Ambedkar’s critique of Mahatma Gandhi

Ambedkar on Gandhi

B.R. Ambedkar: Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, born in 1891 in Mhow, Madhya Pradesh, came from the Mahar caste, which was considered untouchable. Despite facing significant social discrimination, Ambedkar pursued higher education, earning doctorates from Columbia University and the London School of Economics. His experiences with caste discrimination deeply influenced his activism and intellectual pursuits.

Ambedkar’s critique of Mahatma Gandhi

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s critique of Mahatma Gandhi, encapsulated in his writings, reveals his strong reservations about Gandhi’s politics and his status as a “Mahatma.” Ambedkar’s thoughts on Gandhi reflect a deep-seated discontent with what he viewed as the hollowness and duplicity of Gandhi’s political methods and ideology. His detailed observations, particularly in the essay “Is Gandhi a Mahatma?” from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar – Writings and Speeches, Volume 17, Part II, provide a comprehensive critique of Gandhi’s influence on Indian politics and society.

“The Politics of Gandhi is Hollow and Noisy”

Ambedkar did not mince words when describing Gandhi’s political methods. He stated, “The politics of Gandhi is hollow and noisy. It is the most dishonest politics in the history of Indian polity.” Ambedkar accused Gandhi of eliminating morality from politics, replacing it with what he termed “commercialism.” He lamented the denudation of virtue from politics under Gandhi’s influence, suggesting that Gandhi’s methods prioritized self-promotion and public manipulation over genuine reform or moral leadership.

Questioning the “Mahatma” Title

Ambedkar expressed particular frustration with the veneration of Gandhi as a “Mahatma,” a title that he felt was undeserved. He recounted his exasperation with the question, “Is Gandhi a Mahatma?” and dismissed the very notion of “Mahatmas” as detrimental to society. “I hate all the Mahatmas and firmly believe that they should be done away with. Their existence is a curse to the nation in which they are born,” he wrote. For Ambedkar, figures like Gandhi perpetuated blind faith over reason and intelligence, encouraging the masses to follow irrational beliefs rather than fostering critical thought.

Ambedkar further elaborated on how easy it was to achieve the status of a “Mahatma” in India, describing it as a superficial construct. He noted, “It is very easy for anybody to become a Mahatma in India by merely changing his dress. … A person who does not behave in a normal manner and shows some peculiar trends and abnormalities in his character becomes a saint or a Mahatma.”

Gandhi’s Popularity: A Symptom of an Uncivilized Society?

Ambedkar criticized the cultural conditions that elevated Gandhi to sainthood. He remarked that India’s tendency to deify individuals who displayed eccentric behavior or practiced asceticism was a sign of its underdeveloped social consciousness. “If Gandhi becomes a Mahatma in India, there is nothing surprising,” he stated, adding that such practices would have been ridiculed in any civilized society. He implied that the blind veneration of Gandhi reflected India’s illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of modernity.

Misattribution of Satya and Ahimsa

Ambedkar dismissed claims that Gandhi’s principles of “Satya” (truth) and “Ahimsa” (non-violence) were original or groundbreaking. He pointed out that these teachings originated with Lord Buddha and that attributing them to Gandhi demonstrated ignorance. “Nobody except an ignorant fool or congenital idiot would give credit to Gandhi for originality in this matter,” he wrote, emphasizing that Gandhi failed to address the complexities and contexts in which these principles should be applied.

Gandhi’s Character: Cunning Over Sincerity

Ambedkar accused Gandhi of being inherently cunning and shrewd, traits that allowed him to dominate Indian politics. “He has managed to keep himself in the forefront by means of cunning and inherent shrewdness,” Ambedkar remarked. He argued that a truly sincere leader would face life’s challenges boldly and honestly, a quality he felt Gandhi lacked.

Accusations of Treachery and Betrayal

One of Ambedkar’s strongest criticisms of Gandhi was his alleged betrayal during the Round Table Conference. According to Ambedkar, Gandhi initially promised not to oppose the demands of the Depressed Classes but later reneged on this commitment. “Treachery and deceit are the weapons of the weak. Gandhi has always used these weapons,” Ambedkar wrote, accusing him of manipulating Muslims to oppose the demands of the Depressed Classes. He described Gandhi’s actions as deceitful and beyond the moral compass of even a scoundrel.

Gandhi’s Role in Hindu-Muslim Hostility

Ambedkar blamed Gandhi for exacerbating Hindu-Muslim tensions in India. He described Gandhi’s actions as deceitful, using the analogy of “God’s name on the lips and a dagger under the armpit” to illustrate his duplicity. Ambedkar lamented that Gandhi’s machinations had contributed significantly to the deep divide between Hindus and Muslims, a divide that continued to plague India.

Contrasting Gandhi with Other Leaders

Ambedkar contrasted Gandhi’s politics with that of leaders like Agarkar and Tilak, whose approaches he described as honest and truthful. In his view, Gandhi’s politics stood out as uniquely dishonest, hollow, and detrimental to the moral fabric of Indian polity.

Urging Hindus to Reject “Saintly Idiosyncrasies”

Ambedkar called on Hindus to reject the pernicious influence of Gandhi’s saintly persona. He warned that failing to do so would lead to further erosion of rationality and progress in Indian society. “If Hindu India does not realize it today, it will take a long time to retrace its steps,” he cautioned. He emphasized that the masses’ ignorance and illiteracy, perpetuated by privileged elites, made it difficult to challenge Gandhi’s influence using reason and logic alone.

A Call for Rational Reform

Ambedkar’s critique of Gandhi extended to the broader phenomenon of “Mahatmas” and their ability to manipulate the public. He questioned whether Indian society could ever move beyond the blind faith that such figures engendered. “Will Hindus try to change the minds of ‘mahatmas’ so that they serve India rather than themselves?” he asked, underscoring the need for rational reform and a rejection of the cult of personality.

Poona Pact: Ambedkar believed that the Poona Pact, which was an agreement between Gandhi and Ambedkar, was a political compromise that didn't address the social and economic injustices faced by Dalits. He also felt that Gandhi's uncompromising stance against separate electorates for Dalits was ineffective.

Their clashing views were on full display when the Poona Pact was signed in 1932. Gandhi's unrelenting fast forced Ambedkar to bend and let go of his desire to have a separate electoral process for the depressed classes, Dalits in particular. And yet, despite their differences, they developed an understanding to work for the betterment of the marginalized.

Gandhi's Opposition to Separate Electorate for Dalits: The 1930s were a tumultuous time in India's history. The struggle for independence from British colonial rule was at its peak, and the Indian National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi, was the predominant political force. However, alongside the fight for independence, another critical issue needed addressing—the demand for political representation and safeguards for the Dalits.

B.R. Ambedkar, a brilliant jurist and social reformer, emerged as a prominent voice for the Dalits. He believed that a separate electoral process for Dalits was essential to ensure their political representation and protect their interests in legislative bodies. Gandhi, on the other hand, was totally opposed to the idea of a separate electoral process, fearing it would perpetuate divisions among Indians.

In 1930, the British government initiated the Round Table Conferences to address the issue of representation for different religious and social groups in India. After prolonged negotiations at the second Round Table Conference, the British government, on August 15, 1932, formalized a separate electoral process—for Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits.

Under the proposed process, only members from particular communities would be eligible to vote and elect a representative to legislative assemblies.

The idea of separate electorates for the Dalits was supported by Ambedkar but vehemently opposed by Gandhi. The Mahatma believed that creating a separate electorate for the depressed classes would further fragment Indian society along religious and caste lines. He also believed that the British were trying to inject "poison that is calculated to destroy Hinduism."

In a letter to then British Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald on September 9, Gandhi wrote, "I should not be against even over-representation of the Depressed Classes. What I am against is their statutory separation, even in a limited form, from the Hindu fold, so long as they choose to belong to it. Do you realize that if your decision stands and the Constitution comes into being, you arrest the marvelous growth of the work of Hindu reformers, who have dedicated themselves to the uplift of their suppressed brethren in every walk of life?"

To pressurize the British and the Congress into abandoning the idea of separate electorates, Gandhi, who was then lodged in Yerwada Central Jail in Pune on sedition charges, started a fast unto death on September 20, 1932.

Untouchability: Ambedkar believed that Gandhi didn't show enough effect on the issue of untouchability, despite Gandhi being an influential figure in the Congress. Ambedkar believed that Gandhi viewed untouchability from a religious and spiritual perspective, while he himself had experienced the pain of caste and humiliation.

While Gandhi denounced untouchability, he did not condemn the Varna system, a social hierarchy based on occupation, for most of his life. He believed in reforming the caste system through the abolition of untouchability and by giving equal status to each occupation.

B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit himself, argued that the caste system disorganized and "demoralized Hindu society, reducing it to a collection of castes." Ambedkar denounced the Vedas and scriptures, believing that the caste system and untouchability were manifestations of Hindu religious scriptures. He first articulated caste inequality in Indian society and worked for the "annihilation of caste," believing that anything built on caste would inevitably create inequality.

Gandhi's Death: Ambedkar said that great men are a great service to their country, but they can also be a hindrance to its progress at times.

He was firm about certain principles, such as democracy as a form of ‘associated living’ and manuski, or the sacrosanct value of every human life. But he was flexible in his approach to the implementation of public policy. The 1951 manifesto of his Scheduled Castes Federation said that it was committed to the Constitution of India and the values enshrined in the Preamble, but it was not ‘tied to any particular ism.’ In pragmatic terms, this means initiating action from an analysis of circumstances and likely consequences, not doctrinaire positions. If this stand poses a challenge of ideological labelling, then the moot issue is the unsuitability of prevalent labels, not the stand itself.

Ideological Differences

On Social Reform

·         Gandhi: Believed in moral and spiritual upliftment through self-purification and reform within the Hindu framework.

·         Ambedkar: Advocated for structural change through legal and political means, viewing social reforms within Hinduism as insufficient.

On Political Representation

·         Gandhi: Opposed separate electorates, fearing it would fragment Indian society.

·         Ambedkar: Supported separate electorates to ensure Dalit political autonomy and representation.

On Religion

·         Gandhi: Viewed Hinduism as a source of moral guidance and a means to unite the nation.

·         Ambedkar: Criticized Hinduism for perpetuating caste discrimination and eventually converted to Buddhism.

The Legacy of Their Debates

The debates between Gandhi and Ambedkar had far-reaching implications for India's social and political landscape. Their differing visions contributed to the development of policies and frameworks that continue to influence contemporary India.

a)      Constitutional Provisions: Ambedkar, as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, ensured that it included provisions for the protection and upliftment of marginalized communities. This includes the system of reservations in education and employment.

b)      Social Movements: The ideological clash between Gandhi and Ambedkar laid the groundwork for various social movements advocating for Dalit rights and social justice. Their legacies continue to inspire activists and reformers.

c)       Educational Reforms: Both leaders emphasized the importance of education in achieving social change. Gandhi's Nai Talim (Basic Education) and Ambedkar's emphasis on higher education for Dalits have influenced educational policies and initiatives aimed at social upliftment.

Conclusion: Dr. Ambedkar’s scathing critique of Mahatma Gandhi reflects a fundamental disagreement with Gandhi’s political methods, moral philosophy, and the adulation he received as a “Mahatma.” Ambedkar’s analysis underscores his belief that Gandhi’s politics were detrimental to the moral and rational development of Indian society. His words remain a powerful commentary on the dangers of blind faith, the manipulation of public opinion, and the need for critical engagement with political leadership.