Abstract
‘Studies on Ambedkar’ as a subject has been forte of the sociologists. Historians or students of history neither felt that it is an important subject nor ever thought it would be relevant to study. This is not the case anymore, at least for the official bodies of professional historians. In 2010, the South Indian History Congress organised a special panel on ‘Social Justice in South India: Myth or a Reality’. In the same year, the 70th Session of the Indian History Congress (IHC) organised a special panel on ‘History and Historiography of Dalits’, and more recently once again as a part of 75th Session of the IHC, the Aligarh Historians’ Society organised a special panel on ‘Forms of Inequality in India: Present and Past’. One should acknowledge the fact that historians are not hesitating anymore, to organise a panel or seminar or any other academic activity, either on Dalits in general or Ambedkar in particular. In line with this, here is a volume entitled Invoking Ambedkar: Contributions, Receptions and Legacies edited by Biswamoy Pati, which is actually the product of such a seminar. The essays in this volume, contributed by historians, political scientists and sociologists on Ambedkar broadly relate to themes of intellectual history, religion and emancipation, political and economic debates surrounding the state, development and caste.
In the first essay S.B. Upadhyay foregrounds the genealogy and the diverse strands of the term and idea of ‘Aryan’ in racial theory from the nineteenth century to the current academic writings (while reference to this influence in non-academic writing as popular imagination is noted too). The essay lucidly traces the historical and linguistic origin of the idea among the colonial elite, and the ‘excited’ reception by the upper-caste Hindu intelligentsia in the construction of the past. He traces the transition of the terms Arian/Aryan from linguistic to racial category, equated as ‘superior’, ‘civilized’ and the ‘pure’ in writings of the upper-caste Hindus. The opposite idea, the author notes, was espoused within non-Brahmin discourses within a frame of enslavement and decadence. The essay foregrounds how, departing from such semi-historical, mythical constructions, Ambedkar discredited the racial theory of the origin of caste or a frame to critique caste, and that despite the proposing of a more scientific explanation of caste by Ambedkar, the author observes that this ‘fictive’ racial theory continues to have an appeal in the quest for an identity in Dalit and Bahujan conceptions of the past. Bagchi’s paper examines the issue of Dalit liberation within Adam Smith’s idea of freedom, state and logic of economic growth. Drawing insights from slavery in the Roman Empire, colonies outside India and in colonial India discern its economic logic, and of other institutions, like bonded or even casual labour, and notes that freedom is crucial for growth. He argues that there has been no substantial change in the rural-class structure for the Dalits and there is a lack of vision for land reform and redistribution of assets in the post-independence period. He underscores that these reforms are crucial for realisation of citizenship for Dalits and an egalitarian and dynamic society.
In the next essay by Bandopadhyay, the focus is on the lesser known, yet, critical years preceding the elections to the constituent assembly. Interpreting this period as one of ‘existential crisis’ for the Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF) on Ambedkar’s own defeat in the general elections, the author provides interesting insights on Jogendranath Mandal. It narrates the political stratagem to ensure Ambedkar’s entry into the Constituent Assembly in the face of opposition from the Congress and the Communists, as a defining movement for both the Dalit movement, which indicated the leaders’ ability to act as a political community, and for Ambedkar to play a significant role. It brings to fore the ‘symbolic’ contributions of Mandal at this juncture even as he joined the Pakistani cabinet later on.
Ambedkar’s thought is the theme of the Rowena Robinson essay where she analyses his ideas on planning and economic development in opposition to Gandhi as also Nehru, as representative of nationalist and modernist. Reading their ideas on land, industry, state and caste suggests that Ambedkar’s ideas took shape as a critique of Gandhism, and the central tenet of his thought was that economic development was linked to social reform and the latter was central to his vision of state and development. While the author notes that despite staunch opposition by Ambedkar to Gandhian ideas, some of them like the communitarian mode of living have resonance in modern times, while with the decreasing role of the state in the post-liberal era of globalisation Ambedkar’s ideas signal a warning of its implications on the marginalised. Raj Sekhar Basu’s essay provides interesting reading of the significance of Buddhism for Ambedkar through the latter’s understanding of Marx. While analysing the ways in which Ambedkar reclaimed Buddhism, its ethical values in his vision of a just social order and in shaping of communitarian identity/political community by conjuring a critical dialogue with Marx, the essay critically debunks several misconceptions concerning Ambedkar’s ideas and approach to religion, the revaluation of Buddha’s ethics and especially underscoring the positive relationship between the religion and revolution itself.
In the next essay, Jagpal Singh makes a comparative analysis of Ambedkar’s, Charan Singh’s and Lohia’s models of development and mobilisation towards their vision of social change, especially their influence on politics in Uttar Pradesh. He looks at the dimensions of convergence and opposition between the three and argues that despite their quest for justice and development, due to internal contradictions within the groups, their prominence to political expediency gained precedence over ideal of development in post-independence period. The next is chapter on Dalit Christianity and Ambedkar. It builds on the idea that though Dalit Christianity was not connected to the Ambedkarite movement during his lifetime, it was, yet, moulded by its legacy, especially forms of protest. By analysing the Dalit Christianity, theology and its literature, the author focuses on the process of by which the Dalit Christian identity was shaped vis-à-vis its relationship with Ambedkar. Apart from the colonial impact on pre-colonial economic institutions, literature produced an exclusive identity by expressing the everyday injustice along with criticism of hierarchical practices within the church. The reinterpretation of Christian theology itself was influenced by existential, moral and political concerns and Ambedkar’s diagnosis and ideas continue to be regarded as vital for ‘total liberation’.
The central argument of Ronki Ram posits the conflict between a neoliberal economy and social democracy. While the author dwells in great detail on the way in which neoliberalism reinforces poverty, inequality and structures of exploitation, he suggests that the two processes need to be ‘clubbed’ together, while not substantiating or hinting at the possibility of resolving the opposed forces of liberalism and that of social democracy. Swaraj Basu contextualising Ambedkar’s ideas on freedom, economy and state as constituting a radical stance against the nationalist and left movements and its leaders, suggests the need to recover Ambedkar’s central ideas while acknowledging his failures or limitations, retrospectively. He argues continuation of discrimination despite political power and constitutional safeguards indicates that communal and identity politics has weakened the realisation of an egalitarian society. While the internal divisions within caste, caste-based mobilisation and the reservation policy has strengthened caste identity. The author ends with a significant question, how can mobilisation on caste lines, which is believed to strengthen democracy, be a path to casteless society? Thus, he calls for a re-reading of Ambedkar for a more transfomatory potential than to serve identity politics.
Most themes and ideas are overlapping and most of the essays are framed in a historical context, while some essays do not engage with more critical scholarship and recent debates. A systematic editorial introduction on Ambedkar within a historical context, and the intertwining with divergent ideological and political trends and his own role in shaping the political and social ideologies of his time and aftermath vis-à-vis the contributions in this collection, would have been useful for the location of this volume as well as for the readers.