Annihilation of Caste

The author thanks the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal for inviting him to serve as the president of the conference and admits it might have been an unwise choice since there are so many who seem to dislike him very much, not least because he himself is a member of the Antyaja, an untouchable caste. He accepted the invitation almost against his will but accepted the position at their invitation in the hopes that some good could come from it. As he states:

Yours is a cause of social reform. That cause has always made an appeal to me, and it is because of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an opportunity of helping the cause—especially when you think that I can help it (2).

With this introduction out of the way, he proceeds into the first phase of his delivery.

The author explains that, in regard to the question of societal reform, the movement has given birth to two different parties: the party dedicated to political reform, and the one devoted to social reform. The difference between the two—though both argue that large-scale reform is needed—is which major point of reform is to be carried out first. Is social reform necessary before political reform, or is it the other way around? Eventually, the two parties clashed, the author explains, and the group devoted to political reform carried the day.

This does not necessarily mean the correct position became the most popular, however, and evidence is given using the example of how Hindus treat the Balais people, one of India’s untouchable castes. So many rules are necessary for the untouchables to keep in mind, and most are designed to keep them away from the upper castes. The question of politics is important, but the more pressing question is the social one, not, however, social reform in the sense of the more individual and practical, but reform at the level of society as a whole. Many examples are levied, including some from the time of the ancient Roman empire. Drawing his initial intuition to a close, Ambedkar insists that social and religious reforms have always preceded political reformations.

While much of what those on the side of prioritizing economic reform say is true, it is not the only thing that is true, and it is not ultimately the most significant aspect of reform needed. The most significant lies in the social sphere. As history shows, religion and the power of the state are always intertwined, so there is no real space for separating politics and culture. Capital and private property are not the only means by which to determine the source of power and authority—especially not in India—and India should certainly not do so now.

Much power is derived from social capital and the manner in which one is treated and perceived. This social question strikes at the heart of the Hindu system of caste, and no reform is going to be possible unless the caste system is toppled. Ambedkar insists nobody will join the cause “unless they know that after the revolution is achieved they will be treated equally” (16), and so the destruction of caste absolutely needs to be guaranteed since it is the ultimate obstacle to any and all reformation projects.

Many argue caste is merely a division of labor, but this is not the case. Rather, it is not a division of labor but a division of those who actually perform the labor. The ones who must work are categorized according not to what they do but to who they are and from whom they have inherited their life and name. In India, the division is unique since there is nothing like the caste division in any other country. In addition, another problem that arises is the fact that certain jobs become associated with certain castes, and so individuals will refuse to take jobs considered beneath them. As a result, “caste becomes a direct cause of much of the unemployment we see in the country” (18). Rather than dividing up the labor efficiently, the people themselves are divided up, and this in turn leads to more deeply rooted divisions between people and groups.

In defense of the caste system, some argue for its biological basis, but this is a falsehood: “[E]thnologists are of the opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere” (19). The caste division is not a division based on race or genetics as so many wish to believe; it is much more likely that one would be more closely genetically related to those in different castes who are simply close geographically. It is less likely that one might hold certain genetics in common with one’s caste regardless of location or background. In any case, all must hold that all castes are made up of human beings and are thus united in one common species of creature. Even were one to argue in favor of the caste system based on eugenics, this too would fail since it is practically impossible to guide human marriage and procreation in this precise manner. Caste, in the end, has no genetic, biological, or scientific character whatsoever.

Rather than uplifting Hindu society, caste has rather prevented it from flourishing because it has prevented Hindu society from becoming what a society truly is; Hindu society, the author states, is rather a society in name and convention alone: “Hindu Society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes” (22). Each caste thinks of itself alone and cares for its members alone. The concern for caste members and the indifference—or even hatred—that many feel toward others outside of their own group destroy a sense of common purpose and culture. Even when all the castes are doing the same things, like celebrating the same festivals, their differences are always elevated and centered above all else, resulting in the prevention of common activity and leading to a disunified people.