Annihilation of Caste

In Chapter 14, Ambedkar continues his criticism of caste but here decides to move in a more positive direction. Up to this point he had been levying his criticism of Hinduism and caste in an almost completely negative light. Here he begins a turn to joining constructive criticism and positive suggestions to his equally scathing and penetrating critiques. At first, Ambedkar brings up the infamous motto of the French Revolution—liberté, egalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity)—that would eventually be enshrined in the French constitution, drafted in 1958. He never mentions its connection to the revolution in France, or any of its source at all, but his reading of the three ideas track quite well with the revolutionary spirit that involves the implementation of a democratic regime attempting to replace what is viewed as an outdated and tyrannical system. Though he does not dive completely into the ideas in great detail, he makes the point that nobody could possibly be against these three ideals of societal flourishing. These arguments continue to emphasize Changing Culture to Unify India and Improve It as the author suggests that an entire cultural change is needed to improve the nation. Ambedkar wants to target India at its roots, abolishing the caste system and instilling democratic values instead.

The reason he seems to bring these three ideals up in this place is to combat the idea that he is about to bring up in the following chapters, the competing ideal of Chaturvarnya. Chaturvarnya is the attempt to divide society up into four different classes (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra), a division that would ostensibly take the place of the caste system currently in place in which people are segregated into thousands of different castes. The claim in Chaturvarnya is that this division will solve all of the problems of Hindu culture and society because it will eliminate almost every caste and bring people into division that would actually fit their roles within society. As Ambedkar points out, however, even this division is not fitting for human beings to participate because the reality is that people are not being given their fair share or their fair due. He continues to emphasize Hinduism as Explicitly Divisive and Rigid here. Even with these four new classes, there is still the problem of placing one class in a subservient role (the Shudra) while allowing the other three to take on roles in which they can take advantage of others. Not only this, but there would be no system to ensure that the other three classes would actually fulfill their duties toward the others and to society as a whole. The author suggests that inherent in Hinduism are divisions between people and groups. It is not possible simply to tone down the caste system, in other words, as the culture itself is about hierarchies and structure and is oppositional to a unified India.

One of the more insightful criticisms that Ambedkar offers is his rejection of retaining any of the old names for things. Even if Chaturvarnya were to be implemented, those who advocate for it want to use old names for the four different classes while claiming that they are going to be four brand new realities. Ambedkar sees that this is completely impractical; it is human nature to always look for the familiar and the comfortable and what is more known, and so using old names will naturally tend to push one toward the old ideas. Human beings are uniquely capable of using language, and so the use of specific language is a supremely human power. With this power comes a real responsibility to ensure that the language society employs is beneficial and advantageous to the flourishing of its citizens. Identity Hierarchies as Oppositional to Cohesion is analyzed here, as the author argues that the caste system attempts to make the identities of individuals themselves better or worse than the identities of other people. Even a toned down version of the caste system will attempt to establish some identities as being better than others. This is, by definition, oppositional to a cohesive culture.

As a final note to finish off his demolition of those who would promote Chaturvarnya, he brings up the example of what is to be done with women in this new society. If everyone is going to be divided up into four classes, what is to be done when new marriages occur? Will women who marry enter their husband’s caste? Will they retain their old status? Would the husband need to join his wife’s caste? This answer is left unresolved, and Ambedkar employs the paradox to argue that this particular manner of reform is simply impractical and could never even be instituted even if it were favored by a majority of Hindus. In fact, as Ambedkar reviews, Chaturvarnya is not a new idea and is an ancient idea that has been tried and has already failed to bring about a different kind of culture. He continues to insist on the annihilation of caste altogether.