Gandhi and Ambedkar against Untouchability: A Reappraisal

Introduction

A false dichotomy seems to have been created in much of the existing historical and political analysis between the welfare programmes for ‘Harijans’ as put forward by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948) and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891– 1956). Basically, Ambedkarite scholars view his proposals as more progressive than Gandhi’s constructive programme. This article draws on a long letter by Ambedkar of 14 November 1932, addressed to Amritlal Vithaldas Thakkar, the secretary of the Harijan Sevak Sangh (HSS), proposing a programme of action that the HSS should undertake for the welfare of ‘Harijans’, as well as the Constitution of the HSS (1932, 1935), drafted by Gandhi himself, to challenge this constructed hypothesis of difference. Instead, it is argued that the two leaders’ programmes actually show much similarity regarding the ultimate uplift of ‘Harijans’ in India.

It is well-known that untouchability was one of Gandhi’s central concerns. He attacked untouchability in both words and actions that seemed radical for a ‘caste Hindu’ to consider. Gandhi had pushed for the removal of untouchability at the 1920 Nagpur session of the Congress, where the non-co-operation resolution was adopted. The inception of an enduring and autonomous Anti-Untouchability Movement under him, however, dates from his ‘fast unto death’ against the Communal Award, announced in August 1932 by the British Government, which had awarded separate electorates to ‘Untouchables’.

The complex terminology used to describe the historically disadvantaged sections of India’s diverse population should not confuse our minds. Terms like ‘Antyaj’, ‘Bhangi’, ‘Dalit’, ‘Depressed Classes’, ‘Dhed’, ‘Harijan’, ‘Panchama’, ‘Pariah’, ‘Scheduled Caste’ and ‘Untouchable’ are basically different labels and names for the same people. They are a group of several castes, themselves divided from one another, and internally diverse. The common factor is their very low socio-economic condition. Using any of the above terms may generate its own politics of naming and shaming.

The Poona Pact of 1932, it has been claimed, resolved the crisis over political representation between ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Untouchables’. In the context of a new emerging political order, this Pact was accompanied by a pledge from all ‘caste Hindu’ leaders at public conferences in Bombay on 25 and 30 September 1932 to secure complete political and social equality for ‘Harijans’ and to work for the removal of all disabilities and hardships suffered by them. On 30 September 1932, a large public meeting of ‘caste Hindus’ was held at the Cowasji Jehangir Hall in Bombay under the presidentship of Madan Mohan Malaviya. Through a resolution, the meeting established the HSS with its headquarters at Delhi and branches in different provincial centres to carry on propaganda against the observance of untouchability. For this purpose, the following steps were to be immediately taken: (a) all public wells, dharmashalas, roads, schools, crematoriums and burning ghats be declared open to ‘Untouchables’ and (b) all public temples be opened to members of ‘Depressed Classes’ (Gandhi, 1935: 2). The meeting appointed G.D. Birla as the president and A.V. Thakkar as the HSS general secretary. It authorised them to take all necessary steps to organise the HSS, bring about the fulfilment of its objects and to organise collection of funds for its work (Pyarelal, 1932: 194–5).

Gandhi (1956–94, 51: 140–1) conveyed in a message that to him the settlement arrived at was only ‘the beginning of the work of purification’, and he added: ‘The agony of the soul is not going to end until every trace of untouchability is gone…. I shall undergo as many fasts as are necessary in order to purify Hinduism of this unbearable taint’. He assured ‘Harijans’ that though the government had accepted only that part of the agreement which referred to the government’s Communal Award, he himself was ‘wedded to the whole of that agreement’ and they could hold his life ‘as hostage for its due fulfilment’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 51: 145). The aim of his fast, Gandhi said, was not merely to get the decision changed but to bring about an awakening and self-purification, which were bound to result from the effort to get the decision changed (Gandhi, 1956–94, 51: 114).

Gandhi was here involved in something more than mere political bargaining. He wanted to create an atmosphere of trust between ‘Harijans’ and ‘caste Hindus’ to meet the challenge of caste oppression in Indian society by mobilising the Hindu community as a whole. While Ambedkar (2003, 17(1): 159) demanded ‘compensation’, Gandhi wanted expiation by ‘caste Hindus’, earnest proof of their readiness to accept ‘Harijans’ as equal members of the Hindu society (Chandra, 2011: 37). This was an opportunity for Gandhi to strike at the root of untouchability.

Ambedkar shared similar ideas and stated that larger social problems could not be solved by electoral systems alone. Social change, he said, required more than political arrangements. He hoped that, in due course, it would be possible to go beyond the political realm to devise ways for ensuring that ‘Harijans’ occupied positions of equity and honour in Hindu society (Ambedkar, 2003, 17[1]: 172). Gandhi’s ‘epic fast’ of 1932 and the subsequent events, coupled with personal contact with Ambedkar, reinforced Gandhi’s commitment to the removal of untouchability. It seems disingenuous to construct any difference between the two leaders in this regard. They differed in strategies, not regarding the goal itself. The article proceeds to examine evidence to bring out this central argument and turns now to the structures of the HSS.

The Constitution of the Harijan Sevak Sangh

The HSS as a brainchild of Gandhi was an all-India organisation, with A.V. Thakkar as the chief architect and G.D. Birla one of its major donors. It had state and regional branches in British India and many princely states. An interim Constitution for the HSS was prepared and adopted by the Central Board of the HSS at its meeting in Delhi on 26 October 1932. Gandhi suggested some modifications and drafted the final constitution of 1935, which adopted the name Harijan Sevak Sangh (All-India Anti-Untouchability League). It stated that the object of the HSS shall be ‘the eradication by truthful and non-violent means of untouchability in the Hindu society with all its incidental evils and disabilities, suffered by the… Untouchables… in all walks of life and to secure for them absolute equality of status with the rest of the Hindus’ (Gandhi, 1935: 3–4). Moreover, in the furtherance of its objective, the HSS ‘will seek to establish contact with caste Hindus throughout India and show them that untouchability, as it is practised in Hindu society, is repugnant to the shastras and to the best instincts of humanity, and it will also seek to serve Harijans so as to promote their moral, social and material welfare’ (Gandhi, 1935: 4). The HSS Constitution also required its members to pledge (Gandhi, 1935: 10):

I [full name, age, occupation, residence] believe in the necessity for the complete eradication of untouchability as it is practised today in the Hindu society and hereby subscribe to the Constitution of the Harijan Sevak Sangh. I shall personally refrain from considering any person as Untouchable by reason of his birth or caste. I do not consider any human being as inferior to me in status and I shall strive my utmost to live up to that belief.

The HSS Constitution provided for setting up a Central Board and State Boards to direct the HSS activities. Gandhi himself conceived the working pattern of the organisation and evolved a functional strategy that ensured unity of command as well as effective integration of the central body with the state branches. He suggested that the HSS should include both ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Untouchables’. Its 15-member board of management had four ‘Harijans’ and was explicitly committed to fighting untouchability (Parekh, 1999: 262). Ambedkar had accepted a place for himself on the Central Board of the HSS and was looking forward to playing his role in it. He wrote a detailed letter on 14 November 1932 to the HSS secretary, A.V. Thakkar, outlining his views on the eradication of untouchability and requesting the secretary to consider them while chalking out a programme of action (Ambedkar, 1991: 134–40).

Ambedkar’s letter focused on the nature of the campaign to be adopted to secure equal rights for ‘Untouchables’, which was in variance, it is widely argued, with Gandhi’s initiatives of achieving the same goal. Gandhi’s constructive programme, it is often stated, was ‘non-radical’ as it sought to improve the conduct of ‘Harijans’ at the individual level (Guha, 2018: 444; Srivatsan, 2008: 96–7), with campaigns also involving ‘upper-caste Hindus’ to work ‘in Dalit slums’ and promote ‘cleanliness, abstinence from alcohol, meat-eating and other Brahmanic virtues’ (Omvedt, 2004: 49–51). Ambedkar is said to have ‘placed more faith in constitutional processes, in changes in the law’. He emphasised the creation of jobs for ‘Untouchables’ and ‘was animated by the drive to achieve a position of social equality and human dignity for his fellows’ (Guha, 2018: 444).

However, a close comparison of Ambedkar’s letter to A.V. Thakkar, proposing a programme of action that the HSS should undertake and the HSS Constitution of 1935, drafted by Gandhi, demonstrates that the two leaders’ programmes show much similarity in the intent and content of their welfare programmes towards the upliftment of ‘Harijans’. Similarly, the Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar defeated British attempts to divide Indian society by proposing caste-based separate electorates to create fissures in the Indian National Movement (Biswas, 2018a). The Pact greatly increased the representation of ‘Untouchables’ in the legislatures. Ambedkar not only highly praised Gandhi, but also called him ‘Mahatma’ (Mitra, 1932: 253) for offering a much better deal for ‘Untouchables’ in terms of reserved seats than Ambedkar himself had asked or hoped for (Biswas, 2018a: 63–4).

Programmes of the Harijan Sevak Sangh

Gandhi, leader and strategist of mass struggles against all kinds of oppression, and a shrewd politician, realised that since ‘Harijans’ had been subjected to social, economic and political oppression and suppression for centuries, they could seldom be mobilised in militant struggles. Their oppressed condition acted as a barrier. For them, to rise in struggle required a prolonged period of preparation. Gandhi set out to prepare ‘Harijans’ for such a struggle by carrying on ‘constructive work’ among them. Gandhi asked his co-workers to work among ‘Harijans’. He never said directly that ‘you politically arouse them and bring them to participate in the national movement’. Rather, Gandhi said: ‘No, you must educate them. You must spread hygiene among them. You must spread social consciousness among them, so that they can arouse themselves and learn to improve their condition themselves’ (Chandra, 2012a: 43).

The HSS was meant to holistically cover the life of ‘Harijans’ and generally revolved around four aspects: (a) struggles for civic rights, access to water, schools, admission in village squares and public conveyances; (b) campaigns for equality of economic opportunity by opening up employment; (c) programmes of social intercourse in which ‘caste Hindus’ would accept ‘Harijans’ into their homes as guests or servants (Gandhi, 1935: 18–23); and (d) ‘caste Hindus’ were to work along with ‘Harijans’ towards eradicating untouchability (Gandhi, 1956–94, 57: 417).

Foremost among the functions of the HSS was to reach out to ‘caste Hindus’ through propaganda work to educate them to favour the complete removal of all forms of untouchability. The purpose was to involve ‘caste Hindus’ to support the newly formed organisation and help make it the nucleus for mobilising the Hindu community as a whole, including ‘Harijans’. The HSS organised special ‘Harijan’ days and processions to bring ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Harijans’ to the same platform. HSS members were also to make house-to-house visits, to organise exhibitions, to promote handicrafts, especially suited to ‘Harijans’ and to accurately report the conditions under which ‘Harijans’ lived and the disabilities they suffered. The circulation of books and periodicals dedicated to the cause was also integral to the programme.

Simultaneously, the HSS was required to carry out constructive work to enable the uplift of ‘Harijans’ economically, socially, hygienically and educationally. This was to be achieved through efforts to encourage ‘Harijan’ children and adults, wherever possible, to attend schools. In no case were new schools to be opened exclusively for ‘Harijans’. The emphasis was always on joint enrolment with ‘caste Hindus’, so that all children could study together. Similarly, efforts were made to open all hostels for ‘Harijan’ students. Scholarships, books and clothes were other amenities meant to be forwarded to them along with technical and vocational training. Spinning, weaving, tanning, shoemaking, bamboo and cane work were some of the vocations that the HSS members were to promote among ‘Harijans’ who showed aptitude. There were no references to hereditary occupations in Gandhi’s constructive programme. In addition, special emphasis was placed on ‘caste Hindu’ workers of the HSS to be in constant touch with ‘Harijans’ by settling in the vicinity of ‘Harijan’ localities. Donations for promoting such welfare activities were to be invited from all sections of Hindus, and also from non-Hindus.

Administrative initiatives were also assigned to the HSS. It was to induce the municipalities and local bodies to provide clean and cheap housing/quarters, freshwater supply and clean clothes to ‘Harijans’. In addition, efforts to make all public wells, taps and any source of water supply available to ‘Harijans’ were to be made, but where such resources were not accessible, common supply of water was to be used by ‘Harijans’. Most revolutionary of all the HSS responsibilities, however, were efforts to secure the opening of all temples to ‘Harijans’ (Gandhi, 1935: 18–23). Gandhi clearly placed the main responsibility to bring about change on ‘caste Hindus’. They had to atone for their sins against humanity for the historical injustice shown towards ‘Harijans’. They had to do expiation. At the same time, he asked ‘Harijans’ to engage in self-purification as individuals. Gandhi urged HSS workers to go to the villages and work for the upliftment of ‘Harijans’. He believed that the Anti-Untouchability Movement would pave the way for the unification of all Indians. Gandhi (1956–94, 56: 435) said that ‘the eradication of untouchability from our society will not only purify Hinduism but will transmute our national weakness into national strength and bring about greater solidarity among our people professing different religious faiths’. This was a social campaign aimed at touching the conscience of the masses against the practice of untouchability. The most formidable task of the HSS was to secure absolute equality of status for ‘Harijans’ with ‘caste Hindus’.

Methods of ‘Uplift’

In Ambedkar’s letter of 14 November 1932 to HSS secretary, A.V. Thakkar, he advised that the HSS should not ‘dissipate its energies on a programme calculated to foster private virtues’, such as ‘temperance, gymnasium, cooperation, libraries, schools, etc., which are calculated to make the individual a better and virtuous individual’ (Ambedkar, 1991: 134). According to Srivatsan (2008: 97), Ambedkar targeted Gandhi’s approach to service comprehensively. Ambedkar (1991: 134–5) criticised Gandhi’s ‘social reform’ and methods of ‘Harijan’ uplift as a ‘non-radical’ initiative as it sought to mould ‘the conduct of an individual from the Depressed Classes as if it was that conduct which was flawed and needed improvement without fighting the social oppression that is the root cause of the problem’. This was because, adds Srivatsan (2008: 97), for Gandhi ‘viciousness or sinfulness is a matter of past incarnations of the individual—his present suffering is due to his past sins’. According to Guha (2018: 444), Gandhi’s social reform was animated by the drive to achieve ‘a sense of spiritual equality between Hindus of all castes’.

Ambedkar’s assessment appears to be based on a deliberate misrepresentation of Gandhi’s views and method. The first step for ‘caste Hindus’, Gandhi (1956–94, 52: 155) invariably insisted upon, was ‘to receive Untouchables as they were’. Gandhi (1956–94, 52: 47–8) asserted that ‘the cleanliness of Bhangis [‘Untouchables’] has very little part in the removal of untouchability’. In fact, abstention from flesh and drink were not contingent to the removal of untouchability. Gandhi (1956–94, 53: 37) also asserted that those ‘Harijans’ who could not give up carrion eating ‘should not be summarily boycotted’, as it was not an easy matter to give up a long-standing habit. Moreover, abstention was not an indispensable condition of temple entry for Hindus, anyway. Though personally Gandhi favoured making abstention a condition, ‘it could not be imposed upon Harijans alone, if it was not imposed upon all the Hindus’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 53: 142). Such Gandhian beliefs negated the perception that an ‘Untouchable’ was an outcaste only as a result of his own karma in a past life. On the contrary, Gandhi (1956–94, 52: 277) repeatedly asserted that ‘the disabilities that Harijans are labouring under were imposed upon them by caste Hindus’.

Ambedkar wanted the HSS to uplift ‘Untouchables’ as a whole, not merely a few individuals. ‘The fate of the individual’, Ambedkar (1991: 134) said, ‘is governed by his environment and the circumstances he is obliged to live under, and if an individual is suffering from want and misery it is because his environment is not propitious’. He, therefore, insisted that the HSS should ‘concentrate all its energies on a programme that will effect a change in the social environment of the Untouchables’. Ambedkar (1991: 135) suggested that the pursuit of the HSS should be to secure full civic rights, to ‘bring about the necessary social revolution in Hindu society, without which it will never be possible for Untouchables to get equal social status’.

The essence of such suggestions matched Gandhi’s assertions of seeking equal civic rights for ‘Harijans’. Yet to Gandhi, it was the duty of ‘caste Hindus’ to procure also civic amenities for ‘Harijans’, for example, easy access to clean water. They were to find public wells and tanks used by ‘caste Hindus’ and point out to them that ‘Harijans have a legal right to the use of all such public services’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 51: 435).

So far as civic amenities, such as sanitary dwelling, clean water, clean food, education and healthy occupations were concerned, Gandhi strongly urged their extension to ‘Harijans’. Where possible, he said, civic amenities were to be enjoyed by ‘Harijans’ on equal terms with others, but where caste prejudice would not allow this, these facilities were to be provided separately till such time as public opinion could be educated (Gandhi, 1956–94, 32: 526–7). Gandhi asserted that regarding such problems as the removal of carrion and admission to schools, about which something ought to be done and about which public opinion also was favourable, ‘legislation is essential. Where there are no laws, there can be no Government but only anarchy or misrule’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 54: 81). For example, when he came to know about the quarrel between ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Harijans’ over the use of a well at Wanowri, Poona, in 1933–34, Gandhi suggested that legal aid should be sought with a view to getting the matter settled in a court of law (Ray, 1996: 184). One could argue that Gandhi was far ahead of his time here in advising virtually a ‘public interest litigation’ strategy.

Towards Eradicating Untouchability

Ambedkar (1991: 135) rightly predicted that there would be many obstacles to such a campaign. The most serious being ‘riots between Untouchables and caste Hindus, which will result in breaking heads and in criminal prosecutions of one side or the other’. Ambedkar also predicted the prejudice of the colonial state in favour of ‘caste Hindus’, which would be reflected in the harassment of ‘Untouchables’ by throwing them out of jobs and starving them. To make such an eventuality possible, he was convinced that ‘the forces in charge of law and order must be on our side if it is to end in success’ (Ambedkar, 1991: 136). Aware that the British role was crucial because they held state power, Ambedkar (1991: 136) also said that the HSS ‘will have to have an army of workers in the rural parts who will encourage the Untouchables to fight for their rights and who will help them in any legal proceedings arising therefrom to a successful issue’. Like Gandhi, Ambedkar thus sought changes in the social environment through HSS activism.

According to Srivatsan (2008: 98), in Ambedkar’s formulation of revolution by ‘Untouchables’, caste battles were not to consume Hindu society in flames, nor were they to attempt the overthrow of ‘caste Hindu’ oppressors. These were meant to force the dominant community to think about its practices. In his view, preaching and the use of other easy options of converting ‘caste Hindu’ opinions through rational ideas would fail. To Ambedkar, ‘caste Hindus’ would never think about their habitual practices of oppression unless a crisis would force them. The campaign to secure civic rights and services, Ambedkar (1991: 136) further spelt out in his letter, was necessary in spite of bloodshed. If there was opposition from ‘caste Hindus’, ‘Untouchables’ should assert their rights even if there was violence.

Srivatsan (2008: 98) asserts that the assumption behind this imagination of revolution was that while there were many thoughtless and violent followers of the dominant tradition, there was also a significant part of the dominant group that could be forced by a critical situation to see reason and enlightenment over the issue of caste. Ambedkarite scholars thus criticise Gandhi for depending on methods of persuasion in the removal of social disabilities of ‘Untouchables’ but keep silent on Gandhi’s additional activist suggestion to approach courts and claim rights through shaming those in power.

Till 1937, of course, the Indian National Congress was not fully in power; therefore, the main activity open to it was propaganda and protest. However, in July 1937, the Indian National Congress formed ministries in eight provinces under the Government of India Act, 1935: Madras, Bombay, Central Provinces, Orissa, Bihar, United Provinces, North-West Frontier Province and Assam. The Congress governments undertook certain measures of social reform and welfare, including numerous measures for the advancement of ‘Harijans’ (Chandra et al., 1989: 333).

Whatever may be the political value of the Civil Disobedience Movements of 1920–22, 1930–34 and 1942–45, there could be no doubt that the intimate social contact of thousands of national workers in jails, as equals in total disregard of all rules of the caste system, played a significant role in weakening caste barriers. The jail became a Habermasian public space, discussions in which gave a perceptible impetus to the eradication of caste and untouchability. Kasturiranga Santhanam (1946: 23), a Congress member, later recalled a different kind of activism:

During the three stormy years of 1920–23, rural India, which had continued in its somnolescent medieval existence, awoke to the puzzling spectacle of youths belonging to the highest castes thundering to shocked audiences on the crime of treating fellowmen and women as Untouchables. These youths went to the hamlets of the Untouchables and defied the elders to boycott or punish them. Having had the privilege of belonging to this heroic band, I can testify to the marvellous effect produced by these years of intense propaganda.

Where social conscience alone could rectify the state of affairs, there was still a limit to legal and constitutional sanctions. Ambedkar (1991: 195) himself stressed that untouchability is a mental attitude. ‘You cannot untwist’, he acknowledged, ‘a two thousand years twist of the human mind and turn it in the opposite direction’. In an interview to the New York Times on 30 November 1930, he acknowledged that untouchability is far worse than slavery, ‘for the latter may be abolished by statute. It will take more than a law to remove this stigma from the people of India. Nothing less than the aroused opinion of the world can do it’ (Selden, 1930).

Meanwhile, the British policy towards ‘Untouchables’ was marked by ‘reluctance to remove their socio-religious disabilities and treatment of Untouchables as a “minority” for the purpose of representation in the legislatures’ (Pradhan, 2017: 360). The government sought to provide them political representation through separate electorates, to introduce a new element of division and weaken the national movement (Dutt, 1949: 274). This reflects the familiar ‘Divide and Rule’ approach. Ambedkar saw two reasons for the government’s refusal to remove the social disabilities of ‘Untouchables’: First, they simply had no intention of removing them. They only advertised the unfortunate conditions of ‘Untouchables’ ‘because such a course serves well as an excuse for retarding the political progress of India’ (Ambedkar, 2003, 17(3): 44). Second, the British apprehended, after facing protests in the 1891 Age of Consent debacle (Engels, 1983), that intervention to amend existing codes of socio-economic life would generate resistance from orthodox Hindus (Ambedkar, 2003, 17(3): 48). This argument reflects well-known British phobias of negative orthodox reactions against British legal interventions. Thus, the government sought to appease the orthodox elements in Hindu society out of self-interest. At the First Round Table Conference (1930–31), Ambedkar (2003, 17(1): 75) severely criticised the British government for its failure to remove the disabilities of the ‘Untouchables’:

When we compare our present position with the one which it was our lot to bear in Indian society of pre-British days, we find that, instead of marching on, we are marking time. Before the British, we were in the loathsome condition due to our untouchability. Has the Government done anything to remove it? Before the British, we could not draw water from the village well. Has the Government secured us the right to the well? Before the British, we could not enter the temple? Can we enter now? Before the British, we were denied entry into the police force. Does the Government admit us into the force? Before the British we were not allowed to serve in the military. Is that career now open to us? To none of these questions can we give an affirmative answer. Our wrongs have remained as open sores and they have not been righted, although 150 years of British rule have rolled away.

Ambedkar (1991: 36) also quoted Gandhi, who had written on 3 November 1921 in Young India that ‘untouchability cannot be given a secondary place on the [non-co-operation swaraj] programme. Without the removal of the taint, swaraj is a meaningless term’. Earlier, on 27 October 1920, Gandhi (1956–94, 18: 376–8) had declared that ‘if a member of a slave nation could deliver the suppressed classes from their slavery, without freeing myself from my own, I would do so today. But it is an impossible task. A slave has not the freedom even to do the right thing’. Hence, he continued, ‘though the Panchama [‘Untouchable’] problem is as dear to me as life itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive attention to national non-co-operation, feel sure that the greater includes the less’.

This was Gandhi’s explanation for his focus on the non-co-operation movement for swaraj while untouchability still waited to be removed. Since the swaraj goal could not be abandoned, the solution, as Gandhi saw it, was to attack untouchability alongside the struggle for swaraj, not to put it first. Instead of appreciating Gandhi’s approach in this particular historical context, Ambedkar (1991: 39) strategically criticised him polemically for not taking the slightest interest in the programme of amelioration for ‘Untouchables’.

Against an Economics of Caste Oppression

The next step that the HSS was to pursue, in the vision of Ambedkar (1991: 137), concerned the struggle to bring about ‘equality of opportunity’ for ‘Untouchables’, who were not employed even in the lowest positions of messengers and were liable to be employed last in the days of prosperity and first to be fired in the days of adversity. In the urban private sector, ‘Untouchables’ were given the most menial jobs and were likely to be thrown out at the slightest hint of business adversity. The condition of their women was worse. They were discriminated against even in the distribution of raw material for piecework in comparison to ‘caste Hindu’ women and were left to face hunger (Ambedkar, 1991: 137).

Ambedkar (1991: 137–8) wanted the HSS to create public opinion against such practices and to establish bureaus meant to deal effectively with the treatment of inequality meted out to ‘Untouchables’. In particular, he wanted private firms and companies owned by ‘caste Hindus’ to extend their ‘patronage’ (Ambedkar, 1991: 138) to ‘Untouchables’ by employing them according to their capacities. Ambedkar here, too, resonated with Gandhi’s vision to include ‘caste Hindus’ in the activities of the HSS towards eradicating untouchability.

Right from its inception, the HSS had been agitating for a better deal for sweepers from their municipal employers (Verma, 1971: 141). For example, the Ujjain and Bhilsa Municipalities in Gwalior had begun to give loans to sweepers at low rates of interest. In the United Provinces, the Faizabad Municipality advanced ₹500 to the Sweepers’ Cooperative Society and agreed to recover the amount in monthly instalments from their salaries. As a result of the efforts of A.V. Thakkar, the HSS secretary, the Hyderabad Municipality in Sind agreed to spend ₹10,000 on building quarters for sweepers (Verma, 1971: 141). Moreover, HSS workers had been making efforts to improve the economic conditions of ‘Untouchables’ by securing employment for them in government services, factories, shops and even in the homes of ‘caste Hindus’. They were induced, as in the Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh, to take up the professions of barbers and washermen and ‘caste Hindus’ were persuaded to use their services. At Ambarnath, in Maharashtra, the HSS arranged for the supply of seeds for cultivation to ‘Untouchables’ and also supplied bullocks. In Loharka village in the Amritsar District of Punjab, the HSS was able to secure higher wages for ‘Untouchables’ employed as field labourers (Verma, 1971: 143–4).

Inter-caste Dining and Marriages

Ambedkarite scholars have argued that Ambedkar highlighted other concerns, which had kept ‘Untouchables’ excluded. Both Srivatsan (2008) and Jaffrelot (2005: 70) suggest that in Ambedkar’s assessment, the HSS should campaign for promoting inter-caste marriages and dining between ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Untouchables’. Srivatsan (2008: 99) has emphatically suggested that it might be ‘necessary at one place, in a given period, to break caste Hindu heads in a pitched battle’, and it might be ‘equally necessary at another place, in the same period, to dine with the caste Hindu and get used to him, while he gets used to the Untouchables’. But whenever Gandhi spoke of eradicating untouchability, laments Aloysius (1998: 209), ‘he qualified his statement by adding that he did not mean inter-dining’, thereby ‘arresting the process of the mixing up of all castes’.

According to Srivatsan (2008: 100), the HSS ‘had decided to adopt the method of “peaceful persuasion”, eschew force and the creation of crises, avoid reference to inter-dining and inter-marriage and adopt constructive work of uplifting Untouchables’, thus ignoring Ambedkar’s demand for annihilating caste (Jaffrelot, 2005: 70; Parekh, 1999: 263). This was because ‘Gandhi as a supporter of an idealised version of varnashrama dharma and quite aware that many members of the Congress were supporters of much sharper versions of caste exclusiveness, wanted its focus to be limited to issues of untouchability’ (Omvedt, 2004: 50).

However, in his letter to HSS secretary A.V. Thakkar, as indicated earlier, Ambedkar (1991: 138) had proposed a course of action for the HSS that sought ‘the admission of Depressed Classes to the houses of caste Hindus as guests or servants in order to dissolve the nausea which Touchables feel towards Untouchables’. As Dhananjay Keer (2015: 219) puts it, Ambedkar expressed his opinion that the HSS activities ‘should be mainly directed to the economic, educational and social improvement of Depressed Classes rather than to the problems of temple entry and inter-dining’. Gandhi was equally clear that inter-dining was not a part of the movement against untouchability. However, when mixed dinner parties with ‘Harijans’ took place, he ‘welcomed’ them as a healthy sign. He felt that ‘those who consider it a dharma to practise these deserve to be applauded’, and also added: ‘I have not noticed any injunction against inter-dining and inter-marriages in the scriptures’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 51: 231).

Thus, the various interpretations that Gandhi lacked commitment to ‘the cause’ appear to result from seeing Gandhi merely on the basis of certain statements, without adequately looking at the wider context and Gandhi’s overall actual practice. Critics of Gandhi also appear to see him as an ‘unchanging’ person and have rooted their understanding of Gandhian ideas through some of Gandhi’s early writings, from which his statements on caste, inter-caste dining and marriages are picked out (Biswas, 2018b). In fact, as Chandra (2012b: 167) argues, Gandhi constantly ‘experimented with truth’, and his thoughts and activities were in constant evolution.

For example, in the 1920s, Gandhi (1956–94, 21: 247) appreciated restrictions on inter-caste dining and marriages, but also insisted that closed-dining and closed-marriages were minor parts in varnashrama dharma and that a beginning should be made in breaking the barriers through inter-caste marriages among members of different sub-castes. Gandhi (1956–94, 21: 247) declared in 1921 that ‘the four divisions define a man’s calling, they do not restrict or regulate social intercourse’. By the mid-1930s, Gandhi openly affirmed his acceptance of and advocacy for inter-caste dining and marriages (Gandhi, 1995: 240). Gandhi’s views, once expressed freely, culminated in the announcement by 1946 that in his Sevagram Ashram, couples could marry only on condition that one party was a ‘Harijan’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 84: 388–9).

Gandhi’s beliefs were backed by the force of a lifetime of action. He would invariably eat with people of different faiths and castes, including ‘Untouchables’ (Sarkar, 2011: 178). Not only did Gandhi allow his son Ramdas to marry someone from a different sub-caste, he also allowed his other son, Devadas, to marry a girl from another varna. Gandhi also married off his adopted daughter Lakshmi, an ‘Untouchable’, to a ‘Brahmin’ boy. On many other occasions, Gandhi supported inter-caste marriages (Kolge, 2017: 43–4).

Contrary to the arguments of Gandhi’s critics that his idealisation of varnashrama dharma led to ‘non-radical’ programmes being adopted by the HSS, to Gandhi ‘the removal of untouchability [was] more precious than the retention of varnashrama dharma’ (Nath, 1987: 229). Gandhi (1956–94, 35: 522–3) had declared in November 1927 that he did not care ‘if varna went to the dogs in the removal of untouchability’. Moreover, the eminent Gandhi scholar Parel (2006: 94) writes that nowhere in Gandhi’s entire political career ‘do we find him attempting to restore the dharma of the discredited varnashrama’. Gandhi (1956–94, 35: 522–3) himself rejected the possibility when he said in September 1927:

I have gone nowhere to defend varna dharma. I am the author of a Congress resolution for propagation of khadi, establishment of Hindu-Muslim unity, and the removal of ‘untouchability’, the three pillars of swaraj. But I have never placed establishment of varnashrama dharma as the fourth pillar. You cannot, therefore, accuse me of placing a wrong emphasis on varnashrama dharma.

Starting with his grandfather, Gandhi (1927: 15) states, his family had not been pursuing their hereditary duty that was assigned to them. He himself never earned his bread and butter by following his ancestors’ calling. He also allowed his children to choose their own professions and never pressed them to follow any caste-prescribed pursuit. Moreover, Gandhi worked as a scavenger, barber, washerman, cobbler, tiller and tailor, all ‘unclean’ works. He even forced his family to break pollution taboos by engaging them in shoemaking, leatherwork and cleaning of toilets, works profoundly polluting to ‘caste Hindus’. In fact, cleaning toilets persisted all his life (Sarkar, 2011: 178). Moreover, none of Gandhi’s ashrams in South Africa and India were built on the principle of the caste system or varnashrama dharma, and none of the caste restrictions were observed in his ashrams (Biswas, 2021).

Gandhi (1956–94, 25: 429) also urged ‘caste Hindus’ to realise that just as other castes had given up their occupations in a pattern of mobility, ‘Harijans’, too, had a right to quit their hereditary occupations. Gandhi helped many ‘Harijans’ to acquire an academic education and to qualify as doctors, engineers and teachers (Polak et al., 1949: 204). It was HSS policy to encourage ‘Harijan’ students by giving them scholarships, particularly for technical and professional courses (Verma, 1971: 135, 142–3, 149). Gandhi (1956–94, 56: 2) also advised the HSS that in the villages, if ‘caste Hindus’ remained obstinate and persisted in boycotting ‘Harijans’, the latter, if they have any self-consciousness, ‘[should] persist in their refusal to render service, … and, if the boycott proves to be too hot for them, they [should] quietly vacate the offending village’.

Gandhi, thus, in his personal life rejected untouchability and relentlessly made efforts to eradicate it. Critics of Gandhi focusing on a selective reading of some of his early writings reach a conclusion that Gandhi never decisively renounced his belief in the system of four varnas. Resting their understanding of Gandhi’s lack of concern with caste on these early writings, they ignore his practice and later writings, both of which involved clear denunciation of untouchability and caste prejudices.

Gandhi, the Greater, More Total Revolutionary?

Moreover, Ambedkar believed that if HSS activists had to fight alongside ‘Depressed Classes’, they would have to be people who loved them, and were not fighting mainly for financial consideration. ‘Hire purchase’ of ‘Depressed Classes’ activism by organisations which were also engaged in several other programmes, Ambedkar (1991: 139) wrote, was to be eschewed because love for ‘Depressed Classes’ could not be purchased on hire. Activists would have to have a ‘single-minded devotion’ to the problem, narrow-minded and enthusiastic about their cause, he further added. Ambedkar (1991: 139) believed that such activists would best be found among the ‘Depressed Classes’ themselves and emphasised that one could be more sure that a worker drawn from ‘Depressed Classes’ would regard the work as love’s labour, so essential to the success of the HSS. In this context, Srivatsan (2008: 100) argues that through his explicit advocacy of ‘Depressed Classes’ activists, Ambedkar clearly showed his assessment of the limitations and limits of ‘caste Hindu’ activism.

Gandhi, however, also ‘strongly disapproved’ of ‘paid propagandists’ (Shukla, 1949: 14) and ‘hirelings’ for the removal of untouchability. ‘Hirelings’, Gandhi (1956–94, 40: 390) stated, ‘will never be able to remove untouchability’. The difference between a voluntary worker and a hireling, Gandhi (1956–94, 40: 392) pointed out, ‘lies in the fact that whereas a hireling gives his service to whosoever pays his price, a national voluntary worker gives his service only to the nation for the cause he believes in and he serves it even though he might have to starve’. In this context, he also stated that HSS members ‘are volunteers getting nothing’. He assured that the bulk of the money collected was spent to ameliorate the conditions of ‘Harijans’ and ‘as little as possible on administration’ (Shukla, 1949: 83).

However, Gandhi’s strategy differed from Ambedkar’s approach in one important aspect. As an agent of change, Ambedkar worked for self-regeneration and struggle on their own by ‘Untouchables’. He would educate ‘Untouchables’, mobilise them politically, and encouraged them to confront ‘caste Hindus’. However, in concrete reality, it is one thing for ‘Untouchables’ to organise and mobilise against caste discrimination and caste oppression or even the caste system itself, and quite another to treat the entire ‘non-Untouchable’ population as enemies. This type of adversarial activism inevitably pitches ‘Untouchables’ in an unequal social and political struggle, pitting 15% against nearly 70%. Moreover, most ‘Untouchables’, being landless labourers, get separated from the other rural poor, agricultural labourers and petty landowners, belonging to ‘non-Untouchable’ castes.

Significantly, even while also advocating self-regeneration by ‘Harijans’, Gandhi advocated co-operation between them and ‘caste Hindus’. He emphasised the task of persuading and pressurising ‘caste Hindus’ to give up untouchability in all its forms, including the ban on inter-caste dining and inter-caste marriages, and promoted constructive work among ‘Harijans’ for their social, cultural and economic uplift. Gandhi firmly believed that any anti-caste struggle must be based on co-operation of the mass of ‘caste Hindus’, the overwhelming majority of Hindus. No social change could occur by confronting and spreading hostility and hatred against the majority. Gandhi in fact believed that hostile confrontation with ‘caste Hindus’ would harm ‘Harijans’, for they constituted a minority, and the fight would be an unequal one.

This is where Gandhi’s political and mobilisation strategies, it may be argued, are superior to Ambedkar’s approach. Gandhi advocates the unity of ‘Harijans’ with the vast majority of ‘non-Harijans’ in the country, who are themselves against, or can be persuaded to oppose, the caste system. By uniting the ameliorative potential of both population groups, the political consequences of the numerical inferiority of ‘Harijans’ and, therefore, their political isolation are overcome in Gandhi’s approach.

Agency of the ‘Untouchables’

Ambedkar was critical of the HSS, claiming that it had left no scope for drawing members from ‘Untouchable’ communities. It had become HSS policy, Ambedkar (1991: 142) said, ‘to exclude Untouchables from the management and higher direction’ of the HSS. As Srivatsan (2008: 100) argues, Gandhi added ‘insult to injury’ by not permitting membership of ‘Harijans’, even though the original HSS Central Board once had ‘three’ (sic) ‘Harijan’ leaders. The act of service-expiation, Srivatsan (2006: 432) argues, ‘was the duty and in reality, ultimately the privilege’, of ‘upper-caste Hindus’. This meant ‘Untouchables’ had no right to do what they thought was right for themselves and ‘had to submit to the painfully masochistic ministrations of the sevak’.

Jaffrelot (2005), Omvedt (2004: 50) and Nath (1987: 235) fully accept this view. Jaffrelot (2005: 70) argues that Ambedkar’s demand that the various HSS committees ‘had to comprise a majority of Untouchables… was not followed by any positive action, and the HSS remained dominated by upper-caste Hindus largely because Gandhi wanted to make it “an organisation of penitent sinners”’. The HSS had begun to function as a ‘caste Hindu’ organisation seeking salvation for its members’ souls, offering repentance for the sins of untouchability committed by them. This was because, argues Guha (2018: 444), ‘as an upper-caste reformer, Gandhi was motivated by a sense of guilt, the desire to make reparation for past sins.’ ‘The irony of this “prayaschitta” for the caste Hindu soul’, argues Srivatsan (2008: 100), ‘was that it was to be achieved through the purification of the physical body and moral fibre of the Harijan!’.

Gandhi’s style of campaign, to Parekh (1999: 268), thus not only prevented ‘Harijans’ from developing their own organisation, but also ‘denied them an opportunity to work, and constantly interact with caste Hindus’. Since the HSS worked ‘for, but not with Harijans, the two communities lacked a common platform’. Devoid of any meaningful contact at the social level, the two communities thus remained separate at the political level as well.

The HSS records, however, do not substantiate such assessments. Of the 15 organising members of the HSS Central Board in 1932, four were ‘Harijans’, B.R. Ambedkar himself, R. Srinivasan, M.C. Rajah and Palwankar Baloo (Gandhi, 1956–94, 54: 18–9). ‘Rule 24’ of the HSS Constitution of 1935 laid down that ‘every Board or Committee shall have as many Harijan members as it is possible to secure consistently with its maximum’ (Gandhi, 1935: 8, 16), thus giving ‘Harijans’ a direct voice in its management. It is, therefore, incorrect to claim that the HSS policy was to exclude ‘Untouchables’ from its management and higher direction, as professed by Ambedkar (1991: 142). Notably, in the HSS Central Board, there were in 1946 several ‘Harijan’ members, namely N.S. Khajrolkrar of Bombay, Karan Singh Kane of the United Provinces, F.D. Ghodke of Karnataka, M. Govindan of Kerala, Radhanath Das of Calcutta and B.S. Moorthy of Andhra (Santhanam, 1946: 58).

Moreover, Gandhi evolved a supplementary process of associating ‘Harijans’ with the Anti-Untouchability Movement. To broaden the base of this movement, Gandhi suggested the formation of compact, small representative committees that would frame rules for the conduct of their proceedings and formulate their expectations of ‘caste Hindus’. These Advisory Committees were meant to advise the HSS Central Board of their existence and show their preparedness to help the latter. Gandhi (1956–94, 57: 417) believed that ‘caste Hindus’ ‘will never be able to discharge their debt except with the co-operation of Harijans’.

While ‘Harijans’ were indeed not called upon to share in the act of penitence, they were encouraged to form independent Advisory Committees, and to offer helpful advice, guidance, inspection and review of the HSS work. Gandhi (1956–94, 58: 214–5) asserted that this was not only the privilege but also the duty of ‘Harijans’. Gandhi (1956–94, 51: 347–8) also warned that there should be ‘no repetition of the old method when the reformer claimed to know more of the requirements of his victims than the victims themselves’, and, therefore, he wanted that workers should ‘ascertain from the representatives of Harijans what their first need is and how they would like it to be satisfied’. Gandhi repeatedly emphasised that it was necessary to know the ‘Harijan’ mind in any programme of work that may be taken up. Again, we see that this approach includes ‘Harijans’, seeking their specific contributions.

The central and state or regional HSS boards had the three interconnected functions of raising the economic, social and religious status, respectively, of ‘Harijans’. The aim was to remove the difficulties that ‘caste Hindus’ for centuries had put in the way of ‘Harijans’. The boards had to provide wells, scholarships, boarding houses, schools and civic amenities, wherever the need arose. The general body of ‘Harijans’ was to take this help wherever it was offered. The Advisory Committees, Gandhi said, were to help the cause by making useful suggestions to the boards and also rendering such help as they themselves could to those whom they represented. ‘Thus, only will they’, emphasised Gandhi (1956–94, 53: 458), ‘acquire the power of asserting themselves’.

Advisory committees were to take up internal reforms and cause an awakening among ‘Harijan’ masses, so that ‘they too begin to realise that they were men and women entitled to the same rights as were enjoyed by other members of the society to which they belonged’ (Gandhi, 1956–94, 57: 417). Moreover, the HSS Constitution laid down that no ‘caste Hindu’ shall be a member of any board, unless he or she performed some definite service, like having a ‘Harijan’ in his or her house as a member of the family, at least as a domestic servant, or was teaching a ‘Harijan’ or ‘Harijans’, or was paying regular visits to ‘Harijan’ quarters and cleaning them, or if he or she was a doctor, treating ‘Harijan’ patients free of charge (Gandhi, 1935: 23–4). Thus, Gandhi’s activist campaign to eradicate untouchability not only encouraged ‘Harijans’ to establish and develop their own organisation but also gave them an opportunity to work and constantly interact with ‘caste Hindus’.

Constitutionalism Versus Mass Mobilisation

Gandhi’s constructive programme for the welfare of ‘Harijans’ was clearly similar in intent and content to Ambedkar’s programme. The basic themes in both were (a) a campaign to secure civic rights for ‘Harijans’; (b) to bring equality of opportunity for ‘Harijans’; (c) the admission of ‘Harijans’ to the houses of ‘caste Hindus’ as guests or servants in order to dissolve the nausea which ‘caste Hindus’ supposedly felt towards ‘Harijans’; and (d) co-operation between ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Harijans’ in the removal of untouchability.

Both Gandhi and Ambedkar felt that the Anti-Untouchability Movement was necessary. Except for the Mahad Satyagraha (1927), Ambedkar himself never led or organised any struggle or campaign against untouchability, either before or after independence. He focused on being a constitutionalist politician, whereas Gandhi, first from jail and then from outside, for nearly 2 years from 1932 to 1934, gave up all other pre-occupations and carried on a whirlwind campaign against untouchability as part of his pledge following the Poona Pact. Between November 1933 and August 1934, for nearly 9 months, Gandhi conducted an intensive crusade all over India, including the princely states, travelling over 20,000 kilometres by train, car, bullock cart and on foot, collecting money for the recently founded HSS, propagating the removal of untouchability in all its forms and practices and urging social workers to go to the villages for the social, economic, cultural and political uplift of ‘Untouchables’.

The HSS Annual Report for 1933–34 indicated that there was in all the provinces a militant section fighting for equal rights and privileges. Even in the general mass of ‘Harijans’, not excluding women, there was an admirable drive for educating the young, and a desire for a cleaner and better life (Verma, 1971: 133). Ambedkar, despite his great commitment, had not succeeded to the same extent to mobilise the mass of ‘Untouchables’ in political, social or economic struggles against their oppression. Ambedkar’s major success was among the ‘Mahars’, who had already risen socially and economically through a minimum degree of education and service in the police and the army and work in factories (Chandra, 2012a: 121).

Ambedkar’s greatest achievements, notably, took place in alliance with those who had led the nationalist movement, and not when he was at cross purposes with them. For example, the statutory abolition of untouchability took place only after the retreat of British power from India, not earlier. Moreover, the rise of ‘Untouchable’ representation in mainline services, increased educational opportunities and the associated enhancement in their political presence took place only after independence (Nauriya, 2016). In this context, Chandra et al. (1989: 293) have argued that Gandhi’s ‘strong theme of “penance” largely explains why caste Hindus born and brought up in pre-1947 India so readily accepted large-scale reservations in jobs, enrolment in professional colleges and so on for [the ‘Untouchables’] after independence’.

It may be argued that this ‘ready acceptance’ is a proof of change in people’s mentalité and actions. The Constituent Assembly was predominantly ‘upper caste’ in composition, and it took the revolutionary step to accept reservations for the ‘Untouchables’. Gandhi had succeeded in creating the necessary moral consensus for abolishing untouchability, and the government of independent India was able to enact appropriate legislation without any fear of popular resistance in that direction (Parekh, 1999: 265). Nowhere is so large an underprivileged minority granted so much special treatment as in India. Recent studies have shown that reservation does help marginalised groups to rise economically, while also leading to efficiency gains (Thorat & Joshi, 2020).

Gandhi, we know, actively mobilised ‘Harijans’ through his campaigns, which gave them dignity and power; moral, social, political and economic equality; and self-respect and the self-confidence to fight their own battles. As Nauriya (2003) put it:

The space for growth of Dalit power in India was… the product of the [national] movement.… The movements against untouchability, carried out at an all-India level, created the social atmosphere that made further change possible.… It was only in independent India that untouchability was abolished and its practice made an offence. This created an atmosphere, which made it possible for Dalits to make a bid for political power.

The credit goes to both Gandhi and Ambedkar for this undoubted progress and should not really divide scholars into camps of Ambedkarites and Gandhians.

Conclusion

The article shows that Gandhi’s style of campaign against caste and untouchability had both the advantage of focusing attention on centuries of ‘caste Hindu’ oppression and also had the great merit of involving ‘Harijans’ in the struggle for their own liberation, long before untouchability was formally outlawed. Gandhi always encouraged ‘Harijans’ to speak for themselves. The HSS was intended to be a forum for both ‘caste Hindus’ and ‘Harijans’ and explicitly aimed to eradicate untouchability, giving the two communities a common platform. Such meaningful contacts at the social level, albeit at an asymmetrical level which seems to have irked Ambedkar, allowed the two communities to come together at the political level as well. Gandhi’s approach followed from his own profound political insight that no system of oppression could be ended without the active involvement and consequent political education and organisation of its victims. It is difficult to see how and why that should be constructed convincingly as opposed to the aims and ambitions of Ambedkar, or as a lesser contribution to what was clearly a jointly endorsed agenda.