Dr. B R Ambedkar

Goodreads

100%

Reading Experience

  • 😀 An extremely simple read in terms of the language used.
  • 😀 Ambedkar’s command on the English language left me awestruck ! Learnt a bunch of new words.

TLDR;

  • Caste is harmful to the society.
  • Social reform must precede any political or economic reform.
  • The problem with caste is the inbuilt hierarchy, denial of mobility and how your birth defines it.
  • Caste is the basis of the Hindu system as described by the Hindu scriptures.
  • Caste and Varna are one and the same.
  • To reject caste, one has to reject Hinduism.

… todo: add notes for everything before this point.

  • Chaturvarnya is nothing new; it is as old as the Vedas
    • This has been tried and tested and is nothing new, it has failed previously and will fail now.
    • The Brahmins and the Kshatriyas have been fighting for supremacy for centuries now.
    • The petty fighting above was a result of Chaturvarnya, how do the Arya Samajists think this will work.
  • Caste among Hindus is not the same as caste among non-Hindus
    • The argument that since caste exists in non-Hindus and so it is not a problem in itself is what Ambedkar tries to address in this section.
    • The existence of small groups in human societies is natural, it could be by way of family, friendships, co-ops, business, political parties, working class, etcetera.
    • There is a need to understand what forces keep these groups bound together to understand the similarity of caste in Hindus and non-Hindus
    • The strength of a society lies in it’s cohesive forces that keep it together. These forces that hold Hindus together are missing, while among non-Hindus this is evident and present.
    • Caste is of no social significance to non-Hindus as it is for Hindus. This is visible when you ask a non-Hindu who they are, they will respond with Mohammedan/Sikh and it usually ends there. No one asks if they are Shiya/Sunni; Jat/Roda. But knowing a person is Hindu is not enough, people check their caste. Why does that happen?
    • If a Sikh/Mohammedan broke their caste, they wont be outcast, though this is not true for Hindus.
    • There is no relation between caste in non-Hindus and their religion.
    • The other argument of “neutral” Hindus is that caste is not a problem since Hindus have survived this long. The problem is with the difference between survival and the fitness to survive. Ambedkar here quotes Prof Radhakrishnan
    • The argument instead should be around what plane the community lives in. There are different modes of survival. Hindus need to question the quality of their survival.
    • Hindu’s have been continuously defeated through history, this is shameful and needs changing.
  • The key to destroying caste is rejecting the Shastras
    • Social order needs changing to achieve progress.
    • To abolish castes, sub-castes have to be destroyed.
    • The Brahmin of the north and south are radically different from each other, in social grade, intellect, food, etcetera.
    • Abolition of sub-castes would in fact strengthen the caste system and unite the existing castes and make them more powerful. This remedy is not practicable.
    • Inter-dining doesn’t solve the problem, Ambedkar believes that the real remedy is inter-caste marriage.
    • But even this has not been adopted by many, what might be the reason?
    • This he says because caste is not like some physical barbed wire that needs to be destroyed but a state of mind.
    • Hindus observe caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed, they do it because religion prescribes them to observe it.
    • The people are not wrong, the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras is what is wrong.
    • No wonder movements by Mahatma Gandhi have had little effect.
    • Make them reject the Shastras and the people whom you are asking to inter-dine, inter-marry, will do so without you asking them.
    • There is no use in telling people that they misinterpreted the Shastras, what matters is how it has been understood. Take the stand that Buddha/Guru Nanak took.
    • Discard and deny the authority of the Shastras.
  • Internal reform of the caste system is virtually impossible
    • Ambedkar questions the chances of success.
    • He talks of 3 kinds of reform: one that does not relate to religion, one that relates to religion and asks people to go back to it’s principles who have departed from it, and the last is around the one that asks you to reject it’s authority altogether.
    • The Shastras and the Vedas are the divine basis of caste as a social order, destroying it’s authority is the only way to get rid of this system, but this is a Herculean task.
    • The reason he says this is because the Brahmins have shown a clear attitude of hostility to this.
    • He argues against the notion that between the “secular” Brahmin and the priestly one, the secular one would do something about this.
    • He goes on to say that the above will not happen because they are both kith and kin and destruction of the caste system is destroying their own power and prestige, and is in conflict of their interests.
    • He goes on to show that it is the intellectual class that influences thought in a country, and in the case of India it is unfortunately the Brahmins. It is not only the intellectual class but also seen with respect by the rest of the Hindus.
    • The Hindus are taught that Brahmins are the teachers and when this class is opposed to removing the caste system, there is no hope.
    • The second reason he presents that reform is possible in the innate quality of caste system to grade castes in a social hierarchy.
    • The above makes it impossible to create a common front against the system so it is impossible to mobilize them.
  • No reformers, and no appeals to reason, have so far succeeded
    • Is a Hindu free to follow reason ? The answer is no, the Manu says that you have to either follow the Veda, Smriti, or sadachar.
    • The punishment to not adhere to this is excommunication if you reason about the rules in it.
    • There are many a secular places like rail travel where a man would have difficulty maintaining caste, but it still persists.
    • The reason a man would not leave caste is because the Shastras allow prayaschitta. This has let little room for questioning and it becomes part of your life.
    • Reason and morality are 2 most powerful weapons of a reformer, the rules in Manu, deprive them.
  • Destroying caste would not destroy the true principles of religion.
    • He makes a distinction between principles and rules.
    • He suggests religion should be principles only and no rules.
    • The Hindu religion is a bunch of rules in the Vedas and Smritis.
    • Religion in the true sense is spiritual principles that apply to all humanity.
    • There is no loyalty to ideals and only conformity to commands.
    • There is an inequity in the rules.
    • He proceeds to ask us to destroy this law which is masquerading as a religion.
    • When people know it is not a religion but law, there will be room for change, because people know laws can be amended.
  • A true priesthood must be based on qualification, not heredity
    • He goes on to explain what a religion should be like:
      • There should be one book for the Hindus.
      • Priesthood must be abolished, if that is not possible, make it non-heredity. It must be based on an exam.
      • A priest cannot practice without permission, just like a doctor.
      • The number of priests must be limited by law.
    • He says since every profession is regulated, this must be too.
    • Democratize it, throw it open to everyone. Currently, there are no duties or bindings on morality for the priests, this should change.
    • This will kill Brahmanism and eventually caste.
    • The principles must be founded on liberty, equality and fraternity.
    • All this would mean a complete change in the notion of life, he suggests that if we don’t like the word “conversion”, let’s call it a new way of life.
  • If Hindu society is to progress, it’s traditions must be able to evolve.
    • Hindus must reflect and not transfer the ills in it’s society to future generations else it will perish.
    • They must accept that everything is changing and nothing is sanatan.
  • The struggle is yours, I’ve now decided to leave the Hindu fold
    • You need to uproot caste in whatever suits best to you.
    • He makes an announcement of his departure from Hinduism, but promises to support the movement.
    • He goes on to say this is tougher than Swaraj, since there you have the entire nation with you, in this you have to fight against the entire nation.
    • It is more important than Swaraj.
A vindication of caste by Mahatma Gandhi
  • Gandhi points out that the committee rejecting the presidency has deprived the public of an opportunity to listen this great man.
  • He empathizes with the anger Ambedkar has.
  • He goes on to say that the Savarnas have to correct their belief and conduct.
  • He goes on to reject the claims from the scriptures made by Dr Ambedkar.
  • He says caste has no connection with religion, though he does not know the origin and does not wish to know.
  • He says the Shastras must be interpreted by the saints and not the learned.
  • He says the Varna system is different from the caste system, it is but equal
  • He says that Ahimsa is the only law this preaches, there is no mention of untouchability even anywhere.
  • He says that his opinion on Hinduism would be refuted by many but he would stick to it, since he lived with it for half a century.
  • He says Dr Ambedkar has tried to over-prove his case. A religion must not be judged on it’s worst specimens but on the best. We need to aspire to that standard.
  • He communicates a message from Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat Pat Todak Mandal:
    • He says the rejection was not on the basis of Ambedkar’s caste.
    • They are aligned on the position of Ambedkar around caste.
    • They only had a problem around the point where he announces him leaving the Hindu fold, which he believed was unnecessary in the conference and could be done later.
    • He refutes all arguments of Gandhi, and shows how caste and Varna are the same.
    • He compares the Varna approach as treating the disease on the surface and not going to it’s roots.
  • Gandhi is unable to understand the need for rejecting this speech given they were aligned with Ambedkar on all points, since as Ambedkar points out, that would have been the logical end.
  • He says that if Shastras mention untouchability, he would cease to be a Hindu himself.
  • He says that Ambedkar sets some rally high standards to match to and that every religion would fail at it.
Ambedkar responds to the Mahatma
  • He lays down his reasons for responding since he is the Mahatma and revered by many.
  • Ambedkar interprets Gandhi’s response to be blaming him to seek publicity and reacts saying he is surprised of this blame.
  • My motive was to enlighten the Hindus.
  • He says that the Mahatma has missed the point entirely and beautifully summarizes his speech.
  • He goes on to answer Gandhi’s claim around authenticity and says these are quotes from Mr Tilak
    • He also says that the common man, does not understand the texts, they believe what they are told, and they have been told by the saints that these exist and that’s why they do it (caste and untouchability). It would not have fallen from the sky.
    • He also goes on to say that whatever be it, the saints never attacked the caste system.
    • They never preached that all men are equal in the eyes of God.
    • Also, a saint can break caste but no one else, thus the mass have always remained slaves to this system since they had to honor, not follow.
    • So to say the interpretations are the problem is just futile.
  • He then goes on to the point around judging by the best and not the worst.
    • He says he agrees to it, but does not understand that how does that dispose of the issue at hand.

    The question remains: why the worst many and the best so few

    • He lists 2 possibilities:
      • The mass is wrong and is unable to follow the ideals in the religion.
      • The religion itself is wrong.
    • He says he is not ready to believe the first, unless the Mahatma has a third argument.
    • Judging by best followers, we can only pity on the people who have gone wrong and leads us nowhere.
  • He goes on to argue the futility of the idea that men have to subscribe to higher ideals set by saints.
  • He says teaching the Hindus to treat everyone as equal would go against their teachings.
  • He reiterates that caste has created a society with a wrong relationship within itself.
  • He goes on to give examples of the relations of caste in Mahatma’s life.
  • He says the Varna ideal that the Mahatma preaches about is not something he himself practices, how does he think it will work.
  • He says following our ancestral calling irrespective of whether it is profitable in the current world is itself a failure of the society.
  • He says, that everyone wants social stability in their lives, but with room for adjustments. Caste creates an unalterable one.
  • He asks that a person who rejects Caste, can they be called Hindu?
  • He also blames the role of the Mahatma as a saint and politician for the position he has taken around caste. He thinks if the Mahatma opposes caste, he would lose his place in politics.
  • He says his standards being high does not change the fact that this change is needed however high, just like the existence of one criminal must not give comfort to the other.
  • He is ready to live with these imperfections since that is a part of live.
  • He goes on to say that the Mahatma likes to follow rather than think. Since he knows that once he starts thinking, the ideals and institutions he holds on to would be doomed.