UPSC Mains Answer Practice GS 1: Ideological differences between Mahatma Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar and scientific development in India | Week 140

QUESTION 2

Discuss how colonial rule influenced the narrative of scientific development in India and led many Indian intellectuals to locate the roots of modern science in antiquity.

QUESTION 1: What were the ideological differences between Mahatma Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar on the question of separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, and how their positions influenced the framing of political representation for marginalised communities in colonial India.

Relevance: The question is linked to modern Indian history, social reform movements, caste, representation, and nationalism. The clash between Gandhi and Ambedkar reveals deep ideological tensions within the freedom struggle. The debate over separate electorates vs reserved seats directly shaped the Poona Pact (1932), and later constitutional provisions on political reservation and representation.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar was far more than a theoretical disagreement between two individuals. Each represented very separate interest groups, and their battle unfolded in the heart of India’s national movement.

— Their differences over social, economic and political issues laid the foundations of independent India and continue to reverberate in the corridors of Parliament.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— Before the Second Round Table Conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi and B R Ambedkar met for the first time in Bombay. Gandhi questioned Ambedkar about his criticism of the Congress, interpreting it as an attack on the homeland itself.

— The tension between their positions became public at the Second Round Table Conference in London, where Gandhi declared: “I claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of Untouchables,” marking their first major public confrontation.

— Ambedkar, however, was of the opinion that questions of justice concerning the Depressed Classes could not be represented by anyone who did not share their identity. Central to his demands was the provision of a separate electorate, which he viewed as essential for safeguarding the political rights of those then considered Untouchables. Gandhi, however, firmly rejected this proposal.

— In 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the government’s decision on the Communal Question, granting Untouchables a separate electorate for 20 years. At the time, Gandhi, who was imprisoned in Yerawada Central Jail in Poona, declared that he would fast unto death unless the provision for separate electorates was withdrawn.

— Although Gandhi had studied law and was acquainted with the British legal system, he did not think that the rule of law alone could ensure justice. He opposed third-party justice and replaced abstract legal equality with the ideal of absolute equality—samata, samabhava, and samadarshita. Drawing from the Indian ethical tradition and the historical meaning of dharma, Gandhi argued that justice could be stable only if rooted in equi-mindedness and a respect for the “other,” whether oppressed or oppressor.

— Ambedkar, on the other hand, approached justice primarily through institutions—laws, rights, and constitutional safeguards capable of restraining power and correcting injustice. He insisted that justice cannot rest solely on moral feelings or individual conscience.

(Source: Why Gandhi and Ambedkar clashed: From separate electorates to Hinduism to concept of justice)

Points to Ponder

Why did Gandhi consider distinct electorates a threat to national unity, whereas Ambedkar considered them as essential?

In what ways did the Poona Pact alter political representation for the oppressed classes?

Related Previous Year Questions

What was the difference between Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore in their approach towards education and nationalism? (2023)

Highlight the difference in the approach of Subhash Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle for freedom. (2016)

Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, despite having divergent approaches and strategies, had a common goal of amelioration of the downtrodden. Elucidate. (2015)

QUESTION 2: Discuss how colonial rule influenced the narrative of scientific development in India and led many Indian intellectuals to locate the roots of modern science in antiquity.

Relevance: History of science and technology, colonialism’s cultural and intellectual impact on Indian society. The question measures the candidate’s capacity to critically assess nationalist responses. It evaluates analytical balance, historiography awareness, and maturity in dealing with controversial topics such as nationalism and science.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— By presenting Western science as the sole legitimate, all-encompassing body of knowledge and demeaning Indian customs as archaic or mythical, colonialism drastically changed the course and narrative of scientific advancement in India.

— Indian elites had an intellectual crisis as a result of this systematic marginalisation, which fuelled a strong “compulsion” to show cultural superiority and authenticate Indian intelligence by tracing current scientific conceptions back to antiquity.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— Prafulla Chandra Ray is remembered as the Father of Indian Chemistry: a pioneering experimental scientist and the founder of Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals. Yet in early twentieth-century Calcutta, Ray lived two intellectual lives at once. In the laboratory, he worked to build science for India’s future. In the archive, he worked to unearth India’s scientific legacy.

— In 1885, Ray conducted rigorous experimental research in chemistry. His work on mercury compounds, particularly the synthesis of mercury nitrite, was published in leading European journals. At the same time, as his reputation as a modern chemist grew, Ray immersed himself in Sanskrit alchemical texts, reconstructing what he called the “scientific spirit” of ancient Hindu natural philosophy.

— Ray was deeply shaped by his correspondence with the French chemist Marcelin Berthelot. Berthelot’s project — tracing chemistry’s development from alchemy to modernity — made the history of science itself an instrument of national progress.

— He was inspired by the possibility of making Indian science visible through historical reconstruction yet constrained by the Eurocentric assumptions built into Berthelot’s framework: that the ‘classical past’ was the sole source of scientific spirit; that Indian alchemy must be derivative; and that experimental science was fundamentally a European invention.

— In colonial India, British intellectuals shared precisely these assumptions. They positioned themselves as the sole bearers of scientific temperament, dismissing the Indian mind as incapable of scientific reasoning.

— In attempting to prove Indian priority, Ray reproduced the very move that colonialism had made — that the antiquity of science is proof of civilisational worth, and only by claiming this could Indians claim equality. This impulse — to locate modern science in an ancient national past — became a defining feature of Indian intellectual life.

— This pattern repeated across late nineteenth-century Indian intellectual life. Reformers like Swami Dayananda reinterpreted the Vedas as repositories of scientific knowledge. In Satyarth Prakash, Dayananda reimagined the sacred fire (homa) as a scientific instrument for atmospheric purification, fragmenting matter into fine particles diffusing throughout the atmosphere.

— Medieval texts on chemistry and alchemy were excavated and reinterpreted as containing genuine scientific knowledge. Scholars argued that Indian sages and intellectuals developed sophisticated knowledge systems that had become dormant over centuries of decay, and that the recovery of this knowledge would lead to the ‘regeneration of the nation.’

Conclusion:

— From the East India Company to the British Raj, science became the language of governance. Empirical rationality was used as both a means and justification for dominion. Surveys, censuses, geological research, and botanical taxonomy made India understandable, manageable, and controllable. Science served as a means of power.

— If science defined civilisation — and science was Western — the lack of ‘Indian’ science became evidence of Indian inferiority. Colonial ideology depicted indigenous knowledge as prescientific, superstitious, and mythical. Western science was introduced not just to teach Indians rational ways, but also to civilise them.

(Source: Why ‘national’ science has been obsessed with ancient history)

Points to Ponder

Why did Indian intellectuals feel the need to link modern science back to ancient India?

How does cultural nationalism occasionally clash with scientific temperament?

Related Previous Year Question

Describe any four cultural elements of diversity in India and rate their relative significance in building a national identity. (2015)

Previous Mains Answer Practice

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 140)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 139)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 140)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 139)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 138)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 139)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.