[My impressions after reading Annihilation of Caste, by Dr. Ambedkar]
I first read Dr. Ambedkar’s essay a few years back when I had just started thinking about caste and how it is important to acknowledge caste exists and working to dismantle it, instead of sweeping it under the rug of poverty alleviation.
Why did I re-read Annihilation of Caste?
In the years between the first read to now, I have sharpened my own thinking. Had numerous discussions (often acrimonious ones) with Ambedkarites who speak glibly about “destruction of Hinduism” without getting into how they propose to do it, or what they will replace Hinduism with. I have witnessed Amebdkarites lock horns with Communists and as a keen but dispassionate observer seen how each calls the other casteist for approaching the issue of casteism from different directions (I also saw how at Gail Omvedt’s funeral, chants of “Jai Bheem” and “Lal Salam” were raised in tandem). Above all, I have seen how everyone who quotes AoC seems to have no clue about how to go about doing what they want to do.
I picked up the “Annihilation of Caste: with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi” with the full weight of expectations on it. I had already internalised the issues relating to caste privilege and of how relative economic affluence does not necessarily translate into lack of social oppression. I had no doubt that “….the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste was founded”. I recognise that what is needed is “social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society”. What I really expected from the book was the “how”. How does one bring about the destruction of a practice sanctioned by religion.
Unfortunately no solutions are offered
Alas, no solutions were offered. Dr Ambedkar says, and rightly that “To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to go contrary to their fundamental religious notions.” Since caste system is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other, when people seek the annihilation of caste, they stand to lose as much as they gain. There is a great incentive for preserving the status quo, especially since to get out of that, you need to take on the entire nation.
Dr. Ambedkar calls for the “ancient rules of life be annulled” and that “its place … be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion.” Drawing a distinction between principles and rules, he rightly points out that “the principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act.”
However, he leaves it at that. He urges Hindus to take on the task of overthrowing the religion which has too many inflexible and inhuman rules, and replacing it with “a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” But he doesn’t tell us how to make that happen.
In the context of 1936, and given the fact that the address was to be made to a society which was working towards annihilation of caste, the fact that he doesn’t offer solutions doesn’t matter. What is disappointing is that today the work is selectively quoted, and his vague calls for action are offered as solutions. Which they are not. I felt let down because the book did not address what I sought.
Which should come first- political reforms or social?
There was a long analysis on the order in which political reforms, economic reforms and social reforms could take place. How a person addresses that question depends on where they stand. Someone from a privileged social position will prioritise political reforms since that affects them most deeply. But post-Independence history has shown that unless one continues demanding social reform after attaining political reform, it gets missed out. In the context of today, in my opinion, since the prevailing political ideology is pushing society towards greater casteism, political reforms will need to be dealt with on priority, though social reforms continue in parallel.
Read the book if you are looking to learn about caste system
If you are looking to learn about the caste system, and why it should be weeded out completely, this is the book for you. To illustrate how petty the upholders of the caste system could be, one example from the book would suffice.
In November 1935, some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence.
Similarly, people from the lower caste were not permitted to consume ghee, wear gold bordered clothes, or gold/ silver jewelry (things have not changed much- even today they are not permitted to ride horses during wedding celebrations or style their moustaches in a way deemed inappropriate).
As Dr. Ambedkar puts it, caste system is not, as popularly thought ‘division of labour’. It is the division of labourers, in a tightly controlled and static manner.
However, if (like I did) you are seeking answers to questions you are already asking, you may be disappointed because he too is asking those same questions.
The distinction between rules and principles
Dr. Ambedkar made a distinction between rules and principles. Rules are practical, principles are intellectual.
“Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue . Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. A principle supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes , it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind.”
He rightly points out that even when a rule is right, the act of obeying it is mechanical, and even if the principle is wrong, the act is conscious and responsible. Since a religious act should be a conscious act, “Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only . It cannot be a matter of rules.” Unfortunately, however, as Mahatma Gandhi points out in his response to the essay, by this rule, most religions will fail.
Why did I give the book 4 stars and not 5?
I would have still given the book five stars- that the author offers no solutions does not in any way take away from the phenomenal work done by him in explaining the intricacies of the caste system.
The reason I gave the book only 4 stars was because I did not find him a totally unbiased observer. For example, a lot of what Dr. Ambedkar said about Hinduism holds equally true for all religions. Almost all religions are dogmatic, almost all religions discourage reasoning, almost all religions are a collection of static rules. Yet, only Hinduism was singled out for criticism. Since it was about the caste system, I can understand why that might be so. However, in other sections of the book, Hinduism was compared to other religions and found wanting. Since they were brought up as a contrast, for the sake of neutrality, they should have been mentioned in other contexts too. Either keep it about one religion only or criticise all- selectiveness shows a marked bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment