Recently I landed in to Sabarmati Ashram once more. ‘Landed’ as the visit was unplanned and incidental. This ashram is as sacred to me as The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem to Christians, Kotel/Western Wall to Jews, Mecca to Muslims, Golden temple to Sikhs and Kashi to Hindus. I am not a strict follower of his principles but some times I practice them in my life. And I believe, firmly, in his teachings and his ahimsa. In India we don’t mind criticizing a thing without having proper knowledge about it. And it’s done with Mahatma Gandhi, often. Time and again I pick debate with those ill-equipped with the knowledge of freedom struggle, Gandhian principles and his philosophy.
It is often said about Geeta that one finds some thing new, each time one reads it. This happens to me with Sabarmati Ashram, I discover some untouched parts of Mahatma’s life, each time I visit there. This time it was about his words and action on untouchablity. I ve never thought so deeply about his philosophy, before, in this regard.
When it comes to untouchablity there is another big name, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, he himself being a dalit bore the brunt of untouchablity; obviously he was aware of the problems faced by them. As he had undergone the humiliation since his childhood, when upper cast students refused to study with him in the same classroom and when he was a minister, in the government of Baroda state, the Brahmin peon used to throw the files on his hands so as to avoid an untouchable’s touch. Whereas Mahatma Gandhi was a Baniya, an upper cast Hindu.
I took many days in writing this blog. I wanted not to be prejudiced or say didn’t want to jump to a conclusion in haste. The subject of my thinking was depth of gandhi’s stand on untouchablity vis-à-vis Ambedkar. The later being an untouchable fought for the rights of the untouchables. Though the plight of untouchables in British India can not be disputed but again and again I came to the point of my thinking. Whereas the method of Ambedkar was to secure rights of his community, untouchables, the Gandhi wanted the upper class Hindus to accept them as equal. Here lies the difference, while the path adopted by Ambedkar was of conflict rather a struggle with in the society. He advocated the communal awards and he almost got separate electorate for dalits. It was due to Mahatma’s fast unto death a historical error was averted. Otherwise there would have been three warring communal groups in India namely Hindu, Muslims and Dalits. But Gandhi ji emphesised on the acceptance of dalits by other sections of society as their brothers. Again his ahimsa! He was liked even by his adversaries for his ways. He always believed in changing the hearts and not in conflict. In case of untouchablity too, he wanted to change the heart of upper cast people. And for this, he was nearly ostrasized. He even in a way boycotted Kasturba who was told to leave the ashram if she could not stay with dalits staying in Sabarmati Ashram! But finally ahimsa won!
If seen in its nackedness, Ambedkar struggled for the community he belonged to. He would have fought for Brahmins had he been a Brahmin. But Mahtma thought about a society equal for all, without prejudices and discrimination, which was a thing, in those times, only he could dream about, but he did, that’s why he was Mahatma!
If seen in its nackedness, Ambedkar struggled for the community he belonged to. He would have fought for Brahmins had he been a Brahmin. But Mahtma thought about a society equal for all, without prejudices and discrimination, which was a thing, in those times, only he could dream about, but he did, that’s why he was Mahatma!
