Riddles in Ambedkar: Nationalism and More

Introduction

Ambedkar has always been a thinker very close to my heart. There are many reasons why he can be regarded as one of the most important thinkers of Indian subcontinent in the modern times. Some of the said reasons were a product of pure chance. Ambedkar was writing at an interesting juncture of South-Asian history. He lived through the two world wars and the various phases of the rise of Indian nationalism. Rest, of course, is his sheer intellect. Ambedkar’s critiques of contemporary movements and marxist philosophy were seminal works for many new areas of thinking. After the nationalism debate erupted in India in the wake of an alternate brand of nationalism that was gaining currency in India in 2016, much was said about the character of Indian nationalism and its genesis, evolution and apparent devolution. As the anecdote goes, I wrote this essay in the February of 2017 as a 10th standard student who was avidly following the nationalism discourse in the country. However, due to logistical insufficiency, this essay could not be published. However, I thought it would be an opportune moment to reflect at our nation’s unfortunate nosedive. Especially now that what was once the alternate has become the mainstream and a fait accompli for the people who would wish to dissent.

There are a few caveats that I would like to give to a reader going through this essay in 2020. First is of course the general caveat that Ambedkar was writing in his own time. The hindu society he was writing about is abjectly different from ours. Alternative nationalist projects of the sangh and allied forces have, over the decades, transmorgified the caste consciousness that Ambedkar speaks of into a hindu consciousness, while still somehow retaining its initial exclusionary fervour. That in itself is a whole another area of study which is unfortunately beyond the mandate of the subject matter we seek to explore in this essay. The second caveat is more specific to this essay. I wrote this essay in 2017 and my reading of Ambedkar has evolved and has gained more nuance since then, and there are certainly some parts of this essay that I look at today as over-simplifications and there are parts where more can be said. Nevertheless, this was the point from which I started understanding Ambedkar and the ideas I gained at this point of my life continue to influence me today. The third caveat deals with more factual aspects of the passage. There is one quote used in the essay regarding Ambedkar’s views on article 370 which has become a source of controversy since the last year. The sangh has been known to appropriate Ambedkar to suit their agendas and their idealogues have quoted instances and statements that do not find mention in either text or history. Therefore, it is imperative to separate material history from interested fabrications of a certain brand of politics that seeks to use Ambedkar’s name as a letterhead for popular support and yet disavows everything the man ever stood for. The quote in question surfaced for the first time in 2004 in an article written in the RSS mouthpiece the Organiser by a sangh leader Balraj Madhok. There is no instance in history or text to corroborate this source other than the word of an interested party. Official record, however, reflects that Ambedkar never opposed the idea of asymmetrical federalism and on the contrary, his official position on the Kashmir matter was that the question should be done away with through a plebiscite. Contemporary Ambedkarite scholars including none other than Professor Anand Teltumbde (who, on the date of the writing of this introduction, is languishing in NIA custody on perceived charges, which in the opinion of this author, satifies no yardstick of plausibility other than the whim of the executive) have reasserted this position of Ambedkar and disavowed the position of the sangh.

I hope you enjoy this essay!

Ambedkar’s views on nation and nationalism

“The consciousness that our senses present to us is sought in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.” These words of Max Horkheimer speak volumes as to why a ‘nation’ meant what it meant for Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Being a contemporary of Babasaheb and an adamant believer in, and a critic of, Karl Marx’s philosophy like himself, Horkheimer paraphrases Ambedkar’s ideas to a great depth. Ambedkar elaborated on the idea of a ‘Nation’ in his book Pakistan or the Partition of India. He describes nationality as a, “consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of a tie of kinship”. Nationalism, on the other hand, surfaces when this consciousness evolves to build a ‘want’, or as he quotes, it is the “the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship.” As we learn from Horkheimer’s idea of consciousness, we begin to understand why such a desire, rooted from scattered perceptions of a group of individuals, might be trusted but can’t and shouldn’t be an absolute.

In the first score of 20th century, when Ambedkar was still a cheerful youth and a determined student, Indian national movement was entering its new and supposedly mass-involving phase. Since for decades, it was limited to the ink of the educated and the upper-class, this revision was undeniably plausible. The means used by some of the chief leaders of these movements such as Lokmanya Tilak included methods like revival of ancient Hindu festivals and doctrines which suggested the growth of an idea which was later termed to be the concept of the ‘Hindu Rashtra’. Ambedkar, however was not pleased at this idea. He writes, “For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions must exist. First, there must arise the ‘will to live as a nation’. Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly, there must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation”. He further explains, “There is an utter lack among the Hindus of the very ‘consciousness of kind’. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. And if there is no Hindu consciousness of kind so how will there ever be a will to live as a nation? That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.” There were, however, many Indians whose patriotism did not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation but they were only an amorphous mass of people. But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus can constitute a society. To do so, according Ambedkar, “is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up a society.”

The Indian National Movement, by virtue of its own historical development, was upper-class phenomenon reflecting its own interests and aspirations. It was therefore evident that when nationalists spoke in terms of national interest they certainly meant their own class-interests. The evocation of ‘nation’ was a necessary ritual to ensure the much needed popular support for an essentially partisan cause. This sectarian bias to nationalism could be seen in the writings of none other than Jawaharlal Nehru who has been singled out by our history books as an example of ‘liberal leftist’ leader. (Editor’s note: Today it certainly feels like sarcastic but the author used the term ‘liberal leftist’ unironically then. Cringe.) In his seminal work Discovery of India, he advocates the “mixture of religion and philosophy, history and tradition, custom and social structure”. This sectarian character of Indian nationalism persisted even after the nascent upper castes’ movement developed into a truly mass-supported anti-imperialist national liberation movement enlisting the support of millions of people cutting across the traditional social divisions. And, it is this failure to change its basically pro-upper class orientation despite a basic shift in its underlying social base that Indian national movement in due course helped the rise of new sectarian socio-political currents, running parallel to the mainstream national movement, that is, Ambedkar’s emergence on the Indian scenario.

The first cabinet of India during a lunch break

Like an absentee father who nods approval to his child’s request for a new toy but seldom makes the effort to fetch it, Congress accepted that ‘caste’ was an evil but never bothered to uplift the masses who formed the base of their ‘national movement’. Congress’s nationalism played more on the emotions of an individual and his or her will of a nation guided by their customs and ideals rather than his or her will to lead a life free of exploitation and live in a society of ruled equally by them. Ambedkar raised this question in 1943 before trade union activists saying that the working classes “often sacrifice their all to the so-called cause of nationalism. [But] they have never cared to enquire whether the nationalism for which they are to make their offerings will, when established, give them social and economic equality”. It was in the backdrop of this escapist attitude of the Congress brand of nationalism that an alternative subaltern nationalism was born through Ambedkar. His Dalit politics posed no really significant threat to the overall domination of the traditional ruling class, yet it certainly exposed the hollowness of the Congress’s nationalist claim to represent the whole nation. Finally, the unwillingness of the nationalist leadership to attack the long unresolved social contradictions at the base of the Hindu social order propelled people like Ambedkar to contest the claim of the Indian National Congress to represent the scheduled castes. Ambedkar took up this question from social below and elevated it to a political high by linking this social question of caste with the political question of democracy and nationalism. Such an effort to prioritize society over polity and then linking them together was unprecedented in India before Ambedkar.

However, it would be wrong to remark that Ambedkar was entirely against the concept nationalism. He was, in fact, in few terms an advocate of nationalism as well as the Indian nation. According to Ambedkar, “Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not a nation, has small prospects of survival in the struggle for existence.” Ambedkar had faith in ancient Indian institutions and texts except caste. He was convinced with the spiritual aspects of Indian culture and codes but not with its ritualistic aspects which had developed in last millenium. He understood the importance of Dharma in India and when the time of conversion came as he had declared earlier, he chose Buddhism and not any other Abrahamic religion. (Editor’s note: this is also an interesting kataaksh on a reductive brand of bahujan politics which disavows every aspect of the hindu culture and puts the label of casteism on it without providing an alternative to the spiritual basis of the hindu society) He also had the option of declaring him as an Atheist but his rootedness in Indian ethos compelled him to choose Buddhism. Dr. Ambedkar also pointed out that historic roots of democracy in India date back to pre-Buddhist India. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments and knew all the rules of Parliamentary procedure known to us in the modern times. Dr. Ambedkar emphasized that Indians need not ‘borrow from foreign sources’ concepts to build a society on the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. They “could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.” In his writings in Riddles in Hinduism, he points out that Hinduism has the potential to become the spiritual basis of social democracy. But on the other hand, his later works come to suggest that his faith in this model Indian Nation knew it’s own boundaries as his suggested by this quote: “In the Hindu religion, one can have freedom of speech. A Hindu must surrender his freedom of speech. He must act according to the Vedas. If the Vedas do not support the actions, instructions must be sought from the Smritis, and if the Smritis fail to provide any such instructions, he must follow in the footsteps of the great men. He is not supposed to reason. Hence, so long as you are in the Hindu religion, you cannot expect to have freedom of thought” Once again, Ambedkar proved beyond any doubt that nothing national or religious could ever supersede his love for his long cherished ideals of humanism as well as liberty, equality and fraternity.

The most significant of all contributions Ambedkar made in the process of nation-building is inarguably his outstanding role as the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian constitution, which is something for which we owe Babasaheb a huge collective as well as personal debt. Justice K. Ramaswamy while probing into the legal aspects of nationalism likes to call Ambedkar “a true democrat, a nationalist to the core and a patriot of highest order on various grounds.” Dr. Ambedkar in his very first speech in the Constituent Assembly on 17 December 1946 had emphasized the need to create a strong centre in order to ensure that India’s freedom was not jeopardized as it was observed in the past on account of a weak central administration. His view was hailed by the Assembly and came later to be reflected in the Emergency Provisions of the Constitution. He professed the sovereignty of states in normal times but by virtue of these provisions, stressed on the overruling authority of the center whenever a situation arises which poses a danger to the security of the state. Rising above the regional, linguistic and communal barriers in a true republican spirit, Ambedkar invented a democratic nationalism consisting of a Uniform Civil Code for India.Ambedkar opposed insertion of Article 370 which gives special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Ambedkar wrote to Sheikh Abdullah on Article 370, “You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal would be a treacherous thing against the Interest of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.” (Editor’s note: this is the quote with respect to which the writer issued a caveat in the introduction) He was the author and principal actor to make the ‘Directive Principles’ as part of the constitutional scheme. When it was criticized that the directive principles could not be enforced in a court of law, Ambedkar answered that though they were not enforceable, the succeeding majority political party in Parliament or Legislative Assembly would be bound by them as an inbuilt part of their economic program in the governance, despite their policy in its manifesto and are bound by the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar framed the constitution in a manner that when the dogma of nationalism supersedes the concept of rationalism, the people who come much after him could fight with constitution by their side. He clarifies every doubt as to where he stands in this long road of nationalism in the Mumbai legislative assembly on a fine morning the scent of which this country has somewhat forgotten, but it lives on in the heart the ones who imbibe him within themselves, not as a statue or a garland or an idol, but as an idea which in itself is immortal: “I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. It has often been misunderstood. Let me, therefore, take this opportunity to clarify my position. I say this, that whenever there has been a conflict between my personal interests and the interests of the country as a whole, I have always placed the claim of the country above my own personal claims. I have never pursued the path of private gain. But I will also leave no doubt in the minds of the people of this country that I have another loyalty to which I am bound and which I can never forsake. That loyalty is the community of untouchables, in which I am born, to which I belong, and which I hope I shall never desert. And I say this to this House as strongly as I possibly can, that whenever there is any conflict of interest between the country and the untouchables, so far as I am concerned, the untouchables’ interests will take precedence over the interests of the country. I am not going to support a party because it happens to speak in the name of the country. I shall not do that. Let everybody here and everywhere understand that that is my position. As between the country and myself, the country will have precedence ; as between the country and the Depressed Classes, the Depressed Classes will have precedence — the country will not have precedence.”