ambedkar and indian nationalism

8/3/2019 Ambedkar and Indian Nationalism

1/5


2/5

PERSPECTIVES

A m b e d k a r a n d I n d i a n Nationalism

S M Gaikwad

The Indian national struggle of the first half of this century was notmerely a struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but alsoa struggle to lay the foundation of modern India by purging society ofoutmoded social institutions, practices, beliefs and attitudes.Ambedkar's struggle constituted a part of the internal struggle of anation-in-the-making, ne of the divergent and sometimes conflictingcurrents all of which helped to secure 'freedozm' from external andinternal oppression and enslavement. Without Ambedkar's oppositionto mainstream nationalism, the process of internal consolidation ofthe nation would not have been carried out sufficiently enough tostrengthen and broaden the social base of Indian nationalism.

THEpolitical

dust storm raisedby

Shourie'sblatantly malignant book on Ambedkar hasrendered most people so myopic that nopolitical commentator r book reviewer hastried to transcend the narrow confines ofone's own political affiliation or the limitsof conventional book review to provide amuch needed objectively critical andhistorically correct perspective on certainsensitive political issues placed before thelay public in a rather unguarded manner bythe media's concerted campaign o focus thepublic attention on a work of dubiousscholarship, spiteful intentions andreactionary ocio-political orientation.

There can be little new information onAmbedkar and his political activities thatShourie or any one else for that matter, canclaim to have made available for the firsttime. Most of the things he states (exceptfor the conclusions drawn), have appearedin print in one place or other at differenttimes in the past. Even the much publicisedresearch nto the writing of the book is nomore than a clever trick to provide a facadeof scientific objectivity to an essentiallydistortional ropaganda work. However, heauthor's claim to creative writing must reston his ingenuity o manufacture sensationalpolitical story from certain historical factstorn away from their true historical contextand presented kilfully in a dramatic mannerto produce a totally distorted picture of ahistory. But a sensational political tale doesnot produce a noteworthy contribution tohistory or historiography. Nor do the pilesof documentary evidence by themselvesestablish any historical truth. A truth andespecially a historical truth needs to beestablished through a careful and criticalanalysis of the whole complex of historicalsituation of which they (i e, the given facts)form just a part.

It is worthnoting

that Shourieproceedsto pronounce his verdict on Ambedkar

without even bothering to locate him inthe course of the 20th century Indianhistory. Further t needs to be emphasisedthat even a scholarly work can be deficientor even partial on a certain count due tothe author' ignorance or inability to graspthe true significance of a particular aspectof a complex phenomenon or problem,but it can never be entirely biased, spitefuland distorted. Shourie's massive work ofclerical research on Ambedkar's isoutrageously distorted and, therefore,cannot make any contribution towardsimproving our understanding of the manand his politics.

Indeed the most important period ofAmbedkar's political ife (1930-47) notonlycoincided but involved a bitter interactionwith the Gandhian phase of the Indiannational movement. It s, therefore, unlikelythat ome aspect of his controversial oliticallife had ever remained buried. His vehementopposition to the Congress and Gandhi, hisoft-repeated hreats of religious conversion,his long held pious belief that the Britishwould act decisively one day to give justiceto India's long oppressed and sociallydespised Hindu untouchables and, his finaldisillusionment with the British after theSimla conference are facts of history andneed no documentary evidence. Even hisopposition to the quit India movement andmembership in Lord Wavell's executivecouncil during those critical years (1942-46) are also facts of recent history andcannot be considered as little known. Yetthc pertinent uestion s what purpose wouldit serve o count or recount he aforementiondfacts? One is unlikely to be interested inabove stated facts unless one wants toundertake a study of Ambedkar's dalit

movement or examine his politics in relationto the national struggle for independence.

Itjust cannot be a real defence ofAmbedkarto point out that a few stalwarts of theCongress, Lokmanya Tilak included, hadstrayed rom he holy path of freedom truggleat some

stage.It is

totally misleading toequate Tilak's momentary straying withAmbedkar' unconcealed nd irmly resolvedopposition to the mainstream nationalmovement. Moreover Tilak belonged tomainstream ationalism o which Ambedkarstood opposed. Any defence of Ambedkarmust be based upon the merit of his politicalposition alone. Even the fact of Gandhijicalling him a patriot of sterling worth s notdefence enough.

The rationale of the reactionary, evivalistHindu's deep antipathy o Ambedkar whichfinds its articulated ophisticated xpressionunder the convenient

guiseof historical

research n Shourie's 'worshipping he falsegods' stems from his fanatic belief that thenarrow, conservative brand of Hindunationalism is true nationalism which heunmistakably dentifies with the anti-alien(i e, anti-British, anti-Muslim) sentimentand unflinching faith in the superiority ofthe Indian ultural radition which s identifiedwith the Hindu raditions, beliefs and values.It s no wonderthen, nything- man, deologyor movement - which appears o pose a realor imaginary threat to the survival of thatold decadent social order, which helps topreserve the hegemony of the traditionalruling class, is immediately condemned asanti-national. To him 'nationalism' is theultimate weapon - a 'mahaastra' - to belaunched to destroy any enemy - past orpresent who had/has he emerity ochallengethe old order.

To throw out Shourie's main thesis thatsome political leaders not all) who opposedthe national movement led by the Congressmust be counted among anti-nationalelements, t is important o explode the mythof a monolithic Indian nation, implying amonolithic nationalism, which has beenfostered arefully overthe years. The modemIndian nation, if the term 'nation' is to beused and understood n the sense it is usedby the political scientist, began to assumesome form for the first time only during helast few decades of the 19th century underthe impact of British rule which due to itssuperior echnological civilisation had begunto make, for the first time in a millenniumsome serious inroads into a more or lessstable network of localised socio-economicformations called the village communitiesby effecting certain significant changes intheir underlying economic structure. Withthis change went the unprecedented rocess

Economic and Political Weekly March 7, 1998 515


3/5

of political and administrative nification ofthe Indian subcontinent made possible andsustainable by modern means ofcommunication and transportation. Thesechanges effectively destroyed the staticbalance of socio-economic life in India,setting nto motion a process of change thatfinally paved the way for an unprecedentedtransformation f the change-resistant ndiansociety in course of a few decades.

Under the changed conditions of lifeemerged a new elite class with its new-foundwealth and social prestige. This new classfostered by the British, adopted not onlywestern mannerism and lifestyle but alsowestern ducation, alues and socio-politicalideas and ideals. It is among the membersof this class drawn mainly from the uppercrust of the Hindu social order that the firststirrings of the self-awakening, self-consciousness driving them on to search forthecollectiveidentity rooted n the historicalpast, were clearly found. In a relatively short,period of time this craving for a collectiveidentity stemming rom a shared perceptionof common interests - economic, culturaland political - laid the foundation of thenascent Indian nationalism in the closingdecades of the 19th century, which in thenext few decades grew into a formidablepolitical force encompassing he length andbreadth of the British India, reflecting thegeneral political evolution of Indian ociety.

Indian nationalism n its initial stages, bythe very nature f its historical development,was an upper class (upper castes) pheno-menon, reflecting he nterests nd aspirationsof its members. Naturally when nationalists

spokein ermsofnational nterest heycertainlymeant heirown class) nterests. he evocationof 'nation' was a necessary ritual to ensurethe much needed popular support for anessentially partisan ause.

The sectarian character of Indiannationalism persisted even after the nascentupper castes' movement developed into atruly mass-supported nti-imperialist ationalliberation movement enlisting the support ofmillions of people cutting across thetraditional aste/religion divisions. And, itis this failure to change its basically pro-upper lass/castes orientation despite a basic

shift in its underlying ocial base that Indiannational movement n due course helped therise of new sectarian ocio-political currents,running parallel o the mainstream nationalmovement. The emergence of the MuslimLeague was the irst offshoot of this nevitableprocess of political splitting along the socio-communal fault lines. Ambedkar' semergence on the Indian political scene in1930, commencing the advent of dalit (thescheduled castes) politics, was just anothermanifestation of the same process.Ambedkar's dalit politics posed no reallysignificant threat o the overall domination

of the traditional uling class, yet it certainlyexposed the hollowness of the nationalistclaim to represent he whole nation. Finallythe unwillingness f the nationalist eadershipto attack the long unresolved socialcontradictions itting at the base of the Hindusocial order propelled people ike Ambedkarto contest the claim of the Indian NationalCongress to represent he scheduled castes(i e, the untouchables) which were forcedinto a most degrading orm of survitude bythe Hindu social order.

By the very ogic of its historical volution'nationalism' s basically a sectarian creed.It is the ideology of the most advancedsegment of the emergent ruling class whichhappened o be the national bourgeoisie atthat historical juncture. Unfortunately heIndian national bourgeoisie could not fullyextricate itself from its medieval and pre-medieval socio-cultural oots and a basicallyanti-rational world-view. Consequently,despite its long struggle o adapt tself to thedemands of the changed times itsconsciousness remained deeply mmersed na hazy pre-historical and historical past,preventing it from carrying out athoroughgoing modern capitalist revolutionor a kind of socio-economic and politicalreformation which alone could deliver Indiafrom he tangle of unresolved ocio-politicaland economic crises.

To conceal its overtly partisan nature heproponents of the nascent Indian'nationalism' sought to glorify and mystifytheir political creed by investing it with anumber f idealised abstract deas and valuessuch as the ove of motherland, ride n one's

cultural heritage and history and above allthe sense of being a part of a highly abstractmetaphysical ategory, namely, the conceptof 'one people'. Consequently, whenever anappeal s made in the name of 'nationalism'a strong emotional response from thepopulace is a foregone conclusion. Thisimmensely powerful hold of the nationalistcreed on the collective psyche of the populaceputs into the hands of the rulling classconsiderable power which can be skilfullyused to manipulate heir political behaviour.

However, the sectarian character of anemergent nationalism ends to grow less and

less pronounced as the masses acquire agreater degree of political maturity nd startexercising their potential power to increasetheir share of economic and political power.Still, the prospect of 'nationalism' heddingits sectarian character and developing intoa truly progressive orce and, hereby helpingto bring about a complete socio-economicand political transformation depends to agreat extent on the willingness of the rulingclass to lessen its hold on the existing powerstructure.

What can one say about he basic characterof Indian nationalism in the light of the

above discussion? No one can really denythat the development of Indian nationalismthrough the early decades of the presentcentury eflected he general ocio-economicevolution of India. However, ocio-economicdevelopment was never vigorous andthoroughgoing s to allow unrestricted copefor the growth of emergent socio-economicforces. It was a stunted development allalong, indicating the unwillingness of theIndian ulingclass o allow hithertooppressedsections of emergent Indian nation to haveany significant place n anew power tructurethat was gradually emerging.

The general underdevelopment f Indiannationalism might have been due to the factthat a major hrust or its rapid growth camemainly from the anti-imperialist entimentwhich, in general reflected rather nstinctivedislike and hatred of foreign rule. It lackedbasically any compulsions of internaldevelopment, alling for radical estructuringof the whole socio-economic order. Theoverall failure of the Indian ruling class toabsorb successfully the emergent socio-economic forces released by theunderdeveloped capitalist developmentcreated the base for the eventual rise ofAmbedkar and his scheduled castes politics.

Those who blame Ambedkar or his bitteropposition to the Congress-led freedomstruggle ail to understand he social evolutionof Indian nationalism. They do not understandthat freedom from an alien rule was no moresignificant than the freedom from internalforms of slavery, oppression ndexploitation.The severity of the oppression andexploitation experienced by the sociallysubjugated people (i e, the untouchables)could not have possibly been surpassed oreven matched by any other form of socio-economic discrimination and segregationpractised n the history of man. And, eventhen the nationalists had no concern for thehapless untouchables. They were clearlyconcerned with their own sectarian nterests.Their singular goal was to put an end toBritish rule which in terms of civilisationalprogress and the nature and quality of rule,was far superior o anything heir orebearershad ever had at any time. They wanted tothrow out British ule because t was a foreign

rule denying them full political control overtheir own destiny. But these very samechampions of freedom and the right to self-determination were totally opposed toconceding hose rights o the scheduled astes.The nationalists, who consistently turned ablind eye to the deplorable plight of thescheduled castes had no moral right o claimfor themselves the right to speak for thescheduled castes.

It needs to be pointed out, that the rightto self-determination and freedom is notbestowed upon chosen ones. It is the rightclaimed by one and all who refuse to suffer

~~~~~~~~~516~~~~ ~~~Economic and Political Weekly March 7, 1998


4/5

under any form of domination no matterwhether it is external, that is, foreigndomination or an indigenous one. ThroughAmbedkar he scheduled castes had at longlast expressed their will to be free of thedomination of caste Hindus. It is, therefore,grossly unjust and unfair to construeAmbedkar's refusal to have any truck withthe nationalists s an act of treason. A carefulreading of his writings on India's economicproblems reveal his deep concern aboutIndia's economic exploitation by Britishimperialism. His opposition to the Congressstemmed from his unwavering concern forthe rights of the scheduled castes. He wasnever opposed to India gaining freedom atany ime. Nevertheless ewas firmly opposedto any scheme of Indian independence inwhich the scheduled castes were not givendue representation ommensurate with theirnumerical strength. His demand for fairrepresentation annot be termed nti-national.

No progressive intellectual can say thatthe communal award was in the best long-term interests of the Indian unity. But it isalso true that the nationalists did very littleto destroy the communal basis of nationalpolitics. They were neveropposed o Muslimsand other trong minorities maintaining heirseparate existence in the national politicallife. If they were truly opposed to the com-munal award hey should have had opposedthe provision of a separate electorate for theMuslims oo. They chose to oppose and stopAmbedkar' demand or a separate lectoratebecause the scheduled castes were feebleand vulnerable. That the Poona pact provedto be a good thing in the long-term nterests

of the Indian nation is a different thing.The six crore untouchables were non-

entities in national politics, when evenmicroscopic minorities enjoyed power,prestige and wealth. This could happen onlybecause the scheduled castes were not free.They were enslaved by the Hindu castesystem. The spiritualist Hindu who nevergets tired of preaching to the world thegospel of 'vishva bandhutwa' (universalbrotherhood) nd the principle of basic unityof all things never feels any qualms abouthis own inhuman and wicked treatment ofthe scheduled astes. There was no evidence

of the Hindu ruling class ever being reallyconcerned about this very basic socialproblem. Gandhi's conscience was stirredby the practice of racial discrimination nSouth Africa and, he fought against that inhis own characteristic way. However, hisconscience was not troubled by the practiceof untouchability back home, which wasindeed he most condemnable crime againsthumanity. The degrading, dehumanisingmisery of the servile untouchables did nottouch his heart. He was moved to make thecause of the un-touchables is own only afterAmbedkar' political tance posed a veritable

threat o the nationalist hegemony. That hisintervention on the side of the scheduledcastes helped to focus national attention onthis very pressing but long neglected socialproblem of national mportance s however,a different matter.

It needs to be emphasised once again thatfreedom which fails to uphold the basicinviolable principle of 'intrinsic dignity ofman' for a vast multitude of

sociallysubjugated people is no freedom at all.Freedom hat he nationalists were strugglingto secure had very little to offer to thescheduled astes and other oppressed ectionsof the Indian society. Freedom from theBritish rule would not end their servitudeand misery. It s, therefore, mportant o notethat while the nationalists representing headvanced ections of the Indian ociety werestruggling oachieve reedom rom he Britishrule, people ike Ambedkar, epresenting heIndian 'helots' and other oppressed,backward eople, were fighting o regain hevery 'manhood' of the people stripped oftheir nalienable humanity by history's mostoppressive nddegrading ierarchical ystemof social segregation called the Hindu castesystem.

If 'nation' is not to be considered as co-extensive with the ruling class, and t cannotbe so in the present age of masses; and, ifit is to be truly representative f all peopleit ostensibly claims to encompass then theIndian national struggle of the first half ofthe present entury was not merely a struggleto wrest political power from foreign rulebut, also, a struggle to lay the foundationof modern India by purging Indian societyof its outmoded ocial institutions, practices,attitudes and beliefs. It is not generallyrealised that a national struggle for freedomhas an internal aspect too, and that aspectis really very mportant. Ambedkar's truggleconstituted a part of this internal truggle ofa nation in the making against its ownhistorical ast, o free tself from hose aspectsof its communal ife which were preventingit from emerging as a single unified modernnation. The complex process of nation-building involved of necessity, manyapparently ivergent and conflicting currentswhich were in the final analysis helping to

secure the ultimate goal of 'freedom' -freedom from both external and internaloppression and enslavement.

The Indian National Congress, whichspearheaded the national struggle forindependence, epresented he Indian ationalbourgeoisie's drive for overall political andeconomic control; while people likeAmbedkar, representing the mostunderdeveloped, servile segment of the'Indian nation', tried desperately to securefor themselves some foothold in the newlyemerging power structure. WithoutAmbedkar's opposition to the mainstream

nationalism, the process of internalconsolidation of the Indian nation would nothave been carried sufficiently far to helpstrengthen and broaden the social base ofIndian nationalism.

For those who refuse to see history as areal world process driven by a complexinteraction of a myriad of gradually butcontinuously evolving socio-cultural,economic,

politicaland

echnological orces,'nationalism' cannot be a historicallydetermined political phenomenon. For them'nationalism' s a static, unchanging ideal',independent of spatiotemporal imits. But inreality that idealistic conception of'nationalism' stems from a partisan view ofhistory which may be termed as a sectarianideology.

All this being said is not to imply in anyway that Ambedkar's approach o the Indianproblem did not suffer from any limitations.Indeed there were some basic limitations ofhis approach which continue to afflict notonly the dalit politics but also the nationalpolitics to this day. But that can be said ofGandhi oo, who alone among he nationalistswas able to understand learly the basic factof underlying socio-cultural and economicheterogeneity of the emergent Indian nationand, yet did nothing to attack that basicproblem. Instead, he chose to do everythingpossible to create a semblance of Indianunity by offering political concessions to theminorities. But such considerations, oweverimportant hey may be, are clearly beyondthe purview of this paper.

Our central concern is to show thatnationalism is not tantamount to a blindworship of the motherland. t is much morethan that. And people like Ambedkar, whoopposed the mainstream ational movementcontributed indirectly towards laying thebroad ocial foundation n which the presentIndian nation state stands.

It would be impossible to ignoreAmbedkar's role in the complex andprotracted process of interaction betweenthe mainstream nationalists and theiropponents which exercised considerableinfluence on the development of the Indiannationalism through 1930s and 1940s. Asa consequence of this vigorous and at times

bitter interaction, the nationalists came toadopt a 'wider', more iberal and progressiveconception of freedom hat ultimately oundits expression in the historic proclamationof the Indian epublic. True, Ambedkarneverparticipated n the freedom struggle, n facthe opposed it. But it is also true that hisopposition helped owiden the nternal copeof the freedom, thus making it reallymeaningful for hundreds of thousandsoppressed and enslaved people. This is notto deny the existence of a liberal progressivecurrent within the Congress represented bythe Congress ocialists swearing by the deals

Economic and Political Weekly March 7, 1998 517


5/5

of democratic ocialism. But, still, it is ratherdifficult to believe that their half-heartedcommitment o 'utopian socialism' wouldhave really helped o transform he tradition-ridden, change-resistant Indian society.Ambedkar's ntervention was necessary tobring about some measure of mental as wellas material empowerment of the formeruntouchables ithout which they would have

been unable to assume their rightful placein national ife. It s important o bear n mindthat t was Ambedkar's political challengewhich orced the Congress to appreciate henational ignificance of the problem of thescheduled castes and to adopt certainmeasures which in due course, contributedtowards broadening and strengthening hesocial base of Indian nationalism. Furtherthe proper understanding of the truesignificance f the scheduled astes problem,rendered possible through the above-mentioned interaction, was indeed animportant consideration influencingGandhiji's unhesitant decision to accede tothe request of the scheduled caste membersof the constituent assembly that Ambedkarshould be included in independent India'sfirst government. Shourie's assertion thatAmbedkar requested Jagjivan Ram torecommend his name is false. In fact BabuJagjivan Ram, then a protege of RajendraPrasad, was the only scheduled caste memberof the constituent assembly who had openlydeclined osupport hat proposal. am makingthis categorical statement on the basis ofinformation iven by my uncle R M Nalawadewho was a member of the constituentassembly's important steering committeebesides being a member of the All-IndiaCongress Committee. According to himNehru nd Sardar Patel were totally opposedto considering of Ambedkar's name. It wasGandhi, who without any hesitation,welcomed the idea of including Ambedkarin the government aying that there was noharm n including Ambedkar, for, after allitwas going o be a national unity government.It is a pity that the man who was aloneresponsible for Ambedkar's politicalrehabilitation t a time when his politicalinfluence was at its nadir is the most hatedman among the many who swear byAmbedkar. This is again a sad reflection ofour political underdevelopment, and, also,an indication of the great task before us.

Preparing he Constitution of a vast anddivergent nation ike India was a stupendoustask, involving collective efforts of manyvaried talents. No single person can beconsidered as its sole creator. HoweverShourie's characterisation f Ambedkar asthe rapporteur f the constituent assemblyis grossly unfair, unjust and mean. For hewas one of the very few who were entrustedthe askof not merely codifying the decisionsmade by the constituent assembly but, also

of deciding carefully whether a particularlegal framework being proposed wasoperationally good enough to allow therealisation of the intended political goalwithout entailing any other problems, andto propose, f necessary, alternative roposalsfor the consideration of the constituentassembly. This was undoubtedly veryimportant work for which Ambedkar and a

few others like Sir Alladi KrishnaswamiAyyar deserve our gratitude. Besides his rolein piloting he draft onstitution uccessfullythrough the constituent assembly wasundisputedly pre-eminent.

It is, therefore, necessary to warn thosewho derive perverse pleasure by denigratingAmbedkaras a British ackey ora rapporteurof the constituent assembly that they aredoing a great disservice to the Indian nationin the name of 'nationalism'. Through heirsick, partisan propaganda hey are helpingto reactivate the long dormant forces ofsocio-political reaction, which would if notcountered

effectively, engulfall of us in a

cataclysm of communal and casteist furythat great men like Gandhi, Nehru and nowalmost orgotten Pathan eader Abdul GaffarKhan had peristently and tenaciouslystruggled o bury by upholding the ideal ofsecular nationalism.

Distorting history for narrow, sectariangains is indeed, an act of treason against thepeople. Only a sick and wicked mind wouldattempt to divide people by using the

historian's noble craft to achieve ignobleends. Still Shourie and his brethren houldbe told that, though India has been greatlyinfluenced by the brahminical culturaltradition t is not a brahmin nation. Hencethe chances of their eactionary ocio-politicalideology winning overwhelming popularsupport are very dim. Even if they manageto secure power by manipulating peoples'

historically acquired prejudices, they willhave to share it with Yadavs, Kanshiramsand others. Even if they secure absolutecontrol their excercise of power would besubject o the vicissitudes of the major ocialgroups now very conscious of their politicalpower potential. Maybe the rise of Yadavsand Kanshirams would not help to effect themuch required ocio-economic and politicaltransformation which alone can put India onthe path of true development and progress.But, still Yadavs and Kanshirams would notallow India to sink into the black hole ofreactionary brahminism. The age of a tiny,

microscopic minority mposingts will

upona vast multitude of people is over since long.History can no longer fail to record he longsuppressed voice of oppressed people.

It is therefore important o bear in mindthat no matter what Shourie writes aboutAmbedkar, history's verdict will be alwayson his side; for he chose to uphold the rightto human dignity and to the freedom of thelowest of the lowly, the Hindu untouchable,against overwhelming odds.

National Institute of Public Finance And Policy

New Delhi

Invites applications for the position of HDFC Chair-Professor n Housingand Urban Finance in the pay scale of Rs.4500-150-5700-200-7300 plusallowances as per Institute's rules. The scale is under revision.Qualifications: A creditable academic record with a Ph.D in Economicsand specialisation n housing and urban/local inance with at least 10 yearsof research or teaching experience in this field of specialisation. Applicantshaving experience in policy-related research and in developing regulatoryframeworks or urban utilities and housing will be preferred. Applicantsmust have to their credit, publications n reputed national and international

journals.Age: Preferably below 45 years, but relaxable for deserving candidates.

Other hings being equal, candidates belonging to SC/ST will be givenpreference. Selection may not be confined to those who would apply inresponse to this advertisement.

Applications ndicating ualifications nd experience duly supported y truecopies of certificates nd testimonial hould reach he Administrative Officer,National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, 18/2, Satsang Vihar Marg,Special Institutional Area (Near JNU), New Delhi-110067 witkin 15 days ofthis advertisement.

518 Economic and Political Weekly March 7, 1998

ambedkar and indian nationalism

Documents