The “Annihilation of Caste” by B.R Ambedkar - A Critical Analysis

The speech by B.R. Ambedkar, titled “Annihilation of Caste,” is one of the most critical yet neglected works in modern Indian political thought. The speech was prepared for the 1936 Annual Conference of the Hindu reformist collective, the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal. An undelivered speech that suggested radical views on the caste system and the possible steps to reform Hinduism of its discriminations.

Image Sourced: countercurrents.org

Ambedkar begins his delivery by giving the reader context regarding how the speech came to be. He shares the letters shared between himself and the members of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who had asked him to preside over their Lahore conference in 1936. When the speech was sent to Punjab before the Conference for copies to be printed, it was met with backlash from members of the Mandal. Ambedkar received a response stating the Mandal’s discomfort with aspects of the speech that they did not anticipate. The Mandal stated their discomfort with the length of the speech, the criticising of the Hindu religious texts of the Vedas, and Ambedkar’s views of the Hindu religion were considered provocative and off-topic to them. The Mandal requested Ambedkar to restrict his speech only to his discussion and views on Brahmanism and the need for unity in social reform, to which Ambedkar replied that we would not so much as “change a comma” of his speech for the sake of the Mandal. The Conference, as a response, was then called off.

Here, we analyse key and the most noteworthy aspects of Ambedkar’s most remarkable yet undelivered work, the Annihilation of Caste.

Ambedkar begins his discourse by providing a brief history of the National Congress (political reformers) and the Social Conference, which initially acted as two wings with common activity; they would host their annual Conference in the same pandal. However, growing differences stemming from the political and social reform groups debating what deserves higher priority in India created a divide. The Social Conference lost the battle because a significant majority of the Hindu population shared thoughts similar to those of Congress. Ambedkar shares his thoughts on the situation by stating that social conferences lost the battle because of their limited scope, which could not generate as much support. The Conference focused on reforming the high-caste Hindu family rather than abolishing the caste system, which Ambedkar viewed as essential for true social progress. Ambedkar then presented that social reform was needed to reform Indian society. This is because he believed that even if the Indians did achieve political reform, it would hold no value with a flawed societal structure. Social reform is a task the leaders have to deal with sooner or later. The difference is that India will be more comfortable in the new political structure when its societal mechanisms are secure and strong. He took historical examples to prove that social and religious revolutions have always preceded political revolutions. Ambedkar cites historical instances to prove his point by listing examples across history. He recalled Puritanism in England, Prophet Muhammad before the Arabs, Buddha before Chandragupta, Guru Nanak before the Sikhs, and the Saints of Maharashtra before Shivaji to emphasise his point.

Ambedkar contests the socialist view on the situation as well. A socialist may argue that a social or political reform is an illusion. Man is economic, and property is his source of power. Society would progress faster if the lead masses based their activities on these economic facts. They argue that economic reform precedes social or political reform as the need of the hour. Ambedkar counters this by stating that religion is a source of power in India that can “sway” the common man even more efficiently than any political institution. He asks the socialist if they would prefer economic reform at the cost of their core principles. 

“If Socialism is a practical programme and is not merely an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not whether he believes in equality. The question for him is whether he minds one class ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system and principle.”

Ambedkar begins by stating why he thinks he is an unlikely President at the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal conference. Hindu religion places the Brahmin as the designated ‘guru’ for the ‘varnas’ whereas he is simply an ‘Antajya’ standing before a conference primarily composed of ‘Savarnas.’ In doing so, he understands he is breaking the code of the Shastric injunctions, an action to which the actions of the Mandal may be questioned or even challenged.

“I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that I am not a persona grata with them. Knowing all this, I have deliberately kept myself away from them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them. I have been expressing my views on my own platform. This has already caused a great deal of heart-burning and irritation.”

Ambedkar understands the animosity the Hindus feel toward them and states that he has no intent to ‘ascend’ on the Hindu platform, stating that his presence is only attributed to the invitation of the Mandal. Ambedkar defends his presence by stating that the Hindus and he both have a cause for social reform. Ambedkar thinks his presence and views on the situation will aid the process, but whether the Hindus find his thoughts appealing or not remains for them to decide.

Ambedkar begins addressing the caste question by emphasising how the caste machinery has become a poison that has been corroding Indian Hindu society. It has cemented it’s beliefs in society over such a long time that it has become rigid to the point that mass mentality has gone beyond morality. While the Caste System is defended as a division of labour, it is a hierarchy that grades labourers, unlike other societies’ mere division of labour. A significant criticism of the Caste System is that it unnaturally divides people into watertight compartments. The Caste System does not allow for the natural development of individual capacities and career choices, as it assigns tasks based on social status rather than individual aptitudes. In the Caste System, occupations are stratified based on their social and economic status, preventing individuals from adapting to changing economic conditions and causing unemployment. This is not a spontaneous act. Neither is it based on natural ability. Certain occupations in India are stigmatised by the Caste System, resulting in aversion and inefficiency among those engaged in them due to the dogma of predestination. In addressing caste as an anti-social spirit, he argues that this is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. Seeing humans creates an unnecessary divide within themselves, creating a false sense of superiority. Ambedkar addresses how aboriginal tribes have also not been uplifted and have been left to remain backward. The fact remains that these communities have remained in their primitive state. He questions why no attempt has been made to civilise these aborigines and to lead them to take to a more honourable way of making a living. He answers his question by stating that a Hindu would never be able to adopt an alien group as his own because he remains in pursuit of attempts to preserve his caste.

“Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reformers and for killing all reform.”

Ambedkar discusses how caste will never allow room for reform because of the societal notions that come with it. If a man tries to assert agency by going against the ways of any societal philosophy, he will be met with backlash. The fear of this backlash will then force the individual to forgo his cause and conform to the collective identity and belief. Through its conformity, caste destroys public spirit and opinion. Its contemporary relevance is visible in the attitudes of the masses even today. 

Ambedkar moves on to the Arya Samajists and their objective of the Chaturvarnya -

“Who is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra—or, for that matter, those of the Vaishya and Kshatriya—when the person who is trying to take advantage of his ignorance is the Brahmin?”

Ambedkar comments on Samaj’s effort to divide society into four classes instead of the four thousand castes that exist. Their way of gaining influence is to label the system as one that is based not on birth but on guna (worth). He objects to this notion stating that the names themselves Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth. The system is also not dependable; it guarantees no protection of the interests of the lower castes and their received treatment from the ‘savarnas’. We see today, the relevance of this system in the modern-day political scenario when it comes to the religious and communal aspects. 

Ambedkar takes an unexpected turn toward criticising Hinduism as an institution. Given how the religion has inculcated this notion of caste, then the ‘enemy’ to grapple with is not the people who observe caste, but the Shastras who teach them this religion of caste. Ambedkar wonders how Hindus can be brought to an end practice, the sanctity of which is enshrined in the ‘Shastras”’ and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in this mentioned sanctity. Ambedkar addresses the take on allowing intercaste dinners to break the barriers between castes, but these practices have not displayed much progression or change. It is through intercaste marriage that Ambedkar believes the issue at hand can be resolved. The feeling of kinship can only be created by the fusion of blood, and unless this feeling of kinship becomes paramount, the feeling of alienation created by caste will persist. To him, the solution to caste problems cannot be found anywhere else.

Ambedkar concludes his speech by stating that if Hindu society is to progress, it must transform with time, allowing traditions to come and go.

“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.”

He ends his speech by stating that he has decided to leave the Hindu fold, addressing the Hindus in the crowd as a bystander in informing them how the social cause will be a tougher fight for them than the political one. Ambedkar states that to establish a strong sense of self-rule or ‘Swaraj, ' there must be a sense of oneness and fraternity across all Indians; for this, we must be able to overcome the caste system. In a contemporary interpretation of this argument, we can understand that only, a higher, blanket identity will act as the solution to the veil difference that exists between Hindus across and within castes, uniting them in the common cause of a nation. 

“Yours is more 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 having Swaraj, if you cannot defend it.”