to doctrines such as Karma-siddhanta. It upheld the principle of the superiority of mental labour over manual labour. It had little sympathy towards the degraded and the marginalised. It left millions of people in their degraded condition, away from civilisation, and defended their abominable conditions. It had little place for freedom and for re-evaluation of choices. It parcelised society into umpteen closed groups, making them unable to close ranks, foster a spirit of community and strive towards shared endeavours. It took away from associated life its joys and sorrows, emasculated struggles and strivings and deplored sensuousness and festivity. He constructed Brahmanism as totally lacking in any moral values and considerations based on such values.
Ambedkar was a bitter critic of Gandhi and Gandhism. He attacked Gandhi's approach to the abolition of untouchability, an approach that denied its sanction in the shastras and which called upon caste Hindus to voluntarily renounce it and make reparations for the same. Ambedkar felt that rights and humanity cannot be left to the mercy of the prejudices of people who have developed a vested interest in undermining them. He did not demarcate the caste system and varna system, as Gandhi did, but saw both of them as upholding the same principle of graded inequality. Even if untouchability is abolished through the Gandhian appeal to conscience, which Ambedkar did not think possible, untouchables will continue to occupy the lowest rung of society as a layer of the Shudras. He saw Gandhi not merely caving in to Hindu orthodoxy but reformulating such orthodoxy afresh. Gandhi was dispensing moral platitudes to untouchables and trying to buy them with kindness while letting others promote their interests without hindrance. He rejected the appellation ‘Harijan’ that Gandhi had bestowed on untouchables and poured scorn on it.
Ambedkar rejected many central notions as propounded by Gandhi such as Swaraj, non-violence, decentralisation, Khadi, trusteeship and vegetarianism. He subscribed to a modern polity with a modern economy. This-worldly concerns were central to his agenda rather than other-worldly search. He felt that an uncritical approach to Panchayat Raj will reinforce the dominant classes in the countryside, handing over additional resources and legitimacy to them to exploit the social classes and groups below them.
12.3.2 Reason and Rights
Ambedkar saw the modern era as heralding a triumph of human reason from myths, customs and religious superstitions. The world and man, he argued, can be explained by human reason and endeavour. The supernatural powers need not be invoked for the purpose. In fact, the supernatural powers themselves reflect weak human capacities and an underdeveloped state of human development. He therefore saw the expression of human reason manifest in science and modern technology positively. If there are problems with regard to them, then the same reason is capable of offering the necessary correctives. Further, he saw knowledge as eminently practical rather than speculative and esoteric. He felt that speculative knowledge divorced from active engagement with practice leads to priestcraft and speculation.
Ambedkar's attitude to religion remained ambivalent. While he did not subscribe to a belief in a personal God or revelation, he felt that religion, as morality, provides an enduring foundation to societies and enables collective pursuit of good life. Such a religion elevates motives, upholds altruism and concern for others, binding people in solidarity and concern. It cares and supports and strives against exploitation, injustice and wrongdoing.
He argued that freedom, equality and fraternity are essential conditions for good life and a regime of discrete rights needs to be constructed on them as the foundation. He understood rights not merely within the narrow confines of liberal individualism but as individual and group rights. He defended both types of rights in the Constituent Assembly debates. Further, he argued for both civil and political rights, and social and economic rights. He did not see them in opposition but as reinforcing one another. If there is a conflict between them, they have to be negotiated through civic and political forums. He also subscribed to the rights of minorities and cultural groups to maintain their distinctive beliefs and identities while at the same time affording them proper conditions to take their rightful place in public affairs. He defended preferential treatment accorded to disadvantaged communities not only for reasons of equality but also on grounds of egalitarian social structures, and for the pursuit of a sane and good society.
12.3.3 Religion
Ambedkar dwelt extensively on major religions of the world, particularly Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. He wrote a great deal on Hinduism and Buddhism. The mainstream trajectory of religious evolution that he traced in early India was the Vedic society getting degenerated into Aryan society; the rise of Buddhism and the social and moral transformation that it brought about; and the counter-revolution manifest in the development of a specific ideological and political expression which he termed Brahmanism.
Ambedkar developed a new interpretation of Buddhism and saw it as socially engaged. It privileged the poor and the exploited and was concerned with the sufferings and joys of this world. It does not subscribe to the existence of God or the eternity of the soul. It upholds reason, affirms the existence of this world, subscribes to a moral order and is in tune with science. He saw the great values of freedom, equality and community as central to the teachings of the Buddha.
Ambedkar had both theological and sociological criticism against Christianity and Islam. Both of them subscribe to a transcendental domain which, apart from its affront to human reason, begets authoritative and paternalistic tendencies. In a sense, they dwarf human reason, freedom of enquiry and equality of persons. Their pronouncements cannot be reconciled with scientific reason. Christian belief that Jesus is the son of God militates against reason. Both these religions, he felt, accommodated themselves to graded inequality and ranking to different degrees. Their precepts have often led their adherents to resort to force and violence. He saw the Buddha standing tall against the protagonists of both these religions.
No comments:
Post a Comment