Gandhi must be viewed through Dr. Ambedkar’s lenses as he is a core part of India’s international reputation

*Paromita Das
Perhaps one of India’s most well-known figures, both at home and abroad, is Mahatma Gandhi. However, for the majority of people, one’s knowledge of him is limited to what has been pieced together by the oppressive Indian state through commemorative rituals, official holidays, banknotes, street names, statues, and textbooks.
In addition to these, there are numerous apocryphal writings that praise the delicacy of his sainthood and the cleverness of his protest, both of which are all too common.

In addition, he is revered as the father of the nation, the founder of Satyagraha, and the father of nonviolence.

In other words, Gandhi has contributed significantly to the way the world perceives India.
This essay attempts to reconstruct Gandhi through the eyes of Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar on the occasion of the anniversary of his birth.

What did Ambedkar, the man we believed to be responsible for upholding our constitution, have to say about Gandhi, the Mahatma? Gandhi was never a Mahatma, and Ambedkar refused to use the term “Mahatma” when speaking to the BBC in 1955.

Gandhi was not a reformer, Ambedkar claims in an audio recording of the interview that has been posted to YouTube. Ambedkar claimed that Gandhi “was not an epoch maker; he was just an episode in the history of India.”

Although some Gandhian scholars have dismissed Ambedkar’s description of Gandhi as mere “polemic,” I would contend that his scathing criticism is the result of logical analysis and philosophical disagreement rather than animosity toward Gandhi as a political rival.

Ambedkar identified Gandhism as a perilous doctrine after carefully examining the social and economic tenets of the Gandhian philosophy.

A perfect caste system was Gandhi’s suggested solution for a perfect society. Gandhi was a staunch supporter of the caste system up until 1922. He openly supported the continuation of the caste because he saw its great value.
Gandhi extolled caste as the reason Hindu society endured, the source of swaraj (freedom), a special organizational power, a way to raise a defense force, a way to practise self-control, the natural order of society, and most importantly, the timeless principle of hereditary occupation for upholding social order.

Gandhi enumerates all these benefits of caste before saying, “These being my views, I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”
Gandhi later changed his terminology from caste to varna.

Gandhi stated that varna, rather than caste, was his social ideal in around 1925. The smaller castes should unite to “reproduce the old system of four varnas,” he advised. According to the outdatedvarna system that predominated in ancient India, society was divided into four vertically hierarchical classes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, whose socially prescribed professions were education, warfare, trade, and service to the aforementioned three varnas, respectively. Gandhi’s varna ideal preserved the hereditary occupation from the caste model, so Ambedkar saw little change in Gandhi’s views.
Ambedkar correctly noted that the Shudras would still remain a subservient class even in a Gandhian utopia. Additionally, Dalits of today were to be assimilated into the Shudravarna.

The Gandhian economic ideal offended Ambedkar’s modernist sensibilities just as much.

Gandhi was opposed to modern civilization and machinery. Ambedkar contends, however, that leisure time is made possible for people by modern technology. And leisure is the main prerequisite for culture and civilization to flourish, which makes human life deserving of being lived.
Second, the Gandhian concept of “trusteeship” purports to aim to end class conflict in the interactions between employers and employees as well as between landlords and tenants. Ambedkar, an economist by training, had little faith in the idea of the wealthy defending the interests of the underprivileged.

Gandhismis a “conservatism in excelsis,” according to Ambedkar, which “helps the possessors to keep what they possess and prevents the possessees from obtaining what they are legally entitled to.”

Ambedkar claimed that Gandhian philosophy was only appropriate for the wealthy leisure class, and the socioeconomic status of the current Gandhian torchbearers supports his claim.

Ambedkar analyses Gandhi’s ideals and comes to the conclusion that they are inappropriate for the aspirations of a democratic society.
Ambedkar criticizes Gandhi’s heavily Brahminized status-quo ideas from his unique perspective as a “untouchable” and philosopher. The fundamental conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi is not merely personal; rather, it is a perfect example of the caste-based divisions that run deep and wide throughout India’s social fabric.

There is no question that we need more of Ambedkar and Gandhi in the world today.

Gandhi needs to understand how a Brahminized consciousness functions, despite its best efforts. On the other hand, Ambedkar is essential for forging the tools necessary to dissect and repurpose neo-Brahminical forces’ strategies in the struggle against the hydra-headed caste monster.