Background story (Skip if you want):

The Annihilation of Caste was actually a speech prepared by Ambedkar which he was going to
deliver at an annual conference (1936) of which he was the President and was invited by the
secretary of the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, which was an anti-caste Hindu reformist group
organization based in Lahore. However, before Ambedkar could have delivered his speech the
members of the group had revised the text in Ambedkar’s speech.

Ambedkar in this speech was openly and bluntly going to talk about the atrocities faced by the
Dalits and untouchables and was going to criticize the Hindus and demand that this caste
discriminatory system should be abolished, should be destructed, should be annihilated. The
Mandal members found the text of his speech extremely venomous and wanted to prevent his
thoughts to reach the masses because it could have awakened the Dalits to resort in unity and
fight for their rights. So the members of the group took back the invitation from Ambedkar.
Now, this act of theirs made Ambedkar’s followers and the lower class in general furious, and
because the Mandal feared that violence might break out against them they at last called off the
conference.

What needs attention here is the fact that by 1936, Ambedkar had already established his
opinions and ideas towards the Hindu religion and he had already campaigned against a lot of
things. Which meant he had become a known figure across the country, which meant that even
the Mandal knew about his ideologies.

They knew that if they invite him he would definitely talk regarding the abolition of the system.
So the question, why in the first place did they choose to call him if they couldn’t have heard
anything against the Hindus? Was it just to humiliate him? Or was it to show his followers and
people in general that they wouldn’t consider anybody mocking the policies which have
existed past so many decades?

Whatever the reason, Ambedkar was definitely upset with all this because he knew that this was
a chance for him to make the people know his views on the problems created by the caste
system.

However, he had printed copies of his speech under the name, ‘Annihilation of Caste.’ The
publishing again posed a challenge for Ambedkar. He wanted to get the copies printed from
Bombay but the Mandal decided to get it done from Lahore because of some economy problem.
In the end, Ambedkar got 1500 copies of his speech printed at his own text. The book was
criticized highly and even Gandhi made numerous comments and justifications on it. The book
was revised and edited again by Ambedkar in which he replied to many of Gandhi’s comments.
And from then on a lot of editions and interpretations of the text have been published by various
writers like Arundhati Roy who also express their pain which Ambedkar felt. However, the
original text is not present in its full-fledged raw form anymore. Some ideas have been removed
which some people wanted to prevent from reaching the people.
What remains even today in wholesome are the struggles of the Dalits against the upper class and
Ambedkar’s efforts and words which have become confined to merely the books and essays.

1. More difficult than fight for swaraj:

In Annihilation of Caste, he says, annihilation of caste is: (M)ore difficult than the other national
cause, namely Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side. In
this, you have to fight against the whole nation and that too, your own. But it is more important
than Swaraj. There is no use of having Swaraj, if you cannot defend it. More important than the
question of defending Swaraj is the question of defending the Hindus under the Swaraj. In my
opinion only when the Hindu society becomes a casteless society that it can hope to have
strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength, Swaraj for Hindus may turn out
to be only a step towards slavery”

2. Social Reform versus Political Reform:

Ambedkar argues that because of evil customs, Hindu society was not in a state of efficiency and
ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils. Recognising this fact, the birth of the
Indian National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference. Just as
the Congress was to struggle for political reorganisation of India, the Social Conference would
struggle for social reformation of the Hindu society. However this did not sustain for long and
soon the two bodies became two hostile camps. The issue was what takes precedence: social or
political reform. After the two forces being evenly balanced for a decade, the fortunes of the
Social Conference started ebbing fast.

According to Ambedkar the Social Conference lost the battle due to the kind of social reforms it
was advocating. In this connection, it is necessary to make a distinction between social reforms
for Hindu families and social reform in the sense of the reorganisation and reconstruction of the
Hindu society. The former has relation to widow remarriage, child marriage and so on while the
latter relates to the abolition of the caste system.

The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned itself with the reform of the high
caste Hindu family. It consisted mostly of enlightened high caste Hindus who did not agitate for
the abolition of caste; nor did they have the courage to agitate for the same. They felt quite
naturally a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood, child marriages etc., evils
which prevailed among them and which were personally felt by them. They did not stand up for
the reform of the Hindu society. The battle that was fought centred round the question of the
reform of the family. It did not relate to the social reform in the respect of the breaking-up of the
caste system (Ibid., 42)

The Social Reform Party lost because the reformers were indifferent to the reform of the Hindu
society.
Ambedkar questioned the political-minded Hindus, citing examples of inhuman treatment of
untouchables by upper caste Hindus:

“Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a large section of your own
countrymen like the untouchables to use public school? Are you fit for political power even
though you do not allow them the use of public wells? Are you fit for political power even though
you do not allow them the use of public streets? Are you fit for political power even though you
do not allow them to wear what apparel or ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power
even though you do not allow them to eat any food they like?” I can ask a string of such
questions but these will suffice... I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an
affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that one country is not fit
to ruleanother country must admit that one class is not fit to rule another class (Ambedkar: vol.
1, p. 38).”

Ambedkar came to the conclusion that ‘the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary
preliminary for the political expansion of the people’

3. Fallacy of the Socialist:

Ambedkar was critical of the Indian socialists as they ignored the problems arising out of the
social order and viewed humans as economic beings. Socialists advocate that man is an
economic creature. His activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, and property is
the only source of power. They, therefore, preach that economic reform by equalization of
property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. However, Ambedkar contested
their argument and argued that the social status of an individual by itself often becomes a source
of power and authority. This is made clear by the sway which the Mahatmas have held over the
common man. He has cited examples from India and European countries to show how in some
instances religion, rather than money, was a source of power (Ibid. 44).

He argues that economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come about unless there
is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That seizure of power must be by a proletariat.
Here, Ambedkar raises the question: will the proletariats of India combine to bring about this
revolution? Men will not join in a revolution for the equalization of property unless they know
that after the revolution is achieved they will be treated equally and that there will be no
discrimination of caste and creed (Ibid. 46).

Ambedkar believes that the assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that he does not
believe in caste is not sufficient. The assurance must proceed from much deeper foundation,
namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal
equality and fraternity. He then puts crucial questions:

 Can it be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is, recognizes no distinctions except that of
rich and the poor?

 Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no distinctions of caste or creed, high or low?

 If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from such a proletariat in its
action against the rich?

 How can there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? (Ibid. 47).

Ambedkar believed that even if by some freak of fortune a revolution did take place and the
Socialists came to power, they would be compelled to deal with the problems created by the
social order prevalent in India? Thus, in order to have economic or political reform the monster
of caste had to be killed.

4. Caste as Division of Labour:

In Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar says that some have defended caste in the name of division
of labour. According to them, since division of labour is a necessary feature of every civilized
society, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the caste system. However, Ambedkar criticized
this view on the following grounds:
1) The caste system is not merely division of labour; it is also a division of labourers. In Indian
society the division of labour is accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into
watertight compartments.

2) The caste system is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the
other. In no other country is the division of labour accompanied by this gradation of labourers.

3) This division of labour is not spontaneous. It is not based on natural aptitudes. The caste
system appoints tasks to individuals in advance, not on the basis of trained original capacities,
but on the basis of the social status of the parents. Stratification of occupations on the basis of
caste system is positively pernicious. As industry is never static and undergoes rapid and sudden
changes, an individual must be free to change his occupation. But the caste system will not allow
Hindus to take to occupations where they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity.
By not permitting readjustment of occupations, caste causes much of the unemployment we see
in the country.

The division of labour brought about by the caste system is not a division based on choice and
individual sentiments. Individual preferences have no place in it. It is based on the dogma of
predestination.

Ambedkar raises a pertinent question: “What efficiency can there be in a system under which
neither men’s hearts nor their minds are in their work?” (Ibid. 48). He concludes that as an
economic organisation, caste is a harmful institution, because it subordinates man’s natural
powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.

To conclude, although division of labour is a basic characteristic of an industrial organisation,

5. Hindu Society is a Myth:

Ambedkar says that Hindu society is a myth. The word Hindu itself is a foreign name which
Mohammedans gave to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves from them. The
Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes and their consciousness is
only for their survival. Their level of oneness operates when Hindu- Muslim riots occur. On all
other occasions, each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other
castes. “Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole refusing to have any
contact with others.” The Hindus lack, to use a sociological term, “consciousness of kind”. In
every Hindu, the consciousness that exist is the consciousness of his caste. Due to this, Hindus
fail to form a society or a nation. Many Indians will not admit that they are not a nation but only
an amorphous mass of people. They insist that behind the apparent diversity there is a
fundamental unity because of habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts.

However, Ambedkar argues that culture spreads by diffusion and that is why one finds similarity between various primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and customs, beliefs, and thoughts,
although they do not live in proximity. This doesn’t mean the primitive tribes constituted a society.
Men constitute a society because they have things which they possess in common. To have similar things is totally different from possessing things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess things in common
with one another is by being in communication with one another. This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to exist by communication indeed in communication. To make it concrete, it is not enough if men act in a
way which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society. For that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and participate in a common activity so that the same
emotions are aroused in him that animate the others. Making the individual a sharer orpartner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure is the real thing that binds men and makes a
society ofthem. Therefore, caste system prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being (Ibid. 50-51).

The effect of caste on the ethics of Hindus, according to Ambedkar, is simply deplorable. He
opines that caste has killed public spirit, and public charity and public opinion. A Hindu’s public
is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste.
Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy to
the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy.
Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with
the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other caste. There is appreciation of virtue but
only when the man is a fellow caste-man. On the point of ethics, therefore he puts a crucial
question: “Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of their
caste?” (Ibid. 56-57).

Solutions for Casteless Society put forward by Ambedkar:

Ambedkar explored various ways to abolish caste.

 The real key to destroying Caste is rejection of the Shastras:

Abolishing sub-castes: Ambedkar did not favour this view because even if we assume the fusion
of sub-castes is possible, there is no guarantee that the abolition of sub-castes will necessarily
lead to the abolition of castes. On the contrary, it may happen that the process may stop with the
abolition of sub-castes. In that case, the abolition of subcastes will only help to strengthen the
castes and make them more powerful and therefore more harmful..

Start Inter-caste dining: Ambedkar felt this was inadequate because many castes allow inter-
dining but that has not destroyed the spirit of caste and the consciousness of caste.

Encourage inter-marriage: Ambedkar believes that fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of
being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship becomes paramount, the feeling of being
aliens created by caste will not vanish. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste.

 Internal reform of the Caste System is virtually impossible:

One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility which the Brahmins have shown towards this
question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the movement for political reform, and in some
cases also of economic reform. But they are not to be found even as camp-followers in the army
raised to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins ever taking up a
lead in the future in this matter? I say no.
Secondly, there is gradation in hindy system and this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to
organise a common front against the Caste System. If a caste claims the right to inter-dine and
inter-marry with another caste placed above it, it is frozen the instant it is told by mischief-
mongers—and there are many Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers—that it will have to
concede inter-dining and inter-marriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the Caste System.
But all the slaves are not equal in status.

 No reformers, and no appeals to reason, have so far succeeded:

Can you appeal to reason, and ask the Hindus to discard Caste as being contrary to reason? That
raises the question: Is a Hindu free to follow his reason? Manu has laid down three sanctions to
which every Hindu must conform in the matter of his behaviour:

a) A Hindu must follow either Veda, Smriti or sadachar. He cannot follow anything else.

b) where a matter is covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational
thinking.

c) He must abide by their directions. Caste and Varna are matters which are dealt with by
the Vedas and the Smritis, and consequently, appeal to reason can have no effect on a
Hindu.

Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury of a reformer. To
deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable him for action. How are you going to
break up Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with reason? How are
you going to break up Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with
morality?

 Destroying Caste would not destroy the true principles of Religion: For him, To put it in plain
language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law, or at best legalized class-ethics. the worst
evil of this code of ordinances is that the laws it contains must be the same yesterday, today, and
forever. They are iniquitous in that they are not the same for one class as for another. But this
iniquity is made perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. therefore,
no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed

 A true priesthood should be based on qualification, not heredity:

1.There should be one and only one standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus
and recognized by all Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu religion such
as Vedas, Shastras, and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative, must by law cease
to be so, and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or social, contained in these books should
be penalized.

2. It would be better if priesthood among Hindus were abolished. But as this seems to be
impossible, the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes to be
a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by law that no Hindu shall be
entitled to be a priest unless he has passed an examination prescribed by the State, and holds a
sanad from the State permitting him to practise.

3. No ceremony performed by a priest who does not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in
law, and it should be made penal [=punishable] for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a
priest.

4. A priest should be the servant of the State, and should be subject to the disciplinary action of
the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs, and worship, in addition to his being subject along
with other citizens to the ordinary law of the land.

5. The number of priests should be limited by law according to the requirements of the State, as
is done in the case of the I.C.S.

 If Hindu Society is to progress, its traditions must be able to evolve:

Morality and religion, therefore, are not mere matters of likes and dislikes. You may dislike
exceedingly a scheme of morality which, if universally practised within a nation, would make
that nation the strongest nation on the face of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike, such a nation
will become strong. You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality and an ideal of justice
which, if universally practised within a nation, would make it unable to hold its own in the
struggle with other nations. Yet in spite of your admiration, this nation will eventually disappear.
The Hindus must, therefore, examine their religion and their morality in terms of their survival
value.

Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the whole of their social
heritage, or select what is helpful and transmit to future generations only that much and no more

Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship the past as supplying
their ideals.

Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognize that
there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; that everything is changing, that change
is the law of life for individuals as well as for society.
  His hint towards him converting [The struggle is yours; I have now decided to leave the
Hindu fold]:

Gandhi’s views vis-à-vis Ambedkar’s beliefs – An analysis:

A plain reading of Gandhi’s ‘A Vindication of caste’1 makes it apparent that the main argument of
Ambedkar’s speech was lost upon him. His opening remarks include, “It (Dr. Ambedkar’s address) has to
be read only because it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism…..He has
transferred to that religion, his disgust against a part of its professors.” In his polar opposite views,
Gandhi is also extremely grateful that Dr. Ambedkar is singularly alone and as yet but a representative of
a very small minority. He attempts to point out manifest flaws in Dr. Ambedkar’s thesis.

1
“A Vindication of caste” by Mahatma Gandhi, 1936
At one point, Gandhi provides an argument as flimsy and lacking in substance as that the Smritis, for
instance, contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus, many of the texts that Dr.
Ambedkar quotes from the Smritis cannot be accepted as authentic. What he fails to observe, or rather
chooses to dismiss, is that such an argument does not change the fact that Hindus have used these texts
to justify their exploitation of the depressed classes. As Ambedkar states, “The masses do not make any
distinction between texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. They have believed
what they have been told and what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty
the observance of Caste and Untouchability.”

Gandhi propagates that caste has nothing to do with religion, that Varna and Ashrama are institutions
which have nothing to do with castes. However, as rightly pointed out by Shri Sant Ramji 2, Gandhi’s
philosophical difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle to be grasped by people in general,
because for all practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste and Varna are one and the same thing, for
the function of both of them is one and the same.

He justifies the varna system on the basis of one’s duty and ancestral calling and even goes to the extent
of quoting it as “healthy operation of the law”. However, to try to remove untouchability without
striking at the root of Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease or to draw a
line on the surface of water. The ideal of following one’s ancestral calling is not only an impossible and
impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal as Gandhi doesn’t seem to have considered
the logical conclusions of his doctrine.

Gandhi also displays his despise for men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit a
breach of its only operative rule. Contrarily, as has rightly been pointed out by Ambedkar, Gandhi
despite being a Bania by birth, while choosing his career, preferred law to scales. On abandoning law, he
became half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. This
brings to fore the hypocrisy in his propaganda.

He believes that there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. However, he
keeps on reinforcing Varnavyavastha as the ideal structure of society, as is also apparent in his
publication titled, ‘The ideal bhangi’.

He believes that Ambedkar used too high a standard to judge the Hindu religion, by which measure
every known living faith would probably fail. To this, Ambedkar replies that the standards may be high,
but are appropriate as he feels that he should not consent to live in a society which cherishes wrong
ideals or a society which having right ideals will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with
those ideals.

Gandhi further makes out his case on the argument that a religion professed by eminent people such as
Chaitanya, Tukaram, Ramkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Rain Mohan Roy, Tagore, Vivekanand and host of
others cannot be utterly devoid of merit as a religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by
the best it might have produced. However, the true question even today remains — why the worst

2
Letter from Shri Sant Ramji of Jat Pat Todak Mandal of Lahore to Mahatma Gandhi, 1936
number so many and the best so few? Ambedkar conceives of an explanation to this by stating that the
religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many and
that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal. This further highlights the pitiable nature of
the situation caused by the caste system.

Moreover, by citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc. what the Mahatma seems to
suggest is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without any fundamental change in
its structure if all the high caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their
dealings with the low caste Hindus. However, the author concurs with Ambedkar’s views that a Hindu, in
order to be true to himself, shall always be conscious of caste since the very basis of relationship
amongst the fellows within this religion is flawed and represents a hierarchical system.

In his earlier writings in Young India on “Caste versus Class”, Gandhi argued that Caste System was
better than Class System on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social stability.
However, achieving stability through adjustment which comes at the cost of social justice is not an ideal
that any democratic society can uphold. The author believes that the caste system in the name of social
adjustment lacks the fundamental ideas of fluidity and equity.

As defined by the Mahatma and highlighted by Ambedkar, Varna becomes merely a different name for
Caste for the simple reason that it is the same in essence — namely pursuit of ancestral calling. As per
Ambedkar, the Mahatma’s view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes it an
abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of
each according to his worth-while Caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two
are as distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between the two. If the Mahatma
believes as he does in every one following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is
advocating the Caste System and that in calling it the Varna System he is not only guilty of terminological
inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded. Ambedkar further believes that the reason
why the Mahatma is always supporting Caste and Varna is because he is afraid that if he opposed them
he will lose his place in politics. The author finds this observation very apt considering that Mahatma
was always a political leader first, and social leader later, who viewed social change merely as a way to
obtain Swaraj.