An ‘Annihilysis’ of Caste

29/11/19

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was one of the most influential social revolutionaries and political thinkers that

modern India has borne. He was a prolific writer who served as India’s first Law Minister and oversaw

the drafting of the Indian Constitution. But the socio-cultural values he incorporated in the Indian

Constitution, were only the means to achieve a higher goal; i.e. the emancipation of millions of Dalits,

which needed a complete annihilation of caste. (Dwivedi and Sinha 2005)

Annihilation of Caste was a speech that Ambedkar wrote for a primarily privileged-caste audience at

the 1936 conference of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal of Lahore. Having received the text of the speech in

advance, the Mandal realised that Ambedkar intended not merely to criticise the practice of caste, but

to denounce Hinduism itself. (Ambedkar 2014, Editor's Note)

Ambedkar fervently believed that political reform was to be accompanied by socio-religious reform,

and that the issues with the existing socio-cultural order should be considered germane while

implementing political reforms. He asserts the same in the early part of his speech, citing Ferdinand

Lasselle and the republican constitution of Rome and drawing out the significance of the Ramsay

Macdonald Award as evidence. He then describes how the political reform gained precedence over

social reform. Ambedkar blames this loss on the fact that the “Social Conference was a body which

mainly concerned itself with the reform of the high-caste Hindu family.” The problem was that the

“battle that was fought centred round the question of the reform of the family. It did not relate to social

reform in the sense of the break-up of the caste system.” (Ambedkar 2014)

Having trained his crosshairs on the caste system, Ambedkar engages with the socialists, asking them

how there could be a revolution if the proletariat couldn’t present a united front, too busy being divided

on caste lines. (Ambedkar 2014) He then goes on to characterise how the caste system was inimical to

society and in his plan of action for the abolition of caste, he initially suggests the introduction of inter-

caste dinners. However, he clarifies that it’s an inadequate remedy claiming that the real remedy for
breaking caste is intermarriage. He then stresses that “reformers working for the removal of

untouchability, including Mahatma Gandhi, didn’t seem to realise that the acts of the people are merely

the results of their beliefs inculcated in their minds by the shastras, and that people will not change their

conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the shastras on which their conduct is founded.”

(Ambedkar 2014)

Thus, having espoused the urgent need for the reorganisation and reconstruction of Hindu society,

Ambedkar concludes his speech with the observation that “there is no use having swaraj, if one cannot

defend it.” He declares that “more important than the question of defending swaraj is the question of

defending the Hindus under the swaraj and that without such internal strength, swaraj for Hindus may

turn out to be only a step towards slavery.” (Ambedkar 2014)

Largely, Ambedkar leaned toward modernism, while Gandhi remained a staunch traditionalist. While

both luminaries regarded untouchability an evil, Ambedkar and Gandhi viewed it via social and moral

lenses respectively. Ambedkar’s idea of the annihilation of caste conflicted with Gandhi’s view that the

Varna system could serve as the model for a conflict-free society. (Brown 1990)

While Gandhi argued that untouchability was not inherent to the Hindu shastras and that Hinduism

could not have birthed and nourished a social evil as abhorring as untouchability. Ambedkar, as

mentioned before thought that the shastras were suffused with ideology conducive for it. Against

Gandhi, he argued that the principles of purity and pollution central to the caste system were integral to

the practices of untouchability. (Rodrigues 2011) In his response to Ambedkar’s criticism, Gandhi

insisted that “Caste had nothing to do with religion,” emphasising that “Varna and Ashrama were

institutions which have nothing to do with castes.” (Gandhi 1936) He was reluctant to blame the caste

system as such. He idealized the varna system as well as the Brahminic principles underlying it and was

in favour of hereditary occupations, which he felt worked against competition and class warfare and

provided efficient means for the reproduction of traditional skills. (Dirks 2001) The rivalry between

Ambedkar and Gandhi crystallised in 1932 on the issue of separate electorates. Gandhi believed that

such a scheme would fracture the unity of Hindu society. He entered into a fast unto death until

Ambedkar conceded by signing the Poona Pact. (Jaffrelot 2005)

Bibliography

Ambedkar, B.R. 2014. Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition. Edited by S. Anand.
Verso.

Brown, J. 1990. Gandhi, Prisoner of Hope. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dirks, Nicholas B. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton
University Press.

Dwivedi, H.S., and Ratan Sinha. 2005. “Dr. Ambedkar: The Pioneer of Social Democracy.” The Indian
Journal of Political Science (Indian Political Science Association) 66 (3): 661-666.

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. 1936. “A Vindication of Caste.” Edited by Mahadev Desai. Harijan
(Navajivan Publishing House) 4 (23): 180-181.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2005. Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste. Edited
by Ramachandra Guha. Permanent Black.

Rodrigues, Valerian. 2011. “Reading Texts and Traditions: The Ambedkar-Gandhi Debate.” Economic
and Political Weekly (Economic and Political Weekly) 46 (2): 56-66.