Debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar regarding dalit rights
Answers
Answered by
3
The confrontation between Ambedkar and Gandhi was a historic one. It had its beginnings in the Round Table Conference of 1930-32, Ambedkar had gone earliest, as the prime representative of Dalits, or Untouchables. But when Gandhi finally decided to attend the second conference, he argued fervently that he represented the Untouchables, because they were an integral part of the Hindu fold – which he represented. To Ambedkar, Untouchables were not a part of Hindus but “a part apart” (a phrase he had once applied to himself), a uniquely oppressed people.
They could accept, even welcome,the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by Congress (ie by caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards.”
Ambedkar himself had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient.
But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues at the conference revolved around separate electorates. Gandhi was reconciled to giving these to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity as a separate community. Not so for Dalits. When the Ramsay MacDonald Award was announced giving separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast to death. And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar.
For Ambedkar, the problem was simple. If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms directed against Dalits and a massacre. Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalized this with reserved seats for Dalits – more than they would have had otherwise, but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.
Ambedkar wrote, many years later, in What Congress and Gandhi have Done to the Untouchables, “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The Fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards [which had been awarded to them].” He felt that the whole system of reserved seats, then, was useless. For years afterwards the problem of political representation remained chronic. Ambedkar continued to ask for separate electorates, but futilely.
By the end of his life, at the time of writing his “Thoughts on Linguistic States” in 1953, he gave these up also and looked to something like proportional representation. But the Poona Pact remained a symbol of bitter defeat, and Gandhi from that time on was looked on as one of the strongest enemies of the Untouchables by Ambedkar and his followers.
Following the fast and the compromise made by Ambedkar, Gandhi formed what he came to call the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Here again crucial differences arose. Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organization which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits – entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties — and he wanted it under control of the Dalits themselves. Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organization, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables. This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism — but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed; upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the dalits. This included programmes of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth.
They could accept, even welcome,the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by Congress (ie by caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards.”
Ambedkar himself had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient.
But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues at the conference revolved around separate electorates. Gandhi was reconciled to giving these to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity as a separate community. Not so for Dalits. When the Ramsay MacDonald Award was announced giving separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast to death. And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar.
For Ambedkar, the problem was simple. If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms directed against Dalits and a massacre. Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalized this with reserved seats for Dalits – more than they would have had otherwise, but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.
Ambedkar wrote, many years later, in What Congress and Gandhi have Done to the Untouchables, “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The Fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards [which had been awarded to them].” He felt that the whole system of reserved seats, then, was useless. For years afterwards the problem of political representation remained chronic. Ambedkar continued to ask for separate electorates, but futilely.
By the end of his life, at the time of writing his “Thoughts on Linguistic States” in 1953, he gave these up also and looked to something like proportional representation. But the Poona Pact remained a symbol of bitter defeat, and Gandhi from that time on was looked on as one of the strongest enemies of the Untouchables by Ambedkar and his followers.
Following the fast and the compromise made by Ambedkar, Gandhi formed what he came to call the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Here again crucial differences arose. Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organization which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits – entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties — and he wanted it under control of the Dalits themselves. Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organization, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables. This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism — but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed; upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the dalits. This included programmes of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth.
Similar questions