2) Critically analyse how did Ambedkar and Gandhiji view and address the issue of untouchability.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Topic: Modern Indian history from about the middle of the eighteenth century until the present- significant events, personalities, issues

2) Critically analyse how did Ambedkar and Gandhiji view and address the issue of untouchability. (200 Words)


  • Nitisha Singh

    Views of Ambedkar on Untouchability-
    B.R. Ambedkar felt that the effort of Congress and Mahatma Gandhi were not sufficient in eradicating this uncivil law in the society. According to him, “An India that denies itself to some Indians would end up being denied to Indians.” He vowed to break away untouchability. There are thus several provisions in the Constitution that attempts to attain his vision pertaining to untouchability and caste based discrimination. He waged a relentless war on the caste structure of the Indian society. He started his weekly newspaper, Mook Nayak in 1920. He also established the Bahishkrit Hitkrini Sabha to
    1. promote education among the depressed classes
    2. to advance and improve their economic conditions
    3. to represent their grievances
    4. to organize or help any club, association to bring about the enlightenment, social rise or economic betterment of the depressed classes.
    He presented various provisions in the Constituent Assembly for protecting the interests of the marginalized sections. Articles 15 (4), 16 (4), 19(1) (d) and (e), 29 (2) and 340 reflects his conceptual understanding of social and economic justice. He advocated for a free India where there is no discrimination on the line of citizen’s caste, creed, colour, creed and place of birth. He also argued that the three important factors sympathy, equality and liberty are required to uplift an individual.

    • vineet

      1. good start but Gandhi’s role not adequately mentioned
      2.Last para could have summed up as—codified,separate and instututional safeguards in constitution was Ambedekar sought as a way
      3. u may refer article,but We must have a sharp grasp as mentioning within demand as articles,movements will not help to sum up the Q,neither helpful in exam
      4. Balance need to maintain on each part,u missed Gandhi altogether

      plz view mine

      • Nitisha Singh

        thanks for your views and I wasn’t satisfied with my answer on Gandhi part. I’ll keep in mind your suggestions.

  • Words: 230

    Gandhiji was a great social reformer. He was against caste system. He did not consider caste system as altogether sinful like untouchability. The latter he considered as weeds the former as crops. Destroying the caste system is like destroying the crops for weeds.

    He considered Untouchability as a curse to the Hindu society. He called the Untouchables “Harijans” , i.e. children of god and asked the people to give them respect worthy of human beings.
    Under his guidance, the congress adopted the programme of the upliftment of Harijans.

    Ambedkar was a social Humanist. He fought for upliftment of oppressed, women and poor throughout his life. He led his followers in a series of non-violent campaigns to assert the right of the Untouchables to enter Hindu place of worship and to draw water from public tanks and wells (like: Mahad March and Temple Entry Movement).

    Ambedkar wanted to get rid of untouchability by abolishing caste system, while Gandhi aimed at abolishing practice of untouchability within caste system. Ambedkar wanted strict legislations to root out the caste system and untouchable practices, while Gandhi believed in change of attitude of upper castes towards lower castes.

    Poona Pact was reasonable understanding between two great leaders on inhuman practices of untouchability. Article 17 of Indian constitution envisaged aspiration of Ambedkar.

    Thus, both of them were committed to root out untouchability but with different methods suite to their own personalities.

    • nap_2005


      • Sk


    • vineet

      how to underline and bold the letters,plz guide,i posted but all disappeared

      • Guest

        For bold fond use at starting of line and at the end.
        Same way use u for underline and i for italic..

        But remember,it’s useful when u write in disqus comment box..

        • Guest


          • IWRA


            • IWRA

              • IWRA

                Not working yaar.

                • Mayur Singh Tomar

                  paper kaise gaye sipaahi ji???

                  • Sepoy No 1446

                    Shaandar, jabardast, Zindabbad !

                    Was good.Hope to get through.

                    • Mayur Singh Tomar

                      congrats in advance…ab kya kar rahe ho??

                    • Sepoy No 1446

                      insights pe answer writing practice.

                    • pooja

                      hi! im preparing for civil services 2017. Have you seen any improvement in your answer writing skills after practicing writing answers daily ?

                    • Sepoy No 1446

                      yes i did.

                    • pooja

                      did you join any coaching institute and followed any magazine as such ? can i have your email or no ?

        • Guest


        • Guest


      • Guest

        Some formatting tips for the Disqus comments

        Disqus’s new light logo
        Hello everyone, if you did not now, you can format your text in the comments section. While you can not have it automatically done for you, you can do it with some very simple HTML knowledge.

        All you must do is use simple HTML to format the text in your comments. It might take some minor getting used to, but trust me, it is simple. Below is some basic formatting, with some extra stuff like quotes detailed in the Disqus help docs link below.
        To make text italic, use at the beginning of the text you want to put into italics, and at the end of the text you wan’t to put into italics. Example: This comment text is in italics
        To make text bold, use the tag. At the end of the text put the closing tag . Example: This comment text is bold
        To make a piece of text bold and italic, use and . You can interchange the two, as long as you use the proper closing tag first. Example: This comment text is bold and italic
        To make a piece of text underlined, use the tag. is the closing tag. Put this at the end of the text. Example: This comment text is underlined
        To put a strike though the text, use the tag. Put at the end of the text you want to put a strike though. Example : This comment text has a strike though it.

        • VR

          “” Thank you very much

          • Guest

            this comment is in bold
            Checking karo

        • vineet

          thanks a lot

        • Guest

          tag . Hi tag .

      • MIP

        Search on net..how to write bold,italic n underline word in disqus comment box..

    • Guest

      Gandhiji was against untouchability , not against caste system

    • MIP

      Gandhiji’s view on caste system–Yr underlined statement and first statement r contradictory..

    • ninja

      ambedkar stand for the political,economical and social rights of all supress and depressed citizen of india. he brought the true sense of untouchable and caste system which give them strenghth to open thier mouth.

    • Agent47

      Awesome Answer…!!!


    Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organization which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits – entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties — and he wanted it under control of Dalits themselves. Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organization, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables.

    This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism — but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed; upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the dalits. This included programmes of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth. For Ambedkar, all of this was worse than useless.

    Gandhi did not see untouchables as individuals born into a particular community; rather as
    somewhat unthinking members of an existing Hindu community; Hinduism he saw as their “natural” religion; their task was to reform it; they should not leave it. Ambedkar in contrast put individual and his/her development at center of his vision, and believed this development was impossible without a new, true religion.

  • RG

    Untouchability is the practice of segragating people from the mainsream on the basis of caste.It was having social mandate in past and people of lower castes have suffered a lot due to this practice.
    Ambedkar belonged to Mahar Caste and people of which was considered as untouchables. Therefore he had faced inequalities right from the start of his life. He was of the belief that any religion if is supporting such discrimination should not be followed. And people should destroy such writings like Manusmriti etc. which were giving social mandate to such a practice.He was a firm believer of egalitarian society and thus believed in equality among people in every possible sphere in a person’s life. Thus he believed in Budhism n respected its values of equality of all.He believed interdining and inter caste marriages should be allowed to abridge this gap
    This thinking of Ambedkar also reflected in the dafting of constitution which strives for equality and untouchability as the punishable offence.
    On the other Gandhi called untouchables as Harijan ie “man of god”. But he was of the belief that they should stay in the folds of hinduism . He saw caste system as the real problem. He believed that upliftment and empowerment should be done for the improvement of status.Above thinking gandhi was evident by the fact that he sat on fast until death if provision of separate electorate for scheduled castes would not be dismantled
    Both of them wanted the betterment of the untouchables & equality among people, though their measures may be different.

    Plz review guys

    • vineet

      i feel view and ways of address under separate headings will be a wise option
      plz view mine

  • Mithradir

    Answer: Both Ambedkar and Gandhiji were fine statesmen with different abilities and fought for Dalits rights. There means of doing things were different but their goals were same i.e. upliftment of dalits and culminating untouchabilities.

    Ambedkar’s way of addressing untouchability were :

    1.Dalits need to be Assertive i.e. Dalits must come forward and demand their rights by any means even if it calls for disruptions of Hindu religions or leaving Hindu religions.

    2. Ambedkar believed to secure Dalits their rights through legal, constitutional and scientific means. He has wider view about global situations. Hence, he represented Dalits in Round Table Conference and secured separate electorates.

    3.He believed, once Dalits will be economically empowered, respect and social inclusion will automatically come.

    Gandhi’s way of curing Indian societies of untouchabilities were:

    1.Gandhi believed in obtaining something through perseverance i.e. doing social work in dalit’s area, cleaning dalit’s village, sitting/eating with them to allay disgust among upper caste hindus.

    Gandhi belived that respect, brotherhood among dalits and upper castes should come by itself and introspection and not by separating electorates and keeping them further electorally untouchables.

    2.Though Gandhi was also foreign educated but he has deep roots in Indian system and class strucutre. He wanted uppercaste people to realise good and bad and socially include the Dalits rather than leading an internal movement inside Hindu religion.

    3.Gandhi believed that inherent problems of untouchability is because of social aphrensions, dirty dwelling residence/areas where dalit leaves and economic deprived status of dalits. He wanted to correct it by eating/sitting with dalits, cleaning their areas and skilling them with swadeshi means respectively.

    Though both represented same cause many a times they confronted uneasy situations of ideological conflict. But, for the better good of all Harijans(“Children of God, name given by Gandhi”) they chose middle path.

    • Vineet

      views and ways may form separate headings
      1. point 2 may mention change of heart by caste hindus as apt words will save ur words .what u wanna say in 30 words may sum up in 10 if expressed aptly like point 2 may be written as
      Gandhi,mindful of the complex social hierarchy,relied on change of heart of caste Hindus by ways of sensitization to cure it and believed in goodness of humanity to distinguish between evil and good
      plz view mine

  • Himanshu

    Ambedkar adopted a radical approach towards issue of untouchability. He advocated for complete anhilation of Caste system for solving this problem . He argued that till caste is there, out-caste will continue to remain and untouchability will continue to persist. He led many marches against untouchability the famous one being in Mahad for access to public tank. He called on the Dailts to organise, educate and then agitate. He advocated for socio-economic development of Dalits through education, industrialization, reservation etc. Later on he resorted to conversion to Buddhism stating that “He was born as an Hindu, but won’t die so”.

    However, Ambedkar wasn’t able to sustain the political movement for after initial success of Independent Labor Party and Scheduled Caste Federation.

    On the other side, Gandhi adopted a reformist and moral approach towards untouchability. He argued for caste system as it promotes harmony and synergy. He appealed to the conscience of the people to realise the historical necessity of accommodating the “Harijans” by providing them a rightful place in the society. He advocated positive means for the uplift of Harijans which included temple entry movement, access to public places like pulbic wells and schools.

    However, Gandhi’s approach has often been criticized for being pacifist and ignoring the inherent conflict between different Varnas of Caste system.

    On the whole of it, it was only with the efforts of these two leaders that India drafted a progressive constitution which abolished untouchabilitiy under Article 17. However, this evil has continued to persist in Indian society in some form or other. What is needed is a public and social movement against it.

  • Danish Mohammad

    2) Critically analyse how did Ambedkar and Gandhiji view and address the issue of untouchability. (200 Words)

    Both Gandhiji and Ambedkar opposed the untouchability , however Gandhiji initially was reluctant to oppose the caste system but after that in the year 1936 he realised and corrected his course and started opposing the caste. Such was the quality of the saint that he corrected themselves and open for the views and fresh thoughts of liberty.

    Gandhi’s Stance :-

    From the very beginning of his works and struggles in South Africa , he asserted and fought for the rights of Indians and Negroes in South Africa against imperial power. In 1915 when he returned to India, the very first thing he has in mind to “stitch” together the Indians and remove between them all the impediments and notions such as Untouchability and hate against all other religions. Particularly he denounced and vehemently opposed “Untouchability” and was ready to sacrifice even the freedom of India if it Untouchability is compromise for its sake. There are instances not one but hundreds of them in his entire life that he stood for the Untouchables. One such is post independence he went to live with the slum of the manual scavengers in the capital itself, however this thing embarrassed the national leaders and the whole country and changed their views significantly vis-a-vis dalits.

    Ambedkar’s Instance :-

    Ambedkar on the other hand being from that community itself had very obvious sensitivities against the ominous provisions of caste and varna system. He wrote and fought continuously for their rights and in that course he led many agitations such as Mahad satyagraha and formed the All India Depressed Classes Conference. Ambedkar wanted caste and Varna system to be abolished completely and Dalits be given parity with others. But the main difference between their approaches was that regarding the Joint Electorate card played by the Mcdonald in 1932. While Ambedkar wanted separate electorates , Gandhi vehemently opposed that for the very obvious reason that he wanted to eradicate the untouchability, not an escaping path.

    • Danish Mohammad

      Please review friends…

    • Jagdish

      You did not indicate the fundamental difference between the approaches of both leaders.

      • Danish Mohammad

        Please mention some Jagdish.. the fundamental difference.. many thanks for reviewing ..

        • Jagdish

          Gandhi: he believed untouchability exist due to mis thoughts among upper caste hindus. He saw it as impurity among hindu religion. According to him, this can be eliminated by pursuing upper caste people to change their heart for low caste people. This is the reason he did not want to abolish caste system himself unlike ambedkar as he saw untouchability as an impurity within the hindu religion.
          Ambedkar: he believed caste system as an integral part of hindu religion. Till the time this religion exist, untouchability can not be eliminated. He believed in equality, liberty and fraternity as the way forward to remove untouchability. According to him, man is master of his destiny. By providing economic oppotunities, industrialization dalits can accrue social and economic gains in the society that were denied to them. He called for abolishing caste system adn cahnged to buddhism because he said hinduism is not based on equality, fraternity and liberty which are fundamental tenants of modern world.

          Ambedkar was modern in his outlook while gandhi was more of religious and spiritual in this thoughts.

          • Danish Mohammad

            Thanks dude ,, valuable content you have added..

  • STOS

    Gandhiji and Ambedkar are the jewels of modern india and its society. they were the propounder champion of the EQUALITY and DEMOCRACY in India. both fought for social equality and against social evil like untouchability. untouchability means treating some people as impure in same society, discriminating on the basis of cast and taking away some basic rights like worshiping. however, their approach was different-
    1] Since caste system decides the discrimination regarding practice of untouchabilty, then its solution lies in Annihilation of caste.
    2] there should be legal safeguard like seperate electorate or reservation for them because they are aware of their rights and habbits.
    3] caste system also divides the people in same religion and detrimental to unity.
    4] its our duty to empower them and give them equal opportunity. our custom and practice of brahminical order has created this outcome. brahminical order has created this untouchability. thus it should be removed.
    1] untouchability is inhuman activity and cant be accepted in any circumstances.
    2] it is not the caste system which is responsible but the practice and discrimination has made untouchables.
    3] he was NEO-VEDANTIC philosopher and according to him every person is god and we cant discriminate the same god.
    4] every person has same natural right and we can’t stop them to do so. every person has natural right to perform their activity by their will whether it is worship or entry in any temple.

    thus, purpose of our both champions was same but method was different. Ambedkar’s radicalism seems to be very difficult but gandhiji approach more practical. however, their effort created great contribution to this change and under process at present time also.

    • vineet

      Q ask for views ans ways of address
      1. Separate heading is good start
      2. u may have mentioned ways of caste annihilation such as intercaste marriages and mingle ups,joint eating etc
      3. change of heart of caste hindus was Gandhi wanted

      • STOS

        thanks a lot for review and additional points. keep reviewing

    • vineet

      plz view mine

  • vineet

    View of Ambedkar on untouchability
    1.Himself,Being a victim of caste based atrocities,he viewed this evil practice a medium of over all exploitation of dalits by caste hindus
    2. He termed it a attempt in the disguise of religious sanctions.restrictions to exert dominance of upper castes over resources and pushing large productive lower strata to a state of subjugation and eternal deprivation
    3. It reveals the true character of so called benevolent Hinduism and it a product of so called varnashrm dharma
    View of Gandhi on Untouchability
    1. It indeed is most oppressive of the evils in Hinduism and need to be abolished in full form
    2. It marginalize a large lower strata of society,depriving them equal opportunities to lead a dignified life and help contribute ti national mainstream to their optimum potential
    3. It is not the product but only a gross abuse of varnashrma dharma by vested interest as in originality untouchabilyty was envisaged in it but cultivated through faulty implementation
    Addressing of Untouchability: Ambedkar
    1. First caste system need to be annihilated to end the root cause by promotion of Inter caste marriages and social mingle ups
    2. All religious materials proscribing caste based discrimination and resultant superiority – inferiority complex among people need to be discarded in mass and if,fundamentalist do not relent,them conversion to a equitable religion is the only way out to get rid of the state of persistent subjugation as he exemplified by adopting Buddhism
    3. Heart change of caste Hindus or reform in varna system is a myth,Dalits cannot be left on the mercy of them,only stiff resistance by untouchables and lead by state intervention through institution methods will bring a radical change as he provisioned it in the constitution
    4. He disagreed with Gandhi and asked for separate,codified and adequate safeguards instead of assurances such as reservations,positive discrimination in state policies to undo the historic injustice and help mainstreaming untouchables
    Addressing of Untoucahbility: Gandhi
    1. His approach was to seek remedy and address concerns within the fold of Hindu society,religion and nationalist movement thus preventing Dalits/untouchables to form alliance with separatist/imperialist forces as he proved in Poona Pact of 1932
    2. At social front,change of heart of caste Hindus by way of sensitization was the best solution as untouchabilty persisted in heart and mind and without transformation,no codified statue would guarantee a behavioral change
    3. Liberal and progressive adaptation of religious texts on untouchabilty were to compliment social efforts
    4. He saw dalits as Harijan or God’s own men and believed in the goodness of humanity to overpower this evil by collective efforts

    • RG

      introduction and conclusion missing

      • vineet

        agree,will improve,thanks 4 review


      good one………..

    • STOS

      intro, conclusion and compaction can beautify your answer. BTW, nice answer.

  • ans.1

  • Aura

    Ambedkar and Gandhiji present two different streams of conception and addressing the issue of untouchability.

    Gandhiji had high regards for varnaashramadharma but his concept of varna was different from the prevailing caste disabilities. He supported the vedic concept of varna-ashrama-dharma according to which varna of a person was decided by his capibilities and not by birth. He supported the differentiation to maintain harmony in society. But he was very much against the untouchability and hailed it a very oppressive and degraded system.

    On the other hand Ambedkar was against any kind of differentiation in society. He argued that as long as caste would remain no benefit can come for lowly caste. The powerful caste would always try to oppress the weak caste for its self-interest.

    On addressing the issue, Gandhi asked for generosity of high caste to accept the low-caste. He himself went on working with them to reform the low caste and asked for their general acceptance. Ambedkar argued for total annihilation of caste system to address untouchability. He prescribed methods of inter-dining and inter-marriage to abolish the existing boundaries between caste.

    In the long run views of both Gandhiji and Ambedkar changed. The apathy shown by high caste, forced Gandhiji to ask for total abolition of caste system. Ambedkar took more radical stance and presented conversion as the last resort as he argued that present Hindu religion can not be reformed.

    Both the views of Gandhiji and Ambedkar changed during the course of independence movement. Both hailed system of untouchability as the most degrading system of hindu religion and by different way tried to take out this oppressive element from society.


    • ExperimentsWidWriting

      Expression is very good.
      Poona pact should be discussed.
      Temple entry movements can be illustrated.

  • Vibhaav

    Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar both had contributed immensely towards eradication of practice of untouchability in India.

    According to Gandhiji , Indians were undergoing ill treatment from Britishers because they themselves were doing ill treatment with their own so called lower caste people. Unless these people will be treated equally there is no meaning of asking for equal treatment from British government as both discrimination policies standing on the same unreasonable belief that some of the persons are made superior by god. He called the suppressed people”Harijan” i.e. ‘the people of God’.

    He asked people to use their own rationale before practicing of pure and impure and also criticised manusmriti for its illogical and outdated content.

    Gandhiji was the first person who asked for equality of all citizens as a foremost objective of Indian national congress which later got enshrined as a fundamental right in COI.

    He asked rich landlords to donate their land in form of trust to landless lower strata people which later evolved as Bhoodan andolan.

    Dr Ambedkar had some convergence in his thoughts with Gandhiji as he also supported Satyagrahs and method of resistance advised by Gandhiji.Although he was more critical about manusmriti and suppressive practices of higher castes India.

    Due to his efforts dalit people got secured seats in elections of British india so that they could get a platform to put their thoughts and demands.

    He issued several magazines such as mook nayak and made organisations to uplift outcastes such as bahiskrit hitkarini sabha and peoples education society.

    He encouraged dalit persons to take more and more education and don’t not follow irrational thoughts written in ancient Hindu code books such as manusmriti.

    He conducted Buddhist movement in independent india and inspired dalits and suppressed people to adopt a faith in which they live a life of freedom and dignity.

  • Kapil Pradhan

    Gandhiji was the leader of masses and always took people into confidence for any social upliftment. Gandhiji was very sensitive to the issues of untouchability and other malaise of indian society. Many times during the hiatus of freedom struggle he asked his followers to do constructive work which include removal of untouchability, ignorance etc. Gandhiji gave the name ‘Harijans’ to the dalit people. Harijan means people of God. Gandhiji was highly disturbed at their pathetic living conditions and took the task of cleaning their toilets. Gandhiji’s dream was to see everybody equal and hence he used to encourage the education of the downtrodden and people of low caste.
    Ambedkar was the leader of the downtrodden masses and was always assertive for giving equal rights to the so called low caste. Ambedkar felt that without the upliftment of the low caste people, the freedom struggle has no meaning.
    It was during 1931 when Ambedkar and Gandhiji came at loggerheads. The Britishers played the game of Divide and rule and proposed the formation of separate electorates for the dalits. Gandhiji was opposed to the idea of reservation of electoral constituency for particular castes. Gandhiji felt that, this step would further isolate the dalits and it would be difficult to reintegrate them into the mainstream of Indian democracy. But Ambedkar was opposed to Gandhiji and felt that separate electorate is the solution for the upliftment of the dalits. Finally Gandhiji resorted to fast until death . There was a poona pact where instead of separate electorates certain seats were reserved for the low castes people.
    Hence it can be seen that both Gandhiji and Ambedkar had good intentions but the way of working and thinking was quite different

    • Tinga tinga

      Keep writing…

      • Kapil Pradhan

        Thank you

  • Fazil Mohd

    Gandhiji and Ambedkar had different views on the
    Untouchability problem, but both of them wanted the same goal, upliftment of
    the impoverished masses.

    Gandhiji saw untouchability as a rot which was eating Hinduism
    from within and wanted it to be abolished fully without any trace. He called
    the untouchables Harijans and worked for their inclusion and acceptance into
    society on a social scale as well as economic and political scale. But gandhiji
    wanted to tackle the problem of untouchability from within Hinduism and did not
    take any interference in that matter lightly.

    Ambedkar being the main leader of the untouchable masses
    worked tirelessly for their welfare. He regarded them as being separate from
    mainstream Hinduism and that separation has occurred due to centuries of
    segregation. For him their upliftment was of paramount importance without which
    freedom was not worth achieving.

    Gandhiji and Ambedkar came at loggerheads over
    the reservation of electorates on communal basis in 1931. To discourage
    communal division in the name of electorates, Gandhiji undertook a fast unto
    death, due to which, the Poona pact was signed which provided for reservation
    to people from the lower castes. In their unique ways, both Gandhiji and Amedkar
    did much for the upliftment of the downtrodden in India. (207) PLEASE REVIEW

    • Tinga tinga

      Yess….nicely written…..

      • Fazil Mohd

        thank you 🙂

  • Guest


  • ExperimentsWidWriting

    Untouchability has been one of sacrilege on Indian social structure since ancient period. There had been a struggle to undo the wrongs of untouchability since Sufi and Bhakti period. In modern times Jyotiba Phule, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Periyar and many more have try to fight this wrong.

    In modern period two of the freedom fighters and social reformers contribution has been immense in fighting untouchability, they are Dr. B R Ambedkar anrd M K Gandhi.

    Both Gandhi and Ambedker wanted to finish untouchability from Indian society. Ambedker was himself an untouchable. His idea was that of reservation in seats, annihilation of caste structure and separate electorate etc. While Gandhi was more concern with upliftment of untouchables by his constructive program, temple entry movements and even reservation of sheets with joint electorate.

    One the most important point of difference between Gandhi and Ambedker was electoral representation. While Ambedker advocated for separate electorate, Gandhi went on fast onto death to avoid separate electorate. Gandhi coincided on view that untouchables want representation but not by separate electorate. He critics separate electorate on ground that it will it will widen the gap already existing. He agreed on reserved seats with joint electorate.

    Gandhiji believed in caste system. He did not wanted caste system to be abolished. Ambedker wanted it to be abolish. A society without caste was only penance for untouchables.

    Despite these differences there was fundamental agreement between two leaders that untouchability was a big social problem and it is to fought root and stem.

  • $harma

    Gandhi a great leader,philosopher,social reformer , and last but not the least saint also which is respected all over world for his working style where words matched with action. on the other hand Ambedkar a renowned economist,scholar , lawyer,and also social reformer concentrated towards particular community.

    1. Both want to remove untouchability but there views about problem and its solution were different as both saw the world in different context.

    2.Ambedkar opinion that root of problem of untouchability lies in caste and varna system of hindu religion and for removing it we get rid of caste system itself. while according to Gandhi there is no fault in varna system and it is compulsory for idea of village as a unit of self development.according to gandhi hindu religion should be reformed by removing evils like untouchability.

    3. ambedkar demanded the separate electorate as a compensation for centuries exploitation of depressed class by upper class but Gandhi argued it that it will fraction the society.

    4.Ambedkar view problem in secular context while Gandhi view the problem and its solution in spiritual context.

    5.for Ambedkar community interest was larger than country while For Gandhi it was social evil and should be solved by considering whole society.

    so although want to achieve same goal but have different perception of problem as Ambedkar had apprehensions that upper class majority would not help in uplifting depressed class in political democracy so he advocated for social democracy and also professed buddhism while for Gandhi it required religious reform rather to favor a particular community.
    Although after 68 years of independence situation is not much improved for depressed class and ambedkar seems to be right here although seprate electoate was not the perfect solution but social structure seems to be major cause.

    • $harma

      missed to mention ways to address!

  • sadist

    Both Gandhi and Mabedkar believed that untouchability is a scourge on the Hindu society that much and should be removed as soon as possible. But the overall context in which the two views untouchability was different.

    1. Ambedkar thought untouability as a part of the hierarichal caste system with the untouchables at the bottom most while Gandhi did not see anything wrong specifically with the caste system but untouchability is a sin and no shastra/scriptures justified it. Ambedkar said that Hindu scriptures do justify them so untouchability should be abolished on the basis of reason, modernity and human dignity.

    2. Gandhiji asked the upper caste to do penance for the oppression they practised while Ambedkar was a modern person who thought the such moral dictats would not change the actual position of untouchables.

  • Prajna Samant

    Words:300 (plz friends review this)

    Untouchability had been a
    serious problem in India. It had created a neglected mass by the society
    and hence hamper in the total development of the nation. This issue was fought
    by many in different periods, however Ambedkarji and Gandhiji’s contribution
    have significant role for its eradication. But, both people’s views and address
    style is different from eachother in following ways:-

    Ambedkarji was a believer in equality in society
    and hence dedicated himself for the oppressed classes. He believed in the empowerment
    of each indian and prosper on his free
    will, not regulated by society.

    However, Gandhiji believed in caste system but was against the improper
    treatment to the untouchables. He expects humanly treatment to the untouchables,
    so that they can also contribute in freedom struggle. He was more focussed on
    inclusion rather on upliftment

    was well educated and got benefits in society because of his education. So he
    was of modern view that caste system in society was based on the kind of work
    people do for livelihood. Hence proper empowerment can come by educating the
    mass and including them in respectable jobs. Therefore for social inclusion he
    had created ‘reservation system’ in the constitution for some years to bring in
    oppressed class to some social equality. He had also demanded separate electorate
    for the oppressed classes.

    Gandhiji was only disappointed with harsh
    treatments met to the untouchables. He urged the upper class to think about
    untouchables as their own people requiring support. He called untouchables as ‘Harijans’
    to make them feel special. He argued people to leave aristocracy and leave
    simple life and was critical of ancient scripts demeaning untouchables.

    Both fought for untouchables in their own way, however today
    Ambedkarji’s reservation system is abused and Gandhiji’s plea to proper
    treatment is unheard. This shows more needs to be done in this section and with
    proper design.

  • Guest

    This comment text is bold jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj This comment text is bold

  • puneet



  • Ankur Dixit

    Both Gandhi and Ambedkar crusader of Dalit cause and waged a war against the untouchability and adopted their own to eliminate it. They adopted different strategy .They also have different view on existence of untouchability.
    For Ambedkar it is Hindu religion and scripture are responsible for hierachy based caste system. Gandhi its is social problem that is just degeneration Hindu religion. For Ambedkar complete annihilation of caste system is only way out. For Gandhi untouchability can be do away within fold of Hindu religion. Gandhi adopted conciliatory approach and appeal caste Hindu to penance for their sin and believe human conscience and value for elimination for social.
    Ambedkar called for direct action and adopted militant approach to put forth their demand. He exhorts dalits and untouchable to fight their cause. For Ambdekar social democracy should precede political democracy cause he believed without equality political democracy won’t work on favor of dalits and untouchability. Political representation of depressed is precondition for their emanciaptio.
    Gandhi a pious devotee of Hindu religion had no issue with caste society but against any form of untouchability. He believed political democracy and social can be achieved simentlousaly.

    Means and views may be different. But it is beyond any doubt fighting for the cause of Harijan(gandhi) and dalits(ambedkar) was very dear to their heart. Both fought incessantly for their cause

  • Deep

    The concern regarding the denial of even basic human rights to a certain section of people made many people to come forward to raise their voice against this practice. Ambedkar and Gandhiji were among the ardent activist in this direction.
    Ambedkar belong to this section. He raised his voice vehemently for abolition of caste system, which was considered by him as the root cause for the situation. He was so much radical in his approach that he was considering social democracy first even before the national independence. He was so much radical for the upliftment of this section of people that at some occasions it has been considered that he has put national intigrity and unity at stake as in case of Ramsay Mc’Donald communal award.

    However in the prevalent situation of that time it has been considered that Ambedkar had done many things as a bargaining agenda so that he can win social democracy for the downtrodden. And it is said that he remained quite successful in that. He paved this way via securing places in political, economic and social space for the development of these people by putting elaborate sections in the constitution.
    On the other hand, Gandhiji had also put a lot of effort in this direction. He called this section of people as Harijans i.e. the son of god who were earlier considered as untouchables. He continuously raised his voice through his various articles for the upliftment of this section of people.
    Moreover for Gandhiji the national independence is foremost than the social democracy. He was of view that raising too much voice against caste system will divide the country. Personally he was not in favor of altogether abolition of caste system. He even did not put effort for mass movement in this direction.
    However, though the approach of Gandhiji & Ambedkar many seem slightly different but the motive was to win equal human rights to all the people of the country.

  • Ninaad

    Untouchability has its roots in the varna system wherein there is division of people into four varnas namely, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Gandhiji believed that varna system was necessary for the society to function properly. Being born in a a particular varna did not made anyone superior or inferior. He believed that even if one is born in a particular varna it would be the karma which would decide his final varna. Ambedkar was opposed to this and believed that it was the varna system which is root cause of all the problem. It creates socio economic differences.
    Due to difference in their belief the way they addressed the issue was also different. Gandhiji established the Sevagram Ashram. He lived with dalits and shared food with them.He started periodical Harijan to address the issue of untouchability. Ambedkar asked his dalit brothers to educate and organize themselves. He started movement for temple entry. Mahad Satyagraha forms an important part of temple entry movement.
    Hence Gandhi wanted to remove untouchability by creating sympathy for them among others while Ambedkar wanted the untouchables to become aware of their rights and educate and organize themselves.

  • Akshay

    talked about social reform, awareness that it hampers national interest, emphasized unity of people. Gandhi was not against the entire caste system. He attacked untouchability. He wanted that hinduism should internally reform itself from within. He appealed to the upperncastes to change their attitude towards lower castes.

    He asked state intervention in reforming society. He was of the view that state should play an instrumental role in upliftment of untouchables. He asked for separate electorates from British, demanded reservation of lower castes in Govt. services and educational institutions.

  • Nisha

    Nice answer