Ideological Differences and Similarities between Gandhi and Ambedkar

Gandhi, the principal architect of the Indian freedom struggle, and B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution of independent India, shared many ideas, though in many ways

they held different beliefs. There is a striking similarity in the symbolisim involved in some of the actions of both individuals. The burning of foreign cloth by Gandhi and the burning of Manusmriti by Ambedkar are not to be seen as mere acts of sentiment. Rather, foreign cloth and Manusmriti represented the bondage and slavery for India. So too, a pinch of salt from the ocean, and a drop of water from the Mahad tank were acts of political catharsis and social philosophy.

Gandhi believed that freedom was never to be bestowed but to be wrested from the authority by the people who desire it, whereas Ambedkar expected bestowing of freedom by the imperial rulers.

The two leaders differed over the nature and scope of democracy as a method of government. Ambedkar advocated parliamentary system of government for independent India, but Gandhi had very little respect for the parliamentary system of governance. Gandhi believed that democracy tends to get converted into mass democracy with a propensity for domination by leaders. Ambedkar was inclined towards mass democracy as it could act as a pressure on the government with the advancement of the oppressed people.

As a political and social activist, Ambedkar had certain principles which were very rigid, while Gandhi had no rigidities of ideology or principles except the uncompromising notion of non-violence. Gandhi tried to put forward simple practical alternatives to the political streams of the twentieth century like liberalism, communism and fascism. Ambedkar, on the other hand, had a natural inclination for liberal ideology and desired institutional framework and structures. Ambedkar’s politics tended to highlight the aspect of Indian disunity whereas the Gandhian politics tried to show the aspect of Indian unity. In ‘Hind Swaraj’, Gandhi tries to prove that India has always been a nation prior to the beginning of the imperial rule and it was the British rule who broke this cultural unity. Ambedkar, on the other hand, believed in the notion that Indian unity was the by-product of the legal system introduced by the imperial state.

For Gandhi, ‘Gramraj’ was ‘Ramraj’ and real independence for Indians. But for Ambedkar, the status-quoist nature of the Indian villages denied equality and fraternity and also liberty. As the scourge of casteism and untouchability

was most dominant in the rural areas of India, Ambedkar believed that ‘Gramraj’ would continue the social hierarchy based on discrimination and inequality. So he vehemently propagated that there was nothing to be of proud of the Indian village system.

The idea of the use of compulsion or force for social integration as well as social reforms was negated by Ambedkar. But the idea of proper education to make the individual desire for change, reform and integration was the stance where the views of two leaders were the same.

The two leaders also differed in their views and approaches in respect of the context of development for deprived classes. For instance, when Gandhi named the depressed classes and the untouchables as ‘Harijan’, Ambedkar denounced it as a clever scheme. Thus, when the Depressed Classes League was renamed as Harijan Sevak Sangh (by Gandhi), Ambedkar left the organisation by claiming that for Gandhi removal of untouchability was only a platform, not a sincere programme.

Ambedkar held that the centre of religion must be between man and man, and not between man and God alone, as preached by Gandhi. In the beginning, Ambedkar too wanted to cast away the evil practices prevalent in Hinduism in an attempt to reform and reconstruct, rather than destroy it fully. But in the later phase of his life, he left Hinduism, denouncing it as an entity which couldn’t be reformed.

Ambedkar denounced the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. He believed that the Hindu scriptures do not lend themselves to a unified and coherent understanding, and reflect strong contradictions within and across sects. And the caste system and untouchability were the manifestations of the Hindu religious scriptures. On the contrary, Gandhi held that caste system in Hinduism has nothing to do with religious precepts and spirituality. For Gandhi, caste and varna are different, and caste is perversive degeneration.

In political precepts, Ambedkar believed in freedom of religion, free citizenship and separation of State and religion. Gandhi also endorsed the idea of freedom of religion, but never approved a separation of politics and religion. But religion as an agent of social change was well accepted by both leaders. Both denounced in theory and thinking anything

that either decried or diminished the role of religion in the life of an individual or in the life of society.

Ambedkar envisaged limited sovereign power of the State and, following from that, limited authority for the government. According him, legal sovereign power should be limited and people should be the ultimate sovereign. Gandhi too believed in limited sovereign power of the State. According to him, absolute sovereign power of the State would annihilate the spirit and personality of an individual. Gandhi, in fact, believed in least governance being the best governance.

The notions of violence and non-violence got differing explanations from Gandhi and Ambedkar. Ambedkar held absolute non-violence as an end and relative violence as a means, whereas Gandhi never made such a distinction and was an avowed opponent of violence of any kind.

Ambedkar believed in purity of ends and justified means as just when the ends were just. Whereas in Gandhian perception it was purity of means that determined the end. Gandhi and Ambedkar differed greatly in their views concerning mechanisation of production and utilisation of heavy machinery. Gandhi was apprehensive about the de- humanising impact of mechanisation and held it responsible for the creation as well as sustaining of exploitative socio- economic orders in the world. Ambedkar, on the other hand, attributed the evil effect of machinery to wrong social organisations that gave sanctity to private property and the pursuit of personal gains. Ambedkar was of the firm belief that machinery and modern civilisation were of benefit to all, and held that the slogan of a democratic society must be machinery and more machinery, civilisation and more

civilisation.

The idea of social transformation through democratic and peaceful means got support from Ambedkar as well as

View

It would thus appear that Ambedkar and Gandhi had common allergy for social evil and imperial injustice. But a fundamental difference, more apparent than real, demarcated the two minds.

—Justice Krishna Iyer

Gandhi. They never sought a violent overthrow of any kind. Ambedkar desisted from pleading a blunt destruction of the social order, however, evil it was. And like Gandhi, he wanted to solve the problem of social disharmony and disintegration through peaceful rehabilitation of the oppressed classes.

The target groups of Ambedkar and Gandhi were different, even though they converged at certain points. The methods and skills of communication and mobilisation of both were different. Gandhi spoke in plain local vernacular, whereas Ambedkar spoke in English.

To disobey the law to make the law more just was a Gandhian principle; its outward manifestations were non- cooperation, hartal, satyagraha and civil disobedience. Ambedkar was more inclined towards the observance of law and constitutionality in the political process.

Gandhi viewed the untouchables as an integral part of the Hindu whole, whereas Ambedkar had an ambivalent stand on the issue. Ambedkar regarded the untouchables as a religious minority and not a part of the Hindu community, and preferred to call them a ‘political minority’ or ‘minority by force’. To Gandhi, untouchability was one of the many problems confronted by Indian society. To Ambedkar, untouchability was the major problem that captured his sole attention. Ambedkar made an exhaustive study of the problem from its the historical angle, while Gandhi was more concerned with the problem in its contemporary situation. Ambedkar wanted to solve the problem of untouchability through laws and constitutional methods, whereas Gandhi treated untouchability as a moral stigma and wanted it to be erased by acts of atonement. Gandhi had little use of legal/ constitutional modes; he looked to morality and thus supported conscience to remedy the evil.