The Gandhi-Ambedkar debate remains a vital and ongoing discourse, symbolising India’s struggle for justice and equality. Dr B R Ambedkar’s anniversary reflects a movement for dignity and rights, while Gandhi’s ideals inspire ethical, sustainable living aligned with the SDGs
As India advances through the transformative era of ‘Amrit Kal’, in celebrations of ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ and envisioning a Viksit Bharat by 2047 under the dynamic leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it becomes essential to revisit the multifaceted narratives of its freedom struggle. Though united in opposition to colonial rule, the independence movement was marked by diverse and often conflicting visions for the future nation. Central to this internal ideological discourse was the profound and enduring engagement between two towering figures — Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar.
Their intellectual confrontation over caste, untouchability, and the foundational principles of Indian democracy transcended individual differences, revealing two fundamentally distinct approaches — Gandhi’s moral and spiritual call for societal reform and Ambedkar’s insistence on structural, legal, and institutional transformation. This critical debate not only shaped the trajectory of modern India but continues to resonate deeply in contemporary discourses on social justice and democratic reform. Whereas in colonial India, caste discrimination was not only a social evil but a systemic instrument of oppression, both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar recognised this, but they approached the problem from fundamentally different perspectives. While Gandhi symbolised a moral and spiritual appeal to Indian society to transform itself, Dr Ambedkar demanded structural, legal, and institutional hange for the emancipation of Dalits.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi envisioned an India grounded in self-sufficiency, moral rectitude, and the vitality of its village republics. A committed reformer, Gandhi worked within the existing Hindu social framework, aiming to transform it through love, service, and moral awakening rather than tructural dismantling. He showed particular concern for the upliftment of the oppressed castes, whom he called ‘Harijans’ or ‘Children of God,’ emphasising their inclusion through spiritual and social reform. In Young India (1921), he asserted, “I do not believe that inter-dining or inter-marriage is the final test of removal of untouchability. It is the spirit of service, of uttermost self-sacrifice, that can alone purify us.”
Gandhi’s belief in the innate goodness of individuals and the transformative power of selfless action informed his campaigns for temple entry and participation in public life for the Harijans. While deeply empathetic and morally driven, his reformist approach sought to purify and evolve Hinduism from within, rather than reject it.
In stark contrast, Dr B R Ambedkar, born into the very margins of caste-based exclusion, viewed the caste system as an inherently violent and oppressive structure that required total eradication. As a jurist, economist, and principal architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar’s critique was radical and systemic. In his seminal yet undelivered address ‘Annihilation of Caste’ (1936), he thundered:
“Caste is not merely a division of labour; it is also a division of labourers…this unnatural division of labourers into watertight compartments, further graded one above the other.” Ambedkar’s path to liberation centered on the complete dismantling of caste and the acquisition of social and political power for Dalits. The divergence in their approaches became particularly stark during the debate surrounding separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. The British, in the ‘Communal Award of 1932’, proposed granting separate electorates, a move Ambedkar saw as crucial for ensuring the political representation and empowerment of the marginalised. He argued that without such safeguards, the depressed (read marginalised) classes would remain perpetually subservient to the Hindu majority. As he stated to Gandhi during their historic Poona Pact negotiations, “We must have our own men elected by our own votes. Only then can we hope to have our grievances redressed.”
However, Gandhi vehemently opposed separate electorates, viewing them as a divisive force that would fragment Hindu society and hinder the larger nationalist movement. He undertook a fast unto death in protest in Yerwada Jail — a powerful (moral) weapon that put immense moral pressure on Ambedkar. The resulting ‘Poona Pact’ of 1932, while securing reserved seats for the ‘depressed classes’ within the general electorate, was seen by many of Ambedkar’s followers as a compromise forced upon them under duress.
As Gail Omvedt (American-born Indian sociologist and human rights activist), notes in her book “Dalits and the Democratic Revolution”, “The Poona Pact, while giving more reserved seats than the Communal Award, tied the Depressed Classes to the Hindu fold in a way that Ambedkar had desperately tried to avoid.” At the core of the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate was a divergent understanding of caste and social justice. Gandhi saw caste as a social construct that could be reformed without destroying Hinduism.
He wrote in Harijan (1933) that “Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a social custom which has crept into Hinduism... It must go if Hinduism is to survive.” Ambedkar, on the other hand, viewed caste as the essence of Hinduism. Ambedkar’s stance was rooted in a deep understanding of the scriptural justification for caste.
Their disagreement was, thus, not merely political but epistemological — a clash between faith-based reformism and rationalist reconstruction. French Political Scientist and Indologist with a specialisation in South Asia, Christophe Jaffrelot argues in his book “India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India” that Ambedkar’s ideas provided the intellectual and political framework for the assertion of Dalit identity and the demand for social justice.
Post-independence India sought to harmonise the contrasting yet complementary visions of Dr B R Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, Dr Ambedkar institutionalised the principles of justice, equality, and secularism. His leadership led to constitutional provisions such as Article 17, which outlawed untouchability, and the introduction of affirmative action through reservations in education and employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These measures signified the state’s proactive role in addressing and dismantling historical injustices and caste-based discrimination, in alignment with Ambedkar’s transformatives.
Vision of social democracy
Simultaneously, Gandhi’s ideals continued to shape the moral and political foundation of the Republic. His emphasis on non-violence, village self-governance, and inclusive nationalism influenced rural development policies and underscored the importance of social harmony. Yet, the persistence of caste-based discrimination — manifesting in economic disparities, social exclusion, and violence — reveals the inadequacy of legal instruments alone in uprooting entrenched social hierarchies.
The continuing relevance of the Ambedkar-Gandhi discourse is evident in debates on caste census, reservation, and Dalit activism (read consciousness), emphasising the unfinished quest for an inclusive and egalitarian India. Dr Ambedkar’s warning in his last speech to the Constituent Assembly remains chillingly relevant.
He said, “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” His emphasis on “constitutional morality” and not merely “public opinion” is a reminder that democratic structures need constant nurturing. Mahatma Gandhi, too, emphasised inner transformation and moral self-restraint as essential to democratic functioning.
The Gandhi-Ambedkar debate remains a vital and ongoing discourse, symbolising India’s struggle for justice and equality. Dr B R Ambedkar’s anniversary reflects a movement for dignity and rights, while Gandhi’s ideals inspire ethical, sustainable living aligned with the SDGs. It is important to look at whether as a progressive society, we are moving in the right direction.
(The writer is a programme executive Gandhi Smriti Sansthan. Views are personal)
