“internalmatter”. It showcased thesesbywell-knownsociologistswhoarguedat lengththat thepracticeofcastewasnotthe same as racial discrimination, and that caste was not the same as race.13Ambedkar would have agreed with them. However, in the context of theDurbanconference,thepointDalitactivistsweremakingwasthatthoughcasteisnotthesameasrace,casteismandracismareindeedcomparable.Bothareformsofdiscriminationthattargetpeoplebecauseoftheirdescent.14Insolidaritywiththat sentiment, on 15 January 2014 at a public meeting on Capitol Hill inWashington D.C. commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr’s 85th birthanniversary, African Americans signed “The Declaration of Empathy”, whichcalledfor“anendtotheoppressionofDalitsinIndia”.15

Inthecurrentdebatesaboutidentityandjustice,growthanddevelopment,formanyof the best-known Indian scholars, caste is at best a topic, a subheading,and,quiteoften,justafootnote.Byforce-fittingcasteintoreductiveMarxistclassanalysis,theprogressiveandleft-leaningIndianintelligentsiahasmadeseeingcasteeven harder. This erasure, this Project of Unseeing, is sometimes a consciouspolitical act, and sometimes comes from a place of such rarefied privilege thatcaste has not been stumbled upon, not even in the dark, and therefore it ispresumedtohavebeeneradicated,likesmallpox.

Theoriginsofcastewillcontinue tobedebatedbyanthropologists foryears tocome, but its organising principles, based on a hierarchical, sliding scale ofentitlements and duties, of purity and pollution, and the ways in which theywere,andstillare,policedandenforced,arenotallthathardtounderstand.Thetopof thecastepyramid isconsideredpureandhasplentyofentitlements.Thebottomisconsideredpollutedandhasnoentitlementsbutplentyofduties.Thepollution–purity matrix is correlated to an elaborate system of caste-based,ancestral occupation. In “Castes in India”, a paper he wrote for a ColumbiaUniversityseminarin1916,Ambedkardefinedacasteasanendogamousunit,an“enclosedclass”.Onanotheroccasion,hedescribedthesystemasan“ascendingscaleofreverenceandadescendingscaleofcontempt.”16

WhatwecallthecastesystemtodayisknowninHinduism’sfoundingtextsasvarnashramadharmaor chaturvarna, the systemof fourvarnas.The approximatelyfour thousand endogamous castes and sub-castes (jatis) in Hindu society, each

with its own specified hereditary occupation, are divided into four varnas—Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (soldiers), Vaishyas (traders) and Shudras(servants). Outside of these varnas are the avarna castes, the Ati-Shudras,subhumans, arranged in hierarchies of their own—the Untouchables, theUnseeables, the Unapproachables—whose presence, whose touch, whose veryshadow is considered to be polluting by privileged-caste Hindus. In somecommunities, to prevent inbreeding, each endogamous caste is divided intoexogamousgotras.Exogamyisthenpolicedwithasmuchferocityasendogamy—withbeheadingsandlynchingsthathavetheapprovalofthecommunityelders.17EachregionofIndiahaslovinglyperfecteditsownuniqueversionofcaste-basedcruelty,basedonanunwrittencodethatismuchworsethantheJimCrowlaws.Inadditiontobeingforcedtoliveinsegregatedsettlements,Untouchableswerenot allowed to use the public roads that privileged castes used, theywere notallowed to drink from common wells, they were not allowed into Hindutemples, they were not allowed into privileged-caste schools, they were notpermitted to cover their upper bodies, theywereonly allowed towear certainkindsofclothesandcertainkindsofjewellery.Somecastes,liketheMahars,thecaste towhichAmbedkarbelonged,had to tiebrooms to theirwaists to sweepawaytheirpollutedfootprints,othershadtohangspittoonsaroundtheirneckstocollect their polluted saliva.Menof the privileged castes had undisputed rightsover the bodies of Untouchable women. Love is polluting. Rape is pure. InmanypartsofIndia,muchofthiscontinuestothisday.18

What remains to be said about an imagination, human or divine, that hasthoughtupasocialarrangementsuchasthis?

Asifthedharmaofvarnashramawerenotenough,thereisalsotheburdenofkarma.Thosebornintothesubordinatedcastesaresupposedlybeingpunishedforthebaddeedstheyhavedoneintheirpast lives.Ineffect, theyare livingoutaprison sentence. Acts of insubordination could lead to an enhanced sentence,whichwouldmeananothercycleofrebirthasanUntouchableorasaShudra.Soit’sbesttobehave.

“Therecannotbeamoredegradingsystemofsocialorganisationthanthecastesystem,”saidAmbedkar.“Itisthesystemthatdeadens,paralysesandcripplesthepeoplefromhelpfulactivity.”19

The most famous Indian in the world, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,disagreed.Hebelieved that caste represented thegeniusof Indian society.At aspeechatamissionaryconferenceinMadrasin1916,hesaid:

The vast organisation of caste answered not only the religious wants of thecommunity,butitansweredtooitspoliticalneeds.Thevillagersmanagedtheirinternal affairs through the caste system, and through it they dealt with anyoppression from the ruling power or powers. It is not possible to deny theorganisingcapabilityofanationthatwascapableofproducingthecastesystemitswonderfulpoweroforganisation.20

In1921,inhisGujaratijournalNavajivanhewrote:

IbelievethatifHinduSocietyhasbeenabletostand,itisbecauseitisfoundedon the caste system…To destroy the caste system and adopt theWesternEuropean social system means that Hindus must give up the principle ofhereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditaryprinciple isaneternalprinciple.Tochange it is tocreatedisorder. IhavenouseforaBrahminifIcannotcallhimaBrahminformylife.ItwillbechaosifeverydayaBrahminischangedintoaShudraandaShudraistobechangedintoaBrahmin.21

Though Gandhi was an admirer of the caste system, he believed that thereshouldbenohierarchybetweencastes;thatallcastesshouldbeconsideredequal,and that the avarna castes, the Ati-Shudras, should be brought into the varnasystem.Ambedkar’sresponsetothiswasthat“theoutcasteisabye-productofthecaste system. There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing canemancipatetheoutcasteexceptthedestructionofthecastesystem.”22

It has been almost seventy years since the August 1947 transfer of powerbetweentheimperialBritishgovernmentandtheGovernmentofIndia.Iscasteinthepast?Howdoesvarnashramadharmaplayoutinournew‘democracy’?

Alothaschanged.IndiahashadaDalitPresidentandevenaDalitChiefJustice.TheriseofpoliticalpartiesdominatedbyDalitsandothersubordinatedcastesisaremarkable,andinsomewaysarevolutionary,development.Eveniftheformithas taken is that a small but visible minority—the leadership—lives out thedreamsof the vastmajority, givenour history, the aggressive assertionofDalitpride in the political arena can only be a good thing. The complaints aboutcorruption and callousness brought against parties like theBahujanSamajParty(BSP) apply to the older political parties on an even larger scale, but charges

levelledagainsttheBSPtakeonashriller,moreinsultingtonebecauseitsleaderissomeonelikeMayawati—aDalit,asinglewoman,andunapologeticaboutbeingboth.WhatevertheBSP’sfailingsmaybe,itscontributiontowardsbuildingDalitdignityisanimmensepoliticaltaskthatoughtnevertobeminimised.Theworryis that even as subordinated castes are becoming a force to reckon with inparliamentary democracy, democracy itself is being undermined in serious andstructuralways.

AfterthefalloftheSovietUnion,India,whichwasonceattheforefrontoftheNon-AlignedMovement,repositioneditselfasa‘naturalally’oftheUnitedStatesand Israel. In the 1990s, the Indian government embarked on a process ofdramaticeconomicreforms,openingupapreviouslyprotectedmarkettoglobalcapital, with natural resources, essential services and national infrastructure thathad been developed over fifty years with public money, now turned over toprivatecorporations.Twentyyears later,despitea spectacularGDPgrowthrate(whichhas recently sloweddown), theneweconomicpolicies have led to theconcentrationofwealth in fewer and fewerhands.Today, India’sonehundredrichestpeopleownassetsequivalenttoone-fourthofitscelebratedGDP.23Inanation of 1.2 billion,more than 800million people live on less thanRs 20 aday.24 Giant corporations virtually own and run the country. Politicians andpoliticalpartieshavebeguntofunctionassubsidiaryholdingsofbigbusiness.

How has this affected traditional caste networks? Some argue that caste hasinsulated Indian society and prevented it from fragmenting and atomising likeWesternsocietydidaftertheIndustrialRevolution.25Othersarguetheopposite;theysaythattheunprecedentedlevelsofurbanisationandthecreationofanewworkenvironmenthave shakenuptheoldorderandrenderedcastehierarchiesirrelevant if not obsolete. Both claims deserve serious attention. Pardon thesomewhat unliterary interlude that follows, but generalisations cannot replacefacts.

A recent listofdollarbillionairespublishedbyForbesmagazine features fifty-fiveIndians.26Thefigures,naturally,arebasedonrevealedwealth.Evenamongthesedollarbillionairesthedistributionofwealthisasteeppyramidinwhichthecumulativewealthofthetoptenoutstripstheforty-fivebelowthem.Sevenoutof those top ten are Vaishyas, all of them CEOs of major corporations withbusinessinterestsallovertheworld.Betweenthemtheyownandoperateports,mines, oilfields, gas fields, shipping companies, pharmaceutical companies,telephonenetworks,petrochemicalplants,aluminiumplants,cellphonenetworks,televisionchannels, fresh foodoutlets,highschools, filmproductioncompanies,

stem cell storage systems, electricity supply networks and Special EconomicZones. They are: Mukesh Ambani (Reliance Industries Ltd), Lakshmi Mittal(ArcelorMittal),DilipShanghvi(SunPharmaceuticals),theRuiabrothers(RuiaGroup),K.M.Birla(AdityaBirlaGroup),SavitriDeviJindal(O.P.JindalGroup),GautamAdani(AdaniGroup)andSunilMittal(BhartiAirtel).Oftheremainingforty-five,nineteenareVaishyastoo.TherestareforthemostpartParsis,BohrasandKhattris(allmercantilecastes)andBrahmins.TherearenoDalitsorAdivasisinthislist.

Apart from big business, Banias (Vaishyas) continue to have a firm hold onsmall trade in cities and on traditional rural moneylending across the country,whichhasmillionsof impoverishedpeasants andAdivasis, including thosewholive deep in the forests of Central India, caught in a spiralling debt trap. Thetribal-dominated states in India’s North East—Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Assam—have, since‘independence’, witnessed decades of insurgency, militarisation and bloodshed.Throughallthis,MarwariandBaniatradershavesettledthere,keptalowprofile,and consolidated their businesses. They now control almost all the economicactivityintheregion.

In the 1931Census,whichwas the last to include caste as an aspect of thesurvey, Vaishyas accounted for 2.7 per cent of the population (while theUntouchablesaccountedfor12.5percent).27Giventheiraccesstobetterhealthcareandmoresecurefuturesfortheirchildren,thefigureforVaishyasislikelytohave decreased rather than increased. Either way, their economic clout in theneweconomyisextraordinary.Inbigbusinessandsmall,inagricultureaswellasindustry, caste and capitalism have blended into a disquieting, uniquely Indianalloy.Cronyismisbuiltintothecastesystem.

Vaishyas are only doing their divinely ordained duty.TheArthashastra (circa350BCE)saysusury is theVaishya’sright.TheManusmriti(circa150CE)goesfurther and suggests a sliding scale of interest rates: 2 per cent per month forBrahmins,3percent forKshatriyas,4percent forVaishyas and5percent forShudras.28Onanannualbasis,theBrahminwastopay24percentinterestandthe Shudra andDalit, 60 per cent. Even today, for moneylenders to charge adesperatefarmerorlandlesslaboureranannualinterestof60percent(ormore)fora loan isquitenormal. If theycannotpay incash, theyhavetopaywhat isknown as ‘bodily interest’, which means they are expected to toil for themoneylender from generation to generation to repay impossible debts. It goeswithout saying that according to theManusmriti noone canbe forced into the

serviceofanyonebelongingtoa‘lower’caste.Vaishyas control Indianbusiness.Whatdo theBrahmins—thebhudevas (gods

onearth)—do?The1931Censusputstheirpopulationat6.4percent,but,liketheVaishyas and for similar reasons, that percentage toohasprobablydeclined.According to a survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies(CSDS), from having a disproportionately high number of representatives inParliament, Brahmins have seen their numbers drop dramatically.29 Does thismeanBrahminshavebecomelessinfluential?

AccordingtoAmbedkar,Brahmins,whowere3percentofthepopulationintheMadrasPresidencyin1948,held37percentofthegazettedpostsand43percentofthenon-gazettedpostsingovernmentjobs.30Thereisnolongerareliablewaytokeeptrackofthesetrendsbecauseafter1931theProjectofUnseeingsetin.Intheabsenceofinformationthatoughttobeavailable,wehavetomakedowith what we can find. In a 1990 piece called “Brahmin Power”, the writerKhushwantSinghsaid:

Brahmins form no more than 3.5 per cent of the population of ourcountry … today they hold as much as 70 per cent of government jobs. Ipresumethefigurerefersonlytogazettedposts.Intheseniorechelonsofthecivilservicefromtherankofdeputysecretariesupward,outof500thereare310 Brahmins, i.e. 63 per cent; of the 26 state chief secretaries, 19 areBrahmins;ofthe27GovernorsandLtGovernors,13areBrahmins;ofthe16SupremeCourtJudges,9areBrahmins;ofthe330judgesofHighCourts,166are Brahmins; of 140 ambassadors, 58 are Brahmins; of the total 3,300 IASofficers,2,376areBrahmins.Theydoequallywellinelectoralposts;ofthe508LokSabhamembers,190wereBrahmins;of244 in theRajyaSabha,89areBrahmins. These statistics clearly prove that this 3.5 per cent of BrahmincommunityofIndiaholdsbetween36percentto63percentofalltheplumjobsavailableinthecountry.HowthishascomeaboutIdonotknow.ButIcanscarcelybelievethatitisentirelyduetotheBrahmin’shigherIQ.31

The statistics Khushwant Singh cites may be flawed, but are unlikely to bedrastically flawed.Theyareaquarterof acenturyoldnow.Somenewcensus-basedinformationwouldhelp,butisunlikelytobeforthcoming.

AccordingtotheCSDSstudy,47percentofallSupremeCourtChiefJusticesbetween1950and2000wereBrahmins.Duringthesameperiod,40percentoftheAssociate Justices in theHighCourts and lowercourtswereBrahmin.The

BackwardClassesCommission,ina2007report,saidthat37.17percentoftheIndianbureaucracywasmadeupofBrahmins.Mostof themoccupied the topposts.

Brahmins have also traditionally dominated the media. Here too, whatAmbedkarsaidin1945stillhasresonance:

TheUntouchableshavenoPress.TheCongressPressisclosedtothemandisdetermined not to give them the slightest publicity.They cannot have theirown Press and for obvious reasons. No paper can survive withoutadvertisement revenue.Advertisement revenue can comeonly frombusinessandinIndiaallbusiness,bothhighandsmall,isattachedtotheCongressandwill not favour anyNon-Congress organisation. The staff of the AssociatedPressinIndia,whichisthemainnewsdistributingagencyinIndia,isentirelydrawnfromtheMadrasBrahmins—indeedthewholeofthePressinIndiaisintheirhands—andthey,forwell-knownreasons,areentirelypro-Congressandwill not allow any news hostile to theCongress to get publicity. These arereasonsbeyondthecontroloftheUntouchables.32

In2006, theCSDSdid a surveyon the social profileofNewDelhi’smediaelite. Of the 315 key decision-makers surveyed from thirty-seven Delhi-basedHindiandEnglishpublicationsandtelevisionchannels,almost90percentofthedecision-makersintheEnglishlanguageprintmediaand79percentintelevisionwerefoundtobe‘uppercaste’.Ofthem,49percentwereBrahmins.Notoneofthe315wasaDalitoranAdivasi;only4percentbelongedtocastesdesignatedasShudra, and 3 per cent were Muslim (who make up 13.4 per cent of thepopulation).

That’s the journalists and the ‘mediapersonalities’.Whoowns thebigmediahouses that theywork for?Of the fourmost importantEnglishnationaldailies,threeareownedbyVaishyasandonebyaBrahminfamilyconcern.TheTimesGroup (Bennett, ColemanCompany Ltd), the largest massmedia company inIndia,whoseholdingsincludeTheTimesofIndiaandthe24-hournewschannelTimesNow,isownedbytheJainfamily(Banias).TheHindustanTimesisownedby theBhartiyas,who areMarwariBanias;The IndianExpress by theGoenkas,also Marwari Banias; The Hindu is owned by a Brahmin family concern; theDainikJagranHindidaily,which is the largest sellingnewspaper inIndiawithacirculation of fifty-five million, is owned by the Gupta family, Banias fromKanpur. Dainik Bhaskar, among the most influential Hindi dailies with a

circulation of 17.5 million, is owned by Agarwals, Banias again. RelianceIndustries Ltd (owned by Mukesh Ambani, a Gujarati Bania) has controllingshares in twenty-sevenmajor national and regionalTV channels.TheZeeTVnetwork, one of the largest national TV news and entertainment networks, isownedbySubhashChandra,alsoaBania.(InsouthernIndia,castemanifestsitselfsomewhat differently. For example, the Eenadu Group—which ownsnewspapers, the largest filmcity intheworldandadozenTVchannels,amongotherthings—isheadedbyRamojiRaooftheKammapeasantcasteofAndhraPradesh, which bucks the trend of Brahmin–Bania ownership of Big Media.Anothermajormediahouse,theSunTVgroup, isownedbytheMarans,whoaredesignatedasa‘backward’caste,butarepoliticallypowerfultoday.)

After independence, in an effort to right a historic wrong, the Indiangovernment implemented a policy of reservation (positive discrimination) inuniversities and for jobs in state-runbodies for thosewhobelong toScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes.33 Reservation is the only opportunity theScheduledCasteshavetobreakintothemainstream.(Ofcourse,thepolicydoesnotapply toDalitswhohaveconverted toother religionsbutcontinue to facediscrimination.)Tobe eligible for the reservationpolicy, aDalitneeds tohavecompleted high school. According to government data, 71.3 per cent ofScheduled Caste students drop out before they matriculate, which means thatevenforlow-endgovernmentjobs,thereservationpolicyonlyappliestooneinevery four Dalits.34 The minimum qualification for a white-collar job is agraduatedegree.Accordingtothe2001Census,only2.24percentoftheDalitpopulation are graduates.35 The policy of reservation, however minuscule thepercentageoftheDalitpopulationitapplies to,hasneverthelessgivenDalitsanopportunity to find theirway intopublic services, tobecomedoctors, scholars,writers, judges, policemen and officers of the civil services. Their numbers aresmall,butthefactthatthereissomeDalitrepresentationintheechelonsofpoweraltersoldsocialequations.Itcreatessituationsthatwereunimaginableevenafewdecadesagoinwhich,say,aBrahminclerkmayhavetoserveunderaDalitcivilservant.36EventhistinyopportunitythatDalitshavewonforthemselveswashesupagainstawallofprivileged-castehostility.

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, forexample, reports that inCentralPublicSectorEnterprises,only8.4percentoftheA-Gradeofficers(pardonthehorribleterm)belongtotheScheduledCastes,whenthefigureshouldbe15percent.

ThesamereporthassomedisturbingstatisticsabouttherepresentationofDalits

andAdivasisinIndia’sjudicialservices:amongDelhi’stwentyHighCourtjudges,not one belonged to the Scheduled Castes, and in all other judicial posts, thefigurewas1.2percent;similarfigureswerereportedfromRajasthan;Gujarathadno Dalit or Adivasi judges; in Tamil Nadu, with its legacy of social justicemovements,onlyfouroutofthirty-eightHighCourtjudgeswereDalit;Kerala,withitsMarxistlegacy,hadoneDalitHighCourtjudgeamongtwenty-five.37Astudyoftheprisonpopulationwouldprobablyrevealaninverseratio.

FormerPresidentK.R.Narayanan,aDalithimself,wasmockedbythejudicialfraternitywhenhesuggestedthatScheduledCastesandTribes,whoaccordingtothe2011Censusmakeup25per centof India’s1.2billionpopulation, shouldfind proportionate representation as judges in the Supreme Court. “Eligiblepersonsfromthesecategoriesareavailableandtheirunder-representationornon-representation would not be justifiable,” he said in 1999. “Any reservation injudiciaryisathreattoitsindependenceandtheruleoflaw,”wastheresponseofaseniorSupremeCourtadvocate.Anotherhigh-profilelegalluminarysaid:“Jobquotas are a vexed subject now. I believe the primacy of merit must bemaintained.”38

‘Merit’istheweaponofchoiceforanIndianelitethathasdominatedasystemby allegedly divine authorisation, and denied knowledge—of certain kinds—tothe subordinatedcastes for thousandsofyears.Now that it isbeingchallenged,there have been passionate privileged-caste protests against the policy ofreservation in government jobs and student quotas in universities. Thepresumption is that ‘merit’ exists in an ahistorical social vacuum and that theadvantages that come from privileged-caste social networking and theestablishment’s entrenched hostility towards the subordinated castes are notfactorsthatdeserveconsideration.Intruth,‘merit’hasbecomeaeuphemismfornepotism.

In Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)—which is regarded as a bastion ofprogressive social scientists and historians—only 3.29 per cent of the faculty isDalitand1.44percentAdivasi,39whilethequotasaremeanttobe15percentand 7.5 per cent respectively. This, despite having supposedly implementedreservationfortwenty-sevenyears.In2010,whenthesubjectwasraised,someofits Professors Emeritus said that implementing the constitutionally mandatedreservation policy would “prevent JNU from remaining one of the premiercentres of excellence”.40 They argued that if reservation was implemented infaculty positions at JNU, “the well-to-do will move to foreign and privateuniversities, and the disadvantaged will no longer be able to get world class

educationwhichJNUhasbeensoproudtoofferthemsofar”.41B.N.Mallick,aprofessoroflifesciences,waslessshy:“Somecastesaregeneticallymalnourishedandsoverylittlecanbeachievedinraisingthemup;andiftheyare,itwouldbeundoingexcellenceandmerit.”42Yearafteryear,privileged-caste studentshavestagedmassprotestsagainstreservationacrossIndia.

That’s the news from the top. At the other end of New India, the SacharCommitteeReporttellsusthatDalitsandAdivasisstillremainatthebottomoftheeconomicpyramidwheretheyalwayswere,belowtheMuslimcommunity.43WeknowthatDalitsandAdivasismakeupthemajorityofthemillionsofpeopledisplaced bymines, dams andothermajor infrastructure projects.They are thepitifullylow-paidfarmworkersandthecontractlabourerswhoworkintheurbanconstruction industry. Seventy per cent of Dalits are by and large landless. Instates like Punjab, Bihar, Haryana and Kerala, the figure is as high as 90 percent.44

ThereisonegovernmentdepartmentinwhichDalitsareover-representedbya factorof six.Almost90percentof thosedesignatedas sweepers—who cleanstreets,whogodownmanholesandservicethesewagesystem,whocleantoiletsand do menial jobs—and employed by the Government of India are Dalits.45(Eventhissectorisupforprivatisationnow,whichmeansprivatecompanieswillbeabletosubcontractjobsonatemporarybasistoDalitsforlesspayandwithnoguaranteeofjobsecurity.)

While janitors’ jobs inmalls and incorporateofficeswith swanky toilets thatdo not involve ‘manual scavenging’ go to non-Dalits, there are (officially) 1.3millionpeople,46mostlywomen,whocontinue toearn their livingbycarryingbasketsofhumanshitontheirheadsastheycleanouttraditional-styletoiletsthatuse nowater. Though it is against the law, the IndianRailways is one of thebiggest employers ofmanual scavengers. Its 14,300 trains transport twenty-fivemillion passengers across 65,000 kilometres every day. Their shit is funnelledstraightontotherailwaytracksthrough172,000open-dischargetoilets.Thisshit,whichmustamounttoseveraltonnesaday,iscleanedbyhand,withoutglovesorany protective equipment, exclusively by Dalits.47 While the Prohibition ofEmployment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Bill, 2012, wasclearedby theCabinet andby theRajyaSabha inSeptember2013, the IndianRailwayshas ignored it.Withdeepeningpovertyandthe steadyevaporationofgovernment jobs, a section ofDalits has to fiercely guard its ‘permanent’ stateemploymentashereditaryshit-cleanersagainstpredatoryinterlopers.

AfewDalitshavemanagedtoovercometheseodds.Theirpersonalstoriesare

extraordinaryandinspirational.SomeDalitbusinessmenandwomenhavecometogethertoformtheirowninstitution,theDalitIndianChamberofCommerceandIndustry(DICCI),whichispraisedandpatronisedbybigbusinessandgivenplentyofplayontelevisionandbigmediabecauseithelpstogivetheimpressionthataslongasyouworkhard,capitalismisintrinsicallyegalitarian.48

TimewaswhenacasteHinducrossingtheoceanswassaidtohavelostcasteandbecomepolluted.Now,thecastesystemisupforexport.WhereverHindusgo,theytakeitwiththem.ItexistsamongthebrutalisedTamilsinSriLanka;itexistsamongupwardlymobileIndianimmigrantsinthe‘FreeWorld’,inEuropeaswellasintheUnitedStates.Forabouttenyears,Dalit-ledgroupsintheUKhavebeen lobbying tohave caste discrimination recognisedbyBritish law as aformofracialdiscrimination.Caste-Hindulobbieshavemanagedtoscuttleitforthemoment.49

Democracyhasn’teradicatedcaste.Ithasentrenchedandmodernisedit.Thisiswhyit’stimetoreadAmbedkar.

Ambedkarwas aprolificwriter.Unfortunatelyhiswork,unlike thewritingsofGandhi,NehruorVivekananda,doesnot shineout atyou from the shelvesoflibrariesandbookshops.

Ofhismanyvolumes,AnnihilationofCasteishismostradicaltext.Itisnotanargument directed at Hindu fundamentalists or extremists, but at those whoconsidered themselves moderate, those whom Ambedkar called “the best ofHindus”—and some academics call “left-wingHindus”.50 Ambedkar’s point isthat to believe in theHindu shastras and to simultaneously think of oneself asliberalormoderate isacontradiction interms.WhenthetextofAnnihilationofCaste was published, the man who is often called the ‘Greatest of Hindus’—MahatmaGandhi—respondedtoAmbedkar’sprovocation.

Theirdebatewasnotanewone.Bothmenweretheirgeneration’semissariesofaprofoundsocial,politicalandphilosophicalconflictthathadbegunlongagoandhas still bynomeans ended.Ambedkar, theUntouchable,was heir to theanticaste intellectual tradition that goes back to 200–100BCE.The practice ofcaste,which isbelieved tohave itsgenesis in thePurushaSuktahymn51 in theRigVeda (1200–900BCE), faced its first challengeonly a thousand years later,when the Buddhists broke with caste by creating sanghas that admittedeverybody, regardless of which caste they belonged to. Yet caste endured andevolved. In themid-twelfthcentury, theVeerashaivas ledbyBasava challenged

caste in South India, andwere crushed.From the fourteenth centuryonwards,the beloved Bhakti poet-saints—Cokhamela, Ravidas, Kabir, Tukaram, Mira,Janabai—became, and still remain, the poets of the anticaste tradition. In thenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiescameJotibaPhuleandhisSatyashodhakSamajinwesternIndia;PanditaRamabai,perhapsIndia’sfirstfeminist,aMarathiBrahminwhorejectedHinduismandconverted toChristianity (and challengedthat too); Swami Achhutanand Harihar, who led the Adi Hindu movement,started the Bharatiya Achhut Mahasabha (Parliament of Indian Untouchables),andeditedAchhut,thefirstDalitjournal;AyyankaliandSreeNarayanaGuruwhoshookuptheoldorderinMalabarandTravancore;theiconoclastIyotheeThassandhisSakyaBuddhistswhoridiculedBrahminsupremacyintheTamilworld.Among Ambedkar’s contemporaries in the anticaste tradition were E.V.RamasamyNaicker,knownas ‘Periyar’ intheMadrasPresidency, JogendranathMandal of Bengal, and Babu Mangoo Ram, who founded the Ad DharmmovementinthePunjabthatrejectedbothSikhismandHinduism.ThesewereAmbedkar’speople.

Gandhi,aVaishya,bornintoaGujaratiBaniafamily,wasthelatest ina longtraditionofprivileged-casteHindureformersandtheirorganisations—RajaRamMohan Roy who founded the Brahmo Samaj in 1828; Swami DayanandaSaraswati who founded the Arya Samaj in 1875; Swami Vivekananda whoestablished the Ramakrishna Mission in 1897 and a host of other, morecontemporaryreformistorganisations.52

PuttingtheAmbedkar–Gandhidebateintocontextforthoseunfamiliarwithitshistoryanditsprotagonistswillrequiredetoursintotheirverydifferentpoliticaltrajectories.Forthiswasbynomeansjustatheoreticaldebatebetweentwomenwhohelddifferentopinions.Eachrepresentedveryseparateinterestgroups,andtheirbattleunfolded in theheartof India’snationalmovement.What they saidanddidcontinues tohavean immensebearingoncontemporarypolitics.Theirdifferences were (and remain) irreconcilable. Both are deeply loved and oftendeifiedbytheirfollowers.Itpleasesneitherconstituencytohavetheother’sstorytold, though the two are inextricably linked. Ambedkar was Gandhi’s mostformidableadversary.Hechallengedhimnotjustpoliticallyorintellectually,butalsomorally.TohaveexcisedAmbedkarfromGandhi’sstory,whichisthestoryweallgrewupon, isatravesty.Equally,toignoreGandhiwhilewritingaboutAmbedkar is to do Ambedkar a disservice, because Gandhi loomed overAmbedkar’sworldinmyriadandun-wonderfulways.

TheIndiannationalmovement,asweknow,hadastellarcast.IthasevenbeenthesubjectofaHollywoodblockbusterthatwoneightOscars.InIndia,wehavemadeapastimeofholdingopinionpollsandpublishingbooksandmagazinesinwhich our constellation of founding fathers (mothers don’t make the cut) arearrangedandrearrangedinvarioushierarchiesandformations.MahatmaGandhidoeshavehisbittercritics,buthe still tops thecharts.Forothers toevengetalook-in, the Father of the Nation has to be segregated, put into a separatecategory:Who,afterMahatmaGandhi,isthegreatestIndian?53

DrAmbedkar(who,incidentally,didnotevenhaveawalk-onpartinRichardAttenborough’s Gandhi, though the film was co-funded by the Indiangovernment)almostalwaysmakesitintothefinalheat.Heischosenmoreforthepart heplayed indrafting the IndianConstitution than for thepolitics and thepassionthatwereatthecoreofhislifeandthinking.Youdefinitelygetthesensethathispresenceonthelistsistheresultofpositivediscrimination,adesiretobepoliticallycorrect.Thecaveatscontinuetobemurmured:‘opportunist’(becauseheservedasLabourMemberoftheBritishViceroy’sExecutiveCouncil,1942–46), ‘British stooge’ (because he accepted an invitation from the Britishgovernment to theFirstRoundTableConference in1930whenCongressmenwerebeingimprisonedforbreakingthesaltlaws),‘separatist’(becausehewantedseparate electorates forUntouchables), ‘anti-national’ (because he endorsed theMuslim League’s case for Pakistan, and because he suggested that Jammu andKashmirbetrifurcated).54

Notwithstanding the name-calling, the fact, as we shall see, is that neitherAmbedkar nor Gandhi allows us to pin easy labels on them that say ‘pro-imperialist’or ‘anti-imperialist’.Their conflict complicates andperhaps enrichesourunderstandingofimperialismaswellasthestruggleagainstit.

HistoryhasbeenkindtoGandhi.Hewasdeifiedbymillionsofpeopleinhisown lifetime. Gandhi’s godliness has become a universal and, so it seems, aneternalphenomenon.It’snotjustthatthemetaphorhasoutstrippedtheman.Ithas entirely reinvented him. (Which is why a critique of Gandhi need notautomaticallybetakentobeacritiqueofallGandhians.)Gandhihasbecomeallthings to all people: Obama loves him and so does the Occupy Movement.AnarchistslovehimandsodoestheEstablishment.NarendraModiloveshimandsodoesRahulGandhi.Thepoorlovehimandsodotherich.

HeistheSaintoftheStatusQuo.Gandhi’s lifeandhiswriting—48,000pagesboundintoninety-eightvolumes

of collected works—have been disaggregated and carried off, event by event,

sentence by sentence, until no coherent narrative remains, if indeed there everwasone.ThetroubleisthatGandhiactuallysaideverythinganditsopposite.Tocherrypickers,heoffers suchabewilderingvarietyofcherries thatyouhavetowonderiftherewassomethingthematterwiththetree.

For example, there’s his well-known description of an arcadian paradise in“ThePyramidvs.theOceanicCircle”,writtenin1946:

Independencebegins at thebottom.Thuseveryvillagewillbe a republicorpanchayathavingfullpowers.Itfollows,therefore,thateveryvillagehastobeself-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent ofdefending itself against the whole world … In this structure composed ofinnumerablevillagestherewillbeever-widening,never-ascendingcircles.Lifewillnotbeapyramidwiththeapexsustainedbythebottom.Butitwillbeanoceaniccirclewhosecentrewillbetheindividualalwaysreadytoperishforthevillage … Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power tocrush the inner circlebutwill give strength to allwithin andderive itsownstrengthfromit.55

Then there ishisendorsementof thecaste system in1921 inNavajivan. It istranslated from Gujarati by Ambedkar (who suggested more than once thatGandhi“deceived”people,andthathiswritingsinEnglishandGujaraticouldbeproductivelycompared):56

Casteisanothernameforcontrol.Casteputsalimitonenjoyment.Castedoesnotallowapersontotransgresscastelimitsinpursuitofhisenjoyment.Thatisthe meaning of such caste restrictions as inter-dining and inter-marriage…ThesebeingmyviewsIamopposedtoallthosewhoareouttodestroytheCasteSystem.57

Isthisnottheveryantithesisof“ever-wideningandneverascendingcircles”?It’s true that these statements weremade twenty-five years apart. Does that

mean thatGandhi reformed?Thathechangedhisviewsoncaste?Hedid, at aglacialpace.Frombelievinginthecastesysteminall itsminutiae,hemovedtosayingthatthefourthousandseparatecastesshould‘fuse’themselvesintothefourvarnas(whatAmbedkarcalledthe‘parent’ofthecastesystem).Towardstheendof Gandhi’s life (when his views were just views and did not run the risk oftranslatingintopoliticalaction),hesaidthathenolongerobjectedtointer-diningandintermarriagebetweencastes.Sometimeshesaidthatthoughhebelieved in

thevarna system, aperson’svarnaought tobedecidedby theirworth andnottheirbirth(whichwasalsotheAryaSamajposition).Ambedkarpointedouttheabsurdityofthisidea:“Howareyougoingtocompelpeoplewhohaveacquiredahigher status basedonbirth,without reference to theirworth, to vacate thatstatus?Howareyougoingtocompelpeopletorecognisethestatusduetoaman,in accordance to his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on hisbirth?”58Hewentontoaskwhatwouldhappentowomen,whethertheirstatuswouldbedecidedupontheirownworthortheirhusbands’worth.

NotwithstandingstoriesandanecdotesfromGandhi’sfollowersaboutGandhi’slove forUntouchablesand the inter-casteweddingsheattended, in theninety-eight volumes of his writing, Gandhi never decisively and categoricallyrenouncedhis belief in chaturvarna, the systemof four varnas.Thoughhewasgiven to apologising and agonising publicly and privately over things like theoccasional lapses inhis controloverhis sexualdesire,59henever agonisedovertheextremelydamagingthingshehadsaidanddoneoncaste.

Still,whynoteschewthenegativeandconcentrateinsteadonwhatwasgoodaboutGandhi,use it tobringout thebest inpeople?It isavalidquestion,andone that those who have built shrines to Gandhi have probably answered forthemselves.Afterall,itispossibletoadmiretheworkofgreatcomposers,writers,architects,sportspersonsandmusicianswhoseviewsareinimicaltoourown.Thedifference is that Gandhi was not a composer or writer or musician or asportsman.Heofferedhimself tous as a visionary, amystic, amoralist, a greathumanitarian, themanwho brought down amighty empire armed only withTruth and Righteousness. How do we reconcile the idea of the non-violentGandhi, the Gandhi who spoke Truth to Power, Gandhi the Nemesis ofInjustice,theGentleGandhi,theAndrogynousGandhi,GandhitheMother,theGandhiwho(allegedly)feminisedpoliticsandcreatedspaceforwomentoenterthepoliticalarena,theeco-Gandhi,theGandhiofthereadywitandsomegreatone-liners—how do we reconcile all this with Gandhi’s views (and deeds) oncaste? What do we do with this structure of moral righteousness that rests socomfortably on a foundation of utterly brutal, institutionalised injustice? Is itenoughtosayGandhiwascomplicated,andletitgoatthat?ThereisnodoubtthatGandhiwasanextraordinaryandfascinatingman,butduringIndia’sstruggleforfreedom,didhereallyspeakTruthtoPower?Didhereallyallyhimselfwiththepoorestofthepoor,themostvulnerableofhispeople?

“ItisfoolishtotakesolaceinthefactthatbecausetheCongressisfightingforthe freedomof India, it is, therefore, fighting for the freedomof thepeopleof

Indiaandofthelowestofthelow,”Ambedkarsaid.“ThequestionwhethertheCongress is fighting for freedomhas very little importance as compared to thequestionforwhosefreedomistheCongressfighting.”60

In 1931,whenAmbedkarmetGandhi for the first time,Gandhi questionedhim about his sharp criticism of the Congress (which, it was assumed, wastantamount to criticising the struggle for theHomeland). “Gandhiji, I havenoHomeland,”wasAmbedkar’s famous reply. “NoUntouchableworth thenamewillbeproudofthisland.”61

History has been unkind to Ambedkar. First it contained him, and then itglorifiedhim.IthasmadehimIndia’sLeaderof theUntouchables, theKingofthe Ghetto. It has hidden away his writings. It has stripped away the radicalintellectandthesearinginsolence.

Allthesame,Ambedkar’sfollowershavekepthislegacyaliveincreativeways.One of those ways is to turn him into a million mass-produced statues. TheAmbedkarstatueisaradicalandanimateobject.62Ithasbeensentforthintotheworld toclaimthe space—bothphysicalandvirtual,publicandprivate—that istheDalit’sdue.DalitshaveusedAmbedkar’sstatuetoasserttheircivilrights—toclaim land that is owed them, water that is theirs, commons they are deniedaccess to. The Ambedkar statue that is planted on the commons and ralliedaroundalwaysholdsabookinitshand.Significantly,thatbookisnotAnnihilationof Caste with its liberating, revolutionary rage. It is a copy of the IndianConstitutionthatAmbedkarplayedavitalroleinconceptualising—thedocumentthatnow,forbetterorforworse,governsthelifeofeverysingleIndiancitizen.

UsingtheConstitutionasasubversiveobjectisonething.Beinglimitedbyitisquiteanother.Ambedkar’scircumstancesforcedhimtobearevolutionaryandtosimultaneouslyputhisfootinthedooroftheestablishmentwheneverhegotachanceto.Hisgeniuslayinhisabilitytouseboththeseaspectsofhimselfnimbly,and to great effect. Viewed through the prism of the present, however, it hasmeantthatheleftbehindadualandsometimesconfusinglegacy:AmbedkartheRadical,andAmbedkartheFatheroftheIndianConstitution.Constitutionalismcancomeinthewayofrevolution.AndtheDalitrevolutionhasnothappenedyet.Westillawaitit.Beforethattherecannotbeanyother,notinIndia.

Thisisnottosuggestthatwritingaconstitutioncannotbearadicalact.Itcanbe,itcouldhavebeen,andAmbedkartriedhisbesttomakeitone.However,byhisownadmission,hedidnotentirelysucceed.

As India hurtled towards independence, both Ambedkar and Gandhi wereseriously concerned about the fate of minorities, particularly Muslims and

Untouchables,buttheyrespondedtotheapproachingbirthofthenewnationinverydifferentways.Gandhidistancedhimselfmoreandmorefromthebusinessofnationbuilding.Forhim,theCongressparty’sworkwasdone.Hewantedthepartydissolved.Hebelieved(quiterightly)thatthestaterepresentedviolenceinaconcentratedandorganisedform,thatbecauseitwasnotahumanentity,becauseitwassoulless,itoweditsveryexistencetoviolence.63InGandhi’sunderstandingswaraj(self-rule) livedinthemoralheartofhispeople,thoughhemadeitclearthatby‘hispeople’hedidnotmeanthemajoritycommunityalone:

IthasbeensaidthatIndianswarajwillbetheruleofthemajoritycommunity,i.e.,theHindus.Therecouldnotbeagreatermistakethanthat.Ifitweretobetrue,Iforonewouldrefusetocallitswarajandwouldfightitwithallthestrengthatmycommand,fortomeHindSwarajistheruleofallthepeople,istheruleofjustice.64

For Ambedkar, “the people”was not a homogeneous category that glowedwith the rosy hue of innate righteousness. He knew that, regardless of whatGandhi said, itwould inevitablybe themajoritycommunity thatdecidedwhatform swaraj would take. The prospect of India’sUntouchables being ruled bynothingotherthanthemoralheartofIndia’spredominantlyHindupeoplefilledhimwithforeboding.Ambedkarbecameanxious,evendesperate,tomanoeuvrehimself into becoming amember of theConstituentAssembly, a position thatwouldenablehimtoinfluencetheshapeandthespiritoftheConstitutionfortheemergingnationinrealandpracticalways.Forthishewasevenpreparedtosetasidehispride,andhismisgivingsabouthisoldfoe,theCongressparty.

Ambedkar’s main concern was to privilege and legalise “constitutionalmorality”overthetraditional,socialmoralityofthecastesystem.SpeakingintheConstituentAssemblyon4November1948,hesaid,“Constitutionalmoralityisnotanaturalsentiment.Ithastobecultivated.Wemustrealisethatourpeoplehaveyettolearnit.DemocracyinIndiaisonlyatop-dressingonanIndiansoilwhichisessentiallyundemocratic.”65

AmbedkarwasseriouslydisappointedwiththefinaldraftoftheConstitution.Still,hedidsucceedinputtinginplacecertainrightsandsafeguardsthatwould,asfarasthesubordinatedcasteswereconcerned,makeitadocumentthatwasmoreenlightenedthanthesocietyitwasdraftedfor.(Forothers,however,likeIndia’sAdivasis,theConstitutionturnedouttobejustanextensionofcolonialpractice.We’ll come to that later.)Ambedkar thoughtof theConstitution as awork in

progress.LikeThomasJefferson,hebelievedthatunlesseverygenerationhadtherighttocreateanewconstitutionforitself,theearthwouldbelongto“thedeadand not the living”.66 The trouble is that the living are not necessarily moreprogressive or enlightened than the dead.There are a number of forces today,politicalaswell ascommercial, thatare lobbying to rewrite theConstitution inutterlyregressiveways.

ThoughAmbedkarwas a lawyer, he had no illusions about law-making.AsLawMinisterinpost-independenceIndia,heworkedformonthsonadraftoftheHinduCodeBill.Hebelievedthatthecastesystemadvanceditselfbycontrollingwomen,andoneofhismajorconcernswas tomakeHindupersonal lawmoreequitable forwomen.67TheBillheproposed sanctioneddivorceandexpandedthepropertyrightsofwidowsanddaughters.TheConstituentAssemblydraggedits feet over it for four years (from 1947 to 1951) and then blocked it.68 ThePresident,RajendraPrasad,threatenedtostalltheBill’spassageintolaw.Hindusadhus laid siege toParliament. Industrialists and zamindarswarned theywouldwithdrawtheirsupportinthecomingelections.69EventuallyAmbedkarresignedasLawMinister.Inhisresignationspeechhesaid:“Toleaveinequalitybetweenclassandclass,betweensexandsex,whichisthesoulofHindusociety,andtogoon passing legislation relating to economic problems is tomake a farce of ourConstitutionandtobuildapalaceonadungheap.”70

More than anything else, what Ambedkar brought to a complicated,multifaceted political struggle, with more than its fair share of sectarianism,obscurantismandskulduggery,wasintelligence.

Annihilation of Caste is often called (even by some Ambedkarites) Ambedkar’sutopia—hisimpracticable,unfeasibledream.Hewasrollingaboulderupacliff,theysay.Howcanasocietysosteepedinfaithandsuperstitionbeexpectedtobeopen to such a ferocious attack on its most deeply held beliefs? After all, formillionsofHindusofallcastes,includingUntouchables,Hinduisminitspracticeis a way of life that pervades everything—birth, death, war, marriage, food,music,poetry,dance.Itistheirculture,theirveryidentity.HowcanHinduismberenouncedonlybecausethepracticeofcasteissanctionedinitsfoundationaltexts,whichmostpeoplehaveneverread?

Ambedkar’s point is—how can it not be? How can such institutionalisedinjustice,evenifitisdivinelyordained,beacceptabletoanyone?

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that theshastrasdonotsaywhattheyarebelievedtosay,iftheyaregrammaticallyreadorlogicallyinterpreted.Whatmattersishowtheshastrashavebeenunderstoodbypeople.YoumusttakethestandthatBuddhatook…Youmustnotonlydiscardtheshastras,youmustdenytheirauthorityasdidBuddhaandNanak.YoumusthavethecouragetotelltheHindusthatwhatiswrongwiththemistheir religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of thesacrednessofcaste.Willyoushowthatcourage?71

Gandhi believed that Ambedkar was throwing the baby out with thebathwater.Ambedkarbelieved thebaby and thebathwaterwere a single, fusedorganism.

Letusconcede—butneveraccept—thatAnnihilationofCasteisindeedapieceofutopian thinking. If it is, then letusconcedeandaccepthowreduced,howdepletedandhowpitiablewewouldbeasapeople ifeventhis—this rage, thisaudaciousdenunciation—didnotexistinourmidst.Ambedkar’sangergivesusallalittleshelter,alittledignity.

The utopianism that Ambedkar is charged with was very much part of thetradition of the anticaste movement. The poetry of the Bhakti movement isrepletewithit.Unlikethenostalgia-ridden,mythicalvillagerepublicsinGandhi’s‘RamRajya’(thereignofLordRam),thesubalternBhaktisantssangoftowns.72They sangof towns in timelessplaces,whereUntouchableswouldbe liberatedfrom ubiquitous fear, from unimaginable indignity and endless toil on otherpeoples’land.ForRavidas(alsoknownasRaidas,Ruhidas,Rohidas),thatplacewas Be-gham-pura, the City without Sorrow, the city without segregation,wherepeoplewerefreetogowherevertheywanted:

WherethereisnoafflictionorsufferingNeitheranxietynorfear,taxesnorcapitalNomenace,noterror,nohumiliation…SaysRaidastheemancipatedChamar:Onewhoshareswithmethatcityismyfriend.73

ForTukaram,thecitywasPandharpur,whereeverybodywasequal,wheretheheadmanhad towork ashard as everyoneelse,wherepeopledanced and sangandmingledfreely.ForKabir,itwasPremnagar,theCityofLove.

Ambedkar’sutopiawasaprettyhard-nosedone.Itwas,sotospeak,theCity

ofJustice—worldlyjustice.HeimaginedanenlightenedIndia,PrabuddhaBharat,thatfusedthebestideasoftheEuropeanEnlightenmentwithBuddhistthought.PrabuddhaBharatwas,infact,thenamehegavetothelastofthefournewspapersheeditedinhislifetime.

If Gandhi’s radical critique of Western modernity came from a nostalgicevocationofauniquelyIndianpastoralbliss,Ambedkar’scritiqueofthatnostalgiacame from an embrace of pragmatic Western liberalism and its definitions ofprogress and happiness. (Which, at this moment, is experiencing a crisis fromwhichitmaynotrecover.)

Gandhi called modern cities an “excrescence” that “served at the presentmoment the evil purpose of draining the life-blood of the villages”.74 ToAmbedkar,andtomostDalits,Gandhi’sidealvillagewas,understandably,“asinkof localism, adenof ignorance,narrow-mindedness andcommunalism”.75 Theimpetus towards justice turnedAmbedkar’s gaze away from thevillage towardsthecity,towardsurbanism,modernismandindustrialisation—bigcities,bigdams,big irrigation projects. Ironically, this is the very model of ‘development’ thathundredsofthousandsofpeopletodayassociatewithinjustice,amodelthatlaysthe environment towaste and involves the forcible displacementofmillionsofpeople from their villages and homes by mines, dams and other majorinfrastructural projects.Meanwhile,Gandhi—whosemythical village is soblindtoappalling,inherentinjustice—has,asironically,becomethetalismanforthesestrugglesforjustice.

While Gandhi promoted his village republic, his pragmatism, or what somemightcallhisduality,allowedhimtosupportandbesupportedbybigindustryandbigdamsaswell.76

The rival utopias of Gandhi and Ambedkar represented the classic battlebetweentraditionandmodernity.Ifutopiascanbesaidtobe‘right’and‘wrong’,thenbothwereright,andbothwerealsogrievouslywrong.Gandhiwasprescientenough to recognise the seedofcataclysm thatwas implanted in theprojectofWesternmodernity:

GodforbidthatIndiashouldevertaketoindustrialismafterthemanneroftheWest. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom is todaykeepingtheworldinchains.Ifanentirenationof300millionstooktosimilareconomicexploitationitwouldstriptheworldbarelikelocusts.77

Astheearthwarmsup,asglaciersmeltandforestsdisappear,Gandhi’swords

haveturnedouttobeprophetic.Buthishorrorofmoderncivilisationledhimtoeulogise a mythical Indian past that was, in his telling, just and beautiful.Ambedkar,onhispart,waspainfullyawareoftheiniquityofthatpast,butinhisurgencytomoveawayfromit,hefailedtorecognisethecatastrophicdangersofWesternmodernity.

Ambedkar’sandGandhi’sverydifferentutopiasoughtnot tobeappraisedorassessedbythe‘endproduct’alone—thevillageorthecity.Equallyimportantisthe impetus that drove those utopias. For Ambedkarites to call mass strugglesagainstcontemporarymodelsofdevelopment ‘eco-romantic’ and forGandhiansto hold Gandhi out as a symbol of justice and moral virtue are shallowinterpretationsoftheverydifferentpassionsthatdrovethetwomen.

The towns the Bhakti poet-saints dreamed of—Beghampura, Pandharpur,Premnagar—hadonethingincommon.TheyallexistedinatimeandspacethatwasliberatedfromthebondsofBrahminism.Brahminismwasthetermthattheanticaste movement preferred over ‘Hinduism’. By Brahminism, they didn’tmeanBrahminsasacasteoracommunity.Theymeantthedominoeffect,whatAmbedkarcalledthe“infectionofimitation”,thatthecastethatfirst“enclosed”itself—theBrahmins—setoff.“Someclosedthedoor,”hewrote,“othersfounditclosedagainstthem.”78

The “infection of imitation”, like the half-life of a radioactive atom, decaysexponentiallyasitmovesdownthecasteladder,butneverquitedisappears.Ithascreated what Ambedkar describes as a system of “graded inequality” in which“thereisnosuchclassasacompletelyunprivilegedclassexcepttheonewhichisatthebaseofthesocialpyramid.Theprivilegesoftherestaregraded.Eventhelowisprivilegedascomparedwithlower.Eachclassbeingprivileged,everyclassisinterestedinmaintainingthesystem.”79

TheexponentialdecayoftheradioactiveatomofcastemeansthatBrahminismispractisednot justbytheBrahminagainst theKshatriyaortheVaishyaagainsttheShudra,ortheShudraagainsttheUntouchable,butalsobytheUntouchableagainsttheUnapproachable,theUnapproachableagainsttheUnseeable.Itmeansthere is a quotientofBrahminism in everybody, regardless ofwhich caste theybelongto.Itistheultimatemeansofcontrolinwhichtheconceptofpollutionand purity and the perpetration of social as well as physical violence—aninevitablepartofadministeringanoppressivehierarchy—isnot justoutsourced,but implanted ineverybody’s imagination, including thoseat thebottomof thehierarchy.It’slikeanelaborateenforcementnetworkinwhicheverybodypoliceseverybodyelse.TheUnapproachablepolicestheUnseeable,theMalasresentthe

Madigas, the Madigas turn upon the Dakkalis who sit on the Rellis; theVanniyars quarrel with the Paraiyars who in turn could beat up theArundhatiyars.

Brahminism makes it impossible to draw a clear line between victims andoppressors,eventhoughthehierarchyofcastemakesitmorethanclearthattherearevictimsandoppressors.(ThelinebetweenTouchablesandUntouchables,forexample,isdeadclear.)Brahminismprecludesthepossibilityofsocialorpoliticalsolidarity across caste lines. As an administrative system, it is pure genius. “Asingle spark can light a prairie fire”wasMaoZedong’s famousmessage to hisguerrillaarmy.Perhaps.ButBrahminismhasgivenusinIndiaalabyrinthinsteadofaprairie.Andthepoorlittlesinglesparkwanders,lostinawarrenoffirewalls.Brahminism, Ambedkar said, “is the very negation of the spirit of Liberty,EqualityandFraternity”.80

AnnihilationofCasteisthetextofaspeechAmbedkarwassupposedtodeliverinLahorein1936toanaudienceofprivileged-casteHindus.TheorganisationthathadbeenboldenoughtoinvitehimtodeliveritspresidentialaddresswastheJat-PatTodakMandal(ForumforBreak-upofCaste)ofLahore,a‘radical’offshootoftheAryaSamaj.Mostof itsmemberswereprivileged-casteHindureformers.Theyaskedtobeprovidedthetextofthespeechinadvance,sothattheycouldprintanddistributeit.WhentheyreaditandrealisedthatAmbedkarwasgoingto launch an intellectual assault on the Vedas and shastras, onHinduism itself,theywrotetohim:

[T]hose of uswhowould like to see the conference terminatewithout anyuntowardincidentwouldpreferthatatleasttheword‘Veda’beleftoutforthetime being. I leave this to your good sense. I hope, however, in yourconcludingparagraphsyouwillmake it clear that theviewsexpressed in theaddressareyourownandthattheresponsibilitydoesnotlieontheMandal.81

Ambedkarrefusedtoalterhisspeech,andsotheeventwascancelled.Histextought not to have come as such a surprise to theMandal. Just a fewmonthspreviously,on13October1935,attheDepressedClassesConferenceinYeolaintheBombayPresidency(nowinthestateofMaharashtra),Ambedkarhadtoldanaudienceofmorethantenthousandpeople:

Becausewe have themisfortune of calling ourselvesHindus,we are treatedthus.Ifweweremembersofanotherfaithnonewouldtreatusso.Chooseanyreligionwhichgivesyouequalityofstatusandtreatment.Weshallrepairourmistake now. I had the misfortune of being born with the stigma of anUntouchable.However,itisnotmyfault;butIwillnotdieaHindu,forthisisinmypower.82

At that particularmoment in time, the threat of religious conversion by anUntouchable leaderofAmbedkar’s standingcameas theworstpossiblenews toHindureformers.

Conversion was by no means new. Seeking to escape the stigma of caste,Untouchableandotherdegradedlabouringcasteshadbeguntoconverttootherreligions centuries ago. Millions had converted to Islam during the years ofMuslimrule.Later,millionsmorehadtakentoSikhismandChristianity. (Sadly,caste prejudice in the subcontinent trumps religious belief. Though theirscripturesdonotsanctionit,eliteIndianMuslims,SikhsandChristiansallpractisecaste discrimination.83 Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal all have their owncommunities of Untouchable sweepers. So does Kashmir. But that’s anotherstory.)

The mass conversion of oppressed-caste Hindus, particularly to Islam,continues to sit uncomfortablywithHindu supremacist historywriting, whichdwellsonagoldenageofHinduismthatwasbrought tonaughtby thecrueltyandvandalismofMuslimrule.84Vandalismandcrueltytherecertainlywas.Yetitmeant different things to different people.Here is Jotiba Phule (1827–90), theearliestof themodern anticaste intellectuals, on the subject of theMuslim ruleandoftheso-calledgoldenageoftheAryaBhats(Brahmins):

TheMuslims,destroyingthecarvedstoneimagesofthecunningAryaBhats,forcibly enslaved them and brought the Shudras and Ati-Shudras in greatnumbersoutoftheirclutchesandmadethemMuslims,includingthemintheMuslim Religion. Not only this, but they established inter-dining andintermarriagewiththemandgavethemallequalrights.TheymadethemallashappyasthemselvesandforcedtheAryaBhatstoseeallthis.85

By the turn of the century, however, religious conversion came to havecompletelydifferentimplicationsinIndia.Anewsetofunfamiliarconsiderationsenteredthemix.Opposinganunpopularregimewasnolongerjustaquestionof

aconqueringarmyridingintothecapital,overthrowingthemonarchandtakingthethrone.Theoldideaofempirewasmetamorphosingintothenewideaofthenation state.Moderngovernancenow involved addressing thevolatilequestionoftherighttorepresentation:whohadtherighttorepresenttheIndianpeople?The Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Christians, the privileged castes, theoppressedcastes,thefarmers,theworkers?Howwouldthe‘self’inself-rule—the‘swa’ in swaraj—be constituted?Who would decide? Suddenly, a people whobelonged to an impossibly diverse range of races, castes, tribes and religions—who, between them, spoke more than one thousand languages—had to betransformed intomoderncitizensof amodernnation.Theprocessof synthetichomogenisation began to have the opposite effect. Even as themodern Indiannationconstituteditself,itbegantofracture.

Under the new dispensation, demography became vitally important. TheempiricaltaxonomyoftheBritishcensushadsolidifiedandfreeze-driedtherigidbutnotentirelyinflexiblehierarchyofcaste,addingitsownprejudicesandvaluejudgementstothemix,classifyingentirecommunitiesas‘criminals’and‘warriors’and so on. The Untouchable castes were entered under the accounting head‘Hindu’. (In 1930, according toAmbedkar, theUntouchables numbered about44.5million.86ThepopulationofAfricanAmericansintheUSaroundthesametimewas8.8million.)Thelarge-scaleexodusofUntouchablesfromthe‘Hindufold’ would have been catastrophic for the ‘Hindu’ majority. In pre-partition,undividedPunjab, forexample,between1881and1941, theHindupopulationdroppedfrom43.8percentto29.1percent,duelargelytotheconversionofthesubordinatedcastestoIslam,SikhismandChristianity.87

Hindureformershurriedtostemthismigration.TheAryaSamaj, founded in1875inLahorebyDayanandaSaraswati(bornMoolShankar,aGujaratiBrahminfrom Kathiawar), was one of the earliest. It preached against the practice ofuntouchability and banned idol worship. Dayananda Saraswati initiated theShuddhiprogrammein1877,to‘purifytheimpure’,and,intheearlytwentiethcentury,hisdisciplestookthisuponamassscaleinNorthIndia.

In 1899, Swami Vivekananda of the Ramakrishna Math—the man whobecame famous in 1893 when he addressed the Parliament of the World’sReligions inChicago in his sadhu’s robes—said, “Everyman going out of theHindu pale is not only aman less, but an enemy themore.”88 A raft of newreformistoutfitsappearedinPunjab,committedtosavingHinduismbywinningthe‘heartsandminds’ofUntouchables:theShradhanandaDalituddharSabha,theAll-IndiaAchhutodharCommittee,thePunjabAchhutUdharMandal89andthe

Jat-PatTodakMandalwhichwaspartoftheAryaSamaj.Thereformers’useofthewords‘Hindu’and‘Hinduism’wasnew.Untilthen,

theyhadbeenusedbytheBritishaswellastheMughals,butitwasnotthewaypeoplewhowere described asHindus chose to describe themselves.Until thepanicoverdemographybegan,theyhadalwaysforegroundedtheirjati,theircasteidentity. “The first and foremost thing that must be recognised is that Hindusocietyisamyth.ThenameHinduisitselfaforeignname,”saidAmbedkar.

ItwasgivenbytheMohammedanstothenatives[wholivedeastoftheriverIndus] for thepurposeofdistinguishing themselves. Itdoesnotoccur in anySanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel thenecessityofacommonname,becausetheyhadnoconceptionoftheirhavingconstituted a community.Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only acollectionofcastes.90

When reformers began to use theword ‘Hindu’ to describe themselves andtheir organisations, it had less to do with religion than with trying to forge aunifiedpoliticalconstitutionoutofadividedpeople.Thisexplainsthereformers’constant references to the ‘Hindu nation’ or the ‘Hindu race’.91 This politicalHinduismlatercametobecalledHindutva.92

Theissueofdemographywasaddressedopenly,andhead-on.“Inthiscountry,the government is based on numbers,” wrote the editor of Pratap, a Kanpurnewspaper,on10January1921.

ShuddhihasbecomeamatteroflifeanddeathforHindus.TheMuslimshavegrown from negative quantity into 70million. The Christians number fourmillion.220millionHindus are finding ithard to livebecauseof70millionMuslims. If their numbers increase onlyGod knowswhatwill happen. It istruethatShuddhishouldbeforreligiouspurposesalone,buttheHindushavebeenobligedbyotherconsiderationsaswelltoembracetheirotherbrothers.IftheHindusdonotwakeupnow,theywillbefinished.93

Conservative Hindu organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha took the taskbeyondrhetoric,andagainsttheirowndeeplyheldbeliefsandpracticebegantoproselytiseenergeticallyagainstuntouchability.Untouchableshadtobepreventedfromdefecting.They had to be assimilated, their proteins broken down.TheyhadtobebroughtintotheBigHouse,butkeptintheservants’quarters.HereisAmbedkaronthesubject:

ItistruethatHinduismcanabsorbmanythings.Thebeef-eatingHinduism(orstrictly speaking Brahminism which is the proper name of Hinduism in itsearlier stage) absorbed the non-violence theory of Buddhism and became areligion of vegetarianism.But there is one thingwhichHinduismhas neverbeen able to do—namely to adjust itself to absorb the Untouchables or toremovethebarofuntouchability.94

WhiletheHindureformerswentabouttheirbusiness,anticastemovementsledbyUntouchablesbegantoorganisethemselvestoo.SwamiAchhutanandHariharpresentedthePrinceofWaleswithacharterofseventeendemandsincludinglandreform, separate schools for Untouchable children and separate electorates.Anotherwell-knownfigurewasBabuMangooRam.Hewasamemberof therevolutionary, anti-imperialistGhadar Party established in 1913, predominantlybyPunjabimigrants in theUnited States andCanada.Ghadar (Revolt)was aninternationalmovementofPunjabi Indianswhohadbeen inspiredby the1857Mutiny,alsocalledtheFirstWarofIndependence.ItsaimwastooverthrowtheBritishbymeansofarmedstruggle.(Itwas,insomeways,India’sfirstcommunistparty.UnliketheCongress,whichhadanurban,privileged-casteleadership,theGhadarPartywascloselylinkedtothePunjabpeasantry.Thoughithasceasedtoexist, its memory continues to be a rallying point for several left-wingrevolutionarypartiesinPunjab.)However,whenBabuMangooRamreturnedtoIndiaafteradecade in theUnitedStates, thecaste systemwaswaiting forhim.He found he was Untouchable again.95 In 1926, he founded the Ad Dharmmovement, with Ravidas, the Bhakti sant, as its spiritual hero. Ad Dharmisdeclared that they were neither Sikh nor Hindu.Many Untouchables left theAryaSamajtojointheAdDharmmovement.96BabuMangooRamwentontobecomeacomradeofAmbedkar’s.

Theanxietyoverdemographymade for turbulentpolitics.Therewereotherlethalgamesafoot.TheBritishgovernmenthadgivenitselftherighttoruleIndiaby imperial fiat and had consolidated its power by working closely with theIndianelite,takingcarenevertoupsetthestatusquo.97Ithaddrainedthewealthofaonce-wealthysubcontinent—or,shallwesay,drainedthewealthoftheeliteinaonce-wealthysubcontinent.IthadcausedfaminesinwhichmillionshaddiedwhiletheBritishgovernmentexportedfoodtoEngland.98Noneofthatstoppeditfromalsolightingslyfiresthatignitedcasteandcommunaltension.In1905,itpartitionedBengal alongcommunal lines. In1909, itpassed theMorley–Minto

reforms,grantingMuslimsaseparateelectorateintheCentralaswellasProvincialLegislativeCouncils. It began to question themoral and political legitimacy ofanybody who opposed it. How could a people who practised something asprimitiveasuntouchabilitytalkofself-rule?HowcouldtheCongressparty,runby elite, privileged-caste Hindus, claim to represent the Muslims? Or theUntouchables?Coming fromtheBritishgovernment, itwas surelywicked,butevenwickedquestionsneedanswers.

The person who stepped into the widening breach was perhaps the mostconsummate politician the modern world has ever known—MohandasKaramchand Gandhi. If the British had their imperial mandate to raise themabovethefray,GandhihadhisMahatmahood.

GandhireturnedtoIndiain1915aftertwentyyearsofpoliticalactivityinSouthAfrica, and plunged into the national movement. His first concern, as anypolitician’swouldbe,wastostitchtogetherthevariousconstituenciesthatwouldallow the Indian National Congress to claim it was the legitimate and solerepresentativeoftheemergingnation.Itwasaformidabletask.Thetemptationsand contradictions of attempting to represent everybody—Hindus, Muslims,Christians, Sikhs, privileged castes, subordinated castes, peasants, farmers, serfs,zamindars,workers and industrialists—were all absorbed into theother-worldlyprovenanceofGandhi’sMahatmahood.

LikeShivainthemyth,whoswallowedpoisontosavetheworldinthestoryof the SamudraManthan—the churning of theOcean ofMilk—Gandhi stoodforemostamonghispeersand fellow-churners, and tried to swallowthepoisonthatroseupfromthedepthsashehelpedtoroilthenewnationintoexistence.Unfortunately,Gandhiwas not Shiva, and the poison eventually overwhelmedhim.ThegreatertheCongressparty’simpulsetohegemony,themoreviolentlythingsblewapart.

The three main constituencies it had to win over were the conservative,privileged-casteHindus,theUntouchablesandtheMuslims.

FortheconservativeHindus,theCongressparty’snaturalconstituency,Gandhiheld aloft the utopia of Ram Rajya and the Bhagvad Gita, his “spiritualdictionary”. (It’s the book most Gandhi statues hold.) He called himself a“Sanatani Hindu”. Sanatan dharma, by virtue of being ‘eternal law’, positionsitself as theoriginof all things, the ‘container’of everything.Spiritually, it is agenerous and beautiful idea, the very epitome of tolerance and pluralism.

Politically, it is used in the opposite way, for the very narrow purpose ofassimilation and domination, in which all religions—Islam, Buddhism, Jainism,Sikhism,Christianity—are sought tobeabsorbed.They’reexpected to functionlikesmallconcernsundertheumbrellaofalargerholdingcompany.

Towooitssecondmajorconstituency,theUntouchables,theIndianNationalCongresspassedaresolutionin1917abolishinguntouchability.AnnieBesantoftheTheosophicalSociety,afoundingmemberoftheCongress,presidedoverthemeeting.Ambedkar called it “a strange event”.99He republishedBesant’s essaypublished in the Indian Review in 1909, in which she had made a case forsegregatingUntouchablechildrenfromthechildrenof‘purer’castesinschools:

Their bodies at present are ill-odorous and foulwith the liquor and strong-smelling food out ofwhich for generations they have been built up; it willneedsomegenerationsofpurerfoodandlivingtomaketheirbodiesfittositinthecloseneighbourhoodofaschoolroomwithchildrenwhohavereceivedbodiestrainedinhabitsofexquisitepersonalcleanlinessandfedonpurefoodstuffs.WehavetoraisetheDepressedClassestoasimilar levelofpurity,notdragthecleantothelevelofthedirty,anduntilthatisdone,closeassociationisundesirable.100

The third big constituency the Congress party needed to address was theMuslims(who,forcasteHindus,countedonthepurity–pollutionscaleasmleccha—impure; sharing food and water with them was forbidden). In 1920, theCongressdecidedtoallywithconservativeIndianMuslimswhowereleadingthepan-Islamistagitation against the partitioning of theOttoman territories by theAlliesafter theFirstWorldWar.TheSultanof thedefeatedOttomanswas theCaliph,thespiritualheadofSunniIslam.SunniMuslimsequatedthepartitionoftheOttomanEmpirewithathreattotheIslamicCaliphateitself.LedbyGandhi,the Congress party leapt into the fray and included the Khilafat (Caliphate)agitation in its first national satyagraha. The satyagraha had been planned toprotest the Rowlatt Act passed in 1919 to extend the British government’swartimeemergencypowers.

WhetherornotGandhi’ssupportfortheKhilafatMovementwasjustordinarypoliticalopportunism isa subject thathasbeendebatedendlessly.ThehistorianFaisal Devji argues convincingly that at this point Gandhi was acting with acertain internationalism; as a responsible ‘imperial subject’ (whichwas how hesawhimselfinhisyearsinSouthAfrica),hewasattemptingtomorallytransform

Empire and hold it accountable to all its subjects.101Gandhi calledKhilafat an“ideal” and asked that the struggle of “Non-cooperation be recognised as astruggleof‘religionagainstirreligion’”.102BythishemeantthatHinduismandIslam should join forces to transform aChristianity that, asGandhi saw it,waslosing itsmoral core. Itwas during the firstNon-CooperationMovement thatGandhimade religion and religious symbolism the central tenet of his politics.Perhaps he thought he was lighting a wayside fire for pilgrims to warm theirsouls.Butitendedinablazethathasstillnotbeenputout.

Byexpressing solidaritywithapan-Islamicmovement,Gandhiwas throwinghisturbanintoamuchlargerring.Thoughhewenttogreatlengthstounderlinehis‘Hinduness’,hewasstakinghisclaimtobemorethanjustaHinduorevenanIndian leader—hewasaspiringtobethe leaderofall thesubjectsof theBritishEmpire.Gandhi’ssupportforKhilafat,however,playedstraightintothehandsofHinduextremists,whohadbythenbeguntoclaimthatMuslimswerenot‘true’Indiansbecause thecentreofgravityofMuslimfealty layoutsideof India.TheCongressparty’salliancewithconservativeMuslimsangeredconservativeHindusaswellasmoderateMuslims.

In1922,whentheNon-CooperationMovementwasatitspeak,thingswentout of control. Amob killed twenty-two policemen and burnt down a policestationinChauriChauraintheUnitedProvinces(today’sUttarPradesh).Gandhisawthisviolenceasasignthatpeoplehadnotyetevolvedintotruesatyagrahis,that they were not ready for non-violence and non-cooperation. Withoutconsultinganyother leaders,Gandhiunilaterallycalledoff the satyagraha.SincetheNon-CooperationMovementandtheKhilafatMovementwereconjoined,itmeantanendtotheKhilafatMovementtoo.Infuriatedbythisarbitrariness,theleadersoftheKhilafatMovementpartedwayswiththeCongress.Thingsbegantounravel.

By1925,DrK.B.HedgewarhadfoundedtheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS),aHindunationalistorganisation.B.S.Moonje,oneoftheearlyideologuesoftheRSS,travelledtoItaly in1931andmetMussolini.InspiredbyEuropeanfascism,theRSSbegantocreateitsownsquadsofstormtroopers.(Todaytheynumberinthemillions.RSSmembersincludeformerPrimeMinisterAtalBihariVajpayee,formerHomeMinisterL.K.Advani,andfour-timeChiefMinisterofGujaratNarendraModi.)BythetimetheSecondWorldWarbrokeout,Hitlerand Mussolini were the RSS’s spiritual and political leaders (and so they stillremain).TheRSSsubsequentlydeclaredthatIndiawasaHindunationandthatMuslims in Indiawere the equivalent of the Jews inGermany. In 1939,M.S.

Golwalkar,whosucceededHedgewarastheheadoftheRSS,wroteinwhatisregardedastheRSSbible,We,orOurNationhoodDefined:

Tokeepupthepurityofitsraceandculture,Germanyshockedtheworldbypurging thecountryof the semitic races—the Jews.Raceprideat itshighesthas beenmanifestedhere… a good lesson for us inHindustan to learn andprofitby.103

By 1940, theMuslim League, led byM.A. Jinnah, had passed the PakistanResolution.

In1947,inwhatmustsurelycountasoneofthemostcallous,iniquitousactsin history, theBritish government drew a hurried border through the countrythatcutthroughcommunitiesandpeople,villagesandhomes,withlesscarethanitmighthavetakentosliceupalegoflamb.

Gandhi,theApostleofPeaceandNon-violence,livedtoseethemovementhethought he led dissolve into a paroxysmof genocidal violence inwhich half amillionpeople(amillion,accordingtoStanleyWolpertinANewHistoryofIndia)lost their lives and almost twelve million lost their homes, their past andeverythingtheyhadeverknown.Throughthehorrorofpartition,Gandhididallhecouldtostillthemadnessandbloodlust.Hetravelleddeepintotheveryheartof the violence. He prayed, he pleaded, he fasted, but the incubus had beenunleashed and could not be recalled. The hatred spilled over and consumedeverything that came in its path. It continues to branch out, over-ground andunderground.Ithasbequeathedthe subcontinentadangerous,deeplywoundedpsyche.

Amidst the frenzy of killing, ethnic cleansing and chest-thumping religiousfundamentalismonboth sides, theGovernmentofPakistankept itsheadaboutone thing: it declared that Untouchable municipal sweepers were part of thecountry’s ‘essential services’ and impounded them, refusing thempermission tomove to India. (Who elsewas going to clean people’s shit in the Land of thePure?)Ambedkar raised thematterwithPrimeMinister JawaharlalNehru in aletterinDecember1947.104WithgreatdifficultyAmbedkarmanagedtohelpatleast a section of the ‘essential services’ get across the border. Even today inPakistan,whilevariousIslamistsectsslaughtereachotheroverwhoisthebetter,morecorrect,morefaithfulMuslim,theredoesnotseemtobemuchheartacheovertheveryun-Islamicpracticeofuntouchability.

Fivemonthsafterpartition,inJanuary1948,Gandhiwasshotdeadataprayer

meeting on the lawns of BirlaHouse,where he usually livedwhen he visitedDelhi.HisassassinwasNathuramGodse,aBrahmin,andaformeractivistoftheHinduMahasabha and theRSS.Godsewas, if such a thing is possible, amostrespectfulassassin.FirsthesalutedGandhifortheworkhehaddoneto‘awaken’people,andthenheshothim.Afterpullingthetrigger,hestoodhisground.Hemade no attempt to escape or to kill himself. In his book,Why IAssassinatedMahatmaGandhi,hesaid:

[But]inIndiacommunalfranchise,separateelectoratesandthelikehadalreadyunderminedthesolidarityofthenation,moreofsuchwereintheoffingandthesinisterpolicyofcommunal favouritismwasbeingpursuedby theBritishwiththeutmosttenacityandwithoutanyscruple.GandhijithereforefounditmostdifficulttoobtaintheunquestionedleadershipoftheHindusandMuslimsasinSouthAfrica.ButhehadbeenaccustomedtobetheleaderofallIndians.Andquitefranklyhecouldnotunderstandtheleadershipofadividedcountry.Itwasabsurdforhishonestmindtothinkofacceptingthegeneralshipofanyarmydividedagainstitself.105

Gandhi’sassassinseemedtofeelthathewassavingtheMahatmafromhimself.Godseandhisaccomplice,NarayanApte,climbedthegallowscarryingasaffronflag, a map of undivided India and, ironically, a copy of the Bhagvad Gita,Gandhi’s“spiritualdictionary”.

The Gita, essentially Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna during the battle of theMahabharata (in which brothers fought brothers), is a philosophical andtheological treatise ondevotion and ethical practice on a battlefield.Ambedkarwasn’tenamouredoftheBhagvadGita.HisviewwasthattheGitacontained“anunheard of defence ofmurder”.He called it a book that “offers a philosophicbasis to the theoryofChaturvarnaby linking it to the theoryof innate, inbornqualitiesinmen”.106

MahatmaGandhidiedasadanddefeatedman.Ambedkarwasdevastated.Hewantedhisadversaryexposed,notkilled.Thecountrywentintoshock.

Allthatcamelater.We’regettingaheadofthestory.

Formorethanthirty-fiveyearsbeforethat,Gandhi’sMahatmahoodhadbillowedlike a sail in the winds of the national movement. He captured the world’simagination. He roused hundreds of thousands of people into direct political

action.Hewasthecynosureofalleyes,thevoiceofthenation.In1931,attheSecondRoundTableConference inLondon,Gandhi claimed—with completeequanimity—thatherepresentedallofIndia.InhisfirstpublicconfrontationwithAmbedkar(overAmbedkar’sproposalforaseparateelectorateforUntouchables),Gandhifeltabletosay,“Iclaimmyself inmyownpersontorepresentthevastmassofUntouchables.”107

How could a privileged-caste Bania claim that he, in his own person,representedforty-fivemillionIndianUntouchablesunlesshebelievedheactuallywasaMahatma?MahatmahoodprovidedGandhiwithanamplitudethatwasnotavailable toordinarymortals. Itallowedhimtousehis ‘innervoice’affectively,effectively,andoften.Itallowedhimthebandwidthtomakedailybroadcastsonthe stateofhishygiene,hisdiet,hisbowelmovements,hisenemasandhis sexlife,andtodrawthepublicintoanetofprurientintimacythathecouldthenuseand manipulate when he embarked on his fasts and other public acts of self-punishment.Itpermittedhimtocontradicthimselfconstantlyandthensay:“Myaimisnottobeconsistentwithmypreviousstatementsonagivenquestion,buttobeconsistentwiththetruthasitmaypresentitselftomeinagivenmoment.TheresulthasbeenthatIhavegrownfromtruthtotruth.”108

Ordinarypoliticiansoscillatefrompoliticalexpediencytopoliticalexpediency.AMahatmacangrowfromtruthtotruth.

How did Gandhi come to be called a Mahatma? Did he begin with thecompassionandegalitarian instinctsofa saint?Didtheycometohimalongtheway?

In his recent biography of Gandhi, the historianRamachandraGuha arguesthatitwasthetwodecadeshespentworkinginSouthAfricathatmadeGandhiaMahatma.109Hiscanonisation—thefirsttimehewaspubliclycalledMahatma—wasin1915,soonafterhereturnedfromSouthAfricatobeginworkinIndia,atameeting inGondal, close tohis hometown,Porbandar, inGujarat.110At thetime,fewinIndiaknewmorethansomeverysketchy,ratherinaccurateaccountsof the struggles he had been engaged in.These need to be examined in somedetailbecausewhetherornottheymadehimaMahatma,theycertainlyshapedanddefinedhisviewsoncaste,raceandimperialism.Hisviewsonracepresagedhis views on caste.What happened in South Africa continues to have seriousimplications for the Indian community there. Fortunately, we have theMahatma’sownwords (and inconsistencies) togiveus thedetail and textureofthose years.111 To generations who have been raised on a diet of Gandhihagiographies(includingmyself),tolearnofwhathappenedinSouthAfricaisnot

justdisturbing,itisalmoststupefying.

THESHININGPATH

Gandhi,twenty-fouryearsoldandtrainedasalawyerinLondon’sInnerTemple,arrivedinSouthAfricainMay1893.HehadajobaslegaladvisertoawealthyGujaratiMuslimmerchant.ImperialBritainwastighteningitsgripontheAfricancontinent. Gandhi was unkindly jolted into political awakening a fewmonthsafterhearrived.Halfthestoryislegendary:Gandhiwasthrownoutofa‘Whitesonly’first-classcoachofatraininPietermaritzburg.Theotherhalfofthestoryislessknown:Gandhiwasnotoffendedbyracialsegregation.Hewasoffendedthat‘passengerIndians’—IndianmerchantswhowerepredominantlyMuslimbutalsoprivileged-casteHindus—who had come to South Africa to do business, werebeing treated on a parwith nativeBlackAfricans.Gandhi’s argumentwas thatpassenger Indians came toNatal as British subjects and were entitled to equaltreatmentonthebasisofQueenVictoria’s1858proclamation,whichassertedtheequalityofallimperialsubjects.

In 1894, he became secretary of the Natal Indian Congress founded andfunded by rich Indian merchants and traders. The membership fee, of threepounds,wasaprincelysumthatmeanttheNICwouldremainaneliteclub.(Fora sense of proportion—twelve years later, the Zulus would rise in rebellionagainsttheBritishforimposinganunaffordableone-poundpolltaxonthem.)

One of the earliest political victories for the NIC came in 1895 with a‘solution’ to what was known as the Durban Post Office problem. The PostOffice had only two entrances: one for Blacks and one for Whites. GandhipetitionedtheauthoritiesandhadathirdentranceopenedsothatIndiansdidnotneedtouse the sameentranceas the ‘Kaffirs’.113 Inanopen letter to theNatalLegislativeAssemblydated19December1894,hesaysthatboththeEnglishandtheIndians“springfromcommonstock,calledtheIndo-Aryan”,andcitesMaxMüller, Arthur Schopenhauer andWilliam Jones to buttress his argument. Hecomplains that the “Indian is being dragged down to the position of a rawKaffir”.114AsspokesmanfortheIndiancommunity,Gandhiwasalwayscarefultodistinguish—anddistance—passengerIndiansfromindentured(bonded)workers:

WhethertheyareHindusorMahommedans,theyareabsolutelywithoutanymoral or religious instruction worthy of the name. They have not learned

enoughtoeducatethemselveswithoutanyoutsidehelp.Placedthus,theyareapttoyieldtotheslightesttemptationtotellalie.Aftersometime,lyingwiththem becomes a habit and a disease. They would lie without any reason,without any prospect of bettering themselves materially, indeed, withoutknowingwhat they are doing. They reach a stage in life when theirmoralfacultieshavecompletelycollapsedowingtoneglect.115

TheIndianindenturedlabourwhose“moralfaculties”wereinsuchastateofcollapse were largely from the subordinated castes and lived and worked inconditions of virtual slavery, incarcerated on sugar cane farms. They wereflogged,starved,imprisoned,oftensexuallyabused,anddiedingreatnumbers.116

Gandhi soon became themost prominent spokesperson for the cause of thepassengerIndians.In1896,hetravelledtoIndiawhereheaddressedpacked—andincreasingly indignant—meetings about the racism that Indians were beingsubjected to in South Africa. At the time, the White regime was gettingincreasingly anxious about the rapidly expanding Indian population. For themGandhi was the leader of the ‘coolies’—their name for all Indians.117 In aperverse sense, their racismwas inclusive. It didn’t notice the distinctions thatGandhiwenttosuchgreatlengthstomake.

WhenGandhireturnedtoDurbaninJanuary1897,thenewsofhiscampaignhad preceded him. His ship was met by thousands of hostile Whitedemonstrators, who refused to let it dock. It took several days of negotiationbeforeGandhiwasallowedtodisembark.Onhiswayhome,on12January1897,hewas attacked and beaten.He bore the attackwith fortitude and dignity.118Two days later, in an interview to The Natal Advertiser, Gandhi once againdistancedhimselffromthe‘coolies’:

I have said most emphatically, in the pamphlets and elsewhere, that thetreatmentof the indentured Indians isnoworseorbetter inNatal than theyreceiveinanyotherpartsoftheworld.IhaveneverendeavouredtoshowthattheindenturedIndianshavebeenreceivingcrueltreatment.119

In1899,theBritishwenttowarwithDutchsettlersoverthespoilsofSouthAfrica.Diamonds had been discovered inKimberley in 1870, and gold on theWitwatersrand in 1886.TheAnglo-BoerWar, as itwas called then, is knownmore properly today as the South African War or the White Man’s War.Thousands of Black Africans and indentured Indian labourers were dragooned

intothearmiesoneitherside.TheIndianswerenotgivenarms,sotheyworkedasmenialsandstretcher-bearers.GandhiandabandofpassengerIndians,whofeltitwas their responsibility as imperial subjects, volunteered their services to theBritish.GandhiwasenlistedintheAmbulanceCorps.

ItwasabrutalwarinwhichBritishtroopsfoughtBoerguerrillas.TheBritishburntdownthousandsofBoerfarms,slaughteringpeopleandcattleastheysweptthrough the land. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians, mostly women andchildren,weremovedintoconcentrationcamps,inwhichalmostthirtythousandpeopledied.Manysimply starvedtodeath.120Theseconcentrationcampswerethe firstof theirkind, theprogenitorsofHitler’sexterminationcamps for Jews.Several years later, after he returned to India, when Gandhi wrote about theSouthAfricanwar inhismemoirs,hesuggestedthat theprisoners in thecampswerepractisingacheerfulformofsatyagraha(whichwasthecourseofactionheprescribedtotheJewsofGermanytoo):121

Boerwomenunderstoodthattheirreligionrequiredthemtosufferinordertopreservetheirindependence,andtherefore,patientlyandcheerfullyenduredallhardships … They starved, they suffered biting cold and scorching heat.Sometimesasoldierintoxicatedbyliquorormaddenedbypassionmightevenassaulttheseunprotectedwomen.Stillthebravewomendidnotflinch.122

After thewar, theBritishannounced that their troopswouldbegivena slabeachof“Queen’sChocolate”asarewardfortheirbravery.GandhiwrotealettertotheColonialSecretarytoaskforthelargessetobeextendedtotheAmbulanceCorpsleaders,whohadvolunteeredwithoutpay:“Itwillbegreatlyappreciatedby them and prized as a treasure if the terms under which the gift has beengraciouslymadebyHerMajestywouldallowofitsdistributionamongtheIndianleaders.”123TheColonial Secretary replied curtly to say that the chocolatewasonlyfornon-commissionedofficers.

In 1901, with the Boer War now behind him, Gandhi spoke of how theobjective of the Natal Indian Congress was to achieve a better understandingbetween the English and the Indians. He said he was looking forward to an“Imperial Brotherhood”, towardswhich “everyonewhowas the friend of theEmpireshouldaim”.124

This was not to be. The Boers managed to outmanoeuvre and out-brotherhoodGandhi. In 1902, they signed theTreaty ofVereenigingwith theBritish. According to the treaty, the Boer republics of the Transvaal and the

OrangeFreeStatebecamecoloniesoftheBritishEmpireunderthesovereigntyof the British Crown. In return, the British government agreed to give thecoloniesself-rule.TheBoersbecametheBritishgovernment’sbrutallieutenants.JanSmuts,onceadreadedBoer‘terrorist’,switchedsidesandeventuallyledtheBritish Army of SouthAfrica in the FirstWorldWar. TheWhite folksmadepeace.They divided the diamonds, the gold and the land between themselves.Blacks,Indiansand‘coloureds’wereleftoutoftheequation.

Gandhiwasnotdeterred.A fewyears after theSouthAfricanWar,heonceagainvolunteeredforactiveservice.

In1906, theZulu chiefBambatha kaMancinza led his people in an uprisingagainsttheBritishgovernment’snewlyimposedone-poundpoll tax.TheZulusandtheBritishwereoldenemiesandhadfoughteachotherbefore.In1879,theZulushadroutedtheBritishArmywhenitattackedtheZulukingdom,avictorythat put theZulu on theworldmap. Eventually, over the years, because theycouldnotmatchthefirepowerofBritishtroops,theywereconqueredanddrivenofftheirland.Still,theyrefusedtoworkontheWhiteman’sfarms;whichiswhybonded,indenturedlabourwasshippedinfromIndia.Timeandagain,theZulushadrisenup.DuringtheBambathaRebellion,therebels,armedonlywithspearsandcowhideshields,foughtBritishtroopsequippedwithmodernartillery.

As thenewsof the rebellioncame in,Gandhipublished a seriesof letters inIndianOpinion,aGujarati–Englishnewspaperhehadstartedin1903.(OneofitschiefbenefactorswasSirRatanjiJamsetjiTataoftheTataindustrialempire.)Inaletterdated18November1905,Gandhisaid:

AtthetimeoftheBoerWar,itwillberemembered,theIndiansvolunteeredto do any work that might be entrusted to them, and it was with greatdifficultythattheycouldgettheirservicesacceptedevenforambulancework.General Butler has certified as to what kind of work the Natal IndianVolunteerAmbulanceCorpsdid.IftheGovernmentonlyrealisedwhatreserveforce is beingwasted, theywouldmake use of it andwould give Indians athoroughtrainingforactualwarfare.125

On 14 April 1906, Gandhi wrote again in Indian Opinion (translated fromGujarati):

WhatisourdutyduringthesecalamitoustimesintheColony?Itisnotforusto saywhether the revoltof theKaffirs [Zulus] is justifiedornot.Weare in

Natal by virtue of British Power. Our very existence depends on it. It isthereforeourdutytorenderwhateverhelpwecan.TherewasadiscussioninthePressastowhatparttheIndiancommunitywouldplayintheeventofanactualwar.Wehave already declared in theEnglish columns of this journalthattheIndiancommunityispreparedtoplayitspart;andwebelievewhatwedidduringtheBoerWarshouldalsobedonenow.126

The rebellion was eventually contained. Chief Bambatha was captured andbeheaded. Four thousand Zulus were killed, thousands more flogged andimprisoned. Even Winston Churchill, Master of War, at the time UnderSecretaryofState,wasdisturbedbytheviolence.Hesaid:“Itismydutytowarnthe Secretary of State that this further disgusting butchery will excite in allprobabilitygreatdisapproval in theHouseofCommons…The scorebetweenblackandwhitestandsatpresentatabout3500to8.”127

Gandhi, on his part, never regretted the role he played in theWhiteMan’sWarandintheBambathauprising.Hejustreimaginedit.Yearslater,in1928,inSatyagrahainSouthAfrica,128thememoirshewroteinYerawadaCentralJail,bothstorieshad,shallwesay,evolved.Bythenthechessmenontheboardhadmovedaround.Gandhihad turnedagainst theBritish. Inhisnewaccount, the ‘Truth’about the stretcher-bearer corps in the Bambatha Rebellion had ‘grown’ intoanother‘Truth’:

TheZulu‘rebellion’brokeoutjustwhileattemptswerebeingmadetoimposefurtherdisabilitiesuponIndiansintheTransvaal…thereforeImadeanofferto the Government to raise a Stretcher-bearer Corps for service with thetroops…Thecorpswasonactiveserviceforamonth…Wehadtocleansethewoundsof severalZuluswhichhadnotbeenattended to for asmanyasfiveorsixdaysandwerethereforestinkinghorribly.Welikedthework.TheZuluscouldnottalktous,butfromtheirgesturesandtheexpressionintheireyestheyseemedtofeelasifGodhadsentthemoursuccour.129

Theretrospectivelyconstructedimageoftheflogged,defeatedZulu—adumbanimalconveyinghisgratitude toGod’smissionariesofpeace—iscompletelyatodds,asweshallsee,withhisviewsaboutZulusthatwerepublishedinthepagesofhisnewspapersduringthoseyears.InGandhi’sreimaginingofthestoryoftheBambathaRebellion,thebrokenZulubecomestheinspirationforanotherofhiscauses:celibacy.

WhileIwasworkingwiththeCorps,twoideaswhichhadlongbeenfloatingin my mind became firmly fixed. First, an aspirant after a life exclusivelydevotedtoservicemustleadalifeofcelibacy.Second,hemustacceptpovertyas a constant companion through life. Hemay not take up any occupationwhichwouldpreventhimormakehimshrinkfromundertakingthelowliestofdutiesorlargestrisks.130

Gandhi’s experiments with poverty and celibacy began in the PhoenixSettlement, a communehehad setup in1904. Itwasbuilton ahundred-acreplot of land in the heart ofNatal amidst the sugar fields thatwereworked byIndian indentured labour. The members of the commune included a fewEuropeansand(non-indentured)Indians,butnoBlackAfricans.

In September 1906, only months after the Bambatha Rebellion, despite hisoffersoffriendshipandhisdemonstrationsofloyalty,Gandhiwasletdownonceagain.TheBritishgovernmentpassedtheTransvaalAsiaticLawAmendmentAct.ItspurposewastocontrolIndianmerchants(whowereregardedascompetitiontoWhitetraders)fromenteringtheTransvaal.131EverymaleAsianhadtoregisterhimself and produce on demand a thumbprinted certificate of identity.Unregistered peoplewere liable to be deported.Therewas no right of appeal.Suddenly, a community whose leader had been dreaming of an “ImperialBrotherhood”hadbeenonce again reduced“to a status lower than thatof theaboriginalracesofSouthAfricaandtheColouredPeople”.132

Gandhi led the struggleof thepassenger Indiansbravely, and fromthe front.Two thousand people burned their passes in a public bonfire; Gandhi wasassaulted mercilessly, arrested and imprisoned. And then his worst nightmaresbecameareality.Themanwhocouldnotbear toevenshare theentrancetoapostofficewith‘Kaffirs’nowhadtoshareaprisoncellwiththem:

We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. WecouldunderstandnotbeingclassedwiththeWhites,but tobeplacedonthesamelevelwiththeNativesseemedtobetoomuchtoputupwith.IthenfeltthatIndianshadnotlaunchedourpassiveresistancetoosoon.Herewasfurtherproof that theobnoxious lawwasmeant to emasculate the Indians…Apartfromwhetherornotthisimpliesdegradation,Imustsayitisratherdangerous.Kaffirs as a rule are uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They aretroublesome,verydirtyandlivealmostlikeanimals.133

Ayearlater,thesixteenthofthetwentyyearshewouldspendinSouthAfrica,hewrote“MySecondExperienceinGaol”inIndianOpinion(16January1909):

IwasgivenabedinacellwherethereweremostlyKaffirprisonerswhohadbeenlyingill.Ispentthenightinthiscellingreatmiseryandfear…IreadtheBhagvad Gita which I had carried with me. I read the verses which had abearingonmysituationandmeditatingonthem,managedtocomposemyself.The reason why I felt so uneasy was that the Kaffir and Chinese prisonersappeared to be wild, murderous and given to immoral ways … He [theChinese]appeared tobeworse.Hecamenear thebedand lookedcloselyatme. I kept still.Thenhewent to aKaffir lying inbed.The twoexchangedobscenejokes,uncoveringeachother’sgenitals…Ihaveresolvedinmymindonanagitationtoensure that Indianprisonersarenot lodgedwithKaffirsorothers.Wecannot ignore the fact that there isnocommongroundbetweenthem andus.Moreover thosewhowish to sleep in the same room as themhaveulteriormotivesfordoingso.134

From inside jailGandhi began to petition theWhite authorities for separatewards in prisons. He led battles demanding segregation on many counts: hewantedseparateblanketsbecauseheworriedthat“ablanketthathasbeenusedbythedirtiestofKaffirsmaylaterfalltoanIndian’slot”.135Hewantedprisonmealsspecially suited to Indians—rice served with ghee136—and refused to eat the“mealie pap” that the ‘Kaffirs’ seemed to relish. He also agitated for separatelavatoriesforIndianprisoners.137

Twentyyearslater,in1928,the‘Truth’aboutallthishadtransmogrifiedintoanother storyaltogether.Responding toaproposal for segregatededucation forIndiansandAfricansinSouthAfrica,Gandhiwrote:

Indians have too much in common with the Africans to think of isolatingthemselves from them. They cannot exist in South Africa for any length oftime without the active sympathy and friendship of the Africans. I am notaware of the general body of the Indians having ever adopted an air ofsuperiority towards their African brethren, and itwould be a tragedy if anysuch movement were to gain ground among the Indian settlers of SouthAfrica.138

Then, in 1939, disagreeingwith JawaharlalNehru,who believed that Black

Africans and Indians should stand together against theWhite regime in SouthAfrica, Gandhi contradicted himself once more: “However much one maysympathisewiththeBantus,Indianscannotmakecommoncausewiththem.”139

Gandhiwas an educated,well-travelledman.Hewouldhave been awareofthewinds thatwereblowing inotherpartsof theworld.HisdisgracefulwordsaboutAfricanswerewritten around the same timeW.E.B.DuBoiswroteTheSouls ofBlackFolk: “Oneever feels this two-ness—anAmerican, aNegro; twosouls,twothoughts,twoun-reconciledstrivings;twowarringidealsinonedarkbody,whosedoggedstrengthalonekeepsitfrombeingtornasunder.”140

Gandhi’s attempts to collaboratewith a colonial regimewere takingplace atthesametimethattheanarchistEmmaGoldmanwassaying:

Thecentralisationofpowerhasbroughtintobeinganinternationalfeelingofsolidarity among the oppressed nations of the world; a solidarity whichrepresentsagreaterharmonyofinterestsbetweentheworkingmanofAmericaandhisbrothersabroadthanbetweentheAmericanminerandhisexploitingcompatriot;asolidaritywhichfearsnotforeigninvasion,becauseitisbringingall theworkers to thepointwhen theywill say to theirmasters, ‘Goanddoyourownkilling.Wehavedoneitlongenoughforyou.’141

Pandita Ramabai (1858–1922), Gandhi’s contemporary from India, did nothavehisunfortunate instincts.ThoughshewasbornaBrahmin, sherenouncedHinduism for its patriarchy and its practice of caste, became a Christian, andquarrelled with the Anglican Church too, earning a place of pride in India’santicaste tradition. She travelled to the US in 1886 where she met HarrietTubman,whohadoncebeenaslave,whomsheadmiredmorethananybodyshehadevermet.ContrastGandhi’sattitude towards theAfricanpeople toPanditaRamabai’sdescriptionofhermeetingwithHarrietTubman:

Harriet still works. She has a little house of her own, where she and herhusbandliveandworktogetherfortheirownpeople…Harrietisverylargeandstrong.Shehuggedmelikeabearandshookmebythehandtillmypoorlittlehandached!142

In1873,JotibaPhulededicatedhisGulamgiri(Slavery)to

The good people of the United States as a token of admiration for theirsublime disinterested and self sacrificing devotion in the cause of Negro

Slavery;andwithanearnestdesire,thatmycountrymenmaytaketheirnobleexampleastheirguideintheemancipationoftheirShudraBrothersfromthetrammelsofBrahminthraldom.143

Phule—who, among other things, campaigned for widow remarriage, girls’education,andstartedaschoolforUntouchables—describedhow“theownersofslavestreatedtheslavesasbeastsofburden,rainingkicksandblowsonthemallthetimeandstarvingthem”,andhowtheywould“harnesstheslavesasbullocksandmake them plough the fields in the blazing sun”. Phule believed that theShudraandAti-Shudrawouldunderstandslaverybetterthananyoneelsebecause“they have a direct experience of slavery as compared to the otherswho havenever experienced it so; the Shudras were conquered and enslaved by theBrahmins”.144

Theconnectionbetweenracismandcasteismwasmademore thanacenturybefore the 2001 Durban conference. Empathy sometimes achieves whatscholarshipcannot.

Despite all of Gandhi’s suffering in unsegregated South African prisons, thesatyagraha against the Pass Laws did not gain much traction. After leading anumber of protests against registering and fingerprinting, Gandhi suddenlyannounced that Indians would agree to be fingerprinted as long as it wasvoluntary. It would not be the first time that he would make a deal thatcontradictedwhatthestrugglewasaboutinthefirstplace.

Aroundthistime,hiswealthyarchitectfriendHermannKallenbachgiftedhim1,100 acres of farmland just outside Johannesburg. Here he set up his secondcommune,TolstoyFarm,withonethousandfruittreesonit.OnTolstoyFarmhe began his experiments in purity and spirituality, and developed his home-grownprotocolforthepracticeofsatyagraha.

GivenGandhi’s proposals to partnerwith theBritish in their colonisationofSouth Africa—and British reluctance to accept that partnership—satyagraha,appealing toyouropponentwith the forceofTruthandLove,was theperfectpoliticaltool.Gandhiwasnottryingtooverwhelmordestroyarulingstructure;hesimplywantedtobefriendswithit.Theintensityofhisdistasteforthe“rawKaffir”wasmatchedbyhis affection and admiration for theBritish. Satyagrahaseemedtobeawayofreassuringthem,awayofsaying:“Youcantrustus.Lookatus.Wewouldratherharmourselves thanharmyou.” (This isnot to suggest

thatsatyagrahaisnot,andcannot, incertainsituations,beaneffectivemeansofpolitical resistance. I ammerely describing the circumstances inwhichGandhibeganhisexperimentswithsatyagraha.)

Essentially, his idea of satyagraha revolved around a regimenof renunciationand purification. Renunciation naturally segued into a missionary approach topolitics.Theemphasisonpurityandpurificationobviouslyderivedfromthecastesystem,thoughGandhiinvertedthegoalpostsandcalledhislaterministrationstoUntouchables a process of ‘self-purification’.On thewhole, it was a brand ofhair-shirtChristianitycombinedwithhisownversionofHinduismandesotericvegetarianism(whichendedupunderliningthe‘impurity’ofDalits,Muslimsandall the rest of us meat-eaters—in other words, the majority of the Indianpopulation). The other attraction was brahmacharya—celibacy. The practice ofsemen retention and complete sexual abstinence became the minimumqualificationfora‘pure’satyagrahi.Crucifixionoftheflesh,denialofpleasureanddesire—and eventually almost every normal human instinct—became a majortheme.Eveneatingcameinforsomeseriousstick:“Takingfoodisasdirtyanactasansweringthecallofnature.”145

Wouldapersonwhowasstarvingthinkofeatingasa‘dirtyact’?Gandhi always said thathewanted to live like thepoorestof thepoor.The

questionis,canpovertybesimulated?Poverty,afterall,isnotjustaquestionofhaving no money or no possessions. Poverty is about having no power. As apolitician, it was Gandhi’s business to accumulate power, which he dideffectively.Satyagrahawouldn’thaveworked,evenasmuchasitdid,ifitwasn’tforhis starpower.Ifyouarepowerful,youcan livesimply,butyoucannotbepoor. InSouthAfrica, it took a lotof farmland andorganic fruit trees tokeepGandhiinpoverty.

The battle of the poor and the powerless is one of reclamation, notrenunciation.ButGandhi,likemanysuccessfulgodmen,wasanastutepolitician.He understood that the act of renunciation by someone who has plenty torenounce has always appealed to the popular imagination. (Gandhi wouldeventuallydiscardhisWesternsuitandputonadhotiinordertodress likethepoorest of the poor. Ambedkar, on the other hand, born unmoneyed,Untouchable, and denied the right towear clothes that privileged-caste peoplewore,wouldshowhisdefiancebywearingathree-piecesuit.)

The irony is that while Gandhi was performing the rituals of poverty inTolstoyFarm,hewasnotquestioningtheaccumulationofcapitalortheunequaldistributionofwealth.Hewasnotholdingoutforimprovedworkingconditions

fortheindentured,orforthereturnoflandtothoseithadbeenstolenfrom.Hewas fighting for Indian merchants’ right to expand their businesses to theTransvaalandtocompetewithBritishmerchants.

For centuries beforeGandhi and for years after him,Hindu rishis and yogishave practised feats of renunciation farmore arduous thanGandhi’s.However,theyhaveusuallydone italone,ona snowymountainsideor inacave set inawindblowncliff.Gandhi’sgeniuswasthatheyokedhisother-worldlysearchformokshatoaveryworldly,politicalcauseandperformedboth,likeafusiondance,foraliveaudience,inalive-intheatre.Overtheyears,heexpandedhisstrangeexperimentstoincludehiswifeaswellasotherpeople,someofthemtooyoungtoknowwhattheywerebeingsubjectedto.Towardstheendofhislife,asanoldman in his seventies, he took to sleeping with two young girls, Manu, hisseventeen-year-old grand-niece, and Abha (who were known as his “walkingsticks”).146Hedidthis,hesaid,inordertogaugethedegreeofsuccessorfailureofhisconquestoversexualdesire.Leavingasidetheverycontentious,disturbingissues of consent and propriety, leaving aside the effect it had on the girls, the‘experiment’raisesanotherdistressing,almosthorrifyingquestion.ForGandhitoextrapolatefromthe‘results’ofsleepingwithtwo(orthree,orfour)womenthathe had, or had not, conquered heterosexual desire suggests that he viewedwomennotasindividuals,butasacategory.That,forhim,averysmallsampleofafewphysicalspecimens, includinghisowngrand-niece,couldstandinforthewholespecies.

GandhiwroteatlengthabouttheexperimentsheconductedatTolstoyFarm.On one occasion, he describes how he sleptwith young boys and girls spreadaroundhim,“takingcaretoarrangetheorderofthebeds”,butknowingfullwellthat“anyamountofsuchcarewouldhavebeenfutileincaseofawickedmind”.Then:

I sent the boys reputed to be mischievous and the innocent young girls tobatheinthesamespotatthesametime.Ihadfullyexplainedthedutyofself-restrainttothechildren,whowereallfamiliarwithmySatyagrahadoctrine.Iknew,andsodidthechildren,thatIlovedthemwithamother’slove…Wasitafollytoletthechildrenmeetthereforbathandyettoexpectthemtobeinnocent?

The‘trouble’thatGandhihadbeenanticipating—spoilingfor,actually—withamother’sprescience,tookplace:

Oneday,oneoftheyoungmenmadefunoftwogirls,andthegirlsthemselvesor some child brought me the information. The news mademe tremble. Imade inquiries and found that the reportwas true. I remonstratedwith theyoungmen,butthatwasnotenough.Iwishedthetwogirlstohavesomesignontheirpersonasawarningtoeveryyoungmanthatnoevileyemightbecastupon them, and as a lesson to everygirl thatnoonedare assail theirpurity.ThepassionateRavanacouldnotsomuchastouchSitawithevilintentwhileRamawasthousandsofmilesaway.Whatmarkshouldthegirlsbearsoastogivethemasenseofsecurityandatthesametimetosterilisethesinner’seye?Thisquestionkeptmeawakeforthenight.

Bymorning,Gandhihadmadehisdecision.He“gentlysuggestedtothegirlsthattheymightlethimcutofftheirfinelonghair”.Atfirsttheywerereluctant.Hekeptthepressureupandmanagedtowintheelderlywomenofthefarmovertohis side.Thegirls came around after all, “and atonce theveryhand that isnarrating this incident set to cut off their hair. And afterwards analysed andexplainedmyprocedurebeforemyclass,withexcellentresults.Ineverheardofajokeagain.”147

Thereisnomentionofwhatpunishmentthesamemindthathadthoughtuptheideaofcuttingthegirls’hairhadthoughtupfortheboys.

Gandhi did indeedmake the space forwomen to participate in the nationalmovement.Butthosewomenhadtobevirtuous;theyhadto,sotospeak,bear“marks”upontheirpersonthatwould“sterilisethesinner’seye”.Theyhadtobeobedientwomenwhoneverchallengedthetraditionalstructuresofpatriarchy.

Gandhimayhaveenjoyedandlearnedagreatdealfromhis‘experiments’.Buthe’sgonenow,andlefthisfollowerswithalegacyofajoyless,joke-freeworld:nodesire,nosex—whichhedescribedasapoisonworsethansnakebite148—nofood,nobeads,noniceclothes,nodance,nopoetry.Andverylittlemusic.ItistruethatGandhifiredtheimaginationofmillionsofpeople.It’salsotruethathehasdebilitatedthepolitical imaginationofmillionswithhis impossiblestandardsof‘purity’andrighteousnessasaminimumqualificationforpoliticalengagement:

Chastityisoneofthegreatestdisciplineswithoutwhichthemindcannotattainthe requisite firmness. A man who loses stamina becomes emasculated andcowardly…Severalquestionsarise:Howisonetocarryone’swifewithone?Yet those who wish to take part in great work are bound to solve thesepuzzles.149

Noquestions seem tohave arisen as tohowonewas to carryone’shusbandwith one. Nor any thoughts on whether satyagraha would be effective, forexample,againstthehoarytraditionofmaritalrape.

In1909,Gandhipublishedhisfirstandmostfamouspoliticaltract,HindSwaraj.Itwas written in Gujarati and translated into English by Gandhi himself. It isconsideredtobeapieceofgenuinelyoriginalthinking,aclassic.Gandhihimselfremainedpleasedwithittotheendofhisdays.HindSwarajdefinesGandhiinthewayAnnihilationofCastedefinesAmbedkar.Soonafteritwaspublished,copiesofitwere seized inBombay, and itwasbanned forbeing seditious.Thebanwasliftedonlyin1938.150

ItwasconceivedofasGandhi’sresponsetoIndiansocialists, impatientyoungnihilistsandnationalistshehadmetinLondon.LiketheBhagvadGita(andJotibaPhule’sGulamgiri),HindSwarajiswrittenasaconversationbetweentwopeople.Its best and most grounded passages are those in which he writes about howHindus and Muslims would have to learn to accommodate each other afterswaraj.ThismessageoftoleranceandinclusivenessbetweenHindusandMuslimscontinuestobeGandhi’sreal,lastingandmostimportantcontributiontotheideaofIndia.

Nevertheless,inHindSwaraj,Gandhi(likemanyright-wingHindunationalistswoulddointhefuture)151superimposesHinduism’sspiritualmap—themapofitsholy places—on the territorial map of India, and uses that to define theboundaries of the country. By doing so, consciously or unconsciously,GandhipresentstheHomelandasunmistakablyHindu.Buthegoeson,inthemannerofagoodhost,tosaythat“acountrymusthaveafacultyforassimilation”andthat“theHindus,theMohammedans,theParseesandtheChristianswhohavemadeIndiatheircountry,arefellowcountrymen”.152ThetimeGandhispentinSouthAfrica—where the majority of his clients, and later his political constituency,werewealthyMuslimbusinessmen—seemstohavemadehimmoreattentivetothe Muslim question than he might have otherwise been. For the sin of thisattentiveness,thisobviouslyunforgivablecomplexity,hepaidwithhislife.

The rest of Hind Swaraj is a trenchant (some say lyrical) denunciation ofmodernity.LiketheLuddites,butwithnocallsformachinesmashing,it indictstheindustrialrevolutionandmodernmachinery.ItcallstheBritishParliamenta“sterile woman” and a “prostitute”. It condemns doctors, lawyers and therailways,anddismissesWesterncivilisationas“satanic”.Itmightnothavebeena

crudeorevenexcessiveadjectivetousefromthepointofviewofthegenocideoftensofmillionsofpeopleintheAmericas,inAustralia,theCongoandWestAfricathatwasaninalienablepartofthecolonialproject.Butitwasalittleodd,consideringGandhi’sproposalsforan“ImperialBrotherhood”.Andevenodder,considering his respect for the British and his disdain for the uncivilised “rawKaffir”.

“What then is civilisation?” the ‘Reader’ eventually asks the ‘Editor’. TheEditor then launches into an embarrassing, chauvinistic reverie of a mythicalIndia:“IbelievethatthecivilisationIndiahasevolvedisnottobebeatenintheworld.”153 It’s tempting to reproduce the whole chapter, but since that isn’tpossible,herearesomekeypassages:

Aman is not necessarily happy because he is rich or unhappy because he ispoor.Therichareoftenseentobeunhappy,thepoortobehappy.Millionswillalwaysremainpoor…Observingallthisourancestorsdissuadedusfromluxuriesandpleasures.Wehavemanagedwith the samekindofploughas itexistedthousandsofyearsago.Wehaveretainedthesamekindofcottageswehadinformertimesandourindigenouseducationremainsthesameasbefore.Wehavehadnosystemoflife-corrodingcompetition.Eachfollowedhisownoccupationortrade.Andchargedaregulationwage.Itwasnotthatwedidnotknowhowtoinventmachinery,butour forefathersknewthat, ifwesetourheartsaftersuchthingswewouldbecomeslavesandloseourmoralfibre…Anationwithaconstitutionlikethis is fittertoteachothersthantolearnfromothers.Thisnationhadcourts, lawyersanddoctors,but theywereallwithinbounds…Justicewastolerablyfair.154

Gandhi’svalorisationofthemythicvillagecameatapointinhislifewhenhedoesnotseemtohaveevenvisitedanIndianvillage.155Andyethisfaithinitisfreeofdoubtorcaveats.

The common people lived independently, and followed their agriculturaloccupation.They enjoyed trueHomeRule.Andwhere this cursedmoderncivilisationhasnotreached,Indiaremainsasitwasbefore…Iwouldcertainlyadviseyouandthoselikeyouwholovethemotherlandtogointotheinteriorthathasyetnotbeenpollutedbytherailways,andtolivethereforatleastsixmonths;youmightbepatrioticandspeakofHomeRule.NowyouseewhatIconsidertoberealcivilisation.ThosewhowanttochangeconditionssuchasI

havedescribedareenemiesofthecountryandaresinners.156

Other than the vague allusion to the idea of people following an ancestraloccupationortradethatwasrewardedbya“regulationwage”,casteisabsentinGandhi’sreverie.ThoughGandhilaterinsistedthatuntouchabilityhad troubledhimsincehewasaboy,157inHindSwarajhemakesabsolutelynomentionofit.

Around the timeHindSwarajwas published, the first biographies ofGandhiwerealsopublished:M.K.Gandhi:AnIndianPatriotinSouthAfricabyReverendJosephDoke(aministeroftheJohannesburgBaptistChurch)in1909,andM.K.Gandhi: A Sketch of His Life andWork in 1910 by Henry S.L. Polak, one ofGandhi’sclosestfriendsandmostadmiringofdisciples.ThesecontainedthefirstintimationsofcomingMahatmahood.

In1910,theseparateBritishcoloniesofNatal,theCape,theTransvaalandtheOrangeFreeStateunitedtobecometheUnionofSouthAfrica,aself-governingDominionundertheBritishcrown,withLouisBothaasitsfirstPrimeMinister.Segregationbegantoharden.

Around then, only three years before hewas to leave SouthAfrica,GandhicondescendinglybegantoadmitthatAfricansweretheoriginalinhabitantsoftheland:

Thenegroesalonearetheoriginalinhabitantsofthisland.Wehavenotseizedthelandfromthembyforce;weliveherewiththeirgoodwill.Thewhites,onthe other hand, have occupied the country forcibly and appropriated it tothemselves.158

BynowheseemstohaveforgottenthathehadactivelycollaboratedwiththeWhites in their wars to forcibly occupy the country, appropriate the land andenslaveAfricans.Gandhichosetoignorethescaleandextentofthebrutalitythatwas taking place around him. Did he really believe that it was the “negroes’goodwill”thatallowedIndianmerchants toplytheir tradeinSouthAfrica,andnot,despiteitsracistlaws,Britishcolonialism?In1906,duringtheZulurebellion,hehadbeenlesswoollyaboutthingslike“goodwill”whenhesaid,“WeareinNatalbyvirtueofBritishPower.Ourveryexistencedependsonit.”

By 1911, the anxiety of the White folks about the burgeoning Indianpopulation led to legislation that stopped the import of labour from India.159Thencame1913—theyear the firstvolumeofMarcelProust’sÀla recherchedutemps perdu was first published, the yearRabindranath Tagore won theNobel

Prizeforliterature—SouthAfrica’syearofblood.Itwastheyearthefoundationsforapartheidwerelaid,theyearoftheLandAct,legislationthatcreatedasystemoftenurethatdeprivedthemajorityofSouthAfrica’sinhabitantsoftherighttoown land. Itwas the year Africanwomenmarched against the Pass Laws thatherded them into townships and restricted inter-provincemovement, the yearWhitemineworkersandrailwayworkers,andthenAfricanmineworkers,wentonstrike.ItwastheyearIndianworkersroseagainstanewthree-poundtaxandagainst a newmarriage law thatmade their existingmarriages illegal and theirchildren illegitimate.Theyear the three-pound taxwas imposedon thosewhohadworked off their indenture andwanted to live on in SouthAfrica as freecitizens.Beingunaffordable,thetaxwouldhaveforcedworkerstore-indentureandlockthemselvesintoacycleofservitude.

Forthefirst timeintwentyyears,Gandhialignedhimselfpoliticallywiththepeoplehehadpreviously takencare todistancehimself from.Hestepped in to‘lead’ the Indianworkers’ strike. In fact, theydidnotneed ‘leading’. For yearsbefore,duringandafterGandhi,theyhadwagedtheirownheroicresistance.Itcould be argued that theywere fortunate to have escapedGandhi’s attentions,becausetheydidnotjustwagearesistance,theyalsobrokecasteintheonlywayit can be broken—they transgressed caste barriers, got married to each other,madeloveandhadbabies.

Gandhi travelled from town to town, addressing coal miners and plantationworkers. The strike spread from the collieries to the sugar plantations. Non-violent satyagraha failed. There was rioting, arson and bloodshed. ThousandswerearrestedastheydefiedthenewimmigrationbillandcrossedtheborderintotheTransvaal.Gandhiwasarrestedtoo.Helostcontrolofthestrike.Eventually,hesignedasettlementwithJanSmuts.ThesettlementupsetmanyintheIndiancommunity,whosawitasapyrrhicvictory.Oneofitsmostcontroversialclauseswas the one in which the government undertook to provide free passage toIndianswhowishedtoreturnpermanentlytoIndia.Itreinforcedandformalisedthe idea that Indianswere sojournerswho could be repatriated. (In their 1948electionmanifesto the apartheidNationalParty called for the repatriationof allIndians. Indians finally became full-fledged citizens only in 1960, when SouthAfricabecamearepublic.)

P.S.Aiyar,anoldadversaryofGandhi’s,hadaccusedhimofbeingprimarilyconcernedwith the rightsof thepassenger Indians. (During the struggleagainstthe first proposal of the draft Immigration Bill in 1911, while some Indians,including Aiyar, were agitating for the free movement of all Indians to all

provinces,GandhiandHenryPolakwerepetitioningforsixnewentrantsayeartobeallowedintotheTransvaal.)160Aiyarwaseditorof theAfricanChronicle,anewspaper with a predominantly Tamil readership that reported the terribleconditionsinwhichindenturedlabourersworkedandlived.AbouttheGandhi–Smuts settlement, Aiyar said that Gandhi’s “ephemeral fame and popularity inIndia rest on no glorious achievement for his countrymen, but on a series offailures, which has resulted in causing endless misery, loss of wealth, anddeprivation of existing rights”. He added that Gandhi’s leadership over theprevious two decades had “resulted in no tangible good to anyone”. On thecontrary,Gandhiandhisbandofpassiveresistershadmadethemselves“anobjectofridiculeandhatredamongallsectionsofthecommunityinSouthAfrica”.161(AjokeamongsomeBlacksandIndiansgoes likethis:Thingsweregoodthen,backin1893.Gandhionlygotthrownoffatrain.By1920,wecouldn’tevengetonone.162)

Thoughitwasnotputdowninwriting,partoftheGandhi–SmutssettlementseemstohavebeenthatGandhiwouldhavetoleaveSouthAfrica.163

InallhisyearsinSouthAfrica,GandhimaintainedthatIndiansdeservedbettertreatmentthanAfricans.ThejuryisstilloutonwhetherornotGandhi’spoliticalactivity helped or harmed the Indian community in the long run. But hisconsistentattemptstocollaboratewiththeBritishgovernmentcertainlymadetheIndian community vulnerable during the rise of African nationalism. WhenIndianpoliticalactivistsjoinedtheliberationmovementunderAfricanleadershipin the 1950s and saw their freedom as being linked to the freedomofAfricanpeople, theywere breakingwithGandhi’s politics, not carrying on his legacy.WhenIndiansjoinedtheBlackConsciousnessMovementinthe1970sseekingtobuildabroaderBlackidentity,theywereactuallyupendingGandhianpolitics.Itis these people,many ofwhom did their time inRobben IslandwithNelsonMandelaandotherAfricancomrades,whohavesavedtheSouthAfricanIndiancommunityfrombeingpaintedasaraceofcollaboratorsandfrombeingisolated,evenexpelled,liketheIndiansinUgandawerein1972.

ThatGandhi is a hero in SouthAfrica is as undeniable as it is baffling.OnepossibleexplanationisthatafterheleftSouthAfrica,Gandhiwasreimported, thistimeastheshiningstarofthefreedomstruggleinIndia.TheIndiancommunityinSouthAfrica, alreadycut adrift from its roots,was, afterGandhi left, furtherisolatedandbrutalisedbytheapartheidregime.Gandhi’scultstatusinIndiaandhisconnectiontoSouthAfricawouldhaveprovidedSouthAfricanIndianswithalinktotheirhistoryandtheirmotherland.

InorderforGandhitobeaSouthAfricanhero,itbecamenecessarytorescuehim from his past, and rewrite it. Gandhi himself began that project. Somewritersofhistorycompletedit.TowardstheendofGandhi’sstayinSouthAfrica,thefirstfewbiographieshadspreadthenews,andthingsweremovingfastonthemessiah front.The youngReverendCharles FreerAndrews travelled to SouthAfrica and fell on his knees when he met Gandhi at the Durban dock.164Andrews,whobecamea lifelongdevotee,wenton to suggest thatGandhi, theleader of the “humblest, the lowliest and lost”, was a living avatar of Christ’sspirit.EuropeansandAmericansviedwitheachothertohonourhim.

In 1915, Gandhi returned to India via London where he was awardedsomething farbetter than theQueen’s chocolate.Forhis services to theBritishEmpire, he was honoured with the Kaiser-e-Hind Gold Medal for PublicService,presentedtohimbyLordHardingeofPenshurst.(Hereturneditin1920before the first national Non-Cooperation Movement.) Honoured thus, hearrivedinIndiafittedoutastheMahatma—GreatSoul—whohadfoughtracismand imperialism and had stood up for the rights of Indian workers in SouthAfrica.Hewasforty-sixyearsold.

Tohonourthereturninghero,G.D.Birla,aleadingIndianindustrialist(andafellowBania),organisedagrandreceptioninCalcutta.TheBirlasrananexport–importbusinessbasedinCalcuttaandBombay.Theytradedincotton,wheatandsilver.G.D.Birlawasawealthymanwhowaschafingatthebit,offendedbytheracism he had personally encountered at the hands of the British.He had hadseveralrun-inswiththecolonialgovernment.HebecameGandhi’schiefpatronand sponsor and paid him a generous monthly retainer to cover the costs ofrunning his ashrams and for his Congress party work. There were otherindustrialistsponsorsaswell,butGandhi’sarrangementwithG.D.Birlalastedfortherestofhisdays.165Inadditiontomillsandotherbusinesses,G.D.Birlaownedanewspaper,HindustanTimes,whereGandhi’sson,Devdas,eventuallyworkedasmanagingeditor.

SotheMahatmawhopromotedhomespunkhadiandthewoodencharkhawassponsoredby amill-owner.Themanwho raged against themachinewaskeptafloatbyindustrialists.Thisarrangementwastheprecursortothephenomenonofthecorporate-sponsoredNGO.

Oncethefinanceswereinplaceandtheashramswereupandrunning,GandhisetoffonhismissionofrallyingpeopleagainsttheBritishgovernment,yetneverharmingtheoldhierarchiesthathe(andhissponsors)intrinsicallybelievedin.Hetravelled the length and breadth of the country to get to know it. His first

satyagraha was in Champaran, Bihar, in 1917. Three years prior to his arrivalthere,landlesspeasantslivingonthevergeoffamine,labouringonBritish-ownedindigo plantations, had risen in revolt against a new regime of British taxes.GandhitravelledtoChamparanandsetupanashramfromwherehebackedtheirstruggle.Thepeoplewerenot sureexactlywhohewas. JacquesPouchepadass,who studied the Champaran Satyagraha, writes: “Rumours … reported thatGandhi had been sent into Champaran by the Viceroy, or even the King, toredressallthegrievancesoftheraiyats[farmers]andthathismandateoverruledallthelocalofficialsandthecourts.”166GandhistayedinChamparanforayearandthen left.SaysPouchepadass,“It isa fact that from1918onwards,afterGandhihadleftandtheplanters’influencehadbeguntofadeaway,theholdoftheruraloligarchygrewstrongerthanever.”

Torousepeopleagainst injusticeandyetcontrol themandpersuadethemtohis view of injustice, Gandhi had to make some complicated manoeuvres. In1921,whenpeasants(kisans)roseagainsttheirIndianlandlords(zamindars)intheUnitedProvinces,Gandhisentthemamessage:

Whilst we will not hesitate to advise kisans when the moment comes tosuspendpaymentof taxes toGovernment, it is not contemplated that at anystageofnon-cooperationwewouldseektodeprivethezamindarsoftheirrent.Thekisanmovementmustbeconfinedtotheimprovementofthestatusofthekisans and the betterment of the relations between the zamindars and them.The kisans must be advised scrupulously to abide by the terms of theiragreementwiththezamindars,whethersuchagreementiswrittenorinferredfromcustom.167

Inferredfromcustom.Weneedn’tguesswhatthatmeans.It’sthewholeballofwax.

ThoughGandhi spokeof inequalityandpoverty, thoughhe sometimesevensounded like a socialist, at nopoint inhis political career didhe ever seriouslycriticiseorconfrontanIndianindustrialistorthelandedaristocracy.ThiswasofapiecewithhisdoctrineoftrusteeshiporwhattodaygoesbythetermCorporateSocial Responsibility (CSR). Expanding on this in an essay called “EqualDistribution”,Gandhisaid:“Therichmanwillbeleftinpossessionofhiswealth,ofwhichhewillusewhathereasonablyrequiresforhispersonalneedsandwillactasatrusteefortheremaindertobeusedforsociety.Inthisargument,honestyonthepartofthetrusteeisassumed.”168Tojustifytheideaoftherichbecoming

the“guardiansofthepoor”,hearguedthat“therichcannotaccumulatewealthwithouttheco-operationofthepoorinsociety”.169Andthen,toempowerthepoorwards of the rich guardians: “If this knowledgewere to penetrate to andspreadamongstthepoor,theywouldbecomestrongandwouldlearnhowtofreethemselvesbymeansofnon-violencefromthecrushinginequalitieswhichhavebrought them to thevergeof starvation.”170Gandhi’s ideasof trusteeship echoalmost verbatim what American capitalists—the Robber Barons—like J.D.Rockefeller andAndrewCarnegiewere saying at the time.Carnegiewrites inTheGospelofWealth(1889):

This,then,isheldtobethedutyofthemanofWealth:First,tosetanexampleofmodest,unostentatiousliving,shunningdisplayorextravagance;toprovidemoderately for the legitimatewants of those dependent uponhim; and afterdoing so to consider all surplus revenueswhich come tohim simply as trustfunds,whichheiscalledupontoadminister,andstrictlyboundasamatterofdutytoadminister,inthemannerwhich,inhisjudgement,isbestcalculatedtoproduce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealththusbecomingthemereagentandtrusteeforhispoorerbrethren,bringingtotheir servicehis superiorwisdom,experienceandability toadminister,doingforthembetterthantheywouldorcoulddoforthemselves.171

Thecontradictionsmatteredlittle,becausebythen,Gandhiwasfarbeyondallthat.HewasasanataniHindu(whichishowhedescribedhimself),andanavatarof Christ (which is how he allowed himself to be described). The trains hetravelled in were mobbed by devotees seeking ‘darshan’ (a sighting). ThebiographerD.G.Tendulkar,whotravelledwithhim,describesthephenomenonas“massconversionstothenewcreed”.

This simple faithmoved India’smillionswho greeted him everywherewithcriesof‘MahatmaGandhikiJai’.ProstitutesofBarisal,theMarwarimerchantsof Calcutta, Oriya coolies, railway strikers, Santhals eager to present khadichaadars,allclaimedhisattention…whereverhewenthehadtoendurethetyrannyoflove.172

Inhisclassicessay,“GandhiasMahatma”,thehistorianShahidAmindescribeshow the combination of cleverly planted rumours by local Congress leaders,adulatory—andsometimeshallucinatory—newspaperreporting,agulliblepeopleandGandhi’sextraordinarycharismabuiltupmasshysteriawhichculminatedin

the deification of Mahatma Gandhi. Even back then, not everyone wasconvinced.Aneditorial inThePioneerof23April1921 said,“Thevery simplepeopleintheeastandsouthoftheUnitedProvincesaffordafertilesoilinwhichabeliefinthepowerofthe‘mahatmaji’,whoisafteralllittlemorethananameof power to them,maygrow.”The editorialwas criticising an article that hadappearedinSwadesh,aGorakhpurnewspaper,thathadpublishedrumoursaboutthemiraclesthatsurroundedGandhi:hehadmadefragrantsmokewaftupfromawell, a copyof theHolyQuranhadappeared in a locked room,abuffalo thatbelonged to anAhirwho refusedmoney to a sadhubegging in theMahatma’snamehadperished ina fire,andaBrahminwhohaddefiedGandhi’s authorityhadgonemad.173

The taprootofGandhi’sMahatmahoodhad found itsway into a fecund rill,where feudalismmet the future,wheremiraclesmetmodernity. From there itdrewsustenanceandprospered.

The sceptics were few and did not count for much. Gandhi was by nowaddressing rallies of up to two hundred thousand people. The hysteria spreadabroad.In1921,theUnitarianministerJohnHaynesHolmesoftheCommunityChurch in New York in a sermon called “Who is the Greatest Man in theWorld?”introducedGandhitohiscongregationas“TheSufferingChristofthetwentiethcentury”.174Yearslater,in1958,MartinLutherKing,Jrwoulddothesame: “Christ furnished the spirit andmotivation, while Gandhi furnished themethod.”175 They presented Gandhi with a whole new constituency: aparadoxicalgiftforamanwhosofearedanddespisedAfricans.

Perhaps because the Western Christian world was apprehensive about thespreading influence of the Russian Revolution, and was traumatised by thehorror of the FirstWorldWar, Europeans and Americans vied to honour thelivingavatarofChrist.Itdidn’tseemtomatterthatunlikeGandhi,whowasfromawell-to-do family (his father was the primeminister of the princely state ofPorbandar), Jesus was a carpenter from the slums of Jerusalem who stood upagainst the Roman Empire instead of trying to make friends with it. And hewasn’tsponsoredbybigbusiness.

Themost influential ofGandhi’s admirerswas theFrenchdramatistRomainRolland, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1915. He had not metGandhiwhenin1924hepublishedMahatmaGandhi:TheManWhoBecameOnewith theUniversal Being. It soldmore than a hundred thousand copies andwastranslatedintoseveralEuropeanlanguages.176 ItopenswithTagore’s invocationfromtheUpanishads:

HeistheOneLuminous,CreatorofAll,Mahatma,Alwaysintheheartsofthepeopleenshrined,RevealedthroughLove,IntuitionandThought,Whoeverknowshim,Immortalbecomes

Gandhisaidhefounda“realvisionoftruth”inthebook.HecalledRollandhis“self-chosenadvertiser”inEurope.177By1924,onthelistofexecutivesofhisownorganisation,All-IndiaSpinnersAssociation,hisnameappearedasMahatmaGandhi.178 Sad then, for him to say in the first paragraph of his response toAnnihilationofCaste:“Whateverlabelhewearsinthefuture,DrAmbedkarisnotthemantoallowhimselftobeforgotten.”Asthoughpointingtotheprofoundhorrorsofthecastesystemwasjustaformofself-promotionforAmbedkar.

This is theman, or, if you are so inclined, the Saint, thatDoctor BhimraoRamjiAmbedkar,bornin1891intoanUntouchableMaharfamily,presumedtoarguewith.

THECACTUSGROVE

Ambedkar’s fatherRamji Sakpal and both his grandfatherswere soldiers in theBritishArmy.TheywereMahars fromtheKonkan,thenapartof theBombayPresidency and, at the time, a hotbed of nationalist politics. The two famousCongressmen, Bal Gangadhar Tilak of the ‘garam dal’ (militant faction) andGandhi’smentor,GopalKrishnaGokhale,ofthe‘naramdal’(moderatefaction),were bothChitpavanBrahmins from theKonkan. (ItwasTilakwho famouslysaid,“Swarajismybirthright,andIshallhaveit.”)

The Konkan coast was also home to Ambedkar’s political forebear, JotibaPhule,who called himself JotiMali, theGardener. Phulewas from Satara, thetownwhereAmbedkar spenthisearlychildhood.TheMaharswereconsideredUntouchables and, though theywere landless agricultural labourers, theywerecomparatively better off than the otherUntouchable castes. In the seventeenthcentury, they served in thearmyofShivaji, theMarathakingofwesternIndia.AfterShivaji’sdeath,theyservedthePeshwas,anoppressiveBrahminicalregimethattreatedthemhorribly.(ItwasthePeshwaswhoforcedMaharstohangpotsaround their necks and tie brooms to their hips.) Unwilling to enter into a‘trusteeship’ofthissort,theMaharsshiftedtheirloyaltytotheBritish.In1818,intheBattleofKoregaon, a smallBritish regimentofMahar soldiersdefeated the

massive army of the last Peshwa ruler, Bajirao II.179 The British subsequentlyraisedaMaharRegiment,whichisstillpartoftheIndianArmy.

Overtime,asectionoftheMaharpopulationlefttheirvillagesandmovedtothecity.TheyworkedintheBombaymillsandascasual,unorganisedlabourinthe city. Themovewidened their horizons and perhaps accounts forwhy theMahars were politicised quicker than other Untouchable communities in theregion.

Ambedkarwasbornon14April1891inthecantonmenttownofMhownearIndoreinCentralIndia.HewasthefourteenthandlastchildofRamjiSakpalandBhimabaiMurbadkarSakpal.Hismotherdiedwhenhewas twoyearsold, thesameyearthathisfatherretiredfromthearmy.ThefamilywasbroughtupintheBhakti tradition of Kabir and Tukaram, but Ramji Sakpal also educated hischildrenintheHinduepics.Asayoungboy,AmbedkarwasscepticalabouttheRamayanaandtheMahabharata,andtheircapriciouslessonsinmorality.Hewasparticularlydistressedby the storyof thekillinganddismemberingof the ‘low-born’Karna.(KarnawasbornofSurya,theSunGod,andtheunmarriedKunti.Abandonedbyhismother,hewasbroughtupbyalowlycharioteer.Karnawaskilled while he was repairing his chariot wheel on the battlefield by his half-brother Arjun on the advice of Krishna.) Ambedkar argued with his father:“Krishnabelievedinfraud.Hislifeisnothingbutaseriesoffrauds.EqualdislikeIhave for Rama.”180 Later, in a series of essays called Riddles in Hinduism,published posthumously, he would expand on the themes of what he saw asinexcusablemisogynyinRama’sandKrishna’sslipperyethics.181

Ambedkar’s encounters with humiliation and injustice began from his earlychildhood.WhenGandhiwasservingintheSouthAfricanWar,Ambedkarwasten years old, livingwith his aunt and going to a local government school inSatara.ThankstoanewBritishlegislation,182hewasallowedtogotoaTouchableschool,buthewasmadetositapartfromhisclassmates,onascrapofgunnysack,so that he would not pollute the classroom floor. He remained thirsty all daybecausehewasnot allowed todrink from theTouchables’ tap.Satara’sbarberswould not cut his hair, not even the barberswho sheared goats and buffaloes.This cruelty continued in school after school. His older brothers were notallowed to learn Sanskrit because it was the language of the Vedas, and thecolonisationof knowledgewas a central tenet of the caste system. (If a ShudralistensintentionallytotheVedas,theGautamaDharmaSutrasays,hisearsmustbefilled with molten tin or lac.) Much later, in the 1920s, Ambedkar studiedSanskrit (and in the 1940s also studied Pali), and became familiar with

Brahminical texts—and when he wroteAnnihilation of Caste, he deployed thisknowledgeexplosively.

Eventually, in 1897, the family moved to a chawl in Bombay. In 1907,Ambedkar matriculated, the only Untouchable student in Elphinstone HighSchool.ItwasanexceptionalachievementforaMaharboy.Soonafter,hewasmarriedtonine-year-oldRamabai(nottobeconfusedwithPanditaRamabai)inaceremonythattookplaceinashedbuiltoveracitydrain.Whilehewasdoinghis bachelor’s degree at ElphinstoneCollege, awell-wisher introduced him toSayajiraoGaekwad,theprogressiveMaharajaofBaroda.TheMaharajagavehima scholarshipofRs25 amonth to completehis graduation.TheMaharajawasoneof anumberofunusual, privileged-casteHindu individualswhohelpedoralliedwithAmbedkarintimesofadversityandinhispoliticalconfrontations.

The times were turbulent. The Morley–Minto reforms, which advocated aseparateelectorateforMuslims,hadbeenpassed.NationalistswereinfuriatedandsawthereformsasaBritishploytounderminetheunityofthegrowingnationalmovement.TilakwasconvictedofseditionanddeportedtoMandalay.In1910,VinayakDamodarSavarkar,ayoungfollowerofTilak,wasarrestedfororganisingan armed revolt against theMorley–Minto reforms. (In prison Savarkar turnedtowardspoliticalHinduismandin1923wroteHindutva:WhoisaHindu?)

WhenAmbedkargraduated,hebecameoneofthreestudentswhowasgivenascholarship by Sayajirao Gaekwad to travel abroad to continue his studies. In1913(Gandhi’slastyearinSouthAfrica),theboywhohadtositonagunnysackonhisclassroomfloorwasadmittedtoColumbiaUniversityinNewYork.Itwaswhilehewasthere,underthetutelageofJohnDewey(of ‘Deweyanliberalism’fame), Edwin Seligman, James Shotwell, James Harvey Robinson and A.A.Goldenweiser,thathewrotehisoriginal,path-breakingpaperoncaste,“CastesinIndia:TheirMechanism,GenesisandDevelopment”,183inwhichhearguedthatcaste could not be equated with either race or class, but was a unique socialcategoryinitself—anenclosed,endogamousclass.Whenhewroteit,Ambedkarwas only twenty-five years old.He returned briefly to India and thenwent toLondon to study economics at the London School of Economics andsimultaneouslytakeadegreeinlawatGray’sInninLondon—adegreehehadtoabandonhalfway,butcompletedlater.

Ambedkar returned to Baroda in 1917. To repay his scholarship, he wasexpectedtoserveasmilitarysecretarytotheMaharaja.Hecamebacktoaverydifferent reception from the one Gandhi received. There were no glitteringceremonies,nowealthysponsors.Onthecontrary,fromspendinghoursreading

in theuniversity librarywith its endlessbooks, andeatingatdining tableswithnapkins and cutlery, Ambedkar returned to the thorny embrace of the castesystem.Afraidofevenaccidentally touchingAmbedkar,clerksandpeons inhisofficewouldflingfilesathim.Carpetswererolledupwhenhewalkedinandoutof office so that they would not be polluted by him. He found noaccommodationinthecity:hisHindu,MuslimandChristianfriends,eventhosehehadknowninColumbia,turnedhimdown.Eventually,bymasqueradingasaParsi, he got a room at a Parsi inn. When the owners discovered he was anUntouchable, hewas thrownonto the street by armedmen. “I can evennowvividlyrecall itandneverrecall itwithout tears inmyeyes,”Ambedkarwrote.“Itwas then for the first time I learnt that a personwho isUntouchable to aHinduisalsoUntouchabletoaParsi.”184

Unable to find accommodation in Baroda, Ambedkar returned to Bombay,where, after initially teaching private tutorials, he got a job as a professor atSydenhamCollege.

In 1917, Hindu reformers were wooing Untouchables with an edge ofdesperation.TheCongresshadpasseditsresolutionagainstuntouchability.BothGandhi and Tilak called untouchability a ‘disease’ that was antithetical toHinduism.ThefirstAll-IndiaDepressedClassesConferencewasheldinBombay,presidedoverbyAmbedkar’s patron andmentor,MaharajaSayajiraoGaekwad,andattendedbyseveralluminariesofthetime,includingTilak.TheypassedtheAll-India Anti-Untouchability Manifesto, which was signed by all of them(exceptTilak,whomanagedtofindawayaroundit).185

Ambedkarstayedawayfromthesemeetings.Hehadbeguntogrowscepticalabouttheseverypublicbutcompletelyout-of-characterdisplaysofsolicitudeforUntouchables.Hesawthatthesewerewaysinwhich,inthechangingtimes,theprivileged castes were manoeuvring to consolidate their control over theUntouchable community. While his audience, his constituency and his chiefconcern were the Untouchables, Ambedkar believed that it was not just thestigma,thepollution–purityissuesarounduntouchability,butcasteitselfthathadtobedismantled.Thepracticeofuntouchability,cruelasitwas—thebroomtiedtothewaist,thepothungaroundtheneck—wastheperformative,ritualisticendofthepracticeofcaste.Therealviolenceofcastewasthedenialofentitlement:toland, to wealth, to knowledge, to equal opportunity. (The caste system is thefeudalversionofthedoctrineoftrusteeship:theentitledmustbeleftinpossessionoftheirentitlement,andbetrustedtouseitforthepublicgood.)

Howcan a systemof such immutablehierarchybemaintained if notby the

threat of egregious, ubiquitous violence? How do landlords force labourers,generation after generation, to toil night and day on subsistence wages? Whywould anUntouchable labourer,who isnot allowed toevendreamofbeing alandowneroneday,puthisorher life at the landlord’s disposal, toplough theland,tosowseedandharvest thecrop, if itwerenotoutofsheerterrorofthepunishmentthatawaitsthewayward?(Farmers,unlikeindustrialists,cannotaffordstrikes.Seedmustbe sownwhen itmustbe sown, thecropmustbeharvestedwhen it must be harvested. The farmworker must be terrorised into abjectsubmission,intobeingavailablewhenhemustbeavailable.)HowwereAfricanslaves forced to work on American cotton fields? By being flogged, by beinglynched,andifthatdidnotwork,bybeinghungfromatreeforotherstoseeandbeafraid.WhyarethemurdersofinsubordinateDalitseventodayneversimplymurders but ritual slaughter? Why are they always burnt alive, raped,dismemberedandparadednaked?WhydidSurekhaBhotmangeandherchildrenhavetodiethewaytheydid?

Ambedkartriedtoprovideananswer:

Whyhavethemassofpeopletoleratedthesocialevilstowhichtheyhavebeensubjected?Therehavebeensocialrevolutionsinothercountriesoftheworld.Why have there not been social revolutions in India, is a question that hasincessantly troubledme.There isonlyoneanswerwhichIcangiveand it isthatthelowerclassesofHindushavebeencompletelydisabledfordirectactionon account of this wretched caste system. They could not bear arms, andwithout arms they could not rebel. They were all ploughmen—or rathercondemnedtobeploughmen—andtheywereneverallowedtoconverttheirploughsharesintoswords.Theyhadnobayonets,andthereforeeveryonewhochose, could and did sit upon them. On account of the caste system, theycould receive no education.They could not think out or know theway totheirsalvation.Theywerecondemnedtobelowly;andnotknowingthewayof escape, and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled toeternalservitude,whichtheyacceptedastheirinescapablefate.186

Inruralareas,thethreatofactualphysicalviolencesometimespaledbeforethespectreofthe‘socialboycott’thatorthodoxHinduswouldproclaimagainstanyUntouchable who dared to defy the system. (This could mean anything fromdaring to buy a piece of land, wearing nice clothes, smoking a bidi in thepresenceofacasteHindu,orhavingthetemeritytowearshoes,orrideamarein

aweddingprocession.Thecrimecouldevenbeanattitude, aposture thatwaslesscraventhananUntouchable’sismeanttobe.)It’stheoppositeoftheboycottthattheCivilRightsMovementintheUSusedasacampaigntool;theAmericanBlacksatleasthadamodicumofeconomicclouttoboycottbusesandbusinessesthatheldthemincontempt.Amongprivilegedcastes,thesocialboycottinruralIndia traditionallymeans ‘hukka-panibandh’—nohukka (tobacco) andnopani(water)forapersonwhohasannoyedthecommunity.Thoughit’scalleda‘socialboycott’,itisaneconomicaswellassocialboycott.ForDalits, thatis lethal.The‘sinners’aredeniedemploymentintheneighbourhood,deniedtherighttofoodandwater,denied the right tobuyprovisions in thevillageBania’s shop.Theyarehoundedoutandlefttostarve.Thesocialboycottcontinuestobeusedasaweapon againstDalits in Indian villages. It is non-cooperationby thepowerfulagainstthepowerless—non-cooperation,asweknowit,turnedonitshead.

In order to detach caste from the political economy, from conditions ofenslavement in which most Dalits lived and worked, in order to elide thequestions of entitlement, land reforms and the redistribution of wealth,Hindureformerscleverlynarrowedthequestionofcastetotheissueofuntouchability.Theyframeditasanerroneousreligiousandculturalpracticethatneededtobereformed.

Gandhi narrowed it even further to the issue of ‘Bhangis’—scavengers, amostly urban and therefore somewhat politicised community. From hischildhood,he resurrected thememoryofUka, theboy scavengerwhoused toservice the household’s lavatory, and often spoke of how the Gandhi family’streatmentofUkahadalwaystroubledhim.187RuralUntouchables—ploughmen,potters, tanners and their families—lived in scattered, small communities, inhutments on the edges of villages (beyond polluting distance). UrbanUntouchables—Bhangis,Chuhras andMehtars—scavengers, asGandhi liked tocallthem,livedtogetherinnumbersandactuallyformedapoliticalconstituency.In order to discourage them from converting to Christianity, Lala Mulk RajBhalla,aHindureformerofthePunjabiKhatricaste,re-baptisedthemin1910,and they came to collectively be called Balmikis. Gandhi seized upon theBalmikis andmade themhis showwindow for untouchability.Upon them heperformedhismissionaryactsofgoodnessandcharity.Hepreachedtothemhowtoloveandholdontotheirheritage,andhowtoneveraspiretowardsanythingmore than the joysof their hereditaryoccupation.All throughhis life,Gandhiwroteagreatdealabouttheimportanceof‘scavenging’asareligiousduty.Itdidnotseemtomatterthatpeopleintherestoftheworldweredealingwiththeir

shitwithoutmakingsuchafussaboutit.Delivering the presidential address at the Kathiawar Political Conference in

Bhavnagaron8January1925,Gandhisaid:

If at all I seek anyposition it is that of aBhangi.Cleansingof dirt is sacredworkwhichcanbedonebyaBrahminaswellasaBhangi,theformerdoingitwithandthelatterwithouttheknowledgeofitsholiness.Irespectandhonourbothofthem.Intheabsenceofeitherofthetwo,Hinduismisboundtofaceextinction. I like the path of service; therefore, I like the Bhangi. I havepersonallynoobjectiontosharingmymealwithhim,butIamnotaskingyoutointer-dinewithorinter-marryhim.HowcanIadviseyou?188

Gandhi’s attentiveness towards the Balmikis, his greatly publicised visits to‘Bhangi colonies’, paid dividends, despite the fact that he treated them withcondescensionandcontempt.Whenhestayedinonesuchcolonyin1946:

half the residents were moved out before his visit and the shacks of theresidents torn down and neat little huts constructed in their place. Theentrancesandwindowsofthehutswerescreenedwithmatting,andduringthelengthofGandhi’svisit,werekeptsprinkledwithwatertoprovideacoolingeffect.Thelocaltemplewaswhite-washedandnewbrickpathswerelaid.Inan interview with Margaret Bourke-White, a photo-journalist for Lifemagazine,oneofthemeninchargeofGandhi’svisit,DinanathTiangoftheBirlaCompany,explainedtheimprovementsintheuntouchablecolony,“WehavecaredforGandhiji’scomfortforthelasttwentyyears.”189

InhishistoryoftheBalmikiworkersofDelhi, thescholarVijayPrashadsayswhenGandhistagedhisvisitstotheBalmikiColonyonMandirMarg(formerlyReadingRoad)in1946,herefusedtoeatwiththecommunity:

‘Youcanoffermegoat’smilk,’hesaid,‘butIwillpayforit.IfyouarekeenthatIshouldtakefoodpreparedbyyou,youcancomehereandcookmyfoodforme’…Balmikielders recount talesofGandhi’shypocrisy,butonlywithasenseofuneasiness.WhenadalitgaveGandhinuts,he fedthemtohisgoat,sayingthathewouldeatthemlater,inthegoat’smilk.MostofGandhi’sfood,nutsandgrains,camefromBirlaHouse;hedidnottakethesefromthedalits.Radical Balmikis took refuge in Ambedkarism which openly confrontedGandhiontheseissues.190

Ambedkarrealisedthattheproblemofcastewouldonlybefurtherentrenchedunless Untouchables were able to organise, mobilise and become a politicalconstituencywith theirown representatives.Hebelieved that reserved seats forUntouchableswithintheHindufold,orwithintheCongress,wouldjustproducepliablecandidates—servantswhoknewhowtopleasetheirmasters.HebegantodeveloptheideaofaseparateelectorateforUntouchables.In1919,hesubmittedawritten testimonyto theSouthboroughCommitteeonelectoral reforms.Thecommittee’sbriefwastoproposeaschemeofterritorialconstituenciesbasedonexisting land revenue districts, and separate communal representation forMuslims,Christians andSikhs, for anewconstitution thatwas tobedrafted toprepareforHomeRule.TheCongressboycottedthecommittee.Tohiscritics,whocalledhimacollaboratorandatraitor,AmbedkarsaidthatHomeRulewasasmuch therightof theUntouchableas itwasof theBrahmin,and itwas theduty of privileged castes to dowhat they could to put everybody on an equalplane. Inhis testimony,AmbedkararguedthatUntouchableswereas separateasocialgroupfromTouchableHindusasMuslims,ChristiansandSikhs:

TherightofrepresentationandtherighttoholdofficeundertheStatearethetwomostimportantrightsthatmakeupcitizenship.Buttheuntouchabilityoftheuntouchablesputstheserightsfarbeyondtheirreach.Inafewplacestheydo not even possess such insignificant rights as personal liberty and personalsecurity,andequalitybeforelawisnotalwaysassuredtothem.Thesearetheinterests of the Untouchables. And as can be easily seen they can berepresented by the Untouchables alone. They are distinctively their owninterests and none else can truly voice them…Hence it is evident thatwemust find the Untouchables to represent their grievances which are theirinterestsand,secondly,wemustfindtheminsuchnumbersaswillconstituteaforcesufficienttoclaimredress.191

The British government did not, at that point, pay much attention to histestimony, thoughhis presentationdid perhaps provide the basis forAmbedkarbeinginvitedtotheFirstRoundTableConferencetenyearslater,in1930.

Around this time,Ambedkar startedhis first journal,MookNayak (Leaderofthe Voiceless). Tilak’s newspaper, Kesari, refused to carry even a paidadvertisementannouncingthepublicationofMookNayak.192TheeditorofMookNayak was P.N. Bhatkar, the first Mahar to matriculate and go to college.193Ambedkarwrotethefirstthirteeneditorialshimself.Inthefirstone,hedescribed

Hindusocietyinachillingmetaphor—asamulti-storeyedtowerwithnostaircaseandnoentrance.Everybodyhadtodieinthestoreytheywerebornin.

InMay1920,backedbyChhatrapatiShahu,theMaharajaofKolhapur,knownfor his anti-Brahmin views and for pioneering the policy of reservation ineducationandjobsasfarbackas1902,Ambedkarandhiscolleaguesorganisedthefirst All-India Depressed Classes Conference inNagpur. It was agreed that noUntouchable representativechosenbyacaste-Hindumajoritycould (orwould)genuinelyworkagainstchaturvarna.

The1920smarked thebeginningof aneraofdirect actionbyUntouchablesfortherighttousewells,schools,courts,officesandpublictransport.In1924,inwhat came tobeknownas theVaikomSatyagraha, theEzhavas, a communitydesignatedShudra,andthePulayas,whowereUntouchables,agitatedtousethepublic roads that skirted theMahadeva temple in Vaikom, twenty miles fromKottayaminTravancore(nowinthestateofKerala).Oneofthe leadersof theVaikom Satyagraha was George Joseph, a SyrianChristian, and an admirer ofGandhi.Gandhi,onhispart,disapprovedofa“non-Hindu”interveninginwhathebelievedtobean“internalmatter”oftheHindus.194(Thesamelogichadnotapplied threeyearsbefore,whenhe ‘led’ theKhilafatMovement.)Hewas alsoreluctant to support a full-blown satyagraha in an “Indian-ruled” state.DuringthecourseoftheVaikomSatyagraha,GeorgeJosephwasimprisoned.HebecamedeeplydisillusionedbywhathesawasGandhi’sinexcusableambivalenceontheissue of caste.As the tension inVaikom rose,C.Rajagopalachari,195CongressleaderandGandhi’schieflieutenant,travelledtoVaikomtooverseematters.On27May1924,hereassuredtheworriedprivileged-casteHindusofVaikominapublicspeech:

Let not the people ofVykomor any other place fear thatMahatmajiwantscasteabolished.Mahatmajidoesnotwantthecastesystemabolishedbutholdsthatuntouchability should be abolished…Mahatmaji does notwant you todinewithThiyasorPulayas.Whathewants is thatwemust beprepared totouch or go near other human beings as you go near a cow or ahorse…Mahatmajiwantsyoutolookuponso-calleduntouchablesasyoudoatthecowandthedogandotherharmlesscreatures.196

Gandhihimself arrived inVaikom inMarch1925 to arbitrate.He consultedwiththeBrahminpriestsofthetemple—whodidnotallowhim,anon-Brahmin,to enter the sanctum—and the Queen of Travancore, and negotiated a

compromise: the roads were realigned so that they were no longer within‘polluting’ distance from the temple. The contentious portion of the roadremainedclosedtoChristiansandMuslimsaswellasavarnas(Untouchables)whocontinuedtohavenorighttoenterthetemple.Sayinghewas“unabletosatisfytheorthodoxfriends”Gandhiadvisedthe“withdrawalofsatyagraha”,197butthelocalsatyagrahiscontinuedwiththeirstruggle.Twelveyearslater,inNovember1936,theMaharajaofTravancoreissuedthefirstTempleEntryProclamationinIndia.198

IfoneofGandhi’sfirstmajorpoliticalactionswasthe‘solution’totheproblemoftheDurbanPostOffice,Ambedkar’swastheMahadSatyagrahaof1927.

In 1923, the Legislative Council of Bombay (whose elections had beenboycottedbytheCongress)passedaresolution,theBoleResolution,thatallowedUntouchables tousepublic tanks,wells, schools,courtsanddispensaries. In thetown of Mahad, the municipality declared that it had no objection ifUntouchablesusedtheChavadarTankinthetown.Passingaresolutionwasonething, acting on it quite another. After four years of mobilisation, theUntouchablesgatheredcourageand,inMarch1927,heldatwo-dayconferenceinMahad.Money for the conferencewas raised by public contribution. In anunpublished manuscript, the scholar Anand Teltumbde quotes Anant VinayakChitre,oneof theorganisersof theMahadSatyagraha, sayingthat fortyvillagescontributedRs 3 each, and a play aboutTukaramwas staged in Bombay thatmadeRs 23, making the total collectionRs 143. Contrast this with Gandhi’stroubles. Just a fewmonthsbefore theMahadSatyagraha,on10 January1927,Gandhiwrotetohisindustrialist-patron,G.D.Birla:

Mythirstformoneyissimplyunquenchable.Ineedat leastRs200,000—forKhadi,Untouchabilityandeducation.Thedairyworkmakesanother50,000.ThenthereistheAshramexpenditure.Noworkremainsunfinishedforwantoffunds,butGodgivesafterseveretrials.Thisalsosatisfiesme.Youcangiveasyoulikeforwhateverworkyouhavefaithin.199

TheMahadconferencewasattendedbyabout three thousandUntouchables,andahandfulofprogressivemembersoftheprivilegedcastes.(V.D.Savarkar,outof jailbynow,wasoneof the supportersof theMahadSatyagraha.)Ambedkarpresidedoverthemeeting.Onthemorningoftheseconddaypeopledecidedto

marchtotheChavadarTankanddrinkwater.Theprivilegedcasteswatchedinhorror as aprocessionofUntouchableswalked through the town, four abreast,and drank water from the tank. After the shock subsided came the violentcounter-attack, with clubs and sticks. Twenty Untouchables were injured.Ambedkarurgedhispeople to stay firmandnot to strikeback.A rumourwasdeliberately spread that the Untouchables planned to enter the Veereshwartemple, which added a hysterical edge to the violence. The Untouchablesscattered.Some found shelter inMuslimhomes.Forhisown safety,Ambedkarspentthenightinthepolicestation.Oncecalmreturned,theBrahmins‘purified’thetankwithprayers,andwith108potsofcowdung,cowurine,milk,curdandghee.200 The symbolic exercise of their rights did not satisfy the Mahadsatyagrahis. In June 1927, an advertisement appeared in Bahishkrit Bharat(ExcludedIndia),afortnightlyAmbedkarhadfounded,askingthosemembersofthe Depressed Classes who wished to take the agitation further to enlistthemselves. The orthodoxHindus ofMahad approached the sub-judge of thetown and got a temporary legal injunction against theUntouchables using thetank.Still,theUntouchablesdecidedtoholdanotherconferenceandregroupedinMahadinDecember.Ambedkar’sdisenchantmentwithGandhiwasstillsomeyears away. Gandhi had, in fact, spoken approvingly of the Untouchables’composureinthefaceoftheattacksfromtheorthodoxy,sohisportraitwasputuponstage.201

TenthousandpeopleattendedthesecondMahadconference.OnthisoccasionAmbedkar and his followers publicly burnt a copy of the Manusmriti,202 andAmbedkargaveastirringspeech:

Gentlemen,youhavegatheredheretodayinresponsetotheinvitationoftheSatyagraha Committee. As the Chairman of that Committee, I gratefullywelcomeyouall…ThislakeatMahadispublicproperty.ThecasteHindusofMahad are so reasonable that they not only draw water from the lakethemselvesbutfreelypermitpeopleofanyreligiontodrawwaterfromit,andaccordingly people of other religions, such as Islam, do make use of thispermission.Nordo the casteHinduspreventmembersof species consideredlower than the human, such as birds and beasts, from drinking at the lake.Moreover,theyfreelypermitbeastskeptbyuntouchablestodrinkatthelake.

The caste Hindus of Mahad prevent the untouchables from drinking thewater of theChavadar Lake not because they suppose that the touch of theUntouchableswillpollutethewaterorthatitwillevaporateandvanish.Their

reason for preventing theUntouchables fromdrinking it is that they donotwishtoacknowledgebysuchpermissionthatcastesdeclaredinferiorbysacredtraditionareinfacttheirequals.

It is not as if drinking the water of the Chavadar Lake will make usimmortal.Wehave survivedwell enough all these dayswithout drinking it.We are not going to theChavadar Lakemerely to drink its water.We aregoingtotheLaketoassertthatwetooarehumanbeingslikeothers.Itmustbeclearthatthismeetinghasbeencalledtosetupthenormofequality…

TimeandagainAmbedkarreturnedtothethemeofequality.Menmaynotallbeequal,hesaid,butequalitywastheonlypossiblegoverningprinciplebecausetheclassificationandassortmentofhumansocietywasimpossible.

Tosumup,untouchability isnota simplematter; it is themotherof allourpovertyandlowlinessandithasbroughtustotheabjectstateweareintoday.Ifwewanttoraiseourselvesoutofit,wemustundertakethistask.Wecannotbesavedinanyotherway.Itisatasknotforourbenefitalone;itisalsoforthebenefitofthenation.

Even this will not be enough. The inequality inherent in the four-castessystemmustberootedout…Ourworkhasbeenbeguntobringaboutarealsocialrevolution.Letnoonedeceivehimselfbysupposingthatitisadiversiontoquietenmindsentrancedwithsweetwords.Theworkissustainedbystrongfeeling,whichisthepowerthatdrivesthemovement.Noonecannowarrestit.Ipraytogodthatthesocialrevolutionthatbeginsheretodaymayfulfilitselfbypeacefulmeans.Wesaytoouropponentstoo:pleasedonotopposeus.Putawaytheorthodoxscriptures.Followjustice.Andweassureyouthatweshallcarryoutourprogrammepeacefully.203

Thethousandsattendingtheconferencewereinamilitantmood,andwantedtodefythecourtinjunctionandmarchtothetank.Ambedkardecidedagainstit,hopingthatafterhearingthematter,thecourtswoulddeclarethatUntouchableshad the right touse publicwells.He thought that a judicial orderwould be asubstantial step forward from just a municipal resolution. Although the HighCourtdideventuallylifttheinjunction,itfoundatechnicalwayaroundmakingalegaldeclaration in favourof theUntouchables.204 (Like the judgewho,almosteightyyearslater,wrotetheKhairlanjiverdict.)

Thatsamemonth(December1927),GandhispokeattheAll-IndiaSuppressed

Classes Conference in Lahore, where he preached a gospel opposite toAmbedkar’s.HeurgedUntouchablestofightfortheirrightsby“sweetpersuasionand not by Satyagraha which becomes Duragraha when it is intended to giverude shock to the deep-rooted prejudices of the people”.205 Duragraha, hedefined as “devilish force”, which was the polar opposite of Satyagraha, “soulforce”.206

AmbedkarneverforgotGandhi’sresponsetotheMahadSatyagraha.Writingin1945,inWhatCongressandGandhiHaveDonetotheUntouchableshesaid:

TheUntouchableswerenotwithouthopeofgettingthemoralsupportofMrGandhi.Indeedtheyhadverygoodgroundforgettingit.Fortheweaponofsatyagraha—the essence of which is to melt the heart of the opponent bysuffering—wastheweaponwhichwasforgedbyMrGandhi,andwhohadledtheCongresstopractiseitagainsttheBritishGovernmentforwinningswaraj.Naturally the Untouchables expected full support from Mr Gandhi to theirsatyagrahaagainsttheHindustheobjectofwhichwastoestablishtheirrighttotakewater frompublicwells and toenterpublicHindu temples.MrGandhihoweverdidnotgivehissupporttothesatyagraha.Notonlydidhenotgivehissupport,hecondemneditinstrongterms.207

Logically,thedirectioninwhichAmbedkarwasmovingoughttohavemadehimanaturalallyoftheCommunistPartyofIndia,foundedin1925,twoyearsbeforetheMahadSatyagraha.Bolshevismwas in theair.TheRussianRevolutionhadinspired communists around the world. In the Bombay Presidency, the tradeunionleaderS.A.Dange,aMaharashtrianBrahmin,organiseda large sectionofthe Bombay textile workers into a breakaway union—India’s first communisttradeunion—theGirniKamgarUnion,withseventythousandmembers.Atthetimea large sectionof theworkforce in themillswereUntouchables,manyofthem Mahars, who were employed only in the much lower paid spinningdepartment, because in theweavingdepartmentworkers had tohold thread intheirmouths, and theUntouchables’ salivawas believed to be polluting to theproduct. In 1928, Dange led the Girni Kamgar Union’s first major strike.Ambedkar suggested thatoneof the issues thatought tobe raisedwas equalityandequalentitlementwithintheranksofworkers.Dangedidnotagree,andthisledtoalongandbitterfallingout.208

Years later, in 1949, Dange, who is still a revered figure in the communist

pantheon,wroteabook,MarxismandAncient IndianCulture: India fromPrimitiveCommunismtoSlavery,inwhichhearguedthatancientHinduculturewasaformofprimitivecommunisminwhich“BrahmanisthecommuneofAryanmanandyagnya [ritual fire sacrifice] is itsmeans of production, the primitive communewiththecollectivemodeofproduction.”D.D.Kosambi,themathematicianandMarxisthistorian,saidinareview:“Thisissowildlyimprobableastoplungeintotheridiculous.”209

TheBombaymillshavesincecloseddown,thoughtheGirniKamgarUnionstillexists.Millworkersarefightingforcompensationandhousingandresistingthetakeoverofmilllandsfortheconstructionofmalls.TheCommunistPartyhaslostitsinfluence,andtheunionhasbeentakenoverbytheShivSena,apartyofmilitantMaharashtrianHinduchauvinists.

Years before Ambedkar and Dange were disagreeing about the internalinequalities between labourers, Gandhi was already an established labourorganiser.Whatwerehisviewsonworkersandstrikes?

Gandhi returned fromSouthAfricaata timeofcontinuous labourunrest.210ThetextileindustryhaddonewellforitselfduringtheFirstWorldWar,buttheprosperitywasnotreflectedinworkers’wages.InFebruary1918,millworkersinAhmedabadwentonstrike.Tomediatethedispute,AmbalalSarabhai,presidentoftheAhmedabadMillOwners’Association,turnedtoGandhi,whohadsetuphis ashram in Sabarmati, just outside Ahmedabad. It was the beginning ofGandhi’s lifelong career as a labour union organiser in India.By 1920, he hadmanaged to set up a labour union called the Majoor Mahajan Sangh—whichtranslates as theWorkers andMill-OwnersAssociation.TheEnglish namewasthe Textile Labour Union. Anusuyaben, Ambalal Sarabhai’s sister, a labourorganiser,waselectedpresidentforlife,andGandhibecameapivotalmemberofthe advisory committee, also for life. The union did work at improving thehygieneandlivingconditionsofworkers,butnoworkerwaseverelectedtotheunion leadership. No worker was permitted to be present at closed-doorarbitrationsbetweenthemanagementandtheunion.Theunionwasdividedupintoafederationofsmaller,occupation-basedunionswhosemembersworkedinthedifferentstagesoftheproductionprocess.Inotherwords,thestructureoftheunioninstitutionalisedcastedivisions.AccordingtoaworkerinterviewedbythescholarJanBreman,Untouchableswerenotallowedintothecommoncanteen,theyhadseparatedrinkingwatertanksandsegregatedhousing.211

Intheunion,Gandhiwastheprimeorganiser,negotiatoranddecision-maker.In 1921,whenworkers did not turn up forwork for three days, Gandhiwas

infuriated:

Hindu andMuslimworkers have dishonoured andhumiliated themselves byabstaining frommills.Labour cannotdiscountme. I believenoone in Indiacandoso.IamtryingtofreeIndiafrombondageandIrefusetobeenslavedbyworkers.212

Here is a 1925 entry from a report of theTextileLabourUnion.Wedon’tknow who wrote it, but its content and its literary cadence are unmistakablysimilar towhatGandhihad said about indentured labour inSouthAfricamorethanthirtyyearsbefore:

They are not as a rule armed with sufficient intelligence and moraldevelopment to resist the degrading influences which surround them on allsidesinacitylikethis.Somanyofthemsinkinonewayoranother.Alargenumberof them lose theirmoralbalanceandbecome slaves to liquorhabits,manygodownasphysicalwrecksandwasteawayfromtuberculosis.213

SinceGandhi’smainsponsorwasamill-ownerandhismainconstituencywassupposed to be the labouring class, Gandhi developed a convoluted thesis oncapitalistsandtheworkingclass:

Themill-ownermaybewhollyinthewrong.Inthestrugglebetweencapitalandlabour,itmaybegenerallysaidthatmoreoftenthannotcapitalistsareinthewrongbox.Butwhenlabourcomesfullytorealiseitsstrength,Iknowitcanbecomemoretyrannicalthancapital.Themill-ownerswillhavetoworkonthetermsdictatedbylabour,ifthelattercouldcommandtheintelligenceofthe former. It is clear, however, that labour will never attain to thatintelligence…Itwouldbesuicidalifthelabourersrelyupontheirnumbersorbrute-force,i.e.,violence.Bydoingsotheywoulddoharmtoindustriesinthecountry.Ifontheotherhandtheytaketheirstandonpurejusticeandsufferintheirpersontosecureit,notonlywilltheyalwayssucceedbuttheywillreformtheirmasters,developindustries,andbothmastersandmenwillbeasmembersofoneandthesamefamily.214

Gandhitookadimviewofstrikes.Buthisviewsonsweepers’ strikes,whichhe published in 1946,were evenmore stringent than those on otherworkers’strikes:

There are certain matters on which strikes would be wrong. Sweepers’grievances come in this category.My opinion against sweepers’ strikes datesbacktoabout1897whenIwasinDurban.Ageneralstrikewasmootedthere,and thequestionarose as towhether scavengers should join it.Myvotewasregisteredagainsttheproposal.Justasamancannotlivewithoutair,sotoohecannotexist for longifhishomeandsurroundingsarenotclean.Oneortheotherepidemicisboundtobreakout,especiallywhenmoderndrainageisputoutofaction…ABhangi [scavengers]maynotgiveuphisworkevenforaday.Andtherearemanyotherwaysopentohimforsecuringjustice.215

It’snotclearwhatthe“other”wayswereforsecuringjustice:Untouchablesonsatyagraha were committing duragraha. Sweepers on strike were sinning.Everythingotherthan‘sweetpersuasion’wasunacceptable.

While workers could not strike for fair wages, it was perfectly correct forGandhi to be generously sponsored by big industrialists. (Itwaswith this samesenseofexceptionalismthatinhisreplytoAnnihilationofCastehewrote,aspointnumberone,“He[Ambedkar]haspriceditat8annas,Iwouldhaveadvised2oratleast4annas.”)

ThedifferencesbetweenAmbedkarandthenewCommunistPartyofIndiawerenot superficial.Theywentback to firstprinciples.CommunistswerepeopleofTheBook,andTheBookwaswrittenbyaGermanJewwhohadheardof,buthadnotactuallyencountered,Brahminism.ThisleftIndiancommunistswithouttheoretical tools to dealwith caste. Since theywere people ofTheBook, andsincethecastesystemhaddeniedShudraandUntouchablecastestheopportunityof learning, by default the leaders of the Communist Party of India and itssubsequentoffshoots belonged to (andby and large continue to belong to) theprivileged castes, mostly Brahmin. Despite intentions that may have beengenuinely revolutionary, itwasnot just theoretical tools they lacked,but also aground-levelunderstandingandempathywith‘themasses’whobelongedtothesubordinatedcastes.WhileAmbedkarbelievedthatclasswasanimportant—andevenprimary—prismthroughwhichtoviewandunderstandsociety,hedidnotbelieve it was the only one. Ambedkar believed that the two enemies of theIndian working class were capitalism (in the liberal sense of the word) andBrahminism.Reflectingperhapsonhis experience in the1928 textileworkers’strike,inAnnihilationofCasteheasks:

Thatseizureofpowermustbebyaproletariat.ThefirstquestionIaskis:WilltheproletariatofIndiacombinetobringaboutthisrevolution?…CanitbesaidthattheproletariatofIndia,poorasitis,recognisesnodistinctionsexceptthatoftherichandpoor?CanitbesaidthatthepoorinIndiarecognisenosuchdistinctionsofcasteorcreed,highorlow?216

ToIndiancommunists,whotreatedcasteasasortoffolkdialectderivedfromthe classical language of class analysis, rather than as a unique, fully developedlanguageofitsown,Ambedkarsaid,“[T]hecastesystemisnotmerelyadivision

oflabour.Itisalsoadivisionoflabourers.”217

Unabletoreconcilehisdifferenceswiththecommunists,andstilllookingforapoliticalhomeforhis ideas,Ambedkardecidedtotryandbuildonehimself.In1938,hefoundedhisownpoliticalparty,theIndependentLabourParty(ILP).Asits name suggests, the programmeof the ILPwas broad-based, overtly socialistandwasnotlimitedtoissuesofcaste.Itsmanifestoannounced“theprincipleofState management and State ownership of industry whenever it may becomenecessary in the interests of the people”. It promised a separation between thejudiciary and the executive. It said it would set up land mortgage banks,agriculturistproducers’cooperativesandmarketingsocieties.218Thoughitwasayoungparty,theILPdidextremelywellinthe1937elections,winningsixteenofthe eighteen seats it contested in the Bombay Presidency and the CentralProvinces andBerar. In 1939, the British government,without consulting anyIndians,declared that IndiawasatwarwithGermany. Inprotest, theCongressparty resigned from all provincialministries and the provincial assembliesweredissolved.ThebriefbutvigorouspoliticallifeoftheILPcametoanabruptend.

AngeredbyAmbedkar’sdisplayofindependence,thecommunistsdenouncedhimasan‘opportunist’andan‘imperialstooge’.InhisbookHistoryoftheIndianFreedomStruggle,E.M.S.Namboodiripad,the(Brahmin)formerChiefMinisterofKeralaandheadofthefirsteverdemocraticallyelectedcommunistgovernmentintheworld,wroteabouttheconflictbetweenAmbedkarandtheleft:“However,thiswasagreatblowtothefreedommovement.Forthisledtothediversionofthe peoples’ attention from the objective of full independence to themundanecauseoftheupliftofHarijans[Untouchables].”219

Therifthasnotmendedandhasharmedbothsidesmortally.Forabriefperiodin the 1970s, theDalit Panthers inMaharashtra tried to bridge the gap. TheyweretheprogenyofAmbedkartheradical(asopposedtoAmbedkarthewriteroftheConstitution).Theygave theMarathiword ‘Dalit’—oppressed,broken—anall-Indiacurrency,andusedittorefernotjusttoUntouchablecommunities,butto“theworkingpeople,thelandlessandpoorpeasants,womenandallthosewhoarebeingexploitedpoliticallyandeconomicallyandinthenameofreligion”.220Thiswas a phenomenal andpolitically confident act of solidarity on their part.They sawDalits as aNationof theOppressed.They identified their friends as“revolutionarypartiessettobreakdownthecastesystemandclassrule”and“Leftpartiesthatareleftinthetruesense”;andtheirenemiesas“Landlords,Capitalists,moneylendersandtheirlackeys”.Theirmanifesto,essentialreadingforstudentsofradicalpolitics,fusedthethinkingofAmbedkar,PhuleandMarx.Thefounders

of the Dalit Panthers—Namdeo Dhasal, Arun Kamble and Raja Dhale—werewritersandpoets,andtheirworkcreatedarenaissanceinMarathiliterature.

ItcouldhavebeenthebeginningoftherevolutionthatIndianeededandisstillwaitingfor,buttheDalitPanthersswiftlylosttheirbearingsanddisintegrated.

Thecaste–classquestionisnotaneasyoneforpoliticalpartiestoaddress.TheCommunistParty’stheoreticalobtusenesstocastehaslostitwhatoughttohavebeenitsnaturalconstituency.TheCommunistPartyofIndiaanditsoffshoot,theCommunistPartyofIndia(Marxist),havemoreorlessbecomebourgeoispartiesenmeshedinparliamentarypolitics.Thosethatsplitawayfromtheminthe late1960s and independent Marxist-Leninist parties in other states (collectivelyknownasthe‘Naxalites’,namedafterthefirstuprisinginthevillageofNaxalbariinWestBengal) have tried to address the issue of caste and tomake commoncausewithDalits,butwithlittlesuccess.Thefeweffortstheymadetoseizelandfrom big zamindars and redistribute it to labourers failed because they did nothavethemasssupportorthemilitaryfirepowertoseeitthrough.Theirsidelongnodtocasteasopposedtoadirectengagementwithithasmeantthatevenradicalcommunistpartieshavelostthesupportofwhatcouldhavebeenatrulymilitantandrevolutionaryconstituency.

Dalitshavebeenfragmentedandpittedagainsteachother.Manyhavehadtomove either intomainstream parliamentary politics or—with the public sectorbeinghollowedout,andjobopportunities intheprivatesectorbeingdeniedtothem—intotheworldofNGOs,withgrantsfromtheEuropeanUnion,theFordFoundation and other funding agencies with a long, self-serving history ofdefusing radicalmovementsandharnessing themto ‘market forces’.221There isnodoubtthatthisfundinghasgivenafewDalitsanopportunitytobeeducatedinwhat are thought to be theworld’s best universities. (This, after all, iswhatmadeAmbedkarthemanhewas.)However,evenhere,theDalits’shareinthemassiveNGOmoney-pie isminuscule.Andwithin these institutions (some ofwhich are generously funded by big corporations to work on issues of castediscrimination,222likeGandhiwas),Dalitscanbetreatedinunfairanduglyways.

In his search for primitive communism, S.A. Dange would have been betteradvisedtolooktowardsindigenousAdivasicommunitiesratherthantowardstheancientVedicBrahminsandtheiryagnyas.Gandhitoocouldhavedonethesame.Ifanybodywasevenremotelylivingouthisidealoffrugalvillagelife,ofsteppinglightlyontheearth,itwasnottheVedicHindus,itwastheAdivasis.Forthem,

however,GandhishowedthesamelevelofdisdainthathedidforBlackAfricans.Speakingin1896atapublicmeetinginBombay,hesaid:“TheSanthalsofAssamwillbeasuselessinSouthAfricaasthenativesofthatcountry.”223

OntheAdivasiquestion,Ambedkartoostumbles.Soquicktoreacttoslightsagainsthisownpeople,Ambedkar, in apassage inAnnihilation ofCaste, echoesthe thinking of colonial missionaries and liberal ideologues, and adds his owntouchofBrahminism:

Thirteenmillionpeople living in themidstofcivilisationare still ina savagestate, and are leading the life of hereditary criminals … The Hindus willprobablyseektoaccountforthissavagestateoftheaboriginesbyattributingtothem congenital stupidity. Theywill probably not admit that the aborigineshave remained savages because theymadeno effort to civilise them, to givethemmedicalaid, toreformthem, tomakethemgoodcitizens…Civilisingthe aboriginesmeans adopting them as your own, living in theirmidst, andcultivatingfellow-feeling—inshort,lovingthem…

TheHindu has not realised that these aborigines are a source of potentialdanger. If these savages remain savages, they may not do any harm to theHindus.Butiftheyarereclaimedbynon-Hindusandconvertedtotheirfaiths,theywillswelltheranksoftheenemiesoftheHindus.224

Today, Adivasis are the barricade against the pitiless march of moderncapitalism.Theirveryexistenceposesthemostradicalquestionsaboutmodernityand‘progress’—theideasthatAmbedkarembracedasoneofthewaysoutofthecastesystem.Unfortunately,byviewingtheAdivasicommunitythroughthelensof Western liberalism, Ambedkar’s writing, which is otherwise so relevant intoday’scontext,suddenlybecomesdated.

Ambedkar’s opinions about Adivasis betrayed a lack of information andunderstanding.Firstofall,HinduevangelistsliketheHinduMahasabhahadbeenworkingto‘assimilate’theAdivasissincethe1920s(justliketheywereBalmiki-isingcastesthatwereforcedintocleaningandscavengingwork).TribesliketheHo,theOraon,theKols,theSanthals,theMundasandtheGondsdidnotwishto be ‘civilised’ or ‘assimilated’. They had rebelled time and again against theBritish as well as against zamindars and Bania moneylenders, and had foughtfiercelytoprotecttheirland,cultureandheritage.Thousandshadbeenkilledintheseuprisings, but unlike the rest of India, theywerenever conquered.Theystill have not been. Today, they are the armed,militant end of a spectrum of

struggles.They arewagingnothing shortof a civilwar against the Indian statewhich has signed over Adivasi homelands to infrastructure and miningcorporations. They are the backbone of the decades-long struggle against bigdamsintheNarmadaValley.TheymakeuptheranksofthePeople’sLiberationGuerillaArmyoftheCommunistPartyofIndia(Maoist)that is fightingtensofthousandsofparamilitary forces thathavebeendeployedby thegovernment intheforestsofCentralIndia.

Ina1945addressinBombay(“TheCommunalDeadlockandaWaytoSolveIt”),discussing the issueofproportionate representation,AmbedkarbroughtuptheissueofAdivasirightsonceagain.Hesaid:

Myproposalsdonotcover theAboriginalTribes although theyare larger innumber than the Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians and Parsis… TheAboriginalTribes have not as yet developed any political sense tomake thebest use of their political opportunities and they may easily become mereinstrumentsinthehandseitherofamajorityoraminorityandtherebydisturbthebalancewithoutdoinganygoodtothemselves.225

Thisunfortunatewayofdescribingacommunitywassometimesaimedatnon-Adivasistoo,inanequallytroublingmanner.AtonepointinAnnihilationofCasteAmbedkarresorts tousing the languageof eugenics, a subject thatwas popularwithEuropean fascists: “Physically speaking theHindus are aC3people.Theyarearaceofpygmiesanddwarfs,stuntedinstatureandwantinginstamina.”226

His views on Adivasis had serious consequences. In 1950, the IndianConstitutionmadethestatethecustodianofAdivasihomelands,therebyratifyingBritish colonial policy. TheAdivasi population became squatters on their ownland.Bydenyingthemtheirtraditionalrightstoforestproduce,itcriminalisedawhole way of life. It gave them the right to vote, but snatched away theirlivelihoodanddignity.227

How different are Ambedkar’s words on Adivasis from Gandhi’s words onUntouchableswhenhesaid:

MuslimsandSikhsareallwellorganised.The‘Untouchables’arenot.Thereisverylittlepoliticalconsciousnessamongthem,andtheyaresohorriblytreatedthat Iwant to save them against themselves. If they had separate electorates,their liveswouldbemiserableinvillageswhicharethestrongholdsofHinduorthodoxy. It is the superior class of Hindus who have to do penance for

havingneglected the ‘Untouchables’ for ages.That penance can be donebyactivesocialreformandbymakingthelotofthe‘Untouchables’morebearablebyactsofservice,butnotbyaskingforseparateelectoratesforthem.228

GandhisaidthisattheSecondRoundTableConferenceinLondonin1931.Itwasthefirstpublicface-to-faceencounterbetweenAmbedkarandGandhi.

THECONFRONTATION

TheCongress had boycotted the FirstRound Table Conference in 1930, butnominatedGandhiasitsrepresentativeinthesecond.Theaimoftheconferencewas to frame a new constitution for self-rule. The princely states andrepresentatives of various minority communities—Muslims, Sikhs, Christians,Parsis and Untouchables—were present. Adivasis went unrepresented. ForUntouchables,itwasahistoricoccasion.Itwasthefirsttimethattheyhadbeeninvited as a separately represented constituency.Oneof the several committeesthatmadeuptheconferencewastheMinorityCommittee,chargedwiththetaskof finding a workable solution to the growing communal question. It waspotentiallythemostinflammableand,perhapsforthatreason,waschairedbytheBritishPrimeMinister,RamsayMacDonald.

ItwastothiscommitteethatAmbedkarsubmittedhismemorandum,whichhedescribedasASchemeofPoliticalSafeguardsfortheProtectionoftheDepressedClassesintheFutureConstitutionofaSelf-GoverningIndia.Itwas,foritstime,withintheframeworkofliberaldebatesonrightsandcitizenship,arevolutionarydocument.In it, Ambedkar tried to do in law what he dreamt of achieving socially andpolitically.ThisdocumentwasanearlydraftofsomeoftheideasthatAmbedkareventuallymanagedtoputintotheConstitutionofpost-1947India.

Under“ConditionNo.1:EqualCitizenship”,itsays:

TheDepressedClassescannotconsenttosubjectthemselvestomajorityruleintheirpresentstateofhereditarybondsmen.Beforemajorityruleisestablished,theiremancipationfromthesystemofuntouchabilitymustbeanaccomplishedfact.Itmustnotbelefttothewillofthemajority.TheDepressedClassesmustbemadefreecitizensentitledtoall therightsofcitizenshipincommonwithothercitizensoftheState.229

ThememorandumwentontodelineatewhatwouldconstituteFundamentalRights and how theywere to be protected. It gaveUntouchables the right toaccessallpublicplaces.Itdweltatlengthonsocialboycottsandsuggestedtheybedeclared a criminal offence. It prescribed a series of measures by whichUntouchables would be protected from social boycotts and caste Hinduspunished for instigating and promoting them. Condition No. 5 asked that aPublic Service Commission be set up to ensure Untouchables “AdequateRepresentation in the Services”. This is what has eventually evolved into thesystem of reservation in educational institutions and government jobs, againstwhichprivilegedcastesinrecenttimeshavemilitantlyagitated.230

Themostunique aspectofAmbedkar’smemorandumwashis proposal for asystemofpositivediscriminationwithintheelectoralsystem.Ambedkardidnotbelieve that universal adult franchise alone could secure equal rights forUntouchables.SincetheUntouchablepopulationwasscatteredacrossthecountryin little settlements on the outskirts of Hindu villages, Ambedkar realised thatwithin the geographical demarcation of a political constituency, they wouldalways be aminority andwould never be in a position to elect a candidate oftheirownchoice.HesuggestedthatUntouchables,whohadbeendespisedanddevaluedforsomanycenturies,begivenaseparateelectoratesothattheycould,without interference from the Hindu orthodoxy, develop into a politicalconstituencywitha leadershipof itsown. Inaddition to this, and inorder thattheyretaintheirconnectionwithmainstreampolitics,hesuggestedthattheybegiven the right to vote for general candidates too.Both the separate electorateandthedoublevoteweretolastforaperiodofonlytenyears.Thoughthedetailswere not agreed upon, when the conference concluded, all the delegatesunanimouslyagreedthattheUntouchablesshould,liketheotherminorities,haveaseparateelectorate.231

WhiletheFirstRoundTableConferencewasinsessioninLondon,Indiawasin turmoil. In January 1930, theCongress had declared its demand for PoornaSwaraj—complete independence. Gandhi showcased his genius as a politicalorganiser and launched his most imaginative political action yet—the SaltSatyagraha.HecalledonIndianstomarchtotheseaandbreaktheBritishsalttaxlaws. Hundreds of thousands of Indians rallied to his call. Jails filled tooverflowing. Ninety thousand people were arrested. Between salt and water,between the Touchables’ satyagraha and the Untouchables’ ‘duragraha’ lay asharplydivideduniverse—ofpolitics,ofphilosophyandofmorality.

At its Karachi Session inMarch 1931, the Congress passed aResolution of

FundamentalRightsforafreeIndia.232Itwasavaluable,enlighteneddocument,and it included someof the rightsAmbedkarhadbeencampaigning for. It laidthe foundation for a modern, secular and largely socialist state. The rightsincludedthefreedomsofspeech,press,assemblyandassociation,equalitybeforelaw, universal adult franchise, free and compulsory primary education, aguaranteedlivingwageforeverycitizenandlimitedhoursofwork.Itunderlinedthe protection of women and peasants, and state ownership or control of keyindustries, mines and transport. Most important, it created a firewall betweenreligionandthestate.

Notwithstanding the admirable principles of theResolution of FundamentalRightsthathadbeenpassed,theviewfromthebottomwasslightlydifferent.The1930 elections to the provincial legislatures coincidedwith the Salt Satyagraha.The Congress had boycotted the elections. In order to embarrass ‘respectable’Hinduswhodidnotheedtheboycottandstoodasindependentcandidates,theCongress fielded mock candidates who were Untouchables—two cobblers, abarber, a milkman and a sweeper. The idea was that no self-respecting,privileged-casteHinduwouldwanttobepartofaninstitutionwhereheorshewas put on a par with Untouchables.233 Putting up Untouchables as mockcandidateswasaCongresspartytacticthathadbegunwiththe1920electionsandwentonrightupto1943.Ambedkarsays:

What were the means adopted by the Congress to prevent Hindus fromstandingon an independent ticket?Themeanswere tomake the legislaturesobjectsof contempt.Accordingly, theCongress, invariousprovinces, startedprocessions carrying placards saying, ‘Whowill go to the Legislatures?Onlybarbers, cobblers, potters and sweepers.’ In the processions, onemanwouldutterthequestionaspartofthesloganandthewholecrowdwouldrepeatasanswerthesecondpartoftheslogan.234

At the Round Table Conference, Gandhi and Ambedkar clashed, bothclaiming that they were the real representatives of the Untouchables. Theconferencewenton forweeks.Gandhieventuallyagreed to separateelectoratesforMuslimsandSikhs,butwouldnotcountenanceAmbedkar’sargument foraseparateelectorateforUntouchables.Heresortedtohisusualrhetoric:“IwouldfarratherthatHinduismdiedthanthatUntouchabilitylived.”235

Gandhi refused to acknowledge that Ambedkar had the right to representUntouchables.Ambedkarwouldnotbackdowneither.Norwasthereacallfor

himto.UntouchablegroupsfromacrossIndia,includingMangooRamoftheAdDharmmovement, sent telegrams in support of Ambedkar. EventuallyGandhisaid,“ThosewhospeakofthepoliticalrightsofUntouchablesdonotknowtheirIndia,donotknowhowIndiansocietyistodayconstructed,andthereforeIwanttosaywithalltheemphasisthatIcancommandthatifIwastheonlypersontoresist this thing Iwould resist itwithmy life.”236Having delivered his threat,GandhitooktheboatbacktoIndia.Ontheway,hedroppedinonMussoliniinRome and was extremely impressed by him and his “care of the poor, hisopposition to super-urbanisation, his efforts to bring about co-ordinationbetweencapitalandlabour”.237

Ayearlater,RamsayMacDonaldannouncedtheBritishgovernment’sdecisionontheCommunalQuestion. ItawardedtheUntouchables a separateelectoratefor a period of twenty years. At the time, Gandhi was serving a sentence inYerawada Central Jail in Poona. From prison, he announced that unless theprovisionofseparateelectoratesforUntouchableswasrevoked,hewouldfasttodeath.

Hewaitedforamonth.Whenhedidnotgethisway,Gandhibeganhisfastfromprison.This fastwas completely against his ownmaximsof satyagraha. Itwasbarefacedblackmail,nothinglessmanipulativethanthethreatofcommittingpublicsuicide.TheBritishgovernmentsaiditwouldrevoketheprovisiononlyiftheUntouchables agreed.The country spun like a top.Public statementswereissued, petitions signed, prayers offered, meetings held, appeals made. It was apreposteroussituation:privileged-casteHindus,whosegregatedthemselvesfromUntouchables in every possible way, who deemed them unworthy of humanassociation, who shunned their very touch, who wanted separate food, water,schools, roads, temples and wells, now said that India would be balkanised ifUntouchableshada separateelectorate.AndGandhi,whobelievedso ferventlyand sovocally in the system thatupheld that separationwas starvinghimself todeathtodenyUntouchablesaseparateelectorate.

ThegistofitwasthatthecasteHinduswantedthepowertoclosethedooronUntouchables, but on no account couldUntouchables be given the power toclosethedooronthemselves.Themastersknewthatchoicewaspower.

As the frenzy mounted, Ambedkar became the villain, the traitor, the manwhowantedtodisseverIndia,themanwhowastryingtokillGandhi.Politicalheavyweights of the garamdal (militants) aswell as the naramdal (moderates),includingTagore,NehruandC.Rajagopalachari,weighedinonGandhi’sside.ToplacateGandhi,privileged-casteHindusmadeashowofsharingfoodonthe

streetswithUntouchables,andmanyHindutempleswerethrownopentothem,albeit temporarily. Behind those gestures of accommodation, a wall of tensionbuiltup too.SeveralUntouchable leaders feared thatAmbedkarwouldbeheldresponsibleifGandhisuccumbedtohisfast,andthisinturn,couldputthelivesof ordinary Untouchables in danger. One of them was M.C. Rajah, theUntouchable leader fromMadras,who, according to an eyewitness account oftheevents,said:

For thousands of yearswe had been treated asUntouchables, downtrodden,insulted,despised.TheMahatmaisstakinghislifeforoursake,andifhedies,forthenextthousandsofyearsweshallbewherewehavebeen,ifnotworse.Therewillbesuchastrongfeelingagainstusthatwebroughtabouthisdeath,that the mind of the whole Hindu community and the whole civilisedcommunitywillkickusdownstairsfurtherstill.Iamnotgoingtostandbyyouany longer. I will join the conference and find a solution and I will partcompanyfromyou.238

WhatcouldAmbedkardo?Hetriedtoholdoutwithhisusualarsenaloflogicandreason,butthesituationwaswaybeyondallthat.Hedidn’tstandachance.Afterfourdaysofthefast,on24September1932,AmbedkarvisitedGandhiinYerawadaprisonandsignedthePoonaPact.ThenextdayinBombayhemadeapublicspeechinwhichhewasuncharacteristicallygraciousaboutGandhi:“IwasastoundedtoseethatthemanwhoheldsuchdivergentviewsfrommineattheRoundTableConferencecameimmediatelytomyrescueandnottotherescueoftheotherside.”239

Later,though,havingrecoveredfromthetrauma,Ambedkarwrote:

Therewasnothingnobleinthefast.Itwasafoulandfilthyact…[I]twastheworst formofcoercionagainstahelplesspeopletogiveuptheconstitutionalsafeguards of which they had become possessed under the Prime Minister’sAwardandagreetoliveonthemercyoftheHindus.Itwasavileandwickedact.HowcantheUntouchablesregardsuchamanashonestandsincere?240

AccordingtothePact,insteadofseparateelectorates,theUntouchableswouldhave reserved seats in general constituencies. The number of seats they wereallotted in the provincial legislatures increased (from seventy-eight to 148), butthecandidates,becausetheywouldnowhavetobeacceptabletotheirprivileged-caste–dominated constituencies, lost their teeth.241 Uncle Tom won the day.

Gandhisawtoitthatleadershipremainedinthehandsoftheprivilegedcastes.InTheNew JimCrow,MichelleAlexander242 describes how, in the United

States,criminalisationandmassincarcerationhasledtothedisenfranchisementofanextraordinarypercentageoftheAfricanAmericanpopulation.InIndia,inafarslyerway,anapparentlygenerousformofenfranchisementhasensuredthevirtualdisenfranchisementoftheDalitpopulation.

Nevertheless,whattoAmbedkarwasafoulandfilthyactappearedtoothersasnothing less than a divine miracle. Louis Fischer, author of perhaps the mostwidelyreadbiographyofGandhieverwritten,said:

Thefastcouldnotkillthecurseofuntouchabilitywhichwasmorethanthreethousand years old … but after the fast, untouchability forfeited its publicapproval;thebeliefinitwasdestroyed…Gandhi’s‘EpicFast’snappedalongchain that stretched back into antiquity and had enslaved tens of millions.Some links of the chain remained.Manywounds from the chain remained.But nobody would forge new links, nobody would link the links togetheragain… It [thePoonaPact]marked a religious reformation, a psychologicalrevolution. Hinduism was purging itself of a millennial sickness. The masspurified itself in practice… IfGandhi had done nothing else in his life butshatter the structure of untouchability he would have been a great socialreformer…Gandhi’sagonygavevicariouspaintohisadorerswhoknewtheymustnotkillGod’smessengeronearth.Itwaseviltoprolonghissuffering.Itwas blessed to save him by being good to those whom he had called ‘TheChildrenofGod’.243

OnthegreatoccasionofthePoonaPact,contradictingthestandhetookattheRound Table Conference, Gandhi was quite willing to accept Ambedkar’ssignatureonthepactas therepresentativeof theUntouchables.Gandhihimselfdidnotsignthepact,butthelistoftheothersignatoriesisinteresting:G.D.Birla,Gandhi’s industrialist-patron; Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, a conservativeBrahmin leader and founder of the right-wing Hindu Mahasabha (of whichGandhi’s future assassin, Nathuram Godse, was a member); V.D. Savarkar,accusedof conspiracy inGandhi’s assassination,who also served as presidentoftheMahasabha; Palwankar Baloo, an Untouchable cricketer of the Chambharcaste,whowascelebratedearlierasasportingidolbyAmbedkar,andwhomtheCongress and theHinduMahasabhaproppedup as anopponentofAmbedkar;244and,ofcourse,M.C.Rajah(whowould,muchlater,regrethiscollusionwith

Gandhi,theHinduMahasabhaandtheCongress).245Amongthe(many)reasonsthatcriticismofGandhiisnotjustfrownedupon,

butoften censored in India, ‘secularists’ tell us, is thatHindunationalists (fromwhosemidstGandhi’sassassinsarose,andwhosestarisontheascendantinIndiathesedays)willseizeuponsuchcriticismandturnittotheiradvantage.ThefactistherewasnevermuchdaylightbetweenGandhi’sviewsoncasteandthoseoftheHinduright.FromaDalitpointofview,Gandhi’sassassinationcouldappeartobemorea fratricidalkillingthananassassinationbyanideologicalopponent.Eventoday,NarendraModi,Hindunationalism’smostaggressiveproponent,andapossiblefutureprimeminister,isabletoinvokeGandhiinhispublicspeecheswithout the slightest discomfort. (Modi invoked Gandhi to justify theintroduction of two anti-minority legislations in Gujarat—the anti-conversionlawof2003,calledtheGujaratFreedomofReligionAct,andtheamendmenttothe old cow-slaughter law in 2011.246) Many of Modi’s pronouncements aredeliveredfromtheMahatmaMandirinGandhinagar,aspankingnewconventionhall whose foundation contains sand brought in special urns from each ofGujarat’s18,000villages,manyofwhichcontinuetopractiseegregiousformsofuntouchability.247

After thePoonaPact,Gandhidirectedallhisenergyandpassiontowards theeradicationof untouchability. For a start, he rebaptisedUntouchables and gavethem a patronising name: Harijans. ‘Hari’ is the name for a male deity inHinduism, ‘jan’ is people. SoHarijans are People ofGod, though in order toinfantilise them even further, in translation they are referred to as ‘ChildrenofGod’.Inthisway,GandhianchoredUntouchablesfirmlytotheHindufaith.248HefoundedanewnewspapercalledHarijan.HestartedtheHarijanSevakSangh(Harijan Service Society), which he insisted would be manned only byprivileged-caste Hindus who had to do penance for their past sins againstUntouchables.AmbedkarsawallthisastheCongress’splanto“killUntouchablesbykindness”.249

Gandhitouredthecountry,preachingagainstuntouchability.Hewasheckledand attacked by Hindus even more conservative than himself, but he did notswervefromhispurpose.Everythingthathappenedwasharnessedtothecauseoferadicatingcaste.InJanuary1934,therewasamajorearthquakeinBihar.Almosttwenty thousandpeople lost their lives.Writing in theHarijanon24February,Gandhi shockedevenhis colleagues in theCongresswhenhe said itwasgod’spunishment to thepeople for the sinofpractisinguntouchability.Noneof thisstopped theCongressparty fromcontinuingwitha tradition ithad invented: it

once again fielded mockUntouchable candidates in the 1934 elections to theCentralLegislature.250

Gandhicouldnot,itappears,conceiveofaroleforUntouchablesotherthanasvictims in need of ministration. That they had also been psychologicallyhardwired into the caste system, that they toomightneed tobe rousedoutofthousandsofyearsofbeingconditionedtothinkofthemselvesassubhuman,wasanantithetical,intimidatingideatoGandhi.ThePoonaPactwasmeanttodefuseoratleastdelaythepoliticalawakeningofUntouchables.

WhatGandhi’scampaignagainstuntouchabilitydid,anddideffectively,wastorub balmon injuries thatwere centuries old.To a vastmass ofUntouchables,accustomed only to being terrorised, shunned and brutalised, this missionaryactivity would have induced feelings of gratitude and even worship. Gandhiknewthat.Hewasapolitician.Ambedkarwasnot.Or,atanyrate,notaverygood one. Gandhi knew how tomake charity an event, a piece of theatre, aspectaculardisplayof fireworks.So,while theDoctorwas searching foramorelastingcure,theSaintjourneyedacrossIndiadistributingaplacebo.

ThechiefconcernoftheHarijanSevakSanghwastopersuadeprivilegedcastesto open up temples toUntouchables—ironic, becauseGandhiwas no temple-goerhimself.NorwashissponsorG.D.Birla,who,inaninterviewtoMargaretBourke-White,said,“Franklyspeaking,webuildtemplesbutwedon’tbelieveintemples. We build temples to spread a kind of religious mentality.”251 Theopening of temples had already begun during the days of Gandhi’s epic fast.UnderpressurefromtheHarijanSevakSangh,hundredsoftempleswerethrownopen to Untouchables. (Some, like the Guruvayur temple in Kerala, refusedpoint-blank.Gandhicontemplatedafastbutsoonchangedhismind.252)OthersannouncedthattheywereopentoUntouchablesbutfoundwaysofhumiliatingthemandmakingitimpossibleforthemtoenterwithanysortofdignity.

ATempleEntryBillwastabledintheCentralLegislaturein1933.GandhiandtheCongresssupporteditenthusiastically.Butwhenitbecameapparentthattheprivilegedcasteswereseriouslyopposedtoit,theybackedout.253

Ambedkarwasscepticalaboutthetempleentryprogramme.Hesawthatithada tremendouspsychological impactonUntouchables,buthe recognised templeentry as the beginning of ‘assimilation’—of Hinduising and BrahminisingUntouchables, drawing them further into being partners in their ownhumiliation.Ifthe“infectionofimitation”ofBrahminismhadbeenimplantedinUntouchablesevenwhentheyhadbeendeniedentryintotemplesforcenturies,whatwouldtempleentrydoforthem?On14February1933,Ambedkarissueda

statementontempleentry:

WhattheDepressedClasseswant isareligionthatwillgivethemequalityofsocialstatus…nothingcanbemoreodiousandvilethanthatadmittedsocialevilsshouldbesoughttobejustifiedonthegroundofreligion.TheDepressedClassesmaynotbeabletooverthrowinequities towhichtheyaresubjected.Buttheyhavemadeuptheirmindnottotolerateareligionthatwill lenditssupporttothecontinuanceoftheseinequities.254

Ambedkarwasonlyechoingwhatafourteen-year-oldUntouchableManggirl,Muktabai Salve, had said long ago. She was a student in the school forUntouchable children that Jotiba and Savitri Phule ran in Poona. In 1855, shesaid, “Let that religion, where only one person is privileged and the rest aredeprived,perishfromtheearthandlet itneverenterourmindstobeproudofsuchareligion.”255

Ambedkarhad learned fromexperience thatChristianity, Sikhism, Islam andZoroastrianismwere not impervious to caste discrimination. In 1934, he had arepriseofhisoldexperiences.HewasvisitingtheDaulatabadfort,intheprincelystateofHyderabad,withagroupoffriendsandco-workers.ItwasthemonthofRamzan.Dustyandtiredfromtheirjourney,Ambedkarandhis friendsstoppedtodrinkwaterandwashtheirfacesfromapublictank.Theyweresurroundedbya mob of angry Muslims calling them ‘Dheds’ (a derogatory term forUntouchables).Theywereabused,nearlyassaultedandpreventedfromtouchingthewater.“Thiswillshow,”AmbedkarwritesinhisAutobiographicalNotes,“thata person who is Untouchable to a Hindu, is also Untouchable to aMohammedan.”256

Anewspiritualhomewasnowhereinsight.Still,atthe1935Yeolaconference,AmbedkarrenouncedHinduism.In1936,

he published the incendiary (and overpriced, as Gandhi patronisinglycommented)textofAnnihilationofCastethatsetoutthereasonsforwhyhehaddoneso.

Thatsameyear,Gandhijitoomadeamemorablecontributiontoliterature.Hewas by now sixty-eight years old. He wrote a classic essay called “The IdealBhangi”:

TheBrahmin’sdutyistolookafterthesanitationofthesoul,theBhangi’sthatofthebodyofsociety…andyetourwoebegoneIndiansocietyhasbranded

theBhangiasasocialpariah,sethimdownatthebottomofthescale,heldhimfitonlytoreceivekicksandabuse,acreaturewhomustsubsistontheleavingsofthecastepeopleanddwellonthedungheap.

Ifonlywehadgivendue recognition to the statusof theBhangiasequal tothatoftheBrahmin,ourvillages,nolesstheirinhabitantswouldhavelookedapicture of cleanliness and order. I thereforemake bold to statewithout anymannerof hesitationor doubt that not till the invidious distinctionbetweenBrahminandBhangiisremovedwilloursocietyenjoyhealth,prosperityandpeaceandbehappy.

Hethenoutlinedtheeducationalrequirements,practicalskillsandetiquetteanidealBhangishouldpossess:

Whatqualitiesthereforeshouldsuchanhonouredservantofsocietyexemplifyin his person? In my opinion an ideal Bhangi should have a thoroughknowledgeoftheprinciplesofsanitation.Heshouldknowhowarightkindoflatrineisconstructedandthecorrectwayofcleaningit.Heshouldknowhowtoovercomeanddestroytheodourofexcretaandthevariousdisinfectantstorender them innocuous.He should likewise know the process of convertingurineandnight soil intomanure.But that isnotall.MyidealBhangiwouldknow the quality of night soil and urine.Hewould keep a closewatch ontheseandgivetimelywarningtotheindividualconcerned…

The Manusmriti says a Shudra should not amass wealth even if he has theability,foraShudrawhoamasseswealthannoystheBrahmin.257Gandhi,aBania,forwhomtheManusmritiprescribesusuryasadivinecalling,says:“SuchanidealBhangi, while deriving his livelihood from his occupation, would approach itonlyasasacredduty.Inotherwords,hewouldnotdreamofamassingwealthoutofit.”258

Seventy years later, in his book Karmayogi (which he withdrew after theBalmikicommunityprotested),NarendraModiprovedhewasadiligentdiscipleoftheMahatma:

Idonotbelievetheyhavebeendoingthisjobjusttosustaintheirlivelihood.Had this been so, they would not have continued with this kind of jobgenerationaftergeneration…Atsomepointoftimesomebodymusthavegottheenlightenmentthatitistheir(Balmikis’)dutytoworkforthehappinessof

theentiresocietyandtheGods;thattheyhavetodothisjobbestoweduponthem byGods; and this job should continue as internal spiritual activity forcenturies.259

Thenaramdal and thegaramdalmaybe separatepoliticalparties today,butideologicallytheyarenotasfarapartfromeachotheraswethinktheyare.

Like all theotherHindu reformers,Gandhi toowas alarmedbyAmbedkar’stalkofrenouncingHinduism.HeadamantlyopposedthereligiousconversionofUntouchables. In November 1936, in a now-famous conversation with JohnMott—an American evangelist and chairman of the International MissionaryCouncil—Gandhisaid:

IthurtmetofindChristianbodiesvyingwiththeMuslimsandSikhsintryingtoaddtothenumbersoftheirfold.Itseemedtomeanuglyperformanceandatravestyofreligion.Theyevenproceededtoenter intosecretconclaveswithDrAmbedkar.IshouldhaveunderstoodandappreciatedyourprayersfortheHarijans,butinsteadyoumadeanappealtothosewhohadnoteventhemindand intelligence to understandwhat you talked; they have certainly not theintelligence to distinguish between Jesus andMohammed andNanak and soon… IfChristianswant to associate themselveswith this reformmovementtheyshoulddosowithoutanyideaofconversion.J.M.: Apart from this unseemly competition, should they not preach theGospelwithreferencetoitsacceptance?G: Would you, Dr Mott, preach the Gospel to a cow? Well, some of theuntouchablesareworsethancowsinunderstanding.ImeantheycannomoredistinguishbetweentherelativemeritsofIslamandHinduismandChristianitythan a cow.You canonly preach through your life.The rose does not say:‘Comeandsmellme.’260

It’s true that Gandhi often contradicted himself. It’s also true that he wascapable of being remarkably consistent. For more than half a century—throughouthisadultlife—hispronouncementsontheinherentqualitiesofBlackAfricans,Untouchablesandthelabouringclassesremainedconsistentlyinsulting.Hisrefusaltoallowworking-classpeopleandUntouchablestocreatetheirownpolitical organisations and elect their own representatives (which Ambedkarconsidered to be fundamental to the notion of citizenship) remained consistenttoo.261

Gandhi’s political instincts served the Congress party extremely well. HiscampaignoftempleentrydrewtheUntouchablepopulationingreatnumberstotheCongress.

Though Ambedkar had a formidable intellect, he didn’t have the sense oftiming,theduplicity,thecraftinessandtheabilitytobeunscrupulous—qualitiesthatagoodpoliticianneeds.Hisconstituencywasmadeupofthepoorest,mostoppressed sections of the population. He had no financial backing. In 1942,AmbedkarreconfiguredtheIndependentLabourPartyintothemuchmoreself-limiting Scheduled Castes Federation. The timing was wrong. By then, thenational movement was reigniting. Gandhi had announced the Quit IndiaMovement.TheMuslimLeague’sdemandforPakistanwasgainingtraction,andforawhilecasteidentitybecamelessimportantthattheHindu–Muslimissue.

Bythemid-1940s,astheprospectofpartitionloomed,thesubordinatedcastesinseveralstateshadbeen‘assimilated’intoHinduism.TheybegantoparticipateinmilitantHindurallies;inNoakhaliinBengal,forinstance,theyfunctionedasanoutlyingvigilantearmyintherun-uptothebloodbathofpartition.262

In 1947 Pakistan became the world’s first Islamic republic. More than sixdecadeslater,astheWaronTerrorcontinuesinitsmanyavatars,politicalIslamisturning inwards, narrowing and hardening its precincts. Meanwhile, politicalHinduismisexpandingandbroadening.Today,eventheBhaktimovementhasbeen‘assimilated’asa formofpopular, folkHinduism.263Thenaramdal,oftendressedup as ‘secularnationalism’,has recruited JotibaPhule,PanditaRamabaiand evenAmbedkar, all ofwhomdenouncedHinduism,back into the ‘Hindufold’ as peopleHindus can be ‘proud’ of.264 Ambedkar is being assimilated inanother way too—as Gandhi’s junior partner in their joint fight againstuntouchability.

Theanxietyarounddemographyhasbynomeansabated.Hindusupremacistorganisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Shiv Sena areworkinghard(andsuccessfully)atluringDalitsandAdivasisintothe‘Hindufold’.IntheforestsofCentralIndia,whereacorporatewarformineralsisraging,theVishwaHinduParishad(VHP)andtheBajrangDal (bothorganisations thatarelooselylinkedtotheRSS)runmassconversionprogrammescalled‘gharwapsi’—the return home—in which Adivasi people are ‘reconverted’ to Hinduism.Privileged-casteHindus, who pride themselves on being descendants of Aryaninvaders, arebusypersuadingpeoplewhobelong to indigenous, autochthonoustribestoreturn‘home’.Itmakesyoufeelthatironyisnolongeraliteraryoptioninthispartoftheworld.

Dalits who have been harnessed to the ‘Hindu fold’ serve another purpose:even if they have not been part of the outlying army, they can be used asscapegoatsforthecrimestheprivilegedcastescommit.

In 2002, in theGodhra railway station inGujarat, a train compartmentwasmysteriouslyburneddown,andfifty-eightHindupilgrimswerecharredtodeath.Withnotmuchevidencetoprovetheirguilt,someMuslimswerearrestedastheperpetrators.TheMuslimcommunityasawholewascollectivelyblamedforthecrime.Over thenext fewdays, theVHPand theBajrangDal ledapogrominwhichmore than two thousandMuslims were murdered, women were mob-rapedandburntaliveinbroaddaylightandahundredandfiftythousandpeoplewere driven from their homes.265After the pogrom, 287 peoplewere arrestedunderthePreventionofTerrorismAct(POTA).Ofthem,286wereMuslimandonewasaSikh.266Mostofthemarestillinprison.

IfMuslimswere the ‘terrorists’,whowere the ‘rioters’? In his essay “BloodUnder Saffron: The Myth of Dalit–Muslim Confrontation”, Raju Solanki, aGujaratiDalit writerwho studied the pattern of arrests, says that of the 1,577‘Hindus’whowerearrested (notunderPOTAofcourse),747wereDalits and797 belonged to ‘Other Backward Classes’. Nineteen were Patels, two wereBanias and twowere Brahmins. Themassacres ofMuslims occurred in severalcities and villages in Gujarat. However, Solanki points out that not a singlemassacretookplaceinbastiswhereDalitsandMuslimslivedtogether.267

NarendraModi,theChiefMinisterofGujaratwhopresidedoverthepogrom,hassincewonthestateelectionsthreetimesinarow.DespitebeingaShudra,hehas endearedhimself to theHindu rightbybeingmoreblatantly and ruthlesslyanti-Muslim than any other Indian politician.When hewas asked in a recentinterview whether he regretted what happened in 2002, he said, “[I]f we aredrivingacar,weareadriver,andsomeoneelseisdrivingacarandwe’resittingbehind,eventhenifapuppycomesunderthewheel,willitbepainfulornot?Ofcourseitis.IfI’maChiefMinisterornot,I’mahumanbeing.Ifsomethingbadhappensanywhere,itisnaturaltobesad.”268

AsblatantlycasteistandcommunalastheHindurightis, intheirsearchforafoothold inmainstream politics, even radical Dalits havemade common causewithit.Inthemid-1990s,theremarkableDalitpoetNamdeoDhasal,oneofthefoundersoftheDalitPanthers,joinedtheShivSena.In2006,DhasalsharedthedaiswithRSSchiefK.S.SudarshanatabooklaunchandpraisedtheRSS’seffortsatequality.269

It is easy to dismiss what Dhasal did as an unforgivable compromise with

fascists.However, inparliamentarypolitics, after thePoonaPact—ratherbecauseofthePoonaPact—Dalitsasapoliticalconstituencyhavehadtomakeallianceswiththosewhoseinterestsarehostiletotheirown.ForDalits,aswehaveseen,thedistancebetween theHindu ‘right’and theHindu ‘left’ isnotasgreatas itmightappeartobetoothers.

DespitethedebacleofthePoonaPact,Ambedkardidn’tentirelygiveuptheideaofseparateelectorates.Unfortunately,hissecondparty,theScheduledCastesFederation,wasdefeatedinthe1946electionstotheProvincialLegislature.Thedefeat meant that Ambedkar lost his place on the Executive Council in theInterimMinistrythatwasformedinAugust1946.Itwasaseriousblow,becauseAmbedkar desperatelywanted to use his position on theExecutiveCouncil tobecomepartofthecommitteethatwoulddrafttheIndianConstitution.Worriedthatthiswasnotgoingtobepossible,andinordertoputexternalpressureontheDrafting Committee, Ambedkar, inMarch 1947, published a document calledStatesandMinorities—hisproposedconstitutionfora ‘UnitedStatesofIndia’(anidea whose time has perhaps come). Fortunately for him, the Muslim Leaguechose JogendranathMandal, a colleagueofAmbedkar’s and aScheduledCastesFederationleaderfromBengal,asoneofitscandidatesontheExecutiveCouncil.MandalmadesurethatAmbedkarwaselectedtotheConstituentAssemblyfromtheBengalprovince.Butdisasterstruckagain.Afterpartition,EastBengalwenttoPakistanandAmbedkarlosthispositiononcemore.Inagestureofgoodwill,andperhapsbecausetherewasnooneasequaltothetaskashewas,theCongressappointedAmbedkar to theConstituentAssembly. InAugust 1947,Ambedkarwas appointed India’s first Law Minister and Chairman of the DraftingCommittee for theConstitution.Across the newborder, JogendranathMandalbecamePakistan’sfirstLawMinister.270Itwasextraordinarythat,throughallthechaosandprejudice,thefirstlawministersofbothIndiaandPakistanwereDalits.Mandal was eventually disillusioned with Pakistan and returned to India.Ambedkarwasdisillusionedtoo,buthereallyhadnowheretogo.

TheIndianConstitutionwasdraftedbyacommittee,andreflectedtheviewsof its privileged-caste members more than Ambedkar’s. Still, several of thesafeguardsforUntouchablesthathehadoutlinedinStatesandMinoritiesdidfindtheirwayin.SomeofAmbedkar’smoreradicalsuggestions,suchasnationalisingagricultureandkeyindustries,weresummarilydropped.ThedraftingprocessleftAmbedkarmorethanalittleunhappy.InMarch1955,hesaidintheRajyaSabha(India’sUpperHouseofParliament):“TheConstitutionwasawonderfultemplewebuilt for thegods,butbefore theycouldbe installed, thedevilshave taken

possession.”271 In 1954, Ambedkar contested his last election as a ScheduledCastesFederationcandidateandlost.

AmbedkarwasdisillusionedwithHinduism,withitshighpriests,itssaintsanditspoliticians. Yet, the response to temple entry probably taught him howmuchpeoplelongtobelongtoaspiritualcommunity,andhowinadequateacharterofcivilrightsoraconstitutionistoaddressthoseneeds.

Aftertwentyyearsofcontemplation,duringwhichhestudiedIslamaswellasChristianity,Ambedkar turned toBuddhism.This, too,he entered inhisown,distinct,angularway.HewaswaryofclassicalBuddhism,ofthewaysinwhichBuddhist philosophy could, had and continues to be used to justify war andunimaginablecruelty.(ThemostrecentexampleistheSriLankangovernment’sversionof stateBuddhism,whichculminated in thegenocidalkillingof at least40,000 ethnic Tamils and the internal displacement of 300,000 people in2009.272)Ambedkar’sBuddhism, called ‘NavayanaBuddhism’273 or the FourthWay,distinguishedbetweenreligionanddhamma.“ThepurposeofReligionisto explain the origin of theworld,” Ambedkar said, sounding verymuch likeKarl Marx, “the purpose of Dhamma is to reconstruct the world.”274 On 14October 1956, in Nagpur, only months before his death, Ambedkar, ShardaKabir,his(Brahmin)secondwife,andhalfamillionsupporterstookthevowoftheThreeJewelsandFivePreceptsandconvertedtoBuddhism.Itwashismostradical act. It marked his departure from Western liberalism and its purelymaterialisticvisionofasocietybasedon‘rights’,avisionwhoseorigincoincidedwiththeriseofmoderncapitalism.

AmbedkardidnothaveenoughmoneytoprinthismajorworkonBuddhism,TheBuddhaandHisDhamma,beforehedied.275

Heworesuits,yes.Buthediedindebt.

Wheredoesthatleavetherestofus?ThoughtheycalltheagewearelivingthroughtheKaliYuga,276RamRajya

could be just around the corner. The fourteenth-century Babri Masjid,supposedlybuiltonthebirthplaceofLordRaminAyodhya,wasdemolishedbyHindustormtrooperson6December1992,Ambedkar’sdeathanniversary.WeawaitwithapprehensiontheconstructionofagrandRamtempleinitsplace.As

MahatmaGandhidesired,therichmanhasbeenleftinpossessionofhis(aswellas everybody else’s) wealth. Chaturvarna reigns unchallenged: the Brahminlargely controls knowledge; the Vaishya dominates trade. The Kshatriyas haveseen better days, but they are still, for the most part, rural landowners. TheShudras live in thebasementof theBigHouse andkeep intruders at bay.TheAdivasis are fighting for their very survival. And theDalits—well, we’ve beenthroughallthat.

Cancastebeannihilated?Notunlessweshowthecouragetorearrangethestarsinourfirmament.Not

unless those who call themselves revolutionary develop a radical critique ofBrahminism.NotunlessthosewhounderstandBrahminismsharpentheircritiqueofcapitalism.

And not unless we read Babasaheb Ambedkar. If not inside our classrooms,thenoutsidethem.Untilthenwewillremainwhathecalledthe“sickmen”andwomenofHindustan,whoseemtohavenodesiretogetwell.

1

2

3

4

5

NOTES

ForthisaccountofKhairlanji,IhavedrawnonAnandTeltumbde(2010a).For one of the first comprehensive news reports on the incident, seeSabrinaBuckwalter(2006).

Forananalysisofthelowercourtjudgement,seeS.Anand(2008b).

On 11 July 1996, the Ranveer Sena, a privileged-caste, feudal militiamurderedtwenty-onelandlesslabourersinBathaniTolavillageinthestateofBihar. In2012, thePatnaHighCourtacquittedall theaccused.On1December 1997, the Ranveer Sena massacred fifty-eight Dalits inLaxmanpur Bathe village, also in Bihar. In April 2010, the trial courtconvicted all the twenty-six accused. It sentenced ten of them to lifeimprisonment and sixteen to death. In October 2013, the Patna HighCourt suspended the conviction of all twenty-six accused, saying theprosecutionhadnotproducedanyevidencetoguaranteeanypunishmentatall.

ThesearesomeofthemajorcrimesagainstDalitsandsubordinatedcastesthat have taken place in recent times: in 1968, in Keezhvenmani in thestateofTamilNadu,forty-fourDalitswereburntalive;in1977,inBelchivillageofBihar,fourteenDalitswereburntalive;in1978,inMarichjhapi,anislandintheSundarbansmangroveforestofWestBengal,hundredsofDalit refugees from Bangladesh were massacred during a left-ledgovernment’s eviction drive; in 1984, in Karamchedu in the state ofAndhraPradesh, sixDalitsweremurdered, threeDalitwomenrapedandmanymorewounded;in1991,inChunduru,alsoinAndhraPradesh,nineDalitswere slaughtered and their bodies dumped in a canal; in 1997, inMelavalavu in Tamil Nadu, an elected Dalit panchayat leader and fiveDalitsweremurdered; in2000, inKambalapalli in the stateofKarnataka,sixDalitswereburntalive;in2002,inJhajjarinthestateofHaryana,fiveDalitswerelynchedoutsideapolicestation.SeealsothedocumentationbyHumanRightsWatch(1999)andtheNavsarjanreport(2009).

BAWS 9, 296.All references toB.R.Ambedkar’swritings, except fromAnnihilationofCaste,arefromtheBabasahebAmbedkar:WritingsandSpeeches(BAWS) series published by the Education Department, Government ofMaharashtra.All references toAnnihilation ofCaste (henceforthAoC) are

6

7

8

9

fromtheNavayanaedition.

RupaViswanath (2012)writes,“Where ‘Dalit’ refers toall those Indians,pastandpresent,traditionallyregardedasoutcastesanduntouchable,‘SC’isa modern governmental category that explicitly excludes Christian andMuslim Dalits. For the current version of the President’s Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Order, which tells us who will count as SC for thepurposes of constitutional and legal protections, is entirely unambiguous:‘NopersonwhoprofessesareligiondifferentfromtheHindu,theSikhorthe Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a ScheduledCaste.’”Shegoeson to say,“ItwasonlyunderCongress rule, in1950,that the President’sOrder explicitly defined SC on the basis of religiouscriteria, although Christian Dalits were excluded from SC for electoralpurposesbytheGovernmentofIndiaAct1935.Fromthatpointonwards,DalitswhohadconvertedoutofHinduismlostnotonlyreservations,butalso,after1989,protectionunder thePreventionofAtrocitiesAct.Later,SC was expanded to include Sikh and Buddhist Dalits, but officialdiscriminationagainstMuslimandChristianDalits remains.” IfChristiansaswellasMuslimswhofacethestigmaofcasteweretobeincludedinthenumber of thosewho can be counted asDalit, their share in the Indianpopulationwouldfarexceedtheofficial2011Censusfigureof17percent.SeealsoNote2tothePrefaceofthe1937editionofAoC(184).

On16December2012,awomanwasbrutallytorturedandgang-rapedinabusinNewDelhi.Shediedon29December.Theatrocityledtomassprotestsfordaystogether.Unusually,alargenumberofmiddle-classpeopleparticipatedinthem.Inthewakeoftheprotests thelawagainstrapewasmademorestringent.SeeJasonBurke’sreportsinTheGuardian,especially“Delhi Rape: How India’s Other Half Lives” (10 September 2013).http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/delhi-gang-rape-india-women.Accessed12September2013.

NationalCrimeRecordsBureau(NCRB)2012,423–4.

Privileged castes punish Dalits by forcing them to eat human excretathoughthisoftengoesunreported.InThinniyamvillageinTamilNadu’sTiruchidistrict,on22May2002, twoDalits,MurugesanandRamasami,wereforcedtofeedeachotherhumanexcretaandbrandedwithhotironrodsforpubliclydeclaringthattheyhadbeencheatedbythevillagechief.SeeViswanathan(2005).Infact,“TheStatementofObjectsandReasons

10

11

12

13

14

of the ScheduledCastes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention ofAtrocities)Act,1989”statesthisasoneofthecrimesitseekstoredress:“Oflate,therehas been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certainatrocities likemaking the ScheduledCaste person eat inedible substanceslikehumanexcretaandattacksonandmasskillingsofhelplessScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to theScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes.”

According to the tenets of their faith, Sikhs are not supposed to practisecaste. However, those from the Untouchable castes who converted toSikhism continue to be treated asUntouchable. For an account of howcasteaffectsSikhism,seeMarkJuergensmeyer(1982/2009).

BAWS1,222.

See, for example,MadhuKishwar (Tehelka, 11 February 2006)who says“themuchreviledcastesystemhasplayedaverysignificantroleinmakingIndiandemocracyvibrantbymakingitpossibleforpeopletoofferagoodmeasure of resistance to centralised, authoritarian power structures thatcame to be imposed during colonial rule and were preserved even afterIndependence.”

See Béteille (2001) and Gupta (2001, 2007). Dipankar Gupta, formerlyprofessor of sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, was part of theofficial Indiandelegationthat in2007opposedtheDalitcaucus’sdemandto treat caste discrimination as being akin to racial discrimination. In anessayin2007,Guptaarguedthat“theallegationthatcasteisaformofracialdiscrimination is not just an academicmisjudgement but has unfortunatepolicyconsequencesaswell”.Foracross-sectionofviewsonthecaste–racedebate at the United Nations Committee on Elimination of RacialDiscrimination, see Thorat and Umakant (ed., 2004), which featurescounter-arguments by a range of scholars including Gail Omvedt andKanchaIlaiah.AlsoseeNatarajanandGreenough(ed.,2009).

ForaresponsetoBéteilleandGupta,seeGeraldD.BerremaninNatarajanandGreenough(2009).Berremansays:“Whatis‘scientificallynonsensical’isProfessorBéteille’smisunderstandingof ‘race’.What is ‘mischievous’ ishis insistence that India’s system of ascribed social inequality should beexemptedfromtheprovisionsofaUNConventionwhosesolepurposeisthe extension of human rights to include freedom from all forms ofdiscriminationandintolerance—andtowhichIndia,alongwithmostother

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

nations,hascommitteditself”(54–5).

Seewww.declarationofempathy.org.Accessed16January2014.

Das2010,25.

Inter-casteand intra-gotramarriagesareresisted in thenameof ‘honour’;in extreme cases, the couple, or one of the partners, is killed. For anaccountofthecaseofIlavarasanandDivyafromTamilNadu,seeMeenaKandasamy(2013).Foranaccountoftheconsequencesofviolating‘gotralaws’inHaryana,seeChanderSutaDogra’srecentManojandBabli:AHateStory (2013).Also see “Day after their killing, village goes quiet”, IndianExpress,20September2013,andChowdhry(2007).

In 2009,Ahmedabad-basedNavsarjanTrust and theRobert F.KennedyCenter for Justice and Human Rights, published a joint report,“Understanding Untouchability”. It listed ninety-nine forms ofuntouchability in1,589villagesofGujarat. It lookedat theprevalenceofuntouchability under eight broad heads: 1.Water forDrinking; 2. Foodand Beverage; 3. Religion; 4. Caste-based Occupations; 5. Touch; 6.Access to Public Facilities and Institutions; 7. Prohibitions and SocialSanctions;8.PrivateSectorDiscrimination.Thefindingswereshocking.In98.4percentofvillages surveyed, inter-castemarriagewasprohibited; in97.6 per cent of villages, Dalits were forbidden to touch water pots orutensils that belonged to non-Dalits; in 98.1 per cent of villages, aDalitcould not rent a house in a non-Dalit area; in 97.2 per cent of villages,Dalit religious leaderswerenotallowedtocelebrateareligiousceremonyin a non-Dalit area; in 67 per cent of villages,Dalit panchayatmemberswere either not offered tea orwere served in separate cups called ‘Dalit’cups.

AoC17.7.

CWMG 15, 160–1. All references to Gandhi’s works, unless otherwisestated,arefromTheCollectedWorksofMahatmaGandhi (CWMG)(1999).Whereverpossible,firstpublicationdetailsarealsoprovidedsincescholarssometimesrefertoanearliereditionoftheCWMG.

CitedinBAWS9,276.

CitedinCWMG59,227.

Seethe20November2009UNIreport,“India’s100richestare25pcofGDP”. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/indias-100-richest-are-25-pc-of-gdp-

24

25

26

27

28

29

forbes/105548-7.html?utm_source=ref_article. Accessed 8 September2013.

AReuters report (10 August 2007) based on “Conditions ofWork andPromotions of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector” by the NationalCommission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector said: “Seventy-sevenpercentofIndians—about836millionpeople—liveonlessthanhalfa dollar a day in one of the world’s hottest economies.”http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/10/idINIndia-28923020070810.Accessed26August2013.

S.Gurumurthy, co-convenor of theHindu right-wing Swadeshi JagaranManch, talks of how caste and capitalism can coexist: “Caste is a verystrong bond. While individuals are related by families, castes link thefamilies. Castes transcended the local limits and networked the peopleacross[sic].Thishaspreventedthedisturbancethatindustrialismcausedtoneighbourhoodsocieties in theWest, resulting inunbridled individualismandacuteatomization.”Hegoesontoarguethatthecastesystem“hasinmoderntimesengagedthemarketineconomicsanddemocracyinpoliticstoreinventitself.Ithasbecomeagreatsourceofentrepreneurship”.See“IsCasteanEconomicDevelopmentVehicle?”,TheHindu,19January2009.http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/19/stories/2009011955440900.htm.Accessed26August2013.

See“Forbes:India’sbillionairewealthmuchabovecountry’sfiscaldeficit”,The Indian Express, 5 March 2013.http://www.indianexpress.com/news/forbes-indias-billionaire-wealth-much-above-countrys-fiscal-deficit/1083500/#sthash.KabcY8BJ.dpuf.Accessed26August2013.

Hutton1935.

Hardiman1996,15.

See “Brahmins in India”, Outlook, 4 June 2007.http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234783.Accessed5September2013. Despite the decline, the Lok Sabha in 2007 had fifty BrahminMembersofParliament—9.17percentofthetotalstrengthoftheHouse.The data given by Outlook is based on four surveys conducted by theCentre for the Study ofDeveloping Societies,Delhi, between 2004 and2007.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

BAWS9,207.

SeeSingh1990.Singh’sfiguresarebasedoninformationprovidedbyoneofhisreaders.

BAWS9,200.

ReservationwasfirstintroducedinIndiaduringthecolonialperiod.Forahistoryofthepolicyofreservation,seeBhagwanDas(2000).

SelectedEducationalStatistics2004–05,p.xxii,MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment. Available at http://www.education-forallinindia.com/SES2004-05.pdf.Accessed11November2013.

Undertheneweconomicregime,education,healthcare,essentialservicesand other public institutions are rapidly being privatised. It has led to ahaemorrhageofgovernment jobs.Forapopulationof1.2billionpeople,the total number of organised sector jobs is 29million (as of 2011).Ofthese, theprivate sector accounts foronly11.4million. See theEconomicSurvey 2010–11, p.A52. http://indiabudget.nic.in/budget2011-2012/es2010-11/estat1.pdf.Accessed10November2013.

SeeAjayNavaria’sstory“YesSir”inUnclaimedTerrain(2013).

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(NCSCST)1998,180–1.

PrabhuChawla,“CourtingControversy”, IndiaToday (29 January1999).The lawyersquotedareAnilDivanandFaliS.Nariman.Later, IndiadidgetaDalitSupremeCourtChiefJusticeinK.G.Balakrishnan(2007–10).

SanthoshandAbraham2010,28.

Ibid.,27.

The note submitted to the JNU vice-chancellor was signed by, amongothers,YoginderK.Alagh,T.K.OommenandBipanChandra.Alaghisaneconomist and a formerMember of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), a formerunionministerandregularnewspapercolumnist.Oomenwaspresidentofthe International Sociological Association (1990–4), and published aneditedvolumecalledClasses,CitizenshipandInequality:EmergingPerspectives.Chandra is a Marxist historian, former president of the Indian HistoryCongress,andwaschairpersonoftheCentreforHistoricalStudies,JNU.

Raman2010.

TheJusticeRajinderSacharCommitteewasappointedbyPrimeMinister

44

45

46

47

48

Manmohan Singh on 9 March 2005 to assess the social, economic andeducational statusof theMuslimcommunityofIndia; its403-pagereportwastabledinParliamenton30November2006.Thereportestablishesthatcaste oppression affects India’s Muslims too. According to Teltumbde(2010a, 16), “working from the SacharCommittee data, the SC and STcomponentsofIndia’spopulationcanbeestimatedat19.7and8.5percentrespectively”.

AccordingtoeconomistSukhadeoThorat(2009,56),“Nearly70percentofSChouseholdseitherdonotownlandorhaveverysmalllandholdingsoflessthan0.4ha[hectare].Averysmallproportion(lessthan6percent)consists of medium and large farmers. The scenario of landownershipamongSCsisevengrimmerinBihar,Haryana,KeralaandPunjab,wheremore than 90 per cent of SC households possess negligible or no land.”Citing Planning Commission data, another research paper states that themajority of the ScheduledCastes (77 per cent) are landless,without anyproductiveassetsandsustainableemploymentopportunities.According totheAgriculturalCensusof1990–1,theessaysays,“Around87percentofthe landholdersof scheduledcastesand65percentof scheduled tribes inthe country belong to the category of small and marginal farmers”(Mohanty2001,3857).

NCSCST1998,176.

“13 lakh Dalits still engaged in manual scavenging: Thorat”, The NewIndian Express, 8 October 2013. Seehttp://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/13-lakh-Dalits-still-engaged-in-manual-scavenging-Thorat/2013/10/08/article1824760.ece.Accessed10October2013.SeealsothestatuspapersonthewebsiteoftheInternational Dalit Solidarity Network, http://idsn.org/caste-discrimination/key-issues/manual-scavenging/.Accessed10October2013.

Data fromhttp://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/pdf/Summarypercent20Sheet_Eng.pdfaccessed26August2013,andBhasin(2013).

See the interview ofMilind Kamble, chairman of DICCI, andChandraBhan Prasad, mentor to DICCI, in The Indian Express, 11 June 2013:“Capitalism is changing caste much faster than any human being. Dalitsshould look at capitalism as a crusader against caste.” Available athttp://m.indianexpress.com/news/capitalism-is-changing-caste-much-

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

faster-than-any-human-being.-dalits-should-look-at-capitalism-as-a-crusader-against-caste/1127570/.Accessed20August2013.Forananalysisof how India’s policies of liberalisation and globalisation since 1990haveactually benefited rural Dalits of Uttar Pradesh’s Azamgarh andBulandshahardistricts,seeKapur,etal.(2010).SeealsoMilindKhandekar’sDalit Millionaires: 15 Inspiring Stories (2013). For a critique of the “low-intensityspectacleofDalitmillionaires”,seeGopalGuru(2012).

“Anti-castediscrimination reformsblocked, saycritics”,TheGuardian, 29July 2013. See http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/29/anticaste-discrimination-reforms. Accessed 5 August2013.

Vanita2002.

Sukta90inBookXoftheRigVedatellsthestoryofthemythofcreation.ItdescribesthesacrificeofthePurusha(primevalman),fromwhosebodythefourvarnasandtheentireuniverseemerged.When(thegods)dividedthe Purusha, his mouth became Brahmin, his arms Kshatriya, his thighsVaishyaandShudra sprang fromhis feet.SeeDoniger (translation,2005).SomescholarsbelievethatSukta isa latter-dayinterpolationintotheRigVeda.

Susan Bayly (1998) shows howGandhi’s caste politics are completely inkeepingwiththeviewsofmodern,privileged-casteHindu‘reformers’.

In2012,thenewsmagazineOutlookpublishedtheresultofjustsuchapollconductedontheeveofindependenceday.Thequestionwas:“Who,aftertheMahatma, is thegreatest Indian tohavewalkedour soil?”Ambedkartopped thepoll andOutlook devoted an entire issue (20August 2012) tohim. See http://www.outlookindia.com/content10894.asp. Accessed 10August2013.

SeeAmbedkar’sPakistan or the Partition of India (1945), first published asThoughtsonPakistan(1940),andfeaturednowinBAWS8.

Parel1997,188–9.

Ina1955interviewtoBBCradio,Ambedkarsays:“AcomparativestudyofGandhi’sGujaratiandEnglishwritingswillrevealhowMrGandhiwasdeceiving people.” See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJs-BjoSzbo.Accessed12August2013.

CitedinBAWS9,276.

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

AoC16.2.

SeeTidrick2006,281,283–4.On2May1938,afterGandhihadaseminaldischargeattheageofsixty-four, ina lettertoAmritlalNanavatihesaid:“Where ismy place, and how can a person subject to passion representnon-violenceandtruth?”(CWMG73,139).

BAWS9,202.

Keer1954/1990,167.

For an analysis of the radicalism inherent in theAmbedkar statue, in thecontext of Uttar Pradesh, see Nicolas Jaoul (2006). “To Dalit villagers,whoserightsanddignityhavebeenregularlyviolated,settingupthestatueof a Dalit statesman wearing a red tie and carrying the Constitutioninvolves dignity, pride in emancipated citizenship and a practicalacknowledgementof the extent towhich the enforcement of laws couldpositivelychangetheirlives”(204).

“TheStaterepresentsviolenceinaconcentratedandorganisedform.Theindividualhasasoul,butastheStateisasoullessmachine,itcanneverbeweanedfromviolencetowhichitowesitsveryexistence.HenceIpreferthedoctrineof trusteeship.”HindustanTimes, 17October 1935;CWMG65,318.

YoungIndia,16April1931;CWMG51,354.

Das2010,175.

Jefferson says this in his letter of 6 September 1789 to James Madison.Available at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html. Accessed 21November2013.

Ambedkararguesin“CastesinIndia”,his1916essay,thatwomenarethegateways of the caste system and that control over them through childmarriages,enforcedwidowhoodandsati(beingburntonadeadhusband’spyre)aremethodstokeepacheckonwomen’ssexuality.ForananalysisofAmbedkar’swritingsonthisissue,seeSharmilaRege(2013).

ForadiscussionoftheHinduCodeBill, itsramificationsandhowitwassabotaged,seeSharmilaRege(2013,191–244).Regeshowshowfrom11April 1947, when it was introduced in the Constituent Assembly, tillSeptember 1951, the Bill was never taken seriously. Ambedkar finallyresignedon10October1951.TheHinduMarriageActwasfinallyenacted

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

in1955, grantingdivorce rights toHinduwomen.TheSpecialMarriageAct,passedin1954allowsinter-casteandinter-religiousmarriage.

Rege2013,200.

Rege2013,241.Ambedkar’sdisillusionmentwiththenewlegalregimeinIndia went further. On 2 September 1953, Ambedkar declared in theRajyaSabha,“Sir,myfriendstellmethatImadetheConstitution.ButIamquitepreparedtosaythatIshallbethefirstpersontoburnitout.Idonotwant it. It does not suit anybody.Butwhatever thatmay be, if ourpeoplewanttocarryon,theymustrememberthattherearemajoritiesandthere are minorities; and they simply cannot ignore the minorities bysaying: ‘Oh, no, to recognise you is to harm democracy’ ” (Keer 1990,499).

AoC20.12.

Omvedt2008,19.

Unpublished translation by Joel Lee, made available through personalcommunication.

YoungIndia,17March1927;CWMG38,210.

Ambedkar said this during his speech delivered as Chairman of theConstitution Drafting Committee in the Constituent Assembly on 4November1948.SeeDas2010,176.

For an analysis of Gandhi’s relationship with Indian capitalists, see LeahRenold(1994).Gandhi’sapproachtobigdamsisrevealedinaletterdated5April1924,inwhichheadvisedvillagerswhofaceddisplacementbytheMulshi Dam, being built by the Tatas to generate electricity for theirBombaymills,togiveuptheirprotest(CWMG27,168):

1.Iunderstandthatthevastmajorityofthemenaffectedhaveacceptedcompensationandthatthefewwhohavenotcannotperhapsevenbetraced.2. The dam is nearly half-finished and its progress cannot bepermanently stopped. There seems tome to be no ideal behind themovement.3.The leaderof themovement isnotabelieveroutandout innon-violence.Thisdefectisfataltosuccess.

Seventy-fiveyears later, in2000, theSupremeCourtof IndiausedverysimilarlogicinitsinfamousjudgementontheWorldBank-fundedSardar

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Sarovar Dam on the Narmada river, when it ruled against tens ofthousandsof localpeopleprotesting theirdisplacement, andordered theconstructionofthedamtocontinue.

YoungIndia,20December1928;CWMG43,412.AlsoseeGandhi’sHindSwaraj(1909)inAnthonyParel(1997).

Rege2013,100.

BAWS5,102.

InDas2010,51.

AoC,Prefaceto1937edition.

CitedinZelliot2013,147.

Here, for example, is IsmatChugtai, aMuslimwriter celebrated for herprogressive, feminist views, describing an Untouchable sweeper in hershortstory,“APairofHands”:“Goriwashername,thefecklessone,andshewasdark,darklikeaglisteningpanonwhicharotihadbeenfriedbutwhich a careless cookhad forgotten to clean. Shehad a bulbous nose, awide jaw, and it seemed she came from a family where brushing one’steethwasahabitlongforgotten.Thesquintinherlefteyewasnoticeabledespite the fact that her eyes were heavily kohled; it was difficult toimaginehow,withasquintedeye,shewasabletothrowdartsthatneverfailed tohit theirmark.Herwaistwasnot slim; ithad thickened, rapidlyincreasing indiameter fromall thosehandouts she consumed.Therewasalsonothingdelicateaboutherfeetwhichremindedoneofacow’shoofs,andsheleftacoarsesmellofmustardoilinherwake.Hervoicehowever,wassweet”(2003,164).

In 1981, all the Dalits of the village of Meenakshipuram—renamedRahmatNagar—inTamilNadu’sTirunelveli district converted to Islam.Worried by this, Hindu supremacist groups such as the Vishwa HinduParishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh together with theSankaracharya of Kanchipuram began to work proactively to ‘integrate’Dalits intoHinduism.A new ‘TamilHindu’ chauvinist group called theHindu Munnani was formed. Eighteen years later, P. Sainath revisitedMeenakshipuramand filed two reports (1999a,1999b).For a similar casefrom Koothirambakkam, another village in Tamil Nadu, see S. Anand(2002).

CitedinOmvedt2008,177.

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

ThefigureAmbedkarcitesisdrawnfromtheSimonCommissionreportof1930. When the Lothian Committee came to India in 1932 Ambedkarsaid,“TheHindusadoptedachallengingmoodandrefused toaccept thefigures given by the Simon Commission as a true figure for theUntouchablesof India.”He thenargues that,“this isdue to the fact thattheHindushadbynowrealised thedangerof admitting theexistenceoftheUntouchables.Foritmeantthatapartoftherepresentationenjoyedbythe Hindus will have to be given up by them to the Untouchables”(BAWS5,7–8).

SeeNote69at9.4ofthisAoCedition.

HesaysthisintheApril1899issueofthejournalPrabuddhaBharata,inaninterviewtoitseditor.Inthesameinterview,whenaskedspecificallywhatwould be the caste of those who “re-converted” to Hinduism,Vivekananda says: “Returning converts…will gain their own castes, ofcourse.Andnewpeoplewillmaketheirs.Youwillremember…thatthishasalreadybeendoneinthecaseofVaishnavism.Convertsfromdifferentcastesandalienswereallabletocombineunderthatflagandformacastebythemselves—andaveryrespectableonetoo.FromRamanujadowntoChaitanya of Bengal, all greatVaishnavaTeachers have done the same.”Available athttp://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_5/interviews/on_the_bounds_of_hinduism.htmAccessed20August2013.

Thenamesof theseorganisations translateas:Forum forDalitUplift; theAll-IndiaCommittee for theUplift ofUntouchables; the Punjab SocietyforUntouchableUplift.

AoC6.2.

Bayly1998.

ThetermwascoinedbyV.D.Savarkar(1883–1966),oneoftheprincipalproponents of modern, right-wing Hindu nationalism, in his 1923pamphletEssentials ofHindutva (later retitledHindutva:Who Is aHindu?).The first edition (1923) of this work carried the pseudonymous “AMaratha”asauthor.ForacriticalintroductiontoHindutva,seeJyotirmayaSharma(2006).

CitedinPrashad1996,554–5.

BAWS9,195.

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

A few privileged-casteHindumembers of theGhadar Party later turnedtowards Hindu nationalism and became Vedic missionaries. On BhaiParmanand, a founder-member of theGhadar Partywho later became aHindutvaideologue,seeNote11intheProloguetoAoC.

For a monograph on the Ad Dharm movement, see Juergensmeyer(1982/2009).

Rupa Viswanath (forthcoming 2014) details the history of the colonialstate’salliancewiththelandedcastesagainstlandlessDalitsinthecontextoftheMadrasPresidency.

Davis2002,7.

BAWS9,1.

Ibid.,3.

SeeDevji2012,chapter3,“InPraiseofPrejudice”,especially47–8.

CitedfromYoungIndia,23March1921,inDevji2012,81.

Golwalkar1945,55–6.

BAWS17,Part1,369–75.

Godse1998,43.

BAWS3,360.

CitedinBAWS9,68.

Harijan,30September1939;CWMG76,356.

SeeGuha2013b.

Tidrick2006,106.

ForanarchiveofGandhi’swritingsabouthisyears inSouthAfrica(1893to1914),seeG.B.Singh(2004).

Swan1985,52.

KaffirisanArabictermthatoriginallymeant‘onewhohidesorcovers’—adescription of farmers burying seeds in the ground. After the advent ofIslam,itcametomean‘non-believers’or‘heretics’,those‘whocoveredthetruth(Islam)’.Itwasfirstappliedtonon-MuslimBlackpeopleencounteredbyArabtradersalongtheSwahilicoast.PortugueseexplorersadoptedthetermandpasseditontotheBritish,FrenchandDutch.InSouthAfrica,itbecame a racial slur theWhites andAfrikaners (and Indians likeGandhi)usedtodescribenativeAfricans.Today,tocallsomeoneaKaffirinSouth

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Africaisanactionableoffence.

CWMG1,192–3.

CWMG1,200.

ForahistoryofindenturedlabourinSouthAfrica,seeAshwinDesaiandGoolamVahed(2010).

Betweentheearly1890sand1913,theIndianpopulationinSouthAfricatripled,from40,000to135,000(Guha2013b,463).

Guha2013b,115.

CWMG2,6.

Hochschild2011,33–4.

DuringtheSecondWorldWar,headvisedtheJewsto“summontotheiraidthesoul-powerthatcomesonlyfromnon-violence”andassuredthemthatHerrHitlerwould“bowbeforetheircourage”(Harijan,17December1938;CWMG74, 298).Heurged theBritish to “fightNazismwithoutarms”(Harijan,6July1940;CWMG78,387).

CWMG34,18.

CWMG2,339–40.

TheNatalAdvertiser,16October1901;CWMG2,421.

CWMG5,11.

Ibid.,179.

Guy2005,212.

Accordingtoanoteonthefirstpageofvolume34ofCWMG,“Gandhijistarted writing in Gujarati the history of Satyagraha in South Africa onNovember26,1923,whenhewas in theYeravadaCentral Jail;vide JailDiary, 1923. By the time hewas released, on February 5, 1924, he hadcompleted30chapters…TheEnglishtranslationbyValjiG.Desai,whichwasseenandapprovedbyGandhiji,waspublishedbyS.Ganesan,Madras,in1928.”

CWMG34,82–3.

Ibid.,84.

Of a totalpopulationof135,000 Indians,only10,000,whoweremostlytraders,livedintheTransvaal.TherestwerebasedinNatal(Guha2013b,463).

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

CWMG 5, 337. This is from Clause 3 from Resolution 2 of the FiveResolutions passed by the British Indian Association in Johannesburg,followingthe‘MassMeeting’of11September1906.

IndianOpinion,7March1908;CWMG8,198–9.

CWMG9,256–7.

IndianOpinion,23January1909;CWMG9,274.

In a letter dated 18May 1899 to theColonial Secretary,Gandhiwrote:“AnIndianmayfancythathehasawrongtoberedressedinthathedoesnotgetgheeinsteadofoil”(CWMG2,266).Onanotheroccasion:“TheregulationsheredonotprovideforanygheeorfattoIndians.Acomplainthasthereforebeenmadetothephysician,andhehaspromisedtolookintoit.So there is reason tohope that the inclusionofgheewillbeordered”(IndianOpinion,17October1908;CWMG9,197).

IndianOpinion,23January1909;CWMG9,270.

YoungIndia,5April1928;CWMG41,365.

Lelyveld2011,74.

CitedinZinnandArnove2004,265.

Ibid.,270.

CitedinOmvedt2008,219.

InDeshpande2002,25.

Ibid.,38–40.

CitedinAmbedkar1945;BAWS9,276.

SeeAdams2011,263–5.AlsoseeRitaBanerji2008,especially265–81.

CWMG34,201–2.

HindSwarajinParel1997,106.

Ibid.,97

See Gandhi’s Preface to the English translation ofHind Swaraj, in Parel(1997,5).

Savarkar,themilitantHindutvaideologue,saidatrueIndianisonewhosepitrabhoomi (fatherland) as well as punyabhoomi (holy land) is India—notsomeforeignland.SeehisHindutva(1923,105).

Parel1997,47–51.

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

Ibid.,66.

Ibid.,68–9.

RamachandraGuha(2013b,383)says:“GandhiwroteHindSwarajin1909at a time he scarcely knew India at all. By 1888,when he departed forLondon, at theageofnineteen,hehad livedonly in towns inhisnativeKathiawar.There isnoevidencethathehadtravelled inthecountryside,andheknewnootherpartofIndia.”

Parel1997,69–70.

Gandhi says this in 1932, in connectionwith the debate around separateelectoratesforUntouchables,inalettertoSirSamuelHoare,SecretaryofStateforIndia.CitedinBAWS9,78.

IndianOpinion,22October1910;CWMG11,143–4.CitedalsoinGuha2013b,395.

Guha2013b,463.

Ibid.,406.

AiyarquotedinLelyveld2011,21.

Personal communication, Ashwin Desai, professor of sociology atUniversityofJohannesburg.

Lelyveld2011,130.

Tidrick2006,188.

See Renold 1994. Also see Louis Fischer, A Week with Gandhi (1942),quotedbyAmbedkar:“‘IsaidIhadseveralquestionstoaskhimabouttheCongressParty.VeryhighlyplacedBritishers,Irecalled,hadtoldmethatCongresswasinthehandsofbigbusinessandthatGandhiwassupportedbytheBombayMill-ownerswhogavehimasmuchmoneyashewanted.‘WhatTruthisthereintheseassertions’,Iasked.‘Unfortunately,theyaretrue,’hedeclaredsimply…‘WhatportionoftheCongressbudget,’Iasked,‘iscoveredbyrichIndians?’‘Practicallyallofit,’hestated.‘Inthisashram,for instance,wecould livemuchmorepoorly thanwedoandspend lessmoney. Butwe do not and themoney comes from our rich friends.’ ”CitedinBAWS9,208.

CitedinAmin1998,293.

YoungIndia,18August1921;CWMG23,158.

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

Harijan,25August1940;CWMG79,133–4.

Ibid.,135.

Ibid.,135.

The Gospel of Wealth (1889). Available athttp://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html.Accessed26August2013.

CitedinAmin1998,290–1.

Amin291–2.

Tidrick2006,191.

CitedinSingh2004,124.

Tidrick2006,192.

Ibid.,194.

Ibid.,195.

Zelliot2013,48.

This is from theunpublished preface toAmbedkar’sTheBuddha andHisDhamma(1956).ItfirstappearedaspartofabookofAmbedkar’sprefaces,published by Bhagwan Das and entitled Rare Prefaces (1980). EleanorZelliotlaterpublisheditontheColumbiaUniversitywebsitededicatedtoAmbedkar’s life and selected works.http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/00_pref_unpub.htmlAccessed10September2013.

BAWS4,1986.

On20May1857, theEducationDepartment issued a directive that “noboyberefusedadmissiontoagovernmentcollegeorschoolmerelyonthegroundofcaste”(Nambissan2002,81).

For an annotated edition of this essay, see SharmilaRege (2013). It alsoappearsinBAWS1.

InAutobiographicalNotes2003,19.

Keer1990,36–7.

AoC17.5.

Prashad1996,552.Inhis speechat theSuppressedClassesConference inAhmedabadon13April1921, reported inYoungIndiaon27April1921

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

and4May1921(reproducedinCWMG23,41–7),GandhidiscussedUkaatlengthforthefirsttime(42).Bakha,themainprotagonistinMulkRajAnand’s iconic novelUntouchable (1935), is said to be inspired by Uka.According to the researcher LingarajaGandhi (2004),Anand showed hismanuscript to Gandhi, who suggested changes. Anand says: “I read mynovel toGandhiji, andhe suggested that I shouldcutdownmore thanahundred pages, especially those passages in which Bakha seemed to bethinking and dreaming and brooding like a Bloomsbury intellectual.”Lingaraja Gandhi further says: “Anand had provided long and floweryspeechestoBakhainhisdraft.GandhiinstructedAnandthatuntouchablesdon’t speak that way: in fact, they hardly speak. The novel underwentmetamorphosisunderthetutelageofGandhi.”

Navajivan, 18 January 1925;CWMG30, 71. In the account ofGandhi’ssecretary,MahadevDesai,thisspeechfromGujaratiisrendereddifferently:“ThepositionthatIreallylongforisthatoftheBhangi.Howsacredisthisworkof cleanliness!Thatwork can be doneonly by aBrahminor by aBhangi.TheBrahminmaydoitinhiswisdom,theBhangiinignorance.Irespect, I adore both of them. If either of the two disappears fromHinduism,Hinduismitselfwoulddisappear.Anditisbecauseseva-dharma(self-service)isdeartomyheartthattheBhangiisdeartome.Imayevensit atmymealswithaBhangibymy side,but Idonot askyou toalignyourselves with them by inter-caste dinners and marriages.” Cited inRamaswamy2005,86.

Renold1994,19–20.HighlypublicisedsymbolicvisitstoDalithomeshasbecomeaCongresspartytradition.InJanuary2009,intheglareofamediacircus,theCongressparty’svice-presidentandprimeministerialcandidate,RahulGandhi, alongwithDavidMilliband, theBritish foreign secretary,spentanightinthehutofaDalitfamilyinSimravillageofUttarPradesh.Foranaccountofthis,seeAnandTeltumbde(2013).

Prashad2001,139.

BAWS1,256.

Keer1990,41.

Zelliot2013,91.

SeeJoseph2003,166.ObjectingtoSikhsrunningalangar(free,commonkitchen) for the satyagrahis of Vaikom, Gandhi wrote inYoung India (8

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

May 1924), “The Vaikom satyagraha is, I fear, crossing the limits. I dohopethattheSikhfreekitchenwillbewithdrawnandthatthemovementwillbeconfinedtoHindusonly”(CWMG27,362).

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, a Tamil Brahmin, known affectionately asRajaji,wasaclose friendandconfidantofGandhi. In1933,hisdaughterLeela married Gandhi’s son Devdas. Rajagopalachari later served as theactingGovernorGeneralofIndia.In1947,hebecamethefirstGovernorofWest Bengal, and in 1955 received the Bharat Ratna, India’s highestcivilianaward.

CitedinJoseph2003,168.

YoungIndia,14August1924;CWMG28,486.

Joseph2003,169.

Birla1953,43.

Keer1990,79.

Speaking at a Depressed Classes Conference in 1925, Ambedkar said:“When one is spurned by everyone, even the sympathy shown byMahatmaGandhi is of no little importance.”Cited in Jaffrelot 2005, 63.Gandhi visited Mahad on 3 March 1927, a fortnight before the firstsatyagraha, butunlike atVaikomhedidnot interfere.For an accountofthesecondMahadSatyagrahawhenacopyoftheManusmritiwasburnt,seeK.Jamnadas(2010).

According to Anand Teltumbde’s unpublished manuscript on the twoMahadconferences,ResolutionNo.2seekinga‘ceremonialcremation’ofthe Manusmriti was proposed by G.N. Sahasrabuddhe, a Brahmin, whoplayedanimportantrole intheMarcheventsaswell; itwassecondedbyP.N.Rajbhoj,aChambharleader.AccordingtoTeltumbde,“Therewasadeliberate attempt to get some progressive people fromnon-untouchablecommunities to the conference, but eventually only two namesmaterialised.Onewas GangadharNilkanth Sahasrabuddhe, an activist ofthe Social Service League and a leader of the cooperative movementbelongingtoAgarkariBrahmancaste,andtheotherwasVinayakaliasBhaiChitre, aChandraseniyaKayastha Prabhu.” In the 1940s, SahasrabuddhebecametheeditorofJanata—anotherofAmbedkar’snewspapers.

Dangle,ed.,1992,231–3.

Keer1990,170.

205

206

207

208

209

210

CitedinPrashad1996,555.

Gandhi outlined the difference between satyagraha and duragraha in aspeechon3November1917:“Therearetwomethodsofattainingone’sgoal: Satyagraha and Duragraha. In our scriptures, they have beendescribed, respectively, asdivineanddevilishmodesof action.”Hewenton to give an example of duragraha: “the terrible War going on inEurope”. Also, “The man who follows the path of Duragraha becomesimpatient and wants to kill the so-called enemy. There can be but oneresultofthis.Hatredincreases”(CWMG16,126–8).

BAWS9,247.

OnthefalloutwiththeGirniKamgarUnion,seeTeltumbde(2012).Forhow Dange and the Communist Party worked towards ensuringAmbedkar’s defeat in the BombayCityNorth constituency in the 1952general election, see S. Anand (2012a), and Rajnarayan Chandavarkar(2009, 161), where he says: “The decision by the socialists and thecommunists not to forge an electoral pact, let alone join together tocombine with Ambedkar’s Scheduled Castes Federation, against theCongress lost them theCentralBombay seat.Dange, for theCPI,AsokaMehta for the socialists and Ambedkar each stood separately and felltogether.Significantly,Dangeinstructedhissupporterstospoiltheirballotsin the reserved constituency for Central Bombay rather than vote forAmbedkar. Indeed, Ambedkar duly lost and attributed his defeat to thecommunistcampaign.AlthoughthecommunistscouldnotwintheCentralBombay seat, their influence inGirangaon, including its dalit voters,wassufficient to decisively influence the outcome. The election campaigncreated a lasting bitterness. As Dinoo Ranadive recalls, ‘the differencesbetweenthedalitsandthecommunistsbecamesosharpthateventodayithasbecomedifficultforthecommuniststoappealtotheRepublicans’oratany rate to some sectionsof dalit voters.”Republicanshere refers to theRepublicanPartyofIndia(RPI)thatAmbedkarhadconceivedofashortwhilebeforehisdeathinDecember1956.ItcametobeestablishedonlyinSeptember 1957 by his followers, but today there are over a dozensplinteredfactionsoftheRPI.

Kosambi1948,274.

For an accountof this, see JanBreman’sTheMaking andUnmaking of anIndustrialWorkingClass(2004),especiallychapter2,“TheFormalizationof

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

CollectiveAction:MahatmaGandhiasaUnionLeader”(40–68).

Breman2004,57.

ShankerlalBankercitedinBreman(2004,47).

AnnualReportoftheTextileLabourUnion,1925,citedinBreman(2004,51).

Navajivan,8February1920;citedinBAWS9,280.

Harijan,21April1946;CWMG90,255–6.

AoC3.10and3.11.

AoC4.1,emphasisoriginal.

Zelliot2013,178.

Namboodiripad1986,492,emphasisadded.

ThetextofthemanifestoisreproducedinSatyanarayanaandTharu(2013,62).

ForacriticalpieceontheNGO–Dalitmovementinterfacethattracesittothe history of colonial and missionary activity in India, see Teltumbde(2010b),where he argues: “Unsurprisingly,mostDalits in IndianNGOsareactiveat the field level.Dalitboysandgirls appear tobedoing socialservicesfortheircommunities,whichiswhatAmbedkarexpectededucatedDalitstodo,andDalitcommunitiesthereforeperceivesuchworkersquitefavourably—more favourably, certainly, than Dalit politicians, who areoftenseenasengagedinmererhetoric.TheNGOsectorhasthusbecomeasignificantemployerformanyDalitsstudyingfortheirhumanitiesdegree,typicallycappedwithapostgraduatedegreeinsocialwork.Further,astheprospects of public-sector jobs have decreased since the government’sneoliberal reforms of the mid-1980s and later, the promise of NGOs asemployersassumedgreatimportance.”

Forinstance,seethelistofNGOsthatworkwiththemultinationalminingcorporationVedanta,underfireforland-grabandseveralviolationsagainstthe environment and Adivasi rights, athttp://www.vedantaaluminium.com/ngos-govt-bodies.htm. Accessed 20November2013.

Speechon26September1896at apublicmeeting inBombaywherehesaidhewasrepresentingthe“100,000BritishIndiansatpresentresidinginSouthAfrica”.SeeCWMG1,407.

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

AoC8.2–4.

BAWS1,375.

AoC5.8.

TherearedifferentaspectsoftheConstitutionthatgoverntheAdivasisoftheheartland(theFifthSchedule)andthoseoftheNortheastofIndia(theSixth Schedule). As the political scientist Uday Chandra points out in arecent paper (2013, 155), “The Fifth and Sixth Schedules of theConstitution perpetuate the languages and logics of the Partially andWholly Excluded Areas defined in theGovernment of India Act (1935)andtheTypicallyandReallyBackwardTractsdefinedbytheGovernmentofIndia(1918)…IntheScheduleVareas,dispersedacrosseastern,western,andcentralIndianstates,stategovernorswieldspecialpowerstoprohibitormodifycentralorstatelaws,toprohibitorregulatethetransferoflandbyor among tribals, to regulate commercial activities, particularly by non-tribals, and to constitute tribal advisory councils to supplement statelegislatures. In principle, NewDelhi also reserves the right to intervenedirectlyintheadministrationoftheseScheduledAreasbybypassingelectedstateandlocalgovernments.IntheScheduleVIareas,dispersedacrosstheseven northeastern states formed out of the colonial province of Assam,state governors preside over District and Regional Councils inAutonomousDistrictsandRegionstoensurethatstateandcentrallawsdonotimpingeontheseadministrativezonesofexception.”

CitedinBAWS9,70.

BAWS9,42.

Asprimeministerofanon-Congress,JanataDal–ledcoalitiongovernmentfromDecember1989toNovember1990,VishwanathPratapSingh(1931–2008)tookthedecisiontoimplementtherecommendationsoftheMandalCommission,whichfixedaquotaformembersoftheBackwardClassesinjobsinthepublicsectortoredresscastediscrimination.TheCommission,named after B.P. Mandal, a parliamentarian who headed it, had beenestablished in 1979 by another non-Congress (Janata Party) government,headedbyMorarjiDesai, but the recommendations of its 1980 report—which extended the scope of reservation in public sector employmentbeyondDalitsandAdivasis,andallocated27percenttoOtherBackwardClasses (OBCs)—had not been implemented for ten years.When itwasimplemented, the privileged castes took to the streets.They symbolically

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

sweptthestreets,pretendedtoshineshoesandperformedother‘polluting’tasks to suggest that instead of becoming doctors, engineers, lawyers oreconomists, thepolicyof reservationwasnowgoing toreduceprivilegedcastestodoingmenialtasks.Afewpeopleattemptedtopubliclyimmolatethemselves,themostwell-knownbeingaDelhiUniversitystudent,RajivGoswami, in 1990. Similar protests were repeated in 2006 when theCongress-ledUnitedProgressiveAlliancetriedtoextendreservationtotheOBCsininstitutesofhighereducation.

BAWS9,40.

SeeMenon2003,52–3.

In his 1945 indictment of theCongress andGandhi, Ambedkar lists thenames of thesemock candidates in his footnotes:GuruGosain AgamdasandBabrajJaiwarwerethetwocobblers;Chunnuwasthemilkman;ArjunLalthebarber;BansiLalChaudharithesweeper(BAWS9,210).

BAWS9,210.

Ibid.,68.

Ibid.,69.

Tidrick2006,255.

ServantsofIndiaSocietymemberKodandaRao’saccountcitedinJaffrelot(2005,66).

InPyarelal1932,188.

BAWS9,259.

As Ambedkar saw it, “The increase in the number of seats for theUntouchables isno increase at all andwasno recompense for the lossofseparateelectoratesandthedoublevote”(BAWS9,90).Ambedkarhimselflosttwiceinthepollsinpost-1947India.IttookmorethanhalfacenturyforKanshiRam,thefounderofapredominantlyDalitparty,theBahujanSamajParty, andhisprotégéMayawati to succeed in a first-past-the-postparliamentary democracy. This happened despite the Poona Pact. KanshiRam worked for years, painstakingly making alliances with othersubordinatedcastestoachievethisvictory.Tosucceedintheelections,theBSPneededthepeculiardemographyofUttarPradeshandthesupportofmanyOBCs.ForaDalitcandidatetowinanelectionfromanopenseat—eveninUttarPradesh—continuestobealmostimpossible.

242

243

244

245

246

SeeAlexander2010.

Fischer1951,400–03.

Eleanor Zelliot writes, “Ambedkar had written the manpatra (welcomeaddress,orliterally,letterofhonor)forBalooBabajiPalwankar,knownasP. Baloo, upon his return from a cricket tour in England nearly twentyyearsearlier, andhadhad somepart inP.Balu’s selectionas aDepressedClassnomineeontheBombayMunicipalCorporationintheearly1920s”(2013, 254). Baloo supported Gandhi during the Round TableConferencesandsupportedtheHinduMahasabhaposition.SoonafterthePoona Pact, in October 1933, Baloo contested as a Hindu MahasabhacandidatefortheBombayMunicipality,butlost.In1937,theCongress,inanefforttosplittheUntouchablevote,pittedBaloo,aChambhar,againstAmbedkar, a Mahar, who contested on the Independent Labour Partyticket, for a Bombay (East) ‘reserved’ seat in the Bombay LegislativeAssembly.Ambedkarwonnarrowly.

For anoutlineofRajah’s career andhowhe came around to supportingAmbedkarin1938and1942,seeNote5at1.5of“AVindicationofCastebyMahatmaGandhi”inAoC.

The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, makes it mandatory for apersonwhowantstoconvertintoanotherreligiontoseekpriorpermissionfrom a district magistrate. The text of the Act is available athttp://www.lawsofindia.org/statelaw/2224/TheGujaratFreedomofReligionAct2003.htmlAnamendmentbilltotheActwassentbacktotheLegislativeAssemblybythethenGujaratGovernor,NawalKishoreSharma,forreconsideration.Itwassubsequentlydroppedbythestategovernment.OneoftheprovisionsintheamendmentbillsoughttoclarifythatJainsandBuddhistsweretobeconstrued as denominations of Hinduism. The Governor said that theamendmentwouldbeinviolationofArticle25oftheIndianConstitution.See http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarat-withdraws-freedom-of-religion-amendment-bill/282818/1.Towatch a video ofModi invokingM.K. Gandhi against conversion, see http://ibnlive.in.com/news/modi-quotes-mahatma-flays-religious-conversion/75119-3.html. Also seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6q1drP558. The Gujarat AnimalPreservation (Amendment) Act, 2011, makes “transport of animals forslaughter” a punishable offence, widening the ambit of the original Act,whichbans cow-slaughter.TheAmendmentActhas also augmented the

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

punishment to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment from the earlier sixmonths. In 2012, Narendra Modi greeted Indians on Janmashtami(observed as Krishna’s birthday) with the following words: “MahatmaGandhiandAcharyaVinobaBhaveworkedtirelesslyfortheprotectionofmother cow, but this Government abandoned their teachings.” Seehttp://ibnlive.in.com/news/narendra-modi-rakes-up-cow-slaughter-issue-in-election-year-targets-congress/280876-37-64.html?utm_source=ref_article. (All internet links cited here were accessed 10September2013.)Gandhisaid,“AnyonewhoisnotreadytogivehislifetosavethecowisnotaHindu”(interviewtoGosevaon8September1933;CWMG61,372).Earlier,in1924,hesaid,“WhenIseeacow,itisnotananimaltoeat,itisapoemofpityformeandIworshipitandIshalldefendits worship against the whole world” (reported in Bombay Chronicle, 30December1924;CWMG29,476).

See for instance,http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/mahatma-mandir.Accessed20December2013.

ForahistoryofthetermsHarijan,DalitandScheduledCaste,seeNote8tothePrologueofAoC.

BAWS9,126.

Ibid.,210.

Renold1994,25.

Tidrick2006,261.

BAWS9,125.

Ibid.,111.

TharuandLalita1997,215.

Ambedkar2003,25.

ManusmritiX:123.SeeDoniger1991.

Harijan,28November1936;CWMG70,126–8.

Reported by the columnist Rajiv Shah in his Times of India blog of 1December 2012, http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/true-lies/entry/modi-s-spiritual-potion-to-woo-karmayogis. Shah says 5,000copiesofKarmayogiwereprintedwithfundingfromthepublicsectorunit,Gujarat State PetroleumCorporation, and that later hewas told, by the

260

261

262

263

264

265

Gujarat InformationDepartment that it had, on instructions fromModi,withdrawn thebook fromcirculation.Twoyears later, addressing9,000-oddSafaiKarmacharis (sanitationworkers),Modi said, “A priest cleans atempleeverydaybeforeprayers,youalsocleanthecitylikeatemple.Youand the temple priest work alike.” See Shah’s blog of 23 January 2013,http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/true-lies/entry/modi-s-postal-ballot-confusion?sortBy=AGREE&th=1. Both accessed 12 November2013.

CWMG70,76–7.

See“ANoteonthePoonaPact”inthisbook(357–76).

Menon2006,20.

This assimilation finds its way into the Constitution. Explanation II ofArticle25(2)(b)oftheConstitutionwasthefirsttimeinindependentIndiawhen the law categorised Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains as ‘Hindu’, even if‘only’ for the purpose of “providing social welfare and reform or thethrowingopenofHindu religious institutionsof apublic character to allclassesandsectionsofHindus”.Later,codifiedHindupersonallaw,liketheHindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, etc.,reinforced thisposition, as these statuteswereapplied toBuddhists,SikhsandJains.Pertinently,underIndianlawanatheistisautomaticallyclassifiedasaHindu.The judiciaryhasbeen sendingoutmixed signals, sometimesrecognising the ‘independent character’ of these religions, and at othertimes, asserting that the “Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout beentreated as part of thewiderHindu communitywhich has different sects,sub-sects,faiths,modesofworshipandreligiousphilosophies”(BalPatil&Anr vsUnionOf India&Ors, 8August 2005). For Buddhists, Sikhs andJainsthestruggleforrecognitioncontinues.Therehasbeensomesuccess;for example, the Anand Marriage (Amendment) Act, 2012, freed Sikhsfrom theHinduMarriageAct.On 20 January 2014, theUnionCabinetapprovedthenotificationofJainsasaminoritycommunityatthenationallevel.AlsoseeNote246ontheGujaratFreedomofReligionAct.

SeeGuha2013a.

WhileNGOsandnewsreportssuggestatolloftwothousandpersons(see“ADecade of Shame” byAnupamaKatakam,Frontline, 9March 2012),then Union Minister of State for Home, Shriprakash Jaiswal (of theCongress party), toldParliament on 11May 2005 that 790Muslims and

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

254Hinduswerekilled in the riots; 2,548were injured and223personswere missing. See “Gujarat riot death toll revealed”,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4536199.stm. Accessed 10November2013.

“Peoples Tribunal Highlights Misuse of POTA”, The Hindu, 18 March2004. See also “Human Rights Watch asks Centre to Repeal POTA”,PressTrustofIndia,8September2002.

See “Blood Under Saffron: The Myth of Dalit-Muslim Confrontation,”Round Table India, 23 July 2013. http://goo.gl/7DU9uH. Accessed 10September2013.

See http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2013/07/12/interview-with-bjp-leader-narendra-modi/.Accessed8September2013

See“DalitLeaderBuriestheHatchetwithRSS”,TimesofIndia,31August2006. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-31/india/27792531_1_rss-chief-k-sudarshan-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-dalit-leader.Accessed10August2013.

SeeZelliot2013,especiallychapter5,“PoliticalDevelopment,1935–56”.For an account of JogendranathMandal’s life and work, see DwaipayanSen(2010).

PTINewsService,20March1955,citedinZelliot(2013,193).

SeeWeiss,2011.

ForanaccountofhowAmbedkar’sBuddhismisanattempttoreconstructthe world, see Jondhale and Beltz (2004). For an alternative history ofBuddhisminIndia,seeOmvedt(2003).

BAWS11,322.

BAWS 17, Part 2, 444–5. On 14 September 1956, Ambedkar wrote aletter to PrimeMinisterNehru. “The cost of printing is very heavy andwill come to about Rs 20,000. This is beyond my capacity, and I am,therefore,canvassinghelpfromallquarters.IwonderiftheGovernmentofIndiacouldpurchase500copiesfordistributionamongthevariouslibrariesandamongthemanyscholarswhomitisinvitingduringthecourseofthisyearforthecelebrationofBuddha’s2,500years’anniversary.”Nehrudidnothelphim.Thebookwaspublishedposthumously.

Brahminic Hinduism believes in cosmic time that has neither beginning

nor end, and alternates between cycles of creation and cessation. EachMahayuga consists of four yuga—Krta or Satya Yuga (the golden age),followedbyTreta,DwaparaandKali.Eachera,shorterthanthepreviousone,issaidtobemoredegenerateanddepravedthantheprecedingone.InKali Yuga, there is disregard for varnashrama dharma—the Shudras andUntouchables wrest power—and chaos reigns, leading to completedestruction.AboutKaliYuga,theBhagvadGitasays(IX:32):“Eventhosewhoareofevilbirth,women,VaishyasandShudras,havingsoughtrefugeinmewillattainsupremeliberation”(Debroy2005,137).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams,Jad.2011.Gandhi:NakedAmbition.London:Quercus.

Alexander,Michelle.2010.TheNewJimCrow:MassIncarcerationintheAgeofColorblindness.NewYork:TheNewPress.

Aloysius,G.1997.NationalismWithoutaNationinIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ambedkar,B.R.2003.Ambedkar:AutobiographicalNotes.Ed.Ravikumar.Pondicherry:Navayana.

——.1979–2003.DrBabasahebAmbedkar:WritingsandSpeeches(BAWS).Volumes1–17.Mumbai:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1992.“DrAmbedkar’sSpeechatMahad.”InPoisonedBread:TranslationsfromModernMarathiDalitLiterature.Ed.ArjunDangle.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.

Amin,Shahid.1998.“GandhiasMahatma:GorakhpurDistrict,EasternUP,1921–2.”InSelectedSubalternStudies.Ed.RanajitGuhaandGayatriSpivak,288–348.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Anand,S.2002.“MeenakshipuramRedux.”Outlook,21October.http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?217605.Accessed1August2013.

——.2008a.“DespiteParliamentaryDemocracy.”Himal,August.http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/838-despite-parliamentary-democracy.html.Accessed20July2013.

——.2008b.“UnderstandingtheKhairlanjiVerdict.”TheHindu,5October.

——.2009.“ResurrectingtheRadicalAmbedkar.”Seminar,September.

——.2012a.“BetweenRedAndBlue.”16April.http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280573.Accessed10August2013.

——.2012b.“ACaseforBhimRajya.”Outlook,20August.

Anderson,Perry.2012.TheIndianIdeology.NewDelhi:ThreeEssaysCollective.

Banerji,Rita.2008.SexandPower:DefiningHistory,ShapingSocieties.NewDelhi:Penguin.

——.2013.“GandhiusedHisPositiontoSexuallyExploitYoungWomen.”15October.http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2013/10/gandhi-used-power-

position-exploit-young-women-way-react-matters-even-today/.Accessed20October2013.

Bayly,Susan.1998.“HinduModernisersandthe‘Public’Arena.IndigenousCritiquesofCasteinColonialIndia.”InVivekanandaandtheModernisationofHinduism.Ed.WilliamRadice,93–137.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Béteille,André.2001.“RaceandCaste.”TheHindu,10March.

Bhasin,Agrima.2013.“TheRailwaysinDenial.”InfochangeNewsandFeatures,February.http://infochangeindia.org/human-rights/struggle-for-human-dignity/the-railways-in-denial.html.Accessed5August2013.

Birla,G.D.1953.IntheShadowoftheMahatma:APersonalMemoir.Calcutta:OrientLongman.

Breman,Jan.2004.TheMakingandUnmakingofanIndustrialWorkingClass:SlidingDowntheLabourHierarchyinAhmedabad,India.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Buckwalter,Sabrina.2006.“JustAnotherRapeStory.”SundayTimesofIndia,29October.

Carnegie,Andrew.1889.TheGospelofWealth.http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Carnegie.html.Accessed26August2013.

Chandavarkar,Rajnarayan.2009.History,CultureandtheIndianCity:Essays.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chandra,Uday.2013.“LiberalismandItsOther:ThePoliticsofPrimitivisminColonialandPostcolonialIndianLaw.”Law&SocietyReview47(1):135–68.

Chawla,Prabhu.1999.“CourtingControversy.”IndiaToday,29January.

Chitre,Dilip.2003.SaysTuka:SelectedPoemsofTukaram.Pune:SontheimerCulturalAssociation.

Chowdhry,Prem.2007.ContentiousMarriages,ElopingCouples:Gender,CasteandPatriarchyinNorthernIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Chugtai,Ismat.2003.AChugtaiCollection.Tr.TahiraNaqviandSyedaS.Hameed.NewDelhi:WomenUnlimited.

Damodaran,Harish.2008.India’sNewCapitalists:Caste,Business,andIndustryinaModernNation.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

Dangle,Arjun,ed.1992.PoisonedBread:TranslationsfromModernMarathiDalit

Literature.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.

Das,Bhagwan,ed.,1980.RarePrefaces[ofB.R.Ambedkar].Jullundur:BheemPatrika.

——.2000.“MomentsinaHistoryofReservations”.Economic&PoliticalWeekly,28October:3381–4.

——.2010.ThusSpokeAmbedkar,Vol.1:AStakeintheNation.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Davis,Mike.2002.TheGreatVictorianHolocausts:ElNinoFaminesandtheMakingoftheThirdWorld.NewYork:Verso.

Debroy,Bibek,tr.2005.TheBhagavadGita.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Desai,AshwinandGoolamVahed.2010.InsideIndianIndenture:ASouthAfricanStory,1860–1914.CapeTown:HSRCPress.

Deshpande,G.P.,ed.2002.SelectedWritingsofJotiraoPhule.NewDelhi:LeftWord.

Devji,Faisal.2012.TheImpossibleIndian:GandhiandtheTemptationofViolence.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

Dogra,ChanderSuta.2013.ManojandBabli:AHateStory.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Doniger,Wendy.2005.TheRigVeda.NewDelhi:Penguin.

——.andBrianK.Smith.Tr.1991.TheLawsofManu.NewDelhi:PenguinBooks.

Fischer,Louis.1951.TheLifeofMahatmaGandhi.NewDelhi:HarperCollins.(Rpr.1997.)

Gajvee,Premanand.2013.“Gandhi–Ambedkar.”InTheStrengthofOurWrists:ThreePlays.Tr.fromMarathibyShantaGokhaleandM.D.Hatkanangalekar,91–150.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Gandhi,Leela.1996–97.“ConcerningViolence:TheLimitsandCirculationsofGandhianAhimsaorPassiveResistance.”CulturalCritique,35.105–47.

Gandhi,Lingaraja.2004.“MulkRajAnand:QuestforSoManyFreedoms.”DeccanHerald,3October.http://archive.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct032004/sh1.asp.Accessed5October2013.

Gandhi,M.K.1999.TheCollectedWorksofMahatmaGandhi(ElectronicBook).98volumes.NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia.

Ghosh,SunitiKumar.2007.IndiaandtheRaj,1919–1947:Glory,Shame,andBondage.Calcutta:SahityaSamsad.

Godse,Nathuram.1998.WhyIAssassinatedMahatmaGandhi.NewDelhi:SuryaBhartiPrakashan.

Golwalkar,M.S.1945.We,orOurNationhoodDefined.Nagpur:BharatPrakashan.Fourthed.

Guha,Ramachandra.2013a.“WhatHindusCanandShouldbeProudOf.”TheHindu,23July.http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/what-hindus-can-and-should-be-proud-of/article4941930.ece.Accessed24July2013.

——.2013b.IndiaBeforeGandhi.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Gupta,Dipankar.2001.“Caste,RaceandPolitics.”Seminar,December.

——.2007.“WhyCasteDiscriminationisnotRacialDiscrimination.”Seminar,April.

Guru,Gopal.2012.“Riseofthe‘DalitMillionaire’:ALowIntensitySpectacle.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,15December:41–49.

Guy,Jeff.1994.TheDestructionoftheZuluKingdom:TheCivilWarinZululand,1879–1884.Pietermaritzburg:UniversityofNatalPress.

——.2005.TheMaphumuloUprising:War,LawandRitualintheZuluRebellion.Scotsville,SouthAfrica:UniversityofKwaZulu-NatalPress.

Hardiman,David.1996.FeedingtheBaniya:PeasantsandUsurersinWesternIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

——.2006.“AForgottenMassacre:MotilalTejawatandHisMovementamongsttheBhils,1921–2.”InHistoriesfortheSubordinated,29–56.Calcutta:Seagull.

——.2004.Gandhi:InHisTimeandOurs:TheGlobalLegacyofHisIdeas.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Hickok,Elonnai.2012.“RethinkingDNAProfilinginIndia.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,27October.Webexclusivepiece:http://www.epw.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india.html#sdfootnote20anc.Accessed10September2013.

Hochschild,Adam.2011.ToEndAllWars:AStoryofLoyaltyandRebellion,1914–1918.London:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt.

HumanRightsWatch.1999.BrokenPeople:CasteViolenceagainstIndia’s

“Untouchables”.NewYork:HumanRightsWatch.

Hutton,J.H.1935.CensusofIndia1931.Delhi:GovernmentofIndia.

Ilaiah,Kancha.1996.WhyIAmNotaHindu:ASudraCritiqueofHindutvaPhilosophy,CultureandPoliticalEconomy.Calcutta:Samya.

Jaffrelot,Christophe.2005.DrAmbedkarandUntouchability:AnalysingandFightingCaste.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

Jamnadas,K.2010.“ManusmritiDahanDin”[Manusmritiburningday].14July.RoundTableIndia(roundtableindia.co.in).Accessed6September2013.

Janyala,Sreenivas.2005.“TsunamiCan’tWashthisAway:HatredforDalits.”TheIndianExpress,7January.

Jaoul,Nicolas.2006.“LearningtheUseofSymbolicMeans:Dalits,AmbedkarStatuesandtheStateinUttarPradesh.”ContributionstoIndianSociology40(2):175–207.

Jondhale,SurendraandJohannesBeltz.2004.ReconstructingtheWorld:B.R.AmbedkarandBuddhisminIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Joseph,GeorgeGheverghese.2003.GeorgeJoseph:TheLifeandTimesofaKeralaChristianNationalist.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.

Jose,VinodK.2010.“CountingCastes.”Caravan,June.

Josh,SohanSingh.2007.HindustanGadarParty:AShortHistory.Jalandhar:DeshBhagatYadgarCommittee.(Orig.publ.1977.)

Juergensmeyer,Mark.2009.ReligiousRebelsinthePunjab:TheAdDharmChallengetoCaste.NewDelhi:Navayana.(Orig.publ.1982.)

Kael,Pauline.1982.“Tootsie,Gandhi,andSophie.”TheNewYorker,27December.

Kandasamy,Meena.2013.“HowReal-LifeTamilLoveStoriesEnd.”Outlook,22July.

Kapur,Devesh,ChandraBhanPrasad,LantPritchettandD.ShyamBabu.2010.“RethinkingInequality:DalitsinUttarPradeshintheMarketReformEra.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly.28August:39–49.

Keer,Dhananjay.1990.DrAmbedkar:LifeandMission.Mumbai:PopularPrakashan.(Orig.publ.1954.)

Khandekar,Milind.2013.DalitMillionaires:15InspiringStories.Tr.fromHindibyVandanaR.SinghandReenuTalwar.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Kishwar,Madhu.2006.“CasteSystem:Society’sBoldMould.”Tehelka,11Februaryhttp://archive.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=In021106Societys_12.asp.Accessed10October2013.

Kosambi,D.D.1948.“MarxismandAncientIndianCulture.”AnnalsoftheBhandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute.Vol.26,271–7.

Krishna,Raj.1979.“TheNehruGandhiPolarityandEconomicPolicy.”Ed.B.R.Nanda,P.C.JoshiandRajKrishna,51–64.InGandhiandNehru.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kumar,VinojP.C.2009.“BringingOuttheDead.”Tehelka,4July.http://www.tehelka.com/bringing-out-the-dead/#.Accessed10August2013.

——.2009b.“NumbnessofDeath.”Tehelka,4July.http://www.tehelka.com/numbness-of-death/.Accessed10August2013.

Lal,Vinay.2008.“TheGandhiEveryoneLovestoHate.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,4October:55–64.

Lelyveld,Joseph.2011.GreatSoul:MahatmaGandhiandHisStruggleWithIndia.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.

Mani,BrajRanjan.2005.DebrahmanisingHistory:DominanceandResistanceinIndianSociety.NewDelhi:Manohar.

——.2012.“AmartyaSen’sImaginedIndia.”4June.http://www.countercurrents.org/mani040612.htm.Accessed15July2013.

Mendelsohn,OliverandMarikaVicziany.1998.TheUntouchables:Subordination,PovertyandtheStateinModernIndia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Menon,Dilip.2006.TheBlindnessofInsight:EssaysonCasteinModernIndia.Pondicherry:Navayana.

Menon,MeenaandNeeraAdarkar.2005.OneHundredYears,OneHundredVoices:TheMillworkersofGirangaon:AnOralHistory.Calcutta:Seagull.

Menon,Visalakshi.2003.FromMovementtoGovernment:TheCongressintheUnitedProvinces,1937–42.NewDelhi:Sage.

Mishra,Sheokesh.2007.“HolyWord.”IndiaToday,20December.http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Holy+word/1/2736.html.Accessed26August2013.

Mohanty,B.B.2001.“LandDistributionamongScheduledCastesandTribes.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,6October:1357–68.

Mukherjee,Aditya,MridulaMukherjeeandSuchetaMahajan.2008.RSSSchoolTextsandtheMurderofMahatmaGandhi:TheHinduCommunalProject.NewDelhi:Sage.

Muktabai(Salve).1855/1991.“MangMaharachyaDukhavisayi.”Tr.MayaPandit,“AbouttheGriefsoftheMangsandMahars.”InWomenWritinginIndia:600B.C.tothePresent.Ed.SusieTharuandK.Lalita,214–16.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Murthy,Srinivasa.1987.MahatmaGandhiandLeoTolstoy:Letters.LongBeach:LongBeachPublications.

Nagaraj.D.R.2010.TheFlamingFeetandOtherEssays:TheDalitMovementinIndia.Ranikhet:PermanentBlack.

Nambissan,GeethaB.2002.“EqualityinEducation:TheSchoolingofDalitChildreninIndia.”InDalitsandtheState.Ed.GhanshyamShah,79–128.NewDelhi:Concept.

Namboodiripad,E.M.S.1986.HistoryoftheIndianFreedomStruggle.Trivandrum:SocialScientistPress.

Nandy,Ashis.1983.IntimateEnemy:LossandRecoveryofSelfunderColonialism.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Natarajan,Balmurli.2007.“MisrepresentingCasteandRace.”Seminar,April.

——.andPaulGreenough,ed.2009.AgainstStigma:StudiesinCaste,RaceandJusticeSinceDurban.Hyderabad:OrientBlackswan.

NationalCommissionforScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes.1998.FourthReport.NewDelhi:NCSCST.

NationalCrimeRecordsBureau.2012.CrimeinIndia2011:Statistics.NewDelhi:NCRB,MinistryofHomeAffairs.

Nauriya,Anil.2006.“Gandhi’sLittle-KnownCritiqueofVarna.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,13May:1835–8.

Navaria,Ajay.2013.UnclaimedTerrain.Tr.LauraBrueck.NewDelhi:Navayana.

NavsarjanTrustandRobertF.KennedyCenterforJustice&HumanRights.N.d.UnderstandingUntouchability:AComprehensiveStudyofPracticesandConditionsin1589Villages.http://navsarjan.org/Documents/Untouchability_Report_FINAL_Complete.pdfAccessed12September2013.

Omvedt,Gail.1994.DalitsandtheDemocraticRevolution:DrAmbedkarandthe

DalitMovementinColonialIndia.NewDelhi:Sage.

——.2003.BuddhisminIndia:ChallengingBrahmanismandCaste.NewDelhi:Sage.

——.2004.Ambedkar:TowardsanEnlightenedIndia.NewDelhi:Penguin.

——.2008.SeekingBegumpura:TheSocialVisionofAnticasteIntellectuals.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Parel,Anthony,ed.1997.‘HindSwaraj’andOtherWritings.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Patel,Sujata.1988.“ConstructionandReconstructionofWomeninGandhi.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,20February:377–87.

Patwardhan,Anand.2011.JaiBhimComrade.DVD,documentaryfilm.

Phadke,Y.D.1993.SenapatiBapat:PortraitofaRevolutionary.NewDelhi:NationalBookTrust.

Prashad,Vijay.1996.“TheUntouchableQuestion.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,2March:551–9.

——.2001.UntouchableFreedom:ASocialHistoryofaDalitCommunity.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pyarelal.1932.TheEpicFast.Ahmedabad:Navajivan.

Raman,Anuradha.2010.“StandardDeviation.”Outlook,26April.

Ramaswamy,Gita.2005.IndiaStinking:ManualScavengersinAndhraPradeshandTheirWork.Chennai:Navayana.

Ravikumar.2009.VenomousTouch:NotesonCaste,CultureandPolitics.Calcutta:Samya.

Rege,Sharmila.2013.AgainsttheMadnessofManu:B.R.Ambedkar’sWritingsonBrahmanicalPatriarchy.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Renold,Leah.1994.“Gandhi:PatronSaintoftheIndustrialist.”Sagar:SouthAsiaGraduateResearchJournal1(1):16–38.

Sainath,P.2013a.“Over2,000FewerFarmersEveryDay.”TheHindu,2May.

——.2013b.“Farmers’SuicideRatesSoarAbovetheRest.”TheHindu,18May.

——.1999a.“OnePeople,ManyIdentities.”TheHindu,31January.

——.1999b.“AfterMeenakshipuram:Caste,NotCash,LedtoConversions.”

TheHindu,7February.

SanthoshS.andJoshilK.Abraham.2010.“CasteInjusticeinJawaharlalNehruUniversity.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,26June:27–9.

Satyanarayana,K.andSusieTharu,ed.2013.TheExerciseofFreedom:AnIntroductiontoDalitWriting.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Savarkar,V.D.1923.Hindutva.Nagpur:V.V.Kelkar.

Sen,Dwaipayan.2010.“APoliticsSubsumed.”Himal,April.

Singh,G.B.2004.Gandhi:BehindtheMaskofDivinity.NewYork:PrometheusBooks.

Singh,Khushwant.1990.“BrahminPower.”Sunday,29December.

Singh,Patwant.1999.TheSikhs.London:JohnMurray/NewDelhi:Rupa.

Skaria,Ajay.2006.“OnlyOneWord,ProperlyAltered:GandhiandtheQuestionoftheProstitute.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,9December:5065–72.

Swan,Maureen.1984.“The1913NatalIndianStrike.”JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies10(2):239–58.

——.1985.Gandhi:TheSouthAfricanExperience.Johannesburg:RavanPress.

Tagore,Rabindranath.2007.TheEnglishWritingsofRabindranathTagore,Vol2:Poems.NewDelhi:Atlantic.

Teltumbde,Anand.2005.Anti-ImperialismandAnnihilationofCastes.Thane:RamaiPrakashan.

——.2010a.ThePersistenceofCaste:TheKhairlanjiMurdersandIndia’sHiddenApartheid.NewDelhi:Navayana/London:ZedBooks.

——.2010b.“DangerousSedative”.Himal,April.http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/132-.html.Accessed20August2013.

——.2012.“It’sNotRedvs.Blue.”Outlook,20August.http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?281944.Accessed22August2013.

——andShomaSen,ed.2012a.ScriptingtheChange:SelectedWritingsofAnuradhaGhandy.NewDelhi:DanishBooks.

——.2013.“AerocasteicsofRahulGandhi.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly:2November:10–11.

Tharu,SusieandK.Lalita,ed.1997.WomenWritinginIndia,Vol.1:600B.C.to

theEarlyTwentiethCentury.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.(Orig.publ.1991.)

Thorat,S.K.andUmakant,ed.2004.Caste,Race,andDiscrimination:DiscoursesinInternationalContext.NewDelhi:Rawat.

——.2009.DalitsinIndia:SearchforaCommonDestiny.NewDelhi:Sage.

Tidrick,Kathryn.2006.Gandhi:APoliticalandSpiritualLife.London:I.B.Tauris.

Valmiki,Omprakash.2003.Joothan:ADalit’sLife.Calcutta:Samya.

Vanita,Ruth.2002.“WhateverHappenedtotheHinduLeft?”Seminar,April.

Viswanathan,S.2005.DalitsinDravidianLand:FrontlineReportsonAnti-DalitViolenceinTamilNadu(1995–2004).Chennai:Navayana.

Viswanath,Rupa.2012.“ATextbookCaseofExclusion.”TheIndianExpress,20July.

——.2014(forthcoming).ThePariahProblem:Caste,Religion,andtheSocialinModernIndia.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress/NewDelhi:Navayana.

Vyam,Durgabai,SubhashVyam,SrividyaNatarajanandS.Anand.2011.Bhimayana:ExperiencesofUntouchability.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Weiss,Gordon.2011.TheCage:TheFightforSriLankaandtheLastDaysoftheTamilTigers.London:TheBodleyHead.

Wolpert,Stanley.1993.ANewHistoryofIndia.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.(Orig.Publ.1973.)

Zelliot,Eleanor.2013.Ambedkar’sWorld:TheMakingofBabasahebandtheDalitMovement.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Zinn,HowardandAnthonyArnove.2004.VoicesofaPeople’sHistoryoftheUnitedStates.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress.

AnnihilationofCaste

Knowtruthastruthanduntruthasuntruth.—Buddha

Hethatwillnotreasonisabigot.Hethatcannotreasonisafool.Hethatdarenotreasonisaslave—H.Drummonda

PrefacetotheSecondEdition,1937

ThespeechpreparedbymefortheJat-PatTodakMandalbofLahorehashadanastonishinglywarmreceptionfromtheHindupublicforwhomitwasprimarilyintended.TheEnglisheditionofonethousandfivehundredcopieswasexhaustedwithin twomonths of its publication. It has been translated into Gujarati andTamil. It is being translated intoMarathi,Hindi, Punjabi andMalayalam.ThedemandfortheEnglishtextstillcontinuesunabated.Tosatisfythisdemandithasbecome necessary to issue a second edition. Considerations of history andeffectiveness of appeal have led me to retain the original form of the essay—namely,thespeechform—althoughIwasaskedtorecastitintheformofadirectnarrative.

TothiseditionIhaveaddedtwoappendices. Ihavecollected inAppendixIthe two articleswritten byMrGandhi byway of reviewofmy speech in theHarijan,c and his letter to Mr Sant Ram,d a member of the Jat-Pat TodakMandal.e

InAppendixII,IhaveprintedmyviewsinreplytothearticlesofMrGandhicollected in Appendix I. Besides Mr Gandhi, many others have adverselycriticised my views as expressed in my speech. But I have felt that in takingnotice of such adverse comments, I should limitmyself toMrGandhi. This Ihavedonenotbecausewhathehassaidissoweightyastodeserveareply,butbecausetomanyaHinduheisanoracle,sogreatthatwhenheopenshislipsitisexpectedthattheargumentmustcloseandnodogmustbark.

Buttheworldowesmuchtorebelswhowoulddaretoargueinthefaceofthepontiffandinsistthatheisnotinfallible.Idonotcareforthecreditwhicheveryprogressivesocietymustgivetoitsrebels.IshallbesatisfiedifImaketheHindusrealisethattheyarethesickmenofIndia,andthattheirsicknessiscausingdangertothehealthandhappinessofotherIndians.

B.R.AMBEDKAR

PrefacetotheThirdEdition,1944

The secondeditionof thisessayappeared in1937, andwasexhaustedwithinaveryshortperiod.Aneweditionhasbeenindemandforalongtime.Itwasmyintention to recast the essay so as to incorporate into it another essay ofminecalled “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development,” whichappearedintheissueoftheIndianAntiquaryjournalforMay1917.fButasIcouldnotfindtime,andasthereisverylittleprospectofmybeingabletodoso,andasthedemandforitfromthepublicisveryinsistent,Iamcontenttoletthisbeamerereprintofthesecondedition.

Iamgladtofindthatthisessayhasbecomesopopular,andIhopethatitwillservethepurposeforwhichitwasintended.

B.R.AMBEDKAR

22,PrithvirajRoad

NewDelhi

1December1944

Prologue

On12December1935,gIreceivedthefollowingletterfromMrSantRam,thesecretaryoftheJat-PatTodakMandal:

MydearDoctorSaheb,Manythanks foryourkind letterof the5thDecember. Ihavereleased it forpresswithoutyourpermissionforwhichIbegyourpardon,asIsawnoharmin giving it publicity.You are a great thinker, and it ismywell-consideredopinionthatnoneelsehasstudiedtheproblemofcastesodeeplyasyouhave.IhavealwaysbenefitedmyselfandourMandalfromyourideas.Ihaveexplainedandpreached it in theKrantihmany times and Ihave even lecturedon it inmanyconferences.Iamnowveryanxioustoreadtheexpositionofyournewformula—“It is not possible to break castewithout annihilating the religiousnotions on which it, the caste system, is founded.” Please do explain it atlength at your earliest convenience, so that we may take up the idea andemphasiseitfrompressandplatform.Atpresent,itisnotfullycleartome.

Our executive committee persists in having you as our president for ourannual conference. We can change our dates to accommodate yourconvenience.IndependentHarijansiofPunjabareverymuchdesiroustomeetyouanddiscusswithyoutheirplans.Soifyoukindlyacceptourrequestandcome toLahore topresideover theconference itwill servedoublepurpose.Wewill inviteHarijan leaders of all shades of opinion and youwill get anopportunityofgivingyourideastothem.

TheMandal has deputed our assistant secretary,Mr Indra Singh, tomeetyouatBombayinXmasanddiscusswithyouthewholesituationwithaviewtopersuadeyoutopleaseacceptourrequest.

TheJat-PatTodakMandalis,Iwasgiventounderstand,anorganisationofcaste-

Hindusocialreformers,withtheoneandonlyaim,namely,toeradicatethecastesystemfromamongst theHindus.Asa rule, Idonot like to takeanypart inamovement which is carried on by caste Hindus. Their attitude towards socialreform is so different frommine that I have found it difficult to pull onwiththem.Indeed,Ifindtheircompanyquiteuncongenialtomeonaccountofourdifferences of opinion. Therefore when the Mandal first approached me, Ideclined their invitation to preside. The Mandal, however, would not take arefusal fromme,and sentdownoneof itsmembers toBombay topressme toaccepttheinvitation.IntheendIagreedtopreside.Theannualconferencewasto be held at Lahore, the headquarters of theMandal. The conferencewas tomeetatEaster,butwassubsequentlypostponedtothemiddleofMay1936.j

The reception committee of theMandal has now cancelled the conference.The notice of cancellation came long after my presidential address had beenprinted.Thecopiesof this address arenow lyingwithme.As Ididnotgetanopportunitytodelivertheaddressfromthepresidentialchair,thepublichasnothad an opportunity to know my views on the problems created by the castesystem.To let thepublicknowthem,andalso todisposeof theprintedcopieswhich are lying onmy hand, I have decided to put the printed copies of theaddressinthemarket.Theaccompanyingpagescontainthetextofthataddress.

The public will be curious to know what led to the cancellation of myappointmentasthepresidentoftheconference.Atthestart,adisputearoseoverthe printing of the address. I desired that the address should be printed inBombay.TheMandalwishedthatitshouldbeprintedinLahore,onthegroundsof economy. I did not agree, and insisted upon having it printed in Bombay.Insteadoftheiragreeingtomyproposition,Ireceiveda lettersignedbyseveralmembersoftheMandal,fromwhichIgivethefollowingextract:

27March1936ReveredDoctorji,Yourletterofthe24thinstantaddressedtoSjt.SantRamkhasbeenshowntous.Wewerealittledisappointedtoreadit.Perhapsyouarenotfullyawareofthe situation that has arisen here. Almost all the Hindus in the Punjab areagainst your being invited to this province. The Jat-Pat Todak Mandal hasbeen subjected to the bitterest criticism and has received censorious rebukefromallquarters.AlltheHinduleadersamongwhombeingBhaiParmanand,MLA(ex-president,HinduMahasabha),lMahatmaHansRaj,DrGokalChandNarang,ministerforlocalself-government,RajaNarendraNath,mMLCetc.,

havedissociatedthemselvesfromthisstepoftheMandal.DespiteallthistherunnersoftheJat-PatTodakMandal(theleadingfigure

being Sjt. Sant Ram) are determined to wade through thick and thin butwouldnot giveup the ideaof yourpresidentship.TheMandal has earned abadname.

Under the circumstances it becomes your duty to co-operate with theMandal.Ontheonehand,theyarebeingputtosomuchtroubleandhardshipbytheHindus,andifontheotherhandyoutooaugmenttheirdifficulties itwillbeamostsadcoincidenceofbadluckforthem.

Wehopeyouwillthinkoverthematteranddowhatisgoodforusall.

This letter puzzledmegreatly. I couldnotunderstandwhy theMandal shoulddispleaseme,forthesakeofafewrupees,inthematterofprintingtheaddress.Secondly,IcouldnotbelievethatmenlikeSirGokalChandNaranghadreallyresignedasaprotestagainstmyselectionaspresident,becauseIhadreceivedthefollowingletterfromSirGokalChandhimself:

5MontgomeryRoad,Lahore7February1936DearDoctorAmbedkar,IamgladtolearnfromtheworkersoftheJat-PatTodakMandalthatyouhaveagreed to preside at their next anniversary to be held at Lahore during theEasterholidays.ItwillgivememuchpleasureifyoustaywithmewhileyouareatLahore.Morewhenwemeet.Yourssincerely,G.C.Narang

Whatever be the truth, I did not yield to this pressure. But even when theMandal found that Iwas insistinguponhavingmy address printed inBombay,instead of agreeing tomy proposal theMandal sentme awire that theyweresendingMrHarBhagwanntoBombayto“talkovermatterspersonally”.MrHarBhagwancametoBombayonthe9thofApril.WhenImetMrHarBhagwan,Ifound that he had nothing to say regarding the issue. Indeed he was sounconcernedregardingtheprintingoftheaddress—whetheritshouldbeprinted

inBombayorinLahore—thathedidnotevenmentionit inthecourseofourconversation.

Allthathewasanxiousforwastoknowthecontentsoftheaddress.Iwasthenconvinced that ingetting theaddressprinted inLahore, themainobjectof theMandalwasnottosavemoneybuttogetatthecontentsoftheaddress.Igavehima copy.Hedidnot feel veryhappywith somepartsof it.He returned toLahore.FromLahore,hewrotetomethefollowingletter:

Lahore,14April1936MydearDoctorSaheb,SincemyarrivalfromBombay,onthe12th,Ihavebeenindisposedowingtomyhavingnot sleptcontinuously for fiveor sixnights,whichwere spent inthe train.Reachinghere Icame toknowthatyouhadcometoAmritsar.o Iwouldhave seenyou there if Iwerewell enough togoabout. Ihavemadeover your address to Mr Sant Ram for translation and he has liked it verymuch, but he is not surewhether it could be translated byhim for printingbeforethe25th.Inanycase,itwouldhaveawidepublicityandwearesureitwouldwaketheHindusupfromtheirslumber.

ThepassageIpointedouttoyouatBombayhasbeenreadbysomeofourfriends with a little misgiving, and those of us who would like to see theconferenceterminatewithoutanyuntowardincidentwouldpreferthatatleasttheword“Veda”beleftoutforthetimebeing.Ileavethistoyourgoodsense.Ihope,however,inyourconcludingparagraphsyouwillmakeitclearthattheviews expressed in the address are yourown and that the responsibility doesnot lieontheMandal. Ihopeyouwillnotmindthis statementofmineandwould letushave1,000copiesof theaddress, forwhichweshall,ofcourse,pay.To this effect Ihave sentyoua telegram today.AchequeofRs100 isenclosed herewithwhich kindly acknowledge, and send us your bills in duetime.

Ihavecalledameetingofthereceptioncommitteeandshallcommunicatetheirdecisiontoyouimmediately.Inthemeantimekindlyacceptmyheartfeltthanksforthekindnessshowntomeandthegreatpainstakenbyyouinthepreparation of your address. You have really put us under a heavy debt ofgratitude.Yourssincerely,HarBhagwanP.S.:Kindly send thecopiesof the addressbypassenger train as soonas it is

printed,sothatcopiesmaybesenttothepressforpublication.

AccordinglyIhandedovermymanuscripttotheprinterwithanordertoprintthousandcopies.Eightdayslater,IreceivedanotherletterfromMrHarBhagwanwhichIreproducebelow:

Lahore,22April1936DearDrAmbedkar,We are in receipt of your telegram and letter, for which kindly accept ourthanks. In accordance with your desire, we have again postponed ourconference, but feel that itwould have beenmuch better to have it on the25thand26th,astheweatherisgrowingwarmerandwarmereverydayinthePunjab. In themiddle ofMay itwould be fairly hot, and the sittings in thedaytimewouldnotbeverypleasant and comfortable.However,we shall tryourbesttodoallwecantomakethingsascomfortableaspossible,ifitisheldinthemiddleofMay.

Thereis,however,onethingthatwehavebeencompelledtobringtoyourkind attention. You will remember that when I pointed out to you themisgivings entertained by some of our people regarding your declaration onthesubjectofchangeofreligion,pyoutoldmethatitwasundoubtedlyoutsidethescopeof theMandalandthatyouhadnointentiontosayanythingfromour platform in that connection. At the same timewhen themanuscript ofyouraddresswashandedtomeyouassuredmethatthatwasthemainportionofyouraddressandthat therewereonlytwoor threeconcludingparagraphsthatyouwanted toadd.Onreceiptof the second instalmentofyouraddresswehavebeentakenbysurprise,asthatwouldmakeitsolengthy,thatweareafraidveryfewpeoplewouldreadthewholeofit.Besidesthatyouhavemorethanoncestatedinyouraddressthatyouhaddecidedtowalkoutofthefoldof theHindus and that thatwasyour last address as aHindu.YouhavealsounnecessarilyattackedthemoralityandreasonablenessoftheVedasandotherreligiousbooksoftheHindus,andhaveatlengthdweltuponthetechnicalsideofHindu religion,which has absolutely no connectionwith the problem atissue,somuchsothatsomeofthepassageshavebecomeirrelevantandoffthepoint.Wewouldhavebeenverypleasedifyouhadconfinedyouraddresstothatportiongiventome,orifanadditionwasnecessary,itwouldhavebeenlimitedtowhatyouhadwrittenonBrahminism,etc.Thelastportionwhichdeals with the complete annihilation of the Hindu religion and doubts the

morality of the sacred books of the Hindus as well as a hint about yourintentiontoleavetheHindufolddoesnotseemtometoberelevant.

I would therefore most humbly request you on behalf of the peopleresponsiblefortheconferencetoleaveoutthepassagesreferredtoabove,andclose the address with what was given to me or add a few paragraphs onBrahminism. We doubt the wisdom of making the address unnecessarilyprovocative and pinching. There are several of us who subscribe to yourfeelingsandwouldverymuchwanttobeunderyourbannerforremodellingtheHindureligion.Ifyouhaddecidedtogettogetherpersonsofyourcult,IcanassureyoualargenumberwouldhavejoinedyourarmyofreformersfromthePunjab.

Infact,wethoughtyouwouldgiveusaleadinthedestructionoftheevilof[the]castesystem,especiallywhenyouhavestudiedthesubjectsothoroughly,andstrengthenourhandsbybringingaboutarevolutionandmakingyourselfas a nucleus in the gigantic effort, but [a] declarationof thenaturemadebyyou,when repeated, loses itspower, andbecomes ahackneyed term.Underthecircumstances,IwouldrequestyoutoconsiderthewholematterandmakeyouraddressmoreeffectivebysayingthatyouwouldbegladtotakealeadingpartinthedestructionofthecastesystemiftheHindusarewillingtoworkinrightearnest towards thatend,even if theyhad to forsake theirkithandkinandthereligiousnotions.Incaseyoudoso,IamsanguinethatyouwouldfindareadyresponsefromthePunjabinsuchanendeavour.

I shall be grateful if youwill help us at this juncture as we have alreadyundergonemuchexpenditureandhavebeenputtosuspense,andletusknowby the return of post that you have condescended to limit your address asabove.Incaseyoustillinsistupontheprintingoftheaddress intoto,weverymuch regret it would not be possible—rather advisable—for us to hold theconference,andwouldprefertopostponeitsinedie,althoughbydoingsoweshall be losing the goodwill of the people because of the repeatedpostponements.Weshould,however,liketopointoutthatyouhavecarvedaniche inourheartsbywriting suchawonderful treatiseon thecaste system,whichexcels allother treatises so farwrittenandwillprove tobeavaluableheritage,sotosay.Weshallbeeverindebtedtoyouforthepainstakenbyyouinitspreparation.

Thankingyouverymuchforyourkindnessandwithbestwishes.Iamyourssincerely,HarBhagwan

TothisletterIsentthefollowingreply:

27April1936DearMrHarBhagwan,I am in receipt of your letter of the 22ndApril. I notewith regret that thereceptioncommitteeoftheJat-PatTodakMandal“wouldprefertopostponetheconferencesinedie”ifIinsisteduponprintingtheaddressintoto.InreplyIhavetoinformyouthatIalsowouldprefertohavetheconferencecancelled—I do not like to use vague terms—if the Mandal insisted upon having myaddressprunedtosuititscircumstances.Youmaynotlikemydecision.ButIcannotgiveup,forthesakeofthehonourofpresidingovertheconference,qthelibertywhicheverypresidentmusthaveinthepreparationoftheaddress.Icannot give up, for the sake of pleasing theMandal, the duty which everypresident owes to the conference over which he presides, to give it a leadwhichhe thinks right andproper.The issue is oneof principle, and I feel Imustdonothingtocompromiseitinanyway.

Iwouldnothaveentered into anycontroversy as regards theproprietyofthedecisiontakenbythereceptioncommittee.Butasyouhavegivencertainreasonswhichappeartothrowtheblameonme,Iamboundtoanswerthem.Inthefirstplace,ImustdispelthenotionthattheviewscontainedinthatpartoftheaddresstowhichobjectionhasbeentakenbythecommitteehavecometotheMandalasasurprise.MrSantRam,Iamsure,willbearmeoutwhenIsaythatinreplytooneofhislettersIhadsaidthattherealmethodofbreakingupthecastesystemwasnottobringabout inter-castedinnersandinter-castemarriagesbuttodestroythereligiousnotionsonwhichcastewasfounded,andthatMr SantRam in return askedme to explainwhat he saidwas a novelpointofview.Itwas inresponsetothis invitationfromMrSantRamthatIthoughtIoughttoelaborateinmyaddresswhatIhadstatedinasentenceinmylettertohim.Youcannot,therefore,saythattheviewsexpressedarenew.Atanyrate,theyarenotnewtoMrSantRam,whoisthemovingspiritandtheleadinglightofyourMandal.ButIgofurtherandsaythatIwrotethispartofmyaddressnotmerelybecauseIfeltitdesirabletodoso.IwroteitbecauseI thought that it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument. I amamazedtoreadthatyoucharacterisetheportionofthespeechtowhichyourcommitteeobjectsas“irrelevantandoffthepoint”.YouwillallowmetosaythatIamalawyerandIknowtherulesofrelevancyaswellasanymemberofyourcommittee.Imostemphaticallymaintainthattheportionobjectedtois

not only most relevant but is also most important. It is in that part of theaddress that I have discussed the ways and means of breaking up the castesystem.ItmaybethattheconclusionIhavearrivedatastothebestmethodofdestroyingcasteisstartlingandpainful.Youareentitledtosaythatmyanalysisiswrong.Butyoucannotsaythatinanaddresswhichdealswiththeproblemofcasteitisnotopentometodiscusshowcastecanbedestroyed.

Your other complaint relates to the length of the address. I have pleadedguiltytothechargeintheaddressitself.Butwhoisreallyresponsibleforthis?Ifear you have come rather late on the scene. Otherwise you would haveknown that originally I had planned to write a short address, for my ownconvenience,asIhadneitherthetimenortheenergytoengagemyselfinthepreparationofanelaborate thesis. Itwas theMandalwhichaskedmetodealwiththesubjectexhaustively,anditwastheMandalwhichsentdowntomealistofquestions relating to thecaste systemandaskedme toanswer theminthebodyofmyaddress,astheywerequestionswhichwereoftenraisedinthecontroversy between theMandal and its opponents, and which theMandalfounddifficult toanswer satisfactorily. Itwas in trying tomeet thewishesoftheMandalinthisrespectthattheaddresshasgrowntothelengthtowhichithas. In view of what I have said, I am sure you will agree that the faultrespectingthelengthoftheaddressisnotmine.

IdidnotexpectthatyourMandalwouldbesoupsetbecauseIhavespokenofthedestructionoftheHindureligion.Ithoughtitwasonlyfoolswhowereafraidofwords.Butlestthereshouldbeanymisapprehensioninthemindsofthepeople, I have takengreat pains to explainwhat Imeanby religion anddestructionof religion. I amsure thatnobody,on readingmyaddress, couldpossiblymisunderstandme.That yourMandal should have taken a fright atmerewordsas“destructionofreligion,etc.”,notwithstandingtheexplanationthat accompanies them, does not raise the Mandal in my estimation. Onecannot have any respect or regard for men who take the position of thereformerandthenrefuseeventoseethelogicalconsequencesofthatposition,letalonefollowingthemoutinaction.

YouwillagreethatIhaveneveracceptedtobe limitedinanywayinthepreparationofmyaddress, and thequestionas towhat theaddress shouldorshouldnotcontainwasneverevendiscussedbetweenmyselfandtheMandal.IhadalwaystakenforgrantedthatIwasfreetoexpressintheaddresssuchviewsasIheldonthesubject.Indeed,untilyoucametoBombayonthe9thApril,theMandaldidnotknowwhatsortofanaddressIwaspreparing.Itwaswhen

youcame toBombay that I voluntarily toldyou that Ihadnodesire touseyourplatformfromwhichtoadvocatemyviewsregardingchangeofreligionbytheDepressedClasses.IthinkIhavescrupulouslykeptthatpromiseinthepreparationoftheaddress.BeyondapassingreferenceofanindirectcharacterwhereIsaythat“IamsorryIwillnotbehere,etc.”,Ihavesaidnothingaboutthesubjectinmyaddress.WhenIseeyouobjecteventosuchapassingandsoindirect a reference, I feel bound to ask, did you think that in agreeing topresideoveryourconferenceIwouldbeagreeingtosuspendortogiveupmyviewsregardingchangeoffaithbytheDepressedClasses?Ifyoudidthinkso,ImusttellyouthatIaminnowayresponsibleforsuchamistakeonyourpart.Ifanyofyouhadevenhintedtomethatinexchangeforthehonouryouweredoing me by electing [me] as president, I was to abjure my faith in myprogrammeof conversion, Iwouldhave toldyou inquiteplain terms that Icaredmoreformyfaiththanforanyhonourfromyou.

Afteryourletterofthe14th,thisletterofyourscomesasasurprisetome.Iamsurethatanyonewhoreadsthembothwillfeelthesame.Icannotaccountforthissuddenvolte-faceonthepartofthereceptioncommittee.Thereisnodifference in substance between the rough draft which was before thecommittee when you wrote your letter of the 14th, and the final draft onwhichthedecisionofthecommitteecommunicatedtomeinyourletterunderreply was taken. You cannot point out a single new idea in the final draftwhich isnotcontained in theearlierdraft.The ideasare thesame.Theonlydifferenceisthattheyhavebeenworkedoutingreaterdetailinthefinaldraft.Iftherewasanythingtoobjecttointheaddress,youcouldhavesaidsoonthe14th. But you did not. On the contrary, you asked me to print off 1,000copies, leavingmethe libertytoacceptornottheverbalchangeswhichyousuggested.AccordinglyIgot1,000copiesprinted,whicharenowlyingwithme.Eightdayslateryouwritetosaythatyouobjecttotheaddressandthatifitisnotamendedtheconferencewillbecancelled.Yououghttohaveknownthattherewasnohopeofanyalterationbeingmadeintheaddress.ItoldyouwhenyouwereinBombaythatIwouldnotalteracomma,thatIwouldnotallowanycensorshipovermyaddress,andthatyouwouldhavetoaccepttheaddressasitcamefromme.Ialsotoldyouthattheresponsibilityfortheviewsexpressedintheaddresswasentirelymine,andif theywerenot likedbytheconference I would not mind at all if the conference passed a resolutioncondemning them.So anxiouswas I to relieve yourMandal fromhaving toassume responsibility formy views—and alsowith the object of not getting

myself entangled by too intimate an association with your conference—Isuggested to you that I desired to have my address treated as a sort of aninauguraladdressandnotasapresidentialaddress,andthattheMandalshouldfindsomeoneelsetopresideovertheconferenceanddealwiththeresolutions.Nobody could have been better placed to take a decision on the 14th thanyourcommittee.Thecommitteefailedtodothat,andinthemeantimecostofprintinghasbeenincurredwhich,Iamsure,withalittlemorefirmnessonthepartofyourcommittee,couldhavebeensaved.

Ifeelsurethattheviewsexpressedinmyaddresshavelittletodowiththedecisionofyourcommittee.IhavereasontobelievethatmypresenceattheSikhPracharConferenceheldatAmritsarhashadagooddealtodowiththedecisionof thecommittee.Nothingelse can satisfactorilyexplain the suddenvolte-face shownby the committeebetween the14th and the22ndApril. Imust not, however, prolong this controversy, and must request you toannounce immediately that the sessionof theconferencewhichwas tomeetundermypresidentship iscancelled.All thegracehasbynowrunout,andIshall not consent to preside, even if your committee agreed to accept myaddress as it is, in toto. I thankyou foryour appreciationof thepains Ihavetakeninthepreparationoftheaddress.Icertainlyhaveprofitedbythelabour,ifnooneelsedoes.MyonlyregretisthatIwasputtosuchhardlabouratatimewhenmyhealthwasnotequaltothestrainithascaused.Yourssincerely,B.R.Ambedkar

Thiscorrespondencewilldisclosethereasonswhichhaveledtothecancellationby the Mandal of my appointment as president, and the reader will be in apositiontolaytheblamewhereitoughtproperlytobelong.ThisisIbelievethefirst time when the appointment of a president is cancelled by the receptioncommittee because it does not approve of the views of the president. Butwhetherthat is soornot, this iscertainlythefirst timeinmylife tohavebeeninvitedtopresideoveraconferenceofcasteHindus.Iamsorrythatithasendedin a tragedy. Butwhat can anyone expect from a relationship so tragic as therelationship between the reforming sect of casteHindus and the self-respectingsectofUntouchables,wheretheformerhavenodesiretoalienatetheirorthodoxfellows,andthelatterhavenoalternativebuttoinsistuponreformbeingcarriedout?

B.R.AMBEDKAR

Rajgriha,Dadar

Bombay–14

15May1936

a

b

NOTES

These epigraphs were added by Ambedkar to the title page of the 1937edition.Thequote fromBuddha is fromVerse12ofTheDhammapada andSuttaNipata(p.3),partofSacredBooksoftheEast,Vol.10byMaxMüllerandMaxFausböll(1881).Drummond’swordsarederivedfromthelastlinesfromhisprefacetoAcademicalQuestions,Vol.1(1805,xv).SirWilliamDrummond(notH.Drummondaserroneouslyprintedinthe1937edition)wasaScottishdiplomat and Member of Parliament, poet and philosopher. Ambedkaramends the punctuation and wording of Drummond’s words which read:“He,whowillnotreason,isabigot;he,whocannot,isafool;he,whodaresnot,isaslave.”

TheJat-PatTodakMandal(ForumfortheBreak-upofCaste)wasaradicalfactionoftheAryaSamaj,aHindureformistorganisationthatwasfoundedinLahore on 10 April 1875 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824–83).AccordingtoSantRam(seeNote3),inNovember1922,abouttwenty-twomenandwomen,atthebehestofAryaSamajleaderBhaiParmanand,metathisLahore residencewith theobjectiveof forminga separateoutfit to fightcaste. In his autobiography Mere jivan ke anubhav (Experiences of my life,1963/2008), SantRam says he suggested the name Jat-Pat TodakMandal.TheeighteenfoundingmembersoftheMandallistedbySantRamare:BhaiParmanand (president); Pandit Bhoomand; Pandit Paramanand, B.A.;Chowdhary Kanhaiyalal; Babu Teertharam, cotton factory owner; ChakJhumra;PanditBrahmadattVidyalankarofDelhi;ShriSudarshan,short-storywriter; Pandit Dharmadev; Deewanchand, office-bearer of Arya Samaj,Jalandhar; Pandit SantRam, priest andArya Samajworker ofNau Shehra;Paramanand Arya, coal company, Lahore; Pandit Chetram, teacher, GirlsSchool, Jalandhar;DevnathofGuruduttBhavan,Lahore;Devamitra,M.Sc.,of Gurudutt Bhavan, Lahore; Dharmendra Nath, M.A., of Meerut; SantRam,B.A.;Mrs Parvati,wife of PanditBhoomanand;Mrs SubhadraDevi,wifeofPanditParamanand.Fromthenames, it appears that ‘Untouchables’werenotpartofthisdistinctlycaste-Hinduinitiative,apointthatAmbedkardrawsour attention to in thePrologueof this address (p.189).TheMandalinsisted on inter-dining and intermarriage. Membership, on paying tworupees as annual subscription, was meant for Hindus who took a vow to

c

d

e

marrythemselvesortheirchildrenoutoftheircaste.

FollowinghisfalloutwithAmbedkarovertheCommunalAwardof1932andthesigningofthePoonaPact(see“ANoteonthePoonaPact”,inthisbook,357–76),M.K. Gandhi launched theHarijan Sevak Sangh in 1932 and anEnglish weekly named Harijan in 1933. Ambedkar preferred the termUntouchable,with capitals, or the official term,DepressedClasses.He alsopreferredtoaddressthosewithinthevarnafoldas“casteHindus”orsavarnas,andsometimesasTouchables.

SantRamB.A.,oneof the founder-membersof theJat-PatTodakMandal,wasbornon14February1887inPuranibassi,Hoshiarpurdistrict,Punjab.Inhis autobiography, he (1963/2008, 12) says the Gohil surname his fathercarried was found amongRajputs (warriors), Banias (traders) and Kumhars(potters). SantRam always used his graduation degree—B.A.—as initials todisavow caste-related surnames, though he identifies himself as a Kumhar.However, one source says he was born into the Megh caste, listed as aScheduledCasteintoday’sPunjab(Kshirsagar1994,323).SantRamsaysthatKumhars in his village did not make pots but practised trade. Sant Ram’sfather,RamdasGohil, the firstpersoninthevillagetoeducatehischildren,acquiredwealthand influence throughtradewhichtookhimas farawayasCentralAsia.SantRamwasmarriedattheageoftwelvetoanunletteredgirlwhomhetaughttoreadandwriteandbroughtoutofpurdah.Fiveyearsafterhis first wife died, in 1929, according to the journalThe Indian Rationalist(1952),hemarried“SundarBaiProothan,aMaharashtrianvirginwidow.Themarriagewas notable for three reasons: itwas awidowmarriage, an inter-caste marriage, and an inter-provincial marriage.” Sundar Bai had beenrenderedachildwidowattheageofeight.SantRamrecountstwoinstancesofcastediscrimination,thefirstwhenstudyinginfourthgradeinAmbalaandthe secondwhenat college inLahore at thehandsofBanias, themerchantcaste. In1930,hepublishedPhansikepujari (Priests of thenoose) inUrdu,featuringbiographiesofnationalists,entitledInquilabkeparvane(Mothstotheflameof revolution)on the inside titlepage.A1947partition refugee,SantRamdiedinNewDelhiin1998attheageof101.InoneofhisexchangeswiththeMandalfeaturedinthePrologue,AmbedkardescribesSantRamasthe“movingspiritandtheleadinglight”oftheMandal(p.199).

In1931,theMandalcampaignedagainstthedeclarationofcasteinthecensus.Mark Juergensmeyer (1982/2009, 39)writes that theMandal relied heavily

f

g

h

i

onthesupportofprivileged-casteAryaSamajisinthisregard.Thismayhavecaused the Mandal to refuse the address prepared by Ambedkar. BhaiParmanandwas the first president andhe continued to support theMandaldespitetheriftin1924whenitspermissiontousetheAryaSamajpandalwasrevoked.

For an annotated edition of “Castes in India”, see Rege (2013). IndianAntiquarywasanOrientalistmonthlyfoundedin1872byDrJamesBurgess.It provided a platform for scholarly articles by both European and Indianscholars. In full, it was called The Indian Antiquary: A Journal of OrientalResearch in Archaeology, Epigraphy, Ethnology, Geography, History, Folklore,Languages,Literature,Numismatics,Philosophy,Religion,Etc.

TheportionoftheProloguefromheretill theendofSantRam’s letterhasbeenaddedinthe1937edition.

Kranti (Revolution), edited by SantRam,was anUrdumonthly publishedfrom Lahore. After the founding of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, Sant Ram(1963/2008, 116) says the forum tried publishing a monthly magazine inHindi. Amonthly eight-page broadsheet called Jat-Pat Todak, priced at Rs1.50,was published fromDecember 1922 to September 1924, but it failedowing to the lack of Hindi readers. The Mandal produced, for freedistribution, many books in Hindi, Urdu and English on the question ofcaste. In January 1927, Jat-Pat Todak was revived, this time as an Urdupublication.InJanuary1928,thiswasrenamedKranti,withSantRamaschiefeditor. “This became a very popular magazine,” according to Sant Ram.“Produced in Royal Octavo size, it had 64 pages. The magazine’s HealthSpecial, Children’s Special, Women’s Special, and Men’s Special wereextremelypopular…Since theMandal’s key assetswere stuck inPakistan,KrantifoldedupafteritslastissueinAugust1947…Afteragap,wereviveditfortwoorthreeissuesinIndia.Sincetheconditionswerenotright,welostabout Rs 2,000 and shut down Kranti for good” (117). According toBhagwan Das (2010a, 21–2), Kranti was the only Urdu magazine thatreported on the speeches of Ambedkar. Das also mentions the Mandal’sstrongaversiontotheconversionofUntouchablesduetoitsproximitytotheAryaSamaj.

Harijan, ‘childrenofgod’,wastheepithetusedbyM.K.Gandhi,beginning1932, to paternalistically refer to ‘Untouchables’. The term figures in thebhajan “Vaishnava jana to” by Narsinh Mehta (1414?–1481?), a Gujarati

j

Brahmin Vaishnavite poet-saint, which was popularised by Gandhi. Thescholar Aishwary Kumar (2014) draws our attention to Gandhi citingTulsidas’s sixteenth-century Ramayana, one of his favourite books on thisterm:“Youknowtheword‘Harijan’occursinTulsidas’sRamayana?ThereLakshmanadescribestoParashuramathecharacteristicofatrueKshatriya.Hesays: (It is the traitofourclannevertouseforcetowardsagod,aBrahmin,aHarijanoracow)”(CWMG68, 327).TheBritish government, from1916onwards, deployedthe bureaucratic term Depressed Classes (used first in the volumes of theBombayGazetteerin1877),whichwasreplacedbyScheduledCastesin1935bytheGovernmentofIndiaAct—atermthatcontinuestobeusedinofficialparlance tilldate. ‘Harijan’hasbeen steadfastly rejectedby theAmbedkariteandDalitmovements.ThoughthefoundingofthemilitantorganisationDalitPanther in Bombay in 1972 gave an all-India currency to Dalit (broken,crushedpeople),thetermhasbeenusedinwesternIndiainthissenseatleastsinceJotibaPhule’s(1827–90)time.PhuleissupposedtohaveusedDalitintermsofdalittuthan(upliftofthedowntrodden),buttheevidenceisanecdotal(Louis2003,144).Phuleused the termAti-Shudra forUntouchables inhiswritings.Etymologically, theorigins of the termDalit canbe traced to theBuddha’s usage of the Pali dalidda in theDalidda Sutta, said to have beenpreached at the Kalandakanivapa in Rajagaha (SamyuttaNikaya: XI.14). InPaliBuddhist literature, the termdalidda (daridra inSanskrit) isused for theproperty-less poor in contrast to the gahapati class of the rich.Nalin Swaris(2011, 99), citing Anguttara Nikaya: III.84, says: “The dalidda-kula, thepauper-lineage, is described as people without enough to eat and drink,withoutevenacoveringfortheirback.”Morerecently,theDalitleaderP.N.RajbhojfoundedthejournalDalitBandhu(FriendofDalits)inPunein1928.ForanaccountofthenascenthistoriesofthetermsUntouchable,DepressedClasses, Harijan, Scheduled Caste, etc., see Simon Charsley (1996). SantRam’suseofthetermHarijanhereshowshowwithinthreeyearsofGandhicoining the term ithadentrenched itself among reformers and intellectuals.AsAmbedkarsaysintheveryopeningparagraphofAoC,“IhavequestionedtheauthorityoftheMahatmawhomthey[theMandal]revere”.

In the process of opening with Sant Ram’s letter in the 1937 edition,Ambedkar rearranges the contents of this paragraph without affecting itsimport.

k

l

m

Sjt.hereisshortfortherespectfulprefix‘Srijut’,commonlyusedduringthisperiod.For instance, inGandhi’s autobiography theprefixSjt. isoftenused(such as Sjt. Vitthalbhai Patel). The 1931 Macmillan edition of MahatmaGandhi: His Own Story edited by C.F. Andrews has a glossary page thatexplainsSrijutas“acommontitletheequivalentto‘Esquire’”.

BhaiParmanand(1876–1947)woremanyhats.BorninLahore,hestartedasanAryaSamajiunder the influenceofLalaLajpatRai andLalaHarDayal,andmovedtothefarrightasaVedicmissionaryoftheSamaj,travellingtheworld(SouthAfrica,Guyana,Martinique,theUS,SouthAmerica)preaching,andbecameafounder-memberoftheGhadarPartythatsoughttooverthrowBritish rule.Remembered today forhis leadershipof theHinduMahasabhaand for being a proponent of Hindutva, he was sentenced in 1915 toimprisonment on the Andamans in the First Lahore Conspiracy Case.ParmanandisalsoregardedasthefirstadvocateofanIslamicstatedividedoutofthesubcontinent.FollowingtheBritishannouncementofthepartitionofBengal in 1905, he suggested that “the territory beyond Sindh should beunited with Afghanistan and North-West Frontier Province into a greatMusulmanKingdom.TheHindusoftheregionshouldcomeaway,whileatthesametimetheMusulmansintherestofthecountryshouldgoandsettleinthisterritory”(citedinYadavandArya1988,196).AlsoseeParmanand’sautobiography translated into English, The Story of My Life (1934/2003).Jaffrelot(2010,139)citesParmanand’s1936work,HinduSangathan,whereheexcoriates theBuddha for attacking thevarnashrama system:“Theabolitionofcastesandashramscutattheveryrootofsocialduties.HowcouldanationhopetoliveafterhavinglostsightofthisaspectofDharma?‘Equalityforall’isanappealingabstraction;butthenationcouldnotlongsurvivetherejectionor destruction of Dharma.” Parmanand espouses such views in the year ofinviting Ambedkar, and even as he is the founder-president of the Jat-PatTodakMandal.

MahatmaHansRajwasamongthefirstwaveofayoung,newgenerationofeducatedHindusjoiningtheAryaSamaj.LaterhebecametheprincipaloftheDayanandAnglo-VedicCollege,Lahore,overwhichhepresidedfrom1888to1911.GokalChandNarangbelongedtotheDAV(College)factionoftheArya Samaj and acquired influence alongside the rich landowner, RajaNarendraNath,intheLegislativeAssemblyopposedtotheencroachmentoftheCongress inthePunjab.Forahistoryof theAryaSamajandits leaders,seeKennethW.Jones(1976).

n

o

HarBhagwan’sfullname,accordingtothejournalTheAtheist(March–April1974), was Har Bhagwan Sethi. He may have given up his (Bania) castesurnameowingtohismembershipoftheJat-PatTodakMandal;heservedasits secretary at one time. As an associate of Sant Ram, he was “closelyassociatedwiththeabolitionofcastedistinctions”.Hediedin1976attheageofeight-oneinDelhi,havingemigratedafterpartitionfromLahorelikeSantRam.Notably,Har Bhagwanwas the publisher of SwamiDharmateertha’sThe Menace of Hindu Imperialism (1941). Dharmateertha, born ParameswaraMenon,aNairfromKerala,cameundertheinfluenceofSreeNarayanaGuru(1856–1928), the pioneering anticaste social reformer who preached themessageof“onecaste,one religion,onegod”. In1937,Dharmateertha led“the life of awandering sannyasin and spread theGuru’s socialmessage ofcastelessness and social egalitarianism across the sub-continent” (Aloysius2004,19).AloysiuscitesAmbedkar’swordsonthisworkintheblurbofthenewedition:“ThisbookiswrittenfromapointofviewwhichIappreciateverymuch.IammyselfwritingabookinwhichIhavetouchedmanyofthepointswhichIfindaredealtwithinthisbook.Thebookthereforewasaverywelcome thing tome.”After touringmuchofNorth India,DharmateerthasettleddowninLahoreforfiveyears(1941–6)atHarBhagwan’shouse,andas a member of the Indian Social Congress met and held discussions withJinnah,AmbedkarandtheSikhleaderMasterTaraSingh.Inashortaccountin The Atheist (1974), Har Bhagwan says that after moving to Delhi hefounded the Jat-PatTodakSamataSangh (Association forEqualityWithoutCaste)whichwas soon renamedAvarnodayaSamataSangh (Association fortheAdvancementofCastelessPeople).

On13–14April 1936,Ambedkar attended the SikhPracharConference inAmritsar (50 km from Lahore). In his address he extolled the principle ofequality within the Sikh community and alluded to the possibility ofconverting to Sikhism. Zelliot (2013, 162) writes: “There is an unverifiedstorythatAmbedkarspoketoaSikhgroupatthistime,askingthemiftheywerewilling to allow inter-marriage between Sikhs and new converts, andthe Sikhs responded in the affirmative.” For an analysis of why AmbedkargaveuponSikhism,seePuri(2003,2698),whosays:“AfterparticipatingintheSikhMissionaryConferenceatAmritsarinApril,Ambedkarsenthisson,Yashwant Rao, and nephew to the Golden Temple in May, where theystayed for one month and a half, to observe the situation and meet withleadersofthecommunity.”PuriarguesthatperhapstheShiromaniGurdwara

p

q

Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) feared that “after six crore (60 million)untouchables became Sikhs” the clout of dominant-caste Jats in the SGPCandthegurdwaraswouldbeundermined.

Thismustbe seen in the lightof the statementAmbedkarhadmadeon13October 1935 at the Yeola Depressed Classes conference: “I had themisfortuneofbeingbornwiththestigmaofanUntouchable.However,itisnotmy fault; but Iwill not die aHindu, for this is inmypower” (Zelliot2013, 147). The conference was attended by ten thousand people, aconglomerationofMaharpanchayatsanddelegates fromHyderabadandtheCentral Provinces. “The conference included an instruction to stop templeentrymovementsandanexhortationtoceasefruitlessattemptstogainstatusonHindu terms” (Zelliot 2013, 148). Sant Ram (1963/2008, 137) writes,“One of the reasons formy invitingDrAmbedkarwas that inmatterswecan’tconvincehimwithlogic,wewouldconvincehiminlovebyappealingto his heart.” Ambedkar’s insistence on including in his address a detailedsectionon thedestructionof theHindu religion signalled the likelihoodoffailure if the Mandal insisted on trying to win him over to the cause ofreligious reform. At the same time, members of the Mandal’s welcomecommittee were threatened with a black-flag protest if Ambedkar were topreside over the meeting, and this made Sant Ram unsure of endearingAmbedkartothecause.Ambedkar’saddressattheSikhPracharConference,Amritsar, in April 1936 would have further disoriented the Jat-Pat TodakMandal,apointAmbedkarmakesinhisfinallettertotheMandal(203).

Sant Ram (1963/2008, 119), in his autobiography, lists the following pastpresidentsof theMandal’sannualconferences inLahore froma1939reportof theMandal: SwamiShraddhanand,MotilalNehru,RajaNarendraNath,Bhai Parmanand, Rameshwari Nehru, Swami Sarvadanand, Sir Hari SinghGaur, Sri Satyananda Stokes, SriRamanandaChatterjee, SriHarkishanLal,Barrister Dr Gokul Chand, Barrister Dr N.B. Khare of Nagpur, SwamiSatyanandandDrKalyandasDesai.

AnnihilationofCaste

AnUndeliveredSpeech,1936

1

1.1

Friends,IamreallysorryforthemembersoftheJat-PatTodakMandalwhohavesoverykindlyinvitedmetopresideoverthisconference.Iamsuretheywill be askedmany questions for having selectedme as the president. TheMandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported a man fromBombay to preside over a functionwhich is held in Lahore. I believe theMandal could easily have found someone better qualified than myself topresideontheoccasion. Ihavecriticised theHindus. IhavequestionedtheauthorityoftheMahatmawhomtheyrevere.Theyhateme.TothemIamasnakeintheirgarden.TheMandalwillnodoubtbeaskedbythepoliticallymindedHindustoexplainwhyithascalledmetofillthisplaceofhonour.Itis an act of great daring. I shall not be surprised if some political Hindusregard it as an insult. This selection of mine certainly cannot please theordinaryreligiouslymindedHindus.

1.2

The Mandal may be asked to explain why it has disobeyed the shastricinjunctioninselectingthepresident.Accordingtotheshastras,theBrahminisappointedtobetheguruforthethreevarnas. 1isadirectionoftheshastras.TheMandalthereforeknowsfromwhomaHindushouldtakehis lessons and from whom he should not. The shastras do not permit aHindutoacceptanyoneashisgurumerelybecauseheiswellversed.Thisismade very clear by Ramdas,2 a Brahmin saint from Maharashtra, who isalleged to have inspired Shivaji to establish aHinduRaj. In hisDasbodh, asocio-politico-religioustreatiseinMarathiverse,Ramdasasks,addressingtheHindus,canweacceptanantyaja3tobeourgurubecauseheisapandit(i.e.,learned)?Hegivesananswerinthenegative.

1.3

WhatrepliestogivetothesequestionsisamatterwhichImustleavetotheMandal.TheMandalknowsbestthereasonswhichledittotraveltoBombaytoselectapresident, to fixuponamansorepugnanttotheHindus,andtodescend so low in the scale as to select an antyaja—an Untouchable—toaddressanaudienceofthesavarnas.4Asformyself,youwillallowmetosaythatIhaveacceptedtheinvitationmuchagainstmywill,andalsoagainstthewillofmanyofmyfellowUntouchables.IknowthattheHindusaresickofme.IknowthatIamnotapersonagratawiththem.Knowingallthis,Ihavedeliberately keptmyself away from them. I have no desire to inflictmyselfupon them. I have been giving expression to my views from my ownplatform.Thishasalreadycausedagreatdealofheartburn5andirritation.

1.4

IhavenodesiretoascendtheplatformoftheHindus,todowithintheirsightwhatIhavebeendoingwithintheirhearing.IfIamhereitisbecauseofyourchoiceandnotbecauseofmywish.Yours isacauseof social reform.Thatcausehasalwaysmadeanappealtome,andit isbecauseofthisthatI feltIoughtnottorefuseanopportunityofhelpingthecause—especiallywhenyouthinkthatIcanhelpit.WhetherwhatIamgoingtosaytodaywillhelpyouinanywaytosolvetheproblemyouaregrapplingwith,isforyoutojudge.AllIhopetodoistoplacebeforeyoumyviewsontheproblem.

2

2.1

Thepathof social reform, like thepath toheaven (at any rate, in India), isstrewnwithmanydifficulties.SocialreforminIndiahasfewfriendsandmanycritics.Thecritics fall intotwodistinctclasses.Oneclassconsistsofpoliticalreformers,andtheotherofthesocialists.

2.2

Itwas atone time recognised thatwithout socialefficiency,6 nopermanent

progress in the other fields of activitywas possible; that owing tomischiefwroughtbyevilcustoms,Hindusocietywasnotinastateofefficiency;andthatceaselesseffortsmustbemadetoeradicatetheseevils.Itwasduetotherecognition of this fact that the birth of the National Congress wasaccompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference.7 While theCongress was concerned with defining the weak points in the politicalorganisationofthecountry,theSocialConferencewasengagedinremovingtheweakpoints in the socialorganisationofHindu society.For some timethe Congress and the Conference worked as two wings of one commonactivity,andtheyheldtheirannualsessionsinthesamepandal.

2.3

Butsoonthetwowingsdevelopedintotwoparties,a‘politicalreformparty’anda ‘socialreformparty’,betweenwhomthereragedafiercecontroversy.The‘politicalreformparty’supportedtheNationalCongress,andthe‘socialreformparty’supportedtheSocialConference.Thetwobodiesthusbecametwo hostile camps. The point at issue was whether social reform shouldprecedepolitical reform.Foradecade the forceswereevenlybalanced,andthebattlewasfoughtwithoutvictorytoeitherside.

2.4

It was, however, evident that the fortunes of the Social Conference wereebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the SocialConference lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus were forpolitical advancement and indifferent to social reform; and that while thenumberofthosewhoattendedtheCongresswasverylarge,andthenumberwhodidnotattendbutwhosympathisedwithitwasevenlarger,thenumberofthosewhoattendedtheSocialConferencewasverymuchsmaller.

2.5

This indifference—this thinning of its ranks—was soon followed by activehostilityfromthepoliticians.UndertheleadershipofthelateMrTilak,8the

courtesywithwhichtheCongressallowedtheSocialConferencetheuseofitspandalwaswithdrawn,andthespiritofenmitywenttosuchapitchthatwhentheSocialConferencedesiredtoerectitsownpandal,athreattoburnthepandalwasheldout by its opponents.9Thus in the course of time thepartyinfavourofpoliticalreformwon,andtheSocialConferencevanishedandwasforgotten.

2.6

The speech delivered by Mr W.C. Bonnerjee10 in 1892 at Allahabad, aspresidentoftheeighthsessionoftheCongress,soundslikeafuneralorationon the death of the Social Conference, and is so typical of the CongressattitudethatIventuretoquotefromitthefollowingextract.MrBonnerjeesaid:

I for one have no patiencewith thosewho saywe shall not be fit forpolitical reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see anyconnection between the two … Are we not fit (for political reform)becauseourwidowsremainunmarriedandourgirlsaregiveninmarriageearlierthaninothercountries?…becauseourwivesanddaughtersdonotdrive aboutwith us visiting our friends?…becausewe do not send ourdaughterstoOxfordandCambridge?(Cheersfromtheaudience)

2.7

IhavestatedthecaseforpoliticalreformasputbyMrBonnerjee.ThereweremanywhowerehappythatthevictorywenttotheCongress.Butthosewhobelieve in the importanceof social reformmay ask, is an argument such asthatofMrBonnerjeefinal?Doesitprovethatthevictorywenttothosewhowereintheright?Doesitproveconclusivelythatsocialreformhasnobearingonpoliticalreform?ItwillhelpustounderstandthematterifIstatetheothersideofthecase.IwilldrawuponthetreatmentoftheUntouchablesformyfacts.

2.8

Under the rule of the Peshwas in theMaratha country,11 theUntouchablewasnotallowedtousethepublicstreetsifaHinduwascomingalong,lestheshouldpollute theHindubyhis shadow.TheUntouchablewasrequired tohaveablackthreadeitheronhiswristoraroundhisneck,asasignoramarkto prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch bymistake.InPoona,thecapitalofthePeshwa,theUntouchablewasrequiredtocarry,strungfromhiswaist,abroomtosweepawayfrombehindhimselfthe dust he trod on, lest a Hindu walking on the same dust should bepolluted. In Poona, theUntouchablewas required to carry an earthen pothung around his neckwherever hewent—for holding his spit, lest his spitfallingontheearthshouldpolluteaHinduwhomightunknowinglyhappentotreadonit.

2.9

Letmetakemorerecentfacts.ThetyrannypractisedbytheHindusupontheBalais,anUntouchablecommunity inCentralIndia,will servemypurpose.YouwillfindareportofthisintheTimesofIndiaof4thJanuary1928.Thecorrespondent of theTimes of India reported that high-caste Hindus—viz.,Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins, including the Patels and Patwaris of thevillagesofKanaria,Bicholi-Hapsi,Bicholi-Mardana, and about fifteenothervillages in Indore district (of Indore State)—informed the Balais of theirrespectivevillagesthatiftheywishedtoliveamongthem,theymustconformtothefollowingrules:

1.Balaismustnotweargold-lace–borderedpugrees.2.Theymustnotweardhotiswithcolouredorfancyborders.3.TheymustconveyintimationofthedeathofanyHindutorelativesofthedeceased—nomatterhowfarawaytheserelativesmaybeliving.4. InallHindumarriages,Balaismustplaymusicbefore theprocessionsandduringthemarriage.5.Balaiwomenmustnotweargoldor silverornaments; theymustnotwearfancygownsorjackets.6.BalaiwomenmustattendallcasesofconfinementofHinduwomen.127.Balaismustrenderserviceswithoutdemandingremuneration,andmustacceptwhateveraHinduispleasedtogive.8.IftheBalaisdonotagreetoabidebytheseterms,theymustclearout

ofthevillages.

2.10

The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded againstthem.Balaiswerenotallowedtogetwaterfromthevillagewells;theywerenot allowed to let their cattle graze. Balais were prohibited from passingthroughlandownedbyaHindu,sothatifthefieldofaBalaiwassurroundedbyfieldsownedbyHindus,theBalaicouldhavenoaccesstohisownfield.TheHindus also let their cattle graze down the fields ofBalais.TheBalaissubmitted petitions to the Darbar13 against these persecutions; but as theycouldgetnotimelyrelief,andtheoppressioncontinued,hundredsofBalaiswith their wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes—inwhichtheirancestorshadlivedforgenerations—andtomigratetoadjoiningstates: that is, tovillages inDhar,Dewas,Bagli,Bhopal,Gwalior andotherstates.Whathappenedtothemintheirnewhomesmayforthepresentbeleftoutofourconsideration.

2.11

TheincidentatKavitha14inGujarathappenedonlylastyear.TheHindusofKavithaorderedtheUntouchablesnottoinsistuponsendingtheirchildrentothe commonvillage schoolmaintainedby thegovernment.What sufferingstheUntouchables ofKavithahad toundergo, for daring to exercise a civicright against thewishes of theHindus, is toowell known to need detaileddescription. Another instance occurred in the village of Zanu, in theAhmedabad district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some Untouchablewomen of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. TheHindus lookedupontheuseofmetalpotsbyUntouchablesasanaffronttotheirdignity,andassaultedtheUntouchablewomenfortheirimpudence.

2.12

AmostrecenteventisreportedfromthevillageofChakwarainJaipurstate.It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an

UntouchableofChakwarawhohadreturnedfromapilgrimagehadarrangedto give a dinner to his fellow Untouchables of the village, as an act ofreligiouspiety.Thehostdesiredtotreatthegueststoasumptuousmeal,andthe items served included ghee (butter) also. But while the assembly ofUntouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in theirhundreds, armed with lathis, rushed to the scene, despoiled the food, andbelabouredtheUntouchableswholeftthefood,andran15fortheirlives.AndwhywasthismurderousassaultcommittedondefencelessUntouchables?Thereason given is that the Untouchable host was impudent enough to serveghee, and hisUntouchable guests were foolish enough to taste it. Ghee isundoubtedlyaluxuryfortherich.Butnoonewouldthinkthatconsumptionofgheewasamarkofhigh social status.TheHindusofChakwara thoughtotherwise, and in righteous indignation avenged themselves for the wrongdonetothembytheUntouchables,whoinsultedthembytreatinggheeasanitemoftheirfood—whichtheyoughttohaveknowncouldnotbetheirs—consistentlywiththedignityoftheHindus.ThismeansthatanUntouchablemust not use ghee, even if he can afford to buy it, since it is an act ofarrogance towards theHindus.Thishappenedonor about the1st ofApril1936!16

2.13

Havingstatedthefacts letmenowstatethecaseforsocialreform.Indoingthis, I will follow Mr Bonnerjee as nearly as I can, and ask the politicalmindedHindus, “Are you fit for political power even though you do notallow a large class of your own countrymen like the Untouchables to usepublicschools?Areyoufitforpoliticalpowereventhoughyoudonotallowthemtheuseofpublicwells?Areyoufitforpoliticalpowereventhoughyoudonotallowthemtheuseofpublic streets?Areyou fit forpoliticalpowereventhoughyoudonotallowthemtowearwhatapparelorornamentstheylike?Areyoufit forpoliticalpowereventhoughyoudonotallowthemtoeat any food they like?” I canask a stringof suchquestions.But thesewillsuffice.

2.14

Iwonderwhatwouldhavebeen the replyofMrBonnerjee. I am surenosensible man will have the courage to give an affirmative answer. EveryCongressmanwhorepeatsthedogmaofMill17thatonecountryisnotfittoruleanothercountry,mustadmitthatoneclassisnotfittoruleanotherclass.Howisitthenthatthe‘socialreformparty’lostthebattle?Tounderstandthiscorrectly it isnecessary to takenoteof thekindof social reformwhich thereformers were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary to make adistinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of theHindufamily,andsocialreforminthesenseofthereorganisationandreconstructionof Hindu society. The former has a relation to widow remarriage, childmarriage,etc.,whilethelatterrelatestotheabolitionofthecastesystem.

2.15

TheSocialConferencewas a bodywhichmainly concerned itselfwith thereformof thehigh-caste18Hindu family. It consistedmostly of enlightenedhigh-caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating for theabolition of caste, or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt quitenaturallyagreaterurge to remove suchevils asenforcedwidowhood,childmarriages, etc.—evils which prevailed among them and which werepersonally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of Hindusociety.Thebattlethatwasfoughtcentredroundthequestionofthereformofthefamily.Itdidnotrelatetosocialreforminthesenseofthebreak-upofthecastesystem.Itwasneverputinissuebythereformers.Thatisthereasonwhythe‘socialreformparty’lost.

2.16

Iamawarethatthisargumentcannotalterthefactthatpoliticalreformdidinfact gain precedence over social reform. But the argument has this muchvalue,ifnotmore:itexplainswhysocialreformerslostthebattle.Italsohelpsus to understand how limited was the victory which the ‘political reformparty’obtainedoverthe‘socialreformparty’,andtounderstandthattheviewthat social reform need not precede political reform is a view which maystand onlywhen by social reform ismeant the reform of the family. Thatpoliticalreformcannotwithimpunitytakeprecedenceoversocialreformin

thesenseofthereconstructionofsociety,isathesiswhichIamsurecannotbecontroverted.

2.17

Thatthemakersofpoliticalconstitutionsmusttakeaccountofsocialforcesisa factwhichis recognisedbyno lessapersonthanFerdinandLassalle,19 thefriend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian audience in1862,Lassallesaid:

Theconstitutionalquestionsareinthefirstinstancenotquestionsofrightbut questions of might. The actual constitution of a country has itsexistenceonlyintheactualconditionofforcewhichexistsinthecountry:hencepoliticalconstitutionshavevalueandpermanenceonlywhentheyaccuratelyexpressthoseconditionsofforceswhichexistinpracticewithinasociety.20

2.18

ButitisnotnecessarytogotoPrussia.21Thereisevidenceathome.Whatisthe significance of the Communal Award,22with its allocation of politicalpower in defined proportions to diverse classes and communities? In myview,itssignificanceliesinthis:thatpoliticalconstitutionmusttakenoteofsocial organisation. It shows that the politicianswho denied that the socialproblem in India had any bearing on the political problemwere forced toreckonwiththesocialproblemindevisingtheconstitution.TheCommunalAward is, so to say, the nemesis following upon the indifference to andneglect of social reform. It is a victory for the ‘social reform party’,whichshows that, though defeated, they were in the right in insisting upon theimportanceofsocialreform.Many,Iknow,willnotacceptthisfinding.Theview is current—and it is pleasant to believe in it—that the CommunalAwardisunnaturalandthatitistheresultofanunholyalliancebetweentheminorities and the bureaucracy.23 I do notwish to rely on theCommunalAwardasapieceofevidencetosupportmycontention,ifitissaidthatitisnotgoodevidence.

2.19

LetusturntoIreland.WhatdoesthehistoryofIrishHomeRuleshow?ItiswellknownthatinthecourseofthenegotiationsbetweentherepresentativesofUlsterandSouthernIreland,MrRedmond,therepresentativeofSouthernIreland,inordertobringUlsterintoaHomeRuleconstitutioncommontothewholeofIreland,saidtotherepresentativesofUlster:“Askanypoliticalsafeguards you like and you shall have them.” What was the reply thatUlstermengave?Theirreplywas,“Damnyoursafeguards,wedon’twanttoberuledbyyouonanyterms.”24PeoplewhoblametheminoritiesinIndiaought to considerwhatwouldhavehappened to thepolitical aspirationsofthe majority, if the minorities had taken the attitude which Ulster took.Judgedby the attitudeofUlster to IrishHomeRule, is itnothing that theminorities agreed to be ruled by themajority (whichhas not shownmuchsenseofstatesmanship),providedsomesafeguardsweredevisedforthem?Butthisisonlyincidental.Themainquestionis,whydidUlstertakethisattitude?TheonlyanswerIcangiveisthattherewasasocialproblembetweenUlsterandSouthernIreland:theproblembetweenCatholicsandProtestants,whichisessentiallyaproblemofcaste.ThatHomeRuleinIrelandwouldbeRomeRulewasthewayinwhichtheUlstermenhadframedtheiranswer.ButthatisonlyanotherwayofstatingthatitwasthesocialproblemofcastebetweentheCatholics andProtestants,which prevented the solution of the politicalproblem.Thisevidenceagain is sure tobechallenged. Itwillbeurged thatheretoothehandoftheImperialistwasatwork.

2.20

Butmyresourcesarenotexhausted.IwillgiveevidencefromthehistoryofRome.Herenoonecansaythatanyevilgeniuswasatwork.AnyonewhohasstudiedthehistoryofRomewillknowthattherepublicanconstitutionofRome bore marks having strong resemblance to the Communal Award.When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the kingly power or theImperiumwasdividedbetweentheconsulsandthePontifexMaximus.25 Intheconsulswasvestedthesecularauthorityoftheking,whilethelattertookover the religious authority of the king. This republican constitution hadprovided that of the two consuls, one was to be patrician and the otherplebeian.26Thesameconstitutionhadalsoprovidedthatofthepriestsunder

thePontifexMaximushalfweretobeplebeiansandtheotherhalfpatricians.Why is it that the republican constitution ofRomehad these provisions—which, as I said, resemble so strongly the provisions of the CommunalAward?Theonly answerone can get is that the constitutionof republicanRomehadtotakeaccountof thesocialdivisionbetweenthepatriciansandthe plebeians, who formed two distinct castes.27 To sum up, let politicalreformersturninanydirectiontheylike,theywillfindthatinthemakingofaconstitution, theycannot ignore theproblemarisingoutof theprevailingsocialorder.

2.21

TheillustrationswhichIhavetakeninsupportofthepropositionthatsocialand religious problems have a bearing on political constitutions seem to betoo particular. Perhaps they are. But it should not be supposed that thebearingof theoneontheother is limited.Ontheotherhand,onecansaythat generally speaking, history bears out the proposition that politicalrevolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.The religious reformation started by Luther28 was the precursor of thepoliticalemancipationoftheEuropeanpeople.InEngland,Puritanismledtothe establishmentof political liberty.Puritanism founded thenewworld. Itwas Puritanism which won the war of American independence, andPuritanismwasareligiousmovement.29

2.22

ThesameistrueoftheMuslimempire.BeforetheArabsbecameapoliticalpower, they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by theProphetMuhammad.30 Even Indian history supports the same conclusion.Thepolitical revolution ledbyChandraguptawasprecededby the religiousandsocialrevolutionofBuddha.31ThepoliticalrevolutionledbyShivajiwaspreceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints ofMaharashtra.32 The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by thereligiousandsocialrevolutionledbyGuruNanak.33Itisunnecessarytoaddmore illustrations. Thesewill suffice to show that the emancipation of themindandthesoulisanecessarypreliminaryforthepoliticalexpansionofthe

people.

3

3.1

Let me now turn to the socialists. Can the socialists ignore the problemarisingoutofthesocialorder?ThesocialistsofIndia,34followingtheirfellowsinEurope,areseekingtoapplytheeconomicinterpretationofhistorytothefacts of India. They propound that man is an economic creature, that hisactivities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is theonlysourceofpower.Theythereforepreachthatpoliticalandsocialreformsare but gigantic illusions, and that economic reform by equalisation ofpropertymusthaveprecedenceover everyotherkindof reform.Onemayjoinissuewitheveryoneofthesepremises—onwhichreststhesocialists’caseforeconomicreformashavingpriorityovereveryotherkindofreform.Onemaycontendthattheeconomicmotiveisnottheonlymotivebywhichmanisactuated.Thateconomicpower is theonlykindofpower,no studentofhumansocietycanaccept.

3.2

That the social status of an individual by itself often becomes a source ofpower and authority ismade clear by the swaywhich theMahatmas haveheld over the commonman.Why domillionaires in India obey pennilesssadhus and fakirs? Why do millions of paupers in India sell their triflingtrinketswhich constitute their onlywealth, and go toBenares andMecca?That religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India,wherethepriestholdsswayoverthecommonmanoftengreaterthanthatofthe magistrate, and where everything, even such things as strikes andelections,soeasilytakesareligiousturnandcansoeasilybegivenareligioustwist.

3.3

TakethecaseoftheplebeiansofRomeasafurtherillustrationofthepowerof religionoverman. It throwsgreat lighton thispoint.TheplebeianshadfoughtforashareinthesupremeexecutiveundertheRomanRepublic,andhad secured the appointment of a plebeian consul elected by a separateelectorateconstitutedbytheComitiaCenturiata,35whichwasanassemblyofplebeians. They wanted a consul of their own because they felt that thepatricianconsulsusedtodiscriminateagainsttheplebeiansincarryingontheadministration.Theyhadapparentlyobtainedagreatgain,becauseundertherepublicanconstitutionofRomeoneconsulhadthepowerofvetoinganactoftheotherconsul.

3.4

Butdidtheyinfactgainanything?Theanswertothisquestionmustbeinthenegative.Theplebeiansnevercouldgetaplebeianconsulwhocouldbesaidtobeastrongman,andwhocouldactindependentlyofthepatricianconsul.In the ordinary course of things the plebeians should have got a strongplebeianconsul, inviewofthefactthathiselectionwastobebyaseparateelectorateofplebeians.Thequestionis,whydidtheyfailingettingastrongplebeiantoofficiateastheirconsul?

3.5

The answer to this question reveals the dominionwhich religion exercisesover the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the whole Romanpopulus thatnoofficial could enterupon thedutiesofhisofficeunless theOracleofDelphi36declaredthathewasacceptabletothegoddess.Thepriestswho were in charge of the temple of the goddess of Delphi were allpatricians. Whenever therefore the plebeians elected a consul who wasknown to be a strong party man and opposed to the patricians—or‘communal’, touse the term that is current in India—theOracle invariablydeclaredthathewasnotacceptabletothegoddess.Thisishowtheplebeianswerecheatedoutoftheirrights.

3.6

Butwhat isworthyofnote is that theplebeianspermittedthemselves tobethuscheatedbecausetheytoo, likethepatricians,heldfirmlythebelief thattheapprovalofthegoddesswasaconditionprecedenttothetakingchargebyanofficialofhisduties,andthatelectionbythepeoplewasnotenough.Iftheplebeianshadcontended thatelectionwasenoughand that theapprovalbythe goddesswas not necessary, theywould have derived the fullest benefitfrom the political right which they had obtained. But they did not. Theyagreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves butmore suitable to thegoddess—whichinfactmeantmoreamenabletothepatricians.Ratherthangiveupreligion,theplebeiansgaveupthematerialgainforwhichtheyhadfoughtsohard.Doesthisnotshowthatreligioncanbeasourceofpowerasgreatasmoney,ifnotgreater?

3.7

Thefallacyofthesocialists37liesinsupposingthatbecauseinthepresentstageofEuropeansocietypropertyasasourceofpowerispredominant,thesameistrue of India, or the samewas true of Europe in the past.Religion, socialstatus,andpropertyareallsourcesofpowerandauthoritywhichonemanhastocontrolthelibertyofanother.Oneispredominantatonestage;theotherispredominantatanother stage.That is theonlydifference. If liberty is theideal, and if libertymeans thedestructionof thedominionwhichonemanholdsoveranother,thenobviouslyitcannotbeinsisteduponthateconomicreformmust be theonekindof reformworthyof pursuit. If the sourceofpoweranddominionis,atanygiventimeorinanygivensociety,socialandreligious, then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as thenecessarysortofreform.

3.8

One can thus attack the doctrine of economic interpretation of historyadopted by the socialists of India. But I recognise that the economicinterpretation of history is not necessary for the validity of the socialistcontention that equalisation of property is the only real reform and that itmustprecedeeverythingelse.However,whatIwouldliketoaskthesocialistsisthis:Canyouhaveeconomicreformwithoutfirstbringingaboutareform

ofthesocialorder?ThesocialistsofIndiadonotseemtohaveconsideredthisquestion.38 Idonotwishtodothemaninjustice.Igivebelowaquotationfromaletterwhichaprominentsocialistwroteafewdaysagotoafriendofmine,inwhichhesaid,“IdonotbelievethatwecanbuildupafreesocietyinIndiasolongasthereisatraceofthisill-treatmentandsuppressionofoneclassbyanother.Believingas Ido ina socialist ideal, inevitablyIbelieve inperfect equality in the treatment of various classes and groups. I think thatsocialismofferstheonlytrueremedyforthisaswellasotherproblems.”

3.9

NowthequestionthatIwouldliketoaskis:Isitenoughforasocialisttosay,“Ibelieveinperfectequalityinthetreatmentofthevariousclasses?”Tosaythatsuchabeliefisenoughistodiscloseacompletelackofunderstandingofwhatisinvolvedinsocialism.Ifsocialismisapracticalprogrammeandisnotmerelyanideal,distantandfaroff,thequestionforasocialistisnotwhetherhebelieves inequality.Thequestionforhimiswhetherhemindsoneclassill-treatingandsuppressinganotherclassasamatterofsystem,asamatterofprinciple—andthusallowtyrannyandoppressiontocontinuetodivideoneclassfromanother.

3.10

Letmeanalysethefactorsthatareinvolvedintherealisationofsocialism,inordertoexplainfullymypoint.Nowitisobviousthattheeconomicreformcontemplatedbythesocialistscannotcomeaboutunlessthereisarevolutionresulting in the seizure of power. That seizure of power must be by aproletariat.ThefirstquestionIaskis:WilltheproletariatofIndiacombinetobringaboutthisrevolution?Whatwillmovementosuchanaction?Itseemstomethat,otherthingsbeingequal,theonlythingthatwillmoveonemantotakesuchanactionisthefeelingthatothermenwithwhomheisactingareactuatedbyfeelingsofequalityandfraternityand—aboveall—ofjustice.Menwillnotjoininarevolutionfortheequalisationofpropertyunlesstheyknow that after the revolution is achieved theywill be treated equally, andthattherewillbenodiscriminationofcasteandcreed.

3.11

Theassuranceofasocialistleadingtherevolutionthathedoesnotbelieveincaste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance must be the assuranceproceedingfromamuchdeeperfoundation—namely,thementalattitudeofthe compatriots towardsone another in their spirit of personal equality andfraternity.CanitbesaidthattheproletariatofIndia,poorasitis,recognisesnodistinctionsexcept thatof therichandthepoor?Canitbesaid that thepoorinIndiarecognisenosuchdistinctionsofcasteorcreed,highorlow?Ifthe fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from such aproletariatinitsactionagainsttherich?Howcantherebearevolutioniftheproletariatcannotpresentaunitedfront?

3.12

Supposeforthesakeofargumentthatbysomefreakoffortunearevolutiondoestakeplaceandthesocialistscomeintopower,willtheynothavetodealwiththeproblemscreatedbytheparticularsocialorderprevalentinIndia?Ican’t see how a socialist state in India can function for a second withouthaving tograpplewith theproblemscreatedby theprejudiceswhichmakeIndianpeopleobservethedistinctionsofhighandlow,cleanandunclean.Ifsocialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if thesocialistswish tomake socialismadefinite reality, then theymust recognisethattheproblemofsocialreformisfundamental,andthatforthemthereisnoescapefromit.

3.13

ThatthesocialorderprevalentinIndiaisamatterwhichasocialistmustdealwith;thatunlesshedoessohecannotachievehisrevolution;andthatifhedoesachieveitasaresultofgoodfortune,hewillhavetograpplewiththesocial order if hewishes to realise his ideal—is a propositionwhich inmyopinion is incontrovertible.Hewill be compelled to take account of casteafter therevolution, ifhedoesnot takeaccountof itbefore therevolution.Thisisonlyanotherwayofsayingthat,turninanydirectionyoulike,casteisthemonster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you

cannothaveeconomicreform,unlessyoukillthismonster.

4

4.1

Itisapitythatcasteeventodayhasitsdefenders.Thedefencesaremany.Itisdefendedonthegroundthatthecastesystemisbutanothernamefordivisionof labour; and if division of labour is a necessary feature of every civilisedsociety,thenitisarguedthatthereisnothingwronginthecastesystem.Nowthefirst thingthat is tobeurgedagainst thisviewis thatthecastesystemisnot merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers.39 Civilisedsociety undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilised society isdivision of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers intowatertight compartments. The caste system is not merely a division oflabourers—whichisquitedifferentfromdivisionoflabour—itisahierarchyinwhich the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other. In noother country is the division of labour accompanied by this gradation oflabourers.

4.2

There is alsoa thirdpointofcriticismagainst thisviewof thecaste system.Thisdivisionoflabourisnotspontaneous;itisnotbasedonnaturalaptitudes.Social and individual efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of anindividualtothepointofcompetencytochooseandtomakehisowncareer.Thisprincipleisviolatedinthecastesystem,insofarasitinvolvesanattempttoappointtaskstoindividualsinadvance—selectednotonthebasisoftrainedoriginalcapacities,butonthatofthesocialstatusoftheparents.40

4.3

Lookedatfromanotherpointofview,thisstratificationofoccupationswhichis the result of the caste system is positively pernicious. Industry is neverstatic.41 It undergoes rapid and abrupt changes. With such changes, an

individualmustbe free tochangehisoccupation.Without such freedomtoadjusthimself tochangingcircumstances, itwouldbe impossible forhimtogainhis livelihood.Now the caste systemwillnot allowHindus to take tooccupations where they are wanted, if they do not belong to them byheredity.IfaHinduisseentostarveratherthantaketonewoccupationsnotassigned to his caste, the reason is to be found in the caste system.By notpermittingreadjustmentofoccupations,castebecomesadirectcauseofmuchoftheunemploymentweseeinthecountry.

4.4

Asaformofdivisionoflabour,thecastesystemsuffersfromanotherseriousdefect. The division of labour brought about by the caste system is not adivisionbasedonchoice.Individualsentiment,individualpreference,hasnoplaceinit.Itisbasedonthedogmaofpredestination.Considerationsofsocialefficiencywouldcompelustorecognisethatthegreatestevilintheindustrialsystem isnot somuchpoverty and the suffering that it involves, as the factthat somanypersonshavecallingswhichmakenoappeal to thosewhoareengaged in them. Such callings constantly provoke one to aversion, illwillandthedesiretoevade.42

4.5

TherearemanyoccupationsinIndiawhich,onaccountofthefactthattheyareregardedasdegradedbytheHindus,provokethosewhoareengaged inthemtoaversion.There is a constantdesire toevadeandescape fromsuchoccupations, which arises solely because of the blighting effect which theyproduce upon thosewho follow them, owing to the slight and stigma castuponthembytheHindureligion.Whatefficiencycantherebeinasystemunderwhichneithermen’sheartsnor theirminds are in theirwork?As aneconomicorganisationcasteisthereforeaharmfulinstitution,inasmuchasitinvolves the subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations to theexigenciesofsocialrules.

5

5.1

Somehavedugabiological trench indefenceof thecaste system. It is saidthat the object of castewas to preserve purity of race and purity of blood.Nowethnologists43areof theopinionthatmenofpureraceexistnowhereand that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world.EspeciallyisthisthecasewiththepeopleofIndia.MrD.R.Bhandarkarinhispaperon“ForeignElementsintheHinduPopulation”hasstatedthat“ThereishardlyaclassorcasteinIndiawhichhasnotaforeignstraininit.Thereisanadmixtureofalienbloodnotonlyamongthewarriorclasses—theRajputsand theMarathas—but also among theBrahminswho areunder thehappydelusion that they are free from all foreign elements.”44 The caste systemcannotbesaidtohavegrownasameansofpreventingtheadmixtureofraces,orasameansofmaintainingpurityofblood.

5.2

Asamatterof fact thecaste systemcame intobeing longafter thedifferentraces of India had commingled in blood and culture.45 To hold thatdistinctionsofcastesarereallydistinctionsofrace,andtotreatdifferentcastesas though theywere somany different races, is a gross perversion of facts.What racial affinity is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and theBrahminofMadras?WhatracialaffinityistherebetweentheUntouchableofBengal and the Untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is therebetween theBrahminof thePunjab and theChamar of thePunjab?Whatracial difference is there between theBrahminofMadras and thePariahofMadras? The Brahmin of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as theChamarofthePunjab,andtheBrahminofMadrasisofthesameraceasthePariahofMadras.

5.3

The caste system does not demarcate racial division. The caste system is asocialdivisionofpeopleofthesamerace.Assumingit,however,tobeacaseof racial divisions, onemay ask:Whatharmcould therebe if amixtureofraces and of blood was permitted to take place in India by intermarriages

betweendifferentcastes?Menarenodoubtdividedfromanimalsbysodeepadistinctionthatsciencerecognisesmenandanimalsas twodistinctspecies.But even scientists who believe in purity of races do not assert that thedifferentracesconstitutedifferent speciesofmen.Theyareonlyvarietiesofone and the same species. As such they can interbreed and produce anoffspringwhichiscapableofbreedingandwhichisnotsterile.

5.4

An immense lot of nonsense is talked about heredity and eugenics46 indefenceofthecastesystem.Fewwouldobjecttothecastesystemifitwasinaccordwith the basic principle of eugenics, because few can object to theimprovement of the race by judicious mating. But one fails to understandhowthecastesystemsecuresjudiciousmating.Thecastesystemisanegativething. It merely prohibits persons belonging to different castes fromintermarrying. It is not a positivemethod of selectingwhich two among agivencasteshouldmarry.

5.5

If caste is eugenic in origin, then the origin of sub-castes must also beeugenic. But can anyone seriouslymaintain that the origin of sub-castes iseugenic?Ithinkitwouldbeabsurdtocontendforsuchaproposition,andfora very obvious reason. If caste means race, then differences of sub-castescannotmeandifferencesofrace,becausesub-castesbecomeexhypothesisub-divisions of one and the same race. Consequently the bar againstintermarryingandinter-diningbetweensub-castescannotbeforthepurposeofmaintainingpurityofraceorofblood.Ifsub-castescannotbeeugenicinorigin,therecannotbeanysubstanceinthecontentionthatcasteiseugenicinorigin.

5.6

Again, if caste is eugenic in origin47 one can understand the bar againstintermarriage.Butwhatisthepurposeoftheinterdictplacedoninter-dining

between castes and sub-castes alike? Inter-dining cannot infect blood, andtherefore cannot be the cause either of the improvement or of thedeteriorationoftherace.

5.7

This shows that caste has no scientific origin, and that those who areattemptingtogiveitaeugenicbasisaretryingtosupportbysciencewhatisgrossly unscientific. Even today, eugenics cannot become a practicalpossibilityunlesswehavedefiniteknowledgeregardingthelawsofheredity.ProfBatesoninhisMendel’sPrinciplesofHereditysays,“Thereisnothinginthedescentof thehighermentalqualities to suggest that they followany singlesystem of transmission. It is likely that both they and the more markeddevelopments of physical powers result rather from the coincidence ofnumerousfactorsthanfromthepossessionofanyonegeneticelement.”48Toarguethatthecastesystemwaseugenicinitsconceptionistoattributetotheforefathers of present-dayHindus a knowledge of hereditywhich even themodernscientistsdonotpossess.

5.8

Atreeshouldbejudgedbythefruitsityields.Ifcasteiseugenic,whatsortofaraceofmenshouldithaveproduced?PhysicallyspeakingtheHindusareaC3people.49Theyarea raceofpygmies anddwarfs, stunted in stature andwantinginstamina.Itisanationnine-tenthsofwhichisdeclaredtobeunfitformilitary service.This shows that the caste systemdoes not embody theeugenics of modern scientists. It is a social system which embodies thearrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who weresuperiorenoughinsocialstatustosetitinfashion,andwhohadtheauthoritytoforceitontheirinferiors.

6

6.1

Castedoesnotresultineconomicefficiency.Castecannotimprove,andhasnotimproved,race.50Castehas,however,doneonething.IthascompletelydisorganisedanddemoralisedtheHindus.

6.2

ThefirstandforemostthingthatmustberecognisedisthatHindusocietyisamyth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name.51 It was given by theMahomedans to thenatives for the purposeof distinguishing themselves. ItdoesnotoccurinanySanskritworkpriortotheMahomedaninvasion.Theydid not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had noconceptionof theirhavingconstituted a community.Hindu society as suchdoesnotexist. It isonlyacollectionofcastes.Eachcaste isconsciousof itsexistence.Itssurvivalisthebe-allandend-allofitsexistence.Castesdonoteven form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to othercastes, except when there is aHindu–Moslem riot.On all other occasionseach caste endeavours to segregate itself and todistinguish itself fromothercastes.

6.3

Eachcastenotonlydinesamongitselfandmarriesamongitself,buteachcasteprescribes its owndistinctivedress.Whatother explanation can therebeoftheinnumerablestylesofdresswornbythemenandwomenofIndia,whichsoamusethetourists?IndeedtheidealHindumustbelikearatlivinginhisownhole, refusing to have any contactwith others.There is an utter lackamong the Hindus of what the sociologists call ‘consciousness of kind’.52ThereisnoHinduconsciousnessofkind.IneveryHindutheconsciousnessthatexistsistheconsciousnessofhiscaste.ThatisthereasonwhytheHinduscannotbesaidtoformasocietyoranation.

6.4

Thereare,however,manyIndianswhosepatriotismdoesnotpermitthemtoadmitthatIndiansarenotanation,thattheyareonlyanamorphousmassof

people.They have insisted that underlying the apparent diversity there is afundamentalunitywhichmarksthelifeoftheHindus,inasmuchasthereisasimilarityofthosehabitsandcustoms,beliefsandthoughts,whichobtainallover the continent of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs andthoughts, there is.Butonecannotaccept theconclusion that therefore, theHindusconstituteasociety.Todosoistomisunderstandtheessentialswhichgotomakeupasociety.Mendonotbecomeasocietybylivinginphysicalproximity, anymore than aman ceases to be amember of his society bylivingsomanymilesawayfromothermen.

6.5

Secondly,similarityinhabitsandcustoms,beliefsandthoughts,isnotenoughtoconstitutemenintosociety.Thingsmaybepassedphysicallyfromonetoanotherlikebricks.Inthesamewayhabitsandcustoms,beliefsandthoughtsofonegroupmaybetakenoverbyanothergroup,andtheremaythusappeara similarity between the two.Culture spreads bydiffusion, and that iswhyone finds similarity between various primitive tribes in the matter of theirhabits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, although they do not live inproximity.But no one could say that because therewas this similarity, theprimitive tribes constitutedone society.This is because similarity in certainthingsisnotenoughtoconstituteasociety.

6.6

Men constitute a society because they have things which they possess incommon.Tohavesimilarthingsistotallydifferentfrompossessingthingsincommon.And the onlyway bywhichmen can come to possess things incommonwithoneanotherisbybeingincommunication53withoneanother.This is merely another way of saying that society continues to exist bycommunication—indeed,incommunication.54Tomakeitconcrete,itisnotenough if men act in a waywhich agrees with the acts of others. Parallelactivity,evenifsimilar,isnotsufficienttobindmenintoasociety.

6.7

This is proved by the fact that the festivals observed by the different castesamongst theHindusare thesame.Yet theseparallelperformancesof similarfestivalsbythedifferentcasteshavenotboundthemintooneintegralwhole.For thatpurposewhat isnecessary is foramantoshareandparticipate inacommonactivity,sothatthesameemotionsarearousedinhimthatanimatetheothers.Makingtheindividualasharerorpartnerintheassociatedactivity,so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure, is the realthingthatbindsmenandmakesasocietyofthem.Thecastesystempreventscommonactivity; andbypreventing commonactivity, ithasprevented theHindusfrombecomingasocietywithaunifiedlifeandaconsciousnessofitsownbeing.

7

7.1

TheHindusoftencomplainoftheisolationandexclusivenessofagangoracliqueandblamethemforanti-socialspirit.Buttheyconvenientlyforgetthatthisanti-socialspiritistheworstfeatureoftheirowncastesystem.OnecasteenjoyssingingahymnofhateagainstanothercasteasmuchastheGermansenjoyed singing their hymnof hate against theEnglish during the lastwar.TheliteratureoftheHindusisfullofcastegenealogiesinwhichanattemptismadetogiveanobleorigintoonecasteandanignobleorigintoothercastes.TheSahyadrikhandisanotoriousinstanceofthisclassofliterature.55

7.2

This anti-social spirit isnotconfined tocaste alone. Ithasgonedeeper andhaspoisoned themutual relationsof the sub-castes aswell. Inmyprovincethe Golak Brahmins, Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins, PalsheBrahmins,56 andChitpavanBrahmins57 all claim to be sub-divisions of theBrahmincaste.Buttheanti-socialspiritthatprevailsbetweenthemisquiteasmarked and quite as virulent as the anti-social spirit that prevails betweenthemandothernon-Brahmincastes.Thereisnothingstrangeinthis.Ananti-socialspiritisfoundwhereveronegrouphas‘interestsofitsown’whichshut

itoutfromfullinteractionwithothergroups,sothatitsprevailingpurposeisprotectionofwhatithasgot.

7.3

Thisanti-socialspirit,thisspiritofprotectingtheirowninterests,isasmuchamarkedfeatureofthedifferentcastesintheirisolationfromoneanotherasitisofnations in their isolation.TheBrahmin’sprimaryconcern is toprotect‘his interests’ against those of the non-Brahmins; and the non-Brahmins’primary concern is to protect their interests against those of the Brahmins.The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes, but are somanywarringgroups,eachlivingforitselfandforitsselfishideal.

7.4

There is another feature of castewhich is deplorable.The ancestors of thepresent-dayEnglishfoughtononesideortheotherintheWarsoftheRosesandtheCromwellianWar.58Butthedescendantsofthosewhofoughtontheonesidedonotbearanyanimosity—anygrudge—againstthedescendantsofthosewhofoughtontheotherside.Thefeudisforgotten.Butthepresent-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insulttheirancestorsgave toShivaji.59Thepresent-dayKayasthaswillnot forgivethe present-dayBrahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers by theforefathersof the latter.60Towhat is this difference due?Obviously to thecastesystem.Theexistenceofcasteandcasteconsciousnesshasservedtokeepthememoryofpastfeudsbetweencastesgreen,andhaspreventedsolidarity.

8

8.1

The recentdiscussion about the excluded andpartially excluded61 areas hasserved to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginaltribes in India.62 They number about thirteen million, if not more. ApartfromthequestionofwhethertheirexclusionfromthenewConstitution63is

properorimproper,thefactstillremainsthattheseaborigineshaveremainedin their primitive uncivilised state64 in a landwhich boasts of a civilisationthousands of years old.Not only are they not civilised, but some of themfollowpursuitswhichhaveledtotheirbeingclassifiedascriminals.65

8.2

Thirteenmillionpeoplelivinginthemidstofcivilisationarestillinasavagestate, and are leading the life of hereditary criminals! But theHindus havenever felt ashamedof it.This is aphenomenonwhich inmyview is quiteunparalleled.What is thecauseof this shameful stateofaffairs?Whyhasnoattemptbeenmadetocivilisetheseaboriginesandtoleadthemtotaketoamorehonourablewayofmakingaliving?

8.3

The Hindus will probably seek to account for this savage state of theaboriginesbyattributingtothemcongenitalstupidity.Theywillprobablynotadmit that the aborigineshave remained savagesbecause theyhadmadenoeffort to civilise them, to give themmedical aid, to reform them, tomakethemgoodcitizens.ButsupposingaHinduwishedtodowhattheChristianmissionaryisdoingfortheseaborigines,couldhehavedoneit?Isubmitnot.Civilising the aboriginesmeans adopting them as your own, living in theirmidst, and cultivating fellow-feeling—in short, loving them. How is itpossible for a Hindu to do this? His whole life is one anxious effort topreservehiscaste.Casteishispreciouspossessionwhichhemustsaveatanycost.Hecannotconsenttoloseitbyestablishingcontactwiththeaborigines,theremnantsofthehatefulanaryas66oftheVedicdays.

8.4

NotthataHinducouldnotbetaughtthesenseofdutytofallenhumanity,but the trouble is that no amount of sense of duty can enable him toovercome his duty to preserve his caste. Caste is, therefore, the realexplanation as towhy theHinduhas let the savage remain a savage in the

midst of his civilisation without blushing, or without feeling any sense ofremorseorrepentance.TheHinduhasnotrealisedthattheseaboriginesareasourceofpotentialdanger.If thesesavagesremainsavages, theymaynotdoany harm to the Hindus. But if they are reclaimed by non-Hindus andconverted to their faiths, they will swell the ranks of the enemies of theHindus. If thishappens, theHinduwillhave to thankhimself andhis castesystem.

9

9.1

Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause ofcivilisingthesavages,butthehigher-casteHindushavedeliberatelypreventedthe lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to theculturallevelofthehighercastes.Iwillgivetwoinstances,oneoftheSonarsand the other of the Pathare Prabhus.67 Both are communities quite wellknowninMaharashtra.Liketherestofthecommunitiesdesiringtoraisetheirstatus,thesetwocommunitieswereatonetimeendeavouringtoadoptsomeofthewaysandhabitsoftheBrahmins.

9.2

TheSonarswerestylingthemselvesDaivadnyaBrahmins68andwerewearingtheirdhotiswithfoldsinthem,andusingtheword‘namaskar’forsalutation.Boththefoldedwayofwearingthedhotiandthenamaskarwerespecial totheBrahmins.TheBrahminsdidnot like this imitationand thisattemptbySonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the authority of the Peshwas, theBrahmins successfully put down this attempt on the part of the Sonars toadoptthewaysoftheBrahmins.Theyevengotthepresidentofthecouncilsof the East India Company’s settlement in Bombay to issue a prohibitoryorderagainsttheSonarsresidinginBombay.

9.3

AtonetimethePatharePrabhushadwidowremarriageasacustomoftheircaste.Thiscustomofwidowremarriagewaslateronlookeduponasamarkof social inferiorityby somemembersof thecaste,especiallybecause itwascontrary to the custom prevalent among theBrahmins.With the object ofraising the status of their community, somePatharePrabhus sought to stopthis practice of widow remarriage that was prevalent in their caste. Thecommunitywas divided into two camps, one for and the other against theinnovation. The Peshwas took the side of those in favour of widowremarriage,andthusvirtuallyprohibitedthePatharePrabhusfromfollowingthewaysoftheBrahmins.

9.4

TheHinduscriticisetheMahomedansforhavingspreadtheirreligionbytheuse of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the score of theInquisition.69 But really speaking, who is better and more worthy of ourrespect—theMahomedansandChristianswhoattemptedtothrustdownthethroats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for theirsalvation, or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who wouldendeavour to keepothers in darkness,whowouldnot consent to sharehisintellectual and social inheritancewith thosewho are ready andwilling tomakeitapartoftheirownmake-up?IhavenohesitationinsayingthatiftheMahomedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness isworsethancruelty.

10

10.1

WhethertheHindureligionwasorwasnotamissionaryreligionhasbeenacontroversial issue.70 Some hold the view that it was never a missionaryreligion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once amissionaryreligionmustbeadmitted.ItcouldnothavespreadoverthefaceofIndia,ifitwasnotamissionaryreligion.Thattodayitisnotamissionaryreligionisalsoafactwhichmustbeaccepted.Thequestionthereforeisnot

whether or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The realquestionis,whydidtheHindureligionceasetobeamissionaryreligion?71

10.2

Myansweristhis:theHindureligionceasedtobeamissionaryreligionwhenthe caste system grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent withconversion.Inculcationofbeliefsanddogmasisnottheonlyproblemthatisinvolvedinconversion.Tofindaplacefortheconvertinthesociallifeofthecommunity is another, and amuchmore important, problem that arises inconnectionwithconversion.Thatproblemiswheretoplacetheconvert,inwhatcaste?It isaproblemwhichmustbaffleeveryHinduwishingtomakealiensconverttohisreligion.

10.3

Unlikeaclub,themembershipofacasteisnotopentoallandsundry.72Thelawofcasteconfinesitsmembershiptopersonsborninthecaste.Castesareautonomous,andthereisnoauthorityanywheretocompelacastetoadmitanewcomer to its social life.Hindu society being a collection of castes, andeachcastebeingaclosedcorporation,thereisnoplaceforaconvert.ThusitiscastewhichhaspreventedtheHindusfromexpandingandfromabsorbingotherreligiouscommunities.Solongascasteremains,Hindureligioncannotbemadeamissionaryreligion,andshuddhi73willbebothafollyandafutility.

11

11.1

The reasons which have made shuddhi impossible for Hindus are alsoresponsibleformakingsangathan74impossible.TheideaunderlyingsangathanistoremovefromthemindoftheHinduthattimidityandcowardicewhichso painfully mark him off from theMahomedan and the Sikh, and whichhaveledhimtoadoptthelowwaysoftreacheryandcunningforprotectinghimself. The question naturally arises: From where does the Sikh or the

Mahomedanderivehis strength,whichmakeshimbrave and fearless? I amsureitisnotduetorelativesuperiorityofphysicalstrength,dietordrill.Itisduetothestrengtharisingoutof the feelingthatallSikhswillcometotherescueofaSikhwhenheisindanger,andthatallMahomedanswillrushtosaveaMuslimifheisattacked.

11.2

The Hindu can derive no such strength. He cannot feel assured that hisfellowswill come tohishelp.Beingoneand fated tobe alone,he remainspowerless,developstimidityandcowardice,andinafightsurrendersorrunsaway.TheSikhaswellastheMuslimstandsfearlessandgivesbattle,becauseheknowsthatthoughonehewillnotbealone.Thepresenceofthisbeliefintheonehelpshimtoholdout,andtheabsenceofitintheothermakeshimtogiveway.

11.3

IfyoupursuethismatterfurtherandaskwhatisitthatenablestheSikhandtheMahomedan to feel so assured, andwhy is theHindu filledwith suchdespairinthematterofhelpandassistance,youwillfindthatthereasonsforthisdifference lie in thedifference in theirassociatedmodeof living.75TheassociatedmodeoflifepractisedbytheSikhsandtheMahomedansproducesfellow-feeling.Theassociatedmodeof lifeof theHindusdoesnot.AmongSikhsandMuslimsthereisasocialcementwhichmakesthembhais.76AmongHindus there is no such cement, and one Hindu does not regard anotherHinduashisbhai.ThisexplainswhyaSikhsaysandfeelsthatoneSikh,oroneKhalsa,isequaltosavalakhmen.77ThisexplainswhyoneMahomedanisequaltoacrowdofHindus.Thisdifferenceisundoubtedlyadifferenceduetocaste.Solongascasteremains,therewillbenosangathan;andsolongasthereisnosangathantheHinduwillremainweakandmeek.

11.4

The Hindus claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a

mistake.Onmanyoccasionstheycanbeintolerant,andifonsomeoccasionsthey are tolerant, that is because they are too weak to oppose or tooindifferenttooppose.ThisindifferenceoftheHindushasbecomesomuchapartoftheirnaturethataHinduwillquitemeeklytolerateaninsultaswellasa wrong. You see amongst them, to use the words ofMorris, “The greattreadingdownthelittle,thestrongbeatingdowntheweak,cruelmenfearingnot,kindmendaringnotandwisemencaringnot.”78WiththeHindugodsall-forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of thewronged and the oppressed among theHindus. Indifferentism is theworstkindofdiseasethatcaninfectapeople.WhyistheHindusoindifferent?Inmy opinion this indifferentism is the result of the caste system, which hasmadesangathanandcooperationevenforagoodcauseimpossible.

12

12.1

The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his ownindependence and interest—over and against group standards, groupauthority, and group interests—is the beginningof all reform.Butwhetherthereformwillcontinuedependsuponwhatscopethegroupaffordsforsuchindividualassertion. If thegroup is tolerantand fair-minded indealingwithsuchindividuals,theywillcontinuetoassert,andintheendwillsucceedinconverting their fellows.On the other hand if the group is intolerant, anddoesnotbotheraboutthemeansitadoptstostiflesuchindividuals,theywillperishandthereformwilldieout.

12.2

Nowa castehas anunquestioned right to excommunicate anymanwho isguilty of breaking the rules of the caste; and when it is realised thatexcommunication involvesacompletecesserof social intercourse, itwillbeagreed that as a formofpunishment there is really little tochoosebetweenexcommunicationanddeath.NowonderindividualHindushavenothadthecouragetoasserttheirindependencebybreakingthebarriersofcaste.

12.3

Itistruethatmancannotgetonwithhisfellows.Butit isalsotruethathecannotdowithoutthem.Hewouldliketohavethesocietyofhisfellowsonhisterms.Ifhecannotgetitonhisterms,thenhewillbereadytohaveitonanyterms,evenamountingtocompletesurrender.Thisisbecausehecannotdowithoutsociety.Acasteiseverreadytotakeadvantageofthehelplessnessofaman,andtoinsistuponcompleteconformitytoitscodeinletterandinspirit.

12.4

A caste can easily organise itself into a conspiracy to make the life of areformerhell;andifaconspiracyisacrime,Idonotunderstandwhysuchanefarious act as an attempt to excommunicate a person for daring to actcontrary to the rulesof caste shouldnotbemade anoffencepunishablebylaw. But as it is, even law gives each caste autonomy to regulate itsmembershipandpunishdissenterswithexcommunication.Casteinthehandsof theorthodoxhas been apowerfulweapon for persecuting the reformersandforkillingallreform.

13

13.1

TheeffectofcasteontheethicsoftheHindusissimplydeplorable.Castehaskilledpublicspirit.Castehasdestroyedthesenseofpubliccharity.Castehasmade public opinion impossible. A Hindu’s public is his caste. Hisresponsibility is only to his caste.His loyalty is restricted only to his caste.Virtuehasbecomecaste-ridden,andmoralityhasbecomecaste-bound.Thereisnosympathyforthedeserving.Thereisnoappreciationofthemeritorious.There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response.There is charity, but it begins with caste and ends with caste. There issympathy,butnotformenofothercastes.

13.2

WouldaHinduacknowledgeandfollowtheleadershipofagreatandgoodman?ThecaseofaMahatmaapart,theanswermustbethathewillfollowaleaderifheisamanofhiscaste.ABrahminwillfollowaleaderonlyifheisaBrahmin,aKayasthaifheisaKayastha,andsoon.Thecapacitytoappreciatemerits in aman, apart from his caste, does not exist in aHindu. There isappreciation of virtue, but onlywhen theman is a fellow caste-man. Thewholemoralityisasbadastribalmorality.Mycaste-man,rightorwrong;mycaste-man,goodorbad.Itisnotacaseofstandingbyvirtueornotstandingbyvice.Itisacaseofstandingby,ornotstandingby,caste.HavenotHinduscommittedtreasonagainsttheircountryintheinterestsoftheircastes?

14

14.1

Iwouldnotbesurprised if someofyouhavegrownweary listening to thistiresome tale of the sad effectswhich caste has produced.There is nothingnewinit.Iwillthereforeturntotheconstructivesideoftheproblem.Whatisyouridealsocietyifyoudonotwantcaste,isaquestionthatisboundtobeaskedofyou. Ifyouaskme,my idealwouldbea societybasedon liberty,equality,andfraternity.Andwhynot?

14.2

What objection can there be to fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An idealsocietyshouldbemobile,shouldbefullofchannels forconveyingachangetaking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should bemanyinterestsconsciouslycommunicatedandshared.Thereshouldbevariedand free points of contactwith othermodes of association. In otherwordstheremust be social endosmosis.79This is fraternity,which is only anothername fordemocracy.Democracy isnotmerelya formofgovernment. It isprimarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicatedexperience.80 It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards

fellowmen.

14.3

Anyobjectiontoliberty?Fewobjecttolibertyinthesenseofarighttofreemovement,inthesenseofarighttolifeandlimb.Thereisnoobjectiontoliberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials, as beingnecessaryforearningaliving,tokeepthebodyinaduestateofhealth.Whynotallowapersonthelibertytobenefitfromaneffectiveandcompetentuseofaperson’spowers?Thesupportersofcastewhowouldallowlibertyinthesense of a right to life, limb, and property, would not readily consent tolibertyinthissense,inasmuchasitinvolveslibertytochooseone’sprofession.

14.4

Buttoobjecttothiskindoflibertyistoperpetuateslavery.Forslaverydoesnotmerelymeanalegalisedformofsubjection.Itmeansastateofsocietyinwhichsomemenareforcedtoacceptfromothersthepurposeswhichcontroltheir conduct.This conditionobtainsevenwhere there isno slavery in thelegal sense. It is found where, as in the caste system, some persons arecompelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not of theirchoice.

14.5

Anyobjectiontoequality?Thishasobviouslybeenthemostcontentiouspartof the sloganof theFrenchRevolution.Theobjections toequalitymaybesound,andonemayhave toadmit that allmenarenotequal.Butwhatofthat? Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless onemust accept it as thegoverningprinciple.Aman’spowerisdependentupon(1)physicalheredity;(2)socialinheritanceorendowmentintheformofparentalcare,education,accumulation of scientific knowledge, everythingwhich enables him to bemoreefficientthanthesavage;andfinally,(3)onhisownefforts.Inallthesethree respectsmen are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall wetreatthemasunequalbecausetheyareunequal?Thisisaquestionwhichtheopponentsofequalitymustanswer.

14.6

Fromthestandpointoftheindividualist,itmaybejusttotreatmenunequallyso far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give as muchincentiveaspossibletothefulldevelopmentofeveryone’spowers.Butwhatwouldhappenifmenweretreatedasunequallyastheyareunequalinthefirsttworespects?81Itisobviousthatthoseindividualsalsoinwhosefavourthereisbirth,education,familyname,businessconnections,andinheritedwealth,wouldbeselectedintherace.Butselectionundersuchcircumstanceswouldnotbeaselectionoftheable.Itwouldbetheselectionoftheprivileged.Thereason,therefore,whichforcesthatinthethirdrespectweshouldtreatmenunequally, demands that in the first two respects we should treat men asequallyaspossible.

14.7

Ontheotherhand,itcanbeurgedthatifitisgoodforthesocialbodytogetthemostoutofitsmembers,itcangetthemostoutofthemonlybymakingthemequalasfaraspossibleattheverystartoftherace.Thatisonereasonwhywe cannot escape equality. But there is another reasonwhywemustaccept equality.A statesman is concernedwith vast numbers of people.Hehasneitherthetimenortheknowledgetodrawfinedistinctionsandtotreateachoneequitably,i.e.,accordingtoneedoraccordingtocapacity.Howeverdesirableorreasonableanequitabletreatmentofmenmaybe,humanityisnotcapableofassortmentandclassification.Thestatesman,therefore,mustfollowsomeroughandreadyrule,andthatroughandreadyruleistotreatallmenalike,not because they are alike but because classification and assortment isimpossible.Thedoctrineofequalityisglaringlyfallaciousbut,takingallinall,it is the onlyway a statesman can proceed in politics—which is a severelypracticalaffairandwhichdemandsaseverelypracticaltest.

15

15.1

Butthereisasetofreformerswhoholdoutadifferentideal.TheygobythenameoftheAryaSamajists,82andtheiridealofsocialorganisationiswhatiscalled chaturvarnya, or the divisionof society into four classes insteadof thefourthousandcastesthatwehaveinIndia.Tomakeitmoreattractiveandtodisarmopposition, the protagonists of chaturvarnya take great care to pointoutthattheirchaturvarnyaisbasednotonbirthbutonguna(worth).83Attheoutset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of thischaturvarnya,itisanidealtowhichIcannotreconcilemyself.

15.2

Inthefirstplace,ifunderthechaturvarnyaoftheAryaSamajistsanindividualis to take his place in Hindu society according to his worth, I do notunderstand why the Arya Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin,Kshatriya,VaishyaandShudra.A learnedmanwouldbehonouredwithouthisbeinglabelledaBrahmin.Asoldierwouldberespectedwithouthisbeingdesignated a Kshatriya. If European society honours its soldiers and itsservants84withoutgivingthempermanent labels,whyshouldHindusocietyfinditdifficulttodoso,isaquestionwhichAryaSamajistshavenotcaredtoconsider.

15.3

There is another objection to the continuance of these labels. All reformconsists in a change in the notions, sentiments andmental attitudes of thepeopletowardsmenandthings.85Itiscommonexperiencethatcertainnamesbecome associated with certain notions and sentiments which determine aperson’s attitude towards men and things. The names Brahmin, Kshatriya,VaishyaandShudraarenameswhichareassociatedwithadefiniteandfixednotioninthemindofeveryHindu.Thatnotionisthatofahierarchybasedonbirth.

15.486

So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the

Brahmin,Kshatriya,VaishyaandShudraashierarchicaldivisionsofhighandlow, based on birth, and to act accordingly. TheHindumust bemade tounlearnallthis.Buthowcanthishappeniftheoldlabelsremainandcontinuetorecalltohismindoldnotions?Ifnewnotionsaretobeinculcatedinthemindsofpeople,itisnecessarytogivethemnewnames.Tocontinuetheoldnames is to make the reform futile. To allow this chaturvarnya based onworthtobedesignatedbysuchstinkinglabelsasBrahmin,Kshatriya,Vaishya,Shudra,indicativeofsocialdivisionsbasedonbirth,isasnare.

16

16.1

Tomethischaturvarnyawithitsoldlabelsisutterlyrepellent,andmywholebeingrebelsagainstit.ButIdonotwishtorestmyobjectiontochaturvarnyaonmeregroundsofsentiments.TherearemoresolidgroundsonwhichIrelyformyoppositiontoit.Acloseexaminationofthis idealhasconvincedmethat as a system of social organisation, chaturvarnya is impracticable, isharmful,andhasturnedouttobeamiserablefailure.87Fromapracticalpointof view, the system of chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which itsprotagonists do not seem to have taken into account. The principleunderlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlyingchaturvarnya.88Notonlyare they fundamentallydifferent,but theyarealsofundamentallyopposed.

16.2

Theformer,chaturvarnya,isbasedonworth.Howareyougoingtocompelpeoplewhohaveacquiredahigherstatusbasedonbirth,withoutreferencetotheirworth, tovacate that status?Howareyougoing to compelpeople torecognise the status due to a man, in accordance with his worth, who isoccupyingalowerstatusbasedonhisbirth?Forthis,youmustfirstbreakupthe caste system, in order to be able to establish the chaturvarnya system.Howareyougoingtoreducethefourthousandcastes,basedonbirth,tothefourvarnas,basedonworth?Thisisthefirstdifficultywhichtheprotagonists

ofchaturvarnyamustgrapplewith.

16.3

There is a second difficulty which the protagonists of chaturvarnya mustgrapple with, if they wish to make the establishment of chaturvarnya asuccess.89 Chaturvarnya presupposes that you can classify people into fourdefiniteclasses.Isthispossible?90Inthisrespect,theidealofchaturvarnyahas,as youwill see, a close affinity to thePlatonic ideal.ToPlato,men fell bynature into three classes. In some individuals, he believed,91mere appetitesdominated. He assigned them to the labouring and trading classes. Othersrevealed to him that over and above appetites, they had a courageousdisposition. He classed them as defenders in war and guardians of internalpeace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the universal—the reasonunderlyingthings.Hemadethemthelaw-giversofthepeople.

16.4

Thecriticism towhichPlato’sRepublic is subject is also thecriticismwhichmust apply to the systemof chaturvarnya, in so far as it proceedsupon thepossibilityofanaccurateclassificationofmenintofourdistinctclasses.92ThechiefcriticismagainstPlatoisthathisideaoflumpingindividualsintoafewsharplymarked-off classes is a very superficial viewofman andhispowers.Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every individual, of hisincommensurabilitywithothers,of each individual as forming a classofhisown.Hehadnorecognitionoftheinfinitediversityofactivetendencies,andthe combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To him,thereweretypesoffacultiesorpowersintheindividualconstitution.

16.5

Allthisisdemonstrablywrong.Modernsciencehasshownthatthelumpingtogether of individuals into a few sharplymarked-off classes is a superficialview of man, not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently, theutilisation of the qualities of individuals is incompatible with their

stratification by classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable.Chaturvarnyamust fail for thevery reason forwhichPlato’sRepublicmustfail—namely, that it is not possible to pigeonmen into holes according toclass.93 That it is impossible to accurately classify people into four definiteclasses isprovedby the fact that theoriginal fourclasseshavenowbecomefourthousandcastes.

16.6

There is a third difficulty in theway of the establishment of the systemofchaturvarnya. How are you going tomaintain the system of chaturvarnya,supposingitwasestablished?One94importantrequirementforthesuccessfulworking of chaturvarnya is the maintenance95 of the penal system whichcouldmaintainitbyitssanction.Thesystemofchaturvarnyamustperpetuallyfacetheproblemofthetransgressor.Unlessthereisapenaltyattachedtotheactoftransgression,menwillnotkeeptotheirrespectiveclasses.Thewholesystem will break down, being contrary to human nature. Chaturvarnyacannotsubsistbyitsowninherentgoodness.Itmustbeenforcedbylaw.

16.7

Thatwithout penal sanction the ideal of chaturvarnya cannot be realised isproved by the story in theRamayana ofRama killing Shambuka.96 SomepeopleseemtoblameRamabecausehewantonlyandwithoutreasonkilledShambuka.ButtoblameRamaforkillingShambukaistomisunderstandthewholesituation.RamRajwasarajbasedonchaturvarnya.Asaking,Ramawas bound to maintain chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to killShambuka, the Shudra who had transgressed his class and wanted to be aBrahmin.ThisisthereasonwhyRamakilledShambuka.Butthisalsoshowsthatpenalsanctionisnecessaryforthemaintenanceofchaturvarnya.Notonlypenalsanctionisnecessary,butthepenaltyofdeathisnecessary.ThatiswhyRama did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why theManusmriti97 prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue, orpouring ofmolten lead in the ears, of the Shudrawho recites or hears theVeda.98 The supporters of chaturvarnya must give an assurance that theycouldsuccessfullyclassifymen,andthattheycouldinducemodernsocietyin

thetwentiethcenturytore-forgethepenalsanctionsoftheManusmriti.

16.899

Theprotagonistsofchaturvarnyadonotseemtohaveconsideredwhatistohappen to women in their system. Are they also to be divided into fourclasses,Brahmin,Kshatriya,VaishyaandShudra?Oraretheytobeallowedtotake the status of their husbands? If the status of the woman is to be theconsequence of marriage, what becomes of the underlying principle ofchaturvarnya—namely, that the statusofapersonshouldbebasedupontheworthofthatperson?Iftheyaretobeclassifiedaccordingtotheirworth,istheirclassificationtobenominalorreal?

16.9

If it is to be nominal, then it is useless; and then the protagonists ofchaturvarnyamustadmit that their systemdoesnotapplytowomen.If it isreal, are the protagonists of chaturvarnya prepared to follow the logicalconsequences of applying it to women? They must be prepared to havewomenpriestsandwomensoldiers.Hindusocietyhasgrownaccustomedtowomen teachers andwomenbarristers. Itmaygrowaccustomed towomenbrewersandwomenbutchers.Buthewouldbeaboldpersonwhowouldsaythat it will allowwomen priests andwomen soldiers. But that will be thelogicaloutcomeofapplyingchaturvarnyatowomen.Giventhesedifficulties,I think no one except a congenital idiot could hope for and believe in asuccessfulregenerationofchaturvarnya.

17

17.1

Assumingthatchaturvarnyaispracticable,Icontendthatitisthemostvicioussystem. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge, that the Kshatriyashouldbeararms, that theVaishya should trade,andthat theShudra shouldserve,100soundsasthoughitwasasystemofdivisionoflabour.Whetherthe

theory was intended to state that the Shudra need not, or whether it wasintended to lay down that he must not, is an interesting question. Thedefendersofchaturvarnyagiveit thefirstmeaning.Theysay,whyneedtheShudratroubletoacquirewealth,whenthethreehighervarnasaretheretosupporthim?WhyneedtheShudrabothertotaketoeducation,whenthereistheBrahmintowhomhecangowhentheoccasionforreadingorwritingarises? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself, when there is theKshatriya to protect him? The theory of chaturvarnya, understood in thissense,maybesaidtolookupontheShudraasthewardandthethreehighervarnasashisguardians.Thusinterpreted,itisasimple,elevating,andalluringtheory.

17.2

Assuming this to be the correct view of the underlying conception ofchaturvarnya,itseemstomethatthesystemisneitherfoolproofnorknave-proof.What is to happen if the Brahmins, Vaishyas, and Kshatriyas fail topursue knowledge, to engage in economic enterprise, and to be efficientsoldiers, which are their respective functions? Contrary-wise, suppose thattheydischarge their functions,but flout theirduty to theShudraor tooneanother;whatistohappentotheShudraifthethreeclassesrefusetosupporthimonfair terms,orcombinetokeephimdown?Whois tosafeguardtheinterestsoftheShudra—orforthatmatter,thoseoftheVaishyaandKshatriya—when the personwho is trying to take advantage of his ignorance is theBrahmin?WhoistodefendthelibertyoftheShudra—andforthatmatter,oftheBrahminandtheVaishya—whenthepersonwhoisrobbinghimofitistheKshatriya?

17.3

Interdependenceofoneclassonanotherclassisinevitable.Evendependenceofoneclassuponanothermaysometimesbecomeallowable.Butwhymakeonepersondependuponanotherinthematterofhisvitalneeds?Education,everyonemusthave.Meansofdefence,everyonemusthave.These are theparamountrequirementsofeverymanforhisself-preservation.Howcanthefactthathisneighbouriseducatedandarmedhelpamanwhoisuneducated

anddisarmed?Thewholetheoryisabsurd.Thesearethequestionswhichthedefenders of chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they areverypertinentquestions.Assuming that in theirconceptionofchaturvarnyatherelationshipbetweenthedifferentclassesisthatofwardandguardian,andthatthis istherealconceptionunderlyingchaturvarnya, itmustbeadmittedthat it makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from themisdeedsoftheguardian.

17.4

Whetherornottherelationshipofguardianandwardwastherealunderlyingconception on which chaturvarnya was based, there is no doubt that inpractice the relation was that of master and servants. The three classes,Brahmins,KshatriyasandVaishyas,althoughnotveryhappyintheirmutualrelationship, managed to work by compromise. The Brahmin flattered theKshatriya,andbothlettheVaishyaliveinordertobeabletoliveuponhim.ButthethreeagreedtobeatdowntheShudra.Hewasnotallowedtoacquirewealth,lestheshouldbeindependentofthethreevarnas.Hewasprohibitedfrom acquiring knowledge, lest he should keep a steady vigil regarding hisinterests.Hewasprohibitedfrombearingarms,lestheshouldhavethemeanstorebelagainsttheirauthority.ThatthisishowtheShudrasweretreatedbythetryavarnikas101isevidencedbythelawsofManu.Thereisnocodeoflawsmore infamous regarding social rights than the lawsofManu.Any instancefromanywhereofsocialinjusticemustpalebeforeit.

17.5

Whyhave themass of people tolerated the social evils towhich theyhavebeensubjected?Therehavebeensocialrevolutionsinothercountriesoftheworld.Why have there not been social revolutions in India, is a questionwhich has incessantly troubledme. There is only one answerwhich I cangive, and it is that the lower classes of Hindus102 have been completelydisabledfordirectaction103onaccountofthiswretchedcastesystem.104Theycouldnotbeararms,andwithoutarms theycouldnotrebel.Theywereallploughmen—orrather,condemnedtobeploughmen—andtheyneverwereallowed to convert their ploughshares into swords. They had no bayonets,

andthereforeeveryonewhochose,couldanddidsituponthem.Onaccountof thecaste system, theycould receivenoeducation.Theycouldnot thinkoutorknowthewaytotheirsalvation.Theywerecondemnedtobelowly;andnotknowingthewayofescape,andnothavingthemeansofescape,theybecame reconciled to eternal servitude,105 which they accepted as theirinescapablefate.

17.6106

It is true that even in Europe the strong have not shrunk from theexploitation—nay, the spoliation—of the weak. But in Europe, the stronghave never contrived to make the weak helpless against exploitation soshamelesslyaswasthecase inIndiaamongtheHindus.SocialwarhasbeenragingbetweenthestrongandtheweakfarmoreviolentlyinEuropethanithas ever been in India.Yet theweak inEuropehas had inhis freedomofmilitaryservice,hisphysicalweapon;insuffering,hispoliticalweapon;andineducation, hismoralweapon. These threeweapons for emancipationwereneverwithheldby the strong from theweak inEurope.All theseweaponswere,however,deniedtothemassesinIndiabythecastesystem.

17.7

Therecannotbeamoredegradingsystemofsocialorganisationthanthecastesystem. It is the system which deadens, paralyses, and cripples the people,fromhelpfulactivity.Thisisnoexaggeration.Historybearsampleevidence.There is only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom,greatnessandglory.ThatistheperiodoftheMauryaempire.107Atallothertimesthecountrysufferedfromdefeatanddarkness.ButtheMauryaperiodwas a periodwhen the caste systemwas completely annihilated—when theShudras,who constituted themass of the people, came into their own andbecame the rulers of the country.The period of defeat and darkness is theperiodwhenthecastesystemflourished,tothedamnationofthegreaterpartofthepeopleofthecountry.

18

18.1

Chaturvarnyaisnotnew.ItisasoldastheVedas.ThatisoneofthereasonswhyweareaskedbytheAryaSamajiststoconsideritsclaims.Judgingfromthepast,asasystemofsocialorganisationithasbeentried,andithasfailed.Howmany timeshave theBrahmins annihilated the seedof theKshatriyas!How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the Brahmins! TheMahabharata and thePuranas are full of incidents of the strife between theBrahminsandtheKshatriyas.Theyevenquarrelledoversuchpettyquestionsastowhoshouldsalutefirst,astowhoshouldgivewayfirst,theBrahminsortheKshatriyas,whenthetwometinthestreet.108

18.2

NotonlywastheBrahminaneyesoretotheKshatriyaandtheKshatriyaaneyesoretotheBrahmin, it seemsthat theKshatriyashadbecometyrannical,andthemasses,disarmedastheywereunderthesystemofchaturvarnya,wereprayingtoalmightygodforrelieffromtheirtyranny.TheBhagwat109tellsusverydefinitelythatKrishnahadtakenavatarforonesacredpurpose:andthatwas, toannihilate theKshatriyas.With these instancesof rivalryandenmitybetweenthedifferentvarnasbeforeus,Idonotunderstandhowanyonecanholdoutchaturvarnyaasanidealtobeaimedat,110orasapatternonwhichHindusocietyshouldberemodelled.

19

19.1

Ihavedealtwiththosewhoarewithoutyouandwhosehostilitytoyouridealis quite open.There appear to beotherswho are neitherwithout younorwithyou.IwashesitatingwhetherIshoulddealwiththeirpointofview.ButonfurtherconsiderationIhavecometotheconclusionthatImust,andthatfortworeasons.Firstly,theirattitudetotheproblemofcasteisnotmerelyanattitudeofneutrality,butisanattitudeofarmedneutrality.111Secondly,theyprobably representaconsiderablebodyofpeople.Of these, there isone set

which finds nothing peculiar or odious in the caste system of theHindus.SuchHinduscitethecaseofMuslims,SikhsandChristians,andfindcomfortinthefactthattheytoohavecastesamongstthem.

19.2

In considering this question, you must at the outset bear in mind thatnowhereishumansocietyonesinglewhole.Itisalwaysplural.Intheworldofaction,theindividualisonelimitandsocietytheother.Betweenthemlieall sorts of associative arrangements of lesser and larger scope—families,friendships, cooperative associations, business combines, political parties,bands of thieves and robbers.These small groups are usually firmlyweldedtogether, and are often as exclusive as castes. They have a narrow andintensive code, which is often anti-social. This is true of every society, inEuropeaswellasinAsia.Thequestiontobeaskedindeterminingwhetheragivensocietyisanidealsocietyisnotwhethertherearegroupsinit,becausegroupsexistinallsocieties.

19.3

Thequestionstobeaskedindeterminingwhatisanidealsocietyare:Hownumerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared by thegroups?How full and free is the interplaywithother formsof associations?Aretheforcesthatseparategroupsandclassesmorenumerousthantheforcesthatunitethem?Whatsocialsignificanceisattachedtothisgrouplife?Is itsexclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience, or is it a matter ofreligion? It is in the light of these questions that onemust decidewhethercasteamongnon-HindusisthesameascasteamongHindus.112

19.4

If we apply these considerations to castes among Mahomedans, Sikhs andChristianson theonehand,and tocastesamongHinduson theother,youwill find thatcasteamongnon-Hindus is fundamentallydifferent fromcasteamong Hindus. First, the ties which consciously make the Hindus hold

togetherarenon-existent,whileamongnon-Hindustherearemanythatholdthemtogether.Thestrengthofasocietydependsuponthepresenceofpointsofcontact,possibilitiesofinteraction,betweendifferentgroupswhichexistinit.These arewhatCarlyle calls “organic filaments”—i.e., the elastic threadswhich help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunitethem.113There isno integrating forceamong theHindus tocounteract thedisintegrationcausedbycaste.Whileamongthenon-Hindusthereareplentyofthese“organicfilaments”whichbindthemtogether.

19.5

Again itmustbeborne inmind that although there are castes amongnon-Hindus,asthereareamongHindus,castehasnotthesamesocialsignificancefornon-HindusasithasforHindus.AskaMahomedanoraSikhwhoheis.HetellsyouthatheisaMahomedanoraSikh,asthecasemaybe.Hedoesnot tell you his caste although he has one, and you are satisfied with hisanswer.Whenhe tellsyou thathe is aMuslim,youdonotproceed toaskhimwhetherheisaShiaoraSunni;SheikhorSaiyad;KhatikorPinjari.114When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask himwhether he is Jat orRoda;Mazbi orRamdasi.115But you are not satisfied if a person tells youthatheisaHindu.Youfeelboundtoinquireintohiscaste.Why?Becausesoessential iscasteinthecaseofaHinduthatwithoutknowingityoudonotfeelsurewhatsortofabeingheis.

19.6

That castehasnot the same social significance amongnon-Hindus as it hasamongHindusisclear,ifyoutakeintoconsiderationtheconsequenceswhichfollowbreachofcaste.TheremaybecastesamongSikhsandMahomedans,buttheSikhsandtheMahomedanswillnotoutcastaSikhoraMahomedanifhebrokehiscaste.Indeed,theveryideaofexcommunicationisforeigntotheSikhsandtheMahomedans.ButwiththeHindusthecaseisentirelydifferent.AHinduissuretobeoutcastedifhebrokecaste.ThisshowsthedifferenceinthesocialsignificanceofcastetoHindusandnon-Hindus.Thisisthesecondpointofdifference.

19.7

But there is also a third and amore importantone.Caste among thenon-Hindushasnoreligiousconsecration;butamongtheHindusmostdecidedlyit has. Among the non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a sacredinstitution. They did not originate it. With them it is only a survivalmechanism.116 They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religioncompels theHindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue.Religiondoesnotcompelthenon-Hindustotakethesameattitudetowardscaste.IfHinduswishtobreakcaste,theirreligionwillcomeintheirway.Butit will not be so in the case of non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerousdelusiontotakecomfort inthemereexistenceofcasteamongnon-Hindus,withoutcaring toknowwhatplacecasteoccupies in their life andwhetherthereareother“organicfilaments”whichsubordinatethefeelingofcastetothefeelingofcommunity.ThesoonertheHindusarecuredofthisdelusion,thebetter.

19.8

TheothersetdeniesthatcastepresentsanyproblematallfortheHindustoconsider. Such Hindus seek comfort in the view that the Hindus havesurvived,andtakethisasaproofoftheirfitnesstosurvive.Thispointofviewis well expressed by Prof S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu View of Life.117ReferringtoHinduism,hesays:

Thecivilisation itselfhasnotbeena short-livedone. Itshistoric recordsdatebacktooverfourthousandyearsandeventhenithadreachedastageof civilisationwhich has continued its unbroken, though at times slowandstatic,courseuntilthepresentday.Ithasstoodthestressandstrainofmore than fouror fivemillenniumsof spiritual thoughtandexperience.Though peoples of different races and cultures have been pouring intoIndia from thedawnofhistory,Hinduismhasbeenable tomaintain itssupremacy and even the proselytising creeds backed by political powerhavenotbeenabletocoercethelargemajorityofHindustotheirviews.TheHinduculturepossesses somevitalitywhich seems tobedenied tosome other more forceful currents. It is no more necessary to dissectHinduismthantoopenatreetoseewhetherthesapstillruns.

The name of ProfRadhakrishnan is big enough to invest with profunditywhatever he says, and impress theminds of his readers.118 But Imust nothesitatetospeakoutmymind.ForIfearthathisstatementmaybecomethebasis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is proof of fitness tosurvive.

19.9

Itseemstomethatthequestionisnotwhetheracommunitylivesordies;thequestionisonwhatplanedoesitlive.Therearedifferentmodesofsurvival.Butnotallareequallyhonourable.Foranindividualaswellasforasociety,thereisagulfbetweenmerelyliving,andlivingworthily.Tofightinabattleandtoliveingloryisonemode.Tobeataretreat,tosurrender,andtolivethelifeofacaptiveisalsoamodeofsurvival.ItisuselessforaHindutotakecomfort in the fact that he and his people have survived. What he mustconsideris,whatisthequalityoftheirsurvival.Ifhedoesthat,Iamsurehewillceasetotakeprideinthemerefactofsurvival.AHindu’slifehasbeenalifeofcontinuousdefeat,andwhatappearstohimtobelifeeverlastingisnotlivingeverlastingly,butisreallyalifewhichisperishingeverlastingly.It isamode of survival ofwhich every right-mindedHinduwho is not afraid toownuptothetruthwillfeelashamed.

20

20.1

Thereisnodoubt, inmyopinion,thatunlessyouchangeyoursocialorderyou can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilise thecommunityeitherfordefenceorforoffence.Youcannotbuildanythingonthefoundationsofcaste.Youcannotbuildupanation,youcannotbuildupamorality.Anythingthatyouwillbuildonthefoundationsofcastewillcrack,andwillneverbeawhole.

20.2

Theonlyquestionthatremainstobeconsideredis—HowtobringaboutthereformoftheHindusocialorder?Howtoabolishcaste?119Thisisaquestionofsupremeimportance.Thereisaviewthatinthereformofcaste,thefirststeptotakeistoabolishsub-castes.Thisviewisbaseduponthesuppositionthatthereisagreatersimilarityinmannersandstatusbetweensub-castesthanthere is between castes. I think this is an erroneous supposition. TheBrahmins of northern and central India are socially of lower grade, ascomparedwiththeBrahminsoftheDeccanandsouthernIndia.Theformerare only cooks and water-carriers, while the latter occupy a high socialposition.On theotherhand, innorthern India, theVaishyas andKayasthasareintellectuallyandsociallyonaparwiththeBrahminsoftheDeccanandsouthernIndia.

20.3

Again, in thematterof foodthere isnosimilaritybetweentheBrahminsofthe Deccan and southern India, who are vegetarians, and the Brahmins ofKashmere and Bengal, who are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, theBrahminsoftheDeccanandsouthernIndiahavemoreincommonsofarasfoodisconcernedwithsuchnon-BrahminsastheGujaratis,Marwaris,BaniasandJains.

20.4

Thereisnodoubtthatfromthestandpointofmakingthetransition120fromonecastetoanothereasy, thefusionoftheKayasthasofnorthernIndiaandthe other non-Brahmins of southern India with the non-Brahmins of theDeccanandtheDravidian121 country ismorepracticable than the fusionoftheBrahminsofthesouthwiththeBrahminsofthenorth.Butassumingthatthefusionofsub-castesispossible,whatguaranteeistherethattheabolitionofsub-casteswillnecessarilyleadtotheabolitionofcastes?Onthecontrary,itmayhappenthattheprocessmaystopwiththeabolitionofsub-castes.Inthatcase, the abolitionof sub-casteswill onlyhelp to strengthen the castes, andmakethemmorepowerfulandthereforemoremischievous.Thisremedyistherefore neither practicable nor effective, and may easily prove to be awrongremedy.

20.5

Anotherplanofactionfor theabolitionofcaste is tobeginwith inter-castedinners.Thisalso,inmyopinion,isaninadequateremedy.Therearemanycasteswhich allow inter-dining. But it is a common experience that inter-dininghasnotsucceededinkillingthespiritofcasteandtheconsciousnessofcaste.Iamconvincedthattherealremedyisintermarriage.Fusionofbloodcanalonecreate the feelingofbeingkithandkin,andunless this feelingofkinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling—thefeelingofbeingaliens—createdbycastewillnotvanish.AmongtheHindus,intermarriagemustnecessarilybeafactorofgreaterforceinsociallifethanitneedbeinthelifeofthenon-Hindus.Wheresocietyisalreadywellknitbyother ties,marriage is anordinary incidentof life.Butwhere society is cutasunder,marriage as a binding force becomes amatter of urgent necessity.Therealremedyforbreakingcasteisintermarriage.Nothingelsewillserveasthesolventofcaste.

20.6

YourJat-PatTodakMandalhasadoptedthislineofattack.Itisadirectandfrontal attack, and I congratulate you upon a correct diagnosis, and moreuponyourhavingshownthecouragetotelltheHinduswhatisreallywrongwith them. Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny, and areformerwhodefiessocietyisamuchmorecourageousmanthanapoliticianwhodefiesthegovernment.Youarerightinholdingthatcastewillceasetobeanoperativeforceonlywheninter-diningandintermarriagehavebecomemattersofcommoncourse.Youhavelocatedthesourceofthedisease.

20.7

Butisyourprescriptiontherightprescriptionforthedisease?Askyourselvesthisquestion:WhyisitthatalargemajorityofHindusdonotinter-dineanddonotintermarry?Whyisitthatyourcauseisnotpopular?

20.8

Therecanbeonlyoneanswertothisquestion,anditisthatinter-diningandintermarriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which the Hindusregardassacred.Casteisnotaphysicalobjectlikeawallofbricksoralineofbarbedwirewhichprevents theHindus fromcommingling andwhichhas,therefore, to be pulled down.Caste is a notion; it is a state ofmind.Thedestruction of caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a physicalbarrier.Itmeansanotionalchange.

20.9

Castemaybebad.Castemayleadtoconductsogrossastobecalledman’sinhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognised that the Hindusobservecastenotbecausetheyareinhumanorwrong-headed.Theyobservecaste because they are deeply religious. People are notwrong in observingcaste.Inmyview,whatiswrongistheirreligion,whichhasinculcatedthisnotionofcaste.Ifthisiscorrect,thenobviouslytheenemyyoumustgrapplewithisnotthepeoplewhoobservecaste,buttheshastraswhichteachthemthisreligionofcaste.Criticisingandridiculingpeoplefornotinter-diningorintermarrying, or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebratinginter-castemarriages,isafutilemethodofachievingthedesiredend.Therealremedyistodestroythebeliefinthesanctityoftheshastras.

20.10

Howdoyouexpecttosucceedifyouallowtheshastrastocontinuetomouldthebeliefsandopinionsofthepeople?Nottoquestiontheauthorityoftheshastras—topermitthepeopletobelieveintheirsanctityandtheirsanctions,and then to blame the people and to criticise them for their acts as beingirrationalandinhuman—isanincongruouswayofcarryingonsocialreform.Reformers working for the removal of untouchability, includingMahatmaGandhi, do not seem to realise that the acts of the people are merely theresultsoftheirbeliefsinculcatedintheirmindsbytheshastras,andthatpeoplewillnotchangetheirconductuntiltheyceasetobelieveinthesanctityoftheshastrasonwhichtheirconductisfounded.

20.11

Nowonderthatsucheffortshavenotproducedanyresults.Youalsoseemtobeerringinthesamewayasthereformersworkinginthecauseofremovinguntouchability.To agitate for and toorganise inter-caste dinners and inter-castemarriagesislikeforcedfeedingbroughtaboutbyartificialmeans.Makeeveryman andwoman free from the thraldomof the shastras, cleanse theirmindsof theperniciousnotions foundedon the shastras, andheor shewillinter-dineandintermarry,withoutyourtellinghimorhertodoso.

20.12

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that theshastras do not saywhat they are believed to say, if they are grammaticallyread or logically interpreted. What matters is how the shastras have beenunderstoodbythepeople.Youmust takethestandthatBuddha took.YoumusttakethestandwhichGuruNanaktook.Youmustnotonlydiscardtheshastras,youmustdenytheirauthority,asdidBuddhaandNanak.YoumusthavecouragetotelltheHindusthatwhatiswrongwiththemistheirreligion—the religionwhichhasproduced in them thisnotionof the sacrednessofcaste.Willyoushowthatcourage?

21

21.1

Whatareyourchancesofsuccess?122Socialreformsfallintodifferentspecies.Thereisaspeciesofreformwhichdoesnotrelatetothereligiousnotionsofapeople, but is purely secular in character.There is also a species of reformwhichrelatestothereligiousnotionsofapeople.Ofsuchaspeciesofreform,therearetwovarieties.Inone,thereformaccordswiththeprinciplesofthereligion, andmerely invitespeoplewhohavedeparted from it, to revert tothemandtofollowthem.

21.2

Thesecondisareformwhichnotonlytouchesthereligiousprinciplesbutisdiametricallyopposed to thoseprinciples, and invitespeople todepart fromandtodiscardtheirauthority,andtoactcontrarytothoseprinciples.Casteisthenaturaloutcomeofcertainreligiousbeliefswhichhavethesanctionoftheshastras,whicharebelievedtocontainthecommandofdivinelyinspiredsageswho were endowed with a supernatural wisdom and whose commands,therefore,cannotbedisobeyedwithoutcommittingasin.

21.3

Thedestructionofcasteisareformwhichfallsunderthethirdcategory.Toaskpeopletogiveupcasteistoaskthemtogocontrarytotheirfundamentalreligiousnotions.Itisobviousthatthefirstandsecondspeciesofreformareeasy. But the third is a stupendous task,well-nigh impossible. TheHindusholdtothesacrednessofthesocialorder.Castehasadivinebasis.Youmusttherefore destroy the sacredness and divinity withwhich caste has becomeinvested.Inthelastanalysis,thismeansyoumustdestroytheauthorityoftheshastrasandtheVedas.

21.4

Ihave emphasised this questionof theways andmeansof destroying caste,becauseIthinkthatknowingtheproperwaysandmeansismoreimportantthanknowingtheideal.Ifyoudonotknowtherealwaysandmeans,allyourshots are sure to be misfired. If my analysis is correct, then your task isHerculean.Youalonecansaywhetheryouarecapableofachievingit.

21.5

Speaking formyself, I see the task tobewell-nigh impossible.Perhaps youwouldliketoknowwhyIthinkso.Outofthemanyreasonswhichhaveledmetotakethisview,IwillmentionsomewhichIregardasmostimportant.One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility which the Brahmins haveshown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of themovement forpolitical reform, and in somecases alsoofeconomic reform.But theyarenot tobe foundevenas camp-followers in the army raised to

breakdown thebarricadesofcaste. Is thereanyhopeof theBrahminsevertakingupaleadinthefutureinthismatter?Isayno.

21.6

Youmay askwhy. Youmay argue that there is no reasonwhy Brahminsshould continue to shun social reform. You may argue that the BrahminsknowthatthebaneofHindusocietyiscaste,andasanenlightenedclasstheycouldnotbeexpectedtobeindifferenttoitsconsequences.YoumayarguethattherearesecularBrahminsandpriestlyBrahmins,123andif the latterdonot take up the cudgels on behalf of those who want to break caste, theformerwill.

21.7

Allthisofcoursesoundsveryplausible.Butinallthisitisforgottenthatthebreak-upof thecaste systemisboundtoadverselyaffect theBrahmincaste.Havingregard to this, is it reasonable toexpect that theBrahminswilleverconsent to lead amovement, theultimate result ofwhich is to destroy thepowerandprestigeoftheBrahmincaste?IsitreasonabletoexpectthesecularBrahminstotakepartinamovementdirectedagainstthepriestlyBrahmins?In my judgement, it is useless to make a distinction between the secularBrahminsandpriestlyBrahmins.Botharekithandkin.Theyaretwoarmsofthesamebody,andoneisboundtofightfortheexistenceoftheother.

21.8

In thisconnection, Iamremindedof someverypregnantremarksmadebyProfDiceyinhisEnglishConstitution.124Speakingoftheactuallimitationonthelegislativesupremacyofparliament,Diceysays:

Theactualexerciseofauthoritybyanysovereignwhatever,andnotablybyParliament,isboundedorcontrolledbytwolimitations.Ofthesetheoneisanexternal,theotherisaninternallimitation.Theexternallimittotherealpowerofasovereignconsistsinthepossibilityorcertaintythathissubjects,oralargenumberofthem,willdisobeyorresisthislaws…

Theinternallimittotheexerciseofsovereigntyarisesfromthenatureof the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers inaccordance with his character, which is itself moulded by thecircumstancesunderwhichhelives,includingunderthatheadthemoralfeelings of the time and the society to which he belongs. The Sultancouldnot,ifhewould,changethereligionoftheMahommedanworld,butevenifhecoulddoso,itisintheveryhighestdegreeimprobablethattheheadofMahommedanism shouldwish tooverthrow the religionofMahomet; the internalcheckontheexerciseof theSultan’spower isatleast as strong as the external limitation. People sometimes ask the idlequestion,whythePopedoesnotintroducethisorthatreform?ThetrueansweristhatarevolutionistisnotthekindofmanwhobecomesaPope,andthatthemanwhobecomesaPopehasnowishtobearevolutionist.

21.9

IthinktheseremarksapplyequallytotheBrahminsofIndia,andonecansaywithequaltruththatifamanwhobecomesaPopehasnowishtobecomearevolutionary,amanwhoisbornaBrahminhasmuchlessdesiretobecomearevolutionary.Indeed, toexpectaBrahmintobearevolutionary inmattersof social reformisas idleas toexpect theBritishParliament,aswas saidbyLeslie Stephen,125 to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to bemurdered.

21.10

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether theBrahminscomeforwardtoleadthemovementagainstcasteorwhethertheydonot.Totakethisviewis,inmyjudgement,toignorethepartplayedbytheintellectualclassinthecommunity.Whetheryouacceptthetheoryofthegreatmanasthemakerofhistory126orwhetheryoudonot,thismuchyouwillhave toconcede: that ineverycountry the intellectualclass is themostinfluential class, if not the governing class.The intellectual class is the classwhichcan foresee, it is theclasswhichcan advise andgive the lead. Innocountrydoes themass of thepeople live the life of intelligent thought andaction.Itislargelyimitative,andfollowstheintellectualclass.

21.11

There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a countrydepends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest,independentanddisinterested,itcanbetrustedtotaketheinitiativeandgiveaproperleadwhenacrisisarises.Itistruethatintellectbyitselfisnovirtue.It is only ameans, and the use ofmeans depends upon the endswhich anintellectualpersonpursues.An intellectualmancanbe a goodman,buthecaneasilybea rogue.Similarly an intellectual classmaybeabandofhigh-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity—or itmayeasilybe agangof crooks,or abodyof advocates for anarrowcliquefromwhichitdrawsitssupport.

21.12

Youmay think it apity that the intellectualclass in India is simplyanothernamefor theBrahmincaste.Youmayregret that thetwoareone; that theexistenceof the intellectualclass shouldbeboundupwithone singlecaste;thatthis intellectualclassshouldsharetheinterestandtheaspirationsofthatBrahmincaste,whichhasregardeditselfasthecustodianoftheinterestofthatcaste rather than of the interests of the country. All this may be veryregrettable.ButthefactremainsthattheBrahminsformtheintellectualclassoftheHindus.Itisnotonlyanintellectualclass,butitisaclasswhichisheldingreatreverencebytherestoftheHindus.

21.13

The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhu-devas (gods on earth).127TheHindusaretaughtthatBrahminsalonecanbetheir

teachers.Manusays:

If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the Dharmawhich have not been specially mentioned, the answer is, that whichBrahminswhoareshishthaspropoundshalldoubtlesshavelegalforce.128

129

21.14

Whensuchanintellectualclass,whichholdstherestofthecommunityinitsgrip,isopposedtothereformofcaste,thechancesofsuccessinamovementforthebreak-upofthecastesystemappeartomevery,veryremote.

21.15

ThesecondreasonwhyIsaythetaskis impossiblewillbeclear, ifyouwillbear inmind that the caste systemhas two aspects. In oneof its aspects, itdividesmen into separate communities. In its second aspect, it places thesecommunitiesinagradedorderoneabovetheotherinsocialstatus.Eachcastetakes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it isabovesomeothercaste.Asanoutwardmarkofthisgradation,thereisalsoagradationofsocialandreligiousrights,technicallyspokenofasashtadhikaras130

and sanskaras.131Thehigher thegradeofacaste, thegreater thenumberoftheserights;andthelowerthegrade,thelessertheirnumber.

21.16

Now this gradation, this scalingof castes,makes it impossible toorganise acommonfrontagainstthecastesystem.Ifacasteclaimstherighttointer-dineandintermarrywithanothercasteplacedaboveit,itisfrozentheinstantitistold132 by mischief-mongers—and there are many Brahmins amongst suchmischief-mongers—that it will have to concede inter-dining andintermarriagewithcastesbelowit!All are slavesof thecaste system.Butalltheslavesarenotequalinstatus.133

21.17

Toexcite theproletariat tobringaboutaneconomicrevolution,KarlMarxtoldthem:“Youhavenothingtoloseexceptyourchains.”134Buttheartfulway in which the social and religious rights are distributed among the

different castes, whereby some have more and some have less, makes theslogan of KarlMarx quite useless135 to excite theHindus against the castesystem.Castesformagradedsystemofsovereignties,highandlow,whicharejealous of their status and which know that if a general dissolution came,some of them stand to lose more of their prestige and power than othersdo.136Youcannot, therefore,haveageneralmobilisationof theHindus(touseamilitaryexpression)foranattackonthecastesystem.

22

22.1

Can you appeal to reason, and ask the Hindus to discard caste as beingcontrary to reason? That raises the question: Is aHindu free to follow hisreason? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu mustconforminthematterofhisbehaviour:

137

22.2

Herethereisnoplaceforreasontoplayitspart.AHindumustfolloweitherVeda,smritiorsadachar.138Hecannotfollowanythingelse.

22.3

Inthefirstplace,howarethetextsoftheVedasandsmritistobeinterpretedwhenever any doubt arises regarding their meaning? On this importantquestiontheviewofManuisquitedefinite.Hesays:

139

22.4140

According to this rule, rationalismas a canonof interpreting theVedas andsmritisisabsolutelycondemned.Itisregardedtobeaswickedasatheism,andthepunishmentprovidedforitisexcommunication.Thus,whereamatteriscoveredbytheVedaorthesmriti,aHinducannotresorttorationalthinking.

22.5

EvenwhenthereisaconflictbetweenVedasandsmritisonmattersonwhichtheyhavegivenapositiveinjunction,thesolutionisnotlefttoreason.Whenthere is a conflict between two shrutis, both are tobe regarded asof equalauthority.Eitherof themmaybefollowed.Noattempt141 is tobemadetofindoutwhichofthetwoaccordswithreason.ThisismadeclearbyManu:

142

When there is a conflictbetween shruti and smriti, the shrutimust prevail.Butheretoonoattemptmustbemadetofindoutwhichofthetwoaccordswithreason.ThisislaiddownbyManuinthefollowingshloka:

143

22.6

Again, when there is a conflict between two smritis, the Manusmriti mustprevail,butnoattempt is tobemadeto findoutwhichof the twoaccordswithreason.ThisistherulinggivenbyBrihaspati:144

145

22.7

Itisthereforeclearthatinanymatteronwhichtheshrutisandsmritishavegiven a positive direction, aHindu is not free to use his reasoning faculty.ThesameruleislaiddownintheMahabharata:

146

22.8

Hemustabidebytheirdirections.Casteandvarnaarematterswhicharedealtwith by theVedas and the smritis, and consequently, appeal to reason canhavenoeffectonaHindu.

22.9

Sofarascasteandvarnaareconcerned,notonlytheshastrasdonotpermittheHindu to use his reason in the decisionof the question, but theyhavetaken care to see that no occasion is left to examine in a rationalway thefoundations of his belief in caste and varna. It must be a source of silentamusementtomanyanon-HindutofindhundredsandthousandsofHindusbreaking caste on certain occasions, such as railway journeys and foreigntravel,andyetendeavouringtomaintaincastefortherestoftheirlives!

22.10

Theexplanationofthisphenomenondisclosesanotherfetteronthereasoningfaculties of the Hindus. Man’s life is generally habitual and unreflective.Reflective thought—in the sense of active, persistent, and carefulconsiderationofanybelieforsupposedformofknowledge,inthelightofthegroundsthatsupportitandthefurtherconclusionstowhichittends—isquiterare, and arises only in a situation which presents a dilemma or a crisis.RailwayjourneysandforeigntravelsarereallyoccasionsofcrisisinthelifeofaHindu, and it is natural to expect aHindu to askhimselfwhyhe shouldmaintaincasteatall,ifhecannotmaintainitatalltimes.Buthedoesnot.Hebreaks caste at one step, and proceeds to observe it at the next, withoutraisinganyquestion.147

22.11

The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in the rule of theshastras,whichdirectshimtomaintaincasteasfaraspossibleandtoundergoprayaschitta148whenhecannot.Bythistheoryofprayaschitta,theshastras,byfollowing a spiritof compromise,havegivencaste aperpetual leaseon life,andhavesmothered thereflective thoughtwhichwouldhaveotherwise ledtothedestructionofthenotionofcaste.149

22.12

There have beenmanywho haveworked in the cause of the abolition ofcaste and untouchability. Of those who can be mentioned, Ramanuja,150

Kabir,151 and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts ofthesereformersandexhorttheHindustofollowthem?

22.13

It is true thatManu has included (sadachar) as one of the sanctionsalongwithshrutiandsmriti.Indeed,sadacharhasbeengivenahigherplacethanshastras:

152

22.14

Accordingtothis,sadachar,whetheritis or 153 inaccordancewithshastrasorcontrarytoshastras,mustbefollowed.Butwhatisthemeaningofsadachar?Ifanyoneweretosupposethatsadacharmeansrightorgoodacts—i.e.,actsofgoodandrighteousmen—hewouldfindhimselfgreatlymistaken.Sadachar does not mean good acts or acts of goodmen. It means ancientcustom,goodorbad.Thefollowingversemakesthisclear:

154

22.15

Asthoughtowarnpeopleagainsttheviewthatsadacharmeansgoodactsoractsofgoodmen,andfearingthatpeoplemightunderstandit thatwayandfollow the acts of good men, the smritis have commanded the Hindus inunmistakable termsnot to followevengods in theirgooddeeds, if theyarecontrary to shruti, smriti and sadachar. This may sound to be mostextraordinary,mostperverse,butthefactremainsthat 155isaninjunctionissuedtotheHindusbytheirshastras.

22.16

Reasonandmoralityarethetwomostpowerfulweaponsinthearmouryofareformer.Todeprivehimof theuseof theseweapons is todisablehimforaction. How are you going to break up caste, if people are not free toconsider whether it accords with reason?How are you going to break upcaste,ifpeoplearenotfreetoconsiderwhetheritaccordswithmorality?Thewall built aroundcaste is impregnable, and thematerial ofwhich it is builtcontainsnoneofthecombustiblestuffofreasonandmorality.Addtothisthefact that inside this wall stands the army of Brahmins who form theintellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural leaders of the Hindus,Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary soldiers but as an armyfighting for its homeland, and you will get an idea why I think that thebreakingupofcasteamongtheHindusiswell-nighimpossible.Atanyrate,itwouldtakeagesbeforeabreachismade.

22.17

But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be donequickly,youmustnotforgetthatifyouwishtobringaboutabreachinthesystem, then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and theshastras,whichdenyanyparttoreason;totheVedasandshastras,whichdenyany part tomorality. Youmust destroy the religion of the shrutis and thesmritis.Nothingelsewillavail.Thisismyconsideredviewofthematter.

23

23.1

SomemaynotunderstandwhatImeanbydestructionofreligion,somemayfindtheidearevoltingtothem,andsomemayfinditrevolutionary.Letmethereforeexplainmyposition.Idonotknowwhetheryoudrawadistinctionbetweenprinciplesandrules.ButIdo.NotonlydoImakeadistinction,butI say that thisdistinction is real and important.Rules arepractical; theyarehabitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles areintellectual; theyareusefulmethodsof judging things.Rules seek to tell anagent just what course of action to pursue. Principles do not prescribe aspecificcourseofaction.Rules,likecookingrecipes,dotelljustwhattodoandhowtodoit.Aprinciple,suchasthatofjustice,suppliesamainheadingby reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires andpurposes; it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the importantconsiderationwhichheshouldbearinmind.

23.2

Thisdifferencebetweenrulesandprinciplesmakestheactsdoneinpursuitofthemdifferentinqualityandincontent.156Doingwhatissaidtobegoodbyvirtueofa ruleanddoinggood in the lightofaprincipleare twodifferentthings.Theprinciplemaybewrong,buttheactisconsciousandresponsible.Therulemayberight,buttheactismechanical.Areligiousactmaynotbeacorrect act, but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of thisresponsibility, religionmustmainlybeamatterofprinciplesonly. Itcannotbe amatter of rules. Themoment it degenerates into rules it ceases to bereligion,as itkills the responsibilitywhich is theessenceofa truly religiousact.

23.3

Whatis thisHindureligion?Is itasetofprinciples,or is itacodeofrules?NowtheHindureligion,ascontainedintheVedasandthesmritis,isnothing

butamassofsacrificial,social,political,andsanitaryrulesandregulations,allmixedup.WhatiscalledreligionbytheHindusisnothingbutamultitudeofcommands and prohibitions. Religion, in the sense of spiritual principles,trulyuniversal,applicabletoallraces,toallcountries,toalltimes,isnottobefoundinthem;andifitis,itdoesnotformthegoverningpartofaHindu’slife.ThatforaHindudharmameanscommandsandprohibitionsisclearfromthewaytheworddharmaisusedintheVedasandthesmritisandunderstoodbythecommentators.Theworddharmaasused intheVedas inmostcasesmeans religious ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva Mimamsa157defines dharma as “a desirable goal or result that is indicated by injunctive(Vedic)passages”.

23.4

Toputitinplainlanguage,whattheHinduscallreligionisreallylaw,oratbest legalisedclass-ethics.Frankly, I refuse tocall this codeofordinances asreligion.The first evil of such a code of ordinances,misrepresented to thepeople as religion, is that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom andspontaneity,andtoreduceit(fortheconscientious,atanyrate)toamoreorless anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules. Under it,thereisnoloyaltytoideals;thereisonlyconformitytocommands.

23.5

Buttheworstevilofthiscodeofordinancesisthatthelawsitcontainsmustbethesameyesterday,todayandforever.Theyareiniquitousinthattheyarenotthesameforoneclassasforanother.Butthisiniquityismadeperpetualin that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. Theobjectionable part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certainpersonscalledprophetsorlaw-givers.Theobjectionablepartisthatthiscodehas been invested with the character of finality and fixity. Happinessnotoriouslyvarieswiththeconditionsandcircumstancesofaperson,aswellaswith the conditionsof different people and epochs.That being the case,howcanhumanityendurethiscodeofeternal laws,withoutbeingcrampedandwithoutbeingcrippled?

23.6

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must bedestroyed,andIsaythereisnothingirreligiousinworkingforthedestructionofsuchareligion.IndeedIholdthatitisyourboundendutytotearoffthemask,toremovethemisrepresentationthatiscausedbymisnamingthislawasreligion.This is an essential step for you.Onceyou clear themindsof thepeopleof thismisconception and enable them to realise thatwhat they aretoldisreligionisnotreligion,butthatitisreallylaw,youwillbeinapositiontourgeitsamendmentorabolition.

23.7

Solongaspeoplelookuponitasreligiontheywillnotbereadyforachange,becausetheideaofreligionisgenerallyspeakingnotassociatedwiththeideaofchange.Buttheideaoflawisassociatedwiththeideaofchange,andwhenpeople come to know that what is called religion is really law, old andarchaic,theywillbereadyforachange,forpeopleknowandacceptthatlawcanbechanged.

24

24.1

While Icondemna religionof rules, Imustnotbeunderstood tohold theopinionthatthereisnonecessityforareligion.Onthecontrary,IagreewithBurkewhenhesaysthat“Truereligionisthefoundationofsociety,thebasison which all true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction.”158

Consequently,whenIurgethattheseancientrulesoflifebeannulled,Iamanxiousthattheirplaceshallbetakenbyareligionofprinciples,whichalonecan lay claim to being a true religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of thenecessityofreligionthatIfeelIoughttotellyouinoutlinewhatIregardasnecessaryitemsinthisreligiousreform.Thefollowing,inmyopinion,shouldbethecardinalitemsinthisreform:

1.There shouldbeone andonlyone standardbookofHindu religion,

acceptable to all Hindus and recognised by all Hindus. This of coursemeansthatallotherbooksofHindureligionsuchasVedas,shastras,andpuranas,whicharetreatedassacredandauthoritative,mustbylawceasetobeso,andthepreachingofanydoctrine,religiousorsocial,containedinthesebooksshouldbepenalised.2.ItwouldbebetterifpriesthoodamongHinduswereabolished.Butasthis seems to be impossible, the priesthood must at least cease to behereditary.EverypersonwhoprofessestobeaHindumustbeeligibleforbeing a priest. It should be provided by law that no Hindu shall beentitled tobeapriestunlesshehaspassedanexaminationprescribedbythestate,andholdsasanad159fromthestatepermittinghimtopractise.3.Noceremonyperformedbyapriestwhodoesnotholdasanadshallbedeemedtobevalidinlaw,anditshouldbemadepenalforapersonwhohasnosanadtoofficiateasapriest.4.Apriestshouldbetheservantofthestate,160andshouldbesubjecttothedisciplinaryactionofthestateinthematterofhismorals,beliefs,andworship,inadditiontohisbeingsubjectalongwithothercitizenstotheordinarylawoftheland.5. The number of priests should be limited by law according to therequirementsofthestate,as isdoneinthecaseoftheICS[IndianCivilService].

24.2

To some, this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothingrevolutionary in this.Everyprofession in India is regulated.Engineersmustshow proficiency, doctors must show proficiency, lawyers must showproficiency,beforetheyareallowedtopractisetheirprofessions.Duringthewholeof theircareer, theymustnotonlyobey the lawof the land,civil aswellascriminal,buttheymustalsoobeythespecialcodeofmoralsprescribedby their respective professions. The priest’s is the only profession whereproficiency is not required. The profession of a Hindu priest is the onlyprofessionwhichisnotsubjecttoanycode.

24.3

Mentallyapriestmaybeanidiot,physicallyapriestmaybesufferingfromafouldiseasesuchassyphilisorgonorrhoea,morallyhemaybeawreck.Butheisfittoofficiateatsolemnceremonies,toenterthesanctumsanctorumofaHindu temple, and to worship the Hindu god. All this becomes possibleamong theHindusbecause forapriest it isenough tobeborn inapriestlycaste.Thewholethingisabominable,andisduetothefactthatthepriestlyclassamongHindusissubjectneithertolawnortomorality.Itrecognisesnoduties.Itknowsonlyofrightsandprivileges.Itisapestwhichdivinityseemstohaveletlooseonthemassesfortheirmentalandmoraldegradation.

24.4

ThepriestlyclassmustbebroughtundercontrolbysomesuchlegislationasIhave outlined above. This will prevent it from doing mischief and frommisguidingpeople.Itwilldemocratiseitbythrowingitopentoeveryone.ItwillcertainlyhelptokillBrahminismandwillalsohelptokillcaste,whichisnothing but Brahminism incarnate. Brahminism is the poison which hasspoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in saving Hinduism if you will killBrahminism.Thereshouldbenooppositiontothisreformfromanyquarter.ItshouldbewelcomedevenbytheAryaSamajists,becausethisismerelyanapplicationoftheirowndoctrineofguna–karma.161

24.5

Whetheryoudothatoryoudonot,youmustgiveanewdoctrinalbasistoyour religion—abasis thatwill be in consonancewith liberty, equality andfraternity;inshort,withdemocracy.Iamnoauthorityonthesubject.ButIamtoldthatforsuchreligiousprinciplesaswillbeinconsonancewithliberty,equality and fraternity, it may not be necessary for you to borrow fromforeign sources, and that you could draw for such principles on theUpanishads. Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, aconsiderable scraping and chipping off from the ore they contain, is morethanIcansay.Thismeansacompletechangeinthefundamentalnotionsoflife. Itmeans a complete change in the values of life. Itmeans a completechangeinoutlookandinattitudetowardsmenandthings.

24.6

Itmeansconversion;butifyoudonotliketheword,Iwillsayitmeansnewlife.Butanewlifecannotenterabodythatisdead.Newlifecanenteronlyintoanewbody.Theoldbodymustdiebeforeanewbodycancomeintoexistenceandanewlifecanenterintoit.Toputitsimply:theoldmustceasetobeoperativebefore thenewcanbegin toenlivenand topulsate.This iswhatImeantwhenIsaidyoumustdiscardtheauthorityoftheshastras,anddestroythereligionoftheshastras.

25

25.1

Ihavekept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a close.Thiswouldhavebeenaconvenientpointformetohavestopped.Butthiswouldprobably be my last address to a Hindu audience, on a subject vitallyconcerningtheHindus.Iwouldthereforelike,beforeIclose,toplacebeforetheHindus,iftheywillallowme,somequestionswhichIregardasvital,andinvitethemseriouslytoconsiderthesame.

25.2

Inthefirstplace,theHindusmustconsiderwhetheritissufficienttotaketheplacidviewof the anthropologist that there isnothing tobe said about thebeliefs,habits,moralsandoutlooksonlifewhichobtainamongthedifferentpeoples of the world, except that they often differ; or whether it is notnecessary to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality, beliefs,habits,andoutlookhaveworkedbestandhaveenabledthosewhopossessedthemtoflourish,togrowstrong,topeopletheearthandtohavedominionoverit.AsisobservedbyProfessorCarver:

[M]oralityandreligion,astheorganisedexpressionofmoralapprovalanddisapproval,must be regarded as factors in the struggle for existence astrulyasareweaponsforoffenceanddefence,teethandclaws,hornsandhoofs, fur and feathers, plumage, beards, and antlers. The social group,

community, tribe or nation which develops an unworkable scheme ofmorality,orwithinwhichthose socialactswhichweaken itandunfit itforsurvivalhabituallycreatethesentimentofapproval,whilethosewhichwould strengthen it and enable it to expand habitually create thesentiment of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. Its habits ofapproval and disapproval handicap it as really as the possession of twowingsonone sidewithnoneon theotherwouldhandicapacolonyofflies. Itwouldbe as futile inonecase as in theother to argue thatonesystemwasjustasgoodasanother.162

25.3

Morality and religion, therefore, are notmerematters of likes and dislikes.You may dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality which, if universallypractisedwithinanation,wouldmakethatnationthestrongestnationontheface of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike, such a nation will becomestrong.Youmaylikeexceedinglyaschemeofmoralityandanidealofjusticewhich,ifuniversallypractisedwithinanation,wouldmakeitunabletoholditsown in the strugglewithothernations.Yet in spiteofyour admiration,this nationwill eventually disappear. TheHindusmust, therefore, examinetheirreligionandtheirmoralityintermsoftheirsurvivalvalue.

25.4

Secondly,theHindusmustconsiderwhethertheyshouldconservethewholeof their social heritage, or select what is helpful and transmit to futuregenerations only thatmuch and nomore. Prof JohnDewey,whowasmyteacherandtowhomIowesomuch,hassaid:

Everysocietygetsencumberedwithwhatistrivial,withdeadwoodfromthe past, andwithwhat is positively perverse…As a society becomesmore enlightened, it realises that it is responsible not to conserve andtransmitthewholeofitsexistingachievements,butonlysuchasmakeforabetterfuturesociety.163

EvenBurke,inspiteofthevehemencewithwhichheopposedtheprinciple

ofchangeembodiedintheFrenchRevolution,wascompelledtoadmitthat

a State without themeans of some change is without themeans of itsconservation.Withoutsuchmeansitmightevenriskthelossofthatpartoftheconstitutionwhichitwishedthemostreligiouslytopreserve.164

WhatBurkesaidofastateappliesequallytosociety.

25.5

Thirdly, theHindusmustconsiderwhether theymustnotcease toworshipthepast as supplying their ideals.Thebaneful effectsof thisworshipof thepastarebestsummedupbyProfDeweywhenhesays:

An individual can live only in the present. The present is not justsomethingwhichcomesafterthepast;muchlesssomethingproducedbyit.Itiswhatlifeisinleavingthepastbehindit.Thestudyofpastproductswillnothelpustounderstandthepresent.Aknowledgeofthepastanditsheritageisofgreatsignificancewhenitentersintothepresent,butnototherwise.Andthemistakeofmakingtherecordsandremainsofthepastthemainmaterialofeducationisthatittendstomakethepastarivalofthepresentandthepresentamoreorlessfutileimitationofthepast.165

The principle,whichmakes little of the present act of living and growing,naturally looks upon the present as empty and upon the future as remote.Suchaprinciple is inimical toprogressand isahindrance toa strongandasteadycurrentoflife.

25.6

Fourthly,theHindusmustconsiderwhetherthetimehasnotcomeforthemtorecognise that there isnothing fixed,nothingeternal,nothingsanatan;166that everything is changing, that change is the lawof life for individuals aswellasforsociety.Inachangingsociety,theremustbeaconstantrevolutionofoldvalues;andtheHindusmustrealisethat if theremustbestandardstomeasure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to revise thosestandards.

26

26.1

Ihavetoconfessthatthisaddresshasbecometoolengthy.Whetherthisfaultiscompensatedtoanyextentbybreadthordepthisamatterforyoutojudge.AllIclaimistohavetoldyoucandidlymyviews.Ihavelittletorecommendthembutsomestudyandadeepconcern inyourdestiny.Ifyouwillallowme to say it, these views are the viewsof amanwhohas beenno tool ofpower,no flattererofgreatness.Theycome fromone,almost thewholeofwhose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for thepoor and for theoppressed, andwhoseonly rewardhas been a continuousshowerofcalumnyandabuse fromnational journalsandnational leaders,167fornootherreasonexceptthatIrefusetojoinwiththeminperformingthemiracle—Iwillnotsaytrick—ofliberatingtheoppressedwiththegoldofthetyrant,andraisingthepoorwiththecashoftherich.

26.2

Allthismaynotbeenoughtocommendmyviews.Ithinktheyarenotlikelyto alter yours.Butwhether theydoordonot, the responsibility is entirelyyours.Youmustmakeyoureffortstouprootcaste,ifnotinmyway,theninyourway.

26.3

Iamsorry,Iwillnotbewithyou.Ihavedecidedtochange.Thisisnottheplace forgiving reasons.ButevenwhenIamgoneoutofyour fold, Iwillwatchyourmovementwithactivesympathy,andyouwillhavemyassistancefor what it may be worth. Yours is a national cause. Caste is no doubtprimarily the breath of theHindus. But theHindus have fouled the air allover, and everybody is infected—Sikh, Muslim and Christian.168 You,therefore, deserve the support of all those who are suffering from thisinfection—Sikh,MuslimandChristian.

26.4

Yoursismoredifficultthantheothernationalcause,namely,swaraj.169Inthefight for swaraj you fightwith thewholenationonyour side. In this, youhavetofightagainstthewholenation—andthattoo,yourown.170Butitismore important than swaraj. There is no use having swaraj, if you cannotdefend it. More important than the question of defending swaraj is thequestionofdefendingtheHindusundertheswaraj.Inmyopinion,itisonlywhen Hindu society becomes a casteless society that it can hope to havestrength enough to defend itself.Without such internal strength, swaraj forHindusmayturnouttobeonlyasteptowardsslavery.Goodbye,andgoodwishesforyoursuccess.

1

2

NOTES

“Varnanam Brahmano Guru.” This is Manusmriti 10.3. Bibek Debroy’stranslation:“Amongvarnas,theBrahmanistheteacher/preceptor.”Thereis no standardised text of the Manusmriti; in some versions, the textmentionsprabhu(lord)insteadofguru(teacher).GeorgeBühlerrenderstheentire couplet at 10.3 as follows: “On account of his pre-eminence, onaccount of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of(particular) restrictive rules, andonaccountofhisparticular sanctificationtheBrahmanaisthelordof(all)castes(varna)”(1886/2004,276).Chapter10oftheManusmritidiscussesvarnasandtheirdutiesatlengthandlistsoutdosanddon’ts.

Ramdas(1608–81)wasaseventeenth-centurycoevaloftheMarathakingShivaji (1627/30–80), and is said tohavebeenhisBrahminguru.Bhaktipoet Tukaram, Shudra by birth and trader by profession, was also hiscontemporary. Bhakti is devotional love for a personal god experiencedwithoutthemediationofthepriestorritual.TheprogenitorsoftheBhaktimovement, the Alvars (sixth to ninth centuries) andNayanmars (twelfthcentury) of the Tamil country, were fiercely monotheistic in theirexpressionofloveforVishnuandSivaortheirforms,andthishappenedatthe expense and persecution of Jains and Buddhists (see Monius 2011).Whatwascrucial,however,was thatanyone fromanystrataof society—menandwomen—couldaspiretoreachgod.Thetwelfth-centuryBasava-ledVeerashaivamovement in theKannada-speakingSouth, that launchedtheliteraryvachanatradition,repudiatedthecastesystemandtheprimacyoftheBrahmin.Betweenthefourteenthandeighteenthcenturies,sometimesfusingwithelementsofIslamandSufism,theBhaktimovementmanifesteditself variously in the western, northern and eastern parts of thesubcontinent through the work of sants, or teachers, who were largelyfrom working-caste backgrounds but also included Brahmins (likeDnyaneshwar in western India or Chaitanya in Bengal) who embracedBhakti’segalitariancredo.AccordingtothescholarVeenaNaregal (2001,12),Ramdas’s “religious and political pragmatismwere quite at variancewiththeinspirationoftheBhaktipoets”.Dasbodh,composedof70,000ovisover twenty sections, offers an interpretation of vedantic philosophy.

3

4

5

6

Ramdas talked of the need for the return of Brahmin supremacy andviewedthecrisisinMarathasocietyasabreakdowninthesocialorderdueto‘Muslimoppression’,HinduconversionstoIslam,andtheusurpationofBrahminspiritual leadershipbythenon-BrahminVarkari saintsandgurus(Ranade1983).Ramdas today is ahero forHindunationalists, especiallytheChitpavanBrahminsofMaharashtra.SeealsoNote32ontheVarkaritradition. Also see Gail Omvedt’s account (1976) of the differencesbetweenMahanubhavBhaktiandRamdas’sversionofit,whichshearguesbluntedtheradicalpotentialofMahanubhav.

Antyaja: last-born; a termused for thoseoutside the pale of the fourfoldvarna system which comprises Brahmin (priests), Kshatriya (warriors),Vaishya (merchants and farmers) andShudra (menials).Of these, the firstthreegroupsareconsidereddwija,twice-born.TheShudraaretheservileclassmeanttoservethetopthreevarnas.Theantyajaareoutsidethepale—Untouchablesmeanttoliveoutsidethevillage.

Savarna:thosewithvarna,acasteHindu;atermusedforthosewithinthefourfoldvarnasystem.AShudraisalsoasavarna;theoppositeofsavarnaisavarna,theUntouchable.

“Heart-burning”inAoC1936andsubsequenteditions.

Ambedkar is borrowing this term from John Dewey (1859–1952), theprominent American pragmatist philosopher, radical democrat andeducational theorist who taught Ambedkar at Columbia University andinfluencedhimdeeply.Dewey,authorofaboutfortybooks,helpedcreatesomeof themostprominentpoliticalandeducationalorganisationsofhistime:theAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,theNationalAssociationfortheAdvancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League for IndustrialDemocracy,theNewYorkTeachersUnion,theAmericanAssociationofUniversity Professors, and the New School for Social Research. “Socialefficiency”wasatermthatbeganitscareerin1884whenitwasintroducedbyBritishsociologistBenjaminKidd(knownforhisworkSocialEvolution,1884)whouseditinasocialDarwinistsense,butDeweyandotherssoughtto rescue the termfromanarrow,utilitarianapproachand imbue itwithhumanitarianvalue. In the fieldofeducation, the termacquiredcurrencyin the 1920s. Arun P. Mukherjee (2009), who offers a fine analysis ofAmbedkar’s refashioning of Deweyan thought into a tool for his owninvestigationsofIndiansociety,arguesthatforDeweyandAmbedkarsocial

7

8

9

10

efficiency lies in the individualbeing able to choose anddevelophis/hercompetencies to the fullest and thus mindfully contribute to thefunctioning of society. For a system that predetermines a person’soccupation on the basis of caste or class affiliations cannot but result ininefficiency.Thetermhasitsoriginsinearly-twentieth-centuryattemptsatreorganising society, politics and the economy for ‘efficiency’ based on‘scientificprinciples’.Formoreonthis,seeKnoll(2009)andHolt(1994).

The(IndianNational)SocialConferencewasfoundedbyMahadevGovindRanade (1842–1901) in1887, twoyears after the foundingof the IndianNationalCongress.ItwasmeanttoserveasthesocialarmoftheCongress,and it focusedmainly onwomen’s uplift.Conservative leaders like B.G.Tilak were staunchly opposed to even the mild reforms suggested byvotariesoftheSocialConference.

BalGangadhar ‘Lokmanya’Tilak (1865–1920)was aChitpavanBrahminandasocialconservativewhosoughttoimbueCongressnationalismwithadistinct right-wing hue. He published two newspapers, the Marathi-languageKesariandMahrattainEnglish.Jaffrelot(2005,44)callshim“theCongress leader from Poona who tended not to put in practice the socialreformshearticulated”(emphasisadded).Tilaksaweventheeducationofwomen and non-Brahmins as “a loss of nationality” and consistentlyopposedtheestablishmentofgirls’schoolsatatimewhenhiscoevalJotibaPhulelaunchedafull-scaleattackonBrahminism,educatedhiswifeSavitri,and established a school for girls which also admitted Untouchablechildren. SeeRao (n.d.). For an account of the Phule-led non-Brahminmovement,seeO’Hanlon(2002).

For a chronicle of the tussles between the Social Conference andconservative forceswithintheCongress, seeJohnR.McLane(1988,47–61). McLane writes: “In Maharashtra, Tilak demonstrated the potentpoliticalappealofHindusymbolismwiththeGanapatiandShivajifestivals.In1895,whentheCongressmetinPoona,therowdyismofTilak’santi-reformer allies forced the Social Conference to abandon the use of theCongressenclosureforitsmeeting”(55).

Womesh Chunder Bonnerjee was amongst the founders of the IndianNationalCongress andbecame its firstpresident.Asa lawyer,hedividedhis life between England and Calcutta, and on retirement settled inCroydon,England.SeetheaccountofhisdaughterJanakiAgnesPenelope

11

12

13

14

Majumdar(2003).WhilestudyinginEngland,in1865,Bonnerjeewroteinalettertohisuncle:“Ihavediscardedallideasofcaste,IhavecometohateallthedemoralisingpracticesofourcountrymenandIwritethis letteranentirely altered man” (Kumar 1989, 48). Since he had ‘lost caste’ bycrossingtheseas,Bonnerjeewasregardedanoutcastebyhisfamily.Hesetup a separate household refusing to undergo penance, and renouncedHinducustoms.Hebroughthiswifeoutofpurdah,madehereatbeefandwear English clothes, and sent his children to England for education(Majumdar2003).

The Peshwas were initially ministers under Shivaji who founded theMaratha empire in seventeenth-centurywestern India.After thedeathofShivajiin1680,thePeshwas,whowereChitpavanBrahmins,turnedintoamilitary-bureaucratic elite, and, inoneof those rare instances,both ritualand secularpowerwerevestedwithBrahmins.Thereignof thePeshwaswitnessedwhatfeministscholarUmaChakravarti(1995,3–21)terms“theconsolidationofBrahmanya-raj”. In1818, the30,000-strongarmyof thelast Peshwa, Bajirao II (1795–1818), was defeated by the 500-memberregimentof‘Untouchable’MaharsoldiersledbyCaptF.F.Staunton.Thisisknownas theBattleofKoregaon,along the riverBhima,northwestofPoona. For an account of the rise of theBrahmins inwestern India, seeEaton(2005).

InlargepartsofIndia,Dalitwomenactasdais(midwives)andareexpectedtohelpwithchildbirthinprivileged-castehouseholds.

Ambedkar is referring here to the court of Indore. This can be inferredfrom a citation of the same Times of India article in the posthumouslypublishedUntouchablesortheChildrenofIndia’sGhetto(BAWS5,48–9).

Following a Bombay government ruling, in August 1935, thatUntouchablestudentsshouldbeadmittedtoschools,theUntouchablesofKavitha village enrolled four children in the local school. This invokedbothphysical assaults and socialboycott, and theUntouchables turned totheHarijan Sevak Sangh, an organisation founded byM.K. Gandhi, forhelp. Gandhi and ‘Sardar’ Vallabhbhai Patel opposed the Untouchables’efforts at taking recourse to law, and forced them to withdraw theircomplaint. Ambedkar, while recounting this incident, does not mincewords(BAWS5,43):“WithalltheknowledgeoftyrannyandoppressionpractisedbythecasteHindusofKavithaagainsttheUntouchablesall that

15

16

17

18

Mr Gandhi felt like doing was to advise the Untouchables to leave thevillage.Hedidnot even suggest that themiscreants shouldbehauledupbeforeacourtoflaw.Hishenchman,MrVallabhbhaiPatel,playedapartwhichwasstillmorestrange.HehadgonetoKavithatopersuadethecasteHindusnottomolesttheUntouchables.Buttheydidnotevengivehimahearing.YetthisverymanwasopposedtotheUntouchableshaulingthemup in a courtof lawandgetting thempunished.TheUntouchables filedthe complaint notwithstanding his opposition. But he ultimately forcedthemtowithdrawthecomplaintonthecasteHindusmakingsomekindofa show of an understanding not to molest, an undertaking, which theUntouchables can never enforce. The result was that the Untouchablessufferedandtheir tyrantsescapedwiththeaidofMrGandhi’s friend,MrVallabhbhaiPatel.”

“Ranaway”inAoC1936andsubsequenteditions.

The state of affairs in Chakwara has far from improved. Dalits in thisvillage,deniedaccesstothelocalpond,havebeenwagingastrugglesince1980.In2001,twoDalitswerefinedRs50,000bytheJat-andBrahmin-dominated village panchayat for using water from the Chakwara pond(Usmani,2008).

John Stuart Mill (1806–73) in the last chapter of Considerations onRepresentative Government (1861/2004) poses a critique of the colonialadministration of theBritish empire.However,Mill’s criticismhas to beseeninthecontextofhisadvocating“representativegovernment”fortheAmericas and Australia for they are “composed of people of similarcivilisationtotherulingcountry”,and“whosepopulation”,hesays,“isina sufficiently advanced state”, compared towhich“others, like India, arestill at a great distance from that state”.Here,Mill argues, the colonisermustruletointroduceahigherformofcivilisation.Ambedkarisalludingheretohiscontemporaries’reverenceforacomplexfigurewhoontheonehandchampionedthecauseofindividualfreedomandliberty,andontheother, defended British imperialism by justifying the right of ‘civilised’nations to rule over ‘barbarians’. In his essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” (1859/1984),Mill outlines the circumstances under whichstates should be allowed to intervene in the sovereign affairs of anothercountry.

Termaddedin1937.

19

20

21

22

23

24

Ferdinand Lassalle (1825–64) was a philologist, legal expert and socialagitator, the first to organise a socialist party in Germany and rally theworkerstoasserttheirrights.HecametoprominenceasaninterpreterofMarxism for the workers. However, from a letter written by Marx toLudwigKugelmannon23February1865it isclearthatMarxconsideredLassalle’s interpretationplagiarism. In the same letterhealsoexpresseshiscondemnationofLassalle’sattemptatstrikingadealwithBismarckurginghim to introduce universal adult suffrage in exchange of working-classsupportforthegovernment.

Ambedkarisquotingfrom“OntheEssenceofConstitutions”,thefamousspeechLassalledeliveredon16April1862inBerlin.

Renderedas“Lasalle”inAoC1936.

TheCommunalAward,alsoknownastheRamsayMacdonaldAwardaftertheBritishPrimeMinister,issuedon16August1932,wastheresultoftheSecond Round Table Conference (September–December 1931) thatgrantedseparateelectoratestominoritiesinthedominionofIndia.BesidesMuslims and Sikhs, the Depressed Classes were also granted a separateelectorate for twenty years. The award granted a double vote toUntouchablesthatallowedthemtochoosetheirownrepresentativesfromspecialconstituencies,aswellastocasttheirvoteingeneralconstituencies.TheCongress andGandhi opposed this, andGandhiwent on indefinitehungerstrikeinPoonajail.Acompromisewasreachedwiththesigningofthe Poona Pact on 24 September 1932, under which the Untouchableswere allotted reserved constituencies butnot separate electorates. See thetext of theCommunal Award in B.R. Ambedkar (BAWS 9, 81). For afurtherdelineationoftheCommunalAwardandthePoonaPactandtheirimplications,see“ANoteonthePoonaPact”inthisbook(357–76).

For an analysis and discussion of the Communal Award and the PoonaPact,seeZelliot(2013,128–42);Jaffrelot(2005,52–73);Kumar(1985).

TheIrishHomeRulemovementwas launched in the secondhalfof thenineteenth century to recover legislative independence from the Britishafter Ireland had become part of the Union. See more in Alan O’Day(1998) andAlvin Jackson (2003).HowardBrasted (1980) argues that theprecedentof theIrishHomeRulemovementawokethenationalist spiritamongsttheeducatedIndianeliteandprovidedamodelfortheCongress.Home Rule could never be implemented in Ireland due to the strong

25

26

27

oppostion by the Protestant Unionists of Northern Ireland (Ulstermen).Here, it is not clear ifAmbedkar is referring to JohnEdwardRedmond(1856–1918),MemberofParliamentandleaderoftheIrishParliamentaryPartyandtheNationalLeague,orhisbrother,William(Willie)Redmond(1861–1917),alsoanMPandnationalistpolitician.

Pontifex Maximus was the highest priest of the college of pontiffs inancientRome.

Patricians (derived from the root patre,meaning ‘father’)were the upperclassinancientRome.TheirancestrywastracedbackbyRomanhistorianssuch as Livy to the legend ofRomulus, themythical founder ofRome,who is said to have appointed one hundred men as senators. Patriciansclaimed to be descendants of these first senators and the Sabine womenkidnappedand raped forprocreation.Plebeianswere thegeneralbodyoflower-class, freecitizens.Therewereother lowerclasses like theperegriniand slaves. Most historians agree that the distinction between patricians,plebeians and other classes was based purely on birth. The most readilyavailable tool to distinguish between the classeswas gentes, family names.SeeLivy(2006).

In his speech during the second leg of the Mahad Satyagraha on 25December1927,Ambedkarreferstothepatrician–plebeianstruggle,or‘theConflictof theOrders’ as it ismorecommonlyknown, ingreaterdetail.TheConflictoftheOrders,inwhichtheplebeianssoughtpoliticalequalitywith the patricians, lasted between 494 and 287BCE. In this protractedconflict,thepatricianswereoccasionallyforcedtogivesomeconcessiontothe plebeians, but always sought to retain the final authority. Thus theprovisionsforeconomicreforminlawslikeLexLiciniaSextia(367BCE)and LegesGenuciae (342 BCE)—ceiling on the ownership of land by asingle person, ban on lending that carried interest, etc.—were largelyignored by the patricians. In his Mahad speech, Ambedkar gives a veryinterestingaccountofhowthepositionsof‘tribunes’,constitutedtoprotectthe rights of the plebeians, were held exclusively by patricians in thebeginning. Evenwhen later laws stipulated that one of the two tribunesmustbeaplebeian, thepatricians retained thepower to reject anelectedplebeian tribune through the authority of the oracle atDelphi (always apatrician).Forexcerptsofthisspeech,seeSatyanarayanaandTharu(2013,25–6).Ambedkar’sworst fearsonthequestionofrepresentationandfinal

28

29

30

authoritybecamearealityfiveyearsaftertheMahadeventswhenGandhi’ssuicide threat forced him to sign the Poona Pact of 1932.Therefore, inAnnihilationofCaste,hereturnstothethemeoftheConflictofOrderswiththe bitterness of experience. See also Note 10 on Bodh Gaya inAmbedkar’s“AReplytotheMahatma”.

Martin Luther (1483–1546), German monk who held the chair ofTheology at theUniversity ofWittenberg,was a key figure (alongwithJohn Calvin, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus) in the sixteenth-centuryReformationmovement.Hesoughttoshiftthereligiousleadership’sfocusawayfromfeesandpaymentsaspartofarenewalofthemedievalChurch.The reformers hoped to restore and clarify the core tenets of the faith,whichtheywould thenmakeaccessible toallChristians.ForahistoryofEuropeanReformation,seePeterG.Wallace(2004).

TheEnglishCivilWar(1642–51),whichquestionedtheprerogativeofthekingandchallengedthetheoryofdivineright,owedmuchtothespiritofEuropeanReformation.ThePuritans—whoespousedamilitant,biblicallybasedCalvinisticProtestantism—soughtto‘purify’theChurchofEnglandofremnantsoftheCatholicpopery,andarguedthattheAnglicanChurchestablishedbyQueenElizabethwas far tooclose toRomanCatholicism.(‘Puritan’meansthat thefollowershadapuresoulandlivedagoodlife.)AlexisdeTocqueville(1805–59),theFrenchpoliticalthinkerbestknownfor his two-volume Democracy in America (1835, 1840), argued that thetraditionofpoliticallibertyintheUnitedStatesofAmericabeganwiththesettling ofNewEngland by the Puritans fromEngland. For an in-depthstudyofdebates aroundpuritanismand liberty inEngland, seePuritanismandLiberty,beingtheArmyDebates(1647–9)fromtheClarkeManuscriptswithSupplementaryDocuments in A.S.P.Woodhouse (1951). This contains thePutneyDebates, theWhitehallDebates, and numerous other documentsaboutPuritanreligiousandpoliticalviewsduringtheEnglishRevolution.

ProphetMuhammad (570–632CE)unified scores ofwarringArab tribesinto a single religious polity (ummah, community) under Islam (whichmeans to submit, surrender). For a concise history of Islam, see KarenArmstrong (2000), whowrites: “Muhammad had become the head of acollectionoftribalgroupsthatwerenotboundtogetherbybloodbutbyashared ideology, an astonishing innovation in Arabian society” (14).Nobodywasforcedtoconvert,butallMuslimsbelongedtooneummah,

31

32

33

they could not attackone another, and they vowed to give one anotherprotection.

ChandraguptaMaurya(340–298BCE),founderoftheMauryandynasty,iscredited with being the first emperor to rule large parts of the Indiansubcontinentasonestate.GautamaBuddha(c.563–483BCE),onwhoseteachingsBuddhismwasfounded,precededhim.Chandragupta’sgrandsonwastheemperorAshoka(304–232BCE),whoturnedfromawarmongertoanadvocateofBuddhismandpacifism(thoughhecontinuedtogivethedeathpenaltytilltheendofhisreign).

TheallusionhereistotheVarkaritraditionthatwasestablishedinwesternIndiawith theBrahminDnyandevorDnyaneswar, and theUntouchableCokhamela in the fourteenth century, and was followed by saint-poetsfrom the subaltern castes likeNamdeo,Bahinabai andTukaram into theseventeenthcentury.WhileAmbedkardisregardedthepietyofCokhamela,he quite often quoted the radical Tukaram who was Shivaji’scontemporary. For a discussion of the political aspects ofTukaram,whowas of the Kunabi peasant caste, and his influence on Shivaji, see GailOmvedt (2008, 109–32). A varkar is a pilgrim, and theVarkari traditionrevolves around the god Vithoba or Vitthala in Pandharpur (inMaharashtra’s Solapur district). In popular lore Vitthala has come to beregardedasaformofKrishnaandthistraditionisseenasVaishnavite.TheVarkari cult is seven hundred years old, and with it begins theMarathiliterary tradition, according to Omvedt (85). She discusses how scholarsbelieve Vitthala could have had origins in Saivism, Buddhism or evenamong pastoral nomadic tribes.Omvedt discusses the Sanskritisation andVishnu-isationofVitthalaandbelievesthegodcouldhavebeenoriginallyfemale (“wide hips, narrowwaist, busty, long hair, straight thoughharshface”)andthatcontemporaryDalitBuddhistspointto“thegod’sblacknessasevidenceofindigenousorigins”basedoniconography(see85–90).Foranoverviewof theBhakti tradition and sants inMaharashtra, seeZelliotandBerntsen(1998).AlsoseethevolumeeditedbyLele(1981).

GuruNanak(1469–1539)wasthefirstofthetengurusandfounderoftheSikh religion. He started a strand of nirguni (without attributes) Bhaktitradition that advocated spending one’s life immersed in nam simran(remembrance of the divine name). Guru Nanak and the gurus thatfollowed himpreached spiritual equality against varnashrama dharma and

34

35

36

37

impartedtheirteachingtodevoteesfromallcastes.Puri(2003,2694)writesthatwhile theSikhholybook,GuruGranthSahib, includes compositionsby Kabir, a weaver, and Ravidas, a tanner (Chamar), the ten gurus ofSikhism came fromKhatri families—the highest caste among Sikhs—andmarriedtheirchildrenwithintheircaste.Despitethepreachingofspiritualequality in the eyes of god, therewas no expectationon the part of thegurusortheirdevoteestogiveupcasteidentityandthusthedoctrinewasnottranslatedintosocialequality.

Ambedkar is referring here to the socialists within theCongress who in1934formedafactioncalledtheCongressSocialistParty(CSP).JawaharlalNehru,atthisjuncture,wasalsoactivelyadvocatingsocialistideasbutdidjointheCSP.

ComitiaCenturiata,or theCenturyAssembly,wasoriginallyanassemblyof the Roman military, but soon turned into a political assembly, andbecameoneofthethreepublicassembliesoftheRepublicofRomewherecitizens,groupedinto‘centuries’,votedonlegislative,electoralandjudicialmatters.Intheearlydays,entrytotheSenatewasonlybybirthandrank—sothepatricianscalledtheshots.EvenintheComitiaCenturiata,institutedin about 450BCE, entrywas restricted initially to thepatricians and theplebeians were kept at bay. Even after the Comitia Centuriata came toinclude plebeians, its organisation and voting system nevertheless gavegreater influencetotherichthantothepoor,whichasAmbedkarpointsout,resembledtheCommunalAward.Ambedkarunderstands,inthecastecontext,theplightofplebeianswithvotingrightsasbeingsimilartothatofUntouchableswhowere denied a separate electorate—themere right tovotedoesnotnecessarilyempowerthem.FormoreontheevolutionoftheRomanrepublic,seeOlgaTellegen-Couperus(1993).

WhileDelphi,associatedwiththeGreekgodApollo,wasanimportantsiteinHellenicpolitical life, theRomansdidnot seemtoconsult theOracleregularlyowing to its considerabledistance fromRome.They,however,tended to refer to the Sibylline Books, kept at the Capitolium. SeeFontenrose(1978).ForanaccountoftheholdofreligionontheRomans,seeRüpke(2007).

Ambedkar’s ire here is likely directed at the socialist turn within theCongress.Followingthe1936CongresssessioninLucknow,whereNehrutookover as party president atGandhi’s behest, theAgrarianResolution

38

39

40

declaredthat“themostimportantandurgentproblemofthecountryistheappalling poverty, unemployment and indebtedness of the peasantry,fundamentallydue to theantiquatedandrepressive landrevenuesystem”.Nehru and the few socialists he managed to sneak into the thirteen-memberCongressWorkingCommittee (CWC)—AcharyaNarayanDev,JayaprakashNarayanandAchyutPatwardhan—sought toend the ‘middleclass domination’ of the Congress and sought direct representation forpeasantsandworkersintheparty.ButtacitlybackedbyGandhi,therightwing within the Congress opposed Nehru’s socialist tendencies. On 29June 1936,CWCmembers BabuRajendra Prasad, JairamdasDaulatram,JamnalalBajaj,AcharyaKripalaniandS.D.Devsubmittedtheirresignationsfrom the CWC in a joint letter, contending that Nehru’s preaching ofsocialism in his election speecheswas “prejudicial to the interests of thecountry and to the successof thenational struggle for freedom”.Gandhibacked the conservatives, as did thebusiness classes. SubsequentlyNehrurecanted. For a detailed account ofNehru and socialism, seeR.C.Dutt(1980,30–90).

Ambedkar (in Das, 2010b, 49–68) mounts a more direct attack on thesocialistsinthepresidentialaddressdeliveredon12and13February1938to the GIP (Great Indian Peninsular) Railway Depressed ClassesWorkmen’sConferenceheldinNashik,Manmaddistrict.InthisspeechheoffersatrenchantcritiqueofcapitalismandBrahminism,andexaminestheproblemswithIndiansocialistsatgreaterlength.AmbedkarwasaddressingtheGIPconferenceinhiscapacityaspresidentoftheIndependentLabourParty, the first political party founded by him in August 1936, a fewmonthsafterthepublicationofAnnihilationofCaste.

Emphasisinoriginal.

AmbedkarisechoingthewordsofDewey.AccordingtoMukherjee(2009,347): “So deeply embedded is Dewey’s thought in Ambedkar’sconsciousness that quite often his words flow through Ambedkar’sdiscoursewithoutquotationmarks.”Shealsonotes“howAmbedkarculledsentencesfromDemocracyandEducationtodescribehisversionoftheidealsociety” (351).Ambedkarexpresseshisdebt toDewey in section25.4ofAoC. The relevant paragraph from Dewey’s Democracy and Education,quoted by Mukherjee, reads: “A democratic criterion requires us todevelopcapacitytothepointofcompetencytochooseandmakeitsown

41

42

43

44

career.Thisprincipleisviolatedwhentheattemptismadetofitindividualsin advance for definite industrial callings, selected not on the basis oftrained original capacities, but on that of the wealth or social status ofparents”(364).SeeDewey(1916).AllfurthercitationsfromDemocracyandEducationarefromtheonlineedition.

JohnDewey was an advocate of industrial democracy, which, inNoamChomsky’s (2003) words “means democratising production, commerce,and so on, which means eliminating the whole structure of capitalisthierarchy”.ChomskytermsDeweya“radical”inthisinterview.Inanotheressay,Chomsky (2013) says:“Deweycalled forworkers tobe ‘mastersoftheirownindustrialfate’andforallinstitutionstobebroughtunderpubliccontrol, including the means of production, exchange, publicity,transportation and communication. Short of this,Dewey argued, politicswillremain‘theshadowcastonsocietybybigbusiness.’”

ThislattersentencealsoechoesDewey(1916):“Sentimentally,itmayseemharsh to say that the greatest evil of the present régime is not found inpovertyandinthesufferingwhichitentails,but inthefact that somanypersonshave callingswhichmakeno appeal to them,which are pursuedsimply for the money reward that accrues. For such callings constantlyprovokeonetoaversion,illwill,andadesiretoslightandevade”(citedinMukherjee2009,364).

Ethnology draws upon ethnographic material to compare and contrastdifferentcultures.Ethnographyisthestudyofsinglegroupsthroughdirectcontact with their cultures. In the nineteenth century, ethnologists andethnographers studied caste mainly as a subsidiary exercise in thesupposedlyhigherandgrandertaskofuncoveringtheevolutionaryheritageofallhumanity.Indoingsotheycontributedtothe‘Orientalist’exerciseofthecensusandgazetteersandtotheracialunderstandingofcaste.Castewasthus subsumed into theories of biologically determined race essences.Ambedkar, in fact, begins his 1916 essay, “Castes in India”, with areferencetoethnology.Further,oncasteandethnology,seeBayly(1999,11–19);andDirks(2001,126–38).SeealsoKetkar(1909/1998,165–70).

Devadatta Ramakrishna Bhandarkar (1875–1950) was an epigraphist andarchaeologist who worked for the Archaeological Survey of India.Ambedkar is citing from p.37 of this 1911 essay. Based on epigraphicresearch, Bhandarkar uses evidence from the Vedas and the epics of the

45

46

Hindutradition,suchastheRigVedaandtheMahabharata,todisprovethe‘purityofblood’mythattributedtoBrahmins.“ItmaybesaidthatafteralltheMahabharata…isaconglomerationoflegends,whicharenotofmuchhistorical importance, thoughtheycannotbeobjected tobyanorthodoxBrahmanaandconsequentlymaybeadducedto silencehispretensions topurityoforiginandtheconsequenthighestplaceinHindusociety”(1911,10).

Inhisunderstandingofthecastesystemanditsevolution,AmbedkarherediffersstronglyfromBrahminicappropriations(suchasbyB.G.TilakwhoauthoredTheArcticHomeintheVedas,1903)oftheracialtheoryofAryansand Dravidians propounded by European Indologists. In fact, as seen inRoy’sintroductiontothisedition,evenGandhi,inhisSouthAfricayears,strongly believed in the British and India’s ruling classes both being‘Aryan’.Ambedkar,however,alsodiffersonthisfrontfromhispredecessorand radical thinker Jotiba Phule and his contemporary fellow-traveller‘Periyar’ E.V. Ramasamy Naicker (1879–1973) who turned the racialtheory inside out, postulated a pre-Aryan golden age, and regarded theBrahminsasAryans, andhence foreigners,who imposed thecaste systemuponthenon-Brahminswhowereseenasanindigenousrace.ForPhule’swritings, especiallyGulamgiri (Slavery, 1873), seeG.P.Deshpande (2002,23–101).Periyar,ontheeveof independence,quiteradicallycalledupontheDravidianpeopleofSouthIndiato“guardagainstthetransferofpowerfrom the British to the Aryans” (The Hindu, 11 February 1946). Associologist T.K. Oommen (2005, 99) argues, “According to Periyar,BrahminshadtriedtofoisttheirlanguageandsocialsystemonDravidianstoerasetheirraceconsciousnessand,therefore,heconstantlyremindedtheDravidianstoupholdtheir‘raceconsciousness’.However,Periyardidnotadvocate the superiority of one race over the other but insisted on [the]equality of all races. Thus the fundamental difference between AryanHinduismandDravidianHinduism is crucial: the former [is] hegemonic,butthelatterisemancipatory.”

Eugenics is the ‘science’ of predicting and controlling heredity that waspopularattheturnofthetwentiethcentury,inthatitwasperceivedtobeaneffortatthe‘improvement’ofthehumanspecies.ThetermwascoinedbyFrancisGaltoninspiredbyDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselectionaswellasthe rediscoveryofMendel’sworkonheredity (seealsoNote47).Galtonadvocatedthatonlythebestandmostmeritoriousshouldbeencouragedto

47

48

49

breed;amoredisastrousstrandofhistheoryledtoHitler’s‘finalsolution’.AccordingtoMarkSingleton(2007,125–46),thepopularityofeugenicsinIndia can be understood by the place it occupied as a ‘scientificexplanation’ for the ‘degeneration’ of Hindu society and colonialsubjugationby theBritish.Another reason for thepopularityof eugenicswasitsvalorisationoftheendogamyofthecastesystemasamechanismofracialpurity.

Foragoodexampleoftheuseofeugenicstodefendcaste,seeT.N.Roy(1927, 67–72), who begins with this assertion: “The greatest eugenicmovement that theworldhas asyetwitnessedoriginated in India. Itwasthe institution of the caste system.” Arguing that “the earliest eugenicmovement beganwith the institution ofwhat is known asGotra”,Royblamesthe“downfallofHinduism”onnotobservingcastedistinctionswellenough. “The Brahmin was originally created by eugenic selection,” heargues, and gives the finest examples of intellect in Bengal as being allBrahminmen—RajaRamMohanRoy, IshwarChandraVidyasagar andBankimChandraChatterjee.

WilliamBateson(1861–1926)wasaBritishscientistandisconsideredthefounderofgenetics.HewroteMendel’sPrinciplesofHeredity(1909)afterthediscoveryofGregorMendel’s articlewritten in1866.Ambedkar iscitingfromp.205ofBateson’sbook.BatesonelaboratedhisownresearchfindingsfollowingtheinvestigationofMendel’stheories.Thisdiscoverylaiddownthebasis fornotonlygeneticsbut alsoeugenics.However, early intohisresearchBatesonhadrecognisedthedangersoftheapplicationofgeneticsto social engineering and warned against the uniformising tendencies ofeugenicthinking.SeeHarvey(1995).

Ambedkar here slips into an essentialist understanding of caste, race andmorphology. He is drawing upon a British military categorisation ofworking class soldiers during the First World War. Then British PrimeMinister David Lloyd George lamented: “How can Britain run an A1empirewithaC3population?”InaZweiniger-Bargielowska(2006)arguesthatthoughtheobsessionwithadeterioratingnationalhealthandphysicalfitness echoed fascist narratives, these eugenic categories were used asmetaphorsacross thepolitical spectruminBritain.Ambedkar isusing thispremisetodismissthe‘biological’defenceofthecastesystem.SeealsotheworkofHeatherStreets(2004),whodiscusseshowtheBritish,from1857

50

51

52

53

54

to 1914, identified and taxonomised ‘martial races’ that are believed topossess a biological or cultural disposition to the racial and masculinequalitiesnecessaryfortheartsofwar.

InAoC1936andsubsequenteditions,thisreadsas:“Castecannotandhasnotimprovedrace.”

DerivedfromSindhu,thenativenamefortheIndusriver,thetermHindwas first used in Persian and came to be established after the eleventh-century polymath Al-Biruni (973–1048), commissioned by the kingMahmud ofGhazni (in present-dayAfghanistan), travelled to the Indiansubcontinentin1017andwrotethefamousencyclopedicaccountofIndiacalledTarikhal-Hind.Theword ‘Hindu’,derived thus,didnot indicateareligious group but was used as a geographical demarcator for theinhabitantsofthelandnearandeastoftheIndus.Later,thewordmayhavebeen adopted by those inhabitants to distinguish themselves from theMuslimswhocametoinitiallyrulethenorthernpartsofIndia.Theancienttexts that so-called Hindus today claim their roots from—the Vedas,Ramayana,Mahabharata,BhagvadGita,Upanishads—donot ever use thetermsHinduorHindusim.Recentresearcharguesthatthetermscameintovogue withOrientalist and colonial scholarship. For an overview of thedebatesaround ‘Hindu’and ‘Hinduism’andanuancedcounter-argumentsee D.N. Lorenzen (2006, 7–10). See also Romila Thapar’s essay,“Syndicated Hinduism” (1989/2001, 54) where she says, “The termHinduism as we understand it today to describe a particular religion ismodern.” Ambedkar, for his times, was far-sighted in jettisoning a termaround which Indian nationalism and anticolonialism came to beconstructed.

Thephrase‘consciousnessofkind’wascoinedbytheAmericansociologistFranklin Henry Giddings (1855–1931), and was first elaborated in ThePrinciples of Sociology (1896). Giddings sought to define the fundamentalunderlying law that definedhuman society.Hedefined ‘consciousness ofkind’as“astateofconsciousnessinwhichanybeing,whetherloworhighinthescaleoflife,recognisesanotherconsciousbeingasoflikekindwithitself.”SeeGiddings(1896/2004,17).

Renderedas“communion”inAoC1936andsubsequenteditions.

This echoes Dewey’s words inDemocracy and Education (1916): “Societyexistsnotonlybytransmission,bycommunication,butitmayfairlybesaid

55

56

57

toexistintransmission,incommunication.”

TheSahyadrikhandisalatter-dayadditiontotheSkandaPurana, themostvolatile of Sanskrit texts, continuously expanding and incorporating newtraditions. Wendy Doniger (1993, 60) terms it “surely the shiftiest, orsandiest, of all” puranas (collections of stories revolving around divinitiesand myths that allude to history though they cannot be accused ofhistoricity). The Sahyadrikhand recounts the genealogy of severalMaharashtrianBrahminsub-castestoincorporatethemintocastehierarchy.SeealsoRao(2009,55).Ambedkar(BAWS3,48)elsewherewritesoftheSahyadrikhand: “It assigns noble origin to other casteswhile it assigns totheBrahmincastethefilthiestorigin.ItwasarevengeonManu.Itwastheworst lampoon on the Brahmins as a caste. The Peshwas very naturallyordereditsdestruction.Somesurvivedthegeneraldestruction.”

Golak or Govardhan Brahmins are a sub-caste in western India (largelyMaharashtra)consideredofinferiorbirthbyotherBrahmincommunitiesoftheregion.SeeHassan(1920).Deorukha(Devrukhe)BrahminsandKarada(Karhade)aresub-castesofthePanchadravid(livingsouthoftheVindhyamountains) Maharashtrian Brahmins. Palshe is another MaharashtrianBrahminsub-casteconsideredinferiorbyChitpavanBrahmins.InAnandravBhikajiPhadkevs.ShankarDajiCharye(1883ILR7Bom323)theBombayCourtupheldtherightofChitpavanBrahminstoexcludePalsheBrahminsfromworshippingatatemple,onthegroundthatsuchanexclusiverightisone which the courts must guard, as otherwise all ‘high-caste Hindus’wouldholdtheirsanctuariesandperformtheirworshiponlysofarasthoseofthe‘lowercastes’chosetoallowthem(Naval2004,14).

The origin of the Chitpavan Brahmins is traced to the myth ofParashurama,believedtobean‘immortal’BrahminincarnationofVishnu.Parashuramaissaidtohaveburnedthebodiesoffourteenpeoplewhowerewashedashoreonafuneralpyre,purifyingthem,andthenrestoredthemtolife—thusthenamechita(pyre)pavan(purified).ThesefourteenpeoplearesaidtobeofJewish,Persianor,insomeversions,Berberdescent.Anotherversiongivestheetymologyoftheirnameas“pureofthemind”(Figueira2002,121–33).Theirrecordedhistory,however,beginsintheeighteenthcentury, when Chattrapati Shahu, grandson of Shivaji, appointed BalajiVishwanath Bhat, a Chitpavan Brahmin, as Peshwa (Johnson 2005, 58).M.G. Ranade, founder-member of the Indian National Congress; G.K.

58

59

60

Gokhale,‘moderate’CongressleaderandmentortoM.K.Gandhi;PanditaRamabai, apioneerofeducationandwomen’s rights;B.G.Tilak,Hindunationalist leader; Vinoba Bhave, ‘spiritual successor’ to Gandhi; V.D.Savarkar, who coined the termHindutva, andwhowas one of the co-accused inGandhi’s assassination; andNathuramGodse,who assassinatedGandhi,wereallChitpavanBrahmins.

The Wars of the Roses were fought between 1455 and 1485 betweenLancaster andYork, twohousesof the royal linePlantagenet.Ambedkarmost probably is referring to the Second English Civil War as theCromwellianwarwhichwasfoughtbetweentheparliamentariansandtheroyalists in 1648–59, in which Cromwell and his parliamentarian forcesdefeatedtheroyalistsandestablishedtheprecedentthatthekingcanonlyrulewiththeParliament’sconsent.

In1674,theDeccanBrahminsrefusedtoallowthecoronationofShivaji,theMaratha king (1627/30–80), according toVedic rites.They doubtedhisKshatriyaoriginsandsawhimasaShudraclaimant.AsRao(2009,42)says:“ABrahminfromBenares,GagaBhatta,supportedShivaji’sclaimtoKshatriyastatusaftermuchpersuasionandtracedtheBhoslelineagetotheSisodiaRajputs ofUdaipur.”Gaga Bhatta is also said to have charged aheftyfeeforlegitimisingShivaji’sclaim.OnShivaji’scoronationstory,seeV.S. Bendrey (1960); see also Laine (2003), a book that was banned inMaharashtra in 2004. (The banwas lifted in 2007 by theBombayHighCourt and this was upheld by the SupremeCourt of India in 2010.) ArecentpaperbyRosalindO’Hanlon(2010a)throwslightonthemigrationof severalMarathaBrahmins toBenares in the sixteenth century and thestory behind Gaga Bhatta’s return to the Konkan region in the mid-seventeenthcentury.

Kayasthasareacasteofscribeswhosevarnastatushasbeenthesubjectofaragingdebate.While they trace theirorigin toChitragupta, the scribeofgodYama, and claim a status equal toBrahmins, or toKshatriyas,manyBrahmin texts position them as Shudras. The poet (and Kayastha)HarivanshRaiBachchan (1998, 7)writes thatBrahmins “have sought todegradetheKayasthasinmanyaSanskritversesuchasthefollowing:ThatthefoetalKayasthaeatsnothismother’sflesh/speaksnotoftenderness,butof toothlessness.”ThePeshwaBrahmins of theDeccan had resented theKayasthas’righttolearningandbecomingscribesandrecord-keepersinthe

61

62

63

64

seventeenth century. “The head of the state, though a Brahman, wasdespised by his otherBrahman servants, because the first Peshwa’s great-grandfather’s great-grandfather had once been lower in society than theDesh Brahmans’ great-grandfathers’ great-grandfathers. While theChitpavan Brahmans were waging social war with the DeshasthaBrahmans, a bitter jealousy raged between the Brahman ministers andgovernors and the Kayastha secretaries” (Sarkar 1948, 357). See alsoSections9.1–3ofAoC.Further,seeO’Hanlon(2010b)whosaysfromthemid-fifteenth century, periodic but intense disputes developed overKayasthaentitlementtotheritualsofthetwice-born.“OftenmigrantswhohadcomeintotheMaratharegionsasservantsoftheBahmanikingsandtoDeccanSultanatestates,KayasthaswereintrudersintolocalsocietieswhoseBrahmincommunitieshadhithertocommandedmoreexclusivepossessionofscribalskills”(566).SeealsoNote108at18.1.

InAoC1936and1937,Ambedkaruses“excludedandpartiallyexcludedareas”; whereas the 1944 edition uses “excluded and partially includedareas”.Sincethelatterisincorrect,theformerhasbeenretained.

Ambedkar is referring to theconstitutionaldiscussions culminating in theGovernmentofIndiaActof1935inwhichareasinhabitedbytribalswereclassified as “excluded” and “partially excluded areas” for the purpose ofadministration.Lawswereonlyapplicableintheseareaswhenthegovernorapprovedit,purportedlynottoharmthese“backward”societieswiththeimplementationoflawsinstitutedforthemore“developed”partsofIndia.SeealsoChandra(2013).

AmbedkarisreferringtotheGovernmentofIndiaActof1935asthenewConstitution.

Ambedkar’s viewsonAdivasis—officially classified as ScheduledTribes—areproblematic.Evenasheappearswellintentionedandprotectionist,heargues for“civilising the savages”and looksat themas leading the lifeof“hereditaryanimals”,andevenwarns“theHindus”thatthe“aboriginesarea source of potential danger”. Later, in his address to the All-IndiaScheduled Castes Federation held in Bombay on 6 May 1945, (“TheCommunalDeadlockandaWaytoSolveIt”),whilediscussingtheissueofproportionate representation, he says: “My proposals do not cover theAboriginal Tribes although they are larger in number than the Sikhs,Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians and Parsees…[T]he Aboriginal Tribes

havenotasyetdevelopedanypoliticalsensetomakethebestuseof theirpoliticalopportunitiesandtheymayeasilybecomemereinstrumentsinthehandseitherofamajority or a minority and thereby disturb the balance without doing anygood to themselves … the proper thing to do for these backwardcommunitiesistoestablishaStatutoryCommissiontoadministerwhatarenowcalledthe‘excludedareas’onthesamebasisaswasdoneinthecaseoftheSouthAfricanConstitution.EveryProvince inwhich these excludedareasaresituatedshouldbecompelledtomakeanannualcontributionofaprescribed amount for the administration of these areas” (BAWS 1, 375,emphasis added). Ironically,Gandhiuseda similar logic to argue that theUntouchableshadnotyetdevelopedthepoliticalsensetousethevote,letalonemakeuseofseparateelectoratesthatAmbedkarhadchampionedandwon for the Untouchables in the 1931 Round Table Conferences.Shashank Kela (2012, 297–8) says, “Racism and prejudice marked theConstituent Assembly’s ‘adivasi’ debates. Members referred to theirsubhuman existence, primitiveness and propensity for summary justice;invoked the threat of separatism; and adduced arguments of the greatestgoodofthegreatestnumbers.”UdayChandra(2013)hasarguedhowbothAmbedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru partook of a liberalist-colonialunderstanding, and fear, of the ‘primitive’ during the making of theConstitution of independent India, almost retaining the colonialistapproachtoso-calledtribals.Incontrast,theAdivasileaderfromJharkhandandmemberoftheConstitutentAssembly(CA),JaipalSingh,hadarguedon 19 December 1946: “What my people require, Sir, is not adequatesafeguards…We do not ask for any special protection.Wewant to betreated like every other Indian.” As Chandra points out, this was aperception shared by Vallabhbhai Patel, Chairman of the Tribal andExcluded Areas Committee and future Home Minister. However, later,duringtheCAdebatesontheSixthSchedule,theAmbedkar-ledproposalto allowScheduledTribes to function from excluded areas found favourwithAdivasispokespersonssuchasRev.J.J.M.Nichols-Roy,whosaidon19 November 1949: “The Sixth Schedule concerns the hill-districts ofAssam in which the hill men in Assam live by themselves in their ownterritories, who have their own language and their culture and theConstituentAssemblyhas rightly agreed…that there shouldbecouncilsforthesedifferentdistrictsinordertoenablethepeoplewholiveinthoseareastodevelopthemselvesaccordingtotheirgeniusandculture.”Forthe

65

66

67

68

workings of autonomous district councils established under the SixthSchedule in the Northeastern states, see Bengt G. Karlsson (2011) andSanjibBaruah(2007).

By the beginning of the twentieth century, huge sections of thepopulation, mostly itinerant, were labelled criminal under the CriminalTribesActsof1871and1911.Seeingcriminalityashereditarywasalogicaloutcomeofthecastesystem.Ifpeoplecouldbebornscholars,weaversandcobblerstheycouldalsobebornthievesandthugs.SeeD’Souza(2001)andRadhakrishna(2001).

Anaryas: Sanskrit for non-Aryans. Anasa (literally those without a nose,figurativelythosewithoutanaquilinenose)isanothertermfrequentlyusedintheVedastorefertothelocal,indigenouspopulations,whomtheAryasregardedasdifferentfromthemandthereforetobestigmatised.

Pathare means stone and prabhu means lord. This caste claims to havedescended from the Kshatriyas. The mythological claim around originsgoesthus:“ThefirstofthemwasAshvapati(700BCE),alinealdescendantofRama andPrithu,who, as is stated in the local chronology, governedIndia in theDvapara andTretaYugas,which is a goodwhile ago!ThePatarahPrabhusaretheonlycastewithinwhichBrahmanshavetoperformcertainpurelyVedicritesknownunderthenameofthe‘Kshatriyarites’”(Blavatsky, 1892/2010, 145–6). Veena Naregal (2001, 168–9) says: “Inwestern India itwasmainlybrahmins and some sub-brahmingroups liketheprabhusandshenviswhowereamongthefirsttoperceivethebenefitsofthe new literate order and respond to the opportunities it created. TheprabhusandtheshenvisweretraditionallytrainedscribeswhohadalongandsuccessfulhistoryofemploymentaskarkunsindifferentpartsofthePeshwakingdomandintheofficesofthecolonialtradinghousesofBombay.Thepossessionofuncommon literate skills had also allowed theprabhus tobeclosely associated with pre-modern book production.” See also UmaChakravarti (2000) for adiscussionof thePeshwa interventiononnormsforwidows and enforcedwidowhood claims of upwardlymobilemiddlecastegroups.

OnDaivadnya(alsoDaivajna)Brahmins,theCensusofIndia(1961,14)says:“Theyarelocallyknownas‘Sonars’and‘Sonagars’andarethetraditionalgoldsmiths. They are found in almost all the towns and big villages ofNorthKanaraDistrict.TheyaresaidtohavemigratedfromGoa.”

69

70

71

72

73

HereAmbedkarisreferringtothepolemicsusedbytheVedicmissionariesof the Arya Samaj to counter the influence of Muslim and Christianpreachers and missionaries—adopting their established practices ofpreaching at religious fairs, challengingmissionaries in pamphlets and onthe streets. The rise of the Arya Samaj owedmuch to the demographicshifts that characterised thehistoryof thePunjabdue to its proximity toCentral Asia and the predominance of Sikh and Muslim rulers. In thenineteenth century,British rule added to this list, and the conversionsoftheoppressedcastesinlargenumberstoIslamandChristianityexacerbatedthe situation. See Jones (2006, 139–45). According to Gopal Krishan(2004, 77–89), in 1881, the Hindus constituted 43.8 per cent of thepopulation, the Sikhs 8.2 per cent and Christians 0.1 per cent. TheMuslims,at47.6percent,werewellshortofanabsolutemajority.Butby1941,theMuslimswereinabsolutemajorityinthePunjabaccountingfor53.2percentof the totalpopulation.TheHindusmade29.1percentofthetotal,theSikhs14.9percent,Christians1.9percentandothers1.3percent.TheerosioninthepercentageshareoftheHinduswascausedbytheconversionofmanyHindus—especiallythe‘lowercastes’,suchasChuhras,Chamars,JhiwarsandMalis—toIslam,SikhismandChristianity.

Reads in AoC 1936 as: “Whether the Hindu religion is a missionaryreligionisaquestionwhichwasonceasubjectofcontroversy.”Amendedin1937.

For a discussion of conversion during the colonial period, see GauriViswanathan(1998),especiallythechapter“ConversiontoEquality”(211–40) thatdiscussesAmbedkar’squest forequality throughconversion.AlsoseeChakravarti(2000),whereshealludestotheproblemsoftheconvert,PanditaRamabai, in terms of cultural and ‘nationalist’ positions vis-à-visthecolonialstructurewhichbearoutAmbedkar’spoint.

PhraseaddedinAoC1937.

Shuddhior shuddhikaran—amovement for ‘reconversion’ toHinduism—wasinitiatedbyDayanandaSaraswati,founderoftheAryaSamaj.In1877,two years after founding the Arya Samaj, Dayananda is said to haveperformed the first ever shuddhi of a Muslim man (Parel 2000, 122).SwamiShraddhananda(1856–1926)carriedonthis legacymoremilitantlyintheearlytwentiethcenturyinthePunjabandtheUnitedProvinces.Foran account, see Jaffrelot (1995). However, as Ambedkar points out,

74

75

76

77

78

79

shuddhicreatedmanyproblemssincetheprivilegedcasteswerenotwillingtominglewithnewly‘purified’lowercastemembers.SeealsoJones(2006,129–35,202–14).

The Hindu Mahasabha launched the sangathan movement in the early1920s in response to the Khilafat Movement (1918–24), which hadGandhi’ssupport,aimedatapan-IslamicmobilisationtosavetheOttomanEmpirefromdismembermentandtosecurepoliticalreformsforIndia.Theunderlying logicof sangathanwas todefend theHinducommunity fromso-called foreign forces through organisation and unification. It aimed tointegrate the different sections of the Hindu community, including theUntouchables. Themain proponents of sangathanwere Bhai Parmanand(seeNote11inPrologue)andV.D.Savarkar.SeeJaffrelot(1999a,19–24)andalsoBapu(2013,47–60).

AmbedkarisinvokingtheDeweyanconceptof“associatedlife”,whichhepicks up and develops further into a political tool. Both Dewey andAmbedkarbelievedthatdemocracyshouldnotberestrictedtothepoliticalrealm, but should also manifest itself in other areas, such as education,industryandthepublicsphere.SeeMukherjee(2009,356).

A feeling of brotherhood (ikhwaan) among Muslims across the world(ummat) is an important conceptual category in Islam. Sikhs are alsoenjoined by their religion to practise universal brotherhood and oftenaddresseachotherasbhai(brother).

Savalakh:125,000.Thecompletephrase,“Savalakhseeklaraun”(Myonefollowerwill take on 125,000), is attributed toGovind Singh, the tenthSikhGuru,whoissaidtohavegiventhisbattlecryatChamkaurin1704.

WilliamMorris (1834–96)was a poet, author, leader of the earlyBritishsocialistmovement,andthe founderof theArtsandCraftsMovement inBritain.Thequoteis fromADreamofJohnBall (1888),adreamtravel intimetothePeasants’Revoltof1381(alsoknownasWatTyler’sRebellionortheGreatRising).Ambedkarhereisquotingfromthespeechgivenbythe character of JohnBall, a radical travelling priest excommunicated forhispreachingofequalitytotheKentishrebels.

Endosmosis was another Deweyan term that Ambedkar deployed anddeveloped.Itisderivedfromabiologicaltermwhichmeansthepassageofafluidthroughapermeablemembranefromaregionoflowertoaregionof higher concentration. Mukherjee points out that the term was used

80

81

82

83

84

85

originally by the French philosopher Henri Louis Bergson (1859–1941)and, after him,byAmericanphilosopher andpsychologistWilliam James(1842–1910),whowas,likeDewey,aleadingexponentofpragmatism,“todescribetheinteractionofthemindwithnature”.Deweyappropriateditasa descriptor for interaction between social groups. In Ambedkar andDewey’s work the term came to be a metaphor of the fluidity ofcommunicationsbetweensocialgroups,inwhich,accordingtoMukherjee(2009,352),theymanagedtoreconcilethetwoextremesandgiveasenseofbeingbothseparateandconnected.

These lines appear almost exactly in Dewey’s Democracy and Education,chapter7:“Ademocracyismorethanaformofgovernment;itisprimarilyamodeofassociatedliving,ofconjointcommunicatedexperience.”

InAoC1936thispartreadsas:“menweretreatedunequallyunequallyastheyare”;in1937as:“menweretreatedunequallyastheyare”.The1945versionisretainedhere.

It must be remembered that the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, which invitedAmbedkar for its annualconference, forwhich this addresswasprepared,was originally affiliated to theArya Samaj and continued to have severalimportant Arya Samaj leaders of the Punjab influencing it. Ambedkarchoosestotakethemoninthissectionofhisspeech,andthiswouldlikelyhavemadethemmostuncomfortable,andcausedthemtowithdrawtheirinvitation to him. For a summary of the Arya Samaj’s views onvarnashrama (also known as chaturvarnya and varnavyavastha), based onDayanandaSaraswati’s‘Vedic’approach,seeJones(2006).

RefertoNote161at24.3ontheguna–karmatheory.

“Savants”in1936and1937;amendedin1944.

Text in semibold in thisparagraphdoesnot appear inAoC1936. In thefirstedition, the linesafter thehighlighted text appear thus:“It ishumanexperience that notions and sentiments associated with certain namesbecome part of ourselves, stiffening into attitudes that which hold eventrainedminds inbondage.Intellectual servitudetooldassociations isverycommonandismoredifficulttobreakthanisgenerallythought.Factsmaychange, but if names remain the same, then the notions associated withthosenameslingernotonlyinsentimentsbutalsoinpractice.TheselabelshavehadallalonginIndianhistorythedefactoconnotationofdesignatingahierarchyofcastesbasedonbirth.Theywereunderstood tobemarksof

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

superiorityandinferiority.”Theselineswereamendedinthe1937editionusedhere.

Allofthisparagraph,exceptitslastsentence,doesnotappearinAoC1936.

Thelinesatthebeginningof16.1till“…amiserablefailure”figureunderSection XV of AoC 1936. The lines that follow from here (beginning,“From a practical …”) till the first sentence of 16.3 (ending,“…chaturvarnyaasuccess.”)havebeenaddedinthe1937edition.

This isgivenas“varna” inAoC1936and1937;Ambedkarchanges it to“chaturvarnya”in1944.

In AoC 1936, Section 16 begins here, with the sentence: “Thepracticability of the chaturvarnya presupposes two things. Itpresupposes…”

ThisquestiondoesnotappearinAoC1936.

Phraseaddedin1937.

Plato’sTheRepublic, addressing the question of justice, deduces that thehumansoulhasthreeparts:the“logical”,thinkingpart;the“spirited”part,bywhichwe develop anger and get into a temper; and the “appetitive”part, by which we experience hunger, thirst, eroticism, love formoneymakingandothersuchdesires.Thebookalsocategorisesmenintothree classes based on which part of their soul masks the others: the‘guardians’ are persons in whom the logical part dominates, in the‘auxiliaries’ spiritdominates, and the ‘producers’ arepeoplewhohave lettheirappetitedominate.Theguardiansmustrule,theauxiliariesmusthelpin running the guardians’ writ, and the producers must work. (See alsoNote161ontheguna–karmatheory.)AmbedkardisagreeswithPlatoonmanylevels.Heisnotconvincedthatthereareonlythreequalitiesonthebasis of which a soul can be divided. He believes that themultitude ofhuman characteristics is so complex that it is impossible to identify andcategorise them.He also points out that different characteristics becomemoreorlessimportantinthesamepersonatdifferenttimes.Hiscriticismisalso what was later popularised as the problem of the ‘one-dimensionalman’ by Herbert Marcuse (1964/1991). From his experience of caste,Ambedkar’s critique is that in such an arrangement where most of thepower isvestedwiththeguardiansandtheremainingwiththeauxiliaries(the ‘twice-born’Brahmins,KshatriyasandVaishyas inthecastecontext),

93

94

95

96

97

there isnomechanismtoensure that theywillnotoppress theproducers(ShudrasandUntouchables).

InAoC1936,thismerelyreadsas“notpossibletopigeonmenintoholes”.In1937,Ambedkaramendsthisto“notpossibletopigeonmenintoholesaccordingashebelongs tooneclassor theother”.The subsequent lines,beginning“That it is impossible…”till“… itwasestablished?” in16.6areabsentinAoC1936.

Thissentencebeginswith“Another”inAoC1936;perhapschangedinthelightofnewsentencesaddedin1937.

Thewordusedis“existence”inAoC1936.

The story of Shambuka is told in the seventh book,Uttarakanda, of theValmikiRamayana. Shambukawants to achieve a higher status than thesuras(devtas,gods)throughmeditationandausterities.OndiscoveringthatShambuka,aShudra,wasindeedmeditating,Ramapromptlybeheadshimtorestorevarnasharmadharma.ThestoryhasbeenusedbytheDravidianmovement and in anticaste literature to ridicule the idea ofRama as theembodiment of perfection. Kuvempu (Kuppalli Venkatappa Puttappa)(1904–94), a Jnanpith-winning Kannada author wrote Sudra Tapasvi(1944), a novel based on Shambuka’s life. Sikhamani, a contemporaryTelugu Dalit poet, writes: “The sword that severed/ Shambuka’s headcouldremain/sharpandsafeforcenturies./Ithasjustchangedhands/andnolongerrecognisesyou./NoManutosaveyounow!”See“SteelNibsareSprouting…”inSatyanarayanaandTharu(2013,554).

The Manusmriti represents itself as the dharma that Brahma declares toManu,‘thefirstMan’,andispassedonbyhimtoBhrigu,oneoftheten‘greatsages’.Thetextisbelievedtohaveattaineditspresentformaroundthe second century CE. Ambedkar writes in another, posthumouslypublishedwork,RevolutionandCounter-Revolution inAncient India (BAWS5, 273): “Pushyamitra Sunga and his successors could not have toleratedthese exaggerated claims of the Brahmins unless they themselves wereBrahminsinterestedintheestablishmentofBrahmanism.IndeeditisquitepossiblethattheManusmritiwascomposedatthecommandofPushyamitraBrahman king (185–149 BC) himself, and forms the book of thephilosophyofBrahmanism.”Inanotherwork,TheUntouchables:WhoWereThey andWhy they Became Untouchable, Ambedkar (BAWS 9, 373) says:“AftertakingallfactsintoconsiderationProfBühlerhasfixedadatewhich

98

appears to strike the truth. According to Bühler, the Manusmriti, in theshapeinwhichitexistsnow,cameintoexistenceintheSecondCenturyAD.” A contemporary scholar, J.L. Brockington (1996, 92) arrives at asimilarconclusion.ManyeditionsoftheManusmritihavebeenpublishedinSanskrit sinceits firsteditionin1813.Thefirst translationwasInstitutesofHindu law, or,The ordinances ofMenu [sic], according to the gloss ofCullúca:comprising theIndiansystemofduties, religiousand civil:verbally translated fromtheoriginalSanscrit:withapreface,bySirWilliamJones(1796).Oneofthebest-known translations is George Bühler’s Laws of Manu (1886/2004),which contains an exhaustive introduction and extracts from sevencommentaries. In hermodern translation,WendyDoniger states that noworkinthetraditionofWesternscholarshipcompareswiththefameandsustained authority exercised across centuries by the Manusmriti. SeeDoniger and Smith (1991, xviii–xix). As C.J. Fuller (2003, 484) notes,BritishadministratorsdependedonDharmashastras suchas theManusmrititodevelopalegalsystemforIndia,thussubjectingtheHindupopulationasa whole to a Brahminical legal code. For the most authoritative,exhaustivelyannotatededition(1,131pages)oftheManusmriti,seePatrickOlivelle(2005).

Such verses do not figure in the Manusmriti. Bühler’s edition, whichAmbedkarmayhavepossiblyaccessed,offerstwoversesthatcomeclosetotheimport.“Aonce-bornman(aShudra),whoinsultsatwice-bornmanwithgrossinvective,shallhavehistonguecutout;forheisofloworigin”(8.270; 1886/2004, 211). And: “If he arrogantly teaches Brahmins theirduty,thekingshallcausehotoiltobepouredintohismouthandintohisears” (8.272; 2004, 211). For Ambedkar’s extended discussion of theManusmriti,seetheannotatededitionof“CastesinIndia”inRege(2013,77–108).Ambedkarseemstobecitingthesepunishmentsfromchapter12ofGautamaDharmaSutra(600BCEto300BCE,predatingtheManusmriti)whichhealsocitesinhisposthumouswork,PhilosophyofHinduism(BAWS3).Bühler’stranslation(1898,239)ofGautamaDharmaSutratalksofsimilarpunishmentsfortheShudra:“4.NowifaShudralistensintentionallyto(arecitationof)theVeda,hisearsshallbefilledwith(molten)tinorlac.5.Ifhe recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. 6. If he remembersthem,hisbodyshallbesplitintwain.7.Ifheassumesapositionequal(tothatof twice-bornmen) in sitting, in lyingdown, in conversationorontheroad,heshallundergo(corporal)punishment.”

99

100

101

102

103

Paragraphs16.8 and16.9were added in1937.The sentencewithwhich16.9ends—“Giventhesedifficulties…chaturvarnya.”—figuresin1936asthelast sentenceofAoC1936; theword“conditions” isused in theplaceof“difficulties”.

In AoC 1936, after “serve”, it reads “—all this sounds very simple andappearstobeperfect.Butwhatdoesitallcometoinpractice?Itmeansthepauperisationofthemanyforthesakeofthefew.Itmeansthedisarmingofthemanyforthesakeofthefew.Itmeansthedeadeninganddarkeningofthelivesofthemanyinorderthatthefewmayhavelifeandlight.Ashasbeenobserved,thereisnocountryintheworldwhichhassufferedsomuch as a result of social evils of its own creation as India.” Ambedkardrops this passage in AoC 1937, and in its place offers an extendedreflection—of 650words—on the exploitative and illogical nature of thechaturvarnyasystem.ThisappearstobetriggeredbyGandhi’sresponsetothis speech-essay inHarijan, where he upholds the fourfold varnashramadharmabutdenouncestheproliferationofcastes.Inthisedition,thisnewmaterialappearsfromthispointin17.1tillthecloseof17.4.

Tryavarnikas:Sanskrit for ‘threevarnas’; refers to thedwija, ‘twice-born’,varnas.

HighlightedwordsreadinAoC1936as“similar”(forsocial),“occurredto”(troubled),“havebeenableto”(can),and“masses”(lowerclasses)respectively.

‘Directaction’isamethodAmbedkar(BASWS5,375)advocatedfortheassertion of the civil rights of Untouchables. When Ambedkar was atColumbia University (1913–16), he was likely exposed to the views ofAmericanfeministanarchistVoltairinedeCleyre(1866–1912),whomtheanarchist Emma Goldman called the “most gifted and brilliant anarchistwomanAmericaeverproduced”.In1912,deCleyrewroteafamousessaycalled“DirectAction”,whichshedefinedascollectiveactionagainstandmass resistance to state andcapitalistoppression.“Everypersonwhoeverhadaplantodoanything,andwentanddidit,orwholaidhisplanbeforeothers, andwon their cooperation to do it with him, without going toexternal authorities to please do the thing for them, was a directactionist…Everypersonwhoeverinhislifehadadifferencewithanyonetosettle,andwentstraighttotheotherpersonsinvolvedtosettleit,eitherbyapeaceableplanorotherwise,wasadirectactionist.”Thetermwasalsopopularised by the IndustrialWorkers of theWorld founded in 1905 in

104

105

106

107

Chicago; itsmouthpiecewas calledDirectAction.Onhis part,Ambedkarcalled for “open revolt in the form of direct action against the HinduEstablishedOrder”.He lists theChavadarTank satyagraha inMahadandtheKalaramtemplesatyagrahaasinstancesofdirectactionwhichcreateda‘crisis’ among Hindus. Ambedkar contrasts this method with that ofGandhi’sHarijanSevakSanghthatbelievedcasteHindusmustfeelremorseand guilt (for practising untouchability) and thus voluntarily ask theUntouchables to participate in the general village life, that is, accessingwaterbodies, roads or temples. Ambedkar here cites his letter to A.V.Thakkar,general secretaryof theHarijanSevakSangh:“The salvationoftheDepressedClasseswill comeonlywhen theCasteHindu ismade tothinkand is forcedto feel thathemustalterhisways.For thatyoumustcreateacrisisbydirectactionagainsthiscustomarycodeofconduct.Thecrisis will compel him to think and once he begins to think hewill bemorereadytochangethanheisotherwiselikelytobe.Thegreatdefectinthepolicyof least resistance and silent infiltrationof rational ideas lies inthat they do not ‘compel’, for they do not produce a crisis. The directaction in respect of the Chavadar Tank in Mahad 1927, the KalaramtempleinNasik1930andtheGuruvayurtempleinMalabar1931–32havedone in a few days what million days of preaching by reformers wouldneverhavedone.” In the1920s,Ambedkardid invest a little faith in theGandhian satyagraha method; as noted in Roy’s introduction (p. 107),Gandhi’s portrait was displayed during the December leg of the Mahadsatyagraha in 1927. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of the All-IndiaMuslimLeague,alsocalledfor‘directaction’in1946iftheMuslimswerenotgrantedPakistan.ForadiscussionofJinnah’slackofclarityonwhathemeantbydirectaction,seeAyeshaJalal(1985,211–3).

InAoC1936, it is the“wretched systemof chaturvarnya”.Ambedkar inthe next few passages of Section 17 consistently replaces references tochaturvarnyawith“castesystem”—alltheseinstancesarehighlightedwithsemiboldtext.

InAoC1936,thissentenceendswith“thefateofeternalservitude”.

ThisparagraphdoesnotappearinAoC1936.

TheMauryan empire lasted from322BCE to 185BCE and reached itszenith under Ashoka, who, after securing the empire and extending itsborders,embracedBuddhismandspreaditthroughtheterritoriesunderhis

108

109

110

111

control. He even sent ambassadors across Asia to spread the faith.Ambedkar(BAWS3,268)consideredthisBuddhistphasea‘revolution’inancient India, and termed the re-emergence of Brahminism under theBrahminkingPushyamitraSunga(185–149BCE)the‘counter-revolution’:“The Brahmins had not only lost state patronage but they lost theiroccupationwhichmainlyconsistedofperformingsacrificesforafeewhichoftentimeswasverysubstantialandwhichconstitutedtheirchiefsourceofliving. The Brahmins therefore lived as the suppressed and DepressedClasses for nearly 140 years during which theMaurya Empire lasted. ArebellionagainsttheBuddhiststatewastheonlywayofescapeleft tothesufferingBrahminsandthereisspecialreasonwhyPushyamitrashouldraisethebannerofrevoltagainsttheruleoftheMauryas.”

AmbedkardiscussesthemanyconflictsbetweenBrahminsandKshatriyasatlengthelsewhere(BAWS3,392–415).Here,heisalludingtothemythicalBrahminwarriorParashurama’s twenty-onewarsof exterminationagainsttheKshatriyasafterParashurama’sfatheriskilledbyaKshatriyaandheseeshis mother beating her chest twenty-one times. Mythical and legendarynarratives asserting the authority of the Brahmins were in conflict witheach other as Brahmin sub-castes tried to establish superiority over oneanother through competitive myth-making. See Figueira (2002). For atypicalexampleofa legalisticinter-Brahminconflict inmodernIndia,seeNotes 56–7 at 7.2. See Johnson (2005) for an account of howmany ofthese factors played out in Bombay province in the formative years ofIndian nationalism.The reference to “who should salute first, as towhoshouldgivewayfirst”pertainstotheBrahmin–Kayasthaconflict(seeNote60to7.4).

TheBhagwatistheBhagvadGita.ForadetaileddiscussionoftheBhagvadGitabyAmbedkar, see“KrishnaandHisGita” (BAWS3).Onhow, forAmbedkar,theBhagvadGitaisneitherabookofreligionnoratreatiseonphilosophy, see Pandit (1992). See also Kumar (2010) on “Ambedkar’sattempttoretrieveacounterhistoryofIndianantiquity”.

“Tobecopied”inAoC1936.

This is a war and diplomacy term. “One speaks of an armed neutralitywhenaneutralStatetakesmilitarymeasures forthepurposeofdefendingitsneutralityagainstpossibleorprobableattemptsofeitherbelligerent[sic]tomakeuseoftheneutralterritory”(Oppenheim1905,353).

112

113

114

Ambedkar,once again, is drawingonhismentor JohnDeweywhomhementions and acknowledges later in the essay.Discussing the “need of ameasure for the worth of any givenmode of social life”, Deweywrites(1916, ch. 7): “How numerous and varied are the interests which areconsciouslyshared?Howfullandfreeistheinterplaywithotherformsofassociation? Ifwe apply these considerations to, say, a criminal band,wefindthatthetieswhichconsciouslyholdthememberstogetherarefewinnumber,reduciblealmosttoacommoninterest inplunder;andthattheyareofsuchanatureastoisolatethegroupfromothergroupswithrespectto give and take of the values of life.” See also Lenart Škof (2011)whomaps the influence of Dewey’s pragmatism on Ambedkar’s politicalphilosophy,trackshisdebttonotjustDeweybutalsotoBritishidealistandliberal T.H. Green (1836–82), and connects this to the work ofcontemporary Brazilian philosopher and social theorist RobertoMangabeiraUnger,whotaughtBarackObamaatHarvard.

ThomasCarlyle(1795–1881)wasapre-eminentfigureinVictorianletters.In History of the French Revolution (1837), he sympathised with therevolutionariestoanextentbutdespisedanarchy,andappearedtofeartherule of the people. The concept of ‘organic filaments’ here is borrowedfromSartorResartus(1833–4),awell-disguisedautobiographyandacritiqueof utilitarianism and British society, presenting fragments of Carlyle’sphilosophy in the form of a satire featuring a loose collection of paperswrittenbyafictionalGermanphilosopherDiogenesTeufelsdröckh.IntheseventhchapterofBook3,Carlyledescribes theworldas aphoenix thatbegins to resurrect itself while dying. The ‘organic filaments’ are theprocessesofcreationthatholdtogetheraworldwhileitisdestroyingitself.

TherehasbeenalotofrecentresearchoncasteamongMuslimsinIndia.BesidesImtiazAhmad(1978), seeAliAnwar’sMasawatki Jung [Battle forequality] (2005) and Masood Alam Falahi’s Hindustan mein zaat-paat aurMusalman [CasteisminIndiaandMuslims] (2007).Foraquickoverview,seeKhalidAnisAnsari(2013)whochroniclesthecontemporarypasmandamovement:“ ‘Pasmanda’, aPersian termmeaning ‘thosewhohave fallenbehind’, refers toMuslims belonging to the Shudra (backward) andAti-Shudra(Dalit)castes. Itwasadoptedasanoppositional identity tothatofthe dominant ashraf Muslims (forward castes) in 1998 by the PasmandaMuslim Mahaz, a group which mainly worked in Bihar. Since then,however,thepasmandadiscoursehasfoundresonanceelsewheretoo.”

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

OnthepracticeofcasteinSikhism,seeNotes33and168at2.22and26.3.

Thisworddoesnot figure inprior editions, andhasbeen introduced forclarity.

S. Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) was a prolific writer, an apologist ofHinduism, and the second president of independent India. Ambedkar iscitingfromthebookTheHinduWayofLife(1927,12–13),acompilationof the lectures delivered at Oxford in 1926. Later in the work,Radhakrishnan says: “In dealingwith the problem of the conflict of thedifferent racial groups, Hinduism adopted the only safe course ofdemocracy,viz., that each racialgroup shouldbeallowed todevelop thebestinitwithoutimpedingtheprogressofothers.Everyhistoricalgroupisunique and specific and has an ultimate value, and the highest moralityrequiresthatweshouldrespectitsindividuality.Caste,onitsracialside,isthe affirmation of the infinite diversity of human groups” (97).Furthermore,“CastewastheanswerofHinduismtotheforcespressingonit from outside. It was the instrument by which Hinduism civilised thedifferenttribesittookin.Anygroupofpeopleappearingexclusiveinanysense is acaste.Wheneveragrouprepresentsa typeacastearises” (104).Tellingly,hisbirthanniversary,5September,iscelebratedasTeacher’sDayinIndia.

AoC1936:“impress themindsofmanywith theprofundityofwhateverhesays.”

ThesequestionsaregiveninboldinAoC1936.

“Transit”inAoC1936andsubsequenteditions.

“Dravid”inallpreviouseditions.

ThisisinboldinAoC1936.

Therehasbeenaconventionally regardeddivisionof labourbetween thelaukikaBrahmin,theso-calledsecularBrahmin,andtheshrotriyaorvaidikaBrahmin,theBrahminwellversedintheVedas(theshrutitradition;fromsru,tohear,sro-triya;theoraltradition).TheanthropologistM.N.Srinivas(1972,8)uses these terms in this sense.The laukika—literally thosewhoconcern themselves with this-worldly, temporal (loka) matters—is notsecular in theWesternEnlightenment senseof the term,as in thosewhodisavowbeliefor are free fromreligious rules and teachings.The laukikaBrahmin—the Brahmin as minister, bureaucrat, civil servant, writer—

124

125

126

127

128

129

whomAmbedkargoeson to refer as the intellectual classof theHindus,pursues a non-priestly career; priestly work is the preserve of thevaidika/shrotriyaBrahmins(again,priestswhoperformonlyVedicritesaretobedistinguishedfrompriestswhoofficiateintemples,attendingtopost-Bhakti, post-Vedic gods). However, the laukika Brahmin does notundermine the significance or role of the shrotriya Brahmin. In fact, hedeploysand legitimises theservicesof theshrotriyaBrahmin.The laukikaBrahminwieldspoweroverthis-worldlymatters,theshrotriya’sdomainisother-worldly.Allthesame,thelaukikawouldevenlookdownupontheshrotriya as lower in the pecking order; someonewhose services can beeasilybought,foraprice.Ineffect,theyaretwoflanksofBrahminism.Fora discussion on the etymology of laukika and vaidika in SanskritgrammarianPanini’sAshtadhyayi(c.400BCE),seePatrickOlivelle(2008,161–3).

Albert Venn Dicey (1835–1922) was a British jurist and constitutionaltheoristwhoexpoundedthetheoryofthe‘ruleoflaw’andpopularisedtheterm.Thequotethatfollowsis fromIntroduction to theStudyof theLawoftheConstitution (1885, 75–6)which forms a part of the unwrittenBritishConstitutionandisthereforealsoreferredtoasEnglishConstitution.

Leslie Stephen (1832–1904) was a British philosopher, and literary andsocialcritic.Areferencetohiscommentsontheprohibitionofblue-eyedbabies can be found in Dicey (1885, 78) cited above. Dicey is quotingStephenfromtheScienceofEthics (1882),aworkthat sumsuptheethicalconsequencesofthetheoryofevolution.

Ambedkar is referring to the concept popularised by Carlyle in thenineteenth century: the great man theory. Carlyle’s On Heroes, Hero-WorshipandtheHeroicinHistory(1840)pointsouttheessentialroleofgreatmen in history, such as Muhammad, Luther, Rousseau, Cromwell andNapoleon among others, as the moving force of history. The maincriticism of the greatman theorywas formulated byHerbert Spencer inTheStudyofSociology(1873),butCarlyle’stheoryhasoccupiedthemindofmanyaninfluentialthinker,forexampleLeoTolstoy.

This is the injunction from the Manusmriti that Ambedkar cites at theopeningofAoC.SeeNote1at1.2.

Shishthas:Brahminseducatedinreligiousmatters.

(Anaamnaateshu dharmeshu katham syaaditi chedbhavet/ yam shishtaa

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

braahmanaa bruuyuh sa dharmah syaadashadgkitah.) Ambedkar first cites thetranslationofManusmriti 12.108 fromBühler (1886/2004, 337) and thengivestheSanskritverse.BibekDebroy’stranslation:“IfaskedaboutpartsofDharma that have not been stated,without a doubt,what learned/goodBrahminsstateisDharma.”

ItisnotclearwhatAmbedkarisreferringtoastheashtadhikaras.Adhikara,inbothVedicHinduismandtantra,referstothereligiousqualificationandeligibilitytoperformcertainrituals.AccordingtoJamesLochtefeld(2002,6), “This refers partly to knowing how to perform the ritual, and thusbeing ‘qualified’…More importantly, it refers to having gained the ritualstatusthatentitlesonetoperformtheritual.Thisstatusisusuallyconferredby some sortof formal initiation…byone’s teacher.”Thuswemay sayShambuka, the pivotal Shudra in the Ramayana, does not have theadhikara to perform a Vedic rite, and is hence punished. For furtherdiscussionoftheideaofadhikara,seeWilhelmHalbfass(1990,67),wherehe says “adhikara assumes such meanings as ‘authority,’ ‘competence,’‘vocation,’butalso‘obligation,’and‘responsibility.’Itrefersto‘governing’functionsandelementsnotonlyinnatureorsociety,butalsointextsandteachings,whereitmayindicateagoverningruleordominanttheme.”

Sanskaras(alsosamskaras)isthecollectivenamegiventovariouslife-cyclesacrificesandritualsmarkingthedifferentstagesofhumanlife;theyaretherites thatmakepeople (or things) fit for apurpose (ofperforming rituals,taking one’s rightful place in society), by removing taints and generatinggood qualities (Michaels, 2005, 74).HinduDharmashastras differ on thetotal number of sanskaras (twelve to eighteen) but sixteen sanskaras aregenerallyagreedupon.

ThewordusedinAoC1936is“silenced”;amendedin1937and1944to“frozeninstantlyitistold”.Editedhereforclarity

InAoC1936,thisreadsas“donotsufferequally”;amendedin1937.

ThisisthepopularisedversionofoneofthesentencesfromTheCommunistManifesto (1848):“Theproletarianshavenothing to losebut their chains.Theyhaveaworldtowin.WorkingMenofAllCountries,Unite!”

InAoC1936:“youcannotusethesloganwhichKarlMarxused”.

In AoC 1936, this sentence reads: “The Caste System is an imperium inimperio and in the general dissolution ofCaste, some castes stand to lose

137

138

139

140

141

142

more of their prestige and power than other castes.” Imperium in imperiomeansastate,powerorsovereigntywithinastate,powerorsovereignty.

(Vedah smritih sadachara svasya cha priyamaatmanah.)Debroy: “For his ownselfandforthosewhoarelovedbyhim,theVedas,theSmritisandgoodconduct…” This is a half of the shloka couplet. The complete shloka,fromManusmriti 2.12, is rendered by Bühler as: “The Veda, the sacredtradition, the customs of virtuous men, and one’s own pleasure, theydeclare to be visibly the fourfold means of defining the sacred law”(1886/2004, 19). The second line in Sanskrit reads as:

(Etajna-chaturvidham praahu saakshadharmasyalakshanaam.)

Sadachar:Sanskrit forethicsor rightbehaviour,whatDoniger andSmithrenderas“theconductofgoodpeople”.Ambedkargiveshisexplicationin22.14–15ofAoC.

(Yo-avamanyeta tey muule hetushaastraashrayaatdvijah/ sasaadhubhirbahishkaaryo naastiko vedanindakah.) Manusmriti 2.11. Debroy’stranslation: “Every dwija [it can be rendered as either Brahmin orbelonging to the first three varnas] who depends on texts of logic andignoresthesetwosources[theearliershlokamentions]mustbebanishedbyvirtuouspeople,asapersonwhoisanon-believerandasonewhocriticisestheVedas.”Bühler’seditionrendersthisas:“Everytwice-bornman,who,relying on the Institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those twosources (of the law),mustbecastoutby thevirtuous,asanatheistandascorneroftheVeda”(1886/2004,19).

At thispoint, inbothAoC1936and1937,Ambedkar introducesaversefromtheMahabharata,whichinthe1944editionheplaceslater;see22.7inthisedition:“ThesameruleislaiddownintheMahabharata:

In AoC 1936, the two sentences are conjoined with a “but”, to read:“Eitherof themmaybe followedbutnoattempt…”In1937and1944,the“but”isremoved.

(Shrutidvaidham tu yatra syaattatra dharmaavubhau smritau.) This is the firstlineofManusmriti2.14.Debroy’s translation:“Whenthereare twoshruti

143

144

145

146

texts that conflict,bothare said tobeDharma.”Bühler:“Butwhen twosacred texts (shruti) are conflicting,both areheld tobe law; forboth arepronounced by the wise (to be) valid law” (1886/2004, 20). Ambedkarparaphrasestheverseaftercitingit.

(Yaa vedavaahyaah smrutayo yaashcha kaashcha kudrishtayah/ Smritisarvaastaanishphalaah pretya tamonishthaa hi tah smritaah.)Manusmriti 12.95.Debroy:“AllthesmritiandothertextswhicharebasedonwickeddoctrinesandareoutsidetheVedas,leadtonofruitsafterdeath.Itissaidthattheyarebasedondarkness.”Bühlerrendersthisas:“Allthosetraditions(smriti)andthosedespicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda,produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded onDarkness”(1886/2004,335).

Brihaspatiwas a Brahmin law-giver of the sixth or seventh centuryCE.Brihaspati’smajorwork,theBrihaspatiSmriti,survivesonlyinfragments.IthasbeenpublishedinTheMinorLawbooks(1889),translatedbyJuliusJolly.BrihaspatiisconsideredthefirstHindulaw-givertoseparatecivillawfromcriminal law, and his views concerning women’s rights are consideredliberal.Nonetheless, he confers the death sentence on amanwho has asexualrelationshipwitha‘high’-castewoman,whilemerelyassigningfinesfor men who have a sexual relationship with a woman of equal or of‘lower’caste.Consent(ortheabsenceofit)onthewoman’spartdoesnotaltertheseverityofthepunishment.SeeG.S.Ghurye(1969,245).

(Vedaarthatvopanibandhutbaat praamaanyam hi manoh smritam/Manvarthavipareetatuyaasmrutihsaanashasyatey.)Debroy:“Inthefirstlineof this verse there seems to be a typographic error.The first line shouldactually read (Vedaarthopanibaddhatvaatpraadhaanyam tu manoh smrutam.) This is from the Vyavahara-kanda ofBrihaspatiSmriti.However, it isnot fromthemaintext; it is taggedonattheendofVyavahara-kanda,chapter1.Theshlokathereforedoesnothaveanumber.”Debroy’s translation:“But, fordetermining theboundariesofthemeaningoftheVedas,Manu’ssmritiispre-eminent.AnysmritithatiscontrarytoManushouldnotbetaught/praised.”

(Puraanam maanavo dharmah saango vedashchikitsitam/ Aajnaasiddhaanichatvaarinahantavyaanihetubhih.)Debroy:“Thisversedoesnotexistinthecomplete Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar OrientalResearchInstitute, launchedin1966, tenyearsafterAmbedkar’sdemise).

147

148

149

Bhandarkarhasitlistedas14.98–72intherejectedtexts,butthereitoccursasthefollowing,withaminorvariationinthefirstword.Thatis, it is inAshvamedhikaparva,whichdoesnotfigureintheCriticalEdition:

(Bhaaratam maanavo dharmo vedaah saadgaashchikitsitam/ Aajnaasiddhaanichatvaari na hantavyaani hetubhih.) A translation of the version Ambedkaruses: ‘The Puranas, Manu’s dharma, the Vedas and their limbs, andmedicine—these four are in the nature of commandments. Under nocircumstancesmusttheybekilled/destroyed.’”

RefertotheexperiencesofW.C.BonnerjeediscussedinNote10toAoC2.6asillustrativeofAmbedkar’spoint.

Prayaschitta:Sanskritforthepurificationritualsundertakeninpenanceafterbreaking caste taboos. It has also been variously understood as acombinationofatonement,expiationandrepentance.TheDharmashastrasdiscuss prayaschitta (expiation) along with achara (ritual) and vyavahara(jurisprudence)asaspectsofHindulaw.

TheSlovenianMarxistphilosopherSlavojŽižeksaysoftheManusmritiandthe caste system that such a systemcanbe sustained“onlyby a complexpanoplyof tricks, displacements and compromiseswhosebasic formula isthat of universality with exceptions: in principle yes, but…The Laws ofManu demonstrates a breath-taking ingenuity in accomplishing this task.”Žižekbelievesthatthetrueregulatingpowerofthelawdoesnotresideinits “direct prohibitions, in the division of our acts into permitted andprohibited, but in regulating the very violations of prohibitions: the lawsilently accepts that thebasic prohibitions are violated (or evendiscreetlysolicits us to violate them), and then, it tells us how to reconcile theviolationwith the lawbywayofviolating theprohibition in a regulatedway.”CitedinS.Anand(2010).Ambedkardealswiththisaspect later inhisdiscussionofAnnihilationofCastewithGandhifeaturedin“AReplytothe Mahatma” (11.5), where he talks of how a Brahmin can remain aBrahminirrespectiveofwhathedoes:“ThenumberofBrahminswhosellshoesisfargreaterthanthosewhopractisepriesthood.NotonlyhavetheBrahminsgivenuptheirancestralcallingofpriesthoodfortrading,buttheyhaveenteredtradeswhichareprohibitedtothembytheshastras.Yethow

150

151

152

153

154

manyBrahminswho break caste every daywill preach against caste andagainsttheshastras?”WendyDoniger,intheintroductiontohertranslationoftheManusmriti(DonigerandSmith,1991,liv),talksofhowitwas“lawin extremity”, where every stringent rule has an exception that almostcontradictstherule;anemergency—apad—escapeclause.“Theconceptofapadrecogniseshumanfallibility:don’tdothis,saysManu,butifyoudo,thisiswhattodotofixit.”

Ramanuja, or Ramanujacharya, was a twelfth-century Brahminphilosopher, a proponent of the Vishishtadvaita, or qualified monism,schoolofthought.ComingashedidafterthemonotheisticTamilBhaktimovements of the Saivite Nayanmars and Vaishnavite Alwars (sixth toeighth centuries), Ramanuja gave primacy to Bhakti or worship of apersonal god. In his commentary of the Brahma Sutra he declares theShudratobeequallyfitforstudyingtheVedasastheBrahminandissaidtohaveadoptedanon-Brahminasaguru.SeeBartley(2002).

Kabirwas a fifteenth-century radical saint-poetwhowas born aweaver;thethousandsofsongs/poemsattributedtohimquestionthecastesystem,declareequalityintheeyesofgodandpromoteBhakti.SeeHessandSingh(2002), and Hess (2009) for translations of Kabir. Seewww.kabirproject.org, curated by Shabnam Virmani, for an audio andvideodocumentationofvariousKabirtraditionsacrossthesubcontinent.

(Yadhyaddaacharyate yena dharmyam vaa-adharmyameva vaa/Deshasyaacharanam nityam charitram taddhikiirtitam.) Debroy says this versehasnotbeentraceablesinceitdoesnotsayanythingimportantenoughforit to be cited or reproduced. Translation: “Whatever is followed in acountry,beitdharmaorbeitadharma,thatmustalwaysbeobservedandapplauded.”

Dharmya or adharmya. These terms broadly mean lawful/sacred andunlawful.AccordingtotheKautilya’sArthashastra,thereareeighttypesofmarriage, of which four are accorded dharmya status and the other fouradharmya(1992,394–5).ForAmbedkar’sdiscussionofthesemarriages,see“RiddleNo.19:TheChangefromPaternitytoMaternity—WhatdidtheBrahminsWishtoGainbyit?”inSharmilaRege(2013,169–76).

(Yasmindesheyaacharahparamparya-kramaagata/Varnanaamkila sarveshaamsa sadaachara uchyatey.) This almost echoes the previous verse Ambedkarcites. Debroy: “Whatever has been practised in whichever country,

155

156

157

158

deriving from tradition, for all the varnas, is certainly said to be goodconduct.” This corresponds to Bühler’s Manusmriti 2:18: “The customhanded down in regular succession (since time immemorial) among the(fourchief)castes(varna)andthemixed(races)ofthatcountry,iscalledtheconductofvirtuousmen”(1886/2004,20).However,theSanskritoriginaldoes not use (Varnanam kila sarvesham) but(Varnanamsaantaraalaanaam).

(Nadeva charitamamcharet.)Debroy:“One shouldnot followtheconductofthegods.”

Onceagain,AmbedkarseemstobealludingtohismentorDewey(1922,239),whowrites:“Ashabitssetingroovesdominateactivityandswerveitfromconditionsinsteadofincreasingitsadaptability,soprinciplestreatedasfixedrules insteadofashelpfulmethods takemenawayfromexperience.Themorecomplicatedthesituation,andthelesswereallyknowaboutit,themore insistent is the orthodox type of moral theory upon the priorexistence of some fixed and universal principle or law which is to bedirectly applied and followed.” There is a certain tension here betweenDewey’swords—whoseemscriticalofrigidapplicationofprinciples—andthose of Ambedkar,who advocates sound principles as the only possiblefoundationformorality.

Jaimini’s Purva Mimamsa Sutras, dated sometime between the secondcentury BCE and second century CE, is the first text in the Mimamsaschool of philosophy, a school of exegesis concerned with theunderstanding of Vedic ritual injunctions. (Orthodox Hinduism has sixschoolsofphilosophy:Nyaya,Vaiseshika,Samkhya,Yoga,Mimamsa andVedanta.) The PurvaMimamsa Sutras consists of a systematically orderedcollection of approximately 2,745 short statements, also referred toindividually as sutra. Ambedkar here is referring to sutra 1.1.2. For anaccountofthevariousexplanationswhichhavebeenofferedfortheterms‘Purva Mimamsa’ and ‘Uttara Mimamsa’, see Parpola (1981). For a fulltranslationofPurvaMimamsaSutraswithcommentary, see Jha (1942); seealsoBenson(2010)andClooney,S.J.(1990).

Edmund Burke (1729–97) was a British statesman, orator and politicalthinkerof Irishorigin.A staunch supporterof theAmericanRevolution,heopposedtheFrenchRevolutioninhisworkReflectionsontheRevolutionin France (1790). Ambedkar cites him often, especially during his

159

160

161

interventions at theRoundTable Conference (seeDas 2010b). Thoughthesourceofthisquotationhasbeendifficulttotrace,afullerversionofithas been widely cited. See O’Brien (1947, 191): “True religion is thefoundationof society, thebasisonwhichall trueCivilGovernment restsand fromwhichpowerderives its authority, laws theirefficacy,andboththeirsanction.Ifitisonceshakenbycontempt,thewholefabriccannotbestableorlasting.”

Sanad:Hindi forcertificateordiploma.TheMerriam-Websterdictionarygives the meaning of sanad as “an Indian government charter, warrant,diploma, patent or deed”. Ambedkar’s thoughts here on reform, and ongivingasemblanceofmeritocracytotheinstitutionofpriesthood,gesturetowards analternatemeaningof sanadaswell. Isnaad (fromArabic sanad,‘support’) in Islam is a list of authorities who have transmitted a report(hadith, alsohadees) of a statement, actionor approbationofMuhammad,one of his companions (sahaabah), or of a later authority (tabee); itsreliability determines the validity of a hadith. The isnaad precedes theactualtext(matn)andtakestheform,“IthasbeenrelatedtomebyAontheauthorityofBontheauthorityofContheauthorityofD(usuallyaCompanionoftheProphet)thatMuhammadsaid…”Acarefulscrutinyoftheisnaads,ratingeachhadithaccordingtothecompletenessofitschainoftransmitters,andthereliabilityandorthodoxyof itsauthorities,wasdoneinthesecondcenturyAH(after720CE)toavoidconfusionandmultiplenarrations,andtoassistingivingprecedencetotheahadith(thetotalbodyofhadith)overwhatever local customsmighthavedeveloped inMuslimcommunities(Scott2004).

InAoC1936and1937,thisreads:“Apriestshouldbetheservantofthestate like any civil servant and should be paid by the state.” The italicisedwordsareeditedoutin1944.

It was theBhagvadGita—whichMarxist historian D.D. Kosambi (1962,16)sayswasaddedtotheepicMahabharata“somewherebetween150and350 AD”—that made the first popular case for the guna–karma theory.Here, guna means intrinsic qualities or attributes, and karma is actions.Much before the Gita, around the second century BCE, the Samkhyaschool of upanishadic philosophy propounded the tri-guna theory, thethreegunasbeingsattva(correspondingtoclarityofthoughtandpurityofmind, associated with the Brahmin), rajas (passionate, excitable state of

162

163

mind, associated with the Kshatriya) and tamas (darkness, a state ofconfusion,associatedwiththeShudra).DrawingonthisSamkhyacore,theGitasaysin4.13:

(Chaaturvanyaammayaah srushtam gunakarmavibhaagasha: /Tasya kartaaramaapi maam viddhiya akartaaramavyayam.) Debroy (2005: 65) renders this as:“Inaccordancewithgunasandaction,thefourvarnaswerecreatedbyme.Butdespitebeingthecreatorofthese,knowmetobeconstantandnottheagent.”Thisshlokamakesthecasethatthevarnaattributeisdeterminedbyworth(guna)andaction(karma)andnotbybirthaspurportedbytheRigVeda (hymns11–12,Sukta90,Book10) and subsequentlybyManu andother smritis. The Arya Samaj, and figures like Gandhi and Aurobindo,who sought to defend varnashrama but denounce jati, cited the guna–karmatheorytosaythatcasteneednotbebirth-based.Contrastthiswithhow Ambedkar examines the origin and genesis of caste, and what heterms the SystemofCastes in his 1916 essay “Castes in India” (inRege2013).Seealso16.4andNote92onPlato’sRepublic.

Thisexcerptisfromthefirstchapter,“WhatisJustice?”,ofThomasNixonCarver’s Essays in Social Justice (1915, 20). Carver (1865–1961) was aneoclassicalAmericaneconomistwhowroteonawidearrayoftopicssuchas rural economics, the problems of distribution ofwealth, social justice,theplaceof religion in society,and socialevolution.HewasprofessorofeconomicsandsociologyatHarvardUniversityfrom1900to1932.Minorerrors inAmbedkar’s quotation ofCarver—that perist in the 1936, 1937and1944editions—havebeencorrected.

Towards the close of his address, Ambedkar records his debt to JohnDeweyfromwhosework,ashasbeenshown,hedrawsextensively.Thisbeing a presidential address at a conference it is understandable thatAmbedkardoesnot always cite references—not just fromDeweybut forvariousothermaterialshemarshalstomakehiscase.ThisquoteisfromthesecondchapterofDemocracyandEducation:AnIntroductiontothePhilosophyof Education (1916), concerning the role of the school in implementingsocialchange.

164

165

166

167

168

QuotefromBurke’sReflectionsontheRevolutioninFrance(1790),inwhichhelaunchedabitterattackontheFrenchRevolution.

Dewey,DemocracyandEducation,chapter7.

Sanatanliterallymeanseternal,everlasting;sanatandharm(alsorenderedassanatanadharma)isthereligionthatissaidtohavenobeginningnorend.An orthodox person in the nationalist period would prefer to describehimself as someonewhobelonged to the ‘sanatandharm’, theeverlastingreligion.TheAnglicisedterms‘Hindu’and‘Hinduism’donotcapturetheconservative fundamentalism inherent in sanatan dharm.While the AryaSamaj or Brahmo Samaj advocated reforms, the sanatani Hindus (theorthodoxy)believedinaneternal/sanatanHinduismwithoutanyneedforreforms. Ambedkar discusses Gandhi’s sanatani tendencies in Appendix9.30.

Much before right-wing Hindutva ideologue Arun Shourie (1997)suggestedthatAmbedkarwasa‘stooge’oftheBritishandcastaspersionsonhis ‘nationalist’credentials, thenewspapersofAmbedkar’s timeconstantlydoubted his credentials. In What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to theUntouchables(BAWS9,200),Ambedkarwrites:“[TheUntouchables]havenoPressandtheCongressPressisclosedtothem.Itisdeterminednottogive themthe slightestpublicity.Theycannothave theirownPress. It isobviousthatnopapercansurvivewithoutadvertisementrevenue.…Thestaffof theAssociatedPress in India,which is themainnewsdistributingagency in India, is entirely drawn from Madras Brahmins—indeed thewhole of the Press in India is in their hands and who for well-knownreasons are entirely pro-Congress andwill not allow any news hostile totheCongresstogetpublicity.ThesearereasonsbeyondthecontroloftheUntouchables.”Foradocumentationof the insensitiveway inwhichtheso-callednationalistpress reportedonAmbedkar, seeRamnarayanRawat(2001,128–9).

The import here is that caste has contaminated even the new faiths thatemergedfromwithinIndia(suchasSikhism)asitdidreligionsthatcametoIndia(IslamandChristianity).ForanaccountofhowcasteaffectsSikhism,see Mark Juergensmeyer (2009); on caste among Muslims in India, seeImtiaz Ahmad (1978); and among Christians, see Kenneth Ballhatchet(1998),andthemorerecentstudyfocusedonTamilNadubyDavidMosse(2012).

169

170

Swaraj, literally ‘self-rule’, was the term used by theCongress party andother nationalist leaders to refer to the struggle for independence fromBritish rule. The conservative leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak famouslydeclaredin1899:“Swarajismybirthright,andIshallhaveit!”However,itwasGandhiwho popularised the term, especiallywith hismanifesto-likeHindSwarajorIndianHomeRule(1909).AccordingtoGandhi,“Itisswarajwhenwelearntoruleourselves.”ForanannotatededitionofHindSwaraj,seeParel(1997).AccordingtoLelyveld(2011,xiv),swarajforGandhiwasbiggerthanthestruggleformereindependencefromBritishrule.“AsusedbyGandhi,poorna[complete]swarajputthegoalonyetahigherplane.Athismost utopian, itwas a goal not just for India but for each individualIndian; only then could it be poorna, or complete. Itmeant a sloughingnotonlyofBritishrulebutofBritishways,arejectionofmodernindustrialsocietyinfavorofabottom-uprenewalofIndia,startinginitsvillages…”

Echoingasimilarsentimentin1927,whenheledthecivilrightsstruggleforUntouchables’accesstotheChavadarTankinMahad,Ambedkarsaid:“ThesatyagrahamovementstartedbyGandhiwasbackedbythepeopleasitwasagainstforeigndomination.OurstruggleisagainstthemassofcasteHindus and naturally we have little support from outside.” Excerpts ofAmbedkar’s speech in Mahad, where he compares the event to thestormingoftheBastille,canbefoundinArjunDangle(1992,223–33)andinSatyanarayanaandTharu(2013,22–31).Foranaccountof theMahadstruggle,seeZelliot(2013,78–82)andRao(2009,83–8).

TheAmbedkar—Gandhidebate

AVindicationofCastebyMahatmaGandhi

DrAmbedkar’sIndictment—1

1

1.11

The readerswill recall the fact thatDrAmbedkarwas tohavepresided lastMayattheannualconferenceoftheJat-PatTodakMandalofLahore.ButtheconferenceitselfwascancelledbecauseDrAmbedkar’saddresswasfoundbythereceptioncommitteetobeunacceptable.Howfarareceptioncommitteeisjustifiedinrejectingapresidentofitschoicebecauseofhisaddressthatmaybe objectionable to it is open to question. The committee knew DrAmbedkar’sviewsoncasteandtheHinduscriptures.TheyknewalsothathehadinunequivocaltermsdecidedtogiveupHinduism.Nothinglessthantheaddress thatDrAmbedkarhadpreparedwas tobeexpected fromhim.Thecommitteeappearstohavedeprivedthepublicofanopportunityoflisteningto the original views of a man who has carved out for himself a uniqueposition in society.Whatever labelhewears in future,DrAmbedkar isnotthemantoallowhimselftobeforgotten.

1.2

DrAmbedkarwasnotgoing tobebeatenby the receptioncommittee.Hehas answered their rejection of him by publishing the address at his ownexpense.Hehaspriceditat8annas,Iwouldsuggestareductionto2annasoratleast4annas.2

1.3

No reformer can ignore the address.Theorthodoxwill gain by reading it.Thisisnottosaythattheaddressisnotopentoobjection.Ithastobereadonlybecause it isopen to seriousobjection.DrAmbedkar is achallenge toHinduism.BroughtupasaHindu,3educatedbyaHindupotentate,4hehasbecomesodisgustedwiththeso-calledsavarnaHindusorthetreatmentthatheandhispeoplehavereceivedattheirhandsthatheproposestoleavenotonlythembuttheveryreligionthatishisandtheircommonheritage.Hehastransferredtothatreligionhisdisgustagainstapartofitsprofessors.

1.4

Butthisisnottobewonderedat.Afterall,onecanonlyjudgeasystemoraninstitutionbytheconductofitsrepresentatives.Whatismore,DrAmbedkarfound that the vast majority of savarna Hindus had not only conductedthemselves inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists whom theyclassedasUntouchables,buttheyhadbasedtheirconductontheauthorityoftheir scriptures, and when he began to search them he had found amplewarrantfortheirbeliefsinuntouchabilityandallitsimplications.Theauthorof the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his three-foldindictment—inhumanconductitself,theunabashedjustificationforitonthepart of the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the justificationwaswarrantedbytheirscriptures.

1.5

NoHinduwho prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate theimportanceofthisindictment.DrAmbedkarisnotaloneinhisdisgust.Heisitsmostuncompromisingexponentandoneoftheablestamongthem.Heiscertainlythemost irreconcilableamongthem.Thankgod, inthefrontrankoftheleadersheissingularlyalone,andasyetbutarepresentativeofaverysmallminority.Butwhathesays isvoicedwithmoreor lessvehemencebymanyleadersbelongingtotheDepressedClasses.Onlythelatter,forinstanceRaoBahadurM.C.RajahandDewanBahadurSrinivasan,5notonlydonotthreatentogiveupHinduism,butfindenoughwarmthinittocompensate

fortheshamefulpersecutiontowhichthevastmassofHarijansareexposed.

1.6

But the factofmany leaders remaining in theHindu fold isnowarrant fordisregardingwhatDrAmbedkarhastosay.Thesavarnashavetocorrecttheirbelief and their conduct. Above all, those who are, by their learning andinfluence,amongthesavarnashavetogiveanauthoritativeinterpretationofthescriptures.ThequestionsthatDrAmbedkar’sindictmentsuggestsare:

1.Whatarethescriptures?

2.Arealltheprintedtextstoberegardedasanintegralpartofthem,orisanypartofthemtoberejectedasunauthorisedinterpolation?

3.What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on thequestion of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter-dining andintermarriages? (These have been all examined byDr Ambedkar in hisaddress.)

Imust reserve for the next issuemy own answer to these questions and astatementofthe(atleastsome)manifestflawsinDrAmbedkar’sthesis.

Harijan,11July1936

DrAmbedkar’sIndictment—2

2

2.1

TheVedas,Upanishads,smritisandpuranas,includingtheRamayanaandtheMahabharata,are theHinduscriptures.Nor is thisa finite list.Everyageoreven generation has added to the list. It follows, therefore, that everythingprintedorevenfoundhandwrittenisnotscripture.Thesmritis,forinstance,containmuchthatcanneverbeacceptedasthewordofGod.Thusmanyofthe texts thatDrAmbedkar quotes from the smritis cannot be accepted asauthentic. The scriptures, properly so called, can only be concerned witheternalveritiesandmustappealtoanyconscience,i.e.,anyheartwhoseeyesofunderstandingareopened.Nothingcanbeacceptedas thewordofGodwhich cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spirituallyexperienced. And even when you have an expurgated edition of thescriptures,youwillneedtheirinterpretation.Whoisthebestinterpreter?Notlearnedmensurely.Learningtheremustbe.Butreligiondoesnotlivebyit.It lives in the experiences of its saints and seers, in their lives and sayings.When all the most learned commentators of the scriptures are utterlyforgotten, theaccumulatedexperienceof the sagesand saintswill abideandbeaninspirationforagestocome.

2.2

Castehasnothingtodowithreligion.It isacustomwhoseoriginIdonotknow,anddonotneedtoknowfor thesatisfactionofmyspiritualhunger.ButIdoknowthatitisharmfulbothtospiritualandnationalgrowth.Varnaandashrama6areinstitutionswhichhavenothingtodowithcastes.Thelawof varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread byfollowing the ancestral calling. It defines not our rights but our duties. Itnecessarily has reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare ofhumanityandtonoother.Italsofollowsthatthereisnocallingtoolowandnone too high. All are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. ThecallingsofaBrahmin—spiritualteacher—andascavengerareequal,andtheirdue performance carries equalmerit beforeGod, and at one time seems tohave carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to theirlivelihoodandnomore.Indeedonetracesevennowinthevillagesthefaintlinesofthishealthyoperationofthelaw.7

2.3

LivinginSegaon8with itspopulationof sixhundred,Idonot findagreatdisparitybetweentheearningsofdifferent tradesmen, includingBrahmins. Ifind too that realBrahmins are tobe found, even in thesedegeneratedays,whoarelivingonalmsfreelygiventothemandaregivingfreelyofwhattheyhaveofspiritualtreasures.Itwouldbewrongandimpropertojudgethelawofvarnabyitscaricatureinthelivesofmenwhoprofesstobelongtoavarna,whilsttheyopenlycommitabreachofitsonlyoperativerule.Arrogationofasuperiorstatusbyandofavarnaoveranotherisadenialofthelaw.Andthereis nothing in the law of varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (TheessenceofHinduismiscontainedinitsenunciationofoneandonlyGodastruthanditsboldacceptanceofahimsaasthelawofthehumanfamily.)

2.4

I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduismwill be disputed by manybesidesDrAmbedkar.Thatdoesnotaffectmyposition.ItisaninterpretationbywhichIhavelivedfornearlyhalfacentury,andaccordingtowhichIhaveendeavouredtothebestofmyabilitytoregulatemylife.

2.5

In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr Ambedkar has made in hisaddress is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value, and thestate of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they sowoefullymisrepresent.JudgedbythestandardappliedbyDrAmbedkareveryknownlivingfaithwillprobablyfail.

2.6

Inhisableaddress,thelearneddoctorhasover-provedhiscase.Canareligionthat was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar,RamakrishnaParamahansa,RajaRamMohanRoy,MaharshiDevendranathTagore,Vivekananda,9andahostofotherswhomightbeeasilymentioned,be so utterly devoid ofmerit as ismade out inDrAmbedkar’s address? A

religionhastobejudgednotbyitsworstspecimensbutbythebestitmighthaveproduced.Forthatandthatalonecanbeusedasthestandardtoaspireto,ifnottoimproveupon.

Harijan,18July1936

SantRamrespondstoGandhi

VarnaversusCaste

3

3.1

ShriSantRamjioftheJat-PatTodakMandalofLahorewantsmetopublishthefollowing:10

3.2

“I have read your remarks about Dr Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat TodakMandal,Lahore.InthatconnectionIbegtosubmitasfollows:“WedidnotinviteDrAmbedkartopresideoverourconferencebecausehebelongedtotheDepressedClasses,forwedonotdistinguishbetweenaTouchableandanUntouchableHindu.Onthecontraryourchoicefellon him simply because his diagnosis of the fatal disease of the Hinducommunitywasthesameasours,i.e.,hetoowasoftheopinionthatthecaste system was the root cause of the disruption and downfall of theHindus.Thesubjectofthedoctor’sthesisforhisdoctoratebeingthecastesystem,11hehas studied the subject thoroughly.Now theobjectofourconferencewastopersuadetheHindustoannihilatecaste,buttheadviceof a non-Hindu in social and religious matters can have no effect onthem.ThedoctorinthesupplementaryportionofhisaddressinsistedonsayingthatthatwashislastspeechasaHindu,12whichwasirrelevantaswellaspernicioustotheinterestsoftheconference.Sowerequestedhimtoexpunge that sentence, forhecouldeasily say the same thingonany

otheroccasion.Butherefused,andwesawnoutilityinmakingmerelyashow of our function. In spite of all this, I cannot help praising hisaddress,whichis,asfarasIknow,themostlearnedthesisonthesubjectandworthtranslatingintoeveryvernacularofIndia.

3.3

“Moreover, I want to bring to your notice that your philosophicaldifferencebetweencasteandvarnaistoosubtletobegraspedbypeopleingeneral, because for all practical purposes in Hindu society, caste andvarnaareoneandthesamething,forthefunctionofbothofthemisoneandthesame,i.e.torestrictinter-castemarriagesandinter-dining.Yourtheoryofvarnavyavasthaisimpracticableinthisage,andthereisnohopeofitsrevivalinthenearfuture.ButHindusareslavesofcaste,anddonotwant to destroy it. So when you advocate your ideal of imaginaryvarnavyavastha,theyfindjustificationforclingingtocaste.Thusyouaredoing a great disservice to social reform by advocating your imaginaryutilityofthedivisionofvarnas,foritcreatesahindranceinourway.Totry to remove untouchability without striking at the root ofvarnavyavasthaissimplytotreattheoutwardsymptomsofadisease,ortodrawalineonthesurfaceofwater.Asintheheartoftheirheartsdwijasdo not want to give social equality to the so-called Touchable andUntouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste—and give liberaldonationsfortheremovalofuntouchabilitysimplytoevadetheissue.Toseekthehelpoftheshastrasfortheremovalofuntouchabilityandcasteissimplytowashmudwithmud.”

3.4

The lastparagraphof the letter surelycancels the first. If theMandal rejectsthehelpoftheshastras,theydoexactlywhatDrAmbedkardoes,i.e.,ceasetobe Hindus. How then can they object to Dr Ambedkar’s address merelybecausehesaidthatthatwashislastspeechasaHindu?Thepositionappearsto be wholly untenable, especially when the Mandal, for which Shri SantRam claims to speak, applauds the whole argument of Dr Ambedkar’saddress.

3.5

ButitispertinenttoaskwhattheMandalbelievesin,ifitrejectstheshastras.HowcanaMuslimremainoneifherejectstheQuran,oraChristianremainChristianifherejectstheBible?Ifcasteandvarnaareconvertibleterms,andif varna is an integral part of the shastraswhich defineHinduism, I donotknowhowapersonwhorejectscaste,i.e.,varna,cancallhimselfaHindu.

3.6

ShriSantRamlikens theshastras tomud.DrAmbedkarhasnot,sofarasIremember,givenanysuchpicturesquenametotheshastras.IhavecertainlymeantwhenIhavesaid:thatifshastrassupporttheexistinguntouchability IshouldceasetocallmyselfaHindu.Similarly,iftheshastrassupportcaste,aswe know it today in all its hideousness, Imay not callmyself or remain aHindu, since Ihaveno scruples about inter-diningor intermarriage. Ineednotrepeatmypositionregardingshastrasandtheirinterpretation.IventuretosuggesttoShriSantRamthatitistheonlyrationalandcorrectandmorallydefensibleposition,andithasamplewarrantinHindutradition.

Harijan,15August1936

1

2

3

4

5

NOTES

ThetitlegivenbyGandhitohistwo-partresponsetoAoC,publishedfirstinHarijan,was“DrAmbedkar’sIndictment”.AmbedkarincludesGandhi’sresponseintherevised1937editionofAoCandgivesithisowntitle“AVindicationofCastebyMahatmaGandhi”.WhileSantRam’srejoindertoGandhi was published in Harijan, Ambedkar chose to publish his ownexhaustivereply toGandhi in the1937edition.All theseare sequentiallyarrangedhereastheyappearinAoC1937.

PrimarymembershiptotheCongresspartycostfourannas.

Gandhi ‘moved from truth to truth’ on Ambedkar’s identity and themotives for his commitment to the anticaste struggle. Shortly before theRoundTableConference,when they firstmet inBombay,Gandhi tookAmbedkartobearadicalBrahminfightinguntouchability.AshisgrandsonRajmohanGandhinotes inhisbiographyofGandhi(2007,334),Gandhididnot,however,saythistoAmbedkar,andquicklyrealisedhismistake.

The reference is to the Maharaja of Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwad (1863–1939),whopioneeredsocialreformbyopeningeighteenspecialschoolsforUntouchables inhis state, and supportedAmbedkar’s education—both inIndia (with a stipend of twenty-five rupees for Ambedkar’s B.A. atElphinstone College, Bombay) and abroad (his M.A. and Ph.D. atColumbiaUniversity,on a scholarshipof11.5Britishpoundspermonthforthreeyears,in1913–16).SeeFatehsinhraoGaekwad’s(1989)biographyofMaharajaSayajiraoIII.

RaoBahadurM.C.Rajah(1883–1943)andRettamalaiSrinivasan(1860–1945,conferredthetitleDewanBahadur)wereUntouchableleadersfromMadrasPresidency.Rajah—authorofTheOppressedHindus(1925),thefirsteverbookinEnglishbyanUntouchableinIndia—wasthechiefpoliticalrival ofAmbedkar to the position of the representative of theDepressedClasseson thenational scene.LikeAmbedkar, his grandfather served theBritisharmy.In1922,RajahwasconferredtheBritishhonorarytitle,RaoBahadur, after his entrance to theMadras LegislativeCouncil as the firstAdi Dravida (as Untouchables were known in Tamil-speaking areas)member. In 1927, he became the first Depressed Classes member to benominated to the Central Legislative Council. Rajah was piqued that

6

Ambedkar chose Srinivasan, also a member of the Madras LegislativeCouncil, over him as a delegate to the Round Table Conference.SrinivasanaccompaniedAmbedkartothetwoRoundTableConferences,in 1930 and 1931. He testified alongside Ambedkar to the SimonCommission,andfollowedhiminthedemandforseparateelectorates.In1932, during the negotiations after the 1931 Round Table Conference,Rajah aligned himself with B.S. Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha andcame up with the Rajah–Moonje Pact guaranteeing reserved seats forDepressedClasses in a joint electoratewithHindus; thiswas vehementlyrejected by the All-India Depressed Classes Conference held at Nagpur.Depressed Class groups across India threw in their lot with Ambedkar.Rajah came to regret his position much later. When Ambedkar wasbrowbeaten into signing the Poona Pact in September 1932, thearrangementwasinfactnotsodifferentfromtheRajah–MoonjePact.AsJaffrelot(2005,67)notes:“ThisschemewasinfactclosetothatadvocatedbytheRajah–Moonjepact.ForGandhi, thePoonaPactwasmuchmorethan an exercise in political engineering: it had wider implications forsocietyasawhole,asevidentfromhiscommenttoAmbedkarin1933:‘InacceptingthePoonaPactyouacceptthepositionthatyouareHindus.’”Three years later, goaded byGandhians and theMahasabha,Rajah evendenouncedAmbedkar’sannouncementthathewouldnotdieaHindu.Foran account of howRajahwasmanipulated by Gandhi in this, see Keer(1954/1990, 266–84). See also Zelliot (2013, 124–39). However, asJaffrelotnotes:“RajahwastojoinAmbedkarsixyearslater,in1938,afterhavingbeendismayedby theconservatismof thegovernment formedbyCongress in his province ofMadras.He complained about it toGandhi,whoadvisedhimtobepatientandreaffirmedhisconfidenceintheleaderof the Madras government, a Brahmin, Rajagopalachari. Rajah,demoralised, thus came to regret the Poona Pact, and opposed, likeAmbedkar, the Quit India Movement of 1942” (2005, 181–2 n48).Further,theproposalsmadebytheCrippsMissionin1942caused“M.C.Rajah to become still closer to Ambedkar. Like him, he regretted theabsence,inthissetofproposals,ofaprovisiongrantingaseparateelectoratetoUntouchables…Duringhistourinthesouth,in1944,AmbedkarwasinvitedbyM.C.RajahtoMadras”(184n31).

Justlikehumanbeingsaredividedintofourvarnas,a‘twice-born’savarnaHindumale’s life has four stages (ashramas), ascending from the status of

7

8

9

10

brahmacharya (unmarried, where man devotes his time to education),grihastha(householder),andvanaprastha(hedwellsintheforestasahermitbutwithoutseveringtieswithhisfamily)tosannyasa(totalrenunciationoftheworld).TheManusmriti, among otherHindu scriptures, discusses theashramasatlength.

Gandhihereisrestatinghisviewsonthebenefitsofvarnashramaexplicatedby him in one of his earlier writings (Young India, 13 August 1925;CWMG32,286),inwhichhesays:“Varnashrama,inmyopinion,wasnotconceivedinanynarrowspirit.Onthecontrary,itgavethelabourer,theShudra, the same status as the thinker, the Brahmin.” Even earlier, hewrote (Young India, 25 February 1920; CWMG 19, 417): “I am one ofthosewhodonotconsidercastetobeaharmful institution.Initsorigin,castewas awholesomecustomandpromotednationalwell-being. Inmyopinion,theideathatinter-diningorintermarryingisnecessaryfornationalgrowth, is a superstition borrowed from theWest.”While later comingaroundtocriticisingcaste/jatiasacorruption, throughouthis lifeGandhisteadfastly defended an ‘idealised’ varnavyavastha (varna system). Nauriya(2006)believesthatGandhicametorecanthisviewsonvarnashrama.

Segaon: later called Sevagram, the ashram established by Gandhi, nearWardha(intoday’sMaharashtra).

Chaitanya was a Vaishnava saint from sixteenth-century Bengal, aproponentofBhaktiyoga. Jnyandeo,orGyandev(alsoDnyandev),wasathirteenth-century Bhakti poet-saint from western India; he wrote acommentaryontheBhagvadGita.Tukaramwasaseventeenth-centurysantof theVarkari tradition;Cokhamelawasa fourteenth0centuryMaharsantofthesametradition(notmentionedbyGandhi).TiruvalluvarwasaTamilpoet and philosopher, the author of the Thirukkural, from sometimebetween the second and eighth centuriesCE.Ramakrishna Paramahansawasanineteenth-centuryKaliworshippingmysticfromBengal.RajaRamMohan Roy and Maharshi Devendranath Tagore together founded theBrahmo Samaj, a social and religious reform movement in nineteenth-centuryBengal(Kopf1979).Vivekanandawasaself-styledHindumonk.Adisciple of Ramakrishna Paramahansa, he founded the RamakrishnaMission(seeSharma2012).

Gandhi published Sant Ram’s letter in Harijan and appended his ownresponsetoit.

11

12

WhileAmbedkardidwriteapapercalled“CastesinIndia”in1916duringhis years inColumbiaUniversity, the subject of his doctoral dissertationwas not the caste system. His doctoral work was on The Evolution ofProvincialFinance inBritishIndia:AStudy in theProvincialDecentralisationofImperialFinance,anditwaslaterpublishedbyP.S.KingandCo.,London,in 1925, with a foreword by Edwin Seligmanwho taught Ambedkar atColumbia.

ThisseemstobeadeliberatemisreadingofwhatAmbedkaractuallysaysinhis speech,made not only by SantRam but alsoHar Bhagwan (see hisletter to Ambedkar in the Prologue to AoC). While Ambedkar diddenounceHinduismanddeclaredhewouldwalkoutoftheHindufoldin1935(seeNote15toPrologueofAoC),theexactwordsofAmbedkarinAoC25.1are“thiswouldprobablybemylastaddresstoaHinduaudience,onasubjectvitallyconcerningtheHindus”(emphasisadded).

AReplytotheMahatma

B.R.Ambedkar

1

1.1

IappreciategreatlythehonourdonemebytheMahatmaintakingnoticeinhisHarijanofthespeechoncastewhichIhadpreparedfortheJat-PatTodakMandal. From a perusal of his review of my speech, it is clear that theMahatmacompletelydissentsfromtheviewsIhaveexpressedonthesubjectof caste. I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with myopponentsunlesstherearespecialreasonswhichcompelmetoactotherwise.Hadmy opponent been somemean and obscure person Iwould not havepursued him. Butmy opponent being theMahatma himself, I feel I mustattempttomeetthecasetothecontrarywhichhehassoughttoputforth.

1.2

WhileIappreciatethehonourhehasdoneme,Imustconfesstoasenseofsurprise on finding that of all people theMahatma should accuse me of adesiretoseekpublicity,asheseemstodowhenhesuggeststhatinpublishingthe undelivered speech my object was to see that I was not ‘forgotten’.Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say, my object in publishing thespeech was to provoke the Hindus to think, and to take stock of their

position.Ihaveneverhankeredforpublicity,andifImaysayso,IhavemoreofitthanIwishorneed.ButsupposingitwasoutofthemotiveofgainingpublicitythatIprintedthespeech,whocouldcastastoneatme?Surelynotthosewho,liketheMahatma,liveinglasshouses.

2

2.1

Motiveapart,whathastheMahatmatosayonthequestionraisedbymeinthe speech? First of all, anyone who reads my speech will realise that theMahatmahasentirelymissedtheissuesraisedbyme,andthattheissueshehasraised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased to call myindictmentof theHindus.Theprincipalpointswhich Ihave tried tomakeoutinmyspeechmaybecataloguedasfollows:

2.2

(1) That caste has ruined theHindus; (2) that the reorganisation ofHindusocietyonthebasisofchaturvarnyaisimpossiblebecausethevarnavyavasthais like a leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. 1 It is incapable ofsustainingitselfbyitsownvirtueandhasaninherenttendencytodegenerateinto a caste system unless there is a legal sanction behind it which can beenforcedagainsteveryone transgressinghisvarna; (3) that the reorganisationofHindusocietyonthebasisofchaturvarnyawouldbeharmful,becausetheeffectofthevarnavyavasthawouldbetodegradethemassesbydenyingthemopportunitytoacquireknowledgeandtoemasculatethembydenyingthemthe right to be armed; (4) that Hindu society must be reorganised on areligious basiswhichwould recognise the principles of liberty, equality andfraternity;(5)thatinordertoachievethisobjectthesenseofreligioussanctitybehindcaste andvarnamustbedestroyed; (6) that the sanctityof caste andvarnacanbedestroyedonlybydiscardingthedivineauthorityoftheshastras.

2.3

It will be noticed that the questions raised by theMahatma are absolutelybesides thepoint, and show that themain argumentof the speechwas lostuponhim.

3

3.1

LetmeexaminethesubstanceofthepointsmadebytheMahatma.ThefirstpointmadebytheMahatmaisthatthetextscitedbymearenotauthentic.Iconfess Iamnoauthorityon thismatter.But I should like to state that thetextscitedbymearealltakenfromthewritingsofthelateMrTilak,2whowas a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindushastras.His secondpoint is that these shastras shouldbe interpretednotbythelearnedbutbythesaints;andthatasthesaintshaveunderstoodthemtheshastrasdonotsupportcasteanduntouchability.

3.2

Asregardsthefirstpoint,whatIwouldliketoasktheMahatmais,whatdoesit avail to anyone if the texts are interpolations, and if they have beendifferentlyinterpretedbythesaints?Themassesdonotmakeanydistinctionbetween texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. Themassesdonotknowwhat thetextsare.Theyare too illiterate toknowthecontentsof the shastras.Theyhavebelievedwhat theyhavebeen told, andwhattheyhavebeentoldisthattheshastrasdoenjoinasareligiousdutytheobservanceofcasteanduntouchability.

3.3

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different andelevatingtheirteachingsmayhavebeenascomparedtothoseofthemerelylearned, they have been lamentably ineffective. They have been ineffectivefortworeasons.Firstly,noneofthesaintseverattackedthecastesystem.Onthe contrary—theywere staunch believers in the system of castes.Most of

them lived and died as members of the castes to which they respectivelybelonged. So passionately attachedwas Jnyandeo to his status as aBrahminthatwhen theBrahmins of Paithanwould not admit him to their fold, hemoved heaven and earth to get his status as a Brahmin recognised by theBrahminfraternity.

3.4

AndeventhesaintEknath,3whonowfigures inthefilmDharmatma4asaheroforhavingshownthecouragetotouchtheUntouchablesanddinewiththem, did so not because hewas opposed to caste and untouchability, butbecausehefeltthatthepollutioncausedtherebycouldbewashedawaybyabath in the sacred waters of the river Ganges. 5 The saints have never,according to my study, carried on a campaign against caste anduntouchability. Theywere not concernedwith the struggle betweenmen.Theywereconcernedwiththerelationbetweenmanandgod.Theydidnotpreachthatallmenwereequal.Theypreachedthatallmenwereequalintheeyes of god—a very different and a very innocuous proposition, whichnobodycanfinddifficulttopreachordangeroustobelievein.6

3.5

The second reason why the teachings of the saints proved ineffective wasbecause themasseshavebeen taught that a saintmightbreakcaste,but thecommon man must not. A saint therefore never became an example tofollow.He always remained a piousman to be honoured.That themasseshave remained staunch believers in caste and untouchability shows that thepiouslivesandnoblesermonsofthesaintshavehadnoeffectontheirlifeandconduct,asagainsttheteachingsoftheshastras.Thusitcanbeamatterofnoconsolation that there were saints, or that there is a Mahatma whounderstandstheshastrasdifferentlyfromthelearnedfeworignorantmany.7

3.6

Thatthemassesholdadifferentviewoftheshastrasisafactwhichshouldand

mustbereckonedwith.Howthatistobedealtwith,exceptbydenouncingthe authority of the shastras which continue to govern their conduct, is aquestionwhichtheMahatmahasnotconsidered.ButwhatevertheplantheMahatma puts forth as an effective means to free the masses from theteachingsof theshastras,hemustacceptthat thepious life ledbyonegoodSamaritanmaybeveryelevatingtohimself,butinIndia,withtheattitudethecommonmanhastosaintsandtoMahatmas—tohonourbutnottofollow—onecannotmakemuchoutofit.

4

4.1

The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed byChaitanya,Jnyandeo,Tukaram,Tiruvalluvar,RamakrishnaParamahansa,etc.,cannotbedevoidofmeritasismadeoutbyme,andthatareligionhastobejudgednotbyitsworstspecimensbutbythebestitmighthaveproduced.Iagreewitheverywordofthisstatement.ButIdonotquiteunderstandwhattheMahatmawishestoprovethereby.Thatreligionshouldbejudgednotbyitsworstspecimensbutbyitsbestistrueenough,butdoesitdisposeofthematter?Isayitdoesnot.

4.2

Thequestion still remains,why theworstnumber somanyand thebest sofew.Tomymindtherearetwoconceivableanswerstothisquestion:(1)thatthe worst by reason of some original perversity of theirs are morallyuneducable,andarethereforeincapableofmakingtheremotestapproachtothe religious ideal.Or: (2) that the religious ideal is a wholly wrong idealwhichhasgivenawrongmoral twist tothe livesof themany,andthat thebesthavebecomebestinspiteofthewrongideal—infact,bygivingtothewrongtwistaturnintherightdirection.

4.3

OfthesetwoexplanationsIamnotpreparedtoacceptthefirst,andIamsurethat even theMahatmawill not insist upon the contrary.Tomymind thesecondistheonlylogicalandreasonableexplanation,unlesstheMahatmahasathirdalternativetoexplainwhytheworstaresomanyandthebestsofew.If the second is the only explanation, then obviously the argument of theMahatma that a religion should be judged by its best followers carries usnowhere—excepttopitythelotofthemanywhohavegonewrongbecausetheyhavebeenmadetoworshipwrongideals.

5

5.1

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if onlymanyweretofollowtheexampleofthesaintsisfallaciousforanotherreason.(In thisconnection, see the illuminatingarticleon“Moralityand theSocialStructure”byH.N.BrailsfordintheAryanPath forApril1936.8)Bycitingthenamesof such illustrious persons asChaitanya, etc.,what theMahatmaseemstometosuggestinitsbroadestandsimplestformisthatHindusocietycanbemadetolerableandevenhappywithoutanyfundamentalchangeinitsstructure, if all the high-caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a highstandardofmoralityintheirdealingswiththelow-casteHindus.Iamtotallyopposedtothiskindofideology.

5.2

IcanrespectthoseofthecasteHinduswhotrytorealiseahighsocialidealintheirlife.Withoutsuchmen,Indiawouldbeanuglierandalesshappyplacetoliveinthanitis.Butnonetheless,anyonewhoreliesonanattempttoturnthemembersofthecasteHindusintobettermenbyimprovingtheirpersonalcharacter is, inmy judgement,wasting his energy and hugging an illusion.Canpersonalcharactermakethemakerofarmamentsagoodman,i.e.,amanwho will sell shells that will not burst and gas that will not poison? If itcannot,howcanyouacceptpersonal character tomakeaman loadedwiththeconsciousnessofcasteagoodman,i.e.,amanwhowouldtreathisfellow

menashis friends and equals?Tobe true tohimself hemust dealwithhisfellowmaneitherasa superioror inferior,accordingas thecasemaybe;atanyrate,differentlyfromhisowncaste-fellows.Hecanneverbeexpectedtodealwithhisfellowmenashiskinsmenandequals.

5.3

Asamatterof fact, aHindudoes treatall thosewhoarenotofhiscasteasthoughtheywerealiens,whocouldbediscriminatedagainstwithimpunity,andagainstwhomanyfraudortrickmaybepractisedwithoutshame.ThisistosaythattherecanbeabetteroraworseHindu.ButagoodHindutherecannotbe.This is sonotbecausethere isanythingwrongwithhispersonalcharacter. In fact,what iswrong is theentirebasisofhis relationship tohisfellows.Thebestofmencannotbemoralifthebasisofrelationshipbetweenthemandtheirfellowsisfundamentallyawrongrelationship.Toaslave,hismastermaybebetterorworse.Buttherecannotbeagoodmaster.Agoodmancannotbeamaster,andamastercannotbeagoodman.

5.4

Thesameappliestotherelationshipbetweenhighcasteandlowcaste.Toalow-casteman,ahigh-castemancanbebetterorworseascomparedtootherhigh-castemen.Ahigh-castemancannotbeagoodman,insofarashemusthave a low casteman to distinguish him as a high-casteman. It cannot begoodtoalow-castemantobeconsciousthatthereisahigh-castemanabovehim. Ihaveargued inmyspeech thata societybasedonvarnaorcaste isasociety which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that theMahatmawouldattempttodemolishmyargument.Butinsteadofdoingthat,he has merely reiterated his belief in chaturvarnya without disclosing thegroundonwhichitisbased.

6

6.1

Does theMahatma practisewhat he preaches?One does not like tomakepersonal reference in an argument which is general in its application. Butwhenonepreachesadoctrineandholdsitasadogmathereisacuriositytoknow how far he practises what he preaches. Itmay be that his failure topractiseisduetotheidealbeingtoohightobeattainable;itmaybethathisfailure topractise isdue to the innatehypocrisyof theman. Inanycaseheexposeshisconducttoexamination,andImustnotbeblamedifIaskhowfarhastheMahatmaattemptedtorealisehisidealinhisowncase?

6.2

TheMahatmaisaBaniatraderbybirth.Hisancestorshadabandonedtradinginfavourofministership,whichisacallingoftheBrahmins.Inhisownlife,beforehebecameaMahatma,whentheoccasioncameforhimtochoosehiscareerhepreferred law to scales.On abandoning law,hebecamehalf saintand half politician. He has never touched trading, which is his ancestralcalling.

6.3

Hisyoungestson—Itaketheonewhoisafaithfulfollowerofhisfather—wasbornaVaishya,hasmarriedaBrahmin’sdaughter,andhaschosentoserveanewspapermagnate.9TheMahatma is not known tohave condemnedhimfornot followinghis ancestral calling. Itmaybewronganduncharitable tojudgeanidealbyitsworstspecimens.ButsurelytheMahatmaasaspecimenisnobetter,andifheevenfailstorealisetheidealthentheidealmustbeanimpossibleideal,quiteopposedtothepracticalinstinctsofman.

6.4

StudentsofCarlyleknowthatheoftenspokeonasubjectbeforehethoughtaboutit.IwonderwhethersuchhasnotbeenthecasewiththeMahatmainregard to the subject matter of caste. Otherwise, certain questions whichoccurtomewouldnothaveescapedhim.Whencanacallingbedeemedtohavebecomeanancestralcalling,soastomakeitbindingonaman?Musta

man followhis ancestral calling even if it does not suit his capacities, evenwhenithasceasedtobeprofitable?Mustamanlivebyhisancestralcallingeven if he finds it to be immoral? If everyone must pursue his ancestralcalling, thenitmust followthatamanmustcontinuetobeapimpbecausehis grandfatherwas apimp, and awomanmust continue tobe aprostitutebecausehergrandmotherwasaprostitute.IstheMahatmapreparedtoacceptthe logical conclusion of his doctrine? To me his ideal of following one’sancestralcallingisnotonlyanimpossibleandimpractical ideal,butit isalsomorallyanindefensibleideal.

7

7.1

TheMahatmaseesgreatvirtueinaBrahminremainingaBrahminallhislife.Leaving aside the fact that there are many Brahmins who do not like toremainBrahminsalltheir lives,whatcanwesayaboutthoseBrahminswhohaveclung to theirancestralcallingofpriesthood?Dotheydo so fromanyfaithinthevirtueoftheprincipleofancestralcalling,ordotheydosofrommotivesoffilthylucre?TheMahatmadoesnotseemtoconcernhimselfwithsuchqueries.Heis satisfiedthat theseare“realBrahminswhoare livingonalms freely given to them, and giving freely what they have of spiritualtreasures”.ThisishowahereditaryBrahminpriestappearstotheMahatma—acarrierofspiritualtreasures.

7.2

ButanotherportraitofthehereditaryBrahmincanalsobedrawn.ABrahmincanbeapriesttoVishnu—thegodoflove.HecanbeapriesttoShankar—the godof destruction.He can be a priest atBuddhaGaya 10worshippingBuddha—thegreatestteacherofmankind,whotaughtthenoblestdoctrineoflove. He also can be a priest to Kali, the goddess who must have a dailysacrificeofananimaltosatisfyherthirstforblood.HewillbeapriestofthetempleofRama—theKshatriyagod!HewillalsobeapriestofthetempleofParshuram,thegodwhotookonanavatartodestroytheKshatriyas!Hecan

beapriesttoBrahma,thecreatoroftheworld.Hecanbeapriesttoapir,11whose godAllahwill not brook the claim of Brahma to share his spiritualdominionovertheworld!Noonecansaythatthisisapicturewhichisnottruetolife.

7.3

Ifthisisatruepicture,onedoesnotknowwhattosayofthiscapacitytobearloyalties to gods and goddesseswhose attributes are so antagonistic that nohonest man can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon thisextraordinaryphenomenonasevidenceofthegreatestvirtueoftheirreligion—namely,itscatholicity,itsspiritoftoleration.Asagainstthisfacileview,itcan be urged that what is toleration and catholicitymay be really nothingmore creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These twoattitudesarehardtodistinguishintheirouterseeming.Buttheyaresovitallyunlike in their real quality that no one who examines them closely canmistakeonefortheother.

7.4

Thatamanis readytorenderhomagetomanygodsandgoddessesmaybecitedasevidenceofhis tolerantspirit.Butcanitnotalsobeevidenceofaninsinceritybornofadesiretoservethetimes?Iamsurethatthistolerationismerely insincerity. If thisview iswell founded,onemayask,what spiritualtreasure can there be within a person who is ready to be a priest and adevotee to any deitywhich it serves his purpose toworship and to adore?Not only must such a person be deemed to be bankrupt of all spiritualtreasures,but forhimtopractise soelevatingaprofessionas thatof apriestsimply because it is ancestral—without faith, without belief, merely as amechanicalprocesshandeddownfromfathertoson—isnotaconservationofvirtue;itisreallytheprostitutionofanobleprofessionwhichisnootherthantheserviceofreligion.

8

8.1

WhydoestheMahatmaclingtothetheoryofeveryonefollowinghisorherancestral calling? He gives his reasons nowhere. But there must be somereason,althoughhedoesnotcare toavowit.Yearsago,writingon“CasteversusClass”inhisYoungIndia,12hearguedthatthecastesystemwasbetterthanaclasssystemonthegroundthatcastewasthebestpossibleadjustmentforsocialstability.IfthatbethereasonwhytheMahatmaclingstothetheoryofeveryonefollowinghisorherancestralcalling,thenheisclingingtoafalseviewofsociallife.

8.2

Everybodywants social stability, and someadjustmentmustbemade in therelationshipbetweenindividualsandclassesinorderthatstabilitymaybehad.Buttwothings,Iamsure,nobodywants.Onethingnobodywantsisastaticrelationship, something that is unalterable, something that is fixed for alltimes. Stability is wanted, but not at the cost of change when change isimperative.Thesecondthingnobodywantsismereadjustment.Adjustmentiswanted,butnotatthesacrificeofsocialjustice.

8.3

Canitbesaidthattheadjustmentofsocialrelationshipsonthebasisofcaste—i.e.,onthebasisofeachtohishereditarycalling—avoidsthesetwoevils?Iamconvincedthatitdoesnot.Farfrombeingthebestpossibleadjustment,Ihave no doubt that it is of theworst possible kind, inasmuch as it offendsagainstboththecanonsofsocialadjustment—namely,fluidityandequity.

9

9.1

SomemightthinkthattheMahatmahasmademuchprogress,inasmuchashenowonlybelievesinvarnaanddoesnotbelieveincaste.Itistruethatthere

was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a blue-bloodedsanataniHindu.13HebelievedintheVedas,theUpanishads,thepuranas,andall thatgoesby thenameofHindu scriptures; and therefore, in avatars andrebirth.Hebelievedincasteanddefendeditwiththevigouroftheorthodox.14Hecondemnedthecryforinter-dining,inter-drinking,andintermarrying,and argued that restraints about inter-dining to a great extent “helped thecultivationofwill-powerandtheconservationofacertainsocialvirtue”.15

9.2

It is good that he has repudiated this sanctimonious nonsense and admittedthatcaste“isharmfulboth to spiritualandnationalgrowth”,andmaybehisson’smarriageoutsidehiscastehashadsomethingtodowiththischangeofview.ButhastheMahatmareallyprogressed?Whatisthenatureofthevarnafor which the Mahatma stands? Is it the Vedic conception as commonlyunderstoodandpreachedbySwamiDayanandSaraswatiandhisfollowers,theAryaSamajists?TheessenceoftheVedicconceptionofvarnaisthepursuitofa callingwhich is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude.The essence of theMahatma’s conception of varna is the pursuit of one’s ancestral calling,irrespectiveofnaturalaptitude.

9.3

What is the difference between caste and varna, as understood by theMahatma?Ifindnone.AsdefinedbytheMahatmavarnabecomesmerelyadifferentnameforcaste,forthesimplereasonthatitisthesameinessence—namely, pursuit of one’s ancestral calling. Far from making progress, theMahatmahas suffered retrogression.Byputting this interpretationupon theVedicconceptionofvarna,hehasreallymaderidiculouswhatwas sublime.While I reject the Vedic varnavyavastha for reasons given in the speech, ImustadmitthattheVedictheoryofvarnaasinterpretedbySwamiDayanandandsomeothersisasensibleandaninoffensivething.Itdidnotadmitbirthasa determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society. It onlyrecognisedworth.

9.4

TheMahatma’sviewofvarnanotonlymakesnonsenseoftheVedicvarna,but itmakes it anabominable thing.Varnaandcasteare twoverydifferentconcepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth,whilecasteisbasedontheprincipleofeachaccordingtohisbirth.Thetwoareasdistinctaschalk is fromcheese.In fact, there isanantithesisbetweenthetwo.IftheMahatmabelieves,ashedoes,ineveryonefollowinghisorherancestralcalling,thenmostcertainlyheisadvocatingthecastesystem,andincallingitthevarnasystemheisnotonlyguiltyofterminologicalinexactitude,butheiscausingconfusionworseconfounded.

9.5

I am sure that all his confusion is due to the fact that theMahatmahasnodefiniteandclearconceptionastowhatisvarnaandwhatiscaste,andastothe necessity of either for the conservation ofHinduism.Hehas said—andonehopesthathewillnotfindsomemysticreasontochangehisview—thatcasteisnottheessenceofHinduism.DoesheregardvarnaastheessenceofHinduism?Onecannotasyetgiveanycategoricalanswer.

9.6

Readersofhisarticleon“DrAmbedkar’sIndictment”willanswer“No.”InthatarticlehedoesnotsaythatthedogmaofvarnaisanessentialpartofthecreedofHinduism.FarfrommakingvarnatheessenceofHinduism,hesays“theessenceofHinduismiscontainedinitsenunciationofoneandonlyGodastruthanditsboldacceptanceofahimsaasthelawofthehumanfamily”.

9.7

But readers of his article in reply toMr SantRamwill say “Yes.” In thatarticlehesays“HowcanaMuslimremainoneifherejectstheQuran,oraChristian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible? If caste and varna areconvertibleterms,andifvarnaisanintegralpartoftheshastraswhichdefineHinduism,Idonotknowhowapersonwhorejectscaste,i.e.,varna,cancall

himself aHindu.”Why this prevarication?Whydoes theMahatmahedge?Whomdoes hewant to please?Has the saint failed to sense the truth?Ordoesthepoliticianstandinthewayofthesaint?

9.8

TherealreasonwhytheMahatmaissufferingfromthisconfusionisprobablytobetracedtotwosources.ThefirstisthetemperamentoftheMahatma.Hehasinalmosteverythingthesimplicityofthechild,withthechild’scapacityforself-deception.Likeachild,hecanbelieveinanythinghewantstobelievein. We must therefore wait till such time as it pleases the Mahatma toabandonhisfaithinvarna,asithaspleasedhimtoabandonhisfaithincaste.

9.9

ThesecondsourceofconfusionisthedoublerolewhichtheMahatmawantstoplay—ofaMahatmaandapolitician.AsaMahatma,hemaybetryingtospiritualise politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics havecertainly commercialised him. A politician must know that society cannotbear thewhole truth, and that hemust not speak thewhole truth; if he isspeaking the whole truth it is bad for his politics. The reason why theMahatmaisalwayssupportingcasteandvarnaisbecauseheisafraidthatifheopposed them he would lose his place in politics. Whatever may be thesource of this confusion the Mahatma must be told that he is deceivinghimself,andalsodeceivingthepeople,bypreachingcasteunderthenameofvarna.

10

10.1

The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus andHinduism are too severe, and that judged by those standards every knownlivingfaithwillprobablyfail.Thecomplaintthatmystandardsarehighmaybe true.But thequestion isnotwhether theyarehighorwhether theyare

low.Thequestioniswhethertheyaretherightstandardstoapply.Apeopleand their religionmustbe judgedby social standardsbasedon social ethics.No other standard would have any meaning, if religion is held to be anecessarygoodforthewell-beingofthepeople.

10.2

Now, I maintain that the standards I have applied to test Hindus andHinduismare themost appropriate standards, and that Iknowofnone thatarebetter.Theconclusionthateveryknownreligionwouldfail if testedbymystandardsmaybetrue.ButthisfactshouldnotgivetheMahatmaasthechampionofHindusandHinduismagroundforcomfort,anymorethantheexistence of onemadman should give comfort to anothermadman, or theexistenceofonecriminalshouldgivecomforttoanothercriminal.

10.3

I would like to assure the Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of theHindusandHinduismwhichhasproducedinmethefeelingsofdisgustandcontempt with which I am charged. I realise that the world is a veryimperfect world, and anyone who wants to live in it must bear with itsimperfections.

10.4

ButwhileIampreparedtobearwiththeimperfectionsandshortcomingsofthesocietyinwhichImaybedestinedtolabour,IfeelIshouldnotconsenttoliveinasocietywhichcherisheswrongideals,orasocietywhich,havingrightideals,willnotconsenttobringitssociallifeintoconformitywiththoseideals. If I am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism, it is because I amconvinced that they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life.Myquarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of theirsocialconduct.Itismuchmorefundamental.Itisovertheirideals.

11

11.1

Hindusocietyseemstometostandinneedofamoralregenerationwhichitis dangerous to postpone. And the question is, who can determine andcontrolthismoralregeneration?Obviously,onlythosewhohaveundergonean intellectual regeneration and those who are honest enough to have thecourageoftheirconvictionsbornofintellectualemancipation.Judgedbythisstandard,theHinduleaderswhocountare,inmyopinion,quiteunfitforthetask. It is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminaryintellectual regeneration. If theyhadundergonean intellectual regeneration,they would neither delude themselves in the simple way of the untaughtmultitude, nor would they take advantage of the primitive ignorance ofothersasoneseesthemdoing.

11.2

Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu society, these leaders willneverthelessunblushinglyappealtoidealsofthepastwhichhaveineverywayceased to have any connection with the present—ideals which, howeversuitabletheymighthavebeeninthedaysoftheirorigin,havenowbecomeawarning rather thanaguide.They stillhave amystic respect for theearlierformswhichmakesthemdisinclined—nay,opposed—toanyexaminationofthe foundationsof their society.TheHindumasses areof course incrediblyheedlessintheformationoftheirbeliefs.ButsoaretheHinduleaders.AndwhatisworseisthattheseHinduleadersbecomefilledwithanillicitpassionfortheirbeliefswhenanyoneproposestorobthemoftheircompanionship.

11.3

The Mahatma is no exception. The Mahatma appears not to believe inthinking. He prefers to follow the saints. Like a conservative with hisreverenceforconsecratednotions,heisafraidthatifheoncestartsthinking,many ideals and institutions towhichhe clingswill bedoomed.Onemustsympathise with him. For every act of independent thinking puts someportionofanapparentlystableworldinperil.

11.4

But it isequally true thatdependenceonsaintscannot leadus toknowthetruth.The saints are after all only human beings, and as LordBalfour said,“thehumanmind is nomore a truth-finding apparatus than the snoutof apig”.16Insofarashedoesthink,tomehereallyappearstobeprostitutinghis intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social structureoftheHindus.HeisthemostinfluentialapologistofitandthereforetheworstenemyoftheHindus.

11.5

UnliketheMahatma,thereareHinduleaderswhoarenotcontentmerelytobelieveandfollow.Theydaretothink,andactinaccordancewiththeresultof their thinking. But unfortunately they are either a dishonest lot, or anindifferentlotwhenitcomestothequestionofgivingrightguidancetothemassofthepeople.AlmosteveryBrahminhastransgressedtheruleofcaste.ThenumberofBrahminswhosellshoesisfargreaterthanthosewhopractisepriesthood.Not only have theBrahmins given up their ancestral calling ofpriesthoodfortrading,buttheyhaveenteredtradeswhichareprohibitedtothembytheshastras.YethowmanyBrahminswhobreakcasteeverydaywillpreachagainstcasteandagainsttheshastras?

11.6

For one honest Brahmin preaching against caste and shastras because hispracticalinstinctandmoralconsciencecannotsupportaconvictioninthem,therearehundredswhobreakcasteandtrampleupontheshastraseveryday,butwhoarethemostfanaticupholdersofthetheoryofcasteandthesanctityof the shastras.Why this duplicity?Because they feel that if themasses areemancipated fromtheyokeofcaste, theywouldbeamenacetothepowerand prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this intellectualclass, who would deny the masses the fruits of their thinking, is a mostdisgracefulphenomenon.

11.7

TheHindus,inthewordsofMatthewArnold,are“wanderingbetweentwoworlds,onedead,theotherpowerlesstobeborn”.17Whataretheytodo?The Mahatma to whom they appeal for guidance does not believe inthinking,andcanthereforegivenoguidancewhichcanbesaidtostandthetest of experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look forguidance are either toodishonest or too indifferent to educate them in therightdirection.Weareindeedwitnessestoagreattragedy.Inthefaceofthistragedyallonecandoistolamentandsay—sucharethyleaders,OHindus!

1

2

3

4

5

6

NOTES

Same as ‘runny nose’. The expression here means snivelling, “pitiful,whining” according to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage.

AmbedkarislikelyreferringtoTilak’stwo-volumeopus,SrimadBhagavadGitaRahasya,knowninshortasGitaRahasyaandtranslatedasTheEsotericImport of the Gita, in his own words. It was written when Tilak wasimprisonedforsixyearsonchargesofseditioninMandalay(Burma)from1907 and first published in Marathi in June 1915. An English versiontranslated by B.S. Sukthankar, which Ambedkar likely accessed, waspublishedin1935byTilakBrosinPoona.BythenGitaRahasyahadbeenpublished inmany Indian languages.ThisEnglish edition features severalpages of endorsements from a phalanx of leaders: Swami Vivekananda,Annie Besant, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Gopal Krishna Gokhale,Aurobindo Ghose and also Gandhi, who says Tilak’s “masterworkcommentaryontheGitaisunsurpassedandwillremainsoforalongtimetocome”(xvi).

Eknath (1533–99) was a sixteenth-century Marathi sant of the Varkaritradition founded by Jnyandeo (see Note 32 to AoC 2.22). EknathiBhagavat isacommentaryontheeleventhcantooftheSanskritBhagavataPurana(acircatenth-centurypuranictext—thoughscholarsdisagreeonthedating—focusedonKrishnaandtheBhagvadGita),intheformofabhangas,aMarathiverseformmeaningunbroken,writtenintheovimetre.

V. Shantarammade this film in1935onEknath’s life.The famous actorBalGandharvstarredintheroleofEknath.

(Antyajanchavitaljyasi/Gangasnaneshuddhatvatyasi—EknathiBhagavat,a.28,o.191).Thisversewithreferencetothesourcefiguresinthe1937editionofAoCasafootnoteatthispoint.ThisMarathiversehasbeentranscribedandtranslatedbyDebroyas:“Thoseamongoutcasteswhoareimpure/canbepurifiedbybathingintheGanga.”

Despite his scepticism and rejection of theBhaktimovement andBhaktisaints, Ambedkar did recognise the agentive role of the ‘Untouchable’

7

8

Bhakti saints and dedicated The Untouchables: Who Were They and WhyThey BecameUntouchable (1948/1990) thus: “Inscribed to thememory ofNandanar,Ravidas,Chokhamela—three renowned saintswhowerebornamong the Untouchables, and who by their piety and virtue won theesteem of all.” Nandanar, however, was not a historical figure unlikeRavidas and Cokhamela. In the twelfth-century Tamil work PeriyaPuranam by Sekkilar, a hagiographical account of the sixty-three TamilSaiva saints (Nayanmars) ofwhomonly a handfulwerehistorical figures,theParaiyar-bornNandanarisreferredtoasThirunaaliPovar.AsAnushiyaRamaswamy (2010, 76) points out, Sekkilar shows Nandanar as“unquestioninglyacceptingtheedictsofacaste-definedorder,goingsofarastowillinglydieinaritualisticimmolationatthegatesofChidambaram[Nataraja temple]”.During the colonial-nationalistmovement, the figureof Nandanar was resurrected. Gopalakrishna Bharathi, a Saivite poet-composerhadpublishedtheNandanarCharitram(ThestoryofNandanar)in1861–2which,duringtheearlytwentiethcentury,wasadaptedforstageasdance dramas. Later, fiveTamil feature filmsweremade onNandanar—two silent films, in 1923 and 1930; and three talkies, in 1933, 1935 and1942.

AmbedkarisalsoperhapsalludingtothefactthatGandhioftencomparedhimself to the ‘Bhangi’—the caste among Untouchables forced intosweepingandscavengingwork—andoftenannouncedthathecleanedthetoilets in his ashrams. As far as Ambedkar is concerned, a saint or aMahatmaindulginginsuchperformativegesturesdoesnotalterthebeliefsof people as such. For an account of Gandhi’s writings on manualscavengers, see Ramaswamy (2005, 86–95); for a critique of Gandhi’sapproachtoissuesconcerningsweepersandscavengers,seePrashad(1996,2001).

ThesentenceinparenthesisisgivenasafootnoteinAoC1937.Ambedkaris referring to Brailsford’s essay in the Aryan Path (April 1936, 166–9).Aryan Path was a journal published from Bombay by the TheosophicalSocietysince1930.HenryNoelBrailsford(1873–1958)wasaBritishleft-wingjournalistandwriterwhostartedhiscareerasaforeigncorrespondentduring the war in Crete. He continued to report from Paris and thenMacedoniaaftertheFirstWorldWar.Hesupportedthewomen’ssuffragemovement. He was made editor of The New Leader, the BritishIndependentLabourPartynewspaper,in1922.Afteraseven-weektourof

9

10

India he became a member of the India League, a British organisationspreading awareness about the ills of colonialism, and wrote Rebel India(1931),atreatiseagainstcolonialrule.IntheessayAmbedkarisreferringto,Brailsford offers a thesis “that our existing society can bemade tolerableandevenhappy,withoutanyfundamentalchangeinitsstructure,ifallofus, butmore especially theprivileged classes, canbe induced to followahighstandardofmoralityinourdealingswithourfellows.Thiswasalwaysthe teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, though it used to forbidusury, and is still critical of high finance. Mr Gandhi has preachedimpressive sermons on these lines to landlords (especially in the UnitedProvinces) and to industrial capitalists.” Here, Brailsford comes to echoGandhi’sdoctrineoftrusteeship; foracriticalanalysisof thisdoctrine,seeRoy’sintroductiontothisvolume.

When Ambedkar refers to “the one who is a faithful follower of hisfather”,heisalludingtoGandhi’sthirdson,DevdasGandhi,who,in1937,wasappointedmanagingeditorofHindustanTimes, thenewspaperownedbyG.D.Birla,aMarwariBaniaindustrialistwhowasacloseassociateandfinancier ofGandhi. InDelhi,Gandhimade the palatial BirlaHouse hisresidence for over twenty-five years. (The Birla House was renamedGandhiSmritiin1971.)Gandhi’sswarajisteconomicpoliciesresultedinhiscolludingwiththeconservativeindustrialistsofhistime.ForananalysisofGandhi’srelationshipwithG.D.BirlaandotherSwadeshibusinesshouses,see Leah Renold (1994, 16–38). Gandhi’s first son Harilal Gandhi wasestranged from Gandhi and was not a ‘faithful follower’ of his since heembracedIslamon29May1936,thesamemonthandyearinwhichAoCwas first published. Harilal’s conversion happened within a year afterAmbedkardeclaredon13October1935 inYeola thathe shallnotdie aHinduandexhortedUntouchablestoseekreliefinanewreligion.ForanaccountofHarilal’slife,seeChandulalBhagubhaiDalal(2007).

BuddhaGayaorBodhGayaisthemostsacredsiteinBuddhism,reveredastheplacewhereBuddhaattainedenlightenment.Thetemplecomplexhasfor long been controlled by Brahmin mahants (priests). The BodhgayaTemple Act, passed two years after India’s independence, provides for achairman and a committee of eight members, four Buddhist and fourHindu, “to manage and control the temple land and the propertiesappertaining thereto”. Section 3(3) of theAct provides that “theDistrictMagistrate of Gaya shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the Committee:

11

12

providedthattheStateGovernmentshallnominateaHinduasChairmanof theCommittee for the period duringwhich the districtMagistrate ofGayaisnon-Hindu”.FortheuncannyresemblancethisstateofaffairshaswiththeConflictofOrdersinancientRome,especiallywiththehistoryofthe process of appointment of consuls and tribunes, and the role of theOracle atDelphi, seeNote 27 at 2.20 andNote 36 at 3.5 of AoC.Anamendment to allow non-Hindu chairmen in the committeewas passedonlyinAugust2013bytheBiharAssembly.

A pir, meaning elder or saint, is the spiritual guide to the followers ofSufism,themysticbranchofIslam.Sufisareorganisedintoordersaroundamasterwhohelpshisdisciplesalongthepathofsurrenderingtheegointheworshipofgod.WhenAmbedkarsaysaBrahmincanbeapriesttoapir,heisreferringtotheadaptabilityoftheBrahminwhichhelpshimsurviveany challenge.Elaboratingon this in a sharperway inhis critiqueof theCongressandGandhi,hesays(BAWS9,195):“Iamquiteawarethatthereare some protagonists of Hinduism who say that Hinduism is a veryadaptable religion, that it can adjust itself to everything and absorbanything. I donot thinkmanypeoplewould regard such a capacity in areligionasavirtuetobeproudofjustasnoonewouldthinkhighlyofachildbecauseithasdevelopedthecapacitytoeatdung,anddigestit.Butthatisanothermatter.ItisquitetruethatHinduismcanadjustitself.Thebest example of its adjustability is the literary production calledAllahupanishadwhichtheBrahminsofthetimeofAkbarproducedtogivea place to his Din-e-llahi within Hinduism and to recognise it as theSeventhsystemofHinduphilosophy.”ForanunderstandingofSufism,seetheclassicworkofAnnemarieSchimmel(1975)andthemorerecentworkofTanvirAnjum(2011).

YoungIndia,aweeklyinEnglish,wasfoundedandpublishedfromBombaysince 1915 by Indulal Yagnik, along with Jamnadas Dwarkadas andShankerlal Banker. Yagnik also brought out Navajivan, a monthly inGujarati.In1919,YagnikrequestedGandhi,whohadreturnedfromSouthAfrica,totakeoveraseditorofYoungIndiaandNavajivan.UnderGandhi’seditorship,YoungIndiaappearedsince7May1919asabiweeklyandfrom7 September 1919 as a weekly from Sabarmati Ashram, Ahmedabad(Rajmohan Gandhi, 2007, 211). Gandhi published Young India till hefoundedtheHarijanin1932.AmbedkarhereisreferringtoGandhi’spiecedated29December1920,whereheargueswhycaste isbetter thanclass:

13

14

“The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upondistinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is thegreatestdisruptiveforceintheworld.Eventhesacrednessoffamilytiesisnotsafeagainstthepollutionofwealth,saysShankaracharya.Casteisbutanextensionof theprincipleof the family.Botharegovernedbybloodandheredity … Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simplyrecognisesdifferentoutlooksandcorrespondingmodesoflife.Butitisnousedenyingthefactthatasortofhierarchyhasbeenevolvedinthecastesystem,butitcannotbecalledthecreationoftheBrahmins”(CWMG22,154–5).

Gandhionhisbeingasanatani:“Thefriendnextaskedmeforadefinitionofa sanataniHinduandsaid: ‘Coulda sanataniHinduBrahmin interdinewithaHindunon-Brahminalthoughthelattermaybeanon-vegetarian?’My definition of a sanatani Brahmin is: He who believes in thefundamental principles of Hinduism is a sanatani Hindu. And thefundamentalprinciplesofHinduismareabsolutebeliefintruth(satya)andahimsa (non-violence).”Reported inTheHindu, 23March1925, fromaspeech in Madras at the height of the Non-Brahmin Movement in theMadrasPresidency. Inanother speech inCalcutta, around the same time,Gandhisays:“LetthesanataniHindusunderstandfrommewhoclaimstobeasanataniHindu.Idonotaskyoutointerdinewithanybody;Idonotask you to exchange your daughters with the Untouchables or withanybody,butIdoaskyoutoremovethiscurse[ofuntouchability]sothatyou may not put him beyond the pale of service.” From Amrita BazarPatrika,2May1925.AnilNauriya,however,makesthecase(2006,1835)thatGandhi’sviewsonvarnachangedinthemid-1940sandthathecametodenouncevarnashrama:“Gandhiincrementallyunfurledacritiqueofthefourfoldvarnaorder,takingtheconceptofsuchanorderintheend,bythemid-1940s,tovanishingpoint.”Onsuchexercisesin‘cherrypicking’,seeRoy’sintroductiontothisvolume.

DavidHardimanwrites (2004, 126) that during the SouthAfrican years,Gandhi“hadappearedtohavelittletimeforthecastesystem.HehadbeenexpelledfromhisownBaniyasub-castefortravellingoverseas—considereda‘polluting’actatthattime—andhadneversoughttogainreadmissiontothecaste.In1909,hecondemnedthecastesystemandcastetyranny.Onhis return to India he adopted a much softer line on the question. HedeniedthatthecastesystemhadharmedIndia,arguingthatitwasnomore

15

16

17

thanaformoflabourdivision,similartooccupationaldivisionsallovertheworld. It was in fact superior to class divisions, ‘which were based onwealth primarily’. He also believed that reform could be brought aboutthroughcasteorganisations.”

Ambedkar is once again citingGandhi from hisYoung India piece of 29December 1920: “Inter-dining has never been known to promotebrotherhoodinanyspecialsense.Buttherestraintsaboutinterdininghavetoagreatextenthelpedthecultivationofwill-powerandtheconservationofcertainsocialvirtues”(CWMG22,156).

Lord (Arthur James) Balfour was a British conservative politician whoservedasPrimeMinisterbetween1902and1905andasForeignSecretarybetween 1916 and 1919. It is not clearwhere LordBalfour spoke thesewords, but there are other citations of this from the same period, eachslightlydifferingindetail.TheWorldReview (1936,67)citesBalfourthus:“LordBalfourhaswiselysaidthat ‘Thehumanbrainisasmuchanorganfor seeking foodas thepig’s snout.’Afterall, thehumanbrain isonlyanenlargedpieceofthespinalcolumn,whosefirstfunctionistosensedangerandpreservelife.”

These linesare fromthepoem“Stanzas fromtheGrandeChartreuse”byMatthewArnold(1822–88),Englishpoetandliterarycritic,reflectingtheinnerconflictof theVictorianerabetween scientificprogresson theonehand, and religion, identity and values on the other. Ambedkar citesArnold in “Castes in India” (1916) as well, written during his years atColumbiaUniversity.ItispossiblethatAmbedkaroftenturnedtoArnoldthankstohismentorDewey,whowasfondofquotinghim.AccordingtoS.Morris Eames (1969, xxxvii),Dewey’s essay “Poetry and Philosophy”(1890) beginswith a long epigraph fromArnold.Eames says: “Dewey isappreciativeofmanyoftheinsightsofMatthewArnold,andinlateryearshe turns again and again to ideas he attributed to this poet and critic.Arnold once wrote that ‘poetry is a criticism of life’, and while Deweythinksthatpoetryismorethanthis,hewasinfluencedbyArnold’sviewintransferring it into philosophy, for he later writes that philosophy ‘isinherentlycriticism’,andinhisownmethodmakesphilosophy‘acriticismof criticisms’.” This idea is also echoed by the Italian political thinkerAntonioGramsci (1891–1937),acontemporaryofAmbedkar:“Thecrisisconsistsprecisely in the fact that theold isdyingand thenewcannotbe

born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”(1971,276).

ANoteonthePoonaPact

ANoteonthePoonaPact

S.Anand

IftheCommunalAwardof16August1932wasavictoryofsortsforthosewhosought to take social difference seriously in India, the Poona Pact of 24September 1932 was a defeat. At a time of urgent political and ideologicalcontestationoverthefutureofIndia,thepactabruptlycameinthewayofmoreambitiouswaysof fashioningademocracy thatwould suita subcontinentmadeup essentially of caste, religious, regional and linguistic minorities, what B.R.Ambedkar termed a “congeries of communities”.1 This was a time whenAmbedkar,with radical foresight,was trying to stymie the adoption of a first-past-the-post system, which he feared in the Indian context would result in aHinducommunalmajorityparadingasapoliticalmajority.M.K.Gandhi,ontheotherhand,opposedspecialrepresentationtoeveryothercommunityexcepttheMuslimsandtheSikhs.Hearguedthatseparateelectorates“wouldsimplyvivisectanddisrupt”Hinduism,andsuggestedthattheCommunalAward“willcreateadivision in Hinduism which I cannot possibly look forward to with anysatisfaction whatsoever”.2 It was to oppose the political rights granted to theUntouchables by the Communal Award that Gandhi took a dramatic andcoercive step—a fast untodeathon20September 1932 that culminated in thePoonaPactonlyfourdayslater.

Indian academia, its intelligentsia and the political establishment haveremained, for the most part, indifferent to the complex workings of both theCommunalAwardand thePoonaPact. (The fewexceptionshavemostlybeenfollowers of the Dalit movement.3) In nationalist histories, the CommunalAward, which granted separate electorates not just to Untouchables but toMuslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, landlords, labourers andtraders,continuestobedepictedasunambiguouslydivisive.SinceAnnihilationofCaste is inpartaresponsetothedisappointmentAmbedkarfeltoverthePoona

Pact, it is important to understand what it practically meant.What led to theCommunalAward?WhatwasthethrustofGandhi’soppositiontoit?WhatwerethetermsofthePoonaPact?DidtheCongresshonourtheseterms?Theanswersto these questions also hold the key to understanding Ambedkar’s vehementattackonnotjustthecastesystem,butonHinduismitselfanditsfoundingtexts,inAnnihilationofCaste.4IndeedAmbedkarwassodevastatedthathealsowentontowrite—thirteen years after the Poona Pact—the strongest indictment of thepact, Gandhi and theCongress inWhatCongress andGandhiHaveDone to theUntouchables.

The firstRoundTableConference (RTC)was convened inLondonby theLabour government of Ramsay MacDonald from 12 November 1930 to 19January 1931 to discuss the future constitution of India. Since Gandhi hadinitiatedtheCivilDisobedienceMovementin1930,theCongressabstainedfromthe first round, which was eventually attended by Ambedkar and RettamalaiSrinivasan representing the Untouchables, M.A. Jinnah (among others)representingtheMuslims,andrepresentativesofvariousminoritycommunitiesaswell asof theprincely states.However,by the timeof the secondRTC,LordIrwin came to an agreement with the Congress, and it decided to attend theconference (from 7 September 1931 to 1December 1931),withGandhi as itsrepresentative.

At the conference, Gandhi impugned the leaders of the Muslim, Sikh,Untouchable and Christian communities, ridiculing their claims to self-representation. While he eventually came around to accepting the communalschemeofrepresentationforSikhsandMuslims,Gandhiwasparticularlyopposedto Ambedkar, who made a case for “separate electorates” for the DepressedClasses.What forAmbedkarwasamatterof securing thepolitical rightsof theUntouchables was for Gandhi a matter of religion. In a letter to Sir SamuelHoare,thenSecretaryofStateforIndia,on11March1932,hesaid:“Formethequestion of these classes is predominantly moral and religious. The politicalaspect,importantthoughitis,dwindlesintoinsignificancecomparedtothemoralandreligiousissue.”5

Ambedkar’s report on the seriousness with which Gandhi attended theconferenceisworthquotingatlength:

Iamsure Iamnotexaggeratingormisrepresenting factswhenI say that theCongresspointofviewattheRoundTableConferencewasthattheCongresswastheonlypartyinIndiaandthatnobodyelsecountedandthattheBritish

shouldsettlewiththeCongressonly.ThiswastheburdenofMrGandhi’ssongattheRoundTableConference.HewassobusyinestablishinghisownclaimtorecognitionbytheBritishasthedictatorofIndiathatheforgotaltogetherthattheimportantquestionwasnotwithwhomthesettlementshouldbemadebut what were to be the terms of that settlement. As to the terms of thesettlement, Mr Gandhi was quite unequal to the task. When he went toLondonhehadforgottenthathewouldhavebeforehimnotthosewhogotohimtoobtainhisadviceandreturnwithhisblessingsbutpersonswhowouldtreathimasalawyertreatsawitnessinthebox.MrGandhialsoforgotthathewasgoingtoapoliticalconference.HewentthereasthoughhewasgoingtoaVaishnava Shrine singing Narsi Mehta’s songs. When I think of the wholeaffairIamwonderingifanynationhadeversentarepresentativetonegotiatethetermsofanationalsettlementwhowasmoreunfitthanMrGandhi.6

GandhiheldontotheviewthattheCongresswasthesolerepresentativeofallIndians. In an article inHarijan on 21October 1939, tellingly captioned “TheFiction ofMajority”, he wrote with the conviction that only aMahatma cansummon:

IknowthatmanyhavebeenangrywithmeforclaiminganexclusiverightfortheCongresstospeakforthepeopleofIndiaasawhole.Itisnotanarrogantpretension.ItisexplicitinthefirstarticleoftheCongress.Itwantsandworksfor independence for the whole of India. It speaks neither formajority norminority. It seeks to represent all Indianswithout any distinction.Thereforethose who oppose it should not count, if the claim for independence isadmitted. Those who support the claim simply give added strength to theCongressclaim…Inotherwordsandinreality,sofarasIndiaisconcerned,there canonlybepoliticalparties andnomajorityorminority communities.Thecryofthetyrannyofthemajorityisafictitiouscry.7

In this piece, Gandhi goes on tomock all claims tominority rights, sayingBrahminsandzamindars(landlords)toocouldclaimtheminoritytag.

Notwithstanding Gandhi’s opposition, the Communal Award of 16 August1932 allotted, among other things, separate electorates and two votes to theDepressedClasses/Untouchablesfortwentyyears,thoughAmbedkarhadsoughtthemonlyfortenyears.Clause9oftheAwardread:

Members of the ‘Depressed Classes’ qualified to vote will vote in a general

constituency. In view of the fact that for a considerable period these classeswouldbeunlikely,bythismeansalone,tosecureanyadequaterepresentationintheLegislature,anumberofspecialseatswillbeassignedtothem…Theseseats will be filled by election from special constituencies in which onlymembers of the ‘Depressed Classes’ electorally qualified will be entitled tovote.Anypersonvotinginsuchaspecialconstituencywill,asstatedabove,bealso entitled to vote in a general constituency. It is intended that theseconstituenciesshouldbeformedinselectedareaswheretheDepressedClassesare most numerous, and that, except in Madras, they should not cover thewholeareaoftheProvince.8

In these double-member constituencies (DMCs), one member was to beselectedfromamongUntouchables(orAdivasis/ScheduledTribesasthecasemaybe),andonefromamongtheHindus.9Thismeant,first,thatUntouchables,andonly Untouchables, would choose their representatives to legislatures. Second,theywouldbeabletocastasecondballottohaveasayinwhoamongthecasteHinduswasbestsuited—orleastinimical—torepresentUntouchableinterestsina legislativebody.Such safeguardswerenecessary, arguedAmbedkar, sincenotonlywereUntouchablesoutnumberedbysavarnas(casteHindus),sometimestothetuneof“onetoten”,theywerealsophysicallyvulnerabletoattacksbycasteHindus during elections—the kind of violence that continues to take place inmost parts of India even today. Since the Untouchables did not enjoy civil,economic or religious rights on a par with the caste Hindus, and they werewidely and routinely stigmatised,Ambedkar believed that amere right to votewoulddo themnogood, and that theywouldbe subject to themanipulationsandmachinationsofHindus.Thedoublevote,withtherighttoexclusivelyelecttheirownrepresentatives,wouldensurethatthesavarnasandtherestofsocietycame to regard Untouchables as worthy of respect and dignity. Indeed,Untouchableswouldbecomepoliticallyconsequentialcitizens—Dalits.

Gandhi’sresponsetotheCommunalAwardwastodeploythemostpowerfulweaponinhisarsenal.Heannouncedthathewouldfast—untodeath—untiltheAward was revoked. The nation flew into panic. Gandhi’s lieutenant, C.Rajagopalachari, suggestedthatthe“20thofSeptembershouldbeobservedasadayoffastingandprayeralloverIndia”.10

The British government said it would revoke the Award only if Ambedkaragreed.Atfirst,AmbedkaraskedGandhitoweighinthetruth:“IftheMahatmachoosestoasktheDepressedClassestomakeachoicebetweenHindufaithand

possession of political power, I am quite sure that the Depressed Classes willchoose political power and save the Mahatma from self-immolation.”11

Ambedkarwasmakingapointhehadalwaysmade—abouthisuneasewithbeingtold that theUntouchables belong to the ‘Hindu’ fold. “I’m not a part of thewhole.Iamapartapart,”hewastosayasamemberoftheBombayLegislativeAssemblyin1939.12

As Ambedkar stood his ground, the British Prime Minister RamsayMacDonaldtriedtoreassureGandhithattheprovisionsoftheCommunalAwarddidnotinanywaydividetheDepressedClassesandtheHindus.Inaletterdated8 September 1932, he explained to Gandhi that “the Depressed Classes willremainpartoftheHinducommunityandwillvotewiththeHinduelectorateonanequalfooting”.MacDonaldpointedoutthatinthe“limitednumberofspecialconstituencies”meanttosafeguardthe“rightsandinterests”oftheUntouchables,“theDepressedClasseswillnotbedeprivedoftheirvotesinthegeneralHinduconstituencies, but will have two votes in order that their membership of theHindu community should remain unimpaired”. He further argued that suchsafeguardswerenotapplicabletoMuslimswho“cannotvoteorbeacandidateina general constituency, whereas any electorally qualified member of theDepressedClassescanvoteinandstandforthegeneralconstituency”.13

On 19 September, one day before the commencement of Gandhi’s fast,Ambedkarsaid,“IcanneverconsenttodelivermypeopleboundhandandfoottotheCasteHindusforgenerationstocome.”HedescribedGandhi’sepicfastasan “extreme form of coercion”, a “foul and filthy act”, and a “vow of self-immolation”.14

Gandhi nevertheless went ahead with his religious “vow”. Almost all theleadersofthenationalmovementralliedbehindhim,andbyimplication,againstAmbedkar.Gandhi’s sonDevdaspubliclybeggedAmbedkar to savehis father’slife. Pleading with theMahatma to relent, Ambedkar pointed out that shouldGandhidie,itwould“resultinnothingbutterrorismbyhisfollowersagainsttheDepressedClassesalloverthecountry”.15Vulnerableandhatedandlivingonthemarginsofasocietythatroutinelyresortedtocollectivepunishmentagainstthem,thiswas not a chanceAmbedkar could, in good conscience, afford to take onbehalfof theUntouchables.Hehadbeenplaced in an impossibleposition, andforced into a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life. On 24September1932,Ambedkargave inand signed thePoonaPact as theprincipalsignatory on behalf of the Depressed Classes, while the right-wing HinduMahasabha leader,PanditMadanMohanMalaviya, representedGandhi and the

Hindus.Gandhididnotsignthepact.UnderthePoonaPact,Untouchableshadtogiveuptheir separateelectorate

andbepartofjointelectorateswithHindus.TheyalsohadtogiveuptheuniquepoliticalweaponAmbedkarhadwonforthem—thesecondvotethatwouldgivethem a say in the election of caste-Hindu candidates in their constituency.Allthat remained forScheduledCasteswas a reserved seatwhoseholderwouldbeselectedbythegeneralpopulation.TheScheduledCasterepresentativewould,ineffect,be selectedby theverycaste-Hindumajority thathadalreadyproved itshostilitytoScheduledCastepoliticalaspirations.

Whatwastheimmediatefalloutofthe1932arrangement?OncetheprovisionsofthePoonaPactwereincorporatedintotheGovernmentofIndiaActof1935—theConstitutionofBritishIndia—elections totheprovincial legislatures tookplaceinFebruary1937.ThiswastobethefirsttestoftheefficacyofthePoonaPact,whosekeyprovisionlayinClause2:

Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to thefollowingprocedure:

AllthemembersoftheDepressedClasses,registeredinthegeneralelectoralrollinaconstituency,willformanelectoralcollege,whichwillelectapanelof four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of suchreservedseatsbythemethodofthesinglevote;thefourpersonsgettingthehighest number of votes in such primary election shall be candidates forelectionbythegeneralelectorate.16

Whilethenovelconceptof‘primaries’wasthusintroducedforthefirsttimeinIndia, the vaguewording left a lot to interpretation.The seemingly innocuous“paneloffour”,Ambedkarfelt,couldbemisusedandabused.Shouldthepanelhaveaminimumoffourmembersoramaximumoffourcandidates?Andwhatwouldbethemethodofvotinginthefinalelection?Toaddresssuchquestionsacommittee, headed by Sir Laurie Hammond, was constituted. According toAmbedkar, theHindusmaintained that thepanel of fourwas intended tobe aminimum.Thismeantthatiffourcandidateswerenotforthcomingoravailable,therecouldbenoprimaryelection,andthustherewouldbenoelectionforthereserved seat. In his deposition before the Hammond Committee, Ambedkarassertedthat fourinthePoonaPactmeant“notmorethanfour”,andnot“notlessthanfour”.AmbedkarbelievedthatabaggypaneloffourmeanttheHindus

would be at an advantage “to capture the seat for an election of such arepresentative of theUntouchable candidatewhowould be their nominee andwhowouldbemostwillingtobethetooloftheHindus”.17Thatis,theHinduswouldensureaweakandpliableUntouchablecandidateinthepanel,andfurtheronelectsuchaperson.Supposetherewasnopanel,andonlyUntouchablesgottodecidewhowouldrepresentthem,suchacandidate,accordingtoAmbedkar,“wouldbethestaunchestrepresentativeoftheUntouchablesandworstfromthestandpointoftheHindus”.18

Furthermore, the representative of the Hindus deposing to the HammondCommittee claimed that the “compulsory distributive” vote was the mostappropriate, while Ambedkar argued for the “cumulative” system of voting.Undercompulsorydistributivevote,“theelectorhasalsoasmanyvotesasthereareseats,buthecangiveonlyonevotetoanyonecandidate”.ThismeanstheUntouchable voter cannot cast all four votes to one favoured candidate. Thiscouldhappenunderthecumulativesystem,where“theelectorhasasmanyvotesasthereareseats”and“maygivethemalltoonecandidateorhemaydistributethemover twoormore candidates ashemaydesire”.19Ambedkar argued thatunderthedistributivemechanismthepossibilitiesofmanipulationwerehigher:

Their main object was to flood the election to the seat reserved for theUntouchablesinthejointelectoratebyusingthesurplusvotesoftheHindusinfavourof theUntouchablecandidatewhohappens tobetheirnominee.Theobject was to outnumber the Untouchable voters and prevent them fromelecting theirownnominee.Thiscannotbedoneunless the surplusvotesofthe Hindu voters were diverted from the Hindu candidate towards theUntouchable candidates. There is a greater chance of the diversion of thesesurplusvotesunderthedistributivesystemthanthereisunderthecumulativesystem.20

In Ambedkar’s reckoning, if the caste Hindus were given a clearer choiceunder the cumulative system, theywould prefer to fight their battleswith oneanother—a caste-Hindu voter could give all votes to his favourite caste-Hinducandidate as against rival caste-Hindu candidates, and leave the Untouchablecandidates untouched. But if they were forced to give only one vote percandidate, in the distributive system, their hatred for a radical Untouchablecandidatewouldoutweigh,intheirminds,thepreferenceforasecond,thirdorfourthcaste-Hinducandidate.

Afterhearingoutallviews,theHammondCommitteeruledthatthenumberfour in the primaries panel is “neither a maximum nor a minimum, but anoptimum”.Itfurtherruledthat“ifthereisonlyonecandidateastheresultoftheprimaryelection,oronaccountofsubsequentwithdrawals,thatcandidateshouldbe returned unopposed for the reserved seat at the final election”.21 Anothercrucial decision was that the “primary election should take place two monthsbefore the final election”, thus providing ample scope for the casteHindus tobacktheirpreferredUntouchablecandidate.

The tug ofwar since theRoundTableConferenceswas aboutwhowouldhavethe‘finalsay’.ThecasteHinduswantedtohavethefinalsayinthelivesofUntouchables even in the new paradigms of electoral democracy andrepresentation. However, given that they were a persecuted minority, theUntouchables—representedbyAmbedkar—wantedtoreversethishistoricallogicandhaveafinalsayinthelivesofcasteHindus,themajoritycommunity.FortheHindus,ledbyGandhi,thisradicalideawasanathema.AmbedkarreflectsonthisconundruminAnnihilationofCastebycomparingtheCommunalAwardwiththerepublican constitution of Rome, where he argues that the patricians and theplebeians“formedtwodistinctcastes”.Theplebeians“nevercouldgetaplebeianconsulwhocouldbesaidtobeastrongman,andwhocouldactindependentlyofthepatricianconsul”.AmbedkarlikensthemannerinwhichtheplebeianslosetheirrightstohowUntouchables loseoutinthePoonaPact—thecasteHindusand patricians offer some concessions but retain a final say in the lives ofUntouchablesandplebeiansrespectively.22

AlthoughAmbedkarconcededthatthenumberofseatsUntouchablesgotafterthePoonaPacthadalmostdoubledcomparedtowhathehadbargainedforintheCommunalAward,23hewasalerttoitstrueimport.Ambedkarlamentedthelossofthe“pricelessprivilege”ofthedoublevotewhose“valueasapoliticalweaponwasbeyondreckoning”:

Nocaste-HinducandidatecouldhavedaredtoneglecttheUntouchableinhisconstituencyorbehostiletotheirinterestifhewasmadedependentuponthevotes of theUntouchables. Today theUntouchables have a fewmore seatsthanwere given to themby theCommunalAward.But this is all that theyhave. Every other member is indifferent, if not hostile. If the CommunalAwardwithitssystemofdoublevotinghadremainedtheUntouchableswouldhavehadafewseatslessbuteveryothermemberwouldhavebeenamemberfor the Untouchables. The increase in the number of seats for the

Untouchables is no increase at all and was no recompense for the loss ofseparateelectoratesandthedoublevote.24

AttheheartofAmbedkar’sapproachtodemocracywasthequestionofhowtoensure that all minorities—especially, but not only, the Untouchables—couldsuccessfully bargain for adequate protections. Democracy, in theory, waspremised on the idea of ‘one person, one value’ and hence ‘one person, onevote’.ButUntouchables, treatedas lesserhumans,werenot accorded the samevalue as Touchables. To make democracy substantive in a caste-differentiatedsociety,therefore,itrequiredmodification.Insucharedesigneddemocracy,thevalue of a devaluedUntouchable had to be deliberately raised through specialprovisionssuchasthedoublevoteortheadoptionoftheprincipleofreservation,orboth.

In the 1937 elections, there were 151 reserved seats25 from which onlyUntouchablescouldbeelected.TheCongresswonseventy-eightofthese,andinAmbedkar’s words, it “left only 73 seats to be filled by true and independentrepresentativesoftheUntouchables”(BAWS9,92).For,heargued,themajorityofseventy-eightseatswonbytheCongress“werewonwiththehelpofHinduvotes and they do not therefore in any way represent the Scheduled Castes”(BAWS9,iii).Significantly,theCongress,despiteitsfinancialmuscle,lostouttonon-CongressUntouchable candidates inBombay andBengal,where theDalitmovementwasstrong.AmbedkarformedtheIndependentLabourPartyonlyfivemonthsbefore theFebruary1937election,despitewhich the ILP“obtainedanastonishingdegreeofsuccess.Outofthe15seatsassignedtotheScheduledCastesinBombayPresidencyitcaptured13andinadditionitwon2generalseats”.26

More crucially, according to Ambedkar, the Congress provincial ministriesacross thecountrydecidednot toofferanycabinetposts toa singleoneof theseventy-eight Untouchable legislators. At the Round Table Conferences,Ambedkar had “pressed the claim of the Untouchables for the recognition oftheir right to representation in theCabinetwith the sameemphasis” ashehaddone for “the recognitionof their right to representation in theLegislature”.27

WhenNarayanBhaskarKhare,28thePrimeMinisteroftheCongressministryintheCentralProvinces,formedaCabinetwithR.G.Agnibhoj,anUntouchable,as oneofhisministers, theCongressWorkingCommitteemet inWardha andpassedaresolutionon26July1938condemningKhare.Ambedkarsays:

Dr Khare openly said that according to Mr Gandhi the act of indiscipline

consisted in the inclusionof anUntouchable in theMinistry.DrKhare alsosaidthatMrGandhitoldhimthatitwaswrongonhisparttohaveraisedsuchaspirations and ambitions in theUntouchables and itwas such an act of badjudgement that he would never forgive him. This statement was repeatedlymadebyDrKharefromplatforms.MrGandhihasnevercontradictedit.29

In1942, anUntouchablememberof theCongress,havingattended theAll-India Scheduled Castes Conference, wrote a letter to Gandhi and signed it as“FiveQuestionsbyaHarijanM.L.A.”HesoughttoknowfromGandhiifinthefutureconstitutionofIndiahewouldensuretherepresentationofUntouchablesby agreeing“to fix the five seats fromaPanchayatBoardupwards to theStateCouncilonpopulationbasis”;if,“inviewofthebackwardnessoftheHarijans”,Gandhiwouldadvisethegovernmenttoensurethatexecutivepostsinthe“LocalBoards andMunicipalCouncilsbeheldoncommunal rotation, so as toenabletheHarijanstobecomePresidentsandChairmen”;ifhewouldadviseCongressministriestoensurethatScheduledCaste legislatorsaremadeCabinetministers;andifhecould“fixsomepercentageofseatsforHarijansfromDistrictCongressCommittee upwards to the Working Committee of the Congress”. Gandhi’sreply,givenon2August1942inhismouthpieceHarijan,resortedtothelogicofmeritocracyusedoftenbythoseopposedtoanyformofaffirmativeaction:

The principle is dangerous. Protection of its neglected classes should not becarried toanextentwhichwillharmthemandharmthecountry.Acabinetministershouldbeatopmostmancommandinguniversalconfidence.Apersonafterhehassecuredaseatinanelectedbodyshoulddependuponhisintrinsicmeritandpopularitytosecurecovetedpositions.30

AmbedkaralsosawapatterninthemannerinwhichtheCongressoversawtheselectionofnon-BrahminandUntouchablecandidates:

FromcandidateswhocamefromhighcasteHindus,suchasBrahminsandthealliedcommunities,thosewiththehighestqualificationswereselected.Inthecase of the Non-Brahmins those with low qualifications were preferred tothosewith higher qualifications. And in the case of theUntouchables thosewithlittleornoqualificationswereselectedinpreferencetothosewhohad.31

He came to the conclusion that “the Congress sucked the juice out of thePoonaPactandthrewtherindinthefaceoftheUntouchables”.32

TheghostofthePoonaPactwastohauntthemanwhoknewhowthecasteHinduswoulduseitslogictoensurethedefeatofthebestofDalits.33Thusthemanwhofrom1946to1950pilotedthedraftingoftheIndianConstitutionwashumiliated twice at the hustings in independent India, both times by less ablecandidates that theCongress fielded. In the first everpolls to theLokSabha in1951,contestingontheticketofhisparty,theScheduledCastesFederation,fromthereservedpartofthedouble-memberBombayNorthconstituency,Ambedkarwasdefeatedby14,374votesbyNarayanSadobaKajrolkaroftheCongress.TheCongress deliberately fielded a candidate who was a Chambhar, the largestUntouchablecasteaftertheMaharsintheregion.HewasalsoaknownopponentofAmbedkar, aMahar.34Kajrolkar had opposedAmbedkar on theCommunalAward as well as over his call for conversion, saying “we are shocked at theadvicegiventous,Harijans,byourveteranleaderDrAmbedkar,toabandontheHindureligion…Itbreaksourheartstosee…[that]DrAmbedkarwhogaveusaprominent leadinthepast, shouldaskustocommitsuicidebyabandoningourreligion.”35 When Ambedkar tried his luck in the 1954 by-election fromBhandara,Maharashtra, he lost again, this time to anotherCongress candidate,Bhaurao Borkar, someone who earlier used to organise workers for theScheduledCastesFederation,thepartyfoundedandledbyAmbedkar.

Today,IndiaboastsofhavingasystemofpoliticalreservationsthatensuresthatScheduledCastesandScheduledTribesareelectedtoalllegislativebodies—fromthe panchayat upwards—in proportion to their share in the population. In thecaseoftheLokSabha,theLowerHouseofParliament,ofits543seats,seventy-ninearereservedforDalits,andforty-oneforAdivasis.

However,Ambedkar, andDalits today,wouldhavebeenhappierwithmorejuiceandlessrind.

1

2

3

4

NOTES

BAWS4,13.

CitedinBAWS9,78.

Thedemand to restore thedoublevote toDalits and separate electorateshasbeenmadebybothfringeandfrontlineDalitgroups—tonoeffect.InTamil Nadu, the initiatives led byRavikumar in the mid-1990s, whereelevenconferenceswerehelddemandingthattheCommunalAwardbere-introduced,aredocumentedinthefilmOneWeapon(1997)bySanjayKak.ThemostvociferousattackonthePoonaPactinpost-independenceIndiawasledbyKanshiRamevenbeforehefoundedtheBahujanSamajParty(BSP) in 1984.On 24 September 1982, he catapulted onto the nationalstagebymourningthefiftiethanniversaryofthesigningofthePoonaPact.Less than a year before, Kanshi Ram—then relatively unknown—hadfoundedtheDalitShoshitSamajSangharshSamiti(knownasDS4)ontheanniversaryofAmbedkar’sdeath,6December1981.HisfrontalattackonthePoonaPact,throughsixtysimultaneousdenunciationprogrammesfromPoonatoJalandhar,madePrimeMinisterIndiraGandhiabandonherplanstocommemoratetheoccasion.KanshiRambelievedthatitwasthePoonaPact that had turned elected Dalit representatives into lackeys of theCongressparty.Hecalledthemchamchas(stooges),andtermedthepost-Poona Pact era the ‘Chamcha Age’. For Kanshi Ram, the bestrepresentativeofCongress-rearedchamchaswas JagjivanRam—projectedby Gandhi and the Congress as the ‘Harijan face’ of their party—whoeventually rose to become Deputy Prime Minister. Till date, the BSPremains the only mainstream political party that speaks unambiguouslyagainstthePoonaPactandGandhi.

ThosekeenonanexhaustiveengagementwiththeCommunalAwardandthePoonaPactwould benefit by readingAmbedkar’s 1945 classic,WhatCongressandGandhiHaveDonetotheUntouchables(BAWS9).TheessaysofRavinder Kumar (1985) and Upendra Baxi (1979, 1995) may also beconsulted. For a Gandhian account of the Poona Pact, see his secretaryPyarelal’svolume(1932),which,Ambedkarsays“bearsthepicturesqueandflamboyant title of The Epic Fast. The curious may refer to it. I must,however,warnhimthatitiswrittenbyaBoswellandhasallthefaultsof

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Boswelliana”(BAWS9,87).

CitedinBAWS9,78.

BAWS1,351–2.

CWMG77,5.

BAWS9,81.

BaxiexplainstheworkingsofaDMC:“Oncountingofvotes,theleadingScheduledCaste orTribe candidate got the reserved seat.Thereafter, alltheother candidates, including the scheduledgroups,were considered tobeincompetitionforthegeneralseat,whichwasawardedtothecandidatewho polled the largest number of votes. Thus, if the scheduled groupspolled the largestnumberofvotes in the secondcategory the systemwillproduce two of their representatives, instead of one as in the system ofreserved constituency” (1979, 19). Even the Poona Pact worked on thebasis of such double-member constituencies, and these continued tooperate inIndia till1961,whentheywereabolishedafter twoScheduledTribecandidates“gothighervotesthanthetwonon-tribalcandidatesandwere declared elected” (Baxi 1979, 19), resulting in the defeat of theCongress stalwart and future President of India V.V. Giri from theParvatipuram constituency in Andhra Pradesh in 1959 to Dippala SuriDora. Giri contested this ‘injustice’ in the Supreme Court, which sawnothing wrong with a tribal candidate winning the confidence of thegeneral electorate.AsBaxi puts it, “Giri’s election petition, inwhich heevenargued that [the] reservationspolicies infringe the fundamental rightguaranteed under Article 14, was negatived by the Supreme Court in1959.”TheCongress-dominatedParliamentthendecidedtodoawaywithDMCs through the Two-MemberConstituencies (Abolition) Act, 1961,puttinganendtoninety-onesuchLokSabhaconstituencies,whichweresubsequentlydelimitedandconvertedtosingle-memberconstituencies.

Pyarelal1932,19.

BAWS9,326.

BAWS10,166.

BAWS9,85.

Ibid.,253.259,312.

Ibid.,316.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

ForthefulltextofthePoonaPact,seeibid.,88–9

Ibid.,92.

Ibid.,92.

Ibid.,92.

Ibid.,92.

CitedinKhan1937,319.

SeeAoC,2.20,3.3–3.6.

The Poona Pact gave theUntouchables 148 seats,while theCommunalAwardhadgiventhemseventy-eight.

Ibid.,90.

While148wasthenumberagreeduponinthePoonaPact,threeseatshadtobeaddedtomakeadjustmentstoaccommodateBiharandOrissa.

Ibid.,iii.

Ibid.,95.

It is worth noting that Khare had been among those who delivered apresidential address to the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal. See Note 16 to AoCPreface.

BAWS9,98.

CWMG83,119.

BAWS9,101.

Ibid.,103.

The Poona Pact continues to hauntDalits andDalit-led political parties.Whilepliablecandidatescancontestandwinwithaticketfromanyofthemainstream parties—Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, DravidaMunnetraKazhagamorthecommunistparties—ittookmanydefeatsbeforeBahujanSamajPartystalwartsKanshiRamandMayawaticouldwinelections,evenfromreservedconstituencies.Eventoday,itisrareforaDalitcandidatetowin from a general, non-reserved constituency—irrespective of the partysherepresents.Infact,thishasnotbeenpossibleevenattheheightoftheBSP’spopularity inUttarPradesh.During the2007assemblyelections inthestate, theBSPfieldedonly fourof itsninety-threeDalitcandidates ingeneralconstituencies.Thenon-Dalitvote inageneralconstituencydoesnoteasilytransfertoaDalit,itseems,asallfourlost;meanwhile,sixty-two

34

35

oftheeighty-ninecandidatesfieldedinreservedconstituencieswon.Forananalysis of how the BSP managed to wrest power despite parliamentarydemocracy,seeAnand(2008).

ZelliotinKothari1973,53.

Burra1986,430.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad,Imtiaz.1978.CasteandSocialStratificationAmongMuslimsinIndia.Delhi:Manohar.

Aloysius,G.1997.NationalismWithoutaNationinIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

——.2004.Introd.toSwamiDharmateertha,NoFreedomwithCaste:TheMenaceofHinduImperialism.NewDelhi:MediaHouse.(Orig.publ.Krishnanagar,Lahore:HappyHomePublication,1941.)

Ambedkar,B.R.1979.“CastesinIndia:TheirMechanism,GenesisandDevelopment.”IndianAntiquary41:81–95.Repr.BAWS,vol.1,5–22.Mumbai:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.(Orig.publ.1917.)

——.1987a.“KrishnaandHisGita”InBAWS,vol.3,375–80.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1987b.“RevolutionandCounter-RevolutioninAncientIndia.”InBAWS,vol.3.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1987c.“PhilosophyofHinduism.”InBAWS,vol.3,1–92.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1989a.“EssaysonUntouchablesandUntouchability.”InBAWS,vol.5,Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1989b.“UntouchablesortheChildrenofIndia’sGhetto.”InBAWS,vol.5.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.

——.1990.TheUntouchables:WhoWereTheyandWhyTheyBecameUntouchable.InBAWS,vol.7.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.(Orig.publ.1948.)

——.1991.WhatCongressandGandhiHaveDonetotheUntouchables.InBAWS,vol.9.Bombay:EducationDepartment,GovernmentofMaharashtra.(Orig.publ.1945.)

——.1992.“DrAmbedkar’sSpeechatMahad[1927].”InPoisonedBread:TranslationsfromModernMarathiDalitLiterature.Ed.ArjunDangle,223–33.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.

——.2010.“Capitalism,LabourandBrahminism.”Speechdelivered12–13

February1938.InThusSpokeAmbedkar,Vol.1:AStakeintheNation.Ed.BhagwanDas,49–68.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Anand,S.2008.“DespiteParliamentaryDemocracy.”Himal,August.http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/838-despite-parliamentary-democracy.html.Accessed20July2013.

——.2010.“EqualisationtoAnnihilation—andBeyond.”Himal,April.http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/53/118-equalisation-to-annihilation-and-beyond.html.Accessed10March2013.

Anjum,Tanvir.2011.FromRestrainedIndifferencetoCalculatedDefiance:ChishtiSufisintheSultanateofDelhi(1190–1400).NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ansari,KhalidAnis.2013.“Muslimsthat‘MinorityPolitics’LeftBehind.”TheHindu,17June.http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/muslims-that-minority-politics-left-behind/article4820565.ece.Accessed20April2013.

Anwar,Ali.2005.MasawatkiJung[Battleforequality].NewDelhi:IndianSocialInstitute.

Armstrong,Karen.2000.Islam:AShortHistory.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Bachchan,HarivanshRai.1998.IntheAfternoonofTime:AnAutobiography.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Ballhatchet,Kenneth.1998.Caste,ClassandCatholicisminIndia:1789–1914.Cornwall:CurzonPress.

Bapu,Prabhu.2013.HinduMahasabhainColonialNorthIndia,1915–1930:ConstructingNationandHistory.Oxon:Routledge.

Bartley,C.J.2002.TheTheologyofRamanuja:RealismandReligion.London:Routledge.

Baruah,Sanjib.2007.DurableDisorder:UnderstandingthePoliticsofNortheastIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bateson,William.1909.Mendel’sPrinciplesofHeredity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Baxi,Upendra.1979.PoliticalReservationsfortheScheduledCastes:B.R.AmbedkarMemorialLecture.Madras:UniversityofMadras.

——.1995.“EmancipationasJustice:BabasahebAmbedkar’sLegacyandVision.”InCrisisandChangeinContemporaryIndia.Ed.UpendraBaxiandBhikhuParekh,122–49.NewDelhi:Sage.

Bayly,Susan.1999.Caste,SocietyandPoliticsinIndia:FromtheEighteenthCenturytoModernIndia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bendrey,V.S.1960.CoronationofSivajitheGreat.Bombay:PPHBookstall.

Benson,James,ed.2010.MahadevaVedantin:Mimamsanyayasamgraha:ACompendiumofthePrinciplesofMimamsa.Wiesbaden:HarrassowitzVerlag.

Bhagwan,Har(Sethi).1974.“ExperiencesofaWorker”.TheAtheist6,March–April.Vijayawada:AtheistCentre.

BhaiParmanand.2003.TheStoryofMyLife.Tr.N.SundraIyerandLalChand.Lahore:TheCentralHinduYuvakSabha.Repr.NewDelhi:OceanBooks.(Orig.publ.1934.)

Bhandarkar,D.R.1911.“ForeignElementsintheHinduPopulation.”IndianAntiquary40:7–37.

Blavatsky,H.P.1892/2010.FromtheCavesandJunglesofHindostan.Gloucester:DodoPress.

Brailsford,HenryNoel.1931.RebelIndia.London:LeonardSteinandVictorGollancz.

——.1936.“MoralityandtheSocialStructure”.AryanPath,April:166–9.

Brasted,Howard.1980.“IndianNationalistDevelopmentandtheInfluenceofIrishHomeRule,1870–1886.”ModernAsianStudies14(1):37–63.

Brockington,J.L.1996.TheSacredThread:AShortHistoryofHinduism.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Bühler,George.1886.TheLawsofManu.SacredBooksoftheEast25.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Repr.2004.NewDelhi:Cosmo.

——.1898.TheSacredLawsoftheAryas:AsTaughtintheSchoolsofApastamba,Gautama,VasishthaandBaudhayana.NewYork:TheChristianLiteratureCompany.(Orig.publ.1879.)

Burke,Edmund.2001.ReflectionsontheRevolutioninFrance:ACriticalEdition.Ed.J.C.D.Clark.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.(Orig.publ.1790.)

Burra,Neera.1986.“WasAmbedkarJustaLeaderoftheMahars?”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,15March:429–31.

Carlyle,Thomas.1831.SartorResartus:TheLifeandOpinionsofHerrTeufelsdrockh.http://archive.org/details/sartor00-resartuslicarlrich.Accessed20June2013.

——.1840.OnHeroes,Hero-WorshipandtheHeroicinHistory.London:Chapman

andHall.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1091/1091-h/1091-h.htm.Accessed20June2013.

Carver,ThomasNixon.1915.“WhatisJustice?”EssaysinSocialJustice.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.http://archive.org/details/essaysinsocialju00carv.Accessed12May2013.

CensusofIndia.1961.Volume11,Part6,Issue14.NewDelhi:OfficeoftheRegistrarGeneral.

Chakravarti,Uma.1995.“Wifehood,Widowhood,andAdultery:FemaleSexuality,Surveillance,andtheStateinEighteenth-CenturyMaharashtra.”ContributionstoIndianSociology,n.s.,29(1–2):3–21.

——.2000.RewritingHistory:LifeandTimesofPanditaRamabai.NewDelhi:KaliforWomen.

Chandra,Uday.2013.“LiberalismandItsOther:ThePoliticsofPrimitivisminColonialandPostcolonialIndianLaw.”Law&SocietyReview47(1):135–68.

Charsley,Simon.1996.“‘Untouchable’:WhatisinaName?”TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute2(1):1–23.

Chomsky,Noam.2003.OnDewey.http://www.american-philosophy.org/Chomsky_on_Dewey_transcript_2003.html.

——.2013.“CanCivilizationSurviveCapitalism?”AlterNet.http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-can-civilization-survive-capitalism.

Clooney,Francis,S.J.1990.ThinkingRitually:RediscoveringthePurvaMimamsaofJaimini.Vienna:PublicationsofthedeNobiliResearchLibrary.

Dalal,ChandulalBhagubhai.2007.HarilalGandhi:ALife.Ed.andtr.TridipSuhrud.Hyderabad:OrientBlackswan.

Dangle,Arjun,ed.1992.PoisonedBread:TranslationsfromModernMarathiDalitLiterature.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.

Das,Bhagwan.2010a.InPursuitofAmbedkar:AMemoir.NewDelhi:Navayana.

——.,ed.2010b.ThusSpokeAmbedkar,Vol.1:AStakeintheNation.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Debroy,Bibek,tr.2005.TheBhagavadGita.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Deshpande,G.P.,ed.2002SelectedWritingsofJotiraoPhule.NewDelhi:LeftWord.

Dewey,John.1916.DemocracyandEducation:AnIntroductiontothePhilosophyof

Education.Repr.NewYork:Macmillan,1958.Indianed.AakarBooks.NewDelhi:2004.Availableonline:ElectronicTextCenter,UniversityofVirginiaLibrary:http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DewDemo.html.Accessed15March2013.

——.1922.“TheNatureofPrinciples.”InHumanNatureandConduct:AnIntroductiontoSocialPsychology,238–47.NewYork:ModernLibrary.

Dharmateertha,Swami.1941.TheMenaceofHinduImperialism.Krishnanagar,Lahore:HappyHomePublication.Newedition:NoFreedomwithCaste:TheMenaceofHinduImperialism.Ed.andintrod.byG.Aloysius.NewDelhi:MediaHouse,2004.

Dicey,AlbertVenn.1885.IntroductiontotheStudyoftheLawoftheConstitution.London:Macmillan.

Dirks,NicholasB.2001.CastesofMind:ColonialismandtheMakingofModernIndia.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

Doniger,Wendy,ed.1993.PuranaPerennis:ReciprocityandTransformationinHinduandJainaTexts.NewYork:SUNYPress.

——andBrianK.Smith.Tr.1991.TheLawsofManu.NewDelhi:PenguinBooks.

D’Souza,Dilip.2001.BrandedbyLaw:LookingatIndia’sDenotifiedTribes.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Dutt,R.C.1980.SocialismofJawaharlalNehru.NewDelhi:Abhinav.

Eames,S.Morris.1969.“Introduction.”TheEarlyWorksofJohnDewey,1882–1898:EssaysandOutlinesofaCriticalTheoryofEthics,1889–1892,vol.3.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.

Eaton,RichardM.2005.“Tarabai(1675–1761):TheRiseofBrahminsinPolitics.”InASocialHistoryoftheDeccan,1300–1761:EightIndianLives,177–201.TheNewCambridgeHistoryofIndia8.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Falahi,MasoodAlam.2007.Hindustanmeinzaat-paataurMusalman[CasteisminIndiaandMuslims].NewDelhi:AlQaziPublishers.

Figueira,Dorothy.2002.Aryans,Jews,Brahmins:TheorizingAuthoritythroughMythsofIdentity.NewYork:SUNYPress.

Fontenrose,Joseph.1978.TheDelphicOracle:ItsResponsesandOperations,withaCatalogueofResponses.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Fuller,C.J.“Caste.”2003.InTheOxfordIndiaCompaniontoSociologyandSocialAnthropology.Ed.VeenaDas,477–501.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

FürerHaimendorf,Christophvon.1982.TribesofIndia:TheStruggleforSurvival.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Gaekwad,Fatehsinhrao.1989.SayajiraoofBaroda:ThePrinceandtheMan.Bombay:PopularPrakashan.

Gandhi,M.K.1925.“VarnashramaandUntouchability.”YoungIndia,3August.

——.1920.“CasteversusClass.”YoungIndia,29December.Repr.CWMG,vol.22,154–5.

——.1931.MahatmaGandhi:HisOwnStory.Ed.C.F.Andrews.NewYork:Macmillan.

——.1997.HindSwarajandOtherWritingsofM.K.Gandhi.Ed.andannotatedbyAnthonyParel.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

——.1999.TheCollectedWorksofMahatmaGandhi(ElectronicBook).98volumes.NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia.

Gandhi,Rajmohan.2007.Gandhi:TheMan,HisPeople,andtheEmpire.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Ghurye,GovindSadashiv.1969.CasteandRaceinIndia.NewDelhi:PopularPrakashan.

Giddings,FranklinH.2004.ThePrinciplesofSociology.NewDelhi:Cosmo.(Orig.publ.1896.)

Gramsci,Antonio.1971.SelectionsfromPrisonNotebooks.NewYork:InternationalPublishers.

Halbfass,Wilhelm.1990.TraditionandReflection:ExplorationsinIndianThought.NewYork:SUNYPress.

Hansen,ThomasBlom.1999.TheSaffronWaveDemocracyandHinduNationalisminModernIndia.NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Hardiman,David.2004.Gandhi:InHisTimeandOurs:TheGlobalLegacyofHisIdeas.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Harvey,R.D.1995.“PioneersofGenetics:AComparisonoftheAttitudesofWilliamBatesonandErwinBaurtoEugenics.”NotesandRecordsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon49(1):105–17.

Hassan,SyedSirajul.1920.TheCastesandTribesofH.E.H.theNizam’s

Dominions:Vol.1.Bombay:TheTimesPress.

Hawley,JohnStratton.2005.ThreeBhaktiVoices:Mirabai,Surdas,andKabirinTheirTimeandOurs.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hess,LindaandShukdeoSingh.2002.TheBijakofKabir.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

——.2009.SingingEmptiness:KumarGandharvaPerformsthePoetryofKabir.Calcutta:SeagullBooks.

Holt,Mara.1994.“Deweyandthe‘CultofEfficiency’:CompetingIdeologiesinCollaborativePedagogiesofthe1920s.”JournalofAdvancedComposition14(1):73–92.

Jackson,Alvin.2003.HomeRule:AnIrishHistory,1800–2000.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Jaffrelot,Christophe.1995.“TheGenesisandDevelopmentofHinduNationalisminthePunjab:FromtheAryaSamajtotheHinduSabha(1875–1990).”TheIndo–BritishReview21(1):3–39.

——.1999a.“MilitantHindusandtheConversionIssue(1885–1990):FromShuddhitoDharmParivartan:ThePoliticizationandtheDiffusionofan‘InventionofTradition’.”InTheResourcesofHistory:TraditionandNarrationinSouthAsia.Ed.J.Assayag.127–52.Paris:EFEO.

——.1999b.TheHinduNationalistMovementandIndianPolitics,1925tothe1990s:StrategiesofIdentity-building,ImplantationandMobilization.NewDelhi:Penguin.

——.2005.DrAmbedkarandUntouchability:AnalysingandFightingCaste.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

——.2010.Religion,Caste,andPoliticsinIndia.NewDelhi:PrimusBooks.

Jalal,Ayesha.1985.TheSoleSpokesman:Jinnah,theMuslimLeagueandtheDemandforPakistan.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Jha,Ganganatha.1942.ThePurva-MimamsaSutrasofJaimini:WithanOriginalCommentaryinEnglish.Banaras:BanarasHinduUniversity.

Johnson,Gordon.2005.ProvincialPoliticsandIndianNationalism:BombayandtheIndianNationalCongress.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Jolly,Julius.1889.TheMinorLawbooks:NaradaandBrihaspati.SacredTextsoftheEast,vol.33.Oxford:ClarendonPress.http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe33/index.htm.Accessed1March2013.

Jones,KennethW.2006.AryaDharm:HinduConsciousnessin19thCenturyPunjab.Delhi:Manohar.(Orig.publ.1976.)

Jones,William.1796.InstitutesofHindulaw,or,TheOrdinancesofMenu.Calcutta:Government;London:J.Sewell,Cornhill;andJ.Debrett.

Juergensmeyer,Mark.2009.ReligiousRebelsinthePunjab:TheAdDharmChallengetoCaste.NewDelhi:Navayana.(Orig.publ.1982.)

Kak,Sanjay.1997.OneWeapon.DVD,documentaryfilm.

Karlsson,BengtG.2011.UnrulyHills:NatureandNationinIndia’sNortheast.NewDelhi:SocialSciencesPress.

Keer,Dhananjay.1990.DrAmbedkar:LifeandMission.Bombay:PopularPrakashan.(Orig.publ.1954.)

Kela,Shashank.2012.ARogueandPeasantSlave:AdivasiResistance1800–2000.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Ketkar,S.V.1998.HistoryofCasteinIndia.NewDelhi:LowPricePublications.(Orig.publ.1909.)

Khan,Shafa’atAhmad.1937.TheIndianFederation:AnExpositionandCriticalReview.London:Macmillan.

KlausK.Klostermaier,2007.ASurveyofHinduism.NewYork:SUNYPress.

Knoll,Michael.2009.“FromKiddtoDewey:TheOriginandMeaningof‘SocialEfficiency’.”JournalofCurriculumStudies41(3):361–91.

Kopf,David.1979.TheBrahmoSamajandtheShapingoftheModernIndianMind.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kosambi,D.D.1962.MythandReality:StudiesintheFormationofIndianCulture.Bombay:PopularPrakashan.

Krishan,Gopal.2004.“DemographyofthePunjab(1849–1947).”JournalofPunjabStudies11(1):77–89.

Kshirsagar,R.K.1994.DalitMovementinIndiaanditsLeaders,1857–1956.NewDelhi:MDPublications.

Kumar,Aishwary.2010.“Ambedkar’sInheritances.”ModernIntellectualHistory7(2):391–415.

——.2014(forthcoming).EqualityatWar:Ambedkar,Gandhi,andtheAntinomiesofDemocracy.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Kumar,Krishna.1989.“ColonialCitizenasanEducationalIdeal.”Economic&

PoliticalWeekly,28January:45–51.

Kumar,Ravinder.1985.“Ambedkar,GandhiandthePoonaPact.”SouthAsia:JournalofSouthAsianStudies8(1–2):87–101.

Laine,James.2003.Shivaji:HinduKinginIslamicIndia.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lassalle,Ferdinand.1862“OntheEssenceofConstitutions.”Speechdeliveredon16April.Berlin.Repr.FourthInternational3(1),January1942:25–31.http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol03/no01/lassalle.htm.Accessed16February2013.

Lele,Jayant,ed.1981.TraditionandModernityinBhaktiMovements.Leideon:E.J.Brill.

Lelyveld,Joseph.2011.GreatSoul:MahatmaGandhiandHisStruggleWithIndia.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.

Livy.2006.TheHistoryofRome:Books1–5.Tr.ValerieWarrior.Indianapolis:HackettPublishingCompany,Inc.

Lochtefeld,James.2002.TheIllustratedEncyclopediaofHinduism,vol1.NewYork:RosenPublishingGroup.

Lorenzen,DavidN.2006.“WhoInventedHinduism?”InWhoInventedHinduism:EssaysonReligioninHistory,1–36.NewDelhi:YodaPress.

Louis,Prakash.2003.ThePoliticalSociologyofDalitAssertion.NewDelhi:GyanPublishing.

Lucas,Scott.2004.ConstructiveCritics,HadithLiterature,andtheArticulationofSunniIslam:TheLegacyoftheGenerationofIbnSeed,IbnMain,andIbnHanbal.Leiden:Brill.Majumdar,JanakiAgnesPenelope.2003.FamilyHistory.Ed.AntoinetteBurton.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Marcuse,Herbert.1991.One-DimensionalMan:StudiesintheIdeologyofAdvancedIndustrialSociety.Massachusetts:BeaconPress.(Orig.publ.1964.)

Marx,Karl,1865.“LettertoLudwigKugelman.”23February.Marx&EngelsInternetArchive.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_02_23.htm.Accessed16February2013.

Marx,Karl,andFriedrichEngels.2004.TheCommunistManifesto.London:Penguin.(Orig.publ.1848.)

McLane,JohnR.1988.“TheEarlyCongress,HinduPopulism,andtheWider

Society.”InCongressandIndianNationalism:ThePre-IndependencePhase.Ed.RichardSissonandStanleyA.Wolpert.California:UniversityofBerkeleyPress.

Michaels,Axel.2005.Hinduism:PastandPresent.NewDelhi:OrientLongman.

Mill,JohnStuart.1984.“AFewWordsonNon-Intervention.”InTheCollectedWorksofJohnStuartMill,vol.21.Toronto:TheUniversityofTorontoPress.(Orig.publ.1859.)http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=255&chapter=21666&layout=html&Itemid=27Accessed18March2013.

——.2004.ConsiderationsonRepresentativeGovernment.Onlinepubl.Pennsylvania:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity.(Orig.publ.1861.)http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/jsmill/considerations.pdf.Accessed20March2013.

Monius,Anne.2009.ImaginingaPlaceforBuddhism.LiteraryCultureandReligiousCommunityinTamil-SpeakingSouthIndia.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Morris,William.1888.ADreamofJohnBall.http://morrisedition.lib.uiowa.edu/dream1888text.html.Accessed20March2013.

Mosse,David.2012.TheSaintintheBanyanTree:ChristianityandCasteSocietyinIndia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Mukherjee,ArunP.2009.“B.R.Ambedkar,JohnDewey,andtheMeaningofDemocracy.”NewLiteraryHistory40(2):345–70.

Naregal,Veena.2001.LanguagePolitics,Elites,andthePublicSphere:WesternIndiaUnderColonialism.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

Nauriya,Anil,2006.“Gandhi’sLittle-KnownCritiqueofVarna.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,13May:1835–8.

——.2012.“GandhiandSomeContemporaryAfricanLeadersfromKwaZulu-Natal.”Natalia42:45–64.

Naval,T.R.2004.LegallyCombatingAtrocitiesonScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes.NewDelhi:ConceptPublishingCompany.

O’Brien,JohnA.1947.TruthsMenLiveBy:APhilosophyofReligionsandLife.NewYork:Macmillan.

O’Day,Alan.1998.IrishHomeRule,1867–1921.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

O’Hanlon,Rosalind.2002.Caste,ConflictandIdeology:MahatmaJotiraoPhuleandLow-CasteProtestinNineteenth-CenturyWesternIndia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

——.2010a.“LettersHome:BanarasPanditsandtheMarathaRegionsinEarlyModernIndia”.ModernAsianStudies44(2):201–40.

——.2010b.“TheSocialWorthofScribes:Brahmins,KayasthasandtheSocialOrderinEarlyModernIndia.”IndianEconomicSocialHistoryReview47(4):563–96.

Olivelle,Patrick.2005.Manu’sCodeofLaw:ACriticalEditionandTranslationoftheManava-Dharmasastra.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

——.2008.CollectedEssays1—Language,TextsandSociety:ExplorationsinAncientIndianCultureandReligion.Florence:UniversityofFlorencePress.

Omvedt,Gail.1976.CulturalRevoltinaColonialSociety:TheNon-BrahmanMovementinWesternIndia,1873–1930.Bombay:ScientificSocialistEducationTrust.

——.1994.DalitsandtheDemocraticRevolution:DrAmbedkarandtheDalitMovementinColonialIndia.NewDelhi:Sage.

——.2003.BuddhisminIndia:ChallengingBrahmanismandCaste.NewDelhi:Sage.

——.2004.Ambedkar:TowardsanEnlightenedIndia.NewDelhi:Penguin.

——.2008.SeekingBegumpura:TheSocialVisionofAnticasteIntellectuals.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Oommen,T.K.2005.CrisisandContentioninIndianSociety.NewDelhi:Sage.

Oppenheim,LassaFrancis.1905.InternationalLaw:ATreatise,vol.2.London:LongmansGreenandCo.

Pandit,Nalini.1992.“AmbedkarandtheBhagwatGita.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,16May:1063–5.

Pappas,GregoryFernando.2008.JohnDewey’sEthics:DemocracyasExperience.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Parel,Anthony,ed.2000.Gandhi,Freedom,andSelf-Rule.Oxford:Lexington.

——.Parel,Anthony,ed.1997.‘HindSwaraj’andOtherWritings.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Parpola,Asko.1981.“OntheFormationoftheMimamsaandtheProblems

concerningJaimini,WithParticularReferencetotheTeacherQuotationsandtheVedicSchools,Part1.”WienerZeitschriftfürdieKundeSüdasiens25:145–9.

Prashad,Vijay.1996.“TheUntouchableQuestion.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,2March:551–9.

——.2001.UntouchableFreedom:ASocialHistoryofaDalitCommunity.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

Puri,HarishK.2003.“ScheduledCastesinSikhCommunity:AHistoricalPerspective.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,4July:2693–701.

Pyarelal.1932.TheEpicFast.Ahmedabad:Navajivan.

Radhakrishna,Meena.2001.DishonouredbyHistory:‘CriminalTribes’andBritishColonialPolicy.NewDelhi:OrientLongman.

Radhakrishnan,S.1927.TheHinduWayofLife.London:GeorgeAllenandUnwinLtd.

Raghavan,T.C.A.1983.“OriginsandDevelopmentofHinduMahasabhaIdeology:TheCallofV.D.SavarkarandBhaiParmanand.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly9April:595–600.

Rajah,M.C.1925.TheOppressedHindus.Madras:TheHuxleyPress:

Ramasamy,Anushiya.2010.“WhereReasonisDazzledandMagicReginsSupreme.”InN.D.Rajkumar,GiveUsThisDayaFeastofFlesh:PoemsfromTamil.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Ramaswamy,Gita.2005.“MohandasGandhionManualScavenging.”Appendix4.InIndiaStinking:ManualScavengersinAndhraPradeshandTheirWork,86–95.Chennai:Navayana.

Rangarajan.L.N.,tr.1992.Kautilya:TheArthashastra.NewDelhi:Penguin.

Rao,Anupama.2009.TheCasteQuestion:DalitsandthePoliticsofModernIndia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Rao,ParimalaV.n.d.“EducatingWomenandNon-Brahminsas‘LossofNationality’:BalGangadharTilakandtheNationalistAgendainMaharashtra.”CWDSOccasionalPaper.http://www.cwds.ac.in/OCPaper/EducatingWomen-Parimala.pdf.Accessed30March2013.

Rawat,Ramnarayan.2001.“PartitionPoliticsandAchhutIdentity:AStudyoftheScheduledCastesFederationandDalitPoliticsinUP,1946–48.”InThePartitionsofMemory:TheAfterlifeoftheDivisionofIndia.Ed.SuvirKaul,111–39.

NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.

Rege,Sharmila.2013.AgainsttheMadnessofManu:B.R.Ambedkar’sWritingsonBrahmanicalPatriarchy.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Renold,Leah.1994.“Gandhi:PatronSaintoftheIndustrialist.”Sagar:SouthAsiaGraduateResearchJournal1(1):16–38.

Roy,T.N.1927.“HinduEugenics.”TheJournalofHeredity18(2):67–72.

Rüpke,Jörg,ed.2007.ACompaniontoRomanReligion.Oxford:Blackwell.

SantRam,B.A.2008Merejivankeanubhav[Experiencesofmylife].Repr.NewDelhi:GautamBookCentre.(Orig.pub.1963.)

Sarkar,SirJadunath.1948.ShivajiandHisTimes.Calcutta:S.C.SarkarandSons.

Satyanarayana,K.andSusieTharu,ed.2013.TheExerciseofFreedom:AnIntroductiontoDalitWriting.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Schimmel,Annemarie.1975.MysticalDimensionsofIslam.NorthCarolina:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

Sharma,Jyotirmaya.2012.CosmicLoveandHumanApathy:SwamiVivekananda’sRestatementofReligion.NewDelhi:HarperCollins.

Shourie,Arun.1997.WorshippingFalseGods:AmbedkarandtheFactswhichhavebeenErased.NewDelhi:ASAPublishers.

Siim,BirteandMonikaMokre.2013.NegotiatingGenderandDiversityinanEmergentEuropeanPublicSphere.Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.

Singleton,Mark.2007.“Yoga,Eugenics,andSpiritualDarwinismintheEarlyTwentiethCentury.”InternationalJournalofHinduStudies11(2):125–46.

Škof,Lenart.2011.“PragmatismandDeepenedDemocracy:AmbedkarBetweenDeweyandUnger.”InDemocraticCulture:HistoricalandPhilosophicalEssays.Ed.AkeelBilgrami,122–42.NewDelhi:Routledge.

Spencer,Herbert.1873.TheStudyofSociology.London:HenryS.King.

Srinivas,M.N.1972.SocialChangeinModernIndia.Hyderabad:OrientLongman.(Orig.publ.1966.)

Streets,Heather.2004.MartialRaces:TheMilitary,RaceandMasculinityinBritishImperialCulture,1857–1914.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Swaris,Nalin.2011.TheBuddha’sWaytoHumanLiberation:ASocio-HistoricalApproach.NewDelhi:Navayana.

Tejani,Shabnum.2013.“TheNecessaryConditionsforDemocracy:B.R.

AmbedkaronNationalism,MinoritiesandPakistan.”Economic&PoliticalWeekly,14December:111–19.

Tellegen-Couperus,Olga.1993.AShortHistoryofRomanLaw.London:Routledge.

Thapar,Romila.1989.“SyndicatedHindusim.”HinduismReconsidered.Ed.Günther-DietzSontheimerandHermannKulke,54–81.Delhi:Manohar.

Tilak,B.G.1903.TheArcticHomeintheVedas:BeingAlsoaNewKeytotheInterpretationofManyVedicTextsandLegends.Pune:TilakBros.

——.1935.TheEsotericImportoftheGita(SrimadBhagavadGitaRahasya).Tr.B.S.Sukthankar.Pune:TilakBros.

Tocqueville,Alexisde.DemocracyinAmerica.Tr.HenryReeve.Availableonlineathttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm.Accessed10September2013.

Usmani,Salman.2008.“ShacklingWater.”Tehelka,26January.

Viswanathan,Gauri.1998.OutsidetheFold:Conversion,Modernity,andBelief.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Wallace,PeterG.2004.TheLongEuropeanReformation:Religion,PoliticalConflict,andtheSearchforConformity,1350–1750.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Woodhouse,A.S.P.,ed.1951.PuritanismandLiberty,beingtheArmyDebates(1647–9)fromtheClarkeManuscriptswithSupplementaryDocuments.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2183.Accessed25August2013.

Yadav,KripalChandraandKrishanSinghArya.1988.AryaSamajandtheFreedomMovement:1875–1918.Delhi:Manohar.

Zelliot,Eleanor.2013.Ambedkar’sWorld:TheMakingofBabasahebandtheDalitMovement.NewDelhi:Navayana.

——andMaxineBerntsen,ed.1998.TheExperienceofHinduism:EssaysonReligioninMaharashtra.NewYork:SUNYPress.

——.1970.“LearningtheUseofPoliticalMeans:TheMaharsofMaharashtra.”InCasteinIndianPolitics.Ed.RajniKothari,29–69.NewDelhi:Allied.

Zweiniger-Bargielowska,Ina.2006.“BuildingaBritishSuperman:PhysicalCultureinInterwarBritain.”JournalofContemporaryHistory41(4):595–610.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ArundhatiRoy

Fortheprivilegeofbeinginvitedtowritethisintroduction,Iamindebtedtomypublisher anddear friend,S.Anand. I couldnothavewished for a finer,morecommittedandknowledgeableeditor.

I should especially like to thank Gail Omvedt, Sharmila Rege, AnandTeltumbde,EleanorZelliot, LeahRenold,Vijay Prashad,KathrynTidrick andRupa Viswanath whose work has enhanced my understanding of Gandhi andAmbedkar,aswellasthecomplexhistoryofthedebatesaroundcaste.AspecialthankstoG.B.Singhwhosebook,Gandhi:BehindtheMaskofDivinity,providedmewithararearchiveofGandhi’swritingsduringhisyearsinSouthAfrica.

Several people read “The Doctor and the Saint” and their comments havebeeninvaluable.MythankstoThomasBlomHansen,SatishDeshpande,AnandTeltumbde, Uma Chakravarti, Tarun Bharatiya and Pankaj Mishra. Nate R’sclose reading of my text, and his comments and criticism have fortified it inimportantways.

For our many journeys across South Africa, for responding with profoundperceptivenesstoearlydrafts,forhispublishedworkonindenturedlabourandhissoon-to-be-published writing on Gandhi in South Africa, I thank my friendAshwinDesai.

I’mdeeplygratefultomyoldest friendGolakKhandualwhoseportraitofDrAmbedkarisonthecoverofthisbook.

Thanks too, to JohnCusack for an observation that hewill recognise as hiswhenhereadsit;toJawedNaqviforgettingmeriledupandsettingmedownonatrailwhichhasbecomeanimportantthemeinthisessay(whichhewillchuckleatwhen he recognises it); toRavikumar for his bookVenomous Touch, for hiserudition and his insights and for our travels through Cuddalore; to ShohiniGhoshwhohelpedme formulatea somewhatcomplicated ideaand toMayankAustenSoofiforinchoateanddelightfulthings.

MygratitudetoKanchaIlaiahandDrMondruFrancisGopinathforallthatIlearned from meeting and talking to them, to my friend Pravin Anand whosteeredthisprojectthroughsomeridiculousroadblocksandtoArifAyazParreyandShyamaHaldarforcopy-editingthemanuscript.

Iwill alwaysbe indebted tomyagentsDavidGodwinandAnthonyArnovefortheircoolheadsandtheirwisecounsel.

PradipKrishenmyearliest,mostelegantandalwayseditorhelpedmetocombtheangeroutofmywriting.

SanjayKakreadeveryoneoftheinnumerabledraftsofthemanuscript.Ithankhim for his calm precision, for his important structural suggestions, for hisattentiontothemostminuteofdetails,andforalwayslookingoutforme.

Finally,IthankDrB.R.AmbedkarforwritingAnnihilationofCaste.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

S.Anand

Thejourneyofbattlingcastebeganformeatapersonallevel—makinganewlifewithSivapriya(alwaysrightlyscepticalaboutmywriting,myfinesteditor).ThishappenedaroundthesametimeasmyencounterwithKanchaIlaiahandhisearlywork,WhyIamNotaHindu.HeledmetoAmbedkarin1996,asdidtheDalitstudentsofBHostelinCentralUniversityofHyderabadin1994whentheywonasmallbattle toputupaportraitofAmbedkar in theTVroomwhereGandhiubiquitously smileddownatus in singularglory. InChennai, the teamatDalitMurasuledbyPunithaPandianandJemimaAliceofferedmespaceandnurturedmy ideas, and allowedme to join them in experimentingwith the short-livedjournalTheDalit,whichalso ledmetoMeenaKandasamy(whoknowswhat Iowe her). Pandian and Alice were both amused and circumspect about myenthusiasm, for Ambedkar does warn in Annihilation of Caste: “To expect aBrahmintobearevolutionary inmattersof socialreformisas idleas toexpectthe British Parliament … to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to bemurdered.”

Then, there’s Ravikumar—towhom I owe a debt words can’t express. Hesought to harness my energies and suggested the idea of a publishing house.TogetherwespawnedthisbastardchildcalledNavayanainNovember2003,andour first bookwasAmbedkar:AutobiographicalNotes, forRs 40. This edition ofAnnihilationofCastewouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouthim.

Moving toDelhi in2007, ImetBhagwanDas inhisMunirka flat inDelhi.Das,alongwithLahoriRamBalleyofJalandhar,hadpioneeredthepublicationofAmbedkar’swritingsandspeechesinhisThusSpokeAmbedkarseriesin1963.HisworkandlifeinspiredmetosoldieronwiththetaskofannotatingAnnihilationofCaste.Thisedition is inmanywaysa tribute tohimandscores likehimin theDalitmovementwhohavekepttheanticasteflameburning,whokeptthefaith.

Prakash Vishwasrao of Lokvangmaya Griha, Mumbai, connected me withRameshShinde,apassionatecollectorofAmbedkriana.ShindegenerouslygaveusaccesstotheMay1936firsteditionofAnnihilationofCasteaswellasthe1937and1944editions.MysalaamstobothVishwasraoandShinde.

Inthisjourney,Ihavehadthefortuneoffindingunstintinghelpfromarange

offriendsandcolleagues.FirstonthislistisJuliPerczel.Icouldnothaveaskedforamorededicatedresearchassistantata timewhenworkontheannotationswaspeaking.NateandRupaarepartofacircleofloveforgedbysharedpolitics.Thetwohave literallyheldmyhandthroughthefinalandtestingstagesof thisenterprise.

Iwould also like to thankUdayChandra,Nicolas Jaoul, JoelLee andSarahHodges for friendship and solidarity; Rajeev Kumar, who has made work atNavayanaeasier for the last sixyears;ShyamaHaldarwho, at shortnotice,wastheretocopy-editwhenItoldherIcouldturntononebuther;RimliBorooah,forproofing;SanjivPalliwal,friendandproductionman,foreverythinghedoes;ArifAyazParrey,whowalkedinlateintotheproject,forhisunusualardourforannotating concepts and terms that had escapedmany eyes; SanjayKak for hiscalm observations on the Poona Pact essay; David Godwin for his generosity;Golak Khandual for the cover image; Pravin Anand and his team for theircounsel.

Thanksareduetothepeerreviewersofthisbookwhogenerouslyallowedustousetheirfeedbackasblurbs.

I would like to thank every author and translator who has placed faith inNavayana and published with us. There are those who have helped keepNavayana going: Akila Seshasayee, Hoshang Merchant, Ranvir Shah, RamaLakshmi,NithilaBaskaran,TaraBrace-John,ArunaRathnam.

Finally,ArundhatiRoy,forreadingAnnihilationofCasteatmybehest,tenyearsago,andthenagreeingtowritetheintroduction.Ambedkarlaidthefoundationforourfriendship.

INDEX

aboriginalraces:inSouthAfrica,1.1

aboriginaltribes:Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1

Achhut(journal)

AchhutanandHarihar,Swami,1.1,1.2

Adani,Gautam

AdDharmmovement,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4

adhikara

AdiDravida,n5

AdiHindumovement

Adivasis,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n222,1.8n230,6.1,6.2;Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1n64;andtheConstitution,1.1,1.2,1.3n227;Gandhion,1.4;andHinduisation,1.1,1.2;asMaoists,1.3.Seealsoaboriginaltribes;ScheduledTribes

Advani,L.K.

AfricanAmericans,1.1,1.2.SeealsoBlacks;Kaffirs

AfricanChronicle

Agnibhoj,R.G.

ahimsa,4.1,5.1n13,5.2

Ahmad,Imtiaz,3.1n114,3.2n168

Aiyar,P.S.

Akbar:Din-e-Ilahi,n11

Al-Biruni,n51

Alexander,Michelle

All-IndiaAchhutodharCommittee

All-IndiaAnti-UntouchabilityManifesto

All-IndiaDepressedClassesConference,1.1,1.2,4.1n5

All-IndiaSpinnersAssociation

All-IndiaSuppressedClassesConference(1927),1.1,1.2n187

Ambani,Mukesh,1.1,1.2

AmbulanceCorps(Gandhi),1.1,1.2

AmericanIndependence,theWarof

Amin,Shahid

AmritaBazarPatrika

Anand,MulkRaj:Untouchable,1.1n187

anarchist(s),fm03.1,1.1,1.2,3.1n103

anarya,3.1,3.2n66.Seealsoaboriginaltribes

Andrews,ReverendCharlesFreer,1.1,2.1n10

Anglo-BoerWar,passim

anticaste:movement(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,4.1n3;intellectuals,1.4,2.1n13;tradition1.5,1.6,3.1n96

antyaja,3.1,3.2n3,5.1n5.SeealsoUntouchable;varnavyavastha

apartheid,1.1,1.2,1.3

Apte,Narayan.SeealsoNathuramGodse

armedneutrality,3.1,3.2n111

Arnold,Matthew,5.1,5.2n17

Arthashastra,1.1,3.1n153

AryaBhats,1.1

Aryan(s),1.1,1.2,1.3;Ambedkaron,3.1n45

AryanPath,5.1,5.2n8

AryaSamaj,fm03.1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2.1n1,2.2n4,2.3n7,2.4n11,2.5n12,3.1n69,3.2n73,3.3n161,3.4n166;Ambedkaron,3.5,3.6n82,3.7,3.8,5.1;Shuddhiand,1.6,3.9.SeealsoJat-PatTodakMandal;SwamiDayanandaSaraswati

Arundhatiyars

Ashoka,3.1n31,3.2n107.SeealsoMauryanEmpire

ashtadhikaras

Ashtadhyayi,3.1n123

Assam,1.1,1.2,1.3n227,3.1n64

assimilation:intoHinduism,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n263

“associatedlife”,3.1,3.2,3.3n75,3.4,3.5n80.SeealsoJohnDewey

atheism

TheAtheist(journal),2.1n13

Ati-Shudra,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2.1n8,3.1n114.SeealsoDalit;Untouchable

Attenborough,Richard

avarna,1.1,1.2,3.1n4.Seealsosavarna;varnavyavastha

AvarnodayaSamataSangh,n13

Ayyankali

BabriMasjid

Bachchan,HarivanshRai,n60

BackwardClasses,1.1n230;Commission,1.2

Bahinabai,n32

BahishkritBharat

BahujanSamajParty,1.1,1.2n241,6.1n3,6.2n33

BajiraoII,1.1,3.1n11

BajrangDal

Balai

Balfour,Lord,5.1,5.2n16

Balmikis,1.1,1.2

Baloo,Palwankar,1.1,1.2n244

BambathaRebellion,passim

Bania(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2.1n3,2.2n13,3.1;Gandhias1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,5.1,5.2n9

Basava,1.1,3.1n2

Bateson,William,3.1,3.2n48

BathaniTola,n3

Baxi,Upendra,6.1n4,6.2n9

BBC,1.1;Ambedkar’sinterviewto,1.2n56

Beghampura,1.1,1.2

Belchi,n4

Besant,Annie,1.1,5.1n2

BhagvadGita,1.1n276,3.1n51,4.1n9,5.1n3;Ambedkarand,1.2,3.2n109;Gandhiand,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6;andguna–karmatheory,3.3n161;Tilakand,5.2n2

BhaiParmanand,1.1n95,2.1n1,2.2n4,2.3,2.4n11,2.5n16,3.1n74

Bhakti:poets,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1n151;Ambedkaron,5.1n6;assimilationintoHinduism,1.6;evolutionindifferentpartsofsubcontinent,3.2n2,3.3n32,3.4n33,3.5n150,4.1n9.SeealsoVarkari

Bhalla,LalaMulkRaj

Bhandarkar,D.R.,3.1,3.2n44;andMahabharata,3.3n146

Bhangi(s):Gandhion1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n188,5.1n7

Bhotmange,Surekha,1.1,1.2

Bhrigu,n97

Bhudevas,1.1,3.1

airla,G.D.,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,130,5.1n9

BirlaHouse(Delhi),1.1,1.2,5.1n9

Birla,K.M.

Black(s):Consciousness

Movementof,1.1;Gandhiand1.2,1.3,1.4.SeealsoKaffir

Boer(s)

Bohras

Bolshevism

BombayGazetteer,2.1n8

Bombaymills,1.1,1.2,1.3

Bonnerjee,W.C.,3.1,3.2n10,3.3,3.4n147

Borkar,Bhaurao

Botha,Louis

Bourke-White,Margaret,1.1,1.2

boycott:ofDalits,1.1,1.2,3.1,3.2n14;comparedwithAfricanAmericans,1.3

brahmacharya(celibacy),4.1;Gandhi’s,1.1,1.2

BrahmaSutra,3.1n150

Brahmin(s):1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15,1.16,1.17,1.18m29,1.19n51,1.20n195,1.21n202,2.1n8,3.1n11,3.2n16,3.3n32,3.4n44,3.5n47,3.6n59–60,3.7n67,3.8n92,3.9n98,3.10,3.11n107,3.12n144,3.13n150,3.14n161,6.1;Ambedkaron,1.22,1.23,1.24,3.15,3.16n2,3.17,3.18,3.19,3.20,3.21,3.22,3.23n97,3.24,3.25,3.26n108,3.27,3.28,3.29,3.30n129,3.31,3.32n139,3.33n149,3.34n153,3.35,3.36n167,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4n11,5.5;anti-,1.25,3.37n3;Chitpavan,1.26,3.38n8,3.39n11,3.40,3.41n57;Daivadnya,3.42;Deccan,3.43n59,3.44;Deorukha3.45,3.46n56;Gandhion,1.27,1.28,4.1n3,4.2n5,4.3,4.4n7,5.6n12,5.7n13,6.2;Golak,3.47,3.48n56;Karada3.49,3.50n56;laukika,3.51n123;non-,1.29,3.52n8,3.53,3.54,6.3;Palshe,3.55,3.56n56;3.57,3.58n68;Phuleon,1.30,1.31,1.32,1.33n188;inpubliclife,1.34,1.35;shrotriya,alsovaidika,1.36,3.59n123

Brahminism,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2.1,3.1n97,3.2n107,3.3n123;Ambedkaron,1.7,3.4n38,3.5,3.6n45,3.7,3.8,3.9n55,3.10,3.11;Phuleon,3.12n8

Brahminical,1.1,1.2

BrahmoSamaj,1.1,1.2,3.1n166,4.1n9.SeealsoRajaRamMohanRoy

Brailsford,H.N.,5.1,5.2n8

Brihaspati,3.1;BrihaspatiSmriti,3.2n144–5

Brown,Gordon

Buddha,2.1,2.2;Ambedkaron1.1,1.2,3.1,3.2n31,3.3,5.1

BuddhaandhisDhamma,The(Ambedkar),1.1,1.2n180,1.3n275–6

Buddhism,1.1,1.2,3.1n31,3.2n107,5.1n10;Ambedkarand,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6n274;Navayana,1.7;andVithoba(Pandharpur),3.3n32

Bühler,George,3.1n1,3.2n97,3.3n98,3.4n129,3.5n137,3.6n139,3.7n142,3.8n143,3.9n154.SeealsoManusmriti

Burke,Edmund:Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1,3.2n158,3.3,3.4n164

C3(people),1.1,3.1,3.2n49

Caliph,the.SeealsoKhilafat(Caliphate)Movement

capitalism,1.1,1.2,3.1n103,3.2n41;andAdivasis,1.3;andAmbedkar,1.4,1.5,3.3n38;andcaste,1.6n25;andDalitPanthers,1.7;andDalits,1.8,1.9n48;andGandhi,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14n76,5.1n8

Carlyle,Thomas:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n113,3.3n126,5.1

Carnegie,Andrew

Carver,ThomasNixon:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n162

Catholic(s),5.1n8,asacaste,3.1,3.2n29;catholicityofHinduism,5.2.SeealsoProtestant

census,1.1,1.2,of1931,1.3,2.1n4;of1961,3.1n68;of2001,1.4,1.5n6;agricultural,1.6n44

CentralProvinces,1.1,2.1n15,6.1

CentrefortheStudyofDevelopingSocieties(CSDS),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n29

Chaitanya,1.1n88,3.1n2,4.1,4.2n9,5.1,5.2

Chakravarti,Uma,3.1n11,3.2n67,3.3n71

Chakwara,3.1,3.2n16

Chamar,1.1,3.1n33,3.2,3.3n69

Chambhar,1.1,1.2n102,1.3n244,6.1

ChamparanSatyagraha

Chandra,Bipan,n41

Chandra,Uday,n227

Chatterjee,BankimChandra,n47

chaturvarna,alsochaturvarnya,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5;AryaSamajand,3.1,3.2n82,3.3passim;Gandhi’sdefenceof,4.1n7,5.1,5.2,5.3;andManusmriti,3.4;andPlato’sRepualic,3.5;RamaRajyaand,3.6;SantRamon,4.2.Seealsovarna;varnashrama

ChauriChaura

ChavadarTank,1.1,3.1n103,3.2n170.SeealsoMahadsatyagraha

Chomsky,Noam,n41

Christian(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,3.1n28,3.2n64,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6n168,6.1;Dalit,1.12,1.13n6;1.14,1.15,1.16,1.17,1.18;Syrian,1.19,1.20

Christianity,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4;Ambedkarand,1.5,3.1,3.2,3.3n69,5.1;Gandhiand,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,4.1;andtheinquisition,3.4

Christ,Jesus,1.1,1.2

Chugtai,Ismat,n83

Chuhras,1.1,3.1n69

Chunduru,n4

Churchill,Winston

Cokhamela,1.1,3.1n32,4.1n9,5.1n6

ColumbiaUniversity,1.1,1.2,1.3n180,3.1n6,3.2n103,4.1n4,4.2n11,5.1n17

ComitiaCenturiata,fm03.1,3.1,3.2n35

CommunalAward,the,fm03.1,2.1n2,3.1n22,6.1;Ambedkaron,3.2;Gandhi’sfastagainst,1.1,1.2,3.3n22

communism(primitive),1.1,1.2

communist(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,6.1n33;Ambedkar,Dalitsand,1.4,1.5n208

CommunistManifesto,The,3.1

CommunistParty,1.1,1.2n208;ofIndia,1.3,1.4,1.5;ofIndia(Marxist),1.6;ofIndia(Maoist),1.7

Congress,theIndianNational,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6n6,1.7,1.8n230,2.1n12,4.1n2,4.2n5,6.1n9,6.2n33;Ambedkarand,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15,1.16n165,1.17n233,1.18n244;Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2,3.3n34,3.4n37,3.5n57,3.6n167;CommunalAward(PoonaPact)and,1.19,3.7n22,6.3,6.4,6.5n3;Working

Committee,3.1n37,6.1;andelections(pre-1947),1.1,1.2,3.2n24;Gandhiand,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10n208;andRoundTableConferences1.11,1.12,1.13;andswaraj1.14,3.3n169

“consciousnessofkind”,3.1,3.2n52

ConstituentAssembly:andAdivasis,3.1n64;Ambedkarand1.1,1.2,1.3n75;andHindu

CodeBill,1.1,1.2

Constitution,the:Indian,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n62,1.8n70,1.9n246,1.10n263,6.1;andAdivasis,1.11,1.12n27,3.1n64;British,3.2,3.3n124;ofRome,3.4,6.2.SeealsoGovernmentofIndiaAct,1935

conversion:andAdivasis,1.1,1.2,3.1;Ambedkarand,1.3,1.4,2.1,3.2,3.3n71,3.4,3.5,6.1;anti-conversionlaw,1.5,1.6n246;toBuddhism,1.7,1.8;toChristianity,1.9,1.10;duringcolonialperiod,1.11,2.2n7,3.6n69;Gandhi’s

oppositionto,1.1;ofHarilalGandhi,5.1n9;Hinduismand,1.2,1.3n88;3.1n73;Hindutvaand,1.4;toIslam,1.5,1.6n84,3.2n2,3.3n30;ofPanditaRamabai,1.7,3.4n71;toSikhism,1.8n10,2.1n14;andVivekananda,1.9n88

corporatesocialresponsibility(CSR).SeealsoNGO(s)

cow-slaughter:baninGujarat,1.1,1.2n246

cow(s):Untouchablescomparedwith,1.1,1.2,2.1n8;sacrednessof,1.3

CriminalTribes,1.1,1.2,1.3,3.1;CriminalTribesActsof1871and1911,3.2n65

CromwellianWar,3.1,3.2n58

culture:ofAdivasis,1.1,3.1n64;andcaste,1.2,3.2,3.3;andHinduism,1.3,3.4;andrace,1.4

DainikBhaskar

DainikJagran

Dakkalis

dalidda/DaliddaSutta

Dalit(s):boycottof,1.1;asChiefJustice,1.2;crimesagainst,1.3,1.4n9,1.5n18,3.1n16;dignityandpride,1.6,1.7;andDurbanconference,1.8,1.9n13;versusHarijan,2.1n8;Hinduisationof,1.10;andIslam,1.11n84;lynchingof,1.12,1.13,1.14n3–4;andmanualscavenging1.15,1.16n46;andManusmriti,1.17;andmedia,1.18;andNaxals,1.19;andNGOs,117,1.20n221;inPakistan,1.21;asPresidentofIndia,1.22;andtheprivatesector,1.23,1.24n48;publishing,fm03.1,1.25;andreservation(ineducation,judiciary,publicsector),1.26;andShambuka,3.2n96;inUnitedKingdom,1.27;usageof,1.28,1.29;andvillages,1.30.SeealsoScheduledCastes;Untouchables

DalitBandhu,2.1n8

DalitIndianChamberofCommerceandIndustry(DICCI),1.1,1.2n48

DalitPanthers,1.11.2n8

Dange,S.A.,1.1,1.2,1.3n208

Das,Bhagwan,1.1n180,2.1n7,3.1n38,3.2n158

Dasbodh(Ramdas),3.1,3.2n2

DeclarationofEmpathy,The

Delphi,theOracleof,3.1,3.2n27,3.3,3.4n36,5.1n10

democracy:Ambedkaron,1.1,1.2n70,1.3n241,3.1n75,3.2,3.3,6.1;andcaste,1.4,1.5,1.6n12,1.7n25,3.4n117,6.2,6.3,6.4n33;andcommunists,1.8;industrialdemocracy(Dewey),3.5,3.6n40–1;andDewey,3.7,3.8;andthemarket,1.9,1.10n25;andTocqueville,3.9

DepressedClasses,2.1n2,2.2n8,4.1n5,4.2;Ambedkaron,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n201,2.3,3.1n38,3.2n103,3.3n107;AnnieBesanton,1.5;andCommunalAward,3.4,6.1;ConferenceatYeola,1.6,2.4n15;Gandhion,4.3

Desai,Ashwin,1.1n116,1.2n162

Desai,Mahadev,n188

Desai,Morarji,n230

Devji,Faisal

Dewey,John,1.1:echoedinAnnihilationofCaste,3.1n6,3.2n40–2,3.3n54,3.4n75,3.5n79–80,3.6n112,3.7n156,3.8,3.9n163,3.10,3.11n165,5.1n17

Dhale,Raja

dhamma

Dharma,2.1n11,3.1n97,3.2,3.3n129,3.4n142,3.5n146,3.6n152,3.7;Amaedkaron3.8;andadharma,3.9n152Ambedkaron.Seealsosanatandharma,varnasharmadharma

Dharmashastras,3.1n97,3.2n131,3.3n148

Dharmateertha,Swami,n13

Dharmatma(1935film)

Dhasal,Namdeo,1.1,1.2

Dheds.SeealsoDalit

Dicey,A.V.,3.1,3.2n124,3.3n125

directaction:Ambedkarand,fm03.1,1.1,1.2,3.1;theAmericanlegacyof,3.2n103–4;Jinnahand,3.3n103

discrimination:caste,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n13,1.5n18,1.6n230,2.1n3,3.1,5.1;positive,1.7,1.8,1.9;racial,1.10,1.11,1.12n13,1.13n14;andreligion,1.14,1.15;inancientRome,3.2

Dnyandev,alsoDnyaneshwar,Jnyandeo,Jnandeo,3.1n2,3.2n32,4.1,4.2n9,5.1,5.2n3,5.3

Doke,RevJoseph

Doniger,Wendy,1.1n51;onSkandaPurana,3.1n55;onManusmriti3.2n97,3.3n138,3.4n149

Dravidian,3.1n45,3.2n96,3.3

DuBois,W.E.B.,1.1

duragraha,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n206–7.Seealsosatyagraha

Durban,1.1,1.2;PostOfficesatyagraha,1.3,1.4;WorldConferenceAgainstRacism,1.5,1.6

dwija,3.1n3,3.2n101,3.3n139,4.1

Eknath,5.1,5.2n3–4,5.3n5

ElphinstoneCollege,1.1,4.1n4

endogamy,1.1,1.2,3.1n46

endosmosis,fm03.1,3.1,3.2n79

Enlightenment(European),1.1,3.1

equality:forAmbedkar,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,3.1n27,3.2,3.3n60,3.4n71,3.5n78,3.6,3.7n98,3.8,3.9,5.1;forGandhi,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,4.1,6.1;inequality,1.12,1.13,1.14;legal,1.15;andPeriyar,3.10n45;forPhule,1.16;religious,1.17,2.1,2.2,3.11n33,3.12n71,3.13,3.14,4.2;andRSS,1.18;forTukaram,1.19

ethics,3.1n125;Ambedkaron,1.1,3.2,3.3n138,3.4,5.1;andBhagvadGita,1.2,1.3

ethnologyandethnography,3.1,3.2n43

eugenics,1.1,3.1,3.2n46,3.3n47,3.4n48–49

Europe,1.1n206;castein,1.2;EuropeanIndology,2.1n5,3.1;EuropeanUnion,1.3;andsocialism,3.2;societyin,1.4,3.3,3.4n28;3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8

Europeans:andGandhi1.1,1.2,1.3

exogamy

Ezhavas

Falahi,MasoodAlam,3.1n114

fascism:European,1.1,1.2,3.1n49;Indian,1.3

FirstWorldWar,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,3.1n49,5.1n8

Forbes

FordFoundation

fraternity:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2,3.3,5.1,5.2

FrenchRevolution,the:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2;aurkeon,3.3n158,3.4,3.5n164;Carlyleon,3.6n113

Gaekwad,SayajiRao(MaharajaofBaroda),1.1,4.1n4

Galton,Francis,n46

Gandharv,Bal,n4

Gandhi:MohandasKaramchand,alsoMahatma,1.1,1.2passim,1.3passim;andAdivasis,1.4;Ambedkaron,1.5n56;1.6n201,2.1,3.1n14,3.2n37,3.3,3.4n149;andtheAmbulanceCorps,1.7;onAnnihilationofCaste,1.8,3.5n100,4.1;assassinationof,1.9,1.10,3.6n57;onBalmikisandBhangis,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14n188,5.1n7;andBhagvad

Gita,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4;biographiesof,1.5,1.6,1.7,2.1n10;G.D.Birlaand,1.8,1.9,5.1n9;andtheBoerWar,1.10;andcapitalism,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15n76,5.2n8;andthecastesystem,1.16;1.17,1.18,1.19,1.20,1.21,5.3n14,5.4n15;oncelibacy,1.22,1.23;ChamparanSatyagrahaand,1.24;andChrist,1.25,1.26;onconversion,1.27;onduragraha,1.28,1.29,1.30,160n206–7;andDurbanPostOffice,1.31,1.32;andenvironment,1.33;fastagainstCommunalAward,1.34,1.35,3.1n22;andghee,1.36,1.37n136;onHarijan(s),1.38,1.39,2.2,2.3n8,4.1,6.1;writingsinHarijan,1.40,1.41n121,2.4n2,3.2n100,4.2n1,5.5,5.6n12,6.2,6.3;andHarijanSevakSangh,1.42,3.3n14,3.4n103;HindSwaraj(Parel),1.43,1.44,1.45n155,3.5n169;andHitler,1.46n121;andindenturedlabourers,1.47,1.48,1.49,1.50,1.51;agreementwithJanSmuts,1.52;onKaffirs,1.53,1.54,1.55,1.56n113;asKaiser-e-Hind,1.57;andtheKavithaincident,3.6n14;andKhilafat,1.58,1.59,3.7n74;onlabour,1.60,1.61passim,1.62;aslabourorganiser,1.63,1.64n210;andMahadSatyagraha,1.65,3.8n103;asMahatma,1.66,1.67,1.68,1.69,1.70,1.71;andMussolini,1.72;NarendraModion,1.73,1.74n246;andNatalIndianCongress,1.75,1.76;andNavajivan,1.77,1.78,1.79,5.7n12;and

Non-Cooperation,1.80,1.81;andpartition(1947),1.82;andpassengerIndians,1.83,1.84;andPhoenixSettlement,1.85;andthePoonaPact,1.86,1.87,4.3n5,6.4,6.5,6.6n4;andpoverty,1.88,1.89n165;inprison,1.90,1.91,1.92;onRamRajya,1.93,1.94;andreligion,1.95;andSaltSatyagraha,1.96;andsanatandharm,3.9n166,5.8n13;SatyagrahainSouthAfrica,1.97,1.98n128;atSecondRoundTableConference,1.99,1.100,1.101,1.102n244,3.10n64;andsexuality,1.103,1.104n59;andSikhism,1.105,1.106,1.107n194;socialismand,1.108;inSouthAfrica,1.109,1.110,1.111,1.112,1.113passim,1.114,1.115,1.116,3.11n45,5.9n14;andthestretcher-bearercorps,1.117;onstrikes,1.118;andswaraj,1.119,3.12n169;andTolstoyFarm,1.120,1.121;ontrusteeship,1.122,1.123,1.124,1.125n63,5.10n8;ontruth,1.126,1.127,1.128,1.129,1.130,1.131,1.132,1.133n59,1.134n113,4.4n3,5.11n13;andUka,1.135,1.136n187;onuntouchability,1.137,1.138,1.139,1.140,1.141;andVaikomsatyagraha,1.142,1.143n194,1.144n201;onvarnasharma,3.13n161,4.5n7;andvillages,1.145,1.146;andWesternmodernity,1.147,1.148,1.149;andYoungIndia,1.150n187,1.151n194,4.6n7,5.12,5.13n12,5.14n15;andzamindars,1.152,6.7;andZulus,1.153

Gandhi(film)

Gandhi,Indira,n3

Gandhi,Rahul,1.1,1.2n189

GautamaDharmaSutra,1.1,3.1n98

GDP

genocide,1.1;genocidal,1.2,1.3

GhadarParty,1.1,1.2n95,2.1n11

ghee:atChavadarTank,1.1;andGandhi1.2,1.3n136

Ghose,Aurobindo,n2

Giddings,F.H.,n52

Giri,V.V.,n9

GirniKamgarUnion,1.1,1.2n208

Godhra

Godse,Nathuram,1.1,1.2,3.1n57

Gokhale,GopalKrishna,1.1,3.1n57,5.1n2

Goldenweiser,A.A.

Goldman,Emma,1.1,3.1n103

Golwalkar,M.S.

Gonds

gotras,1.1,1.2n17,3.1n47

GovernmentofIndiaActof1935,1.1n6,1.2n227,2.1n8,3.1n62,6.1

Gramsci,Antonio,n17

Gray’sInn,1.1,1.2

guerrilla,1.1,1.2

Guha,Ramachandra,1.1,1.2n155

Gulamgiri(JotibaPhule),1.1,1.2,3.1n45

guna–karma(theory),3.1n83,3.2n92,3.3,3.4n161

Gupta,Dipankar,1.1n13,1.2n14,GuruNanak,1.3,1.4;Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n33,3.3.SeealsoSikhism

Guruvayurtemple,1.1,3.1n103

Halbfass,Wilhelm,2.1n130

HammondCommittee

HarBhagwan,2.1,2.2n13;letterfromAmbedkar,2.3;letterstoAmbedkar,2.4passim;meetingwithAmbedkar,2.5

Hardiman,David,n14

Harijan,1.1,1.2,2.1,Gandhi’scoinageof,1.3,2.2n2,2.3,6.1,6.2n3.SeealsoDalit,Gandhi

HarijanSevakSangh;Harijan(journal).SeeunderGandhi

Hedgewar,K.B.

heredityandhereditary:occupation,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1,3.2,3.3n46,3.4,3.5n48,3.6;andAdivasis,3.7n64,5.1,5.2n12;criminals,1.6,3.8n65;andpriesthood,3.9,5.3TheHindu(newspaper),1.7,1.8n25,3.10n45,5.4n13

Hindu(s)andHinduism,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11n276,2.1;Ambedkaron,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15,1.16,1.17,1.18,1.19,1.20,1.21,1.22,1.23,1.24,1.25n86;2.2n15–6,2.3,2.4,2.5,3.1passim,3.2,3.3passim;3.4passim,3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9passim,3.10passim,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4passim,6.1,6.2;assimilationinto,1.26,1.27,1.28,1.29,1.30,1.31,1.32n263;

Brahmo,1.33,1.34,3.11n166,4.1n9;conservative,1.35,1.36,1.37,1.38,1.39;andelections,1.40,1.41,1.42n244,6.3,6.4,6.5;extremists/nationalist,1.43,1.44,1.45,1.46,1.47,1.48,1.49,1.50,1.51,1.52n25,1.53n84,1.54n92,1.55n95,1.56n51,1.57n246–7,2.6n11;asaforeignterm,1.58,3.12,3.13n74;Gandhiand,1.59,1.60,1.61,1.62,1.63,1.64,1.65,1.66,1.67,1.68,1.69,1.70,1.71n188,2.7,4.2passim;4.3,6.6;left,1.72;reformers,1.73,1.74,1.75,1.76,1.77,1.78,1.79n52,2.8n1,2.9,2.10;3.14;SantRamon,4.4;inSouthAfrica,1.80

HinduCodeBill,1.1,1.2n68

HinduMahasabha,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5n244,2.1,2.2n11,3.1n174,4.1n5,6.1

HindustanTimes,1.1,1.2,5.1n9

Hindutva,1.1,1.2,1.3n92,1.4n95,1.5n151,2.1n11,3.1n167

HindSwaraj.SeeunderGandhi

Hitler,Adolf,1.1,1.2;andGandhi,1.3

Ho(tribe)

Hoare,SirSamuel,1.1n157,6.1

Holmes,JohnHaynes

homeland:Adivasi,1.1;Ambedkar,1.2;Brahmins,3.1;Gandhi,1.3

identity:andjustice,1.1;Ambedkar’s,4.1;Black,1.2;caste,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1n114;certificate,1.6;andMatthewArnold,5.1n17imperialism,1.7,1.8;Gandhion,1.9,1.10,1.11;Hindu,2.1;andJ.S.Mill,3.2n17

IndependentLabourParty(ILP),1.1,1.2,1.3n244,3.1n38,6.1

IndianAntiquary,The,2.1,2.2n5

IndianExpress,The,1.1,1.2n17,1.3n48

IndianNationalCongress.SeeunderCongress

IndianNationalSocialConference(1887),n7

IndianOpinion,1.1,1.2

IndianRailways:manualscavengingin

IndianReview

industry:andAmbedkar,1.1,3.1,3.2n75;andcaste1.2;andGandhi,1.3,1.4,3.3n169,5.1n8;industrialdemocracy(Dewey),3.4,3.5n40–1;industrial

revolution,1.5

“infectionofimitation”(Ambedkar),1.1,1.2,3.1

injustice,1.1,6.1n9;andGandhi,1.2,1.3;andAmbedkar,1.4,1.5,3.1,3.2,3.3;and‘development’,1.6;andManu,3.4;social,1.7

intellectualclass,the:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n123,3.3,3.4,5.1

inter-caste:dinnersandmarriage,1.1,1.2n17,1.3n68,2.1;Ambedkaron,2.2,3.1,3.2,3.3,5.1;Gandhion,1.4,1.5,1.6n188,5.2n13,5.3n15;Sant

Ramand,2.1n3,4.1

Ireland:andHomeRule,3.1,3.2n24

Islam,1.1,1.2,1.3n113,3.1n76;castein,1.4,3.2n114,3.3n168;conversionsto,1.5,1.6,1.7n84,3.4n69;Harilal

Gandhiand,5.1n9;andstate,2.1n11;Sufismand,3.1n2,5.2n11;anduntouchability,1.1.SeealsoKhilafatMovement;Mahomedans

Jaimini,3.1,3.2n157

Jain,1.1,1.2,1.3n246,1.4n263,3.1n2,3.2

Jalal,Ayesha,n103

Janabai

jati,1.1,1.2,3.1n161,4.1n7.Seealsosub-caste

Jat-PatTodakMandal,fm03.1,1.1,2.1,3.1,4.1,4.2,5.1,6.1n28;correspondencewithAmbedkar,2.2passim;andAryaSamaj,1.2,1.3,2.3n1,2.4n4,3.2n8;historyof,2.5n1,2.6n3,2.7n7

Jat-PatTodakSamataSangh,n13

JawaharlalNehruUniversity(JNU),1.1,1.2n13,1.3n41

Jefferson,Thomas

Jews,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4;andBrahmins,3.1n57;Gandhion,1.5n121

Jinnah,M.A.,1.1,2.1n13,3.1n103,6.1

Jhajjar,n4

JimCrowlaws,1.1,1.2

Jindal,SavitriDevi

Jolie,Angelina

Jones,Kenneth,2.1n12,3.1n82

Jones,William,1.1;andManusmriti,3.1n97

Joseph,George

Juergensmeyer,Mark,2.1n4,3.1n168

justice,1.1;forAmbedkar,1.2,1.3,3.1,3.2,5.1;forGandhi,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7;andidentity,1.8;inPlato,3.3;T.N.Carver

on,n162.Seealsoinjustice

Kabir,1.1,1.2,1.3,3.1n33,3.2,3.3n151

Kabir,Sharda

Kaffir(s):Gandhion,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5;originofterm,1.6n113

Kaiser-e-Hind:forGandhi

Kalaramtemplesatyagraha,n103

Kali(goddess),4.1n9,5.1

KaliYuga,1.1,1.2n276

Kallenbach,Hermann

kaMancinza,Bambatha.SeealsoBambathaRebellion

Kambalapalli,n4

Kamble,Arun

Kammas

Karamchedu,n4

karma.Seealsoguna–karmatheory

Karna

Kashmir,1.1,1.2

Kautilya,n153

Kavitha(village),fm03.1,3.1,3.2n14

Kayastha,1.1,3.1,3.2;conflictwithBrahmins,3.3n60,3.4,3.5n108,3.6.SeealsoPatharePrabhu

Keezhvenmani,n4

Kela,Shashank,n64

Kesari(Tilak),1.1,3.1n8

Khairlanji(massacre),1.1;courtverdict,1.2

Khare,NarayanBhaskar,2.1n16,6.1

Khatri(s),1.1,3.1n33

KhilafatMovement,1.1,1.2,3.1n64

Kidd,Benjamin,n6.Seealsosocialefficiency

King,Jr,MartinLuther,1.1,1.2

Kishwar,Madhu,n12

Kols

Konkan,1.1,3.1n59

Koregaon,Battleof,1.1,3.1n11

Kosambi,D.D.,1.1,3.1n161

Kranti(ofJat-PatTodakMandal),2.1,2.2n7

Krishna(god):Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1,3.2n107;andEknath,5.1n3;andVitthala,3.3n32

Kshatriya(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n3,1.5,1.6n51,2.1n8,3.1n59–60,3.2n67,3.3n161;Ambedkaron,3.4,3.5n92,3.6,3.7,3.8n108,5.1

Kumar,Aishwary,1.1n109,2.1n8

Kumar,Ravinder,n4

labourandlabourers,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,3.1;andcaste,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14n3,3.2,3.3n123,4.1n7;divisionof,1.15,3.4,5.1n14;Gandhion,1.16,1.17passim,1.18

LandActof1913

Lassalle,Ferdinand,3.1,3.2n19–20

LaxmanpurBathe,1.1n3

liberalism,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4

liberty:Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6;equalityandfraternity,1.2,3.7,3.8,5.1;andJ.S.Mill,3.9n17;andpuritanism,3.10,3.11n29.Seealsoequality

LondonSchoolofEconomics

LordHardingeofPenshurst

love,1.1,1.2;cityof,1.3;andAmbedkar,2.1,5.1;andBhakti,3.1n2;andGandhi,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7

Luddite

Luther,Martin,3.1,3.2n28,3.3n126

MacDonald,Ramsay,1.1,1.2,3.1n22,6.1,6.2.SeealsoCommunalAward

Madigas

Madonna

Mahabharata,1.1,1.2,3.1n44,3.2n51,3.3,3.4n140,3.5,3.6n146,3.7n161,4.1

MahadSatyagraha,1.1passim;Ambedkar’sspeechat,1.2,3.1n27,3.2n170;directactionat,3.3n103;Gandhi’sresponseto,1.3,1.4n201;burningofManusmritiat,1.5,1.6n202

Mahar:caste,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6n244,2.1n15,4.1n9,6.1;regiment,1.7,3.1n11

Mahomedans:Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2,3.3;brotherhood

among,3.1;Phuleon,3.2.SeealsoMuslim

Mahratta(newspaper),3.1n8

MajoorMahajanSangh

Malabar,1.1,3.1n103

MalalaYousafzai

Malas(caste)

Malaviya,PanditMadanMohan,1.1,5.1n2,6.1

Mallick,B.N.

Mandal,B.P.,n230

MandalCommission,n230

Mandal,Jogendranath,1.1,1.2

Mandela,Nelson

Mang

MangooRam,Babu,1.1,1.2,1.3.SeealsoAdDharmmovement

Manu,3.1n55,3.2n96,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8n145–6,3.9,3.10n149,

3.11n161

Manusmriti,the:Ambedkarciting,3.1n1,3.2,3.3n98,3.4n127,3.5n129,3.6n137,3.7n139,3.8,3.9n142–3,3.10n149,3.11n154;onashramas,4.1n6;theburningof,1.1,1.2n201–2;oninterestrates,1.3;ontheShudra,1.4;variouseditionsof,3.12n97

Marans,the

Marichjhapi,n4

market,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n25

Marwari,1.1,1.2,1.3,3.1,5.1

Marx,Karl,1.1,3.1,3.2n19,3.3;Marxism,1.2,1.3,3.4n19;Marxistclassanalysis,1.4;Marxistlegacy,1.5,1.6,1.7n41,3.5n149,3.6n161

Maurya,Chandragupta,n31

Mauryanempire,3.1n31,3.2,3.3n107

Mayawati,1.1,1.2n241,6.1n33.SeealsoBahujanSamajParty

Meenakshipuram,n84

Mehtars

Melavalavu,n4

Mendel,Gregor,3.1n46,3.2,240n48

merit:Ambedkaron3.1,3.2n159,4.1;andeugenics,3.3;Gandhiand,6.1;andquotas,1.1

Milliband,David,n189

Mill,J.S.,3.1,3.2n17

Mimamsa,3.1,3.2n157

minorities,1.1;Ambedkaron,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5n70,3.1,3.2n64;anti-,1.6;andCommunalAward(PoonaPact),6.1,6.2,6.3;Gandhi

on,6.1;Jainsas,1.1n263;andRoundTableConference,1.2;separateelectoratesfor,3.1n22;3.2

Mira(bai)

Mittal,Lakshmi

Mittal,Sunil(Bharti)

mleccha

modernity:andAmbedkar,1.1;Gandhi,1.2,1.3,1.4

Modi,Narendra,1.1;onBalmikis,1.2n259;andGandhi,1.3,1.4,1.5n246;andtheGujarat

massacre

MookNayak

Moonje,B.S.,1.1,4.1n5

morality:constitutional,1.1;ofHinduscriptures,1.2;murder,1.3;andreligion,

3.1,3.2;social,1.4,5.1;tribal,3.3;ofVedas,2.1

Morley–MintoReforms,1.1,1.2

Morris,William,3.1,3.2n78

Muhammad,Prophet,1.1,3.1n159;Ambedkaron,3.2,3.3n30;Carlyleon,3.4n126

Mukherjee,ArunPrabha,3.1n6,3.2n40,3.3n42,3.4n75,3.5n79

Müller,Max

Mundas

Muslim,alsoMahomedans,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,3.1n30,3.2n75,3.3;Amaedkarand,1.5,1.6,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7;andcaste,3.8,3.9n114,3.10,3.11n168;andtheCongress,1.7;Dalit1.8,1.9n6;Gandhiand,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15,4.1,5.1,6.1;and2002Gujaratmassacre,1.16,1.17n265;andJews,1.18;as‘Kaffir’,1.19n113;atMahad,1.20;inmedia,1.21;theirnumbers,1.22,3.12n69;andPakistan,3.13n103;andRoundTableConferences,1.23,6.2,6.3;ruleof1.24,3.14n2,3.15,3.16n51,3.17n69;andSacharCommittee,1.25,1.26n43;andseparateelectorates,1.27,1.28,1.29,1.30,3.18n22,6.4;andshuddhi,3.19n73;andUntouchability,1.31;inVaikom,1.32

MuslimLeague,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,3.1n103

Mussolini,1.1,1.2

Nagpur,1.1,1.2,2.1n16,4.1n5

Namboodiripad,E.M.S.

Nandanar,n6

Narang,G.C.,2.1,2.2n12

Narayanan,K.R.

Narayan,Jayaprakash,n37

Narmada(river),1.1,1.2n76

Natal,1.1,1.2,1.3;NatalAdvertiser,1.4;NatalIndianCongress,1.5,1.6

Nath,RajaNarendra,2.1,2.2n12,2.3n16

NationalCrimeRecordsBureau

nationalism:African;Hindu

nationalism,1.1,1.2,1.3,154n92,1.4n95,3.1n2,3.2n8;nationalist,1.5,1.6,1.7,

2.1n3,3.3n24,3.4n71,3.5n166–7;secular1.8;3.6n51

Navajivan,1.1,1.2,1.3,5.1n12

NavsarjanTrust,1.1n4,1.2n18

Naxalites

Nayanmars,3.1n2,3.2n150,5.1n6

Negro,1.1,1.2,1.3

Nehru,Jawaharlal,1.1,1.2,1.3;andAdivasis,3.1n64;Ambedkar’sletterto,1.4n275;onBlacks,1.5;andsocialism,3.2n34,3.3n37

Nehru,Motilal,2.1n16NewYorkTimes,1.1

NGO(s),1.1,1.2,1.3n221–2,1.4n265

nirguni,n33

Noakhali

NobelPrize,1.1,1.2,1.3

Non-AlignedMovement

Non-CooperationMovement,1.1,1.2

Obama,Barack,1.1,3.1n112

occupation.Seehereditary

Occupymovement

Omvedt,Gail,1.1n13,3.1n2,3.2n32

OrangeFreeState,1.1,1.2

Oraon

OtherBackwardClasses(OBC),1.1,1.2,1.3n230,1.4n241.SeealsoBackwardClasses

OttomanEmpire,1.1,3.1n74

Outlook,1.1n29,1.2n53

Pakistan,1.1,1.2;1.3,1.4,2.1n7,3.1n103;Ambedkaron,1.5n54;Governmentof,1.6,1.7;PakistanResolution,1.8;untouchabilityin,1.9,1.10

Pandharpur,1.1,1.2,3.1n32

Paraiyars,1.1,1.2,1.3,5.1n6

pariah,1.1,3.1

Paramahansa,Ramakrishna,4.1,4.2n9,5.1.SeealsoRamakrishnaMission

ParliamentoftheWorld’s

Religions,Chicago

Parsi(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4

partition:ofBritishIndia,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4;ofBengal,1.5,2.1n11;ofOttomanEmpire,1.6

Pasmandamovement,n114

passiveresistance,1.1,1.2

PassLaws,1.1,1.2

Patel(s),1.1,2.1,3.1

Patel,Vallaahbhai(Sardar),3.1n14,3.2n64

PatharePrabhus,3.1,3.2n67

patriarchy,1.1,1.2

patrician(s),3.1,3.2passim,6.1

‘Periyar’,E.V.RamasamyNaicker,1.1,3.1n45

Peshwa(s);andKayasthas,3.1n60;andMahars,1.1;andPathare

Prabhus,3.1n67,3.2;theruleof,3.3,3.4n11,3.5n57;Sahyadrikhandand,3.6n55;Shivajiand,1.1;andSonars,3.7

Phule,Jotiba,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2.1n8,3.1n8,3.2n45;on

Aryans,1.1,3.1;onMuslims1.2;onslavery,1.3

Phule,Savitri,1.1,3.1n8

ThePioneer

pir,5.1,5.2n11.SeealsoSufism

Plato,3.1,3.2n92;Platonicideal,3.3.SeealsoRepublic

plebeian(s),3.1,3.2n26,3.3n27,3.4passim,6.1

Polak,HenryS.L.,1.1,1.2

pollution:andcaste,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10n230;andAmbedkar,1.11,1.12;Ambedkaron,1.13,3.1,5.1;andGandhi,5.2n12;5.3n14

PontifexMaximus,3.1,3.2n25

PoornaSwaraj,1.1,3.1n169.Seealsoswaraj

Pouchepadass,Jacques

poverty,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1n37,3.2,3.3n42

PrabuddhaBharat(Ambedkar)

PrabuddhaBharata(Vivekananda),1.1n88

Prasad,Rajendra,1.1,3.1n37

Prashad,Vijay,1.1,5.1n7

prayaschitta,3.1,3.2n148

prejudice:againstBlacks

passim,1.1;againstDalitsandUntouchables,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1,3.2n64

Premnagar:Kabir,1.1,1.2

PreventionofTerrorismAct(POTA)

PrinceofWales

progress:modernistidea,1.1,1.2,3.1,5.1n17

proletariat:Ambedkaron,1.1,3.1,3.2;Marxon,3.3n134

Protestant,3.1,3.2n24,3.3n29

Prussia

Pulayas,1.1,1.2

puranas,3.1n55,5.1n3;Ambedkaron,3.2,3.3,5.2;Gandhion,4.1;Manusmrition,3.4n146

Puritanism,3.1,3.2n29

purity:ofraceandblood,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6;Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2;ahandarkaron,3.3,3.4n44.Seealsopollution

“PurushaSukta”,1.1,1.2n51.SeealsoRigVeda

PurvaMimamsaSutras,3.1,3.2n157.SeealsoJaimini

race,1.1;Ambedkaron,1.2,1.3,3.1passim,3.2,3.3n117,3.4;consciousness,1.4,1.5,3.5n45;andDurbanWCAR,1.6,1.7n13,1.8n14;Gandhiand,1.9,1.10,1.11;Hindu1.12,1.13;andManusmriti,3.6n154;racism,1.14,1.15,1.16,1.17,1.18,1.19n13,1.20n113;theoriesofcasteand,1.21,1.22,1.23,1.24,1.25n13,3.7passim,3.8n117

Radhakrishnan,Sarvepalli,3.1,3.2n117

Rai,LalaLajpat,n11

Rajagopalachari,C.:atVaikom,1.1;andGandhi,1.2,1.3n195,4.1n5,6.1

Rajah,M.C.:andPoonaPact,1.1,1.2,1.3n245,4.1;pactwithMoonje,4.2n5

Raj,HansMahatma,2.1,2.2n12

Rajput,2.1n3,3.1,3.2,3.3n59

Ram(a)(god),3.1n67;Ambedkaron,1.1,3.2,3.3n96,5.1;1.2;andAyodhya,1.3;Gandhion,1.4,1.5

Ramabai,Ambedkar

Ramabai,Pandita,1.1;asChitpavanBrahmin,3.1n57;herconversion,3.2n71;andHarrietTubman,1.2;rejectionofHinduism,1.3,1.4

RamakrishnaMission,1.1,1.2,4.1n9.SeealsoVivekananda

Ramanuja,alsoRamanujacharya,1.1n88,3.1,3.2n150

Ramayana,1.1,2.1n8,3.1,3.2n96,3.3n130,4.1

Ramdas,3.1,3.2n2,3.3

Ram(a)Rajya,1.1,1.2,1.3;Ambedkaron,3.1

Ramzan

Ranade,M.G.,3.1n7,3.2n57

RanveerSena,n3

Rao,Ramoji

Rao,Yashwant,n14

rape:ofDalitwomen,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n4,1.5n9;inDelhi,1.6n7;inGujarat2002,1.7;inKhairlanji,1.8;marital,1.9;inRome,3.1n26

RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh

(RSS),1.1,1.2,1.3n84

Ravidas,alsoRaidas,Ruhidas,Rohidas,1.1,1.2,1.3,5.1n6

Ravikumar,n3

Redmond,J.E.,3.1;Redmond,William,3.2

Rege,Sharmila,1.1n68,3.1n153

religion:Ambedkaron,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2.1,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5passim,5.1,5.2,5.3;andassimilation,1.5,1.6n263,2.2,3.6;andcaste,1.7,1.8n6,3.7,3.8,

3.9,3.10,3.11,4.1;changeof,1.9,2.3,2.4,5.4;conversionofDalit(s),1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14n246,3.12n69,5.5;destructionof,1.15,2.5,2.6n15,2.7,3.13,3.14,3.15,3.16;anddhamma,1.16;Diceyon,3.17;escapefrom,1.17,1.18,3.18,3.19,6.1;Gandhiand,1.19,6.2;Gandhion,1.20,1.21,1.22,4.2;andirreligion,1.23;andlaw,3.20;missionary,3.21;andmorality,3.22;Phuleon,1.24;andprinciples,3.23,3.24,3.25,3.26,4.3,5.6;andrepresentation,1.25,1.26;asasourceofpower,3.27;andsuffering,1.27,1.28,1.29,3.28,3.29,3.30,4.4;andsymbolism,1.30

Rellis(caste)

Renold,Leah,1.1n76,5.1n9

representation:ofAdivasis,1.1,3.1n64;communal,1.2,3.2n64,6.1,6.2;intheCongressparty,3.3n37;ofDalits,1.3;1.4,1.5n86,3.4n27,6.3,6.4,6.5,6.6

Republic,The,3.1,3.2n92,3.3n161.SeealsoPlato

RepublicanPartyofIndia(RPI),1.1n208,reservation:forDalits,1.2;andAmbedkar,1.3;denialof1.4n6;historyof,1.5n33;inJNU,1.6;injudiciary1.7;andMandalCommission,1.8n230;political,6.1,6.2,6.3;protestsagainst,1.9;inthepublicsector,1.10;byShahuMaharaj,1.11

RigVeda,1.1,1.2n51,3.1n44,3.2n161

Robinson,JamesHarvey

Rockefeller,J.D.

Rolland,Romain

RomanRepublic,3.1passim;republicanconstitution,3.2,3.3,6.1

RoundTaaleConference:Ambedkaron,6.1,6.2;First,1.1,1.2,6.3;Second,1.3,1.4passim,1.5n244,3.1n64,3.2n22;3.3n158,4.1n3,4.2n5,6.4,6.5

RowlattActof1919

Roy,RajaRamMohan,1.1,3.1n47,4.1,4.2n9.SeealsoBrahmoSamaj

RussianRevolution,the,1.1,1.2

SabarmatiAshram,1.1,5.1n12

SacharCommitteereport,1.1,1.2n43

sadachar,3.1,3.2n137–8,3.3

SafaiKarmacharis,n259

Sahyadrikhand,3.1,3.2n55.SeealsoSkandaPurana

Sainath,P.,n84

Sakpal,BhimabaiMurbadkar

Sakpal,Ramji

SakyaBuddhists

SaltSatyagraha,1.1,1.2

Salve,Muktabai

sanad,3.1,3.2n159

sanatandharm,1.1,3.1,5.1;Gandhiand,3.2n166,5.2n13

sangathan,3.1,3.2n74,3.3.SeealsoAryaSamaj;shuddhi

sanskara(s),3.1,3.2n131

Santhal(s),1.1,1.2,1.3

SantRam:andJat-PatTodakMandal,2.1n1,2.2n3,2.3,2.4,2.5n16;onAmbedkar,2.6n15;exchangewithAmbedkar,2.7,2.8n15,2.9,5.1;exchangewithGandhi,2.10,4.1passim;andHarBhagwan,2.11n13;andHarijans,2.12n8;Kranti,2.13n7;Phansikepujari,2.14n3.SeealsoJat-PatTodakMandal

Saraswati,Dayananda,1.1,1.2,2.1n1,3.1n73,3.2n82,5.1.SeealsoAryaSamaj

SardarSarovarDam,n76

Satara

satyagraha:inChamparan,1.1;andduragraha,1.2n206;andKhilafat,1.3;inMahad,1.4,1.5,1.6n201,3.1n27,3.2n103,3.3n170;andPoonafast,1.7;Salt,1.8,1.9;inSouthAfrica,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14n128;andUntouchables,1.15;Vaikomsatyagraha,1.16,1.17n194

Satyanarayana,K.andSusieTharu,3.1n27,3.2n36,3.3n170

SatyashodhakSamaj.SeealsoJotibaPhule

Savarkar,VinayakDamodar:ChitpavanBrahmin,3.1;followerofTilak,1.1;andGandhi’sassassination,1.2;Hindutva,1.3;Hindutva(concept),1.4,1.5n92;injail,1.6,1.7,1.8n151;sangathanmovement,3.2n74;on‘trueIndians’,1.9n151

savarna,2.1n2,3.1,3.2n4,4.1,4.2n6,6.1

scavengers(manual),1.1,1.2,1.3,5.1n7

ScheduledCastes,1.1,1.2,1.3n6,1.4n9,1.5n44,2.1n3,2.2n8,6.1,6.2,6.3n9.SeealsoDalit

ScheduledCastesFederation,1.1,3.1n64;inelections,1.2,1.3n208,6.1.

ScheduledCastesandScheduledTribesPreventionofAtrocitiesActof1989,1.1,1.2n9

ScheduledTribes,1.1,1.2n9,1.3n44,3.1n64,6.1,6.2,6.3n9.Seealsoaboriginaltribes;Adivasis

Schopenhauer,Arthur

SecondWorldWar,1.1,1.2n121

Segaon,alsoSevagram,4.1,4.2n8

self-rule,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,3.1n169;inSouthAfrica,1.5

Seligman,Edwin,1.1,4.1n11

separateelectorates:Ambedkar’sdemand,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6n241,6.1,6.2;Gandhiand,1.7,1.8,1.9,3.1n64,6.3;andM.C.Rajah,4.1n5;forMuslims,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,220n22;forotherminorities,1.14,1.15,3.2n22;oppositionto,1.16,1.17,1.18,6.4;andPoonaPact,1.19,3.3n22,6.5;inRomanempire,3.4;forUntouchables,1.20,1.21,1.22,1.23,1.24,1.25,3.5n22,6.6,6.7

ShahuMaharaj,Chhatrapati

Shambuka,3.1,3.2n96,3.3n130

Shanghvi,Dilip

Shankaracharya,n12

Shantaram,V.,n4

shastra(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,4.1,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4

Shia

ShiromaniGurdwaraParbandhakCommittee(SGPC),n14

shishtha,3.1,3.2n128

shit:forcedeatingof,1.1;and1947partition,1.2,1.3;andrailways,1.4;scavenging,1.5,1.6

Shiva,alsoSiva,1.1,3.1n2;Mahadevatemple(Vaikom),1.2;Saivism,3.2n32

Shivaji:coronation,1.1,3.1n2,3.2n9,3.3n11,3.4,3.5n57,3.6,3.7n59;andRamdas,3.8,3.9n2;andTukaram,3.10n2,3.11n32

ShivSena,1.1,1.2,1.3

Shotwell,James

Shourie,Arun,n167

ShradhanandaDalituddharSabha

shruti,3.1n123;Ambedkaron,3.2,3.3n142,3.4,3.5

shuddhi,1.1,3.1,3.2n73.SeealsoAryaSamaj

Shudra(s):Ambedkaron,263,269,3.1;andAryaSamaj,3.2;Gandhion,1.1,4.1n7;interestratefor,1.2;Kayastha(s)as,3.3n60;Manusmrition,1.3,1.4,3.4,3.5n98;intheMauryaperiod,3.6;andMuslims,3.7n114;NarendraModias,1.5;Phuleon,1.6,1.7;inprint

media,1.1;punishmentfor,1.2,1.3,3.1,3.2n98;andrace,1.4;Ramanujaand,3.3n150;SantRamon,4.1;Shambukaas,3.4n96,3.5n130;Shivajias,3.6n59;andslavery,1.5;Tukaramas,3.7n2;andVaikom,1.6;invarnashrama,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10n51,1.11n276,3.8n3–4,3.9,3.10,3.11n161

Sikh(s)andSikhism,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6n263,2.1n13,2.2n14,3.1n64,3.2n69,3.3n77;brotherhoodin,1.7,3.4,3.5n76,3.6;casteand,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11n6,1.12n10,2.3,3.7,3.8,3.9n168;conversionsto,1.13,1.14,2.4n14;Gandhiand,1.15,1.16,1.17n194;GuruNanak,3.10,3.11n33;separateelectorates,1.18,1.19,1.20,3.12,6.1

SikhPracharConference(Amritsar,1936),2.1n14,2.2.SeealsoShiromaniGurdwaraParbandhakCommittee

SimonCommission,1.1n86,4.1n5

Sindhu,n51

Singh,Bant

Singh,GuruGovind

Singh,Khushwant

Singh,Manmohan,n43

Singh,VishwanathPratap,n230

SkandaPurana,3.1n55

slavery,1.1,1.2,3.1

smriti(s):Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n137,3.3n143–5,3.4,3.5,3.6n161,4.1

Smuts,Jan,1.1,1.2,1.3

SocialConference,alsoIndianNationalSocialConferenceof1887,3.1passim,

3.2

socialefficiency,3.1,3.2n6,3.3.SeealsoBenjaminKidd;JohnDewey

socialism:Ambedkaron,3.1;andNehru,3.2n37

socialist(s):andAmbedkar,1.1n208,3.1;Ambedkaron,3.2,3.3,3.4;GandhionIndiansocialist(s),1.2,1.3;andILP,1.4;state,1.5

socialreform:Ambedkaron,2.1,3.1,3.2,3.3passim,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7passim;Gandhion,1.1;party,fm03.1,3.8,3.9;SantRamand,1.2;andShivaji,3.10;andTilak,3.11n8

Solanki,Raju

Sonar(caste),3.1,3.2n68

SouthAfrica:Gandhiin,1.1,1.2,65,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,5.1n14;Gandhion,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13;Indiansin,1.14,1.15,1.16;PassLawsin,1.17;War,1.18,1.19

SouthboroughCommittee

SovietUnion

SpecialEconomicZones

SreeNarayanaGuru,1.1,2.1n13

SriLanka,1.1,1.2

Srinivasan,Rettamalai,4.1n5,6.1

Staunton,F.F.,n11

Stephen,Leslie,3.1,3.2n125

sub-caste(s),alsojati(s),1.1,3.1,3.2,3.3n55–6,3.4n108,3.5,5.1n14.Seealsoeugenics;Sahyadrikhand

Sudarshan,K.S.

Sunga,Pushyamitra,3.1n97,3.2n107

Sunni,1.1,3.1

SupremeCourt,1.1,1.2,1.3n38,1.4n76,3.1n59,6.1n9

Swadesh(newspaper)

swaraj,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,3.1,3.2n169

Swaris,Nalin,n8

sweepers,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,5.1n7

SyrianChristian,1.1,1.2

Tagore,MaharshiDevendranath,4.1,4.2n9

Tagore,Rabindranath,1.1,1.2,1.3

Taliban

Tamil(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5n84,1.6n195,2.1,3.1n2,3.2n150,4.1n5,4.2n9,5.1n6

Tata,SirRatanjiJamshetji,1.1;Tatas,1.2,1.3n76

tax(es):inChamparan,1.1;poll,1.2,1.3;salt,1.4;three-pound,1.5,1.6

Teltumbde,Anand,1.1,1.2n1,1.3n43,1.4n189,1.5n202,1.6n208,1.7n221

TempleEntryBill

Tendulkar,D.G.

Thass,Iyothee

TheosophicalSociety,1.1,5.1n8.SeealsoAnnieBesant

Thinniyam,n9

Thiyas

Tilak,B.G.:Ambedkaron,3.1,5.1;ArcticHomeoftheVedas,3.2n45;andtheCongress,1.1,3.3n7;ChitpavanBrahmin,3.4n8,3.5n57;deportationtoMandalay,1.2,5.2n2;Kesari,104,3.6n8;andSavarkar,1.3;andSocialConference,3.7n7,3.8n9;SrimadBhagavadGitaRahasya,5.3n2;andswaraj,1.4,3.9n169;onuntouchability,1.5

Time

TimesofIndia,1.1,1.2n259,3.1,3.2n13

TimesNow

Tocqueville,Alexisde

Touchable(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2.1n2,4.1,4.2

Transvaal,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n131

TransvaalAsiaticLawAmendmentActof1906

Travancore,1.1,1.2

TreatyofVereeniging

trusteeship,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n63,5.1n8

truth:forGandhi,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8n59,1.9n113,4.1n3,5.1n13;forAmbedkar3.1,3.2,4.2n3,4.3,5.2,5.3,5.4,6.1

tryavarnika,3.1,3.2n101.Seealsosavarna

Tubman,Harriet

Tukaram,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,3.1n2,3.2n32,4.1,4.2n9,5.1

Tulsidas,n8

Uka:Gandhion,1.1,1.2n187

Ulster,3.1,3.2n24

UnitedProvinces,1.1,1.2,1.3,3.1n73,5.1n8

UnitedStates(US),the,1.1,1.2;AfricanAmericansin,1.3;andanticasteintellectuals,1.4;AryaSamajin,2.1n11;CivilRightsMovementin,1.5;andtheGhadarParty,1.6;andJimCrow,1.7andMalala,1.8;Tocquevilleon,3.1n29

untouchability,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n18,3.1,3.2,4.1;Ambedkaron,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,5.1;Gandhion,1.12,1.13,1.14,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5

Untouchable(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,1.14,1.15,1.16passim,1.17,1.18n6,1.19n83,2.1,2.2n8,3.1passim,5.1n6,6.1;Amaedkaras,1.20,1.21,1.22,2.3n15,6.2;Ambedkaron,1.23,1.24,1.25,1.26,1.27,1.28,1.29,1.30passim,1.31,1.32,1.33n241,2.4n15,3.2,3.3passim,3.4,5.2,6.3;Gandhion,1.34,1.35,1.36,1.37,1.38,1.39,1.40n187,4.1,4.2,5.3n13;representationof,1.41,6.4,6.5;separateelectorates,1.42,1.43,3.5n22,3.6n35,4.3n5,6.6,6.7,6.8passim;Unapproachable,1.44;UnSeeable,1.45;women,1.46,1.47,1.48.SeealsoDalit(s)

Upanishads,1.1,3.1n51,3.2n161,3.3,4.1,5.1n11,5.2

utopia,1.1,1.2,3.1n169

Vaikomsatyagraha,1.1,1.2n194,1.3n201

VaishnavaandVaishnavism,1.1n88,2.1n8,3.1n32,3.2n150,4.1n9,6.1

Vaishya(caste),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n51,1.8n276,3.1n3,3.2,3.3,3.4,5.1.SeealsoBania(s)

Vajpayee,AtalBihari

Vanniyars

Varkari,3.1n2,3.2n32,4.1n9,5.1n3

varnaandvarnavyavastha,1.1,1.2n276,3.1;Ambedkaron,3.2passim,3.3,4.1,5.1,5.2,5.3passim;andBhagvadGita,1.3,3.4n161;BhaiParmanandand,2.1n11;anddemocracy,1.4,1.5;dharmaandkarma,1.6,3.5;Gandhion,1.7,1.8,4.2n7,4.3,5.4n13;andGuruNanak,3.6n33;inManusmriti,3.7n1;andPurushaSukta,1.9n51;SantRamon,4.4

varnashrama,1.1,1.2,2.1,4.1,4.2n7;Ambedkaron,1.3,1.4,3.1passim,5.1;Gandhion,1.5,5.2n13;varnashramadharma,1.6,1.7n276,3.2n33,4.3

Veda(s),Ambedkaron,3.1,3.2n69,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9;andAdivasis,1.1,3.10;andBhaiParmanand,2.1n11;andBhandarkar,3.11n44;andcolonisationofknowledge,1.2,3.12,3.13n98;Dangeand,1.3;andJat-PatTodakMandal,1.4,2.2,2.3,3.14n82;andRamanuja,3.15n150;andvarna5.1

Vedanta:corporation,1.1n222;philosophy,3.1n157

Veerashaivas,1.1,3.1n2

Veereshwar

Vidyasagar,IshwarChandra,n47

Vishnu,3.1n2,3.2n32,3.3n57,5.1

VishwaHinduParishad(VHP),1.1,1.2n84

Vitthala,n32

Vivekananda,1.1,1.2,1.3n88,4.1,4.2n9,5.1n2.SeealsoRamakrishnaMission

WarsoftheRoses,3.1,3.2n58

water:agitatingfor,1.1,1.2,3.1,3.2n170;denialof,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7n18,3.3;sharing,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11.SeealsoMahadSatyagraha

widowremarriage,1.1,2.1n3,3.1,3.2.SeealsoPatharePrabhu

Wolpert,Stanley

WorldConferenceAgainst

Racism,Durban2001,1.1,1.2

yagnya,1.1,1.2

YerawadaCentralJail,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4n128

YoungIndia,1.1n187,1.2n194,4.1n7,5.1,5.2n12,5.3n15

zamindar(s),1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,6.1

Zanu(village)

Zedong,Mao

Zelliot,Eleanor,1.1n180,1.2n244,2.1n14,2.2n15

Žižek,Slavoj,n149

Zulu,1.1,1.2passim,1.3