Opinion From Ashok Gopal’s new book on Ambedkar: The myth of Ambedkar’s support for Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha’s social reform
Ambedkar was seeking a radical reconfiguration of the Hindu religion and society, which could only come through the abolition of caste. He believed that neither Savarkar nor the Hindu Mahasabha did enough on that count
Ashok Gopal writes: A “true Hindu organisation” for Ambedkar was one that worked against caste discrimination, which “retards the progress of Hindu society and incapacitates it”. B R Ambedkar discussed the “strength” of Hindu society in many of his Marathi and English writings in the 1920s and 1930s. Annihilation of Caste, published in 1936, ended on a similar note. Addressing the people who thought Swaraj was more important than the creation of a casteless society, Ambedkar wrote: “There is no use having Swaraj if you cannot defend it… only when the Hindu society becomes a casteless society can it hope to have strength enough to defend itself.”
Organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha also spoke of the “strength” of Hindu society and framed it in numerical terms. To increase the Hindu numbers, and decrease the number of Muslims at the same time, they resorted to shuddhi, a term for the targeted conversion of those whose ancestors had converted to Islam. As already noted, in the 1920s, Ambedkar feared the spread of pan-Islamism in India and supported shuddhi champions like Shraddhananda. However, he did not think shuddhi was going to strengthen Hindu society. Writing in 1926 in English, on ‘Caste and conversion’, he explained: “If the Hindu society desires to survive, it must think not of adding to its numbers but increasing its solidarity, and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition of castes is the real sangathan of the Hindus, and when sangathan is achieved by abolishing castes, shuddhi will be unnecessary.’
If caste was to be abolished within the frame of the Hindu religion, the role of Hindu scriptures — which provided sanction for its practice — had to be challenged. That was the topic of a lengthy essay by Ambedkar, published in Bahishkrut Bharat on December 21, 1928, ‘Hindu dharmashastra, tyache kshetra aani tyache adhikari’ (The scope and authority of Hindu dharmashastras).
The crux of the essay, elaborated towards the end, was that social reform could be undertaken only if two basic questions were addressed: Should social issues be decided according to the “principles of social sciences” or the Hindu scriptures? And should socially-enforced decisions based on the scriptures be made only by Brahmins?
Ambedkar was here talking about a radical reconfiguration of the Hindu religion and society, as he did in his speech at the second Mahad conference. This was far beyond the intent or even imagination of the Hindu Mahasabha. The latter had passed some resolutions against untouchability in the 1920s but Ambedkar saw these as a smokescreen erected by a bunch of small-minded savarnas. Writing in Bahishkrut Bharat on April 12, 1929, he said: “The Hindu Mahasabha movement is contrived, narrow-visioned, lacking in an ideal and divorced from principles. The leaders of the movement do not have a genuine concern for the Untouchables. They have taken up the issue of eradication of untouchability only to ensure that the Untouchables do not convert, and thereby the population of Hindus does not decrease.”
A “true Hindu organisation” for Ambedkar was one that worked against caste discrimination, which “retards the progress of Hindu society and incapacitates it”. Without such an agenda, the Hindu Mahasabha was not, for him, worthy of being called a Hindu organisation. It was a “masquerade”.
On similar lines, Ambedkar was disappointed with the reform efforts launched by VD Savarkar. To achieve his goal of creating a Hindu rashtra based on a “pan Hindu” identity, the barrier between “untouchables” and the rest of Hindu society had to be broken down, and Savarkar undertook some efforts in that direction after he was released from jail in January 1924 and allowed to do “non-political” work in Ratnagiri district. Despite opposition from other Brahmins, he organised the entry of “untouchables” into temples and inter-caste dining events (Dhananjay Keer, 1950). He supported the march to the Chavdar Tank, saying untouchability had to be abolished “not only as the need of the hour but also as the command of true religion”. Referring to the ritual performed by the savarnas at the Chavdar Tank, he reportedly said purifying oneself with animal urine was “more ridiculous and despicable than the notion of defilement at human touch” (Keer, 1954).
Using such statements, Ambedkar’s biographer Dhananjay Keer repeatedly suggested in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Life and Mission (1954) that Ambedkar and Savarkar were working in tandem for the reform of Hindu society. But the only solid piece of evidence provided by Keer is part of a letter written by Ambedkar to Savarkar on February 18, 1933. The letter was written after one Seth Keer, a rich businessman in Ratnagiri, built “Patit Pavan” (purification of the downtrodden) temples, open to “untouchables”, at the instance of Savarkar, and Ambedkar was invited for the inauguration of one such temple. Ambedkar declined the invitation “owing to previous appointments”, and told Savarkar: “I however wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reform”. This piece of evidence is incomplete and misleading. A brief editorial piece in Bahishkrut Bharat on April 12, 1929 shows that Ambedkar had opposed the first Patit Pavan temple project when it was launched. He opposed the very idea of such temples that would inevitably become known as “temples of Untouchables”. Further, Ambedkar’s appreciation for Savarkar’s efforts was followed by a hefty qualifier which Keer omitted, for obvious reasons. Keer was an unabashed admirer of Savarkar — the subject of one of the first of his several biographies (1950) — and there was a fundamental point of difference between his idol and Ambedkar. As he made it plain in a series of articles published in Kesari from November 1930 to March 1931, Savarkar opposed caste but defended chaturvarna as a scientific system based on merit. Ambedkar was well aware of Savarkar’s stand, and in his February 18, 1933 letter to Savarkar, he wrote: “That you still use the jargon of chaturvarna, although you qualify it by basing it on merit, is rather unfortunate. However, I hope that in course of time, you will have courage enough to drop this needless and mischievous jargon”. Savarkar did not show the intention, and Ambedkar had no further interest in Savarkar’s reform efforts.
The writer is a former journalist, curriculum designer and educational content developer. This is an edited excerpt from his debut book, A Part Apart: The Life and Thought of B.R. Ambedkar, published on the occasion of Babasaheb’s 132nd birth anniversary
Share
