Summary and Commentary on “Annihilation of Caste” by Dr Ambedkar
Some writings carry the person’s ideas and some carry the person themselves. This writing by Dr. Ambedkar carries his personality and his character. The speech prepared for presidential address in Lahore turned out to be so radical for the organizers that they had to cancel the program but it didn’t deter Dr. Ambedkar from publishing it and it became so popular that it attracted the attention of none other than the Mahatma. This was followed by an extensive reply by Dr Ambedkar, countering Mahatma’s ideas and beliefs by his reasoning in a very brash manner. This dual highlights the difference in point of views of two greatest personalities of modern India.
Ambedkar in his speech/writing had started with the basic idea of why social/religious reform is necessary before any sort of political reform. This idea looks very valid when seen from the point of view that if the ruling class in the politically reformed country can’t ensure basic human rights because of the lack of social reforms than that kind of political reform will fail. The establishment of National Congress and Social Conference to counter the evils of that era highlights this divide between political reformist and social reformist. But Ambedkar points out that the social reformist failed because they focused on Hindu family reforms rather than the overall Hindu society reforms because it better served the purpose of the members of Social Conference who were mostly upper caste Brahmins. Their concern was not the condition of Sudras in the society as they were not part of the problem. On the other half of this political debate were the socialist who believed that the economic reforms could only bring about other kinds of reforms. The example of Rome where even after all forms of reservation, the religious institution were ruled by the elite and the proletariat’s belief in religion superseded everything so much so that they were ready to forgo their own good. Also in the context of India, there are examples of Shivaji, Sikhs and Chandragupta that their political powers were preceded by religious reforms by Marathi saints and poets, Gurunanak and Buddha respectively. In today’s context it is important to note that the provision of positive discrimination in Indian constitution in form of reservation is there to counter the lack of social opportunities to the deprived, hence as Ambedkar says that the constitution is also a political document which takes into consideration the present forces at work.
“if one Country is not fit to rule another than one class is not fit to rule another”
After pointing out the need for social reforms Ambedkar goes on to counter the points which are generally put forward in favor of caste system. The most commonly used argument is to say that it is a form of division of labor which is present in most of the countries. But by saying it is just a division of labor we completely neglect that caste system doesn’t provide a natural choice based on a person’s expertise or likes and dislikes to be a part or not to be a part of any division. Ambedkar truly says that it’s not division of labor but it is actually division of laborer's. Even if the caste system is based on division of labor then also it is unable to accommodate the change in industries which is constantly upgrading. This is leading to some professions becoming obsolete and new professions coming into the picture, and this change is not included in the stubborn caste system. After looking at all these points it is obvious that caste system can’t be a division of labor and even if it, by some chance, was a division of labor, as being based on birth it was and is one of the most inefficient and discriminatory division.
The approval of caste system based on preserving the racial purity is another commonly used argument. Ambedkar argues that none of the Indian castes have any kind of racial purity, we are all mixed races from all over the world. As far as the race is concerned there is no difference between different caste of the same regions and their is no similarity between the same caste of different regions. The need of sub caste within the caste and prohibition of intermarriage between subcaste shows the futility in the argument of racial superiority.
The reasons put forward by Dr. Ambedkar approves the idea of maintaining racial superior if it is the case, then why can’t the same be used for maintaining caste superiority. The idea of maintaining superiority if it subsumes basic human rights and/or freedom must be thrown out of the window, be it for race or caste. This can lead to a point where only the best race should be allowed to survive and in the case of caste only the best caste should be allowed to have a dignified life. (Why is race so important?!)
The cultural continuity of Hindu society and religion from numerous centuries is also used as an argument to prove the benefit of caste system. (Gandhi) This argument is generally used to prove the cultural heritage and greatness of the Hindu religion, but Dr. Ambedkar views caste system as the reason for the completely disorganized and demoralized Hindus who could not defend themselves against foreign invaders and have never been a nation. Ambedkar argues that Hindu’s can’t be called a society just because they have similarities. Their need to be commonality between class to call them a society. There exists no common platform of interaction of caste even in times of festivals, as all castes celebrate separately which shows that though they have similarities but no commonalities. The Ambedkar’s take on what exactly constitutes a society is very interesting and it tries to counter cultural continuity argument generally used in favor of proposing one nation theory of Hindustan. (Can we call elephant and ant to be of same society)
“The Mistake of Making The Records and Remains of The Past The Main Material of Education is That it Tends to Make The Past a Rival of The Present and The Present a More or Less Futile Imitation of The Past”
From the standpoint of 1936 when this speech was prepared it is very difficult for me to understand the gravity of interactions of various castes in a village. But if I take this argument to the state or national level then I don’t think that even Brahmins from all over India can form a nation because I can’t imagine any commonality between them. Here when I say commonality then I mean something which is common between them. Maybe I am incapable because of my lack of knowledge to comment any further. As far as today is concerned, even by Ambedkar’s standard of society we are actually a nation, maybe an adopted one in the last 70 years but yes the festivals can be celebrated by most of the caste together at least in public places. It can’t be denied that the caste system has become a lot more flexible in independent India.
After quashing all the possible arguments justifying caste system, Ambedkar moves ahead to points out the problems in the caste system and in doing so he provides a completely different perspective to such points which are generally used to glorify the Hindu religion. Hindu’s have generally abstained from adopting the practice of conversion whereas most of the world’s religions believe in spreading their religion and adding people to their fold by conversion. While commenting on this aspect Ambedkar has pointed out that if you believe in the greatness of your religion then why don’t you spread it. It means that you want to keep others outside your fold in darkness and he adds that Hindu’s can’t include others into their system because the caste system doesn’t provide any space for inclusion. He asks where will you put the converted people, in which caste, in which varna! Similarly the aboriginal tribes are allowed to be as they are, without even trying to improve their condition. This attitude of grouping and shutting out people is because of caste system and it has also penetrated below to subcaste level. The differences and tension between the sub castes within the same caste is a proof of creating a graded system of sovereignty. With the complete absence of any possibility of inter caste movement, this graded system keeps every caste above some other caste as well as below some other caste. This has enabled the caste system to sustain as every caste has something to lose and because of these points one who tries to break or alter any caste based beliefs are excommunicated from their caste based society. For a social creature like humans who are accustomed to living in groups, it is the harshest punishment that could ever be, even harsher that political and economic sanctions. These provisions blanks out the individual opinions as their no space for dissent and Ambedkar asserts it to be important reason for Hindu’s becoming cunning and cowardice, whereas other religions like Sikh and Muslims being aggressive. This caste system is so divisive that it has restrained people to restrict their acts of charity and morality within their own caste and sub caste and Ambedkar attributes it as the reason for high level of indifference towards other oppressed people in Hindus.
“The Great Reading Down The Little,
The Strong Heating Down The Weak,
Cruel Person Fearing Not,
Kind Person Daring Not, &
Wise Person Caring Not”
Although Ambedkar’s arguments completely thrashes some common glorifying points of Hindu religion but in doing so he has stretched the arguments regarding aboriginal tribes, especially in the light of modern beliefs. Now it is believed that the culture and heritage of aboriginal tribes must be preserved as it is a great treasure of historical development. At the time when Ambedkar had prepared his speech, the idea of culturing aboriginal tribes may have seemed logical but now such thought process is rightly and extensively criticized. But it should be acknowledged that, the Hindu religion would not had this line of thought at that time or maybe Hindu religion was not so organized at that time to carry out such exercise and in the same way not so organized to tackle the above problems.
Ambedkar when declaring the need for annihilation of caste, also shows a path to tread and his idea of righteous society as he says will be based on the three pillars of liberty, fraternity and equality. The first two pillars of liberty and fraternity is directly disapproved by the existing caste system as it shows no tolerance for mobility between caste and on the contrary it punishes people who show any courage for practicing the principles of liberty and fraternity by simply outcasting them from the society. The third pillar of equality is the most difficult to impose as no two individuals can ever be equal. Equality can’t just be gauged by the efforts of individuals, which is the general conception, as it is also dependent on the person’s physical heredity and social inheritance. It becomes socially important, to garner potential of all members of society, to balance out the privileges of people such that equality can be ensured my measuring just the efforts of people. The provision of reservation in Indian constitution acknowledges this understanding of equality because privileges on caste lines is a reality in India and needs to be tackled. But at the same time, Ambedkar says “ The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics which is severely practical affair and which demands a severely practical test.” When Ambedkar endorses the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality he simply means democracy. But the baton bearers of Hindu religion asserts that the righteous society should be based on the Chaturvarna system and not on these principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. It is said that the 4 varnas i.e. Brahmins, Kshtriya, Vaishya and Sudhra will look after the needs of each other and each varna doesn’t need to interfere in the domains of others. It is assumed that there is no need for safeguards and the members of each varna will carry out their duty with the highest level of morality. Ambedkar argues that the chaturvarna system has been tried and it has failed to ensure equality. With the historical baggage of this varna system even if we change the basis of division from being based on birth to being based on natural aptitude, it’s mental baggage of being oppressive can’t fade from the memory of people. The change in basis of division from birth to natural aptitude can’t take place in the current varna system. The change in any society is brought by the intellectual class of the society and in case of Hindu religion, Brahmins make the class of intellectuals. It is highly improbable to imagine them to change and challenge a system through which they yield power.
After every kind of assertions and reasonings which deals with the problems of caste system and finally realizing that the caste system must be abolished, what should be the next step in the abolition of caste, how to end caste system? The suggestions range from some completely ineffective ones like abolishing sub caste to some being widely advocated by political leaders but only partially effective like the practice of inter dining. Ambedkar explains that the basis of caste is the endogamous practice of marriage within the same caste which keeps this practice alive. As shastras and vedas are the basis of Hindu religion, so people following Hindu religion are not wrong in practicing caste system as it is approved by the shastras and vedas. So the attack on caste system must target the Hindu religion, which in its current form is based on the rules and dogma that have become obsolete rather than being based on principles. Ambedkar says “it is your bounden duty to tear the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as caused by misnaming this Law as Religion.” and “there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion.”
“For Every Act of Independent Thinking Puts Some Portion of Apparently Stable World in Perils”
The reforms in the Hindu religion should follow such that there should be only one standard book for all Hindus and the priesthood should be abolished. But if it is not possible to abolish priesthood then it should be brought under the purview of state and priests should be subjected to the same standards of law as ordinary citizens. These are important because “true religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all true civil government rests.”
Ambedkar’s idea of following a standard book for Hindus can again lead to following rules and dogma which he wanted to abolish. Even with the provision of amendments in these books, the people will be forced to move into or outside the fold of this religion based on their likes and dislikes. Hindu religion of this generation allows us the freedom to live our life as we want without the burden to follow or break any rules. This has in itself the power to nurture creativity and individual freedom, which I think is hard to find anywhere else.
Ambedkar asks the follows of this religion to think and question the historical beliefs on the basis of their merit and decide if they are going to follow the shastras in toto or just the meritorious part. Finally he says “the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society”
“ A State Without The Means of Change is Without The Means of Conservation”
“In The Fight For Swaraj You Fight With The Whole Nation on Your side.
In This, You Have to Fight Against The Whole Nation and That Too, Your Own”
