Publisher : Stanford University Press, Rs 3,820
The book provides plethora of ideas which were rooted in the contemporary historical processes and were articulated dialectically in the course of India's nationalist history, writes BIDYUT CHAKRABARTY
In contemporary scholarship, there have been attempts to historicise concepts with reference to the ideas that activists-cum-thinkers of the nationalist era articulated while pursuing their politico-ideological preferences in contrast with other prevalent counterparts. Radical Equality belongs to the genre which, instead of treading the familiar path in historical research, prefers to understand the epistemological contour of the ideas of two intellectual giants — Mahatma Gandhi and BR Ambedkar — who, despite being products of colonial liberalism, charted a unique course of action which gained immediate acceptance when they were on the political scene and is also relevant even today.
Besides an epilogue, there are seven chapters in which Kumar elaborates his distinctly-textured argument in favour of the contention that notwithstanding their uncritical faith in liberal democracy, Gandhi and Ambedkar seem to have contributed to a situation which was likely to jeopardise their sincere efforts for the establishment of an equal society which the author characterises as ‘the risk of democracy’ in the title of the book. On the basis of his critical analysis of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste, the author forcefully makes the point that it was actually an ideological battle between them for winning constituencies of support for their respective political agenda on the basis of their understanding of political liberalism. Despite being ‘discordant constituents of a shared moral psychology’, these two fundamental texts articulated concerns for change; there is a difference however: While Gandhi thought that it was possible with the end of colonial rule, Ambedkar differed by suggesting that only by doing away with ‘Hinduism’s entrenched indifference to its cruelties’ it could be a reality. The difference had roots in the way they read, for instance, epic texts like Ramayana and Mahabharata.
According to Gandhi, both these texts were inspirational and the main characters, Rama and Krishna respectively had played critical role in establishing moral over immoral deeds. With his reading of the epics being prejudiced to the Shudras and Untouchables, Ambedkar held a different point of view by saying that both Rama and Krishna endorsed the prevalent birth-driven social divisions by resorting to even ‘fraud’ means. Similarly, Gandhi’s defence of chaturvarnya provoked Ambedkar to revolt ‘against the alienating effects of this moral law’ which was contrary to basic human ethics, as he learnt after having been exposed to physical and emotional torture by being born as a Mahar.
The book stands out since it delves into some of the fundamental issues of political theory, supportive of democracy. For instance, both Gandhi and Ambedkar had held contrary views on justice, freedom and disobedience. For the former, freedom from colonialism was always prior and hence the battle for freedom was not to be weakened by raising issues of social justice. This was perhaps the best strategy that one could have thought at a particular historical juncture. In Ambedkar’s perception, the campaign for freedom and demand for social justice were just two sides of the same coin; hence he was not persuaded to exclude one for the other. On this fundamental conceptualisation for freedom rested their respective approaches to disobedience and sovereignty: Since the freedom struggle reinforced some of the archaic practices for denial of justice to the untouchables, it never appealed to Babasaheb; because it would lead to the ‘Brahminical hegemony’, he was dismayed by Gandhi’s call for freedom. The argument has other side also which supports Gandhi’s strategic decision not to highlight the social issues for the sake of sustaining the united anti-British political platform that he built by bringing disparate social segments of Indian society. A perusal of the debates involving Gandhi and Ambedkar suggests that it would be historically inaccurate and conceptually myopic to understand India’s freedom struggle in black-and-white terms in view of the complexities in which it evolved and also manifested. By introducing readers to these ideas, Kumar has joined those scholars who strongly feel that history, besides being a narrative, is also a space where contrasting ideas/concepts are played out. Radical Equality is thus a significant contribution to the available literature that has refashioned our approach to Ambedkar’s social and political ideas by drawing on the ideational battle that he had waged against ‘the majoritarian and nationalist grammar of his times’ in favour of ‘his insurrectionary search for the society of equals’.
Kumar has written one of those unusual books that actually delivers more to readers than is suggested by the title. The book provides plethora of ideas which were rooted in the contemporary historical processes and were articulated dialectically in the course of India’s nationalist history in which contrasting ideological views prospered. Being nurtured in the British Empire that also twisted the principles of Enlightenment to justify colonialism, Gandhi and Ambedkar were introduced to the fundamental ethos of Western liberalism which they upheld while pursuing their respective ideological missions. What was common among them, as Kumar has rightly pointed out, was their moral concern for creating a society of equals. A commendable and thought-provoking contribution, Radical Equality stands out because (a) it has reconfirmed, once again, that the concept-driven historicising makes historical narratives far clearer than mere description and (b) it has also demonstrated persuasively that BR Ambedkar was not merely a Dalit messiah but was also a powerful voice that created a space for constitutionalism and republican values in India.
The reviewer is a Professor of Political Science, Delhi University