Learning from Babasaheb Ambedkar’s engagement with the question of social justice

We are assembled here to celebrate the birth anniversary of a great man whose greatness was realised by the people of south Asia only in the last two decades or so. Therein lies the story of Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s prescience in being able to focus on the question of social justice. No one other than Baba Saheb Ambedkar had ever thought during the period of the freedom struggle that the question of social justice would become the central question for the societies of south Asia. Currently if there is any trouble in our societies, it is attributed to the problems of social justice. If there is an effort to find a solution, it is within the realm of social justice. For, it became quite clear as soon as the societies of south Asia began to prosper, that no amount of prosperity was going to bring about peace and quiet in our societies unless the matter of social justice was addressed in an aggressive manner, simultaneously.

Today we can presume, at least among the well-educated audience such is present here, that all of us take the matter of social justice for granted. We all agree that in order to take our societies forward we need to focus on bringing about an adequate amount of social justice in our societies. In which case, the question comes up: is there anything more to learn from Baba Saheb Ambedkar? Well, for one, this audience, comprising of well-educated, economically reasonably well off young people, can learn from the method that Baba Saheb Ambedkar has bequeathed to us. The method of analysing social inequities, the method of forcing society to take cognizance of these inequities and then finally, making an effort to institutionalise the issue of providing social justice to people.

I would invite you to please transport yourself, in your minds, to the early twentieth century when Baba Saheb Ambedkar was still a school going child, a young man about to embark on a journey to change the world. There was no doubt in his mind about being a bright, alert and sensitive young man. There was also no doubt in his mind about the iniquitous manner in which the world functioned. In fact, for a person of his caste, living amidst the upper caste dominated society of central India, it would have been almost impossible not to have come across the humility that is regularly heaped by the upper castes on those not so. In the kind of education system that we had in India in those days, where premium was placed on educational attainments, there would have been no doubt in his mind as to his superior abilities and attainments as compared to his other class mates. He was lucky. Luck often plays an important part in providing someone with the necessary breaks that enable them to take society changing steps. He was lucky in order to find a mentor in

We need to pause here and notice a few things about the Gaikwar of Baroda. From the caste structure point of view he was not from one of the dvija castes. However, the educational fellowships that he had instituted, the benefits of state patronage that he used to extend to bright young students, was, as far as we know, neutral to the caste status of a person. So when young Ambedkar was selected for a subvention to help him with his studies it was not on the basis of his caste but most probably on the basis of his achievements. Ambedkar’s contact in the USA with Professor John Dewey sensitised him to the liberal idea of equality and justice. Indian society, then as now, was far removed from such ideas. A handful of people might have support them, an even fewer number of people might stand by them, but by and large, it would not be incorrect to say that India and Indians of the 1920s had little to do with either liberalism or equality or justice as far as the disabilities heaped upon the lower castes by those of the upper castes were concerned. Of course there was Gandhi and his temple entry movement. But, as Ambedkar would say with so much wisdom, how many Indians actually go to the temple? Or even aspired to go to one? Or would it make any difference to them if they were given the permission to go to a temple? Ambedkar was one of the few people in public life to notice that with the temple entry movement Gandhi was not about providing help to the dalits but instead simply about forcing the upper caste managers of the temples to bow before the whims and fancies of Gandhi in the name of social justice. What Gandhi’ agenda was therefore is a question for a different discussion.

My wonderment at the moment is just this: why did Ambedkar notice this and not so many other Indians? Is it possible that working with a leading American philosopher as his thesis supervisor taught Ambedkar the skills for systematic observation and the ability to look into the structures underlying popular rhetoric? For after all, Ambedkar was working mostly on the issue of public finance. What might that kind of a subject have anything to do with his understanding of Gandhi’s politics? Perhaps, one might say, it had everything to do with it. After all, the same skills that are required to unpack the complex mysteries of the subject of public finance are also the skills that are required to unpack the arguments that underlie something as superficial as temple entry? All that one had to do was to question the movement for temple entry from the point of view of those who were supposed to enter the temple. As Ambedkar asked: Did they (dalits) even want to enter the temple? To use the language of contemporary times one would say that when Ambedkar trashed the temple entry movement for being meaningless he was merely looking at it from the point of the person who was supposed to benefit from that movement. Or to state the first point that I would like to say to this audience of young people: the first important lesson to learn from Ambedkar’s engagement with the issue of social justice is to learn how to use the formal skills that you have learnt in the class room, skills for systematic observation, analysis and cross checking of facts, in everyday life, outside of the class room.

The story of Ambedkar is quite well-known. One does not need to repeat it in any detail. But one small point that requires reiteration concerns the so-called Pune Pact that he had with Gandhi. Once again that is an issue that leaves much space for wonderment. The most significant wonderment that occurs to me is this: why did Ambedkar agree to back off. After all, at this juncture Gandhi was not considered such a great leader. He had just had his spat with Jawaharlal Nehru. Within the Congress voices were being raised against Gandhi. The government, in its responses to the demands of the various social groups in the country had already asked for representatives of different groups to come together for what today are known as the Round Table Conferences. Gandhi had already missed out on the first one. For the other two Gandhi would be present but there would be much suspicion about him in many people’s eyes. The government had already implemented separate electorates on the basis of religion. There were also separate electorates for different classes of people, especially the educated. The big political movement that would catapult Gandhi as the most important political leader of the decade had not yet gained steam. So why was it that Ambedkar catapulted to Gandhi’s demand that he not insist on separate electorates for the dalits?

The answer to this puzzle resides not in Ambedkar, for he would continue to harbour considerable ill-will against Gandhi for having short-changed the dalits. He would continue to point out, in 1933 and later, that Gandhi essentially spoke in two voices: the voice that addressed the English speaking liberal audience spoke about liberty, equality and brotherhood; the voice that addressed the desi audience in local languages, spoke of the importance of the Vedic system of hierarchies and of the evils that are inherent within the western system of liberal thought. Ambedkar was under no illusion as to Gandhi’s ambivalent attitude towards the question of caste based inequities. He also was under no illusion about Gandhi’s inability (even were he to try his level best) to be able to provide any social justice within the existing system of society and polity. The answer to our puzzle resides in Gandhi’s communication to Ambedkar. Gandhi was clear, if the objective was to do away with social injustice, social inequities and dissolve the caste system then creating a system of separate electorates on the basis of caste would only result in ossifying the caste system and there would be no way in which it could be dissolved in the future. We do not have any direct evidence about Ambedkar’s response to Gandhi’s formulation. What we do know is that Ambedkar withdrew his demand for separate electorates. Historians and scholars studying Ambedkar have hitherto said that Ambedkar withdrew in the face of Gandhi’s deteriorating ill-health and the great love that the people of India had for Gandhi. My submission is that this is misjudging Ambedkar almost entirely. Ambedkar was not known to be a weak-minded person who would so easily succumb to emotional blackmail on an issue that he considered to be wrong. It is also misjudging the character of Ambedkar as an analytical person. We need to remind ourselves that Ambedkar had tremendous ability to bring his academic analytical skills to bear upon the problems of everyday life faced by his countrymen. Chances are that Ambedkar was convinced about Gandhi’s point that having separate electorates would ensure that there evolved a set of politicians in the future who would have a stake in perpetuating the caste system. The one thing that he, Ambedkar heartily wanted was the abolition of the caste system. He would at a later date even insist that the only way of ensuring the dissolution of the caste system was to promote inter-caste marriage. Still later, we need to remember, he married a woman who was an accomplished doctor and a Brahmin to boot. In 1933, on the eve of the so-called pact with Gandhi, however, he agreed to back off because he was able to figure out the long term consequences of his ideas. That perhaps is the second important lesson that can be learnt from Ambedkar by a young audience, still not caught up in the nitty-gritty of everyday life: to be able to understand the long term consequences of one’s ideas and actions.

For the moment I would confine myself to just these two points.

I trust it would be possible for us to be able to stand for issues of social justice in the same manner as Baba Saheb Ambedkar did. He has left us with a legacy that is worthy of being emulated and it would be a complete waste if we as a society are not able to learn substantive lessons from his thoughts and actions.

By

M Rajivlochan

Professor of Contemporary Indian History

Panjab University, Chandigarh

India 160014