Debate: Gandhi vs Ambedkar

Gandhi, the principal architect of the Indian freedom struggle, and B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution of independent India, shared many ideas, though in many ways they held different beliefs.

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.

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.

Similarities Between the Two

However, there is a striking similarity in the symbolism involved in some of the actions of both individuals.

• The burning of foreign cloth by Gandhi and the burning of Manusmriti by Ambedkar are not to be seen as mere acts of sentiment. Rather, foreign cloth and Manusmriti represented the bondage and slavery for India.
• So too, a pinch of salt from the ocean, and a drop of water from the Mahad tank were acts of political catharsis and social philosophy.
• Gandhi believed that freedom was never to be bestowed but to be wrested from the authority by the people who desire it, whereas Ambedkar expected bestowing of freedom by the imperial rulers.
• The idea of social transformation through democratic and peaceful means got support from Ambedkar as well as Gandhi. They never sought a violent overthrow of any kind.

Ambedkar desisted from pleading a blunt destruction of the social order, however, evil it was. And like Gandhi, he wanted to solve the problem of social disharmony and disintegration through peaceful rehabilitation of the oppressed classes.

Differences Between the Two

Political Differences

The two leaders differed over the nature and scope of democracy as a method of government.

• Ambedkar advocated parliamentary system of government for independent India, but Gandhi had very little respect for the parliamentary system of governance.
• Gandhi believed that democracy tends to get converted into mass democracy with a propensity for domination by leaders.
• Ambedkar was inclined towards mass democracy as it could act as a pressure on the government with the advancement of the oppressed people.

Ideological Differences

• As a political and social activist, Ambedkar had certain principles which were very rigid, while
• Gandhi had no rigidities of ideology or principles except the uncompromising notion of nonviolence.
• Gandhi tried to put forward simple practical alternatives to the political streams of the twentieth century like liberalism, communism and fascism.
• Ambedkar, on the other hand, had a natural inclination for liberal ideology and desired institutional framework and structures.
• Ambedkar’s politics tended to highlight the aspect of Indian disunity whereas the Gandhian politics tried to show the aspect of Indian unity.

In ‘Hind Swaraj’, Gandhi tries to prove that India has always been a nation prior to the beginning of the imperial rule and it was the British rule who broke this cultural unity. Ambedkar, on the other hand, believed in the notion that Indian unity was the by-product of the legal system introduced by the imperial state.

Idea of ‘Gramraj’

• For Gandhi, ‘Gramraj’ was ‘Ramraj’ and real independence for Indians. But for Ambedkar, the status-quoist nature of the Indian villages denied equality and fraternity and also liberty.
• As the scourge of casteism and untouchability was most dominant in the rural areas of India, Ambedkar believed that ‘Gramraj’ would continue the social hierarchy based on discrimination and inequality. So he vehemently propagated that there was nothing to be of proud of the Indian village system.
• The idea of the use of compulsion or force for social integration as well as social reforms was negated by Ambedkar.

But the idea of proper education to make the individual desire for change, reform and integration was the stance where the views of two leaders were the same.

Development for Deprived Classes

• The two leaders also differed in their views and approaches in respect of the context of development for deprived classes.
• For instance, when Gandhi named the depressed classes and the untouchables as ‘Harijan’, Ambedkar denounced it as a clever scheme.

Thus, when the Depressed Classes League was renamed as Harijan Sevak Sangh (by Gandhi), Ambedkar left the organisation by claiming that for Gandhi removal of untouchability was only a platform, not a sincere programme.

Religion as an Agent of Social Change

Ambedkar held that the centre of religion must be between man and man, and not between man and God alone, as preached by Gandhi.

• In the beginning, Ambedkar too wanted to cast away the evil practices prevalent in Hinduism in an attempt to reform and reconstruct, rather than destroy it fully. But in the later phase of his life, he left Hinduism, denouncing it as an entity which couldn’t be reformed.
• Ambedkar denounced the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. He believed that the Hindu scriptures do not lend themselves to a unified and coherent understanding, and reflect strong contradictions within and across sects. And the caste system and untouchability were the manifestations of the Hindu religious scriptures.
• On the contrary, Gandhi held that caste system in Hinduism has nothing to do with religious precepts and spirituality. For Gandhi, caste and varna are different, and caste is perversive degeneration.
• In political precepts, Ambedkar believed in freedom of religion, free citizenship and separation of State and religion.
• Gandhi also endorsed the idea of freedom of religion, but never approved a separation of politics and religion.

But religion as an agent of social change was well accepted by both leaders. Both denounced in theory and thinking anything that either decried or diminished the role of religion in the life of an individual or in the life of society.

Sovereign Power of the State

Ambedkar envisaged limited sovereign power of the State and, following from that, limited authority for the government.

• According him, legal sovereign power should be limited and people should be the ultimate sovereign.
• Gandhi too believed in limited sovereign power of the State.
• According to him, absolute sovereign power of the State would annihilate the spirit and personality of an individual.
• Gandhi, in fact, believed in least governance being the best governance.

Notions of Violence and Non-Violence

The notions of violence and non-violence got differing explanations from Gandhi and Ambedkar.

• Ambedkar held absolute non-violence as an end and relative violence as a means, whereas Gandhi never made such a distinction and was an avowed opponent of violence of any kind.
• Ambedkar believed in purity of ends and justified means as just when the ends were just. Whereas in Gandhian perception it was purity of means that determined the end.

Machinery and Modern Civilisation

Gandhi and Ambedkar differed greatly in their views concerning mechanisation of production and utilisation of heavy machinery.

• Gandhi was apprehensive about the dehumanising impact of mechanisation and held it responsible for the creation as well as sustaining of exploitative socio-economic orders in the world.
• Ambedkar, on the other hand, attributed the evil effect of machinery to wrong social organisations that gave sanctity to private property and the pursuit of personal gains. Ambedkar was of the firm belief that machinery and modern civilisation were of benefit to all, and held that the slogan of a democratic society must be machinery and more machinery, civilisation and more civilisation.

Different Target Groups

The target groups of Ambedkar and Gandhi were different, even though they converged at certain points.

• The methods and skills of communication and mobilisation of both were different. Gandhi spoke in plain local vernacular, whereas Ambedkar spoke in English.
• To disobey the law to make the law more just was a Gandhian principle; its outward manifestations were non-cooperation, hartal, satyagraha and civil disobedience.
• Ambedkar was more inclined towards the observance of law and constitutionality in the political process.

Categorisation of Untouchables

Gandhi viewed the untouchables as an integral part of the Hindu whole, whereas Ambedkar had an ambivalent stand on the issue.

• Ambedkar regarded the untouchables as a religious minority and not a part of the Hindu community, and preferred to call them a ‘political minority’ or ‘minority by force’.
• To Gandhi, untouchability was one of the many problems confronted by Indian society.
• To Ambedkar, untouchability was the major problem that captured his sole attention.
• Ambedkar made an exhaustive study of the problem from its the historical angle, while Gandhi was more concerned with the problem in its contemporary situation.
• Ambedkar wanted to solve the problem of untouchability through laws and constitutional methods, whereas Gandhi treated untouchability as a moral stigma and wanted it to be erased by acts of atonement.
• Gandhi had little use of legal/constitutional modes; he looked to morality and thus supported conscience to remedy the evil.

To conclude, as a statesman, scholar, crusader of the downtrodden and above all a spiritual guide, Dr. Ambedkar has left an indelible impression in the Indian history. Throughout his life, he fought for the rights of the untouchables and during his political career, he remained a strong critic of Gandhi. On the other hand, Gandhi had a more positive, arguably romanticized view of traditional village life in India and a sentimental approach to the untouchables. It can be said that there were important and irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Although, the two great personages of Indian history were posed against one another and gave alternative models of humanity and society, their common goal was the development of idea of India.

Share

& Comment

Tweet