B. R. Ambedkar wrote this chapter as the close of his book What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, which appeared in June 1945. He signed its preface in New Delhi on 24 June 1945, while he was Labour Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council. The book is a long indictment of Congress's record toward the Untouchables since the 1917 Congress resolution on their disabilities, through the Poona Pact of 1932 and the Congress ministries of 1937–39. This last chapter turns from what Gandhi did to what Gandhism offers. Ambedkar's own footnotes are given at the end.
Ambedkar sets out Gandhi's defence of caste and the four varnas, his opposition to machinery and his doctrine that the rich should hold their wealth in trust for the poor, quoting Gandhi's writings at length. He answers that machinery and modern civilization are what make leisure, and so a life of culture, possible for everyone, and calls the idea of trusteeship "the most ridiculous part" of Gandhism. "If there is an ‘ism’ which has made full use of religion as an opium to lull the people into false beliefs and false security, it is Gandhism," he writes. Gandhi's recent statement that caste is an anachronism, he argues, changes nothing: "To the Untouchables Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors," and the chapter ends with their question, "Good God! Is this man Gandhi our Saviour?"
A shortened version that follows the main line of the argument. Cuts are marked […]. Read the full text.
[p. 274] I
Hitherto when Indians have been talking about the reconstruction of Indian social and economic life they have been talking in terms of individualism versus collectivism, capitalism versus socialism, conservatism versus radicalism and so on. But quite recently a new ‘ism’ has come on the Indian horizon. It is called Gandhism. It is true that very recently Mr. Gandhi had denied that there is such a thing as Gandhism. This denial is nothing more than the usual modesty which Mr. Gandhi wears so well. It does not disprove the existence of Gandhism. There have been quite a number of books with the title of Gandhism without any protest from Mr. Gandhi. It has already caught the imagination of some people both inside and outside India. Some have so much faith in it that they do not hesitate to offer it as an alternative to Marxism.
The followers of Gandhism who may happen to read what is said in the foregoing pages may well ask : Mr. Gandhi may not have done what the Untouchables expected him to do ; but does not Gandhism offer any hope to the Untouchables ? The followers of Gandhism may accuse me of remembering only the short, slow, intermittent steps taken by Mr. Gandhi for the sake of the Untouchables and of forgetting the potential length of the principles enunciated by him. I am prepared to admit that it does sometimes happen that a person who enunciates a long principle takes only a short step and that he may be forgiven for the short step in the hope that some day the principle will by its native dynamics force a long step covering all who were once left out. Gandhism is in itself a very interesting subject for study. But to deal with Gandhism after having dealt with Mr. Gandhi is bound to be a tedious task and therefore my first reaction was to leave out the consideration of Gandhism and Untouchables. At the same time, I could hardly remain indifferent to the facts that the effect of my omission to consider the subject might be very unfortunate. For [p. 275] Gandhists, notwithstanding my exposure of Mr. Gandhi, might take advantage of it and continue to preach that if Mr. Gandhi has failed to solve the problem of the Untouchables still the Untouchables will find their salvation in Gandhism. It is because I wish to leave no room for such propaganda that I have overcome my original disinclination and engage upon discussion of Gandhism.
II
What is Gandhism ? What does it stand for ? What are its teachings about economic problem ? What are its teachings about social problem ?
At the outset it is necessary to state that some Gandhists have conjured up a conception of Gandhism which is purely imaginary. According to this conception Gandhism means return to the village and making the village self-sufficient. It makes Gandhism a mere matter of regionalism. Gandhism, I am sure, is neither so simple nor so innocent as regionalism is. Gandhism has a much bigger content than regionalism. Regionalism is a small insignificant part of it. It has a social philosophy and it has an economic philosophy. To omit to take into account the economic and social philosophy of Gandhism is to present deliberately a false picture of Gandhism. The first and foremost requisite is to present a true picture of Gandhism.
To start with Mr. Gandhi’s teachings on social problem. Mr. Gandhi’s views on the caste system—which constitutes the main social problem in India—were fully elaborated by him in 1921-22 in a Gujarathi Journal called Nava-Jivan. The article1 is written in Gujarathi. I give below an English translation of his views as near as possible in his own words. Says Mr. Gandhi:
“1. I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
“2. The seeds of Swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of military division. Each division is working for the good of the whole...
“3. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.
[p. 276] “4. Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Every caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the Caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defence force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
“5. I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe … Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.
“6. In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry ? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with the members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The Caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different Castes.”
“7. Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
“8. To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
“9. The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the Caste System it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from Caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived.
These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System.”
[…] Ambedkar quotes Gandhi on the four varnas, on machinery and modern civilization, and against class struggle.
Mr. Gandhi does not wish to hurt the propertied class. He is even opposed to a campaign against them. He has no passion for economic equality. Referring to the propertied class Mr. Gandhi said quite recently that he does not wish to destroy the hen that lays the golden egg. His solution for the economic conflict between the owners and workers, between the rich and the poor, between landlords and tenants and between the employers and the employees is very simple. The owners need not deprive themselves of their property. All that they need do is to declare themselves Trustees for the poor. Of course the Trust is to be a voluntary one carrying only a spiritual obligation.
III
Is there anything new in the Gandhian analysis of economic ills ? Are the economics of Gandhism sound ? What hope does Gandhism hold out to the common man, to the down-and out ? Does it promise him a better life, a life of joy, and culture, a life of freedom, not merely freedom from want but freedom to rise, to grow to the full stature which his capacities can reach ?
There is nothing new in the Gandhian analysis of economic ills in so far as it attributes them to machinery and the civilization that is built upon it. The arguments that machinery and modern civilization help to concentrate management and control into relatively few hands, and with the aid of banking and credit facilitate the transfer into still fewer hands of all materials and factories and mills in which millions are bled white in order to support huge industries thousands of miles away from their cottages, or that machinery and modern civilization cause deaths, maimings and cripplings far in excess of the corresponding injuries by war, and are responsible for disease and physical deterioration caused directly and indirectly by the development of large cities with their smoke, dirt, noise, foul air, lack of sunshine and out-door life, slums, prostitution and unnatural living which they bring about, are all [p. 283] old and worn out arguments. There is nothing new in them. Gandhism is merely repeating the views of Rousseau, Ruskin, Tolstoy and their school.
The ideas which go to make up Gandhism are just primitive. It is a return to nature, to animal life. The only merit is their simplicity. As there is always a large corps of simple people who are attracted by them, such simple ideas do not die, and there is always some simpleton to preach them. There is, however, no doubt that the practical instincts of men—which seldom go wrong—have found them unfruitful and which society in search of progress has thought it best to reject.
The economics of Gandhism are hopelessly fallacious. The fact that machinery and modern civilization have produced many evils may be admitted. But these evils are no argument against them. For the evils are not due to machinery and modern civilization. They are due to wrong social organization which has made private property and pursuit of personal gain matters of absolute sanctity. If machinery and civilization have not benefited everybody the remedy is not to condemn machinery and civilization but to alter the organization of society so that the benefits will not be usurped by the few but will accrue to all.
In Gandhism the common man has no hope. It treats man as an animal and no more. It is true that man shares the constitution and functions of animals, nutritive, reproductive, etc. But these are not distinctively human functions. The distinctively human function is reason, the purpose of which is to enable man to observe, meditate, cogitate, study and discover the beauties of the Universe and enrich his life and control the animal elements in his life. Man thus occupies the highest place in the scheme of animate existence. If this is true what is the conclusion that follows ? The conclusion that follows is that while the ultimate goal of a brute’s life is reached once his physical appetites are satisfied, the ultimate goal of man’s existence is not reached unless and until he has fully cultivated his mind. In short, what divides the brute from man is culture. Culture is not possible for the brute, but it is essential for man. That being so, the aim of human society must be to enable every person to lead a life of culture which means the cultivation of the mind as distinguished from the satisfaction of mere physical wants. How can this happen?
[p. 284] Both for society and as well as for the individual there is always a gulf between merely living and living worthily. In order that one may live worthily one must first live. The time and energy spent upon mere life, upon gaining of subsistence detracts from that available for activities of a distinctively human nature and which go to make up a life of culture. How then can a life of culture be made possible ? It is not possible unless there is sufficient leisure. For it is only when there is leisure that a person is free to devote himself to a life of culture. The problem of all problems which human society has to face is how to provide leisure to every individual. What does leisure mean ? Leisure means the lessening of the toil and effort necessary for satisfying the physical wants of life. How can leisure be made possible ? Leisure is quite impossible unless some means are found whereby the toil required for producing goods necessary to satisfy human needs is lessened. What can lessen such toil ? Only when machine takes the place of man. There is no other means of producing leisure. Machinery and modern civilization are thus indispensable for emancipating man from leading the life of a brute, and for providing him with leisure and making a life of culture possible. The man who condemns machinery and modern civilization simply does not understand their purpose and the ultimate aim which human society must strive to achieve.
Gandhism may be well suited to a society which does not accept democracy as its ideal. A society which does not believe in democracy may be indifferent to machinery and the civilization based upon it. But a democratic society cannot. The former may well content itself with life of leisure and culture for the few and a life of toil and drudgery for the many. But a democratic society must assure a life of leisure and culture to each one of its citizens. If the above analysis is correct then the slogan of a democratic society must be machinery, and more machinery, civilization and more civilization. Under Gandhism the common man must keep on toiling ceaselessly for a pittance and remain a brute. In short, Gandhism with its call of back to nature, means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty and back to ignorance for the vast mass of the people.
[…] Ambedkar argues that Gandhism treats the class structure of society as permanent.
[p. 286] The idea of trusteeship which Gandhism proposes as a panacea by which the moneyed classes will hold their properties in trust for the poor is the most ridiculous part of it. All that one can say about it is that if anybody else had propounded it the author would have been laughed at as a silly fool who had not known the hard realities of life and was deceiving the servile classes by telling them that a little dose of moral rearmament to the propertied classes—those who by their insatiable cupidity and indomitable arrogance have made and will always make this world a vale of tears for the toiling millions—will recondition them to such an extent that they will be able to withstand the temptation to misuse the tremendous powers which the class structure gives them over servile classes.
[…] Ambedkar rebuts Gandhi's case for caste, and his praise of Shudra poverty and of scavenging.
Criticism apart, this is the technique of Gandhism, to make wrongs done appear to the very victim as though they were his privileges. If there is an ‘ism’ which has made full use of religion as an opium to lull the people into false beliefs and false security, it is Gandhism. Following Shakespeare one can well say : Plausibility ! Ingenuity ! Thy name is Gandhism.
[…] Ambedkar argues that Gandhi's campaign against untouchability would change little for the Untouchables.
V
What else is there in Gandhism which the Untouchables can accept as opening a way for their ultimate salvation ? Barring this illusory campaign against Untouchability Gandhism is simply another form of Sanatanism which is the ancient name for militant orthodox Hinduism. What is there in Gandhism which is not to be found in orthodox Hinduism ? There is [p. 296] caste in Hinduism, there is caste in Gandhism. Hinduism believes in the law of hereditary profession, so does Gandhism. Hinduism enjoins cow-worship. So does Gandhism. Hinduism upholds the law of karma, predestination of man’s condition in this world, so does Gandhism. Hinduism accepts the authority of the Shastras. So does Gandhism. Hinduism believes in avatars or incarnations of God. So does Gandhism. Hinduism believes in idols, so does Gandhism.1 All that Gandhism has done is to find a philosophic justification for Hinduism and its dogmas. Hinduism is bald in the sense that it is just a set of rules which bear on their face the appearance of a crude and cruel system. Gandhism supplies the philosophy which smoothens its surface and gives it the appearance of decency and respectability and so alters it and embellishes it as to make it even attractive. What philosophy does Gandhism propound to cover the nudity of Hinduism ? This philosophy can be put in a nutshell. It is a philosophy which says that “All that is in Hinduism is well, all that is in Hinduism is necessary for public good.” Those who are familiar with Voltaire’s Candide will recognize that it is the philosophy of Master Pangloss and recall the mockery Voltaire made of it. The Hindus are of course pleased with it. No doubt it suits them and accords with their interest. Prof. Radhakrishnan—whether out of genuine feeling or out of sycophancy we need not stop to inquire—has gone to the length of describing Mr. Gandhi as ‘God on earth.’ What do the Untouchables understand this to mean ? To them it means that: “This God by name Gandhi came to console an afflicted race : He saw India and changed it not saying all is well and will be, if the Hindus will only fulfil the law of caste. He told the afflicted race, ‘I have come to fulfil the law of caste.’ Not a tittle, not a jot shall I allow to abate from it.”
What hope can Gandhism offer to the Untouchables ? To the Untouchables Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against the Untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated, [p. 297] blasted and blighted the life of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism. How can the Untouchables say that Gandhism is a heaven and not a chamber of horrors as Hinduism has been ? The only reaction and a very natural reaction of the Untouchables would be to run away from Gandhism.
Gandhists may say that what I have stated applies to the old type of Gandhism. There is a new Gandhism, Gandhism without caste. This has reference to the recent statement1 of Mr. Gandhi that caste is an anachronism. Reformers were naturally gladdened by this declaration of Mr. Gandhi. And who would not be glad to see that a man like Mr. Gandhi having such terrible influence over the Hindus, after having played the most mischievous part of a social reactionary, after having stood out as the protagonist of the caste system, after having beguiled and befooled the unthinking Hindus with arguments which made no distinction between what is fair and foul should have come out with this recantation ? But is this really a matter for jubilation ? Does it change the nature of Gandhism ? Does it make Gandhism a new and a better ‘ism’ than it was before. Those who are carried away by this recantation of Mr. Gandhi, forget two things. In the first place all that Mr. Gandhi has said is that caste is an anachronism. He does not say it is an evil. He does not say it is anathema. Mr. Gandhi may be taken to be not in favour of caste. But Mr. Gandhi does not say that he is against the Varna system. And what is Mr. Gandhi’s varna system ? It is simply a new name for the caste system and retains all the worst features of the caste system.
The declaration of Mr. Gandhi cannot be taken to mean any fundamental change in Gandhism. It cannot make Gandhism acceptable to the Untouchables. The Untouchables will still have ground to say : “Good God! Is this man Gandhi our Saviour?”
[p. 275] 1. It is reprinted in Vol. II of the series called Gandhi Sikshan as No. 18.
[p. 277] 1. The extracts are taken from an article by Mr. Gandhi on the subject and is reproduced in the Varna Vyavastha—a book which contains Mr. Gandhi’s writings in original Gujarathi.
[p. 279] 1. Young India, 26th January 1921.
[p. 279] 2. Dharma Manthan, p. 65.
[p. 280] 1. Young India, February 23, 1922.
[p. 280] 2. Young India, 11th August, 1921. Italics not in the original.
[p. 281] 1. Italics are not in the original. Kisan means a tenant and zamindar means landlord.
[p. 286] 1. See pages 275-277.
[p. 291] 1. Quoted from Varna Vyavastha, p. 51.
[p. 292] 1. Young India, 27th April 1921.
[p. 293] 1. Some of the Provinces of India have laws which make refusal by a scavenger to do scavenging a crime for which he can be tried and punished by a criminal court.
[p. 294] 1. Young India, 5th February 1925.
[p. 295] 1. See supra, pages 275-77 for Mr. Gandhi’s views on the subject.
[p. 296] 1. Mr. Gandhi’s articles of faith have been outlined by him in Young India of 6th October 1921.
[p. 297] 1. Hindustan Times, 15th April 1945.
B. R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables (Bombay: Thacker, 1945), ch. XI, reprinted in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 9 (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1991), pp. 274–297. The book's preface is dated 24 June 1945.