Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition (43 page)

68
On Daivadnya (also Daivajna) Brahmins, the
Census of India
(1961, 14) says: “They are locally known as ‘Sonars’ and ‘Sonagars’ and are the traditional goldsmiths. They are found in almost all the towns and big villages of North Kanara District. They are said to have migrated from Goa.”

69
Here Ambedkar is referring to the polemics used by the Vedic missionaries of the Arya Samaj to counter the influence of Muslim and Christian preachers and missionaries—adopting their established practices of preaching at religious fairs, challenging missionaries in pamphlets and on the streets. The rise of the Arya Samaj owed much to the demographic shifts that characterised the history of the Punjab due to its proximity to Central Asia and the predominance of Sikh and Muslim rulers. In the nineteenth century, British rule added to this list, and the conversions of the oppressed castes in large numbers to Islam and Christianity exacerbated the situation. See Jones (2006, 139–45). According to Gopal Krishan (2004, 77–89), in 1881, the Hindus constituted 43.8 per cent of the population, the Sikhs 8.2 per cent and Christians 0.1 per cent. The Muslims, at 47.6 per cent, were well short of an absolute majority. But by 1941, the Muslims were in absolute majority in the Punjab accounting for 53.2 per cent of the total population. The Hindus made 29.1 per cent of the total, the Sikhs 14.9 per cent, Christians 1.9 per cent and others 1.3 per cent. The erosion in the percentage share of the Hindus was caused by the conversion of many Hindus—especially the ‘lower castes’, such as Chuhras, Chamars, Jhiwars and Malis—to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity.

70
Reads in AoC 1936 as: “Whether the Hindu religion is a missionary religion is a question which was once a subject of controversy.” Amended in 1937.

71
For a discussion of conversion during the colonial period, see Gauri Viswanathan (1998), especially the chapter “Conversion to Equality” (211–40) that discusses Ambedkar’s quest for equality through conversion. Also see Chakravarti (2000), where she alludes to the problems of the convert, Pandita Ramabai, in terms of cultural and ‘nationalist’ positions vis-à-vis the colonial structure which bear out Ambedkar’s point.

72
Phrase added in AoC 1937.

73
Shuddhi or
shuddhikaran
—a movement for ‘reconversion’ to Hinduism—was initiated by Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj. In 1877, two years after founding the Arya Samaj, Dayananda is said to have performed the first ever shuddhi of a Muslim man (Parel 2000, 122). Swami Shraddhananda (1856–1926) carried on this legacy more militantly in the early twentieth century in the Punjab and the United Provinces. For an account, see Jaffrelot (1995). However, as Ambedkar points out, shuddhi created many problems since the privileged castes were not willing to mingle with newly ‘purified’ lower caste members. See also Jones (2006, 129–35, 202–14).

74
The Hindu Mahasabha launched the sangathan movement in the early 1920s in response to the Khilafat Movement (1918–24), which had Gandhi’s support, aimed at a pan-Islamic mobilisation to save the Ottoman Empire from dismemberment and to secure political reforms for India. The underlying logic of sangathan was to defend the Hindu community from so-called foreign forces through organisation and unification. It aimed to integrate the different sections of the Hindu community, including the Untouchables. The main proponents of sangathan were Bhai Parmanand (see Note 11 in Prologue) and V.D. Savarkar. See Jaffrelot (1999a, 19–24) and also Bapu (2013, 47–60).

75
Ambedkar is invoking the Deweyan concept of “associated life”, which he picks up and develops further into a political tool. Both Dewey and Ambedkar believed that democracy should not be restricted to the political realm, but should also manifest itself in other areas, such as education, industry and the public sphere. See Mukherjee (2009, 356).

76
A feeling of brotherhood (
ikhwaan
) among Muslims across the world (
ummat
) is an important conceptual category in Islam. Sikhs are also enjoined by their religion to practise universal brotherhood and often address each other as
bhai
(brother).

77
Sava lakh
: 125,000. The complete phrase, “
Sava lakh se ek laraun
” (My one follower will take on 125,000), is attributed to Govind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru, who is said to have given this battle cry at Chamkaur in 1704.

78
William Morris (1834–96) was a poet, author, leader of the early British socialist movement, and the founder of the Arts and Crafts Movement in Britain. The quote is from
A Dream of John Ball
(1888), a dream travel in time to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (also known as Wat Tyler’s Rebellion or the Great Rising). Ambedkar here is quoting from the speech given by the character of John Ball, a radical travelling priest excommunicated for his preaching of equality to the Kentish rebels.

79
Endosmosis was another Deweyan term that Ambedkar deployed and developed. It is derived from a biological term which means the passage of a fluid through a permeable membrane from a region of lower to a region of higher concentration. Mukherjee points out that the term was used originally by the French philosopher Henri Louis Bergson (1859–1941) and, after him, by American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842–1910), who was, like Dewey, a leading exponent of pragmatism, “to describe the interaction of the mind with nature”. Dewey appropriated it as a descriptor for interaction between social groups. In Ambedkar and Dewey’s work the term came to be a metaphor of the fluidity of communications between social groups, in which, according to Mukherjee (2009, 352), they managed to reconcile the two extremes and give a sense of being both separate and connected.

80
These lines appear almost exactly in Dewey’s
Democracy and Education
, chapter 7: “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.”

81
In AoC 1936 this part reads as: “men were treated unequally unequally as they are”; in 1937 as: “men were treated unequally as they are”. The 1945 version is retained here.

82
It must be remembered that the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, which invited Ambedkar for its annual conference, for which this address was prepared, was originally affiliated to the Arya Samaj and continued to have several important Arya Samaj leaders of the Punjab influencing it. Ambedkar chooses to take them on in this section of his speech, and this would likely have made them most uncomfortable, and caused them to withdraw their invitation to him. For a summary of the Arya Samaj’s views on varnashrama (also known as chaturvarnya and
varnavyavastha
), based on Dayananda Saraswati’s ‘Vedic’ approach, see Jones (2006).

83
Refer to Note 161 at 24.3 on the guna–karma theory.

84
“Savants” in 1936 and 1937; amended in 1944.

85
Text in semibold in this paragraph does not appear in AoC 1936. In the first edition, the lines after the highlighted text appear thus: “It is human experience that notions and sentiments associated with certain names become part of ourselves, stiffening into attitudes that which hold even trained minds in bondage. Intellectual servitude to old associations is very common and is more difficult to break than is generally thought. Facts may change, but if names remain the same, then the notions associated with those names linger not only in sentiments but also in practice. These labels have had all along in Indian history the
de facto
connotation of designating a hierarchy of castes based on birth. They were understood to be marks of superiority and inferiority.” These lines were amended in the 1937 edition used here.

86
All of this paragraph, except its last sentence, does not appear in AoC 1936.

87
The lines at the beginning of 16.1 till “…  a miserable failure” figure under Section XV of AoC 1936. The lines that follow from here (beginning, “From a practical …”) till the first sentence of 16.3 (ending, “…  chaturvarnya a success.”) have been added in the 1937 edition.

88
This is given as “varna” in AoC 1936 and 1937; Ambedkar changes it to “chaturvarnya” in 1944.

89
In AoC 1936, Section 16 begins here, with the sentence: “The practicability of the chaturvarnya presupposes two things. It presupposes …”

90
This question does not appear in AoC 1936.

91
Phrase added in 1937.

92
Plato’s
The Republic
, addressing the question of justice, deduces that the human soul has three parts: the “logical”, thinking part; the “spirited” part, by which we develop anger and get into a temper; and the “appetitive” part, by which we experience hunger, thirst, eroticism, love for moneymaking and other such desires. The book also categorises men into three classes based on which part of their soul masks the others: the ‘guardians’ are persons in whom the logical part dominates, in the ‘auxiliaries’ spirit dominates, and the ‘producers’ are people who have let their appetite dominate. The guardians must rule, the auxiliaries must help in running the guardians’ writ, and the producers must work. (See also Note 161 on the guna–karma theory.) Ambedkar disagrees with Plato on many levels. He is not convinced that there are only three qualities on the basis of which a soul can be divided. He believes that the multitude of human characteristics is so complex that it is impossible to identify and categorise them. He also points out that different characteristics become more or less important in the same person at different times. His criticism is also what was later popularised as the problem of the ‘one-dimensional man’ by Herbert Marcuse (1964/1991). From his experience of caste, Ambedkar’s critique is that in such an arrangement where most of the power is vested with the guardians and the remaining with the auxiliaries (the ‘twice-born’ Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas in the caste context), there is no mechanism to ensure that they will not oppress the producers (Shudras and Untouchables).

93
In AoC 1936, this merely reads as “not possible to pigeon men into holes”. In 1937, Ambedkar amends this to “not possible to pigeon men into holes according as he belongs to one class or the other”. The subsequent lines, beginning “That it is impossible …” till “…  it was established?” in 16.6 are absent in AoC 1936.

94
This sentence begins with “Another” in AoC 1936; perhaps changed in the light of new sentences added in 1937.

95
The word used is “existence” in AoC 1936.

96
The story of Shambuka is told in the seventh book, Uttarakanda, of the Valmiki Ramayana. Shambuka wants to achieve a higher status than the
suras
(
devtas
, gods) through meditation and austerities. On discovering that Shambuka, a Shudra, was indeed meditating, Rama promptly beheads him to restore varnasharma dharma. The story has been used by the Dravidian movement and in anticaste literature to ridicule the idea of Rama as the embodiment of perfection. Kuvempu (Kuppalli Venkatappa Puttappa) (1904–94), a Jnanpith-winning Kannada author wrote
Sudra Tapasvi
(1944), a novel based on Shambuka’s life. Sikhamani, a contemporary Telugu Dalit poet, writes: “The sword that severed/ Shambuka’s head could remain/ sharp and safe for centuries./ It has just changed hands/and no longer recognises you./ No Manu to save you now!” See “Steel Nibs are Sprouting …” in Satyanarayana and Tharu (2013, 554).

97
The
Manusmriti
represents itself as the dharma that Brahma declares to Manu, ‘the first Man’, and is passed on by him to Bhrigu, one of the ten ‘great sages’. The text is believed to have attained its present form around the second century CE. Ambedkar writes in another, posthumously published work,
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India
(BAWS 5, 273): “Pushyamitra Sunga and his successors could not have tolerated these exaggerated claims of the Brahmins unless they themselves were Brahmins interested in the establishment of Brahmanism. Indeed it is quite possible that the
Manusmriti
was composed at the command of Pushyamitra Brahman king (185–149 BC) himself, and forms the book of the philosophy of Brahmanism.” In another work,
The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why they Became Untouchable
, Ambedkar (BAWS 9, 373) says: “After taking all facts into consideration Prof Bühler has fixed a date which appears to strike the truth. According to Bühler, the
Manusmriti
, in the shape in which it exists now, came into existence in the Second Century AD.” A contemporary scholar, J.L. Brockington (1996, 92) arrives at a similar conclusion. Many editions of the
Manusmriti
have been published in Sanskrit since its first edition in 1813. The first translation was
Institutes of Hindu law, or, The ordinances of Menu
[sic],
according to the gloss of Cullúca: comprising the Indian system of duties, religious and civil: verbally translated from the original Sanscrit: with a preface
, by Sir William Jones (1796). One of the best-known translations is George Bühler’s
Laws of Manu
(1886/2004), which contains an exhaustive introduction and extracts from seven commentaries. In her modern translation, Wendy Doniger states that no work in the tradition of Western scholarship compares with the fame and sustained authority exercised across centuries by the
Manusmriti
. See Doniger and Smith (1991, xviii–xix). As C.J. Fuller (2003, 484) notes, British administrators depended on Dharmashastras such as the
Manusmriti
to develop a legal system for India, thus subjecting the Hindu population as a whole to a Brahminical legal code. For the most authoritative, exhaustively annotated edition (1,131 pages) of the
Manusmriti
, see Patrick Olivelle (2005).