Ambedkar’s Political Nationalism Context, Contour & Content G Aloysius I Introduction From being thought of as a Mahar or Depressed Classes leader, Ambedkar is slowly but tortuously graduating in academic circles as one who has contributed significantly for the democratisation of polity and society here. However, the issue of nationalism is another matter, a sacred preserve of the dominant few. It is too important and foundational an issue for the dominant therefore, to allow public intellectuals of Ambedkar mould to have any say in the matter. With the academia almost monopolised by the ascriptively dominant, Ambedkar can never hope for entry in the Indian nationalist pantheon; in fact some spoke and wrote of him as plain anti-nationalist and even stooge of the British. The Ambedkarites, on the other hand, may be for different reasons, also thought that he did not have anything to say or do with questions and issues relating to nationalism. One could almost sense a sort of defensiveness amongst many on this issue. Silence pervades, when Ambedkar’s credentials as a nationalist is questioned by the intransigent dominant. Their uneasy silence seemed at least till recently to assent to the expressed and unexpressed views and sentiments of the socially dominant concerning Ambedkar and his contribution. With the emergence of the Dalit movement and its multi-pronged challenges to ascriptive dominance within society, some efforts have indeed been forthcoming to re-read Ambedkar, his life and thoughts and suggest that Ambedkar too was a nationalist! This is not an altogether a welcome development, for, such a position indeed has problems. Because, the general thrust of most such efforts is to show that Ambedkar was also a nationalist in the very same mould or meaning as that of those who are usually projected as the ideologues and leaders of Indian nationalism. Such an almost contrived position goes only to belittle the contribution of this great visionary of modern India, as this intervention seeks to show. So much of ideological production and reproduction have been going on around this all important and foundational theme of Indian nationalism, that most of what the socially dominant have articulated on the issue has been taken for granted, quietly accepted and now the effort is to cut to shape, recast the ideologues of Ambedkarite tradition also and dovetail, in other words co-opt them within the same structures of dominance. Taking off from such a context, this presentation is an attempt at an ideological demystification or exercise in deconstruction as well as a discursive-critical re-construction of the idea of nation and nationalism. The deconstruction, it is hoped would expose the oppressive and ideological nature of the current dominant discourses of nationalism here. And similarly, the reconstruction, hopefully would lead to an alternative understanding of nation and nationalism which would find resonance in peoples’ collective life in general and subaltern struggles and Ambedkar’s articulations in particular. Concretely, the suggestion is to engage in three interrelated things: First, pick up and highlight the elementary but important theoretical highlights from the more recent readings on nearly three centuries-long history of nationalism across the globe. This would provide the muchneeded clarity as well as lay out the discursive context for understanding the historical development in this part of the world. Second, selectively review the developments in modern Indian history from the point of view of the unfolding of nation and nationalism and their dominant academic readings. This is a critical reading of history and historiography, an exercise in deconstruction, the necessary preliminary for the positive 1 The terms refer to particular form of society and ideology respectively. country and territory. 1993 & 1996). it is also its political contour (L Greenfeld. constitute a ‘nation’. Therefore. that is within the logic of nation-state as it evolved in history. the state is primary and nation is the subsumed subsidiary. Modern individual is a citizen of a nation-state and modern collectivity par excellence is a nation 2 . Of this. We have a concrete entity called nation-state. And again. The latter concerns land. II A Sociological Approach to the Study of Nation & Nationalism This section will highlight some of the consensual scholarly insights from the recent advances in the sociological studies of nation and nationalism that are pertinent to the problem on hand. as we have already pointed out is specific to modernity. however. And this is certainly not warranted. The treatment of the inter-related themes would therefore unavoidably be selective and brief. Nationalism is the ideology of the nation on the one hand. A good bit of time therefore would be spent in critically reviewing general. while the former is about a specific form of society and social relations. seen. demarcating a territorial boundary and setting up of a state and other sub-institutions are easily but mistakenly seen as the formation of nation which indeed is a distinct and different process. while in fact.reconstruction. the state is easily. It is also said that nation is the cultural contour of modernity. Within such a view. Even today most of the academic discourses in the country write of nationalism in the meaning of patriotism thus completely eliding any possible problematization of the concept. State-formation is most often mistaken for nation-formation or nation-building. along the lines of the recent developments in the theory of nation and nationalism within the academia and is in consonance with the existential and collective struggles of the subaltern masses here on the other. highlight the main aspects of the Ambedkarite understanding of nation and nationalism. With the emergence of the sociology of nationalism. nationalism is typically modern. it is the state which creates as well as legitimizes the nation. while patriotism is not specific to modernity. It is said that modernity comes only in nationalist packages. continually reproduced through popular as well as academic discourses will be discussed and challenged. Thirdly. It would be demonstrated here. Ideology operates most strongly in these discursive spheres and therefore. nation and nationalism. and patriotism refers to the attachment or devotion to fatherland on the other. this residual notion of the nation has been done away with and the nation is recognised as a relatively autonomous entity and viewed as a specific formation distinct from the state-process. The hope is that the Ambedkarite ideas as well as his socio-political practice on the issue on hand would be better grasped when the underlying and unconsciously held propositions are ferreted out and criticized. macro and larger considerations both in theory and history. it is the other way round. However. nationalism is seen as distinct as well as different from patriotism. Within dominant academic and popular discourses once again. it is often and illegitimately presumed that the people within. how this understanding is on the one hand. experienced and even confronted. our challenge needs to concentrate there. as most of the generally taken-for-granted positions. Third. Secondly. Once the state is erected. xenophobia – patriotism has virtually been substituted for nationalism both in academic and popular discourses. The task undertaken is an elaborate one. This is an important difference which is often completely overlooked. First of all. Along with its corollary – dislike or hatred of anything considered foreign. . serfs. at least in ideology meant the internal and egalitarian transformation of the ancient regime of hierarchical orders to homogenised socially free and equal citizenship! It is this new coming into being of the nation as a distinct form of social-relational imaginary that legitimises the newly erected state-structure whose special characteristic is the other modern principle of rule of law. This at least in theory was the logic of the nation and nationalism. Change from pre-modernity to modernity is thus inscribed within the very core and definition of the nation. Needless to say that such a transition of societies towards. the meaning and direction of the specific form of change leading towards the formation of the nation need to be discussed. or by the emergence of the spirit of ‘anonymous fraternity. they indeed refer to and presume a nation-form of society. Fourthly. . This indeed was the logic behind the modern national imaginary. sovereignty or autonomy is available only when its base is popular or democratic. In my earlier formulation I have described this as homogenisation of power within culture (G Aloysius. if a people are to be termed to be moving towards the formation of a nation-form of society. The single most important implication of this fact is that what was hitherto not a nation is mandated to become a nation. Ernest Gellner (1983) elaborates it: “a mere category of persons . When the nineteenth and twentieth century sociological texts speak of ‘society’ in general. and this transition is characterised by the giving up of the notion and practice of ascriptive differentiation or worse discrimination. in order to make this transformation possible and maintain such a transformation the demand for erecting cultural boundary was raised and justified. the agrarian semi slaves. There is no nation. The simple point is that at the transition to modernity when nation-states were being conceived of. that is equality of all before law. It is their recognition as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation”. through a multiple-process of change in the course of transition to modernity. is clearly towards inclusive egalitarianism as against the established and divinely sanctioned social and ascriptive hierarchy. It refers then.becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognise certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of the shared membership of it. who are equal and free in relation to one another. And thus we get the emergence within different nation-states. to a discursive transition from a society of orders/estates to one of democratic inclusion and egalitarianism. therefore also. And the institutional set up which was supposed to protect and promote it was the state. 1997). egalitarian inclusion is a long-drawn out. However. And the ideology upholding and promoting such a normative transformation was nationalism. perennial and even contested affair. no nation-state. Ben Anderson (1983) states: “Nation is always conceived as a deep horizontal comradeship”. The direction of change leading to the formation of nation. there must be asserted at least a consensual social-egalitarian imaginary. became the French men and the ordinary rural folk became the Germans. if no change has been triggered off in a specific direction. at least once again in theory.administered by a state. invite the hitherto relegated for comradeship or fraternity and together constitute a single society/nation of equal and free citizens. The hitherto degraded and relegated labourers became the Englishmen. 3 . It was at the critical juncture of transition from pre-modernity to modernity that the nation-form of society came into existence. Social power realisation was normatively homogenised within the putative cultural wholes transforming themselves into as many nations. This transition was most clearly dramatised at the political level in the course of the Revolution in France whose immortal slogan was “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!” Nationalism here. This was also called popular sovereignty that is. of citizens. it was necessary to abolish the erstwhile divinely legitimated social hierarchy. This normative transformation in a specific direction is what characterises the nation. first of course in Western Europe. taking off from enlightenment/modernity. anti-colonial nationalism revolving around the culture and putative uniqueness of the colonised and also spreading disaffection towards the coloniser. The following paragraphs are intended. this is also a residual understanding of nation and nationalism. nationalism also is a dynamic settlement of the contestation of both the cultural as well as the political. Singular identity – cultural. in the light of the above theoretical considerations. particularly. we could move over to the consideration of modern Indian history. how and when.’ real or imagined became the main pre-occupation of the leading nationalists of the various countries. this came to be articulated as anti-colonial nationalism. With this.Fifthly. These nationalisms are also known as ethnic and civic nationalisms. on account of various historical and sociological circumstances. more often than not. The contrast here is between commonality and unity. 1998) Cultural nationalisms are claimed to be characterised by objective commonalities as race. gradually turned away from its internal focus to a pre-occupation of external/boundary problems. this typology is but a heuristic device only. identity of the colonial countries as mirror opposites of those of the colonisers. Despite much sophistication. Smith. It needs to be said however. the state-aspect in both the cases remains the same. the latter argues for civic and citizenship rights for all. culture etc. Reading colonialism in India is a highly contestatious issue. While the former asserts unique identity in contrast to an ‘other’. III Emergence of Indian Nationalism The very first thing that strikes one about the modern Indian history is the complex nature of its Colonialism. that this typology is a compromise with theory on the one hand and concession to empiricism. the dichotomous typology of nationalism. the agency through which provocation to modernity came about here. the academic consideration of colonialism in the subcontinent is still bogged down with reified and monolithic dichotomies at various levels. However. As pointed out earlier. Such a typology is indeed a description of societies within existing nation-states. the controversy surrounding the local elite’s participation 4 . On the other hand. From an engagement with the ideology of internal powerhomogenised reconstitution as a normative process attention was diverted to an assertion of putatively homogenised culture as an already existing entity. Thus we have. that once states have been set up. that is political democracy. in contrast to the ‘other. We have arrived at the standard dichotomous typology presented in the literature on nationalism – the cultural and political (L. These somewhat perfunctory survey of and remarks on the theoretical considerations of nation and nationalism are but pertinent and intended to dispel the mystification that surrounds the academic consideration of the subject in the subcontinent. a consensual common place in literature is to be noted and commented upon. and actual nationalisms are always combinations of both the cultural and political in different degrees at different times. the political nationalisms are claimed to be characterised not by any objective aspect but by a perception and experience of unity. often there is no fit or consonance between the nation and state. to lay the necessary historical foundation for highlighting the importance and implications of Ambedkar’s theory and practice of nationalism. in the case of the so-called cultural nationalisms. As this nationalism of the above description moved from the Western Europe towards the East. The question is which one dominates. Snyder. religion. And again. what are to be found within them automatically constitute nations! Secondly. A. Further. Under the concrete circumstances of Imperialism. territorial – of the collective. as no culture is monolithic. 1954. based on the alleged unity. language. Ludden. wrote and eventually transformed the subcontinent. ruling became writing and administering laws. ati-shudras and lower castes lived and toiled (D.either as zamindari or ryotwari. from 1857 to 1947. spoke. In several other ways also. the British rule proper. particularly those of the non-fertile. 1977. the Company rule and the second. We could point out briefly here. It was during this one-century long Company rule of ‘revenuecollection in return for non-interference’ in compact with the Brahminically dominant in the fertile valleys that the sub-continent came to acquire an image and reality which later was exalted into the Indian Tradition (C.E.in the colonial determination of policies and practices. abolished through a drawn out process. 2004). Bayly. Having been transformed into lower orders. It is needless to add that these are the regions that what most of what India is about and it is where most of the labouring classes today labelled as Shudras. the silent compact with the British brought and enhanced many privileges for the Brahminical who became virtually. could not indiscriminately be extended to the majority of the arid regions as the surplus necessary for the indulgence of the nonlabouring sections could not be produced. 1989). 1988. the primary reason of its coming. with whom the company was in reciprocal 5 . Through such association between the Brahminical and the trading British in the valleys. As it was the river valleys which were the high potential revenue yielders. The first. The two centuries of colonialism could neatly be divided into two distinct parts of one century each. thus producing a singular India of the valley-Brahminical model. the effective agency was with the locally dominant. from 1757 to 1857. the company entered into a contract with the socially dominant there – the Brahminical . semi-arid and dry regions. degradation and colonisation of the other ways and views of life. The Company came. The corollary of this was the subjugation. This was then a double loss – loss of traditional freedom and denial of entry into the modern. things were beginning to change as territorial integration was taking place on the valley model. Non-interference by the British in custom and tradition in practice resulted in indiscriminate enhancement as well as proliferation of the same custom and tradition whose aggressive and aggrandising interpretation came to be built within the very structures that were being set up then in the course of transition to modernity. literally pamper them so that the flow of revenue is not disrupted. they were automatically denied entry into the newly emerging realms of education and employment. S Dharmatheertha. the much sought after profession of the Brahminical. this also meant de-diversification of occupation and re-agrarianising the mass of people in the interest of revenue enhancement (C. Fuller. Though this has been brought about in the name of the Imperial Rule of the Company. for the regular collection and payment of the revenue in return for the promise of non-interference in the custom and tradition of the land (R. Their hitherto relative autonomy in the realms of agriculture. The valley way and view of life in pre-modern times. C. The British did all they could to oblige the Brahminically dominant. the valley way and view of life – read Brahminical – themselves became the medium through which the Company rulers saw. for the mass of people everywhere. But with the intervention of the British. 1989). only those aspects that are relevant for the purpose on hand. In political economy. Frykenberg. based on as they were on ascriptive hierarchy known as varnavyavastha. Frykenberg. the junior partner in the Raj (R. the ruling of the rajas and maharajas and settled down to enhance its revenue. 1977) . social organisation. This inevitably meant that they were all being brought also within a singular and Brahminical-textual model of caste system as the Shudras and untouchables. culture and religion all either vanished or degraded. 1984). they were effectively brought under the dominance of the Brahminically aggressive castes. E. Baker. Brahmin-and non-Brahmin. administrative and cultural brokers. grain-looting. Frykenberg. both material and non-material. empowerment through contractual association for the hitherto traditionally dominant only in the valleys but now transforming themselves as the middle classes everywhere. etc. for the masses everywhere. industrialisation of England. systematised form of recruitment for jobs etc. massive migrations towards urban centres and also other countries proliferate during this period. Aloysius.full of efforts small and big of the generally pauperised masses to move out of their dilemma and take the situation in hand. if only they are to survive as rulers. We find the literature of this period – towards the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries . modern procedure codes. the relationship of the British had been only with the traditionally dominant who had been set up by them as revenue. (G. These and similar measures were seen by the hitherto monopolistic dominance as scuttling their power and was interpreted by it as interference. the British had to slowly extricate themselves from their earlier contract/entanglement with the Brahminically dominant (J. groups indulging in petty crimes for livelihood. 1977). But. badralog and chotelog. change towards a more inclusive policy. In short. employment and political representation. This 6 . The second century of colonialism dawned with the takeover of the reins of administration by the British Parliament. now. cultural contestations. consolidation. degradation and even destruction. the pervasive and multi-directional moves were such that the British could not anymore rule at the behest of the revenue agent Brahminical castes.’ as their policy. 2010) Hitherto. deprivation. the same British were seen as going beyond and over their heads to reach out to the hitherto relegated directly bypassing the medium of the locally dominant. with blind and indiscriminate ‘noninterference. All forms of anti-Brahminism and struggle against caste exclusion raise their head – mass conversions to other religions particularly Christianity. it was denial. And the changes in the overall scenario – revenue ceasing to be the major consideration. 1997) Further. reproducing a tattered coat in the new cloth when ordered to stitch a new one is indeed a remarkable insight into what colonialism did to the country.’ (G. It was thus. There was clear polarisation between the two everywhere as expressed in the pairs – raja and porja. efforts towards construction of a caste-free Hinduism. the Victorian proclamation of treatment of equality to all citizens and for whatever reason. in the very interest of survival. Aloysius. 1973). – also facilitated this process. entry of the lower castes and other minorities into education and a token share for them in employment. In other words. training. extreme valorisation and empowerment of the Brahminical few everywhere. On the other hand. Sometime during the middle of the nineteenth century the labouring classes everywhere found themselves deprived of most of their resources. Ambedkar’s example of the Chinese tailor. The response of the subaltern everywhere to this almost sudden and pervasive degradation and deprivation was also unambiguous. Raniparaj and Kaliparaj. in association with and profiting from the rulers and the corresponding extreme degradation of the masses deprived from the traditional and also relegated in the modern. against promise in ‘custom and tradition.contract (R. Peasant disturbances. demands were being articulated for a share in the new opportunity-structures – education. Gordon. A series of measures that are seemingly in favour of the hitherto relegated are passed – tenancy laws. an insight. E. Macaulay’s legal procedural codes etc. It was this dichotomous socio-economic formation that would eventually constitute the basis of the subsequent dichotomous political awakening. This then is the basic contour of colonial political economy. which came to be discovered and affirmed in academics nearly half a century later. discovery of Buddhism as an emancipatory religion etc. there emerged also the equally dichotomous and polarised political awakening of the subcontinent.’ What was conjured up as the Western. individualistic. that is. It is to be noted that earlier these very same characteristics were celebrated as complementary to our own. Such a distinction handed down by no less a person than the grand old man of Colonial India Dadhabhoy Naoroji was necessitated in order to valorise the elite-political anti-colonialism as the superior and allIndia form of consciousness and delegitimize the social as the local and parochial which could be taken up later. Both these two forms of political awakenings were indeed simultaneous in their arising and inextricable combined in dynamics. and sociology concentrates on the so-called social. ‘Hinduism in danger. It was this change of policy on the part of the British. This juncture could usefully be viewed as the moment of the Colonial provocation to modernity in the subcontinent. But now.was indeed an intrusion and interference in their secure and subjugated constituency – the mass of lowered and degraded castes. Thus sprang the much vaunted anticolonial nationalism of the subcontinent. at that very juncture when the British for reasons of their own was beginning to be more inclusive and thus democratic. rights-based and competitive society became the mirror opposite of and therefore danger to our own. As within our own narration.’ and ‘protecting the unique social synthesis of our ancient sages. And this it did through raising the banner of ‘religion at stake. the latter sought to wrest power from the British and the former to democratise power within. with the introduction of democratic/inclusive measures by the ruling British and as the British were trying to reach out to the lower orders. Nay. Accordingly. In other words. In fact. A series of dichotomies were elaborated by the traditionally dominant as the template of this ‘nationalism. The century-long contract between the two sets of elite was breaking down. the consolidating middle classes ominously sensed as directed against their hitherto monopolistically held power and interpreted as interference in culture and religion. it must be clear from our above delineation of theory and narration of modern Indian history that all forms of awakening of group relations were political and depending on one’s power-position within society. god-send. The British came to be seen as personae non-grata and in fact a threat to the custom and tradition of the land. it became trajected towards either without or within.’ IV Nationalisms: Cultural & Political Nationalist historiography and following it most of the academics are known for their prescriptive distinction of the political and the social. as both the Indian and Western were read as but two branches of the one and the same Aryan and that the two long lost brothers were meeting then in colonialism. Industrial. it was the emergence of the subaltern group-consciousness and their bid for a share in the new-opportunity-structure that woke up and politicized the Brahminical elite from its collusive and complacent stupor. and an enabling partner now suddenly became Satanic deserving to be driven out as they have become a threat to the unique tradition of the land. One was trajected towards power-reconfiguration within and the other. all that is gone now. it could even be argued that the politicization of the deprived and degraded subalterns seeking to re-configure power within arose prior to that of the elite. 7 . Political Science studies the socalled political. power-reconfiguration without. mostly meaning never. which if the masses came to perceive quickly as egalitarian. materialistic. they have turned the enemy and threat our ‘unique cultural synthesis. However. In other words. the British who were hitherto celebrated as Providential. and as expressions of the dichotomous and polarised political economy of the Colonial period. inclusive and indicative of the emergent new.’ This clearly was an instance of Cultural Nationalism. within our own paradigm. that is a country in which the birth-ordered hierarchy would be maintained for the benefit of all as peace and harmony in society. imagined a past that was seamless. it could even be suggested that it was this internal that was the reason behind the rise of the external and again it was the internal concern that was modulating and guiding anti-colonial out-pourings and activities. Notably. Hinduism again was considered both as the source of all knowledge and history. This was clearly addressed to the restless masses making all efforts to get rid of their varna-caste determination. tradition and religion.nationalism claiming to define. having the Vedas as its core. started during the third quarter of the nineteenth century and came to be recognised by all including the academicians as nationalism in India had. Even a cursory perusal of the activities and articulations of the major ideologues of the nineteenth century Independence movement. determine. against the British rulers. all the regressive characteristics of the classical cultural nationalism as delineated in the theoretical literature. in all its variations. these nationalists had imagined for the future of the nation could only be termed as ‘ideological re-traditionalization. However. The cultural nationalism of India was thus sought to be camouflaged by pasting secular ideals on to the emergent Hinduism itself. In fact. they also constructed a history. it was also irrationally offered as secular. we have tried to highlight here is that the movement. continuous and changeless varna-ordered society. liberal. the Vedas was to define. identity as well as ideology of this anti-colonial nationalism. A strategy of such a camouflage is to set up the distinction between the imaginaries of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Indian national congress. Ranajit Guha (1991) speaks of the ‘disciplinary aspect of Indian nationalism. despite all its diversionary rhetoric. the ‘internal’ essence of this cultural nationalism was equally unambiguous and no less assertive. Swaraj will have to be Ramrajya. were becoming simultaneously aware of two contradictory things: one. this is only one half of the story of nation and nationalism in India. spiritual.’ While Mr Gandhi was the most elaborate and unambiguous articulator of this internal face of cultural nationalism in India. The presence of the British here has become a danger to our custom. Their voyages of nostalgia into the past took them always to ports where people voluntarily took to varna ways of thinking. As a supplementary and support to this their regressive cultural call. debate and determine all the minimum changes that were required for the emergent nation-state. We need to get rid of the British before they could do irreparable damage to it. If this as the ‘external’ essence to be contrasted to the alleged Western decadence. inclusive and national. And this camouflage is continuously being reproduced by most of the state-sponsored and institutional academics. The Colonially and Brahminically deprived and degraded masses everywhere. Hinduism was constructed by the nineteenth century nationalist politicians as the culture. that difference should be maintained and that was what dharma was about. Aloysius. defend and thereby impose one’s culture: Our culture is unique. The point. For the cultural nationalists held on to and brazenly reasserted the Brahminical notion that people are born differently.which was getting aggressively baptised as Hinduism. harmonious. speaking and living (G. would reveal the fact that this internal dimension of imposing varna-discipline on the masses was as important for them as the external of anti-colonialism.’ The internal power-configuration. communitarian. (which is why he has been hailed as the father of the nation) every other major leader of the anti-colonial movement did not fail to repeatedly remind the restless masses that they have to abide by the Vedic-Hindu ideal of varnavyavastha. they realised that as 8 . 1997). The emergent Hindu-Indian society if it is to be faithful to the wisdom of its ancient seers and continue in the modern world as a distinct identity resisting the corroding and polluting Western influence. duty-based and cooperative while that of the British is the mirror opposite of these all. positively. If the cultural nationalists invented history as a seamless past of harmonious and varna-abiding complementary groups. revolts by the tribals all these were but a few of the forms of their all out bid to create. Professor MN Srinivas’s (1966) description was that the scenario was like the breaking open of a prison house. egalitarian and even Buddhist. It is against this discursive framework. a true hall mark of modernity. the political nationalists imagined the past as contestatious. agricultural strikes. Thirdly. Such a collective-existential contradiction was perceived indeed as a call and provocation for the masses to recognise. they were all manifestations within and often enough addressed to the unified and unifying colonial modern state system. the overall trajectory and structural implications of these movements. anti-Brahminism and aspiration for an egalitarian civil society. anti-casteism. which has been indiscriminately abetting this ideology and boosted up its votary classes. it was but a short step for them to see the rising hegemony of and institutional sanction to ascriptive egalitarianism and loss of legitimacy to ascriptive hierarchies. Sixthly. employment and political representation.against their own experience of multiple and relatively autonomous traditions. First of all. appropriate and thereby constitute the emergent civil society or nation. as of their right in the newly emerging public spheres of education. embracing atheism. the single most important characteristic of modern states. The very same agency. It was mostly through these multifarious subaltern efforts that what little there is of the modern civil society in India was being conceptualised and constituted against persistent opposition by the cultural nationalists. depending on the circumstance one found oneself in and mobilising the resources one was equipped with. Two. they were now deprived of all the customary rights they had hitherto been enjoying. varied in quantity. was now introducing the ‘rule of law’ in its burgeoning institutions. these movements themselves to an extent had acquired unified characteristics and structural implications. One could easily be reminded of breaking of Bastille. Secondly. the negative aspect of these mass struggles was the attempt. whether expressed against the total ideology or a specific local practice. they escalated their struggles for appropriating their share. brought within the oppressive ambit of Brahminism – an ideology of ascriptive discrimination . sensing the rising hegemony of equality over discrimination as expressed by the rule of law. they also witnessed the dawn of something new. quality and form. And from this. intensive and extensive efforts of the caste-subjugated subalterns of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries manifested themselves are to be noted. employment and socio-political representation. It is these aspects that are relevant for the purpose on hand. discovery of Buddhism. constitute a democratic and inclusive public sphere. reflecting the social location of the particular social group. They were indeed challenging ascriptive fixity of occupation and claiming diversified recognition in terms of achievement.both in material and non-material spheres and confronted with a singular monolithic tradition.’ While sociology has studied these movements in their individuality and specificity more often than not as caste-movements. enter. was pervasive across the subcontinent right from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Each group. was making an all out bid to break open the old and construct the new. by and large have gone unnoticed. Fifthly. Nothing could be more apt! Reinterpretation of Advaitic Vedanta. the wide range and varied forms in which these small. demand for education. Fourthly. the non-material and religio-cultural dimensions of the struggle definitely give us the idea that many at least of these groups saw their efforts as a continuity in history and thus a re-imagining of the past. all these varied forms of struggles of the caste9 . Because. big. This rule of law of the institutions was perceived to be operating in sharp contrast to the dominant social ideology of ascriptive differentiation and discrimination. to escape the externally imposed ascriptive identification and determination of their status and role in society. that one ought to view the above narrated pervasive uprising of the so-called ‘lower castes. Jothiba Phule. each with different and contrasting notions of power re-configuration for the present and future of Modern India. 10 . xenophobia at the worst and patriotism at best. but standing on the shoulders of all of them and also representing and interpreting them. Sant Ram. The point we would emphasize here is that these above general characteristics of the subaltern struggles everywhere of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. the aspirations and struggles of the caste-degraded and class-deprived masses everywhere found sharp and contestatious expression of and advocacy for the constitution of political nationalism in India. Right from within the midst and course of these ubiquitous struggles there also emerged scores of ideologues from every nook and corner. what they were being confronted with and what they were hoping to achieve in the concrete circumstances – that is the conception. It was Ambedkar alone who confronted this new emergence in a scholarly manner. were opportunistically and ambiguously oscillating between. analysed its various aspects and sought to apply them critically to the changing situations of modern Indian history. But the entire range of people whom we consider as nationalists today had nothing to say on this newly emerging phenomenon except to repeat their culturalist anti-colonial rhetoric. It needs to be pointed out here. The trajectory. It is not an exaggeration to say that all of them without a single exception. However. grappled with and exposed the subject of nation and nationalism. more conscious and enlightened spokesmen of the struggling people elaborating to a more or less clarity and extent the ideology and theory of political nationalism. as we have mentioned earlier. The next section will highlight some of the more important aspects of Ambedkar’s thinking on political nationalism. The times were when the nation and nation-state were being controversially conceived and constructed. raised critical questions. it needs to be emphasized that of all those who were engaged in the public sphere as ideologues or activists. contour and content of these struggles of modern India were not very much different from those of the struggles engaged in the France of the eighteenth century. In and through Ambedkar’s clear and elaborate articulations on nation and nationalism. that the Ambedkarites too have more or less neglected to make use of this aspect of the leader’s ideology. construction and constitution of civicpolitical national community. were not being articulated and actualised in vacuum. Sahodharan Iyyappan. this was not all. are but characteristics of political nationalist struggles everywhere. Through their collective and political praxis of various kinds the colonially and also collusively subordinated the socalled lower castes everywhere expressed the facts that they very well understood what was at stake. Periyar and of course Ambedkar are but few names that have managed to pierce out of the thick fog of mystifications initiated by the dominant cultural nationalists of the time and continued by the present day academics. Swami Achchtanand. it was Ambedkar alone who clearly and consistently. Iyothee Thassar. Of these Baba Saheb Ambedkar emerges unique. in the late nineteenth and the early half of the twentieth century. V Ambedkar: Political Nationalism as Democracy At the outset.subalterns. and failed to deploy it strategically in their struggles of emancipation and empowerment. They were directly addressed to and confronting the prescriptive rhetoric and sectarian activities of the anticolonial nationalists. It was a serious and national political contestation. Mangoo Ram. it ought to transform itself into subjective. a result of tortuous and conscious human endeavour. the prescriptive message was that the subcontinental society as it was already constituted a ‘nation. Ambedkar’s treatment of the nation-form of society is an important contribution to social science scholarship and this has not been recognised as yet. but most untenably in our context claimed that nation in India subsisted on the alleged commonality of Vedic-Sanscritic cultural derivation. But. those of history studied ‘nationalist’ movements mostly through the lens of those claiming to be nationalists. While he did challenge elsewhere. everyone celebrating the 11 .’ requiring no change. as a serious student of nationalism. Karl Deutsch (1953). Ambedkar went after the nation as a new social category some half a century before. Cultural nationalists everywhere hang on to the notion of objective commonality of either one or more of some common ascriptive characteristics such as race.First of all. he explained the subtle but significant difference between commonality and unity. taking for granted uncritically whatever the leaders of those movements did and said. nothing much changed in the treatment of the subject here. this alleged commonality and Vedic-Sanscritic derivation of everything sociocultural of the subcontinent. That is change in an appropriate direction alone constitutes the very foundation of the modern nation-form of society. Drawing heavily upon the nineteenth century scholarship on the subject. memorised treated and learnt nationalism as one of the many isms of the modern times. Most tended to subsume nation and its change-foundation under the contemporary form of nationalism as exemplified in the slogan. In other words. studying the phenomenon more or less during the life time of Ambedkar reached the same conclusion. not unlike cultural nationalists elsewhere. Emergence of the nation-form is the overcoming of the local and ascriptive insulations. It his own terms it is the pervasive ‘social endosmosis’ at all levels that characterises the nation-form of society. Within Ambedkar’s frame of things such a nation-form of criss-cross communication and indiscriminate relationships is a new becoming. the strong undercurrent. ubiquity of sharing and communication between the different parts of the whole. ‘nation in the making’. there was to be neither crisscross communication nor relations. Everyone. It is a new form of social existence. But. and if commonality is to become the basis of the modern nation. religion. ‘What is a nation?. A social whole in which there are water-tight parts and restrictions and rules laid out for communications and relations called be called a nation. It is only recently with the writings of Gellner. But. While the students of political science. Ambedkar is not the one to give up. particularly in the direction envisaged by the political nationalists. if any change is required it is in the reverse direction of arresting changes and fixing groups in their alleged traditional roles. but. Ramraj in which people would occupy pre-determined places is Swaraj! Within such an imaginary. while this was for the public consumption. celebrating the same festival. one needs to create politically a nation through consciously and morally guided social change. This is to be viewed in critical contrast to what was being peddled around by the cultural nationalists of the time. Hinduism was the nation. particularly Ernest Renan. What is. even after this. Sanatan dharm was the nation. in which there is density. and elaborately lays down the required characteristics of a nation-form of society. he explained. This is something new in the social science scholarship of India. should be changed into something else to become eligible to be called a nation. that is perceived and experiential unity. language etc as demarcating the nation. he explained. could only establish commonality. Anderson and Smith in the eighties and nineties of the previous century that a sociological consideration of nation as a distinct category deserving academic analysis has come into vogue. they. Ambedkar analytically isolated the idea of the nation. But. for example. Ambedkar perspicaciously pointed out commonality is really a pre-modern thing. Instead. Ambedkar raised the all important question. Aloysius. Ambedkar found the leading classes of Japan. The incompatibility of the two – caste and nation – Ambedkar explored at length and it has been elaborated with proper documentation elsewhere (G. was the cultural nationalist vision of the nation in India. 2002) Ambedkar was indeed horrified to find that Mr Gandhi and his cohorts were so brazenly offering to the world this very caste as the foundation of the nation to emerge.festival together alone would constitute unity. This desire for separateness itself is an expression that a nation has come into existence. he found that the governing classes of India claimed to reinforce those traditional-ascriptive and pre-nation privileges in the very name of nationalism! 12 . ‘fraternity. experiential and perceived identification of all the people into one community/nation in the spirit of. And this transformation of the alleged common. whatever be its peculiarly Gandhian understanding and academic sophistry. Nationalism and separate existence are justified only when they are seen to guide the people concerned towards the formation of the nation and not otherwise. he went into the ideological premises that underlay such twin principle and how they are totally contrary to the logical underpinnings of the nation-form of society. What about nationalism? Nationalism is the desire for the nation to lead a separate existence. it was the caste. The single most difficult obstacle to get over in the emergence of the nation form of society in India. It was then not the traditional or residual caste that Ambedkar was battling against. becoming the basis of subjective. the desire for separate existence gets its legitimacy from its concrete determination and move towards the formation of a democratised society. The hitherto ascriptively privileged classes should realise the changed circumstances of modernity. the ancien regime for Ambedkar annihilation of caste is the conditio sine qua non of the formation of the nation. on the other hand. Ambedkar compared these leading classes of these countries with those of India. As a true student of sociology. primarily the caste principles of narrow insulation and hierarchicalisation by ascriptive social groups. This was the same course of action. the national class for demanding separate existence while at the same time doing all it could to arrest the formation of the nation. ‘consciousness of kind.’ and ‘fellow-feeling’. speaking and behaving. surrendered their traditional land rights to the emperor and thus initiated the necessary changes in the formation of the nation. is a conscious and socio-political endeavour of removing the obstacles and taking to newer ways of thinking.’ ‘social democracy. if commonality of culture has been the creed of cultural nationalism everywhere. the Samurai. the Brahminical classes. Ambedkar identified unambiguously was caste. In the words of Ambedkar. Ambedkar was extremely critical of the leading that is. that is experiential unity. As mentioned earlier. These two – the formation of a democratised society and setting up of an independent political society are but the two sides of the same coin. which was ideologically being brought back in the centre of modern politics ironically in the very name of nation itself. In this way. Just as in Europe. that we have with us today the classic text of Annihilation of Caste. according to Ambedkar that the French nobles also took when they were transforming themselves into bourgeoisie. From his extremely wide reading of world history he could point out the basic ideological requirement for the formation of the democratised society/nation. Thanks to his moral fury. The varna-form of society. the formation of modern nation required and in fact resulted in the abolition of orders/estates. particularly relating.’through a self-conscious political process is the basis of modern civic/political nationalism for Ambedkar. Alas! To his utter dismay. read its requirements and accordingly shed the privileges they have been enjoying and accept comradeship/fraternity with the hitherto relegated masses/lower castes. He was insisting that he was not an anti-colonialist in the same way or for the same reason as the Congress. Ambedkar’s views expressed in the historical context of late colonial subcontinent. For Ambedkar on the other hand. For the cultural nationalists. The mass of Shudras and Ati-shudras would merely end up as slaves and not be in a position to transform themselves effectively into free and equal citizens. atavism or in the more recent terminology. Ambedkar tested colonialism on its praxis and not on its ascriptivity. The danger of such a demand was well recognised by Ambedkar. it is not possible to appreciate the value and significance of Amedkar’s contribution to modern ideology. But. the British should go merely because they were British and the Indians should take over also merely because they were Indians. He arrived at the conclusion that this colonial (Bureaucratic) government should go and be replaced with a democratic form of Government because. against these theoretical and historical backgrounds. are in full consonance with the exposition in theoretical literature on political/civic nationalism. VI Conclusion We have taken a circuitous route in order to explain the views of Ambedkar concerning nation and nationalism. For 13 . we conducted a cursory survey of the period of colonialism and nationalism highlighting some relevant aspects. He stoutly resisted from being drawn into the issue of atavistic or even a racist choice between what were put up as the two monolithic wholes – Indian and British. first tried to grasp the essential points of recent scholarship on the twin theme. its mortal fear of the Brahminical elite of the country. He made in clear that he experienced. We found. For him. In fact. including those of emancipation of the masses. We found this was required because without the necessary background and knowledge of the contestations he was engaged with. these two contrary tests of truth – ascriptivity and achievement. The nation as a democratic social form would fail to emerge and the nationalism would fail to pass in the critical test. Ambedkar discovered. Ambedkar’s position was distinct. Ambedkar’s understanding of colonialism and anticolonialism was not based on ascriptivism. what they were doing is to point out that Ambedkar was not considering the ejection of the British as an unconditional absolute to which all other considerations. On the other hand. Ambedkar was not swearing. he was an anti-colonial for his own reason. We. Nationalist leaders and several academics often refer derisively to the famous statement of Ambedkar Round Table Conference that he was not anxious for the transfer of political power from the British. had a long history in the subcontinent as the conflict between Brahminic and Sramminic ways of life and he found himself arguing in continuity with that of the latter tradition. identity politics. its class character and two. particularly the so called untouchables and also the broader question of democratisation of society at large would be subjected.The Brahminical elite which became the leading nationalist class. The ascriptivity argument of anti-colonialism was basically atavistic and pre-modern. In fact. as we suggested by any form of primordiality. we highlighted some of the more important aspects of Ambedkar’s views on the issue. secondly. praxis is the test of truth. was merely demanding for the monopoly capture of state power while preventing at the same time the caste-ridden society from changing. this government is not capable of delivering the goods because of. it was democracy and more especially the emancipation of the downtrodden – the so-called untouchables – was the supreme modernnational question a la French Revolution and political nationalism that was the absolute issue compelling commitment. On the related questions of colonialism and anti-colonialism too. one. assessed and came to a conclusion on the colonial rulers independently on his own criteria. This certainly Ambedkar refused to do. G. that while in France. Bibliography Aloysius. He would have imagined the scenario here as one not too different from that of France in the course of the Revolution. 1988. Aloysius. 10-11. New Delhi.. New Delhi. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Benedict. G. 2010. Karl. the Revolution succeeded. Baker. Massachussets. Imagined Communities. Oxford University Press. When he came to be a participant. in the process of nation formation in India.65. but a critique of the contemporary scenario. Colonialism in his register. Swami. G.’ It was not a mere positivist-empirical description of what was. 1989-. Radical Humanist. could at best be described as the context against which the process of democratisation unfolded itself in the subcontinent. how often one finds the revolutionary slogan of ‘Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!’ repeated in his writings. as for the scholars on the theme. MIT Press. His idea of the nation revolved around the creation of a modern political community of free and equal individuals as citizens. G. Nationalism and Social Communication. deployed his knowledge as a critical touchstone not merely to test but also influence the direction of history towards inclusiveness and democracy. albeit from the other side. Caste against Nation in Ambedkar. An Indian Rural Economy 1880-1955: The Tamil Nadu Countryside..him. clarification of the possibilities immanent in the situation and thereby a provocation to commit for and engage in democratic and liberative social praxis. The only difference he would have said. in India it was the counter-revolution which did though with some minimum modification. Nos. Christopher. Baba Saheb. deconstruction of the practices and articulations of the dominant self-styled nationalists. 2002. Ambedkar had read widely on European history. 2009. Finally. Government of Maharashtra. Verso. 2004. His was a critical approach to study the sub-continental society in general and the phenomenon of nationalism in particular. The Menace of Hindu Imperialism. Writings and Speeches (Bawas). Mumbai. Dharmatheertha. Cambridge University Press. Aloysius. nationalism is about re-organisation of social relations within a culture and claim for separate existence to maintain this new social configuration. 1997. has all the necessary components of a ‘critical nation theory. Critical Quest. Delhi. New Delhi Media House. London. Cambridge. 14 . Particularly. Deutsch. Critical Quest. Bayly. The Brahminical Inscribed in Body Politic. Anderson. Christopher John. 1984. New Delhi. Aloysius. It is interesting to note. 1983. Vol. Ambedkar on Nation and Nationalism. democratisation and popular sovereignty. 1953. Ambedkar. Ambedkar’s theory of nation and nationalism... Oxford University Press. No Freedom with Caste. that is. deeply impressed by it and had great admiration for it. Nationalism without a Nation in India. he was steeped in the history of the French Revolution. . 1971. Collier-MacMillan.. Greenfeld. Ludden. Shourie.3. Gandhi. No. Vol. Robinson. Santa Cruz. Parimala. pp3-40. Part. Liah. 1992.Frykenberg. Ernest. Bryan. Hobsbawm. 2004. Basil Blackwell. Cambridge University Press.. Ranajit. Bhikku. I. Modern Prince and other Writings. Nation and Nationalism. Gramsci. Sutcliff edited. D. 1983. Ahmadabad. No. Cambridge. Oxford. Educate women and Lose Nationality. New Delhi. Chris. Ernest. Anthony. The Meaning of Nationalism. South Asia. Greenfeld. R. Nation and Narration. Liah. M K. 1990. E. British India or Traditional India Land. pp 117-140. 1997.. N. Merrill Publications. Selections from Prison Notebooks. Routlege. Ethnocentricity of Nationalist Discourse. Antonio. Delhi. 1996. 1990. Nationalism and Modernism. Ronald. 1989. E. Gramsci. Cambridge. J. 2010.4. New York. 1993. Critical Quest. Oxford University Press. 1968. Smith. ASA Publication. Fuller. Rao. 1. Citizenship and Capitalism. Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism. Critical Quest. in R. Srinivas. 1989. New Delhi. 1977. Romila. A Disciplinary Aspect of Indian Nationalism. 1995. London. pp3-31. Arun. Orient Longman. Gellner. Harvard. Varnashramadharma. Cambridge University Press. Louis. Snyder. Alavi & J. Caste and Power. in H. Hans. Guha. Owen & B. Harriss edited. 1986. Turner. The Idea of Nationalism. 1. Nationalism and Democracy. 1966. M. Nationalism and Modernity. Monthly Review Press.. Navajeevan Press. Imagined Religious Communities?. 1793-1853. Parekh. 1991. Smith (ed. Peasant History in South India. 1954. London. What is a Nation?. Quintin Hoarse & G. Thapar. Worshipping False Gods: Ambedkar and the Facts which have been erased. pp 25-52. New Delhi. Allen & Unwin. Journal of Democracy. 1882. New York. Routlege & Kegan Paul. Westport. The Silent Settlement in South India. International Publishers. Greenwood Press. Ghia. 15 .). 1998. New York. Provincial Politics and Indian Nationalism.63.N. New York International Publishers. Harvard University Press. in Homi Bhaba edited. Social Change in Modern India. New Delhi. 1972. Kohn. Hyderabad Orient Longman. Renan. Vol. Social Research. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. London. Nodia. Studies in the Theory of Imperialism. Nation and Nationalism. 1962. J. Gordon. 1967. Nation and Nationalism since 1780. 1973. Vol. Antonio.