Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability - An interview with Professor Christophe JAFFRELOT

 

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji AMBEDKAR (1891–1956) rose from a community of "untouchables," to become a major figure in modern Indian history. Christophe JAFFRELOT published the biography of Dr. AMBEDKAR in the year 2000 (in French) and then in 2005 (in English), the later titled as "Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability". It was the first biography of Dr. AMBEDKAR after his death in 1956 (yes, it took a Frenchman to write it!)! The author claims in his book that Dr. AMBEDKAR was the most neglected political figure in India then.

He identifies two main reasons to support this claim:

- A certain fear / disapproval of Dr. AMBEDKAR by the Indian establishment (political, social, economical and intellectual)

- Ostracism of Dr. AMBEDKAR as he was perceived as someone who had "collaborated" with the Britishers.

A logical deduction from this reasoning would mean that by writing this book the author defied the then Indian establishment and refused to ostracize Dr. Ambedkar anymore.

On the occasion of birth anniversary (14^th April) of Dr. Ambedkar’s, Anubandh KATÉ revisits with Christophe JAFFRELOT Dr. Ambedkar’s life and legacy.

Anubandh: My name is Anubandh KATÉ. I am a Paris based engineer. And perhaps, it is also pertinent to tell that I come from the state of Maharashtra and from a town called Wardha, where Gandhi spent last more than 15 years of his life. This is relevant to tell because my guest today is none other than Christophe JAFFRELOT, who has written several books on India.

Today we are going to talk about his book on Ambedkar, “Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability”. However, before I go into details, I would like to make certain disclaimers. I mean, a simple one is about Christophe is surname, because I can safely say that Christophe is more known in India than in France. And yet, many Indians have a difficulty in pronouncing his surname correctly. So, that is Christophe “JAFFRELOT”, you don’t pronounce the last “T” in his surname. This is because in French, there is a simple rule which says that after the consonant, if there is no vowel, then you don't pronounce the consonant. So, it is Christophe “JAFFRELOT”, without the “T” pronounced. Is that a fair explanation, Christophe?

Christophe: That is a good one. Perfect.

Anubandh: Let's move on then. As I just said, Christophe has written several books, but I will read the titles of a few among those because this is the first time I am hosting Christophe.

Nevertheless, before that, I believe it is important to tell that he is a professor of South Asian politics and history at the “Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche Internationale “, CERI at Sciences Po, Paris. He is also a professor of Indian politics and sociology at King's India Institute, London. He is a researcher, director at “Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique”, CNRS Paris. In addition, he is a visiting professor at the India Institute King's College, London.

Christophe has taught at Columbia University, New York. It is interesting because that is where Ambedkar did his education as well, and where he bought more than 2,000 books from his personal spendings! That is what Ramchandra GUHA tells us, in his book “Makers of Modern India “. Further, Christophe also taught at Yale University, John Hopkins University, the University of Montreal, and was a global scholar at Princeton University.

He is a permanent consultant at the Direction de la Prospective of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is all about his academic responsibilities.

I must also tell that Christophe visited India for the first time when he was 20 years old. At that time I was just two years old. Therefore, it is a long, long time!

Christophe writes regularly in the Indian newspapers and journals such as Indian Express, The Hindu, The Caravan, The Wire, etc. He has won the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. His publications on India cover aspects of Indian nationalism and democracy, Hindu nationalism, caste mobilization in politics and ethnic conflicts.

Similarly, on Pakistan his academic work has focused on Pakistani Nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, Taliban, Kashmir militancy politics and the numerous coup d’état and a lot of other things.

I will name few of his books on India. I believe, your first book was in French. It was, “Les Nationalistes Hindus “in 1993. This is very fascinating because

you were among the first ones to highlight the danger that RSS, BJP posed to India. And in 1993, it was the Prime ministership of Narsimha Rao, and the famous Congress backed  coalition era. Nobody imagined that time that there would be a turnaround soon.

Christophe: Yes. And that was part of my PhD work. Therefore, I started in 1987, in fact.

Anubandh: Ah, so you mean you started earlier and published the book in 1993.

Later, “L'Inde Contemporaine de 1950 à nos jours”, in French, in 1997. “Dr. Ambedkar, leader untouchable” in 2000. “The BJP and the compulsions of politics in India” in 2000. “Saffron modernity in India, Narendra Modi and his experiment with Gujarat” in 2015.

Christophe: In fact, this book was never published, Anu. No publisher wanted to take it. So finally, it was published only two years ago.

Anubandh: I see.

Christophe: And they have different titles. It was (finally) named “Modi's India”.

Anubandh: Okay. That is the same one. Fine. Moving on, “Majoritarian State: How Hindu Nationalism is Changing India”, 2019. “India's first dictatorship: The Emergency” in 2020. Then “Modi's India” in 2021, that you just mentioned. Further, the last one, “Gujarat under Modi”. And of course a book on the history of Bombay in French in 2024.

This is about India, but I think most people in India might not know that Christophe has also written extensively on Pakistan. “Le Pakistan” in 2000, “Le Pakistan, carrefour de tensions régionales” in 2002, “Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation” in 2002, “A History of Pakistan and Its Origins” in 2004, “Le Syndrome Pakistanais” in 2013. “The Pakistan Paradox, Instability and Resilience”, in 2015, “Pakistan at the Crossroads, Domestic Dynamics and External Pressures” in 2016.

I believe, I cannot think of any other author, commentator on India other than Ramchandra GUHA, who is so prolific a writer like you! I made a count of your books on Wikipedia. It sums up to 24 books on India, 7 on Pakistan, 1 on South Asia, 3 on other topics. That is 35 books! Yet, I am sure it is not the correct figure. You perhaps have written more books. So, that gives us an idea.

Christophe: True. Because, you know, there are books which are neither on India nor on Pakistan, but they are on populism or on nationalism. But we will not enter into that.

Anubandh: Yes. Time is short and precious. I have many interesting things to talk to you.

Nevertheless, I will continue (the introduction) because I think it is important to give the full context of your work. You are consulted by political observers everywhere in the world, by policymakers, by diplomats and strategists, and by intelligence agencies. For example, you were awarded the “Brienne Prize for Geopolitics” by the Defense Ministry of France for your book, “Le Syndrome Pakistanais”.

And also that you learnt Hindi at INALCO, that is “Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales (INALCO)”, Paris. For Indians, it would be interesting to note that in case tomorrow there is some problem with the Indian languages, we can come to INALCO and learn them. There is Hindi, Marathi, Telugu, Urdu and lots of them that are taught!

Further, before I conclude this long introduction, I must also tell that your observations often have a foresight, a vision, there is anticipation. For example, I mentioned to you earlier about how you picked up very early the rise of BJP and the RSS. Then you also have talked a lot about environmental issues like pollution, water scarcity and other India specific problems. By the way, I watched your interview recently on The Wire. You were talking there about how India should prepare for 2050, how we should plan our economy, employment and many other issues. Therefore, I see it is not just a plain commentary on the present or the past, but you also take things forward. This is very rare.

I will give a very last example. I also listened to one of your interviews where you were talking about the proportion of different religions in prisons of India. And you said, very rightly, that the proportion of Muslims in Indian jails is way higher than their proportion in the population. Interestingly, you said, in Kashmir, it is the opposite!

Christophe: It was. It was. It has changed now. But once, the Hindus were represented more than their share in the population.

Anubandh: Christophe, all this praise that I have showered upon you is deservingly yours! But the Ambedkarite tradition implies that with this comes also the responsibility to ask you some difficult questions. I have planned them, but I will keep them for the end. So let's begin. My first question to you would be, how this book came into being? What was the inspiration behind?

Christophe: I mean, every book has a story behind it, but that one has a very special story behind. In fact, I was initiated into Ambedkar studies by Olivier HERRENSCHMIDT, who was teaching at the Nanterre University, Paris at the head of the anthropology department. And he was very closely following in the late 1980s, early 90s, the publication of what we call the blue books, collected works of Dr. Ambedkar. The government of Maharashtra decided to publish all the speeches and writings by Dr. Ambedkar. And the first volume was published in 1979, but there was a long gap after that, a very long gap. Finally, by the late 1980s, early 1990s, many volumes were published. And Olivier HERRENSCHMIDT was very much interested in this. He asked me to bring books back from India. I was going to India more often than him. And we started to read them together. While I started to teach on Dr. Ambedkar. And in fact, the book is the byproduct of a course. It is the only time I did that. Usually it is the reverse. You write a book and you teach what you have written. No, this time I really tested, if you want, the relevance of Dr. Ambedkar’s sociology, sociological thoughts, anthropological thoughts, with MA students doing anthropology in one of the best universities for anthropologies in France, that is Nanterre University. So yes, there is a story behind. The book was published now 25 years ago in French.

And then it was published in English, in Tamil, in Marathi, in Malayalam. It has been translated into Gujarati, but we don't find a publisher for the moment. Yeah, it is very important to mention that a book has a life.

Anubandh: Correct. And more today because the Constitution and Dr. Ambedkar and all these issues are coming back. By the way, you also talked about Eleonore ZELLIOT as an inspiration.

Christophe: Of course, of course. The person who did it first, Eleonore's PhD was defended in 1969. It was not published before many decades. So I met Eleonore, we had a great conversation. There were two people who were really studying Dr. Ambedkar before the wave of Ambedkar studies. She was the number one, Gail OMVEDT was the number two. And these two women had done a great, great job. But when I published my biography in 2000, there was no other biography except, of course, one by Dhanajay KEER, that was published for the first time in 1954, before Ambedkar died. Which is therefore incomplete.

Anubandh: In the introduction of this book, you also said that you haven't written the biography in the usual way. And that you're not a serial biographer. We will come to that a little later. But, I would also like to mention that when you said that why Ambedkar was the most neglected public figures, you have given a few reasons there.

For you, there were two major reasons. One was that there was a disapproval or a kind of a fear that Ambedkar aroused within the “Indian establishment”. By “Indian establishment” I assume that you meant political, social, and economic elite of India.

Christophe: Yes. Intellectual elite as well.

Anubandh: Ok. So, that needs to be added to the list as well. Right? And the second reason you gave was that he was kind of ostracized because he was seen as a “traitor”, as a “collaborator” with the British, as an “unpatriotic”. In today's language that would be “anti-national”, “Urban Naxal” and all. So, in fact, if I can make a logical deduction from what you have written, that would mean that by writing this book, you decided also to break that fear (of the Indian establishment) and also not to ostracize Ambedkar anymore. Is that a fair conclusion?

Christophe: Yes. That was the plan and that was really something we wanted to do both of us with Olivier HERRENSCHMIDT. In fact, we had also another plan to edit a book of his collected writings for that very reason. But, yes, I would emphasize one dimension, that is, why have the Indian social scientists neglected Ambedkar for so long? You can understand why politicians prefer not to refer to him. Fair enough. Competition for votes and so on. In addition, you can understand why upper caste at large did not want to listen to him. But, academics, and one of the subtext of that, I am afraid,

was precisely the resilience of prejudice. And when I published this book, when it came out in English, when I did the book launch in Delhi, it was very, very sad in a way to have to argue with senior colleagues of mine. And I will not mention their names. But, when I said in chapter one that Ambedkar was a sociologist. They said, he was not. Of course he was! He had a very clear understanding of the dynamics of Indian society. But, you know, the prejudice went that far. And there is one person I would name because she took my defense in this, you know, the typical IIC (India International Center) debate in Delhi, that is Alice Thorner. And Alice Thorner was a great expert of Indian history. She was there when Mahatma Gandhi was killed, you know, so she was there for quite some time. And she was the only one who argued (in my defense). Nevertheless, the point you are making Anu is very important. Ostracism is indeed, sadly, the word.

Anubandh: That is an irony because Ambedkar fought all his life against ostracism, caste ostracism, and well, it comes back to him. I would certainly take one name because that is mentioned in your book and that is Arun SHOURIE. However, we'll come to that later if we have time.

Now, before I ask you more questions about the book, I have a general question. In fact, it is a small game that we can play. I have four freedom fighters in front of me. That is Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore, and Ambedkar. And whatever little readings I have done of them and observed their life, I have selected few adjectives for them. I just wish you to either confirm or refute them.

Thus, I begin with Gandhi. I read his Hind Swaraj, his autobiography, and a few articles in the Young India. For me, he is simple, righteous, humanist, steadfast, courageous, spiritual, great communicator, unifier and honest.

Christophe: And you should say also conservative.

Anubandh: That is correct. That is a good addition. Your book is also about that.

Then next is Nehru. I read his autobiography, Discovery of India and Glimpses of World History. To me, he comes as a rationalist, someone who has a scientific temper, egalitarian, visionary, connoisseur. He is an idealist, broad-minded with a large worldview, and at the same time, he has his feet firmly grounded in the Indian culture and society.

Christophe: You could also say pragmatic. And when you say idealist, you know what he said? I am a practical idealist. Nehru himself said, if you are only an idealist, it would take you nowhere. However, of course, pragmatism goes with some price.

Anubandh: Yes. That is also a quality that Ambedkar has, and you talked about it in the book.

Before Ambedkar, I have Tagore. I read his book Nationalism and few of his novels. So he was a literary genius, he was creative, he was an idealist, he was sensitive, a humanist, philosopher, rationalist, open and welcoming to the world.

Christophe: Yes, you can indeed see in Tagore someone who rejected nationalism. You said these are freedom fighters. Yeah, freedom

fighters, but freedom fighters are not necessarily nationalistic. And I would say for Tagore, universalism, universalistic, probably, describes him even more clearly. His interaction with Japan is absolutely fascinating. Oh, yeah. I would use this word, universalistic.

Anubandh: All right. Now his book, Nationalism, I would say is a must-read book. And not many people know that he wrote about politics so extensively.                              Ambedkar is the last one in the list. I read his Annihilation of Caste and Pakistan or Partition of India. He was undoubtedly a genius, a rationalist, a clinical, critical, coherent, radical, rebellious, courageous, uncompromising, determined, integral, righteous and pragmatic.

Christophe: No, I would add two adjectives. One is articulate. And compared to all the others he is the most articulate. And then humanist.

Anubandh: So by articulation, do you mean a great communicator?

Christophe: No. A great thinker, a man who has a brain and who uses his brain logically.

Anubandh: Okay. Thank you.             In your book, you have discussed at length the Ambedkar - Gandhi relations. You have also talked about Ambedkar and Nehru relations. However, we don't know much about how the relationship was between Tagore and Ambedkar. Could you please tell us a bit about it?

Christophe: I can't say anything on this relationship really.

Anubandh: No problem. Let's move on.

Now, I would like to talk about the approach of the book. You said, Ambedkar's struggle was for the sociological thoughts. I mean, his strategy of emancipation that you wanted to understand. It was not a chronological biography in the classical sense. It was a  understanding of his tactical  maneuvering and actions, right? You observed him, you studied him as a social reformer to politician, as well as an intellectual. Yet you also admitted that he was not a great organizer. So, talking about the strategy of the book, could you tell us more?

Christophe: Yeah, the book was an attempt at understanding the different entry points. We needed to compare for understanding Ambedkar's approach of the key issue that was untouchability. Therefore, there are different entry points. Number one is intellectual. He tried to understand how the caste system worked first. As a student, of course, in Colombia (University – New York) in the first place, and then in the LSE (London School of Economics) in London. By the way, we have just published a book on “Ambedkar in London” with two colleagues, which is now available in India. And it is an interesting one because in London, he also continued to acquire the sociological background for the understanding of the caste system. He wanted to know how it worked before fighting it. And that is the second point. He becomes a social reformer, creating newspapers, creating associations, fighting. You have the Mahad Satyagrah, for instance. That is social movement. Third, he entered politics, created parties, the Independent Labour Party (ILP), the Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF), the Republican Party of India (RPI). Fourth, he joined hands with the rulers, be they British or Congressmen, to get pragmatically something for his people, for the Dalits. And fifth and the last, he realized that something else had to be done. And that is why he converted to Buddhism, considering that within Hinduism, there would be no hope of emancipating himself, no hope for the Dalits, no escape from the caste system.

So, as very often in my books, it is a kind of Chrono thematic plan, you know, you follow a timeline. You begin with the understanding (of the caste system), you end with the conversion (to Buddhism). Nevertheless, of course, you have themes and they recur. The conversion question, for instance, emerged as early as 1935, when he said, “I will not die a Hindu”. However, between 1935 and 1956, he doesn't implement anything. So, it is a chapter on conversion that is Chrono thematic because it follows a chronology, however it is on one theme, conversion.

Anubandh: We will come to all these aspects in detail, if time permits, but I wanted to cite just one example of his strategic mind and his readiness to compromise. It is about the Mahad Satyagraha that he launched in December 1927. And he was to make some action there. Then the district magistrate had urged them, Ambedkar and his colleagues, to maintain peace. The magistrate said that the upper caste people had filed a case in the court as that being a private property. So, Ambedkar postponed the satyagraha and instead organized a procession around the water source. This shows that he understood that the case has now gone to the courts, and that was his home turf. He was an expert when it came to the legal and constitutional matters.  He knew that there was no problem there. He could handle it. In fact, he won that case afterwards.

Therefore, Ambedkar knew as well where to stop and not just (dogmatically) go straight!

Christophe: Yes, but I would not call that a way to compromise. It was a way to test all the possibilities that were open. However, when these possibilities somewhat failed, he changed track. In the case of Mahad, it is very interesting. There are two movements. The first one that you have described. And then, when the upper caste leaders of the village decided to purify the tank, because it had been polluted by the Dalits, then he changed gears. And the next phase, the second Mahad Satyagraha is the moment when he had the Manusmriti burned. There he had a remarkable speech saying that we are here for freedom. He said, my model is the French Revolution. We are doing in my heart something that is replicating what the French have done in 1789. So he certainly tried the court, but immediately after that failed, he changed his strategy.

Anubandh: Since you mentioned the Manusmriti, that incident where he brunt it, I must also tell that after he wrote the constitution, people started calling him the “New Manu”.

While Arun Shourie called him a “False Manu!”. Well, we will get into that later, again, if time permits. Nevertheless, coming back to this discussion that India had in those times, and Ambedkar explains it quite in detail in his book “Pakistan or Partition of India”. The question was whether India under Congress should take on the social issues first, the social emancipation / economical emancipation, or the political freedom.

Initially, the group under G.V. Ranade was dominant, which advocated the social reforms. He died, and then Tilak and Gandhi came, and then there was no competition. The political won over the social. However, Ambedkar asked a very fundamental and important question. He says, even if we get the freedom, and the one that we have in India today, what is it really meant for? It is meant to bring in the social and economical emancipation of the people! That is what Ambedkar says in one of his speeches, “After all, what are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is so full of inequalities, discriminations and other things which conflict with our fundamental rights".  He also said that “The sole object of political power is the use to which it can be put in the cause of social and economic reform”. Hence, we see that Ambedkar has a very clear understanding of why to do politics.

Christophe: Certainly. Well, two things. One, he was in the beginning interested in social reform. However, you know, the Ranade of the world, M.G. Ranade in the first place, talked about social reform and never implement anything progressive. Ranade is typical of this doublespeak. Mahatma Gandhi in the same way. Mahatma Gandhi could promote equality, at the same time, he never spoke against the caste system forcibly, forcefully, and, if you want, effectively. When he had to choose between Indulal Yagnik and Vallabhai Patel, he chose Patel against the man who was really the progressive leader in Gujarat, and you could have many other examples.

It is not as if Ambedkar did not invest in the social reformers. They failed him. They did not reform society, really. Therefore, that is the second point you raise. Yes, you had to use the politics. You have to go via politics for changing society, not from below, but from above. And that is why to be at the helm of the drafting committee of the Indian constitution was so important for him, because you could frame a constitution that could help to promote equality. And that is why you have such a long constitution with so many articles. You know, in which constitution in the world do you have an article saying, by the way, everybody should have access to shops, to wells, to schools? Where else do you see that? In India only!

Anubandh: Right. Now, so as to lighten the discussion a bit. I found two interesting things in your book., You said the name Maharashtra has possibly an origin with Mahar, the land of the Mahars. It was a revelation for me, although I come from Maharashtra! It was quite a new thing for me. You also said that Madhya Pradesh was earlier called Madhya Bharat. And which makes sense.

Christophe: Yes. Well, Madhya Bharat was the western part of Madhya Pradesh. You have the central provinces. That was in two parts at that time. Madhya Bharat was from Gwalior to Khandwa, Ujjain.

Anubandh: Ok. Before we talk now, the differences between Ambedkar and other reformers of that time and during his time, I would like to make few comments about the French connection which Ambedkar had and you mentioned about the Etat Générale and Mahad example but about equality, you know the French republican motto and he has very interesting words about it. He says, “fraternity and liberty are really derivative notions. The basic and fundamental conceptions are equality and respect for human personality”.

Christophe: Yeah. And if there is one thing that defines the French political culture, it is equality. Even more than liberty. Because there is a contradiction between equality and liberty. How can you be equal in a society where you are free to dominate the other? Therefore, for the French, revolutionaries in the first place, equality is sacrosanct and liberty has to be contained if it goes against equality. No, this is absolutely key, but you know, and this is why he is a sociologist! He is so good at distinguishing different forms of hierarchy. And he says, In France, in 1789, there could be a revolution because the third estate was big enough, against the aristocracy. In the third estate, you had the peasantry as well as the bourgeoisie. In Russia in 1917, you could have a revolution because the proletariat was large enough. You could bring together workers and landless peasants. In India, you can't get a revolution because you have graded inequality. And this concept of graded inequality is so powerful. it is not that you have the higher and the lower, you have the highest, the higher, and the high, and you have the lowest, and the lower, and the low, because within each caste group, you have subdivisions, and his objective is precisely after understanding that, to bring together at least the Dalits, because they are also very divided.

Anubandh: So every grade has something to hold on, of interest, except for those who are at the very bottom.

Christophe: Yeah, but you could never find someone at the bottom. Everyone will claim, no, no, no, no, there is someone below me. This is the syndrome of the caste system. You need someone below you, and you need to imitate someone above you. Therefore, you do not join hands with those who are around you.

Anubandh: Ok. Now to understand the difference of Ambedkar's politics or his vision compared to other reformers, I must tell, as you mentioned in the book, that he came from Maharashtra, which was a land of reformers. And you give another example of Tamil Nadu, like Periyar.

Christophe: Yeah. Much more reformist!

Anubandh: Right. Because there were people like Ranade, that I aleady mentioned. There was Jyotirao Phule. His Satya Shodhak Samaj. There was Swami Dayananda Saraswati. We had organizations like Sarvajanik Sabha, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj of Sant Ram and others. Harijan Sevak Sangh and many others.

There was also this Sanskritization word that you use. To me, as I understand, the main difference was that the rest other than Ambedkar, they were trying to find solutions within the same system, trying to stick to the skeleton.

Christophe: Except Phule. Except Phule! That is a different game. And in fact, one of the books, of course, Ambedkar wrote is dedicated to Phule, who was definitely of a different kind. You know, Phule is a Mali, is a Shudra, and he is telling the upper caste people, you have invaded India and we are sons of the soil. So, it gives an ethnic, I would say, solution to the caste system. Low caste people can opt out, can be different, can leave the caste system because of their ethnic identity, which is exactly what the Dravidians will do in Tamil Nadu, in Madras presidency, saying the same thing. You Brahmins are Aryans, you are coming from outside, we were there before, so we are not below you, we are elsewhere. Ambedkar will do something very similar by converting to Buddhism, saying we are not part of this Hindu structure. We are elsewhere, we are different. Thus, this idea that you ethnicize the caste, you transform the caste into an ethnic group on the basis of the kind of blood that runs in your vein or on the basis of the religion you're following, this is a very powerful tool that Phule initiated as early as 1873, when he created the Satyashodak Samaj, but that Periyar and then Ambedkar inherited from him.

Anubandh: Fine. Well, Nehru also talks at length in his book, The Discovery of India, how India initially was Hindu. And then, of course, with the invasion of Aryans and who were the Brahmins, and they dominated the Dravidians, the local ones, and Ambedkar claims that Mahars were the Dravidians as well. Then Nehru says that, yes, somehow the Hinduism receded because of the problems it created. Then Buddhism came as an answer to it. It spread not just in India, it went even outside India, but then it receded and we had Hinduism back again with the Brahmins and there Ambedkar says that the Mahars or the untouchables were the people who refused to go and join the Hinduism and as they didn't want the dominance of the Brahmins. They didn't want to stop eating meat and other things. So, I think that is a very interesting argument, saying that we are going to Buddhism because that is what we were. And this is quite intriguing, because at the Poona Pact, and we will go into that in detail later, when Gandhi in a way forced the hands of Ambedkar to sign that contract or pact, he said that “With this, you accept that you are a Hindu.”

Christophe: No, this is an important bone of contention. And this is why I have added the adjective conservative to Gandhi. Gandhi wanted to retain what he called the Hindu unity at the expense of equality. The Poona Pact is directly resulting from this objective to retain some unity, even if it meant some hierarchy and more than some. So, the way Gandhi somewhat if you want, mediated between Madan Mohan Malavia and Ambedkar was very unfair because it resulted in the loss of the main tool the Dalits could have had, “a separate electorate”, would have meant that in the assemblies, some Dalit members of the assemblies would have been accountable to the Dalits.

Anubandh: Right. Before we get into electorate, I just wish to finish that initial part. And I will put forward a few themes, and then I will invite you to comment on. There was also one tradition that is called bhakti tradition. It  was with Tukaram and Chokhamela and other saints. The argument there was that why need the priests, why need the Brahmin? We can have a direct relationship with god and then Brahmins also used that in saying you have to be become like chokha mela to claim certain privileges.

Christophe: Ambedkar did not believe in this route. He said, why do you want equality out of the world? Because that is the best, you know, you can't be equal only as world renouncers. You have to be equal in society. And he said, we should not ask for entry into temples which are somewhat governed by upper caste. So, the temple, the temple entry agitation, that was there till the 1920s, 1930s, was something finally denounced as a form of slavery.

Anubandh: Could you please now in brief explain us what is Chaturvarna, the different castes in India, what are Dalits in this respect?

Christophe: Dalits are not there. When you look at the initial system, if you go by the Rig Veda, the Rig Veda 9010, that is the first time when you see the Virat Purush being dismembered and from his mouth comes the Brahmin, from his arms come the Kshatriyas, from his hands come the Vaishyas, from his legs come the Shudras. Dalits are not there. Untouchability is not in the Chaturvarna initially. And that is why Mahatma Gandhi could say, let's go back to original caste system, there'll be no untouchability, but there will be caste. And if you retain caste, you retain hierarchy based on birth, and how do you get rid of untouchability?

Anubandh: At the most, apparently, Gandhi was ready to restrict to four Varanas and give up the caste, but that was the maximum he could concede.

We will talk a little about Mahars. And I mean, they were the dominant caste among the caste of Chambhar, Mang and Dhor and others. The traditional jobs that they did, not all of them were of low order in a way. They also had important jobs like military postings. They would also dispatch the courier and other stuff. So could you tell us a bit about Mahars, the context?

Christophe: Yeah, in fact, it is an interesting case because, of course, they were very low in the caste hierarchy, but among the Dalits, they were probably the “highest”. And they were mobile because they had to carry news. They have to take the messages, when anybody died or got married in a village, because of exogamy, village exogamy, you had to take the news to the rest of the family, and they had therefore to be articulate and mobile, as I said, geographically, but also intellectually. Of course, even more importantly, they joined the army. And that is an old tradition. They had been there already under Shivaji, under the Maratha Federation. And they continued during the British... Never forget that in Bhima Koregaon in 1818, the Mahars were the ones who defeated the Peshwa's army. It is still very much there in the memory of most of the Mahars, educated Mahars. When the British started to build cities, railway lines, ports, in Bombay especially, Mahars migrated to the city

in larger numbers. And therefore they were also in a better position to take the lead to get education, especially when they came from a garrison, from a military family like Ambedkar. Because in the garrison, in the cantonment, caste was much less prevalent. They could get education more easily.

Anubandh: Ok. And since you talked about the representation in the British army, it needs also to be told that the British stopped the Mahars’ recruitment in the early 1890s, because the Marathas complained that they wouldn't tolerate them. And yeah, which is kind of very strange. And it was the Peshwas, of course, who took or usurped the legacy of Shivaji. We also know that aspect.

Moving on, since we already talked a bit about Gandhi-Ambedkar relations, and we compared Ambedkar with other reformers, I think with Gandhi, one would say and you also agreed in the book that Gandhi was nevertheless, one of the most important Congress leaders who took the issues of Harijans or Dalits in his hands. He highlighted it, so the credit is due to him. But his approach was very different than Ambedkar’s. As you said, he wanted the unity within the Hindu religion and he somehow wanted them to stay with them. At the most, he was trying the religious emancipation of the untouchables and not enough for their social and economical or political emancipation. Which is also, I mean, I observed that Gandhi keeps using the word “sin” many a times in his dialogues. For instance, he says, “it is a political sin to ask for Pakistan”. So, that religious connotation is always present in his dealings that we cannot ignore. To be fair with Gandhi, he also appreciated Ambedkar's contribution, his approach, his work. And then, as you wrote in the book, that apparently Nehru was pressurized to accept Ambedkar. And GUHA also talks about it in his book, “Makers of Modern India”. However, I couldn't understand, why do you use the word “pressurized?” Did it need convincing efforts so that Nehru accepts Ambedkar? Wasn't that evident?

Christophe: Nehru would have been more than happy to accept Ambedkar but Nehru was not the only leader at that time. Never forget that Vallabhbhai Patel was very strong and was holding the organization of Congress and what about Rajendra Prasad and you know Congress was a very traditionalist organization at that time. Nehru had to resign from the Congress Working Committee for forcing Tandon to leave the Presidentship of Congress because he had been appointed with the support of Patel. So, Nehru was definitely not the, I would say, supreme leader that he became after 1950, after Vallabhbhai Patel died, 1951 is really the turning point, 1951-1952, when he could win the elections with a huge margin. So yes, there was a need for Gandhi to tell the Congress Party we need a government representing all the different milieus of society, including the Dalits. Jagjivan Ram was there already, but he could not compete in terms of popularity, in terms of intellectual capability with Ambedkar. So, they brought Ambedkar in the government in 1947.

Anubandh: I have now the topic about the political parties which Ambedkar formed. There are three of them, Independent Labour Party (ILP), Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF), Republican Party of India (RPI. And we will compare these three parties and their approaches. So, ILP had a larger base. He wanted to have a larger base. That is why he included the class, the workers, rather than just limiting it to the untouchables. Therefore, it had, of course the Mahars, but also the Mangs, the Dhors and the Chambhars. But apparently, they did not vote enough. Mostly Mahars voted to ILP. Then in Scheduled Caste Federation, he changed the tactic a bit and he made it more for the untouchables, including Mang and giving more representations to Mangs, Dhors and Chambhars and you will correct me (if I am wrong). While for the Republican Party of India, at the very end of his career, that was a coalition of Dalits, Mahars, Buddhists, I mean, Scheduled class, OBCs, and tribals. Yeah, is it a fair summary?

Christophe: What you see there is the oscillation between, on the one hand, is hope that it could be a mass leader representing the plebeians at large. And on the other end is other, I would say, priority that was to represent the Dalits. That is why the names keep changing. The names of the parties, you know, Labour on the one end, Scheduled Caste Federation on the other end, you know. In fact, he failed on both grounds. He could never compete with the socialists and the communists, who were much stronger. He related to them, he related mostly to the socialists, mostly to Lohiya socialist. He was close to Lohiya. Whereas the communists, because they ignored caste and promoted class, were not at all his cup of tea. However, he could not compete with them to be a labour leader, a worker's leader, and he could not either bring the Dalits together. That was, of course, the irony. He remained a Mahar leader for most of them and could not even win seats in the first Lok Sabha elections for that reason.

Anubandh: OK, now, in order to understand better the party politics of the time, could you explain us the different variants between the electorate? There was a proposal of joint electorate with reserved seats. And then Ambedkar said that he would require at least 35% of reservation for Dalits. Then there was separate electorate. Are there different, other than these variants? And what happened, tell us please, with the Mandal recently, I mean in the 1990s? How do we compare that and what is the situation today?

Christophe: Well, Mandal made no difference so far as elections were concerned. The system that was established in 1932, well, after the Poona Pact, has remained the same. There was never separate electorate for Dalits. Never. What we had after the Poona Pact was, you had primaries. Only Dalits voted for Dalit candidates who would be allowed to contest elections in reserved seats, but then in the constituency everybody would vote and Dalit voters would always be in a minority. But at least those who contested had been pre-selected by Dalit voters only. That is what disappeared in 1950, because Vallabhbhai Patel was not in favor of anything that would give more power to the Dalits. And in the minority committee, Ambedkar finally gave up. He did not even try. He did not try to retain this idea of primaries. And therefore, you had what we call “Chamchas”, you know, you have the stooges of the Congress, who certainly are Dalits but (they are) elected by non Dalits.

Anubandh: It is co-option.

Christophe: Yeah. Co-opted by dominant caste, upper caste people.

Anubandh: Ok. Now, because he did not have very much political success with his parties, that did not prevent him from collaborating with the Britishers. This was highly criticized, especially during the Quit India movement and during the Second World War period. Could you explain in brief his relationship with the Britishers and association and dissociation? Because he then went the Congress way when he saw that Britishers were leaving.

Christophe: Yeah, this is why you can call him pragmatic and not opportunist. The opportunist is promoting his own agenda, interest. The pragmatic is someone who adjusts to circumstances for pushing the same agenda. Ambedkar's agenda has always been in favor of Dalits. Therefore, in the 1940s, he considered that to promote the interest of the Dalits, to collaborate with the British, was a good idea. In a very specific context, you had the Quit India Movement, all the congressmen who had governed states after the 1937 elections had resigned. Thus, the British were really looking for Indian collaborators. Moreover, he agreed to join the Viceroyal council as a labor minister in 1942, August 1942. That made a big impact. You cannot imagine the number of laws, labor laws, welfare oriented laws that come from that time in India after independence. He is really the first one who pays attention to the workers. Because most of the workers, many workers, are from the lower caste and therefore it is a good way to help them.

Anubandh: Well. If I can play a devil's advocate, I would ask you with the same logic. Why would Savarkar not be called a pragmatic? Because he was also not doing it individually for himself. He was doing it for the Hindus, for the greater cause.

Christophe: You can call him pragmatic. I have no problem with that. But Savarkar followed a different agenda. He wanted to be sufficiently skilled for fighting Muslims. Moreover, pragmatically, he thought that collaborating with the British was the best way to fight the Muslims. In particular, one of the murderers of Mahatma Gandhi, Apte, had joined, as a follower of Savarkar, on the invitation of Savarkar, had joined the British army to know how to kill, to know how to use firearms. So, pragmatically, they followed the same agenda that was how to get prepared for partition, how to get prepared for fighting the Muslims. Therefore, you can definitely call Savarkar pragmatic in the sense that he was following also the same agenda as before.

Anubandh: I know there is this “Quit India Movement” that we talked about, and in the book, Partition of Pakistan, Pakistan or Partition of India, Ambedkar argues that the Quit India Movement was launched by Gandhi in a way to bypass the Muslims, somehow to get the independence, so that we don't have to share power or territory with them. Do you agree with this logic?

Christophe: Yeah, this is very speculative. What is interesting there is at that time in the 1940s, Ambedkar was asking for a separate territory for Dalits. The same way Muslims were asking for a separate territory. Because they considered that there would be no peace for them, no equality for them, in a Congress, in a Hindu Congress, as they said, dominated government. Interestingly, Periyar was following the same logic, saying we want Dravidistan, you know, Ambedkar wanted Dalitstan, Periyar wanted Dravidistan done, and they met in 1944. When Ambedkar had to propose the first template for a constitution, he did it in the late 1940s, mid 1940s, he said, we want separate settlement for Dalits. Therefore, you see affinities between the demand for Pakistan and the demand for the demand for Dalitstan.

Anubandh: We have about 10 minutes with us. I still have lots of questions, especially also about the book “Pakistan or the partition of India”. Maybe I will keep it for some other day, but I must tell my audience that this book, I really recommend to them. Because it shows how Ambedkar anticipated, analyzed the situation of that time. He weighed in the pros and cons for Pakistan or the possibility of Pakistan. He weighed in the Hindu-Muslim relations. He also said perhaps there could be a possibility to see Pakistan materialize. However, we can try it for 10 years. We can have a plebiscite. After 10 years, we can have again a plebiscite and all that. Nevertheless, I really recommend this book to you. I will though talk a bit about a very controversial book and that is by Arundhati Roy that you know, “The Doctor and the Saint”. This book for me sent shockwaves in the Gandhian world of Wardha and other places. What's your assessment of this book, “The Annihilation of Caste” that she reproduced and the introduction she gave? What do you think about this book?

Christophe: Well, I really have no memory of this part, of what I do remember is that the introduction is longer than the book itself, but I really can't say anything about that Anu. I don't remember. I might not have read it very carefully, really.

Anubandh: Ok, that could be one of the reasons. But I then would like to ask you the larger question. Gandhi was the father of the nation. He is still. There are people like him, like Jinnah has the same stature in Pakistan, perhaps Charles de Gaulle here in France. Very often, it becomes difficult to (dispassionately) analyze the lives of such great men, with the excuse saying that otherwise, there will be anarchy, otherwise there will be no trust. My question is, is it fair to scrutinize? If  the answer is yes, then what is the best time to do that? Because people say, why is Arundhati doing it now when Modi is at the helm? So, how do you look at this aspect of analyzing the great leaders?

Christophe: Well, there is no, you know, inhibition in terms of time that needs to be observed when you do intellectual work. You will not fight Hidutva by ignoring the limitations of previous leaders. You will fight Hidutva more effectively by recognizing the limitations of previous leaders. Therefore, I don't think we should abstain from analyzing things sincerely in the name of, if you want, priorities that would be to protect.

Anubandh: If I can play with words, then I would say, nobody should be untouchable in that sense!

Christophe: Exactly, exactly. That is why a big problem with biographies on Indian leaders is that these are eulogies. Most of the time, 90% of the biographies are eulogies.

Anubandh: Right. Okay, now we are really at the end of this interview. And yet I wish to talk about Thomas Blum Hansen, with whom you've worked and you published a book. Now, to conclude on this book of Arundhati, he writes the below words of Praise,

“Roy's essay is punchy, eye-opening and provocative. There is very little left of the saintly stature of the Mahatma once Roy is done with him, while Ambedkar, quite rightly, is left standing as the man in full control of his senses and his very considerable intellect.”

And you wrote about this book. Although you say you haven't read it, perhaps attentively.

Christophe: No, but I read, Anu. That Arundhati Roy was supposed to write a preface. And we were supposed to write something on the new edition of “Annihilation of Caste”, a very important book. Therefore, that is what I did.

Anubandh: Okay, I will still read what you wrote. You said,

“This annotated edition of “Annihilation of Caste” was long overdue. It makes available to all a major text of Dr. Ambedkar where his intellectual engagement with Caste is best articulated. The copious footnotes give the reader a sense of direction and all the additional information needed for making sense of the text including the translation of the Sanskrit shlokas Ambedkar used it to document his analysis. This edition is truly a remarkable achievement.”

Christophe: Yeah, we did the footnotes.

Anubandh: Right. My difficult question for you was this, because apparently you haven't said what Thomas Blum Hansen said about the scrutiny of Gandhi. So, were you being politically correct when you wrote this?

Christophe:  Not at all. I was asked to look at the new edition of this masterpiece that is “Annihilation of Caste”, the 1935 book by Ambedkar. This new edition is remarkable. That is what I had to do. I am not, you know, anything but a clear observer of Ambedkar's thought process. And as I said, of course, the controversy between Ambedkar and Gandhi was absolutely normal. Ambedkar wanted to annihilate caste. It is in the title of the book! Gandhi wanted to restore Varnashrama Dharma. They were bound to clash. And this is why I call Gandhi, and I add that to your list of adjectives, a “conservative”. On the contrary, Ambedkar as a “humanist”, because humanism is incompatible with caste and incompatible with the Varnashrama Dharma.

Anubandh: So, yes if one reads and when one reads your book, of course it is clear that you put things the way they are, so there is no hiding from it. Now, we are reaching really the end of this interview. So as to bring things to the India of today, I have a question where, can we say that Modi has proved right the fears of both Jinnah and Ambedkar? Because that was what was feared at that time, during the partition, that there will be a Hindu dominance. So has he proved them right?

Christophe: You know, the problem is that this is counterfactual. Certainly, Muslims are oppressed in a way Jinnah, “anticipated”. But they are also that oppressed because Jinnah created Pakistan! if you had not 10% of Muslims in 1947, but 20% of Muslims, like before partition, if you had still a Muslim elite in India after 1947, you would not have had this kind of decline, educational decline, economic decline. Therefore, it is really counterfactual to say, look, we were right. We created Pakistan for good reasons. Look at what is going on in India. Well, what is going on in India is also because of those who left India. Yeah. The elite Muslims.

Anubandh: And yet I would say in the backdrop of this context, it is a magic that India remained away from RSS and BJP for so long and that is really credible for Indians.

Now, you also talked about some emotional aspects that this book generates, appeal that this book makes. And one incidence that you quoted in the book, or was it in GUHA's book or somewhere else, I think it was in your book, is the incidence when Ambedkar goes to Baroda, and he cannot find a room to rent. He claims he is a Parsi. He gets the room, but then he is found and is evicted. Later, he cannot find any room and he cries. The next day, he returns back to Bombay. In the introduction of your book, you have written that you dedicate this book to your son Milan. By the way, is it a Russian or an Indian name?

Christophe: It is Czech.

Anubandh: Sorry. Because Milan in Hindi means union.

Christophe: I know.

Anubandh: So you wrote,

“Dr. Ambedkar's life, even scrutinized dispassionately, generates emotions that he may share one day.”

Yeah. Has your son read this book? If he has, what does he think?

Christophe: I don't know. And this is really not a question I can respond to. However, the emotional part definitely is there. You know, I decided to work on low caste people, not only Maharashtra, not only Dalits, early on, just after completing my PhD in the early 1990s, when I was myself confronted with this kind of inhuman treatment of people. I was in a bus, that was a night bus. I was traveling from Bombay to Bhopal, long trip at that time. I saw a man with a young boy, his son, begging and turned down. Then I realized that if I could do something useful as an academic, it was definitely to expose this social system and who else had done it better than me before, except Dr. Ambedkar? Therefore, that was definitely an emotion. Those who say that intellectuals are emotion free, I have to acknowledge that it is (emotion is) part of the job. What is more, I think, recommended is to precisely recognize that we are also moved by sentiments. It doesn't mean that the intellectual work that we do is not, I would say objective and based on empirical sources and evidence and so on. However, why do we decide to work on this topic or that topic? What is the personal motivation behind? it is rooted in some kind of emotion. And it is better to acknowledge that rather than conceal it and deny. So, yes, I definitely think that the kind of emotions I have experienced by working on Dr. Ambedkar have helped me to be probably more complete as a human being.

Anubandh: Yeah. I can confirm as a reader of your book, and I am sure all my audience also confirms that you have done this job exceedingly well. It is a testimony; your work is a testimony to that. I thank you very much for this very candid conversation, for sharing all your views and thoughts about this book. And I hope we will carry on this conversation. Thank you, Christophe.

Christophe: We will. Thank you, Anu.

Anubandh: Thanks a lot. 

Christophe JAFFRELOT is a French political scientist and Indologist specialising in South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. He is a professor of South Asian politics and history at the Centre d'études et de recherches internationales (CERI) at Sciences Po (Paris), a professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at the King's India Institute (London), and a Research Director at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS).

Anubandh KATÉ is a Paris based engineer and co-founder of the association, “Les Forums France Inde”.