“to what extent can Ambedkar achieve the status of an organic intellectual, in the Gramscian sense of the term?” (Zene 2013: 88)
This can be taken to be the central question which the ensuing discussion tries to explore. What engenders such a line of enquiry is the recent spate in scholarly interest in understanding of Ambedkar from a plethora of viewpoints including comparative political thought. Comparing Gramsci and Ambedkar can yield results which might be helpful in exploring the role of Indian society and politics in shaping Ambedkar’s thought. Moreover, re- contextualizing Gramsci thus also might be helpful in assessing both the ethical stamina and the political calibre of Indian society with regards to Ambedkar’s career as an organic intellectual. Therefore it would be appropriate to begin with Gramsci’s concept of the organic intellectual:
every social group, coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential
function in the world of production, creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields. (Gramsci 1971: 5)
Sassoon’s analysis of this theorising is noteworthy and relevant. He argues that the process of creation of the organic intellectual is indicative of the transition to socialism. The birth of the organic intellectual is seen as coterminous with another process; that which begins with class organization under capitalism and culminates in the creation of a new mode of production and a new socialist organization of society in general.1
While it is thus obvious that the organic intellectual has a transformative role in history in that he paves the way for a transitionto socialism there is a moral challenge that his birth poses. How far can they transcend from a ‘specific intellectual’ to a ‘universal intellectual’? When re-oriented to the purposes of the present discussion the question might be something like this: where can Ambedkar be located; “specificity or contingency” (Radhakrishnan 1997: 37)? Was his purpose to provide an alternative vision of emancipation or was it just to destroy the existing universal intellectual in Indian society by standing at a specific location? Another crucial question that frames the discussion is how did Ambedkar’s ‘epistemological/intellectual transgression’ relate to Gramsci’s concept of the organic intellectual and counter-hegemony?
In order to examine these questions it has to be taken into consideration that there were two mutually exclusive categories which led Ambedkar to epistemological transgression: Brahminical hegemony and colonial modernity. While the former was a constraining factor the latter was an enabling one. These two factors exerted considerable influence on Ambedkar as an organic intellectual and helps in explaining why he sought transgression.
Ambedkar’s concept of Brahminical Hegemony
Now Ambedkar defined Brahminical hegemony as a socio-cultural order where lower castes had to express increasing levels of reverence towards higher (known as ‘twice- born’) classes and to internalize a “diminishing sense of self- esteem” (Ambedkar 2002: 162). The Shudra/Ati- Shudra caste however did not object to this discriminatory treatment because this very same Brahminical hegemony also gave them a relative sense of social superiority over other caste groups which were immediately below them on a scale of continuous hierarchy, as defined by Louis Dumont2 (1979). In other words, caste groups on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy found it quite morally (in caste terms) comforting to follow the logic of continuous hierarchy. This relative sense of social dominance is what Kaviraj talks about when he observes:
Hegemony is . . . a relational idea; for it is a condition which cannot be
described without inscribing in every part of the equation of subordination
and domination. The nature of the superordination of the dominant groups also contains the description of the mode of subalterneity of the masses. (Kaviraj 2010: 48)
Deploying the Gramscian concept of hegemony to reaffirm Ambedkar’s critique of Brahminical hegemony is the aim here. Invoking Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and re-contextualizing it in the local context of the Dalit critique of Brahminical hegemony might yield fruitful results. His twin concepts of hegemony and organic intellectual can lead to a comprehensive understanding of Indian society which can in turn lead to a comparative perspective between Gramsci and Ambedkar. Caste categories in the Indian context influence the consolidation of the Brahminical hegemony which in turn constructs both women and non-Brahmins in such a way that they become willing partners in their own subordination within the cultural framework of Brahminical hegemony. This is illustrated by a couple of examples below.
In so far as the hegemonic construction of women is concerned their reaction to Ambedkar’s Hindu Code Bill (something that would benefit the Hindu women) might be a case in point. Interestingly enough it was not only upper caste males that failed Ambedkar in the Parliament it was also shockingly upper-caste women who opposed him in the streets of Delhi. The latter might have thought that while Ambedkar was qualified enough to frame the Indian constitution he was not qualified enough to legislate on the Hindu patriarchy.
This opposition was not an isolated instance. What is unfortunately true is that a section of the largest national political party at the time did not like peasant men and women supporting Ambedkar in his struggle against the ‘Khoti’ system that was so exploitative of peasants from the Kokan region. They are said to have used women to turn peasant males against Ambedkar’s universal appeal. Through mischievous campaigns they questioned his motive of being interested in the Indian Labour Party; insinuating that he was more interested in marrying upper- caste daughters to Untouchable youth. ? This cunning move by the patriarchy of treating/positing upper- caste women as emotionally explosive material was intended to serve a double purpose. Not only was it intended to thwart Ambedkar’s egalitarian appeals but also more surreptitiously to insulate patriarchy from Ambedkar’s organic passage. Women in this case were denied their freedom to associate organically with a critical intellectual tradition. This is how Gopal Guru analyzes the significance of this denial, “The upper- caste male not only withheld intellectual recognition from Ambedkar, but imposed a patriarchal limit on the cultural and intellectual practices of upper- caste women.” (Zene 2013: 91)
As far as the hegemonic construction of intellectuals is concerned this was something Ambedkar himself noted; manifested in the reluctance and uneasiness to recognize thinkers from the Shudra/Ati- Shudra caste, even in the twentieth century. He showed that this need to deny the intellectual prowess of the lowest castes arose in the wake of the onslaught of colonial modernity. He felt that there was not much need for the Brahminical hegemony to oppose/deny or even thwart the intellectual claims of the Dalits during the pre-colonial days because the dominance was so absolute and that they did not feel threatened by the intellectual claims of the Shudra/Ati- Shudra caste. But with the gradual emergence of Dalit intellectuals with transgressive capacity the upper- caste intellectuals were forced to take cognizance of the intellectual calibre of Dalit thinkers. This reluctant recognition compounded with a feeling of being threatened manifested itself in the form of denial. Ambedkar himself cites the example of Ramdas, a seventeenth- century saint from Maharashtra, who in his Dasbodh asked, “Can we accept an Antyja (untouchable) to be our guru because he is Pandit [knowledgeable]?” Ramdas, according to Ambedkar, answers this question in the negative (Ambedkar 1979: 37).
Ambedkar uses this and many such similar examples to suggest that the general intellectual mood in India continues to be parochial. Upper-caste males are at best unenthusiastic or at the worst totally unwilling to recognize their lower-caste brethren as intellectual leaders of society. This near impossibility of the emergence of an organic intellectual in a hierarchical society was attributed to the chokehold of caste ideology. This is how Ambedkar elaborated his position further:
would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a great and good man? The case of Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in Hindu society. There is appreciation of virtue but only the man is a fellow caste man. (Rodrigues 2002: 275)
Edward Shils echoes this observation when he states that “‘the Indian intellectuals are caste conscious. They are sensitive to the caste of their fellow intellectuals’ (Shils 1961: 69).
This can be illustrated by a Sanskrit pandit from Maharashtra Damodar Satwadekar. This is how he ‘recognises’ Ambedkar: “‘Ambedkar’s intellectual achievement is more due to his rootedness in caste background rather than his hold over the larger intellectual field” (Kamble 1992: 25). He even attributed Ambedkar’s fame to the solid backing by the Dalits. Satwadekar is here doing two things both of which require attention. Firstly he is linking Ambedkar’s achievement to a notion of negative intellectual exceptionalism where ‘Dalit’ is a limited reference point from which to judge Ambedkar’s intellectual status. This is why caste forms the basis of his judgement rather than epistemological contribution or intellectual prowess. This also reveals his other assumption; that of looking at the collective growth of the Dalits as only sociological rather than intellectual. This is an anti-Gramscian stance because Gramsci found in the subaltern the intellectual potential to transform a society’s intellectuals. Secondly, Satwadekar implies that members of the upper caste have to compete among themselves to acquire intellectual recognition because for him the scholarship of the upper caste is located purely on an epistemological and intellectual domain, disconnected from its originators’ caste background. Unsurprisingly the upper-caste intellectuals are seen as deserving of universal status which confers upon them the right to even think on behalf of the Dalits. For Satwadekar then Ambedkar can never achieve universal intellectual status.
Colonial Modernity
It is imperative to locate Ambedkar and his attempts at epistemological and intellectual transgression against the backdrop of colonial modernity because his status developed on its own authentic terms and in its own unique situations, originating from the historical need to
produce a counter- hegemony against Brahminical hegemony, and finding affirmation in the intellectual practices of the subaltern groups: women, Dalits, and the OBC (designated ‘Other Backward Classes’) castes.
The broad stance taken here with regards to colonial modernity and its influence in shaping Ambedkar’s thoughts is that the nature of colonial capitalism that India witnessed did ease the path and possibility for Ambedkar to become a universal intellectual. However it is worth remembering that it is in its own interests that it tried to produce such conditions that could be conducive to the emergence of intellectuals from the lowest strata of Indian society. This could ultimately lead to what Gopal Guru terms as ‘epistemological transgression’ could be termed an ‘epistemological transgression’ which empowered Ambedkar to break out from the intellectual encirclement of the Dalit community by Brahminical hegemony. Now as a part of this transgression, Ambedkar tried to create counter- hegemony by posing a challenge to the intellectual dominance of the ‘highest members’ who contributed to a system which relegated the Dalits to exist as a silent, and hence inferior, other in their own hegemonic discourse. It is interesting to note how Ambedkar succeeded in trying to produce counter- hegemony among the subaltern group.
Civil Society and Ambedkar’s attempt at Counter-Hegemony
Gramsci conceptualizes civil society as a complex structure, “resistant to the catastrophic ‘incursions’ of immediate economic factors such as crisis or depression” (Gramsci 1971: 235). It is in the Gramscian sense a superstructure, serving the same purpose as a “trench system of modern warfare” (Gramsci 1971: 235). It is the sphere where the hegemonies of the ruling class are formed and challenged by the ‘counter- hegemony of the subaltern” (Gramsci 1971: 235). In such a framework, the challenge to the hegemony of the ruling class is basically a challenge that is oriented and articulated at the cultural level through the formation of a negative consciousness among the subaltern. Gramsci characterizes this crystallization “merely as the first glimmer of such consciousness, in other words, merely as the basic negative, polemical attitude” (Gramsci 1971: 19–20). This negative consciousness performs an essential role in shaping a fully developed Dalit consciousness. The process of ‘Sanskritization’ which Ambedkar used along with its necessary political interventions as a cognitive condition to arrive at a more mature transformative political consciousness is the first glimmer of this consciousness.
Ambedkar embarked on this mission by launching social struggles such as demanding the right of temple entry, in order to create negative consciousness among the Dalits and the other non- Brahmin castes. Through this movement he was able to show that touchable Hindus were not yet ready to accept Untouchables as their equals, and that touchable Hindus retained an interest in protecting and perpetuating hierarchical difference. This inevitably turned the exclusive sacred to the egalitarian profane. The predictable opposition by the upper castes would help in fostering negative consciousness which would ultimately hopefully translate into political consciousness. This mobilization of the Dalits seemed to yield results by the middle of the 1930s.This subjective condition provided a relatively firm ground on which emancipatory struggles from the local configuration of power could be launched.
However things were complicated by a range of factors. Theycan be found in the answers to the following probing questions by Gopal Guru contain the crux of the complicated nature of Indian society at the time: “was it politically adequate to gain, in Gramscian terms, organic passage into different social constituencies? And did the subaltern take advantage of the situation by throwing in their lot with Ambedkar in a common project of collective emancipation?” (Zene 2013: 95)The answers are far from affirmative.
The social character of Indian society would not allow subjective conditions to mature to the level where the subaltern would accept claims to universal leadership that arise from the lower rungs of Indian society. Ambedkar himself argued that the caste-ridden socio-economic structures of Indian society thwarted the possibilities of development of capitalism and the resultant growth of organic intellectuals. He felt that the capitalism that emerged in nineteenth century India did not result in the favourable conditions needed to break through the caste fabric and thus help in the emergence of a new class more freely. In fact Ambedkar’s own organic passage was blocked by this ossified caste system.
The thwarted path of Ambedkar’s attempt.
Gramsci argued that the organic passage of an intellectual involves “enlarging the class sphere both technically and politically/ideologically” (Gramsci 1971: 260). In such a Gramscian framework the organic intellectual is supposed to gain organic passage into other constituencies. Before trying to understand why Ambedkar was unable to gain organic passage to other constituencies it should be kept in mind the hint that Gramsci himself provides regarding the mutual relation between the masses and the organic intellectual:
[I]f the leader does not regard the human masses as a servile instrument – useful to attain one’s own aims and then to be discarded – but aims, instead, to achieve organic political results (of which these masses are the necessary historical protagonists), if the leader carries out a constructive ‘constituent’ task, then his is a superior ‘demagogy’. . . . The political leader with a lofty ambition . . . is inclined to create an intermediate stratum between himself and the masses, to foster potential ‘rivals’ and peers, to elevate the capabilities of the masses, to produce individuals who can replace him as leader (Gramsci 2007: 82–3)
Gramsci here highlights the moral role of the masses in achieving this transformation. This mutually exchangeable responsibility is constitutive of “moral hegemony” (Gramsci 1971: 59). Gramsci thus suggests the groundwork for the organic link between the masses and the intellectuals; something that never achieve substantial strength in the case of Ambedkar. Gaining organic passage is a precondition for producing broad solidarity. Even with all its lacunae an examination of how far Ambedkar was able to gain organic passage within the subaltern social classes is still worthy of examination.
Initially Ambedkar’s Independent Labour Party did show some hopes of facilitating his organic passage into other subaltern classes. He established the party to consolidate the subaltern class politically with a larger social constituency of non- Brahmin peasant castes in western Maharashtra, forging a broader unity between the peasants (non- Brahmin) and the workers (consisting broadly of Untouchables) through the category of exploitation. The Dalit–Bahujan solidarity was endorsed by the non- Brahmins in both formal and cultural politics. ILP was able to win fifteen seats out of seventeen in the provincial council elections held in 1937.
In the realm of symbolic politics, the non- Brahmins elevated Ambedkar over Gandhi, seen in his characterization as the “Rashtra Guru” (‘Teacher of the Nation’) in the non- Brahmin universal imagination (Ambedkar 2002: 162).
However, the potential of his organic intellectual leadership over the non- Brahmin sensibility during the late 1930s was short- lived. Non- Brahmins, and even some Dalit sub- castes, refused to link organically to Ambedkar. Non- Brahmins had a mixed and partial response to Ambedkar’s leadership: some of them flatly refused to grant Ambedkar universal qualities, while others gave only partial recognition to his intellectual qualities. The fact that many non- Brahmins wanted to hire Ambedkar to fight their legal battles against the Brahmins is an example of partial recognition granting him only limited organic passage into the non- Brahmin constituency. This was completely against the Gramscian understanding of the organic passage of an intellectual; something which involves enlarging the class sphere both technically and politically, but also ideologically. The non- Brahmins allowed Ambedkar only a half- way passage, by acknowledging his skill only in jurisprudence.
One of the reasons for this was caste itself according to Ambedkar: “‘castes prevent people from following a leader from another caste even if the latter is much more superior. They tend to follow the leaders of their own caste, even if he is not competent’ (Ambedkar 2005: 388).
Another probable reason requires a bit more elaboration. The broader project of capturing political power or state power through the election of 1937 was not preceded by an overcoming of the social power that non- Brahmins continued to enjoy in the sphere of civil society. This line of reading aligns with Gramsci’s view that that “there must be hegemonic
activity even before the rise of power, and . . . one should not count on the material force which power gives in order to exercise effective leadership” (Gramsci 1971: 59). This lag in social consciousness, especially within the non- Brahmin social group proved to be a serious dent in the possibilities for forging broader unity. One instance of this adversely impacting the anti-caste struggle was the conditionality imposed by the dominant section of the non- Brahmin caste, particularly during the Mahad struggle for water in 1927.
This lag in the social consciousness of non- Brahmins is rumoured to have been exploited by the leading national political party of the time by trying to demobilize the non-Brahmins from the broader struggle that the Independent Labour Party had launched under the leadership of
Ambedkar. The non-Brahmin masses were persuaded by two inter-related reasons. Firstly, the INC for them held the future promise of new material advantages if they were to gain political power after the end of colonial rule. Secondly, the non-Brahmin masses had hoped that once they would achieve stable and improved economic conditions they would be able to maintain social superiority. These had a constraining effect on the radicalization of political
consciousness and translated into the masses not making common cause with Ambedkar.
This is Ambedkar’s take on the lag in non- Brahmin consciousness:
Firstly, they had not been able to realize exactly what their differences were with Brahminical sections. Though they indulged in virulent criticism of Brahmins, could any one of them say those differences had been doctrinal? How much Brahminism had they in them? . . . Instead of abandoning Brahminism, they had been holding on to the spirit of it as being the ideal. (Khairmode 1998: 5)
Thus, the non- Brahmin masses failed to sustain Ambedkar as an organic intellectual.
Conclusion
Any nuanced attempt at taking stock of Ambedkar and Gramsci’s contribution or even comparative political thought has to take into consideration the vastly different social context of their ideas. Gramsci’s ideas enjoy a comparatively context-free status and it is reflected partly in the ease with which the subaltern in India has re-contextualized his ideas in local resistance. With Ambedkar however the circumscribing nature of local caste-ridden dynamics which influenced both the receptivity and articulation of his ideas imposed a context-specific nature to his stellar contribution. So while within the Gramscian framework one can find a plethora of ideas to be readily available like hegemony, subalternity, organic intellectual etc the complex nature of Indian society vitiated by continuous hierarchies rendered universal application of Ambedkar’s ideas highly challenging.
Notes:
1)For a detailed understanding of this transition that Sassoon talks about please refer to
Sassoon, A.S. (1987) Gramsci’s Politics. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
2)Dumont develops this idea in Dumont, L. (1979) Homo Hierarchius: The Caste System and its Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References:
Ambedkar, Bhimrao. (1979). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. Vol 1.edited by Vasant Moon Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Ambedkar, Bhimrao. (2002). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. Vol 18.edited by Hari Narke et al. Government of Maharashtra.
Ambedkar, Bhimrao. (2005). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. Vol 19.edited by Hari Narke et al. Government of Maharashtra.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell- Smith, London: Lawrence and Wishart and New York: International Publishers.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1992). Prison Notebooks Volume 1, ed. and trans. by J.A. Buttigieg, New York: Columbia University Press.
Kamble A. (1992) Babasaheb Ambedkaranche Jantetil Lekh, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan
and Marathi Department, Mumbai University.
Kaviraj, S. (2010) The Trajectory of the Indian State. Delhi: Permanent Black.
Khairmode, C.B. (1998) Babasaheb Ambedkaranchy Aathwani Volume 4. Pune: Sugawa
Publications.
Radhakrishnan, R. (1997) Diasporic Mediation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Rodrigues, V. (2002). The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shils, E. (1961) The Intellectuals between Tradition and Modernity: the Indian situation.
The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Zene, Cosimo. (2013) The Political Philosophies of Antonio Gramsci and B.R. Ambedkar: Itineraries of Dalits and Subalterns. New York: Routledge.