Comment on views of Gandhi and Ambedkar on ‘social justice’. (2011, 15 Marks)
M. K. Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar both wanted an India without untouchability, and both measured justice by the condition of the lowest. They differed on what caused injustice and who should end it. For Gandhi the problem was moral corruption, to be cured by a change of heart. For Ambedkar it was a structure of graded inequality, to be dismantled through rights and the state.
Points of Contrast
| Criterion | Gandhi | Ambedkar |
|---|---|---|
| Caste | Varna a non-hierarchical division of callings; caste a corruption | Caste a division of labourers; chaturvarnya itself the root (Annihilation of Caste, 1936) |
| Untouchability | A sin of caste Hindus, to be atoned for by them | The logical end point of caste, removable only with it |
| Agent | Caste Hindu conscience; Harijan Sevak Sangh | The organised oppressed: Educate, Agitate, Organise |
| Representation | Joint electorate; fast against the Communal Award | Separate electorates; conceded in the Poona Pact (24 September 1932) under duress |
| Economy | Trusteeship, bread labour, sarvodaya | State socialism in States and Minorities (1947) |
| Means | Satyagraha, persuasion | Law, constitutional morality, protective discrimination |
Gandhi’s Case
His social justice is sarvodaya, the welfare of all beginning with the last. Justice rested on duty more than rights: the privileged had to repent and serve. His views changed over time. He made removing untouchability a condition of swaraj, and in his last years attended only inter-caste weddings involving a Dalit partner.
Ambedkar’s Case
Justice meant liberty, equality and fraternity together, as a matter of status and dignity rather than charity. Since those who hold privilege do not give it up voluntarily, justice needed enforceable rights: Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 17, reservation and a strong state. He rejected the name “Harijan” as consolation in place of rights.
Assessment
- Gandhi made caste reform a national moral duty, but his defence of varna and his reliance on the conscience of the privileged left the structure standing.
- Ambedkar’s constitutional route gave rights, yet depends on a state often staffed by dominant castes. Without the change of heart Gandhi sought, the law is easily evaded.
- In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (3 October 2024) the Supreme Court struck down prison-manual rules assigning sweeping and cleaning by caste, under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. The ruling vindicates Ambedkar’s point about hereditary labour.
Conclusion
The two views are complementary but unequal. Ambedkar’s diagnosis was the deeper one and shaped the Constitution. Gandhi’s insistence on social conscience remains necessary for fraternity, which Ambedkar himself told the Constituent Assembly was a difficult thing to achieve.