Dr. Meti Mallikarjun
Sahyadri Arts College, Kuvempu University , Vidyanagara, Shivamogga
Part - 1
Introduction: Reshaping the Perception of Caste:
Ambedkar is one of the most influential and important thinkers of India, who initiated a very radical political debate on the annihilation of caste and the caste system in India in his groundbreaking text ‘The Annihilation of Caste’. For Dr. B. R Ambedkar, every dialogue was fundamentally political and social; there is nothing outside sociopolitical contexts. He firmly believed that moral and ethical responsibilities are more important for intellectuals. Therefore, the self-reflective questions that are posed in The Annihilation of Caste are based on solid ethical grounds. The quest of this particular text is not only to underscore the hegemonic structures of Hinduism but also to address the larger questions of the struggle for the survival of the oppressed, depressed, and suppressed classes of India for millennia. The high quality of morality is very visible throughout the text that persuades and provides arguments and analysis towards annihilating caste. However, one would argue that several radical thinkers and bhakti movements have analyzed and dealt with the discourse of caste. Indeed, the critique of caste has a long history in India. Nevertheless, Dr. Ambedkar discussed the caste and caste system with a plethora of ethical questions with different theoretical and epistemic realities. The epistemic premises and objectives that Ambedkar provides in this text are explanatory. They are also substantiated with shreds of evidence from Hindu epistemic texts (Dharmashastras). One would obviously realize that Hindu epistemologies intrinsically legitimize the caste system and encourage the practice of violence through the Varna system. In fact, it is very significant to raise the question as to what a genuine method is to annihilate caste. Religious concepts are the buttresses of the Varna and Caste system in India. All these epistemic systems (Dharmashastras) of Hinduism validate caste practices. Hence, it is obligatory to eradicate religious concepts and practices, which pave the way to deconstruct the caste system. Therefore, The Annihilation of Caste is one of the painstaking yet significant texts of the 20th century for the following reasons:
Annihilation of Caste is a very fine and rigorous text, which deals with the caste system and its annihilation.
The very discourse of the annihilation of caste is not only a rational phenomenon but also a pragmatic reality.
Many a time, people have argued that this text dwells between the ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ dichotomy. Nevertheless, the fact is, this text engages with self-criticism, without which knowledge does not exist in any given society. In other words, self-criticism of course establishes the bedrock of self-knowledge. The phenomenon of self-criticism is vital, without which no self-knowledge can be generated in society; self-criticism is obviously the founding principle of self-knowledge. This particular reality also leads to the progress and refinement of a society. Dr. Ambedkar’s critical perspectives on The Annihilation of Caste, in other words, are nothing but self-criticism (Xavier Mao & Subhash C Arya, 2015).
Dr. Ambedkar encountered social ostracism and all types of social humiliations in every walk of his life. This is still the routine for millions in India, although they are not responsible for such humiliation. Dr. Ambedkar undeniably was a great man and a great philosopher who devoted his life to the socio-political welfare of these millions. In addition, he never thought to extract “revenge” for all that agony and humiliations that he suffered in his life. Therefore, it is obvious that The Annihilation of Caste is not polemical in nature but radical. ‘Among the numerous writings and speeches of Ambedkar that run into thousands of pages, The Annihilation of Caste is indeed his magnum opus. Judging by any criterion such as content, logic, argument, language, diction, exposition, urge and, above all, the force, it is a manifesto of social emancipation, and occupies a place similar to what The Communist Manifesto once did in the world communist movement’ (Bhalchandra Mungekar, 2011). It is true that The Annihilation of Caste is a profound text in which Ambedkar raised many genuine questions regarding the Varna system and division of labor by contesting the legitimacy doctrine of Hindu Dharmashastras and Manusmruthi. The most important aspects of The Annihilation of Caste are the Hindu Dharmashastras and the concept of caste that destroy the ethics and morals of Indian societies. Ambedkar’s critique of the Varna and caste system in India has appeared to be a challenge to the Hinduism. Gandhi explicitly pronounced in his Harijan paper that “Ambedkar is challenge to Hinduism”. The letter correspondence that took place between Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore and between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar provides an indication that self-proclaimed social reformists and progressives did want to annihilate caste; however, instead of annihilation of caste, they were in fact trapped in the caste system. This also reiterates the hegemonic and power relations, which are associated with caste and the Varna system in India. However, The Annihilation of caste was a speech, which Ambedkar prepared for Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal’s annual lecture series in 1936 for a privileged caste audience. This speech was never delivered by Ambedkar for this privileged audience (Ananda, P.9).
This text is not only important in its historical context alone but in the present-day situation also, because it holds significance. In India, ‘social efficiency’ has not been accomplished so far. Ambedkar interpreted the idea of social efficiency that deals with the mode of living or ‘social endosmosis’ in the text, and he talks about the present-day caste system in India. ‘It was at one time recognized that without social efficiency, no permanent progress in the other fields of activity was possible; that owing to mischief wrought by evil customs, Hindu society was not in a state of efficiency; and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils’ (AOC, P11). In order to achieve political progress of a generation, the minds and souls of the suppressed people must be liberated from slavery. In other words, political reformists cannot simply get away from the social conflicts that arise within a social system and create constitution.
Part – II
Division of Labor VS Division of Laborers:
It is evident that the way that social reformists handled the caste system in India was neither theoretically nor politically justifiable. This is because there has consistently been a conflict between the mode of social reformation and social reformists in the process of annihilation of caste. Indian socialists blindly imitate their rational pursuit that is rooted in Europe. A person has the power or authority to control the freedom of another by religion, social status, and property. One of these three is a predominant phenomenon in a particular time; likewise, another may be prominent in another time. Indian socialists explain history based on economic views alone. History can also be explained contrary to this argument. The only real reformation is to make the property equilibrium equal to all the deprived communities. The arguments of the socialists as contested by Ambedkar is, ‘If liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man holds over another, then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of power and dominion is, at any given time or in any given society, social and religious, then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform. One can thus attack the doctrine of the Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the Socialists of India. But I recognize that the economic interpretation of history is not necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that equalization of property is the only real reform and that it must precede everything else. However, what I would like to ask the Socialists is this: Can you have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the social order? The Socialists of India do not seem to have considered this question’ (AOC, P15). All in all, Ambedkar is trying to make this point: it is the painful truth that even today, there are plentiful people who justify the caste system in India. Such people generally argue that the caste system is an alternative name for the division of labor. They further continue their argument as follows: this division of labor is the characteristic feature of a reformed society and not a defect. However, the fact is that the caste system is not only a division of labor. In fact, it is a division of laborers. The caste system (process) submits to the traditional rules of a society by ignoring man's natural interests and abilities. Therefore, analyzing the caste system through economic perspectives alone is very dangerous.
Some people justify the caste system based on the principle of racial purity. It is also argued that the very purpose of the caste system is to preserve racial purity. According to ethnologists, there is no racial purity across the world. Racial hybridization is a common phenomenon throughout the globe. Dr. Ambedkar places this in a rational context: ‘It is said that the object of caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of blood. Now, ethnologists are of the opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world. Especially is this the case with the people of India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper on "Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population" has stated that "There is hardly a class or caste in India which has not a foreign strain in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior classes —the Rajputs and the Marathas—but also among the Brahmins who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements.” The caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of preventing the admixture of races, or as a means of maintaining purity of blood’ (AOC, P.17). In fact, the caste system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. The concepts such as ‘purity of race’ and ‘purity of blood’ are inconsiderate of the realities of a multicultural society. The caste system is not only a distinction of race but also a sociocultural distinction. This distinction is very much visible in Indian societies that demarcate within the racial affinity of caste system. Consequently, we find individual consciousness among the Hindu castes instead of the collective consciousness, which is absent among these Hindu castes. There is an intensive hierarchy in the caste system to protect the interest of a particular caste, which turns into antisocial reality. It is affirmed based that caste system does not demarcate within the race but it demarcates a social division of people of the same race. Many irrelevant discussions about heredity and eugenics have been in circulation for a long time in India in defense of the caste system. The sense of caste has been very strong throughout history. As a result, the memories of the caste and creed have remained permanently. These memories obviously hinder unification among the Hindu castes. The so-called upper castes in Hindus did not culturally raise the lower castes up to their level. The unequal structures that exist in Hindu castes reflect upon multilingual and multicultural fabrication of India. Dr. Ambedkar has explicated refractions of caste and sub-castes of Hinduism as ‘If Caste is eugenic in origin, then the origin of sub-castes must also be eugenic. But can anyone seriously maintain that the origin of sub-castes is eugenic? I think it would be absurd to contend for such a proposition, and for a very obvious reason. If caste means race, then differences of sub-castes cannot mean differences of race, because sub-castes become ex hypothesia [= by hypothesis] sub-divisions of one and the same race. Consequently, the bar against intermarrying and inter-dining between sub-castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining purity of race or of blood. If sub-castes cannot be eugenic in origin, there cannot be any substance in the contention that Caste is eugenic in origin’ (AOC, P 18). This critique of Hinduism postulates some uncomfortable understandings regarding caste system and sub-castes within itself. Hinduism is no longer a missionary religion at present. Was the Hindu religion ever a missionary religion? This is a controversial question. The real question is that Hinduism has not continued as a missionary religion. This is because the Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System arose among the Hindus.
Part – III
Critique of Hinduism and Unresolved Questions:
Dr. Ambedkar critically examines the caste system and Varna practice in Hindu religion, which created cultural bias and an antisocial attitude amongst Hindus on the one hand. On the other, how communal animosity is being planted in India was elaborated with substantial evidence from Hindu Dharmashastras. Ambedkar decisively believes that a multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious society must be a democratic space in which social cohesion is supposed to be the sociocultural reality. As far as Ambedkar conception of society, a society is not merely based on sociopolitical infrastructure but also a combination of an emotional and cultural unity. Religious diversity is not necessarily a structure of cultural unity in countries like India. It might even be a political chaos. Every sort of chaos is visible in present-day society in every sphere of our lives. Caste is one such chaotic reality of our present social milieu in India. Therefore, it is strongly felt that religion (Hinduism) has become the ultimate purpose of our lives. Be it nation, nationalism, political strategy, economic efficiency, education etc., in every walk of our lives we confront religion or caste. However, the question of untouchability has not yet been resolved due to Hinduism and caste system that has existed permanently in India. Caste is the major cause for sociocultural deterioration in India. It is appropriate to quote Arundhati Roy to understand the sociocultural deterioration in India: ‘What we call the caste system today is known in Hinduism’s founding texts as varnashrama dharma or chaturvarna, the system of four varnas. The approximately four thousand endogamous castes and sub-castes (jatis) in Hindu society, each with its own specified hereditary occupation, are divided into four varnas—Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (soldiers), Vaishyas (traders) and Shudras (servants). Outside of these varnas are the avarna castes, the Ati-Shudras, subhumans, arranged in hierarchies of their own—the Untouchables, the Unseeables, the Unapproachables—whose presence, whose touch, whose very shadow is considered to be polluting by privileged-caste Hindus. In some communities, to prevent inbreeding, each endogamous caste is divided into exogamous gotras. Exogamy is then policed with as much ferocity as endogamy—with beheadings and lynchings that have the approval of the community elders’ (P 15). These words endorse the reality of caste that we experience every day in India. The fissures and cracks that we experience in and around in our routine lives are caste related and caste centric alone. Caste appears implicitly in every form of our lives and every practice of our lives. Despite that, we survive in the Indian (Hindu) social system expecting democratic values (liberty, equality, and fraternity) that Dr. Ambedkar proposed in The Annihilation of Caste. These values are not merely intended to bring revolutionary changes in our societies but to bring pragmatic changes in our lives through which we can accomplish these democratic values. However, it is more applicable to consider ‘The Annihilation of Caste’ as a pragmatic and rational text rather a polemical text. Therefore, this text inspires and motivates to denounce the Hinduism. Denouncing a religion means to reconfigure that religion according to our social fabrication and passions. Moreover, there is the aspiration for a good life and an enduring sociocultural and political atmosphere. The Khairlanji massacre is a notorious example that depicts the sociocultural animosity of India. Feelings of intercommunal hatred have not emerged from trivial issues like drawing water from public wells or building roads to Dalit lands; it arose from the religion of Hinduism. Hence, Dr. Ambedkar remarks, ‘Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. For a writer to have to use terms like ‘Untouchable’, ‘Scheduled Caste’, ‘Backward Class’ and ‘Other Backward Classes’ to describe fellow human beings is like living in a chamber of horrors. Since Ambedkar used the word ‘Untouchable’ with a cold rage, without flinching, so must I. Today, ‘Untouchable’ has been substituted with the Marathi word ‘Dalit’ (Broken People), which is in turn used interchangeably with ‘Scheduled Caste’ (Arundhati Roy, P.13). Of course, it is always possible to debate upon whether the term ‘Dalit’ is correct or incorrect for use as a substitute for untouchables.
Currently, discussing the notion of ‘Dalit’ is irrelevant. Nevertheless, the kind of cultural politics that occurs in such debates is very relevant for discussion. The text ‘Annihilation of Caste’ clearly embraces the interpretations of cultural politics that intrinsically exist in the Hinduism. In relation to any sort of sociocultural phenomenon, it is impossible to address cultural politics without the question of caste and its representation. The question of caste representation cannot be excluded from the caste circuit. The solid foundation for annihilating caste is very well developed theoretically in the text. With this spirit, Dr. Ambedkar has provided a very objective view of the annihilation of caste, claiming that caste prevents Hindus from forming a real society or nation. Dr. Ambedkar has very well explicated all these realities in the text ‘Annihilation of Caste’. He says, ‘The Hindus often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System. One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the Germans enjoyed singing their hymn of hate against the English during the last war (=World War I). The literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of literature’ (P.19-20).
Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism and its basic assumptions paved the way for annihilating caste and caste practice in India. Hinduism conspired to keep lower castes down (who are within the pale of Hinduism) from rising to the cultural level of the higher castes. Caste deprives Hindus of mutual help, trust, and a sense of fellow being. As a result, the sense of ‘fraternity’ has never been accomplished among the Hindus just because of caste system. Due to the implications of the caste system and as long as caste system persists, organization (Sanghatane) becomes impossible among Hindus. They do claim that they are ‘tolerant’ but this is not true. Correspondingly, in India, social reformation has not taken place significantly even after attainment of independence. When caste becomes a powerful weapon, it prevents all sorts of social reforms. Dr. Ambedkar states this very effectively: ‘The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own independence and interest—as over against group standards, group authority, and group interests—is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such individuals, they will continue to assert [their beliefs], and in the end will succeed in converting their fellows. On the other hand, if the group is intolerant and does not bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals, they will perish, and the reform will die out’ (AOC, P22). These words expound the present-day realities that Hindus ethics and morals are miserable because of persistence of caste system, since the caste destroys public opinion, public spirit, and public charity. The fact of the matter is that annihilating caste system is the only solution to liberate Hindus from this miserable condition. Hence, for Ambedkar, an ideal society should be based on democratic values such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, in which social cohesion is, underlies the new social order.
Part – IV
Contentions against Vicious system of ‘Chaturvarnya’:
Dr. Ambedkar was not merely interested in annihilating caste but wishing to establish a social democracy based upon the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Ambedkar envisioned a new social order of India to eradicate the Varna or caste system of Hindus and untouchability. The theory of the Chaturvarnya system was the foundation for the degeneration of the present social system of India. As per Ambedkar’s understanding goes, annihilation of caste is a devastation of unscientific, irrational, and inhuman Chaturvarnya system. Ambedkar constituted his arguments regarding the eradication of both caste and Varna system based upon scientific and democratic perceptions. In order to propose his ideal society (i.e., a new social order), he thoroughly studied ancient history and literature related to the Chaturvarnya system. He particularly concentrated on the Vedas, epics, Puranas, Smruthis, Dharmashastras, and Upanishads in order to disprove the very basis of Varna system. He also condemned and severally criticized this Varna and caste system of the Hindus because of its antisocial and inhuman values. He was also concerned about commentaries on these Vedas. Ambedkar did not simply criticize Chaturvarnya; he substantiated his critique of Varna system by quoting the hymns and references from the Vedas and Upanishads to prove that how these shastras are inhuman and disruptive.
Dr. Ambedkar raises a very genuine question regarding the evil practices of Chaturvarnya system of Hinduism: why have there not been social revolutions in India? It is very evident that there was no subaltern insurgency that emerged to protest the social evils of Chaturvarnya system. This system weakened the backward and marginalized communities of Hindus to the extent that they could not revolt against the Chaturvarnya practice. Shudras had no ideas to find their liberation from the evil practice of Hindus. They were confined to the bottom of the Hindu society forever. They could not understand the path for their liberation; there was not even scope for their liberation. They have adjusted permanently with slavery that is imposed by Hindus. Moreover, they firmly believed that this was their fate.
The Chaturvarnya system is not a new system. It is as old as Vedas. This is one of the reasons why we are asked by Aryasamajists to consider its claim (AOC, p28). Human society has never been achieved as a unified organization because nowhere is human society one single whole. In this process, an individual is one limit and the society the other. Between these extremes, the social institutions, i.e., family and caste system prevailed throughout history. Without changing your social settings, I can undoubtedly say that you cannot achieve any progress.
Dr. Ambedkar always confronted a perennial question: what is the viable to reform the Hindu society and its system? How does it possible to annihilate caste? These are very important questions. It is very strongly felt that the first and foremost step in the process of annihilation of caste is to abolish the sub-caste system. This reality based upon the disparity that exists between castes, but this is more prominent among sub-caste groups. Ambedkar firmly believed that inter-caste marriage is the appropriate idea to eradicate caste system. Blood relation is a principal reality to raise bonding between castes among sub-castes of the Hindu fold. Ambedkar’s analysis of caste practice is not an allegation but a social diagnosis through which he envisioned in bringing a new social order by replacing the Chaturvarnya system of Hindus. Nonetheless, he says, ‘Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man's inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy you must grapple with is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras, which teach them this religion of Caste. Criticizing and ridiculing people for not inter-dining or inter-marrying, or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating inter-caste marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras’ (AOC, p 31). This argument is not opinionated but objective adequacy. The beliefs and opinions of people are being molded by the Shastras in Hinduism. Ambedkar attempts in changing the whole paradigm of social order that comprises many evil practices to bring a new social order. All the same, Ambedkar postulates new social order to destroy Chaturvarnya system, that is, the vicious practices of the caste system. Questioning the authority of (Hindu) religion is of supreme importance in his analysis of the Shastras.
The Chaturvarnya system is irrational and inhuman because it is an incongruous way of carrying out social reform. Hence, Ambedkar was critical about Hindu reformers since they tend to reaffirm the Chaturvarnya system: ‘How do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mold the beliefs and opinions of the people? Not to question the authority of the Shastras—to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions, and then to blame the people and to criticize them for their acts as being irrational and inhuman—is an incongruous way of carrying on social reform. Reformers working for the removal of untouchability, including Mahatma Gandhi, do not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs inculcated in their minds by the Shastras, and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded’ (ibid, p 31). Indeed, he has chosen a viable path to get rid of the Hindu Shastras, i.e. the Buddha’s Path. Choosing Buddha’s path means not just to dissent the Shastras but denial of the authority of these Shastras. Besides, it is important to note that Ambedkar finally took Buddha’s path to pave the way to destroying the caste system and denying the authority of Hindu Shastras. He was very sure about the destruction of the caste system, without which internal reform is virtually impossible. There are no similarities within the same caste across India, for example, Brahmins of north India and Brahmins of Deccan and south India in terms of both power and social status. This difference reflects upon other sociocultural practices of the Brahmins of both north and south (regions). However, Ambedkar designed a plan of action to abolish the caste system. This plan of action includes: changing social order, reforming of Hindu social order, food practices, easy transition from one caste to another caste, and the fusion of the Kayastas of northern India and the other non-Brahmins of southern India. The very important objective of this plan of action of abolishing of caste is to begin the practices of inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriage.
Part – V
Annihilation of Caste: What else?
All issues that Ambedkar dealt with in the annihilation of caste are directly related to untouchables, oppressed classes, and the issue of reconstruction of Hindu social order. Besides, he identified all sociopolitical issues in relation with the Hindu caste system and the question of untouchability. He has not only contested the philosophy of Hindus, Chaturvarnya system, and the characterization of theory of caste and features of Hindu social order. His architecture of an ideal society is based on democratic values and ethics. He has also presented the model of a new social order based on Buddha’s philosophy. He has advocated firmly in the ‘Annihilation of Caste’ that the real key to destroying caste is the rejection of the Shastras. A New Social Order is only possible by changing the present social order (i.e., Hinduism), which can lead to the progress of depressed, oppressed, and suppressed classes. Ambedkar has felt very strongly that unless the caste system is abolished and the Shastras are rejected, it is impossible to mobilize the community for either defense or offence.
An ideal society (New Social Order) cannot be built on the foundation of caste. Further, he emphasized that caste system can never promote either nation-building or morality. Caste cannot be the reinforcement for a society as a single whole. Ambedkar has highlighted how caste can be the vicious circle of a society: ‘The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which Caste has become invested. In the last analysis, this means you must destroy the authority of the Shastras and the Vedas’. He further continues, ‘I have emphasized this question of the ways and means of destroying Caste, because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is more important than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and means, all your shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct, then your task is herculean. You alone can say whether you are capable of achieving it’ (ibid, p 32). Overall, Ambedkar has proved that how caste can be dominating and dominated simultaneously in terms of power relations and social positions. The question of Dharma and intellectualism are very prominent in the process of annihilation of caste. Both Dharma and intellectualism pose stereotypical hindrances in destroying the caste system and its immoral & unethical responsibilities. To justify this, I quote Ambedkar, ‘You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound up with one single caste; that this intellectual class should share the interest and the aspirations of that Brahmin caste and should be a class which has regarded itself as the custodian of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains that the Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class, but it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus.
The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth). The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu says, "If it be asked how, it should be with respect to points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is, that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force".
When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote’ (ibid, p 33). Ambedkar has also made a statement that ‘destroying caste would not destroy the true principles of religion’. He justifies this statement by distinguishing between concepts, principles, and rules. Rules are practical and prescriptive; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. Principles are intellectual, rational, and scientific; they are useful methods of judging things. The parametric conditions of principles and rules are important to understand the totality of arguments of The Annihilation of Caste.
Works Cited and Reference
Ambedkar, B. R 1936, Annihilation of Caste, Columbia University, USA
Anand, S 2014, The Doctor and the Saint (edited and annotated- Introduction by Arundhati Roy) Annihilation of Caste, Navayana Publishing Pvt Ltd.
"A Vindication of Caste by Mahatma Gandhi". Columbia University. Harijan. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
Deepak Mahadeo Rao Wankhede, 2009, Geographical Thought of Doctor B.R. Ambedkar. Gautam Book Center.
Mungekar, Bhalchandra. 2007, ‘Dr. Ambedkar’s Interpretation of Buddhism and Its Contemporary Relevance.’ In Buddhism and the Contemporary World: An Ambedkarian Perspective, edited by Bhalchandra Mungekar and Aakash Singh Rathmore, 49–56. New Delhi: Bookwell.
Mungekar, Bhalchandra. 2011, Special Write Up on Annihilating caste in Frontline (Print edition July 29), Hindu Group Chennai.
Rodrigues, Valerian, 2002. The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar.New Delhi: OUP.
Timothy Fitzgerald. The Ideology of Religious Studies. Oxford University Press.
Teltumbde, Anand. "An Ambedkar for our times". The Hindu. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
We Need Ambedkar--Now, urgently..." Outlook. The Outlook Group. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
Xavier Mao & Subhash C Arya, 2015, Relevance of Undelivered Presidential Address on “Annihilation of Caste” by Baba Saheb Dr. Ambedkar after 76 Years of its existence,”
Comments