Introducation
The
idea of founding of a socially and politically equal and just India would never
be complete without B. R. Ambedkar, one of the most illustrious social and
political thinkers, a leader and activist, and the Constitution-Maker of modern
India. It is said that the roots
of Ambedkar’s philosophy were not in politics but in religion, particularly the
Hindu religion which laid the foundation of caste system. His socio-political
thought began with his criticism of Hindu religion because of its evil
practices of caste system and seeking (or presenting) solutions for
untouchables to free from this evil practice. Ambedkar himself was an
untouchable and faced many humiliations as one. As such, the liberation of
‘depressed classes’, the awakening and organisation of untouchables, and
safeguarding their rights and interests centred to his political and social
ideas. The political and social thoughts of Ambedkar therefore are found in his
fight to uplift the untouchables, the ‘depressed classes’. It is aptly
described that the political philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar was often shaped by
the politics of social reform and by India’s special brand of minority politics.
Critique of Caste System
Caste not merely a division of labour but a division of
labourers:
The
most evil practice in Hindu religion is the practice of casteism and the
categorisation of certain sections of people as Untouchables. Ambedkar proved
this. Many Hindus including Gandhi defended caste system on many grounds, the
first being the division of labour as necessary for a civilized society.
However, Ambedkar said that caste system as such is not merely division of
labour, but it is also a division of labourers. Moreover, it is a hierarchy in
which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.
Caste system is unnatural:
In such a system, the division of labour is not spontaneous; such a
system is not based on individual choice. Individual sentiments and individual
preferences have no place in it. It is based on the dogma of predestination.
And, therefore, social mobility of occupation is prevented thereby making it
impossible for a Hindu to gain his or her livelihood in changing circumstances.
The system does not permit the readjustment of occupations among caste and this
makes caste a direct cause of much of unemployment in the country.As an
economic organisation, Caste, contrasting the views of its Hindu defenders, is
a harmful institution in as much as it involves the subordination of man’s
natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.
Caste cannot preserve a non-existent ‘racial purity’:
Some
Hindus opine that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of blood. However,
Ambedkar argues that such a ‘racial purity’ among Hindus is non-existent. Caste
system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled
in blood and culture. Caste system does not demarcate racial division. In
contrast, Caste ‘is a social system which embodies the arrogance and
selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in
social status to set it in fashion and who had authority to force it on their
inferiors.
Hindu society is merely a
collection of castes:
Ambedkar says that the Hindu society as such does not exist. It is
only a collection of castes. In every Hindu, the only consciousness that exists
is the consciousness of his caste. Each caste is conscious of its existence,
each living for itself and for its selfish ideal. Caste is the real explanation
as to why the Hindu has let the savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization.
Caste deprives Hindus of fellow-feeling.
Caste destroys public
spirit, public opinion and public charity:
The caste system prevents common activity and by preventing common
activity it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with unified life
and a consciousness of its own being. It encourages hatred of one caste by another.
As such, caste destroys public spirit, public opinion and public charity. A
Hindu’s public charity, his responsibility and his loyalty are restricted only
to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become
caste-bound. A Hindu will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. The capacity
to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu.
Caste prevents Hinduism from being a missionary religion:
Caste has prevented the Hindus
from expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. Caste again
makes unity impossible among Hindus. One Hindu cannot regard another Hindu as
his ‘Bhai’. So long as caste remains, there will be no unity and so long as
there is no unity, the Hindu will remain meek and weak. According to Ambedkar,
Human Rights Under Hindu Social Order
The
Hindu social order, particularly its main pillars: the caste system and
untouchability, presents a unique case. As a system of social, economic and
religious governance it is founded not on the principle of liberty (or
freedom), equality and fraternity - the values which formed the basis of
universal human rights - but on the principle of inequality in every sphere of
life. In Ambedkar's view, the doctrine of inequality is the core and heart of
the Hindu social order. It leaves no difference between legal philosophy (and
law) and moral philosophy (morality). (Ambedkar 1987 first published, Deepak
Lal, 1988). The three unique features of the caste system need to be
understood.
In the social sphere the caste system involves (a) division of people in
social groups (castes). The social, religious, cultural and economic rights of
members of the castes are predetermined in advance by birth into that caste and
are hereditary (b) an unequal distribution of these rights across caste groups
(c) provision of a mechanism of social and economic ostracism calculated to
ensure rigid adherence to the system and justification of the social system by
the philosophy of Hinduism. In the sphere of economic rights, the Hindu social
order also lays down a scheme of distribution, namely (a) it fixes the
occupations for each caste by birth and its hereditary continuation; (b)
unequal distribution of these economic rights related to property, trade, employment,
wages, education etc., among the caste groups; and (c) hierarchy of occupation
based on social stigma.
These features imply that the Hindu social order is based on three interrelated
elements, namely predetermination of social, religious and economic rights of
each caste based on birth; the unequal and hierarchical (graded) division of
these rights among the castes; and provision of strong social, religious and
economic ostracism supported by social and religious ideology to maintain the
Hindu social order.
In this framework the concept of "human rights" under the
Hindu social system takes on a specific meaning. Unlike other human societies,
the Hindu social order in its classical form does not recognize the individual
and his distinctiveness as the center of the social purpose. The unit of the
Hindu society is not the individual. Even the family is not regarded as a unit
of society except for the purposes of marriages and inheritance (Ambedkar 1987,
first published). The primary unit of society is caste. There is no room for
individual merit and the consideration of individual justice. Rights that an individual
has are not due to him personally; it is due to him because he belongs to a
particular caste. Similarly, if an individual suffers from a lack of rights, it
is not because he deserves it by his conduct. The disability is imposed upon
the caste and as a member of the caste that is his lot.
The other implication is that, the caste system also involves the
principle of rank and gradation, in so far as the rights increase in ascending
order from untouchable to Brahmin. It is a hierarchically interlinked system.
In this framework castes are artfully interlinked with each other in a manner
such that the right and privileges of higher castes become the disabilities of
the lower castes, particularly the untouchables. In this sense, in Ambedakar's
view the caste in a single number cannot exist. Caste can exist only in plural
number. There cannot be such a thing as caste as a singular phenomenon. So one
has to look at the castes as a system, where each is interlinked with other in
unequal measures of social, religious, economic relations and rights.
This hierarchically interlinked character of the caste system implies a
concept of "human rights" and "humanhood" which is
different and unique. In this particular order of hierarchy the Brahmins are
not only placed at the top but are considered to be "superior social
beings" worthy of special rights and privileges. At the bottom, the
untouchables are treated as "sub-human beings or lesser human beings"
considered unworthy of many rights. Untouchables are considered as inferior
social beings and therefore not entitled to any individual rights i.e., civic,
religious, political and economic. In fact, the disabilities are so severe that
they are physically and socially isolated and excluded from the rest of the
Hindu society. Isolation and exclusion of untouchables is a unique feature of
the Hindu social order. Classes or social groups are common to all societies,
but as long as the classes or social groups do not practice isolation and
exclusiveness they are only non-social in their relations towards one another.
"Isolation and exclusiveness" makes them anti-social and inimical to
one another. (Ambedkar, first published 1987).
The Evidence
The annual reports of the
Commission for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe provide the data on the
registered cases of untouchability and atrocities against the Scheduled Castes.
Table 1 revealed that average number of cases registered under Anti
Untouchability Act (or Human Right Act) were 480 during the 1950s, 1903 during
the1960s, 3240 during the1970s, 3875 during the1980s and 1672 during the first
half of the 1990s. Table 2 shows that during the nine year period between
1981-86 and 1995 -97 a total of two lakhs cases of atrocities on the SC were
registered, which means on an average three thousand cases of atrocities were
committed on them annually.
The break-up of the atrocities for the year 1997 shows 504 cases of
murder, 3452 of grievous hurt, 384 of arson, 1002 of rape and 12149 cases of
other offences. The data for the period between 1981 and 1997 showed that on an
average annually about 508 SC persons were murdered, about 2343 hurt, 847
subjected to arson, 754 became victims of physical violence and about 12,000
were subjected to other offences.
Four Regional Cases
Generally, cases which are
registered with the police are of a severe nature and attract public attention.
A large number of cases however remain unreported. The studies based on village
surveys bring out the actual magnitude of the practice of untouchability and atrocities.
From the massive literature on the practice of untouchability and atrocities,
four regional studies are presented here; from Karnataka (1973-74 and 1991) and
Andhra Pradesh (1977) in the south, Orissa (1987-88) in the east and Gujarat
(1971 and 1996) in the west.
Father of the Indian Constitution
Despite Ambedkar’s defeat in the elections of 1946, the Congress party,
which wanted to present itself as the nation’s unifier, turned to him, and
Nehru, following Gandhi’s request, named him Minister of Justice. Even more
importantly, Ambedkar returned to the Constituent Assembly and, having
impressed many of the Congress party by his mastery of the law and by the
compromise solutions that he proposed, was named head of the committee
responsible for drafting the Constitution. Thus Ambedkar could defend in the
Constituent Assembly the political principles that he had absorbed during his
studies in the United States and England. In particular he proposed putting
into place a British-style judicial system, thus opposing a centralizing
dynamic to the option supported by Gandhi, who was in favour of a
decentralization of power down to the village level. He had great influence
throughout the drafting of the text, and with a considerable amount of
diplomacy and political skill he managed to marginalize the influence of
Gandhi’s positions. As a result, the Constitution, promulgated on January 26th,
1950, carries a strong imprint of Ambedkar, who ensured the codification of
fundamental rights and the guarantee of state involvement in social reform:
untouchability was abolished, and every form of discrimination prohibited.
Bibliography
Dasarathi
Bhunia - Understanding Ambedkar
internet sources of information
