Pinak, Ambedkar, and Gandhi is a complex positioning than a binary. Gandhi, unlike his disciples wants us to be convinced as a social reformer, in fact, was a political reformer and Ambedkar as many wants us to believe as political reformer, in fact, was a social reformer. There was a vast difference in their context and priority. If Gandhi's priority was political liberation in this country, at that time Ambedkar's priority was the social liberation in this country at that time.
It is a well-documented fact that freedom movement in India began only when the British government took over the power from East India company and in the process also took away the cozy privileges enjoyed the ruling upper caste Indians. When the British government's administrative reforms started to intervene into socio-cultural and economic privileges of caste businessmen, raja- maharajas, pundits, and land-holding class, the congress was established. At that point of time freedom was not even an objective of the congress, but the objective was cornering some power among the establishment.
In other words at that point of Indian history, freedom struggle was an upper caste necessity. It is a recorded history that Dalits and marginalised in this country were happy and collaborated with British Government as they extended rule of law and dignity by employing Dalits and marginalised and also making judiciary accessible. At many times Ambedkar did strongly rejected the entire freedom struggle and collaborated with British owing to the freedom movement’s upper caste sociological implications. This is also recorded history.
Till Gandhi came into the picture, one will find the biggest issue of congress and freedom struggle at the time was not freedom but was the ideological difference existed between hardcore caste Hindutva vs softcore Hindutva. As a pragmatic politician and political reformer, it is a historical fact that he did not have the privilege for an inclusive social reformation to take forward, but had to satisfy with the only available political platform and its constraint - the upper caste has driven congress and its agenda as the freedom struggle.
Hence the conflict was inevitable between the priorities of the social reformer Ambedkar and the political reformer Gandhi. As it would be the trivialization of truth if we interpret Ambedkar as a collaborator of British against Indian interest, and under the same logic it would also be a complete trivialization if we interpret Gandhi only as an upper caste ambassador. It is a Historical fact that upper caste Hindus from congress found it important to begin RSS against Gandhi's leadership. Historically one will have to infer their actions as a consequence of socio-political exigency.
As Ambedkar was pragmatic enough to accept the political freedom of India with upper caste agendas as the dominant factor to derive the desired social reformation through constitutional political reformations, Gandhi was pragmatic enough to reject a political position in that upper caste driven political freedom for his plans to start the social reformations. Gandhi’s murder by fundamentalists Hindus and Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism and not to Islam or Christianity should be seen in this context.
A role reversal was begun in their life, although it was too late. It would be highly obnoxious of us, if we would pitch these social reformers and political reformer operated during a nationalist period as binary. Their lives, priorities, and agendas like any other leader remain a complex phenomenon, so are their ideologies. They should be seen only through their contexts, historicity, and priorities. Gandhi’s rejection of his son marrying a Muslim girl and Ambedkar’s marriage to a Brahmin girl are one of those pointers.
It is a well-documented fact that freedom movement in India began only when the British government took over the power from East India company and in the process also took away the cozy privileges enjoyed the ruling upper caste Indians. When the British government's administrative reforms started to intervene into socio-cultural and economic privileges of caste businessmen, raja- maharajas, pundits, and land-holding class, the congress was established. At that point of time freedom was not even an objective of the congress, but the objective was cornering some power among the establishment.
In other words at that point of Indian history, freedom struggle was an upper caste necessity. It is a recorded history that Dalits and marginalised in this country were happy and collaborated with British Government as they extended rule of law and dignity by employing Dalits and marginalised and also making judiciary accessible. At many times Ambedkar did strongly rejected the entire freedom struggle and collaborated with British owing to the freedom movement’s upper caste sociological implications. This is also recorded history.
Till Gandhi came into the picture, one will find the biggest issue of congress and freedom struggle at the time was not freedom but was the ideological difference existed between hardcore caste Hindutva vs softcore Hindutva. As a pragmatic politician and political reformer, it is a historical fact that he did not have the privilege for an inclusive social reformation to take forward, but had to satisfy with the only available political platform and its constraint - the upper caste has driven congress and its agenda as the freedom struggle.
Hence the conflict was inevitable between the priorities of the social reformer Ambedkar and the political reformer Gandhi. As it would be the trivialization of truth if we interpret Ambedkar as a collaborator of British against Indian interest, and under the same logic it would also be a complete trivialization if we interpret Gandhi only as an upper caste ambassador. It is a Historical fact that upper caste Hindus from congress found it important to begin RSS against Gandhi's leadership. Historically one will have to infer their actions as a consequence of socio-political exigency.
As Ambedkar was pragmatic enough to accept the political freedom of India with upper caste agendas as the dominant factor to derive the desired social reformation through constitutional political reformations, Gandhi was pragmatic enough to reject a political position in that upper caste driven political freedom for his plans to start the social reformations. Gandhi’s murder by fundamentalists Hindus and Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism and not to Islam or Christianity should be seen in this context.
A role reversal was begun in their life, although it was too late. It would be highly obnoxious of us, if we would pitch these social reformers and political reformer operated during a nationalist period as binary. Their lives, priorities, and agendas like any other leader remain a complex phenomenon, so are their ideologies. They should be seen only through their contexts, historicity, and priorities. Gandhi’s rejection of his son marrying a Muslim girl and Ambedkar’s marriage to a Brahmin girl are one of those pointers.
