Dr. Ambedkar’s Thoughts on Nationalism

Manish Kr. Pandey

Dept. of Political Science, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar University, Raipur, CG., India.

 ^*Corresponding author: manish.pandey@sruraipur.ac.in

Abstract:

The psychological concept of nationalism establishes a sense of fraternity in the society on cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic basis. One of the nation builders of modern India, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar coined a narrative of Nationalism about freedom of India from social inequality and untouchability. He talked about freedom of India from social inequality and untouchability. This could be understood as a subaltern narrative about the upliftment of downtrodden, deprived and marginalised sections of the society; the section that did not have any participation in public life of colonial India. In this research paper, we will study the various aspects of Dr. Ambedkar's nationalism, in which he firmly stated that without emancipation of deprived people (Dalits), Indian freedom struggle was not deemed to be complete. He has presented the concept of practical nationalism in contrast to western and Indian extremist concepts, some aspects of which we will discuss in this article.

Keywords: - Nationalism, Fraternity, Ethnic, Untouchability, Subaltern, Participation, Emancipation.

Introduction

‘Nation’ represents a spirit of homogeneity towards fellow inhabitants sharing a common culture, ethnicity, race, religion and language or any one of these. One of the nation builders of New India, Dr Ambedkar's nationalism is not only in the form of struggle against colonial authority but also against the nefarious concept of exploitation of ‘Dalits’ and ‘untouchability’ in the social structure in the Indian environment. An important element of Ambedkar's nationalism is the unified common interest among the Indian citizens, which would not have been possible without ‘Social Identity, Economic Redistribution and Political Representation’ of the downtrodden-exploited class in the archaic social structure. Against the excellence based nationalism of western modern nationalism, Dr. Ambedkar has given importance to awakening and collective inclusion of enlightened India based on History of Ideas. Thus, for Dr. Ambedkar, nationalism means - the right to civil life and the sense of duty to be tied in the thread of unity.

             It is an established fact that the assessment of  B. R. Ambedkar's personality and work has been done from a very narrow approach, which is still continues uninterrupted. The country remembers them, but not their perfection. Often the media, academia, and intellectuals generally consider his stature only as a ‘Scheduled Castes’ (the term ‘Dalit’ evolved later) leader or social reformer. In such a situation, many dimensions of Ambedkar's intellectual thinking are either has been rejected or has been deliberately pushed into the background.

         From the sociological point of view, Dr. Ambedkar defined 'Person', ‘Caste’, ‘Varna’, Village, Religion, social structure (with special reference to Hinduism); social justice - Problems of Hindu Women and Minorities (In particular context of Islam), have propounded many concepts like nation building, modernity etc.[1]

     The views on nation and nationalism were presented by Dr. Ambedkar very clearly and logically. There are clearly some questions raised in his writings on the concept of nationalism. Which we can see as follows:-

A: - What is the concept of nation?

B: - Is India a nation or is it on the way to become a nation?

C: - What are the main reasons for India not becoming a nation?

D: - What is the process of nation building and its development?

E: - Which dimensions of nationalism would be best for India?

    To quote Ambedkar from his illustrious book “Thoughts on Pakistan”, he states that- “There is a difference between nationality and nationalism. They are two different psychological states of the human mind. Nationality means "consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship." Nationalism means "the desire for separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship."[2]

      Like the national poet Rabindra Nath Tagore and the prolific nationalist Vivekananda, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar also believed that India had not become a nation; rather, going ahead of them, Dr. Ambedkar believed that the concept of nationalism is meaningless in a nation divided into multicultural, multilingual, multi-ethnic society.[3]

      Dr. Ambedkar remarked and questioned, "How can people made up of many castes be a nation? ... Castes are anti-national because they give rise to negativity and jealousy towards other castes. … There is a complete lack of holistic consciousness among Hindus. The consciousness that exists in every Hindu is caste consciousness. That is why Hindus create a society, not a nation.”[4]

      Thus in this article we will see how Dr. Ambedkar negates the concept of rise of nationalism in the then Indian conditions on the basis of western concept of nationalism. He has given enough arguments and evidence to prove that India is a society made up of different castes, classes and sects, in which each has morals and interests, so the concept of common interest cannot be awakened so easily. It was on this basis that he supported Muslim nationalism, for which he has been criticized many times, which stems from misinterpreting his arguments.

Dr. Ambedkar’s Concept of Nationalism

     The Indian concept of ‘Rashtra’ could be considered a parallel to the western term ‘Nation’; which (the concept of western nationalism) has been defined and explained by Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm; in which they have been considered from the geo-political, political economic, and collectivist point of view. , but both (Indian & Western) are also different on several counts. The primary difference between the two stems from the fact that Rashtra is more of an ethic-spiritual concept while Nation is a cultural concept.[5] Many Indian leaders like Sri Arvindo, Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, Tagore and Deen Dayal Upadhyay delved into the idea of Indian nation and nationalism. Their ideas are either spiritual, meta-physical or statist. The latter aspects were most highlighted by Jotirao Phule, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Periyar Ramasamy Niacker on one side and introduction of girls’ education with Savitribai Phule. This group underlined that ‘India is a nation in the making’.[6]

      During this period, Dr. Ambedkar appeared with a new Dalit revolutionary ideology of nationalism; which can be called the subaltern form of nationalism. In which there is talk of upliftment of the weaker, deprived and exploited sections of the society so that they can be brought into the mainstream of the society. For Ambedkar, the movement for Indian independence was not only to get political power from the British Empire but also to make India a modern nation by liberating it from orthodox traditions and institution. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar coined a narrative of Nationalism about freedom of India from social inequality and untouchability.  Without emancipation of these deprived people, Indian freedom struggle was not deemed to be complete. The Indian national struggle in the past half of the century was not merely a struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but also a struggle to lay the foundation of a modern India by purging the society of outmoded social institutions, beliefs and attitudes.

         The western influence of his education at Oxford showed Ambedkar, a true democracy where people could live with a sense of pride and dignity. It gave him a world view into the most effective forms of governance. In the pre- republic era Dr. B. R. Ambedkar shared Mahatma Gandhi’s views of Nation building Also, influenced by the world’s political aspirations at the time one can see ideals of Otto Von Bismarck’s Universal Adult Suffrage and Sovereignty alongside Vladimir Lenin’s ideals of a Socialistic government reflected in our constitution. Explaining his position in the Constituent Assembly in 1948, he said,

“I shall strive for a Constitution which will release India from all thralldom and patronage…. I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice, an India in which there shall be no high and low class of people, an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony. There can be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability ………… Women will enjoy the same rights as men… I shall be satisfied with nothing else.”

Ambedkar elaborated on the idea of Nationality and Nationalism in his book 'Pakistan or the Partition of India'. He describes nationality as a, "consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship” and nationalism as "the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship." It is true that there cannot be nationalism without the feeling of nationality. But, it is important to bear in mind that the converse is not always true. The feeling of nationality may be present and yet the feeling of nationalism may be quite absent. That is to say, nationality does not in all cases produce nationalism. For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions must exist. First, there must arise the will to live as a nation. Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly, there must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation. Without such a territory, nationalism, to use Lord Acton's phrase, would be a soul as it were wandering in search of a body in which to begin life over again and dies out finding none.[7]

Aspects of Nationalism

The ideas of Dr. Ambedkar, influenced by western political ideology, are clearly influenced by the nationalist ideas of Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm.

        In fact Ambedkar intended to build a golden future of modern India. Inspired by the ideas of Western thinker Hobsbawm, Dr. Ambedkar's goal was the collective unity of India, in which all castes, classes, sects and nationalities would be included. He said,

 “So far as the ultimate goal is concerned, none of us have any apprehension or doubt. Our difficulty was not about the ultimate thing but how to unite the heterogeneous mass that we are today to take a decision in common and march in a cooperative way on that road, which is bound to lead us to unity.”[8]

Ambedkar clearly spoke in a felicitation program of his 55th birth anniversary,

“I have loyalty to our people inhabiting this country. I have also loyalty to this country. I have no doubt that you have the same. All of us want this country to be free. So far as I am concerned my conduct has been guided by the consideration that we shall place no great difficulties in the way of this country achieving its freedom.”[9]

Dr. Ambedkar believed that, 'Social unity is the basis of nationalism, not of secessionism'. Influenced by western political thought, Ambedkar questioned the collective possibility of individualism in the economic sphere, communitarianism in the social sphere, fundamentalism in the religious sphere and the scientific temper for scientific progress. He was of the opinion that there is a need for integration in all this. He was deeply inspired by the slogan of the French National Revolution - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. He was of the view that the concept of 'we the people' and 'common interest' is very much needed for the establishment of nationalism in India. He believed that,

           "Ethnic consciousness is detrimental to fraternity and equality, because each caste has individual interests and castes tend to form into categories. We must remove this weakness at the earliest if we need to build a nation."[10]

In the light of Hobsbawm’s 'Elite Concept', Dr Ambedkar believes that 'Unified British rule has given rise to a common interest in India'. Thus he has adopted the concept of pure political nationalism against the concept of cultural, spiritual and religious nationalism of Gandhi, Vivekananda, and Savarkar etc.

        Dr. Ambedkar's nationalism advocates identity, redistribution and representation for the downtrodden and oppressed class in society; the elements of which he sees in Buddhism which stands against Vedanta. Ambedkar wrote in 'Finance and Monetary Economics: Administration and the Finance of the East India Company' - "It is in the interest of the nationality to seek the cooperation of the British in breaking the exploitative elitist structure in India."

He did not support British rule forever. As his editors put it:

 "During British rule, the issue of political freedom took precedence over social reform and therefore social reform was neglected. He (Ambedkar) calls upon Hindus to abolish caste which is a social reform. A major obstacle to solidarity is the establishment of a new social order based on the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in accordance with the principles of democracy.[11]

    Editing the theory of 'economic drain' in the works 'The Evolution of the Public Finance in East India' and 'Problem of Ruppy, he wrote that "India was damaged by feudal fighting without securing the political and economic interests of the Dalits; Which seems possible with the help of the British Government” Whereas On the other hand there is a dilemma, if the British stay in India for a long time, they will exploit India more. That's why we Indians have to understand the truth that it is not possible to establish nationalism in India without bringing the Dalit of the society into the mainstream. Ambedkar believed that,

"There is a complete lack of equality, freedom and fraternity among Hindus due to caste consciousness, in such a situation it is beyond reality to consider India as a nation."[12]

       In the political arena also, he felt that the dominant castes would not allow Dalits to assert themselves. So he demanded a separate electorate for Dalits, which was accepted at McDonald's 'Communal Award' in August 1932. He gave utmost importance to 'self-representation' for the Dalits. He was of the opinion that, "The untouchables are often considered to be the only objects of mercy, but they are always rejected in the political process thinking that they have no interest. But it is also true that their interests are the greatest." It is not that someone is confiscating their property, that their entire self has been confiscated. The untouchables were never considered citizens. There were no civil rights such as: 1. personal liberty, 2. personal security, 3. right to own private property, 4. equality of justice, 5. freedom of conscience, 6. freedom of speech and expression, 7. peacefully Freedom to assemble, 8. Right to representation in the national government, 9. Freedom to hold office in the state.[13]

      In a multicultural country like India, Dr. Ambedkar was inspired by Ernest Gellner's concept of nationalism, in which Gellner's original sentence was, "Perpetual plebiscite in living togetherness is nationalism." And for Ambedkar this hypothesis is found in the ‘Buddhist philosophy’ of 'coexistence', based on peaceful collectivism. In the political perspective, coexistence is possible at the individual level (micro level), but for its establishment at the macro level, a radical change in social values ​​will have to be done; here he refers to the ‘Inter-Caste marriage’ relationship.

      This will not be enough to establish nationalism from a political point of view; rather, Gellner's concept of historical 'forgetfulness' is also essential to the establishment of collective interest in society. For which orthodox symbols will have to be broken in order to eradicate the orthodox traditions. In this episode, burning of copies of Manusmriti, temple entry and other untouchable emancipation programs were executed by Dr. Ambedkar. In Ambedkar's view, Hinduism was based on inequality and oppression of Dalits. This prompted him to think in terms of conversion to an alternative religion that would accept Dalits as equals, a discovery that culminated in 1956 with a large number of Dalits, with their conversion to Buddhism.[14]

       Against Savarkar's views, he did not glorify the past as it brings with it negative stereotypes of the past. The deeper agenda of this politics, that of suppressing the human rights of weaker sections of society, Dalits, women, workers, adivasi  and minorities also started getting visible by and by.[15]

 Also, Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore's concept that "the mixing of modernity with heroic nationalism is terrifying". Ambedkar agreed, because the horrors of the two world wars had opened the secrets of western nationalism. Nationalism does not develop only on common heritage and sense of pride, as long as an extroverted society resides in it. Therefore, if a new India is to be built, then on the basis of 'History of Ideas', an equality based 'Enlightened India' has to be created. Here Ambedkar appears to be influenced by Benedict Anderson's 'Imagined Community', which is an enlightened class i.e. qualitative. However, against many beliefs, Ambedkar did not consider the Aryans to be foreigners. And the provisions of the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution and the provisions of reservation for the Depressed Classes can be seen as 'collective inclusion' synonymous with the defects arising from the Indian orthodox traditions. Ambedkar believes that, "Hero Worship hinders free thinking, that is, ancient society (the cultural concept of nationalism) is against the concept of 'Organic Society' because it makes the sheep of the people." Therefore, Ambedkar talks about the comparison of cultural and religious with political nationalism, which is equally logical today.

Conclusion

      In fact, Babasaheb Ambedkar has made a unique, useful, justified and purposeful contribution in the establishment of Indian nationalism. Babasaheb contribution in the making of modern India is exemplary. His struggle for social justice and pioneering movement for organization of Dalits is an integral part of 'Building India as a Nation'.

       Today, when all ideas revolve around inclusive politics, Ambedkar has become more relevant than ever. Nationalism is a dynamic process of social assimilation and hence nationalism is to achieve complete harmony in the attainment of social brotherhood of men irrespective of caste, color and creed. Nationalism is not opposed to humanism or individualism. Within a nationalistic framework the individual can enjoy complete personal freedom. Everyone needs a space to think, grow and be free. At the present time, nation is the best institution to fulfill this objective. We need a grand narrative involving the last woman in the queue. Dr. Ambedkar believes, "Nationalism means the sense of unity and collectivity in the society due to civil life, individual freedom and sense of duty. The elements that increase the feeling of unity in the society are needed and not the elements that divide.”

     Thus Ambedkar, like Gandhi, believes that the western concept of nationalism considers the state as a machine, whereas the organic theory is Heroism, promoting individual worship and turning the individual into a sheep. Whereas today there is a need for a society based on liberty, equality and fraternity in which man is respected as a human being and he should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, caste, race, gender or any artificial counterfeited concept. It is clear that the concept of nationalism is not opposite to humanism or individualism, but complementary. Within the nationalist framework one can enjoy complete personal freedom. Everyone needs space to think, grow and be free.