HVK Archives: A legacy divided - Pitting Gandhi against Ambedkar
A legacy divided - Pitting Gandhi against Ambedkar - The Indian Express
Mushirul Hasan
()
6 September 1997
Title: A legacy divided - Pitting Gandhi against Ambedkar
Author: Mushirul Hasan
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: September 6, 1997
A leading newsmagazine published excepts from the well-advertised book of
Patrick French. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the obvious target. The
editor was delighted, but the readers were not amused. It was unmistakably
clear from their sharp reactions that Gandhi still commands widespread
respect in our society. This was not all. Quite a few readers recounted the
high standards of morality set by the Mahatma during his long and eventful
public life, and remembered the days when he and his spirited followers
launched their epic struggle against colonialism. They invoked the image of
a self-sacrificing and devoted leader to draw a comparison with the conduct
and performance of the gold-diggers of free India.
This is good news, though not much cause for comfort. Gandhi's charisma
does not, after all, work everywhere. He fails to inspire confidence
amongst the Muslim intelligentsia owing to his frequent use of Hinduised
idioms and symbols. He is not appropriated by the feminist movement. even
though he brought thousands of women into public life and gave them high
social and political visibility. His standing among the Dalits has
plummeted over the years as more and more evidence is brought to light to
establish the limitations of his campaign against untouchability. He is an
anathema to left-wing group, though some feeble attempts are now being made
to assess his role afresh. The Hindu nationalists have consistently
repudiated his legacy, though for altogether different reasons.
The disconcerting factor is that the young know precious little about the
Mahatma. He is a remote, distant, shadowy figure to them. destined to fade
into oblivion. No wonder, not many have heard of Kheda, Champaran, Wardha
or the Sabarmati Ashram or are familiar with the Rowlatt Satyagraha, the
Non-Cooperation campaign, the Dandi March and the Quit India movement. It
may well be that the future generations may not even recognise the dusty
portraits of the Mahatma that hang callously in public buildings.
Part of the responsibility rests with the self-styled Gandhians who have
done little to dispel the widespread impression that Gandhi's legacy is out
of place in the 'modern' project of nation-building. By projecting their
mentor as a spiritual leader imbued with the mission to transform the world
in the traditions of Hindu saints, they diminished his appeal to the
generations after Independence. By elevating him to the dizzy heights of a
saint and making him appear different from the rest of his contemporaries
they have ignored the fact that Gandhi was a 'modern' man with 'modern' goals.
If I sound unduly alarmist, somebody should tell me why college and
university students kept quiet when Mayawati launched her tirade against
the Mahatma? Why the national newspapers failed to highlight the widespread
desecration of his statues in Andhra Pradesh on August 15, 1997, in the
50th year of Independence? Why is Gandhi not the symbol of popular
mobilisation against the instruments of oppression and exploitation? Why
is the landscape in Uttar Pradesh dotted with statues of B.R. Ambedkar and
not Gandhi?
True, a wide gulf separated the two men. As the supreme leader of a
powerful national organisation, Gandhi's chief concern was to weld the
different castes and communities into a coherent whole and evolve a
nationwide consensus on political and social issues. He acted, though often
subtly, as an arbiter of class and caste-based disputes from his own moral
and philosophical standpoint. The Socialist or Marxist blueprints did not
excite his imagination. Though acutely sensitive to the caste-class
contradictions, he was wary of a prescription that would lead to a class
war and disturb his vision of a moral order.
Ambedkar was a reformer, an outstanding mobiliser and a major catalyst for
social change in India. But he was no fire-spitting radical. He was
comfortable in the council chambers, prepared to negotiate with the
colonial government to extract concessions for his constituency, and
operate within the institutional framework. He could have easily, occupied
a pivotal position in the Congress hierarchy if he was not so violently
opposed to the Mahatma's spirited defence of the Varna system. He could
well have been an integral part of the Congress establishment had Gandhi
not gone on fast against the government's decision to grant separate
electorates to the 'Harijans' in 1931. The fast, according to Ambedkar, was
the worst form of coercion against a helpless people, "a vile and wicked
act". "How can the untouchables", he asked, "regard such a man as honest
and sincere?"
Regardless of such recriminations, Gandhi and Ambedkar were not poles
apart. Admittedly, they had different roles to play in the political
spectrum. At the same time, they had much the same social agenda, though
their perception of the ground realities was at variance with each other.
They did not differ vastly in their reading of the transformative processes
that were at work in Indian society. Although they plotted different
strategies to deal with social and economic disparities and inequities,
both were passionately committed to the uplift of the poor and the
down-trodden. The difference was that, Gandhi appealed to and
systematically cultivated a national constituency, whereas Ambedkar was
principally concerned with the victims of social degradation, caste
violence and discrimination.
Ambedkar's project rested on undermining the traditional social order,
while Gandhi's interest was to preserve the traditional social equilibrium
in Indian society. The Mahatma's contribution -- one that needs to be
reiterated time and again -- was to raise his determined voice against all
forms of oppression perpetrated by the British and their collaborators,
i.e. the landlord and the moneylender. He not only energised his countrymen
to embark on a programme of national regeneration but also fostered, as the
social scientist Bhikhu Parekh describes, their cultural and moral
autonomy, self-respect and pride. Above all, he lifted "that black pall of
fear... from the people's shoulders, not wholly of course, but to an
amazing degree". He brought about "a psychological change almost as if some
expert in psychoanalytical methods had probed deep into the patient's past,
found out the origins of his complexes, exposed them to his view, and thus
rid him of that burden" (Jawaharlal Nehru).
The task of delineating the nature of Gandhi-Ambedkar differences should be
left to the social historian and to scholars of Indian nationalism. For
the time being, it is possible to benefit from the perceptions and
experiences of both these men. There is enough space for different voices
to be heard. There are enough people willing to listen to Gandhi as well
as Ambedkar. Why, then, set up one against the other? Why repudiate one
in favour of the other? A dispirited nation can ill-afford to divide its
own rich legacy.
Back
Top
|
