1) Critically compare and contrast the views of Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar on caste system and strategies to end caste discrimination in the Indian society.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Topic: Salient features of Indian society; Post-independence consolidation

1) Critically compare and contrast the views of Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar on caste system and strategies to end caste discrimination in the Indian society. (200 Words)


  • pr39048

    Socialist politician Ram Manohar Lohia identified three strategies to end caste discrimination.
    1.He condemned caste in general terms, but left the system intact. Lohia doubted that economic development would in itself create the conditions for upward social mobility large enough to end the caste system.
    2. He pointed out that some populous caste groups had taken advantage of universal franchise to get more political power. the plan was not to destroy the caste system, but to re-engineer it by shifting power within different social groups.
    3. He said that reservations “irrespective of merit” would raise the five most downgraded groups of Indian society—women, Sudras, Harijans, Muslims and Adivasis— into positions of leadership.

    Ambedkar on the other hand felt that the economic and political reservations for the lower castes will help in their upliftment and development.

    The prevailing system has instead solidified the role of caste in Indian politics. The actual politics of reservations has led to an entitlement grab by numerically important castes that have been able to acquire political heft.
    The recent agitation in Gujrat has nothing to do with either ending the toxic caste system or encouraging social mobility among the truly dispossessed. Today, even the castes that control political power in states are claiming to be in need of affirmative action. India needs to rethink it’s strategy on the reservation objectively, moresoover on the political reservation which can be termed as a complete failure.

    • Ashish Agrawal

      this ques is little bit tough (my perception), please read other sources.. it looks u just summarized the given article..
      start with Indian society (NCERT) page no 42-50.. then write..

      • Vivek Kumar

        Have a look at my answer

      • siddhartha paul

        u r rite……same reason why i couldnt ans the Q…bt thnks for ur suggestion to read the book

      • Ajay Rathod

        Pls tell which NCERT book Thanks !!

        • Ashish Agrawal

          “Indian Society” sociology book class 12

    • alok rai

      Copy paste form the article. Absence of your indigenous views. But as the question is quite difficult itna chalta hai :P. KEEp writing…

  • Kalaiselvi

    I am new to this site. I Have not prepared for mains so far. What should I do. I don’t know how to answer the above given questions. Kindly help me.

    • ShwethaB

      Hi,Read the reference provided below the question try to frame the answer and read the answers of the rest of the friends.thanks

      • Vivek Kumar

        have a look at the answer.

    • Vivek Kumar

      See my answer below, hope u wud like it too.

    • Goodie

      Everybody thinks others knows the answer, but everybody knows that they don’t know it, we think we can write but examiner know we know or not….. 😉

      Keep trying..
      Read references and NCERTs

    • Kalaiselvi

      Thank you friends

    • Welcome. Please read the article carefully. See if you can answer this question after reading the given article. If you think you can, extract relevant points from the article and frame an answer after understanding the demand of the question.

      In case, if you think you can not answer just by reading the article, please read NCERT (as suggested by peers here) or any good source from internet and then frame your final answer.

      For this question, article will not suffice for answering.

      No matter how worst you write in the beginning, please try to write and post it. After few days you will improve.

      Thank you.

  • Vivek Kumar

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Ambedkar were more different than same ideology wise, Lohia’s main emphasis was on the end of discrimination by incorporating the human rights angle too.He was not more into the annihilation of caste thing, but was more into the upliftment the downtrodden by the use of electoral politics. He was an ardent socialite with ultra nationalist vigor. following points of comparison can be drawn :
    1) Lohia was much into the socialism and advocated for the strong stratification f the caste and at the same time advocated fr the muslim’s ,women and BC’s in the same tone.Ambedkar’s concern was mainly limited to Harijans/scheduled caste.
    2)Ambedkar drew inspiration from west and advocated for the modernism to annihilate the caste system, while Lohia was an ardent supporter of indigenous way of finding the solution. We can say Lohiawadi was closer to Gandhian philosophy of postmodernism in this sense.
    3) Theoretically we can draw many similarities between the two but practically it is very different , Ambedkar saw industrialisation can be the way out and even looked beyond the Hindu religion too seek justice, while Lohia was more into the reformist and humanist mood.
    Both these great men Stood against the discrimination in their own way and style. Their domain overlapped but the range of impact were different.

    • Goodie

      Nicely done.. structure etc
      though i dot know much about their thoughts…

      • Vivek Kumar

        Thanks, glad that u liked

    • Shweta

      Good and I must say conclusion is impressive……

      • Vivek Kumar

        Thanku fr the review

    • EXODUS

      The subtle differences are balanced between the two leaders in their respective domain, but ambedkar had true picture of caste system as he experienced it, but nice job

      • Vivek Kumar

        Thanku fr the review.

    • shazia

      Very nice .

      • Vivek Kumar


    • Deepak Jha

      nice work. plz review mine

      • Vivek Kumar

        ki yo eke go comment sab ta pa? . kani khayal rakhal kriyo. 🙂

        • Deepak Jha

          thik chai.onaa neek jakan dekhait chii.neek likhait chii tahi chalte neek khait chii.

          • Vivek Kumar



      Liked the way you have answered without getting into much detail. but still gave justice to the question asked.

      Keep Writing

      Although I am not an expert, the above comments are just my personal views.


      • Vivek Kumar

        Glad that u likes it, pls keep reading.

  • alok rai

    Ram Manohar Lohia and DR. Ambedkar were the two eminent social engineers of the nation, who investigate in the detailed manner over the prevailing caste system in India and their impact over the Indian society and politics.
    Views of DR. Lohia-

    He condemn the caste structure in India, and argued that it is high time for the lower caste to enhance their participation in the Indian political and social front. DR. Lohia condemn the prevailing fact that only economic mobilization can uplift the bacwards and tribals. He roundly argued that it is prime responsibly of the state to provide opportunity to the marginalized section to realize their full potential. He also ardent supporter of social fabric and held that all these happen without impacting the social structure. DR. Lohia also identified that the some popular caste groups had taken advantage of political structure of the nation, and now they show their reluctant to share powers with others. To tackle this he favoured reservations “irrespective of merit”.

    Views of DR. Ambedkar

    Dr. Ambedkar right form the very beginning critical to the caste system. He believed that only possible way to uplift the marginalized section is the annihilation of the prevailing caste system of the nation. He identified caste system as the “evil tarp”.on the same issue he had sharp differences with Mahatam Gandhi also. Dr. Ambedkar favored the complete social transformation.

    Key differences-

    One can say that views of DR. Lohia inspired by Mahatama Gandhi where he identify the caste as a virtuous phase and integral part of Indian social structure, and only argued for it’s re-engineering. So equal opportunity can be provide to all stake holders . But DR. Ambedkar only way is it complete annihilation.

    • EXODUS

      You discussed the root
      idealogy of two leaders, gud answer

      • alok rai

        thx .for the review…

    • savvy

      very good ans… discussed what ques wants

      • alok rai


    • Shubhashish

      grammar needs work….

    • Abhishek Awasthi

      Nice ans..

      • alok rai

        thx for the review..


      What kind of sentence is this – “DR. Lohia also identified that the some popular caste groups had taken advantage of political structure of the nation, and now they show their reluctant to share powers with others. To tackle this he favoured reservations “irrespective of merit”.”
      It appears like pure juxtaposition of information collected from here and there.

      • alok rai

        thx for the review. In your opinion what should to be written out here. Can you give me certain glimpse so I can improve it…

        • TERMINATOR

          You rightly said that Lohia identified that some caste groups have acquired political power and not willing to share with other lower caste groups. But he did not proposed reservation irrespective of merit as a solution to the above problem. there is no link that can be found in Lohia’s writtings regarding these 2 issues.

          • alok rai

            thx for your valuable feedback. But truly speaking I had very little knowledge about Dr Lohia. Read the reference article and answered it.Because of that such happen. Any way I will try to re-write it inclusing your suggestion.. thx again and keep writing and reviewing…

    • Sunny

      pls review mine..

  • Praveen

    Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar was a great visionary, lawyer, reformist who helped frame India’s constitution. He was the flag-bearer of civil rights of the depressed classes and it was his Poona Pact with Gandhiji which laid the foundation of reservations for depressed classes in Indian society. His views are corroborated in his writings titled “Annihilation of Caste”. His main strategy to demolish caste system was in the form of support for separate electorates, conversion to Buddhism, political separation of depressed classes, etc.

    Ram Manohar Lohia was a socialist politician who strongly condemned caste based reservation citing reasons that caste based reservations didn’t actually demolish the caste system but just encouraged lower caste people to take the positions of higher caste people. He was against the caste based reservation system as economic development alone didn’t realize into demolition of caste based society.

    Both of them worked for social justice and empowerment of Indian society through affirmative action. Though they were political contemporaries, Ambedkar was 20 years senior to Ram Manohar Lohia.


    1. Ambedkar followed a strategy of segregation politics whereas Lohia tried to follow aggregation politics with an implicit character of segregation politics.

    2. Spiritual methods – both of them recognized the spiritual need of oppressed people. Ambedkar focused on hitting out against the Hindu traditions and customs which he felt were the foundation of the caste system. He challenged the Hindu traditions and espoused Buddhism. However, Lohia used Hindu epics and mythologies to retell the same stories with a different point of view.

    3. Ram Manohar Lohia, a member of of CSP was a staunch nationalist who minced no words in cutting ties with colonial powers. In contrast, Ambedkar was ready to join hands with anyone who would help in social emancipation.

    4. Lohia included gender and class in caste discussions which wasn’t the case with Ambedkar.

    5. Ambedkar was supportive of the fact that economic development itself was a way to emancipation of depressed classes which was not the primary thought of Lohia.


    Both of them had a common goal of social emancipation through demolition of caste based system. However, their methods and approach to the problem was different and they were right in their own ways and means.

    • alok rai

      verbose. Initial para has no relevance with the question can be avoided to adhere the word limit. Sturcture is good. But don’t write in such manner like conclusion in your answers. It can be only in the form of ending note.

      • Praveen

        Sure. Thanks Alok.

  • kartik1701

    The caste system is a curse that has infested our society since the past 3000 years. Though started as a grouping based on occupation, it clearly led to social stratification of offsprings of the same mother India.

    Ram Manohar Lohia believed that caste system could be tackled on the basis of reservation irrespective of merit. He also believed that economic development alone wont ensure social upliftment. Also he was cautious about the fact that political empowerment of some caste groups would only reengineer political the balance of power and would make some communities strong without affecting the backward masses as a whole. Thus “intelligible differentia” was needed to identify the caste groups and provide them reservation irrespective of merit.

    BR Ambedkar in his lecture “Annhiliation of caste” believed that real method of breaking the caste system is to destroy the religious notions on which the caste is founded. He believed that by not permitting readjustment of occupation, caste has also led to unemployment and stigmatization. Also such stratification has not increased any economic efficiency but has stratified the people of the same race. To destroy caste system, he advocated annhiliation of religious texts stating caste systems, mass conversion to Buddhism. He called for only one religious text for Hindus, called for abolishment of priest altogether or bringing him under the state. Limit the number of priests and make him face disciplinary action if he indulges in caste rituals. Thus Ambedkar believed that change in societal reform through change in religion. He also advocate separate electorates but later settled with representation, though his main aim was religious reforms to enable a societal transformation.

    Thus both Lohia and Ambedkar had the same aim but the methodologies suggested were different. Lohia’s reservation has not been very successful, infact it has led to fragmentation of polity and society. Its time that reservation now is done on the basis of occupation since one can fake caste or economic criteria but he cant fake occupation. A manual scavenger after all is the primary person who needs rehabilitation. Thus the govt needs to bring structural reforms in the current societal setup, only then can we get rid of this caste infestation.

    • EXODUS

      Answer is over board , too much of details, but gud of content

  • Vijay

    Ambedkar himself a dalit, believed caste system is responsible for the graded inequality in Indian society.. The Hindu society is characterized by graded occupation, child has to do what his father did and cannot choose his
    work as per his ability. He said in Hindu society family is not a social unit, rather varna is the social unit. This has failed to uphold equality, fraternity and liberty in the society. He belived that all men born are equal irrespective of caste and work they do.

    Ambdekar’s strategy to end caste system:
    He wanted to end the caste system on the legal basis through constitutional framework. he emphasized
    on below points:
    1. All hindus should have only one sacred holy book
    2. Priesthood should either be abolished or he should not be hereditary. He should be state appointed.
    3. Shashtras should be disowned.

    Dr Rammanohar Lohia on the other hand was a socialist, believed that caste system is directly related to division on labour. According to him Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishyas are not involved in any craft, hence caste system
    is found only in shudra varna only. Lohia pointed out that dalits, adivasis, women, muslims constitute the
    majority, but their representation is minimal. Caste system will be abolished when this imbalance is corrected. Thus for Lohia economic progress was key to abolish the caste system. Lohia wanted to end the caste system though below means:
    1. Non violent and peaceful means of propaganda and struggle
    2. Beti and Roti relationship ( inter dining and inter caste marriages)
    3. Reservations for oppressed
    Comparision between the two views:
    Both regarded the caste system as oppressive and exploitative system. But while Ambedkar wanted to abolish it through legal means while Lohia focused on reservations and economic development. Ambedkar wanted reforms in Hindu society whereas Lohia promoted inter dining and inter religious marriages.

    • EXODUS

      Answer is structured – state of existing society,, the two leaders their understanding and exposure to social problems,gud different from above answers.

    • Ankit Sharma

      @vijay : i cant digest the conclusion part where in you mentioned “But while Ambedkar wanted to abolish it through legal means while Lohia focused on reservations and economic development ”

      even reservation is a legal way !!
      moreover as per my knowledge they both supported reservations.

      • ayn rand

        Ambedkar did not promote quotas or special privileges. He advocated a strategy of regulating priestly class and Hindu religion through legal means.

      • Crazy Cat

        Exactly and Ambedkar spoke about inter caste marriages at length in his book “annihilation of caste” as a means to end caste system..

        • Hemu

          he deemed this step as good but not best .

      • Hemu

        lohia didn’t wanted reservation in education according to lohia education is basic need a fundamental right every one should be equal in primary/secondary and higher education .he wanted reservation in Govt jobs ,electoral representative ,economical enterprise .Difference between both is simple lohia had idea of society where upper caste /fake upper caste (poor upper caste people)/ shudra .He wanted to unite every one and talked about right of economical -backwards even if they are from upper caste .whereas Ambedkar always tangled himself with dalit issue he never talked about poor upper caste /backwards which we know as OBCs today.He always talked about dalit his perception was very narrow .He was could not unite the dalit of maharashtra altogether his main audience was his own mahar people who themselves do casteism with scavengers(valmikis ).

    • IFS

      good attempt. very difficult comparison. Ambedkar and lohia both supported reservation but difference was first one on caste second on group of people.

    • The Failure.

      While Ambedkar wanted to create a legal framework to influence the people and abolish the caste system, Lohia worked towards changing the minds of people so much, that they themselves will propose a egalitarian framework with no caste distinction. Lohia felt change must come from within, where as Ambedkar felt change must come from above and acceptance must come from within.

      I think this would be a better conclusion, to your otherwise wonderful answer.

    • Amar

      Conclusion is not correct…Ambedkar wanted separate electorates for dalits(Macdonald award 1932 was supported by him), but due to stiff opposition by Gandhiji poona pact, 1932 was signed & he had to satisfy single hindu electorate with provisions for dalit reservations.

    • soulful

      Conclusion is not correct…Ambedkar wanted separate electorates for dalits(Macdonald award 1932 was supported by him), but due to stiff opposition by Gandhiji poona pact, 1932 was signed which declared single hindu electorate with provisions for dalit reservations.


      It seems that you have assembled the information right but conclusion is superficial and it does not highlights the comparison and contrasts.
      I must acknowledge that problem might have been the word limit, but such questions can not be answered in 200 words.
      It want us to address – “critically”, “compare”, “contrast”, “views” and “strategies”. So I think its better if we ignore the word limit.

    • shubh

      Though not too much related to this topic but kinda want to share

      There is a popular question in political science regarding ambedkar critique on marxism:

      in par with Karl marx, Ambedkar continued to see class struggle and class opression as important tool, but he began to look into somewhere else for the quest of his answers.

      in the end, his belief was that in producing equality, society cannot be aimed to sacrifice liberty or fraternity.
      And destiny of his quest was ended with his deep interaction with budhism which says non violence is the key unlilke socialism where dictatorship of proletariat has to be achieved by any means.

      he once siad that ‘ Tell the slave that he is a slave and then only he will revolt against you’

      according to him capital exists but The labour Lives.

      Right from his Bahiskrit hitkaarini sabha to independent labour party, he has dedicated his life for the welfare of dalits in our country.

      Though the society was not mature enough to see his contribution in the contemporary times which was reflected in his defeat in Loksabha polls. the idelas enshrined by him in the national struggle as well as constitution making is unparalleled.

      Best regards

      • Hemu

        before becoming buddhist ambedkar wanted to be a brahmo samjhi but then came dispute of manu (some senior member deem him as great law maker including father of tagore).Then he wanted to be sikh but he saw what mazabhi,ramdasia sikh has to face so then he picked already dead buddhism

    • Shreyas


    • Sunny

      pls review mine

    • ayn rand

      can be improved by comparing their views. Here, mostly emphasised on their strategies to end caste system

  • Ashish Agrawal

    This article might help.. (For those who don’t know how to start.. including me. :P)


    • Ankit Sharma

      Yeah it’s a nice article ! I was also referring the same

    • IFS

      very useful. thank you

    • Ambalika

      Thanks.. it was very helpful.. it had everything required to answer the question.
      thank u 🙂

  • Ajay Rathod

    One of the great thinkers of india ram manoher lohia and dr ambedkar were condemning the cast based system for reservation

    .What Lohia sees in three points propsed by im that

    1.The main political parties of his day wanted the brightest of the so-called lower castes to join the elite without disturbing the overall social structure. Lohia was thus critical of those who believed that economic development would in itself create the conditions for upward social mobility large enough to end the caste system.

    2.Shifting dominant society to other poolitical society for the sake of power depriving other society of power not by sharing.

    3.merit based system will dirclty benefit to the lower cast as well as lower cast,eventually turn out to be ned of cast system

    if we look at the current scenario everyone demanding reservation like jatt , maratha in there respective states.Dominant society feels that they would be getting left by reservation interms of jobs and the reservation benefits

    what ambedkar sees is diffrent

    Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible… Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving.

    There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response.

    There is charity, but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes.”

    cast based system should apply to the peaple who are socio-economically backward and it should be on mertious based .


    plz review

  • Appa

    Please review

    • Ankush

      Nice start .. shoud have described further…is it fine to discuss current issues much in this question.. I think no.. what do u think…

      • Appa

        A line or two is certainly necessary to link such question with present scenario. This will show that you understand the question and the context. But linkage-with-present must come after you’ve highlighted the basic demand of the question, which in this case is ‘Lohia vs Ambedkar’.

  • Pragati

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar were key social designers and eminent thinkers in the field of social upliftment and development. Their views were concentrated at a single point regarding the betterment of the people lying at the bottom of the social pyramid. However their thought process was different.

    On the one hand where Ram Manohar Lohia advocated caste based reservations for the collective betterment of the society which includes the people at both the ends of the caste structure in India. On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar pushed for reforms that do not play with the genuine merit and recognises quality.

    It is disheartening to see that the system created around 3000 years ago, has successfully rooted itself so hard, that it seems nearly impossible to deal with its ill effects. It has certainly harmed more than it has done good. The actual needy are still in need and remain as vulnerable as they were. The merit holds less importance and this has started to show results in the form of anger bursts on the streets by some community or the other such as the Patels, Gujjars, Jats.

    It is high time that a strong step should be taken and the caste politics must be abandoned for the good of the country. it will bring in more enthusiastic, well deserved human resource and open the field for an equal competition. Definitely, the needy and the vulnerable in the real sense must be protected and provided with opportunities but this should be very specific and can deal on a case to case basis rather than providing a blanket immunity to the less deserving as well. In all, reservation based on caste will be a disaster for the dream of a developed India rather infrastructure facilities must be provided to groom the future inevitably crucial human resource.

    • Jatin_Rohilla

      Nice attempt (Y)…!

    • Ankush

      nicely written but i think you transgressed the central idea of the question. u dedicated last two paragraphs to your views & suggestions …

      • Pragati

        Thanks for the feedback Ankush 🙂 i will try to improve on that…

  • Sridhar

    Ur question was superb Sir. Great analytical view on social issue combining current elements. Such questions one can expect in Sociology PaperII

  • Ankush

    Caste based discrimination has been one of the major debilitating issue in our society. Various leaders have targeted this social evil based on their ideologies. Socialist leader Ram Manohar lohiya gave his three prong ideology which can be summarised as:
    1) He condemned caste system rhetorically and made public his ideas against prevailing ones that included upward social mobilisation through economic development. However, it did not disturb the prevailing caste system.
    2.) He pointed out the inherent difficulty in a democratic system where numerical majority can be translated into political authority easily. He warned against a situation where dominating caste groups would try to impose their authority to takeover dominant class.
    3.) In his third strategy, that Lohia described as true struggle, he advocated for reservations irrespective of merit, for the five most downgraded groups of Indian society viz women, Shudras, Harijans, Muslims and Adivasis, into leadership posts. Lohia hoped to transform the social structure with this strategy benefitting all the sections of the society.

    Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, supported complete annihilation of caste system that has bounded human spirit and virtuousness among masses.He rejected the concept of pure blood as doctrined by Dharmashastra and the scientific basis of caste system. He believed that all castes have a foreign strain in them. He advocated inter caste marriages to end caste system. He believed that political empowerment is necessary for socio-economic development of untouchables, hence demanded separate electorates at Second RTC, 1932. Dr. Ambedkar took women’s issues separately through Hindu code Bill which led to his resignation from the cabinet.

    Thus it is clear that both leaders hoped for emancipation of degraded sections of society through their own strategies. Today these ideologies are vital behind developing policies to wipe out inequalities from the society and ensure social-economic to all in an equitable manner.

  • Batman

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar ardently opposed the caste system and wanted to bring an end to that. According to both of them, caste system was a national malaise which was responsible for cultural degeneration and the vulnerability of India to external powers. They were also convinced with the fact that because the caste system has taken deep roots in the India society, it cannot be repaired but only destroyed.

    Lohia brought out a correlation between caste and sex oppression while Ambedkar was more focused on the relation between class and caste.

    In his critique, Ambedkar drew inspiration and examples from all across the world while Lohia put forward the examples from Hindu mythology and epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata.

    Ambedkar and Lohia were convinced that inter-caste marriages was a mean to end the caste system but Lohia didn’t support Ambedkar’s call for separate electorates as it segregated the dalits from rest of the society. Lohia was, in fact, more interested in bringing all the castes under a single umbrella or a single caste.

  • Rays

    At the outset both the views of Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar seem to converge with reference to the caste system. Both believed, caste system caused grave inequalities and oppression and both searched for various way to end it.

    It is in the mode of how they sought the caste system that they different fundementally and significantly.

    Dr. Ambedkar firmly believed that caste hierarchy as enshirned in the Hindu texts gave it ideological support and repudiated the same with western reasoning. Lohia, on the other hand, sought counter examples within the Hindu scriptures which weakened the argument for caste.

    Dr. Ambedkar used a strategy of segregation politics, uniting the dalits to stand their ground for their due. Methods such as separate electorates, reservations sought to hold together and give them a firm identity, which hitherto was lacking for the dalits. In contrast, Lohia sought to follow a strategy of aggregation politics, bringing various aggrieved sections of people be it, dalits, muslims, women or any other, under a common umbrella seeking social justice.

    The context in both the cases is significant and justifies each’s stand, Dr. Ambedkar seeking a proper place for dalits in the society during the last stages of freedom struggle and Lohia seeking the broader question of social justice a couple of decades later. In fact, it can be noticed that Lohia’s view probably is the succession of Ambedkar’s albeit a bit discordantly.

  • HungryBee

    Caste:Social divide based on birth amoung the same community.Is age old practice
    since rig vedha(varna system).

    To end caste discrimination:

    Lohia: Gave 3 stratigies

    1.Wordly one:Elite false promises to pray the lower castes(Elite
    need caste system)

    2.Empty one:Popular caste take adventages of caste segregation
    against lower castes(Gujarat Patel reservation claim)

    3.True one:Reservation(Indian model)


    1. Anhilation of caste


    3.In Extreme case ,leave and join the universal religion(which
    didn’t have castism)

    Conclusion:Right now caste system didn’t take ambedkars anhilation
    of caste or lohia’s social transfermation,but taken “Solidification of Caste”.Need
    of hour is education and awareness among peple to get rid of social
    statification and vested interests which is futile with respect to economic

  • Sridhar

    Ram manohar lohia views caste as obstacle to the progress of India for long becoz of people of different caste feel for their caste group instead of whole nation. It also restricted mettorous people and their ideas to reach top because of monopoly by higher caste.

    Ambedkar himself being subject of caste discrimination was radical in approach. In annihilation of caste he stated for complete abolishing the system.

    Both wanted to end the menance of caste system but their approach differ on following counts:
    1. Lohia prescribed forintet dinning and inter marriage while ambefkar for legal provision
    2. While the former believes on economic – political develop meant by giving reservation and part post to people of lower class latter profounder drastic social change like disbanding priesthood and epic that profound caste hieracy
    3. Lohia being natiolist and socialist advocated caste elimation through remedial measure within the Hindu society while Ambedkar often sided with British to protect interest. He also advocated to embrace Budism to protect dalit interest
    Ultimately both had vision of a Hindu society free from caste inequalities though taken different route

  • ShwethaB

    The system of reservation was introduced in the constitution to end the discriminating caste system and ensure social mobility amongst the most discriminated.The strategies of Ram Mohan Lohia were based on three strategies the first involved condemning the caste system in general but keeping the system intact.Here the people from the lower class can join the elites by economic developmnent but it would not end caste system.Secondly populous caste groups have engaged in vote bank politics have replaced the dominant caste groups without real sharing of the cause of lower castes.Thirdly he disregarded merit for reservation as it will promote the women,Sudras,Muslims,Harijans etc and it should to an extent also benifit the upper class.Dr BR Ambedkar reluctantly agreed that reservation in jobs or constituencies for the Dalits as he thought it would not change the way Indian society looks at the lower castes hence he wanted to end it after 10 years of of the adoption of the Constitution.

    The main point of difference between them are:

    1.Ambedkar emphasised the fact that the caste system disregarded merit,unlike Ram Mohan Lohia who supported non merit based reservation for lower caste .Ram Mohan Lohia was a radical nationalist and was a socialist whereas Ambedkar didnot believe in colonial and nationalist divide and was a liberal

    2..There was also the difference in the use of cultural symbols to highlight social injustice as Lohia used Hindu Scriptures to develop counter narratives against caste ,gender inequality. Ambedkar on the other hand critiqued Hindu myhtologies from a point of western rationalism from outside the scriptures.

    3Ambedkar’s policy of caste annhiliation primarily concerned with the Dalits or untouchables however Lohia aggregated shudras,poor,muslims etc to support the cause.

    • T Chandan

      Very well written ..

  • ASD

    · Ambedkar & Lohia both give credit to Gandhi for
    discovering Satyagraha and at the same time both argue that Gandhi’s Satyagraha
    may be extended against caste system and socialism.

    · Both agree that Gandhism reduces caste into
    existence of untouchables and nullifies any political action against caste

    · Both agree that it would be necessary to view
    caste order as a power hierarchy structure and offer an all‐ rounded critique
    of caste so that it would be entirely abolished.

    · For both of them, the abolition of caste order
    is more important than the abolition of untouchability of the Dalits as
    Gandhism envisages.

    · Both agree that Gandhism is an egalitarian
    ideology on the caste question.

    · Ambedkar opines that caste is a hierarchy of grades/ranks
    of people subdivided by the different rules of precedence in the society where
    as Lohia does not explore how caste is organized as a graded hierarchy.

    · Lohia propounded the ‘principles of equal irrelevance’,
    ‘Roti and Beti’ and urging higher castes to serve voluntarily for the improvement
    of lower castes whereas B.R.Ambedkar’s undelivered speech ‘Annihilation of
    Caste’ shows how he felt that Lohia’s concept of ‘Roti and Beti’ (inter caste marriage)
    was not enough to break the caste system.

    · Ambedkar
    felt that the real method to destroy caste system was to destroy the religious
    notions upon which caste is founded.

    · Lohia in his own Samyukta (United) Socialist
    party promoted the lower castes by giving them electoral tickets and high party
    positions. He believed that if this was encouraged, the economic development
    amongst the lower classes would in itself end caste system eventually whereas Ambedkar
    felt that economic development would take place only if untouchability in the ‘touchable’
    castes disappears.

  • Rockstar

    Dr Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr Ambedkar were very strongly opposed to caste system and wanted its complete abolition because according to themCaste system results into a vicious cycle where opportunities are restricted for many which limit their abilities and this again leads to restricted opportunities. Their strongest objection to the casteism was that it fragmented the society and destroyed social homogenity and deprived people of political commonality.

    Both believed in complete abolition of caste.
    Both believed that their are some inherent flaws in Hinduism which need to be corrected to remove casteism. Though Dr Ambedkar’s ideas were more radical.

    Dr Lohia was in favour of inter caste marriages for breaking of casteism where as Dr. Ambedkar described such methods as ‘forced feeding’. According to him, more drastic changes like denouncing the authority of ancient scriptures are required to liberate people from the clutches of caste. He suggested to improve the conditions of untouchables through education, economic and political progress and Conversion

    • Deepak Jha

      as per my information, Ambedkar was in support of inter- caste marriages. Plz correct me ,if I am wrong.Also plz review my answer too.

      • Rockstar

        i have read this in ignou Pol science material.

        • Deepak Jha

          thanks ,if posbl.plz send me the link so that i cud get my concept clear.

          • Rockstar

            The link has been removed. I downloaded the pol science material from ‘egyankosh’ site. this doesnt work now

            • Deepak Jha

              Thanks a lot.

  • T Chandan

    Although Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr Ambedkar both recognized caste as an autonomous and significant dimension of inequality, injustice and oppression in the Indian Society, they differed much with respect to the methods of eradication of the caste based discrimination in India.

    Ram Manohar Lohia’s strategies to end caste-based discrimination includes 3 ways:
    1) The first strategy loudly condemns the caste in general terms,but leaves the system intact.
    2) The second strategy doesn’t want to replace the caste system, but to re-engineer it by shifting power within different social groups.
    3) The last strategy pitched for reservations irrespective of merit which will radically transform the social structure to such an extent that the so called higher castes will also benefit from it later on.

    How ever, Dr Ambedkar differed from Manohar Lohia on these strategies to end caste-based discrimination.He called for total annihilation of the caste system. To end the caste based discrimination he also called for conversion into other religions.

    Thus, Caste-based discrimination was national malaise for both the leaders and they held it responsible for a number of ills in the society,from economic stagnation to cultural degeneration etc and prescribed different methods for ending of this discrimination.

  • Margaret HJ

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Ambedkar both viewed caste more than class as an obstacle to the country’s progress.
    They recognised that country suffered reveres as the people viewed themselves as the members of the caste rather than the citizens of the country depriving it from fresh and innovative ideas due imbalance in the representation and opportunity.
    However the approach for a society with equality was different.
    1.Ram Manohar Lohia proposed the economic progress with the upper class to act as the base for the lower class to flourish and grow without disturbing the social structure of the society. Ambedkar preferred a separate reservation based on caste and was based on western ideas and modernisation

    2.Lohia was a socialist and his socialist party gave preference to elect a socialist candidate, Ambedkar preferred a separate electorate for depressed classes and settled for reservations.

    3.Lohia had a comprehensive coverage including women , and proposed Roti and Beti promoting intercaste dining and intercaste marriage, Ambedkar believed that intercaste dining and marriage was not sufficient to annhilate the caste system rather preferred to give up religious notions on which the caste was based.

  • Ank2016

    The caste system is a name of ancient social institution embedded in Indian society and have its effect on its hierarchical structure and politics. The atrocities against lower castes led to it being an important part of political and constitutional agenda after independence. There were different views on ending caste discrimination in the Indian society.
    The strategy preferred by R.M. Lohia has been incorporated in the form of caste-based reservations but the recent findings of Socio-Economic Census and the protests by different castes and communities for their inclusion for reservations has raised the question on its success.
    R.M. Lohia professed that reservations would raise the most downgraded sections of society to positions of leadership and this would benefit Indian society as a whole. On the other hand Dr. Ambedkar wanted a total annihilation of caste system for which he advocated legislature measures and mass conversion to Buddhism.

    The caste based system has failed to achieve what both of them wanted. There is need to reform the system that focuses on developing the capabilities and assimilating the lowest castes/tribes within the mainstream economy and society.

  • amulya nidhi

    Kindly review:

    a. Lohia and Ambedkar were both progressive thinkers who believed that the caste system was exploitative and detrimental to Indian society.

    b. Both believed in large scale mobilization of the oppressed as a necessary strategy to combat caste discrimination. However, there were important differences too.

    c. Ambedkar viewed the caste system as necessarily exploitative. In his ‘Annihilation of Caste’ he disapproved of Gandhi’s ideas of the utility of caste system and its stabilizing effect. He proclaimed that Brahminism was inherently oppressive and could not be reconciled.

    d. Ambedkar believed inter-caste marriage, inter-dining , political mobilization of depressed classes were the right strategies to combat caste discrimination. He was not a believer of reservations and only reluctantly agreed to it, and that too for a 10 year period.

    e. Unlike Ambedkar, Lohia was essentially a socialist and his views on caste system must be seen in that context.
    Lohia was an ardent supporter of reservations.He even called for “reservations even without merit” as he believed that this would politically empower groups such as women, sudras, harijans, and tribals.

    f. However, his ideology was also influenced with Gandhian thoughts. Unlike Ambedkar who resorted to mass conversion to Buddhism, Lohia did not advocate this.

    g. Also, unlike Ambedkar, Lohia drew a link between caste and gender oppression and said that they had grown simultaneously. Hence the underlying principles of oppression were the same.
    While Ambedkar is an insider who presents the fiercest opposition to caste discrimination and presents a radical approach to deal with it, Lohia grounds his opposition in a framework of socialism. The crucial difference in their approaches in on the issue of reservations.

    • AR

      nice work…

    • Pri2

      Well written.. each point brings out the difference and compares between the views of the two leaders.

    • stavan pandya

      A critical addition: Ram Manohar Lohia supported inter-cast merging through his concept of “Roti” and “Beti”

      • amulya nidhi

        Great, thanks. Though I have covered this “linking caste oppression with gender oppression.”

    • Deepak Jha

      nicely compared. Plz review mine.

    • Jagdish Soni

      Impress by writting style…but disappointed with conclusion vala part 🙂


      Ambedkar was an ardent advocate of reservation. Infact he threatened to resign from constitutional drafting committee if there were to any dilution with the reservation.

    • Sunny

      pls review mine….

    • jrjk

      Dr. Ambedkar was in favor of complete annihilation of caste system at once whereas Dr. Lohia was more in favor of gradual transformation in the lives of lower caste people through means of special representation & opportunities (reservation) to them and awareness. Dr. lohia believed that through economic and political empowerment hiatus between lower castes and upper castes can be eliminated.
      Although Dr. Ambedkar also accepted more representation to depressed classes through more reserved seats in legislature (in Poona Pact with Gandhiji), he was of the view that until there is differentiation between people on the basis of their castes, no major social and political upliftment is possible. He considered prevailing caste system in Hinduism, a cause of all its miseries so advocated complete annihilation of caste system.

  • AR

    Ram manohar lohia and Ambedkar are eminent social thinkers and expected to end caste system in indian society. Even both have same goal, there is some dissimilarity occurs.
    Ram manohar have strategy just to empowered the lower caste in view of political aspects. but Ambedkar want the complete social reform that is “Annihilation of caste system” only key to change the mentality of society.
    Empowering the lower caste in terms of political participation leads to social mobility and harmonized in democratic functions. but the view of Ambedkar describes it not only change in society but also in the mind of people. so, clearly the upper class members may not give freehand to the lower come to serve. it adds the value to that point of “There is sympathy , but not on another men”.
    Another view that marked by Ram manohar , Reservation without merit, it may be helpful in some cases. but in case of not having sufficient quality of education and social security , no one ready to involve in political process. Ambedkar also provide similarity view for reservation. If a person is not enough skills to do work, there is a question arise on efficiency of work.
    Finally the complete destruction of caste system is the only choice to make all members participated in the political process.

  • hemant

    Ram Manohar Lohia had a threefold
    strategy to overcome this issue. First, due to his unequivocal condemnation of
    cast system, he always criticised that economic upliftment would benefit lower
    caste people.

    Second was to re-aling the
    power shifting among underprivileged castes so that they are not mishandled by politicians
    to create a divide for their electoral benefits.

    Thirdly, that the lowest rung
    of society i.e., Muslims, Shudras, Harijans, Adivasis and women will get united
    and lead struggles that will ultimately result in transforming the social
    structure that the upper caste would benefit.

    Whereas, any of the above strategy
    could not brought the annihilation of the caste itself, as famously called by B
    R Ambedkar and hoped by Ram Manohar Lohia.

    In view of the above, AJAAT is
    the word that shows the fundamental solution i.e., remove the caste system

    • Ankit Sharma

      @hemant :the strategy part has been handled well but not much of comparison of their views .

      • hemant

        Thanks mate! It was valuable.

    • Deepak Jha

      as per my view one part of the question addressed beautifully but lacked the compare portion of the question.it should also have been dealt with.Anyway good answer. Plz review mine

      • hemant

        Thanks. reviewed ur answer. pls chk.


    Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was of the view that caste killed public spirut and destroyed sense of public charity. He himself being the suffer of the social evil of caste system wanted to eradicate the system , “annhilation of caste” as viewed by Dr. Ambedkar. He was of the view that reforms in the cast system can be achieved only through destruction of sacredness and divinity of the caste which has made the society unsympathetic towards the down trodden. He proposed one book for Hindu religion and abolishion of heriditary preisthood.
    On the ither hand Ram Manohar Lohia condemned the caste system the caste system but left ut intact. He has a three pointer strategy to end caste discrimination-
    1. Economic development will skyrocket the social mobility and and will end caste system.
    2.Caste system must be redesigned for shifting power to the different social groups.
    3.Reservation will pitchfork women ,shudras,harijans,muslims& adivasis into the position of leaderahip.
    Dr. Ambedkar as well as Lohia were striving hard to end the social evil which destroyed the hindu social order in order to uphold the liberty , equality and fraternity – the three essential conditions for a free social order.


    Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was of the view that caste killed public spirit and destroyed sense of public charity. He himself being the suffer of the social evil of caste system wanted to eradicate the system , “annhilation of caste” as viewed by Dr. Ambedkar. He was of the view that reforms in the cast system can be achieved only through destruction of sacredness and divinity of the caste which has made the society unsympathetic towards the down trodden. He proposed one book for Hindu religion and abolishion of heriditary preisthood.
    On the other hand Ram Manohar Lohia condemned the caste system but left it intact. He had a three pointer strategy to end caste discrimination-
    1. Economic development will skyrocket the social mobility and and will end caste system.
    2.Caste system must be redesigned for shifting power to the different social groups.
    3.Reservation will pitchfork women ,shudras,harijans,muslims& adivasis into the position of leaderahip.
    Dr. Ambedkar as well as Lohia were striving hard to end the social evil which destroyed the hindu social order in order to uphold the liberty , equality and fraternity – the three essential conditions for a free social order.


      Pls review my ans ..its my first ever attempt in answer writing therefore i want to know whether it is upto the mark or not. Thanks

  • Ankit Sharma

    Please review

    • bhaz

      Your points seem too complicated for general reader. In my opinion this makes a good sociology answer than GS

  • Sudhanshu Kumar Ashwini

    Caste Discrimination which is based on birth has been an
    issue in India since its inception.

    The Course of Dr. Ambedkar Struggle against caste discrimination start with a
    Political party like Schedule caste federation and the republican party to
    wield political power for the class. He took Part in All 3 Round table
    conference and got the Communal award which was mellowed to reservation after
    fast of Gandhiji who felt separate electorate will alienate the Dalits. Hoping
    for “Annihilation of Caste” Dr ambedkar with large fan following converted to

    Dr. Lohia on other hand felt that current effort of just
    condemning caste system without ending it or mobilization of power to few caste
    ie re-engineering the caste system for advantage of few will not serve
    anything. He Felt reservation for Five Discriminated Group of Sudras, women,
    Muslim,Hrijan and Adivasis in political power irrespective of merit will
    ultimately work for their benefit. However In due to it took shape of Stronger
    caste politics with Annihilation of caste remaining as a dream.

  • Both Ambedkar and Lohia were well aware about the ill effects of caste system and its direct effects on deepening inequality, oppression and injustice in Indian society. They have more or less similar views on the following points relating to caste system:

    – caste based system needs to be politicized to bring social justice

    – Castsim is source of cultural degeneration and economic stagnation and bad identity mark in global order

    – It is a national malaise present in every corner of social system

    – Caste does not affect only the dignity of lower caste but simultaneously encourages the treatment of women’s rights and freedom

    – Unlike Hindu reformers both agreed to caste system is irreparable or unreformed to reduce the inequalities

    – Both preferred to annhiliate the caste system to recover India from caste malaise

    – Both agreed to assimilation and integration of castes through marriage like institution to reduce caste barriers

    Despite being similarities over the issue of caste, both have different diagnostic method or tool to remove the caste system. Their differences are basically be described on two grounds:

    1. Political Strategy: Ambedkar wants to annihilate the caste system through conversion from dominated Hindu system which attributes to ascribe the caste. It means Ambedkar follows the way of disintegration of Dalit or lower castes from those group who beleives in institution of caste. But Lohia’s method to fight against caste system is based on the principle of integration. He wants to bring change in the system through radical mobilization of the lower class or castes within the umbrella of Hinduism rather to be separated from it.

    2. Cultural and Religious perspective: This is similar to the first on. On this front Ambedkar wants to develop own set of cultural pattern to recognize dalits to enjoy their own dignity and integrity away from the scripture sanctioned social order. While Lohia takes these scripture stories to mobilize the lower caste and backward class to mitigate the impact of caste system. It means Lohia gives sanction to Hindu scriptures but highlighted many examples from Ramayana and Mahabharata to unite the lower groups.

    In brief, Ambedkar wants to annihilate the caste system outside the Hinduism while the Lohia focus on remove the caste system through close ended method

    • shazia

      It answer is gud.pls read my ans too.

  • shazia

    Dr lohia and Dr ambedkar both attacked the caste system but with different approaches.
    Dr lohia had the concept of removing the inequalities in society by promoting interactions among u ppercaste and lower caste people through various modes ..for e.g. he promoted “roti aur beti”concept that means people must eat together..raise their crop together and girls of one caste should be allowed to get married in other castes whether higher or lower.he promoted preferential opportunities to be given to lower caste ,women,minorities ..he did practice this by giving his own party tickets to lower caste people.he urged uppercaste to break the barriers in their minds.he advocated equal schooling for everyone.in some way he promoted reservations for lower caste people for their emancipation.
    Dr ambedkar had a different approach. He attacked the root cause ,the varnas system prevaling in indian society,of casteism.he urged to agitate and attack the scriptures which promoted caste system,and then educate people for a just society.according to him the sanctity given to varna system by scriptures if not dealtveith ,will not allow any reform movement to produce a radical effect.
    Dr lohia ‘s approach was in a way treating the symptoms of caste system by preferntial opportunities as they lag behind and are deprived of same wheras Dr ambedkar tried to eliminate the root cause behind these symptoms.hence their methods varied.ambedkar stressed on education and rational questioning more than reservations to result in radical change in the mindset of the people.

  • Pragati

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar were key social designers and eminent thinkers in the field of social upliftment and development. Their views were concentrated at a single point regarding the betterment of the people lying at the bottom of the social pyramid. However their thought process was different.

    On the one hand where Ram Manohar Lohia advocated caste based reservations for the collective betterment of the society which includes the people at both the ends of the caste structure in India. On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar pushed for reforms that do not play with the genuine merit and recognises quality.

    It is disheartening to see that the system created around 3000 years ago, has successfully rooted itself so hard, that it seems nearly impossible to deal with its ill effects. It has certainly harmed more than it has done good. The actual needy are still in need and remain as vulnerable as they were. The merit holds less importance and this has started to show results in the form of anger bursts on the streets by some community or the other such as the Patels, Gujjars, Jats.

    It is high time that a strong step should be taken and the caste politics must be abandoned for the good of the country. it will bring in more enthusiastic, well deserved human resource and open the field for an equal competition. Definitely, the needy and the vulnerable in the real sense must be protected and provided with opportunities but this should be very specific and can deal on a case to case basis rather than providing a blanket immunity to the less deserving as well. In all, reservation based on caste will be a disaster for the dream of a developed India rather infrastructure facilities must be provided to groom the future inevitably crucial human resource.

    • bhaz

      You diverted from question. Only first two paras are relevant

  • Deepak Jha

    Dr.Ambedkar and Lohia had very similar views on caste system but varied in the strategies to combat it.
    1.Both believed that the caste system is itself exploitative in nature and hinders the progress of the nation.So, in order to combat this discrimination, they suggested the views for large scale mobilisation of depressed ones.
    2.Lohia was not against the caste system but was supporter of reformation by giving powers to different social groups,while Ambedkar viewed the system as necessarily oppressive and exploitative.
    3.Lohia on the one hand was the supporter of reservation, irrespective of merit with a strong view to empower the downgraded sections of society like harijans, tribals and women, while Ambedkar did not consider it as a right measure to combat dicriminatin.He on the other hand insisted on inter caste marriages, inter dining etc.
    4.Ambedkar was more into annihilation of caste system, as it killed the public spirit and a sense of public charity, while Lohia was into their inclusion by the electoral politics and was critical to the belief that development would have trickle down effect , to mobilise society for upward movement to end the prevailing caste system.
    So, both had the similar aim of political mobilisation of oppressed class but with different path.
    Please review and give valuable suggestion.

    • bhaz

      Well written. Explained the differences in a simple and lucid manner. Point 1 was not a differences point, so should have written it in para itself

      • Deepak Jha

        Thanks a lot for the review and suggestion.

    • Vivek Kumar

      Jha ji bard neek. was waiting to see more abt the ground level reality. U knw what i mean.Nice work though

    • hemant

      Written well. Good grip on sticking to what is being asked.

  • Fazil Mohd

    Ram Manohar Lohia was a socialist politician who was of the
    view that, there should be reservations, “irrespective of merit” for classes of
    the populations viz women, sudras, Harijans, Muslims and Adivasis. The government
    has taken this view as well, and the mandal commission started the process of
    reservation in the fields of education and government employment. But the
    reservation system has led to problems like further caste and reservation based
    discrimination and also sometimes domination of one class over the other. In
    this respect, the strategy of Lohia and the government has failed to end caste
    discrimination in the Indian society.

    Dr.B.R.Ambedkar wanted a casteless India. He was a proponent
    of abolition of the caste system and of creating a classless and casteless
    society. He also believed in support for the deserving sans any caste related
    discrimination. According to Dr. Ambedkar the caste system was inherently evil
    and needed to wipe clean in order to forge a model nation.

    Now with even the forward and well off caste groups
    agitating for reservations, it is time India looked back at the Ambedkarite
    idea of a casteless society and decided it’s feasibility in the current
    scenario. (194) PLEASE REVIEW

  • Praveen

    The debate on empowering lower caste people of society gained prominence in later part of independence movement around 1930’s . The two main proponents Dr. BR Ambedkar and Ram Manohar lohiya, who questioned the authority of upper caste and advocated enthusiastically for gaining social & political rights for the lower castes, can be regarded as pioneer for their initiatives.
    The approach and methodology of Ambedkar included:
    1. Empowering Harijans (as coined by Gandhiji) by making them realize the importance of education.
    2. Migration of Rural youths to take up modern activities which didn’t assimilate people based on ability and not on social background.
    3.Empowering dalits with political and social rights to secure their lost dignity and compensate for the historical wrong doing with them.
    4. Adequate representation of Dalits in Legisltive institutions, Govt. Educational institutions.
    5.Adopting rationality ins ted of blindly following repressive Hindu religion, and encouraged to adopt Buddhism as most advanced and evolved religious practice.

    In comparison to it, Ram Manohar Lohiya proposed following:
    1. In spite of dismantling caste structure, the priority was given to encouraging bright, intelligent, learned lower caste to inter mainstream political system and raise voice for reformation being part of governing structure.

  • Ram Manohar Lohia and B.R. Ambedkar both were concerned with the caste system and had different ways to bring equality and social justice in India post independence.
    1. Lohia was a socialist, pushed for independence and was more familiar with the Indian ways of life while Ambedkar himself belonging to a lower caste, had seen discriminations in ealry life amd was Western educated. Ambedkar was not willing to recognise the colonial division and could take help from imperialists as well to realise his agenda of social emancipation.
    2. Lohia had advocated criticism of casteism, criticism of numerically strong castes who usurped more political representation and will re-engineer social hierarchy and he advocated for reservations irrespective of merit for various backward groups like women, shudras, harijans, Muslims and Adivasis. While Ambedkar was concerned about Harijans mostly and he also supported reservation. Though Ambedkar also drafted Hindu code bill which were important for Hindu women.
    3. Lohia advocated peaceful methods, had an imprint of Gandhian ways and gave slogans like Beti aur Roti to destroy caste based discrimination. While Ambedkar supported annihilation of caste, converted en masse to Buddhism and asked people to disown Hindu scriptures. Lohia wanted to search answers within these scriptures themselves.
    Overall, the two personalities were different in their approach towards casteism but had a common ground over reservations.


      Did Lohia ever talked about finding the answers within the scriptures or you just made it up?
      Anyway, one of the best answer so far, minding the word limit.

  • Teneichong Telien

    Please review:

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar were strong proponents of social justice in India.

    1. They recognized caste as a significant dimension of inequality, injustice and oppression in the society. They did not view caste in exclusive terms as they recognized gender and caste based inequalities. In different ways they prioritized caste based inequalities as the base for a fight for social emancipation.
    2. They held caste system responsible for the various issues in Indian society, whether economic, cultural or even vulnerability to external powers.
    3. They were of the belief that this system of inequality cannot be reformed and that only annihilation of the caste system can end caste-based inequalities.
    4. They recognized the value of the spiritual dimension of struggle against caste injustice.

    Inspite of the common convictions they shared they diverged in two fundamental respects:
    1. Political Strategy: Ambedkar followed a strategy of political segregation of dalits from the rest of Hindu society. In his strategy forging a separate identity, conversion to Buddhism, recognition of differential interests and securing separate political representation was foremost.
    On the other hand Lohia’s strategy was aggregative. He wanted to unite various caste groups and proposed an alliance of victims of the caste system with Muslims, women and the poor.
    2. Cultural Politics: At the level of principles, they proposed fundamentally different ways of combating caste ideology. Ambedkar was highly critical of the Hindu scriptures since he felt that the caste system got its sanction from them. He drew upon traditions of western rationalism to attack Hindu ideology of hierarchy and therefore took the help of external critique.
    However Lohia even though he was not interested in the Vedas or Dharmashastra favoured Hindu mythology and epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. Instead of discarding mythologies entirely he preferred a retelling of these stories. He used the characters and situations in them as an internal critique of the prevailing system of inequality.

    Both the strategies of Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar played their own part in the struggle against inequality in the society and they have been successful to an extent. But considering the widening gap between the richest and the have-nots existing today we still have a long way to go.

  • FWP

    Rammanohar lohia and Br ambedkar both believed caste is stumbling block to the society to progress and made effort to remove caste system from the society.But their methods differ:
    1. Both believed that caste system set reverses to Indian society from progressing due to no fresh idea, increasing narrowness.
    2. Both favoured Roti and Beti ie inter-caste marriage, inter-caste dining to eradicate caste system
    3. Both believed in economic development in removing caste rigidities and helps in upward mobility
    4. Both were against religious scriptures which sanctioned caster inequalities

    Ram mandohar lohia
    1.Lohia –gandhian, freedom fighter known well for his anti-caste movement through socialist party
    2. Lohia believed that caste system was out of division of labor. so he wanted to destroy caste system through 3 main
    i)enable lower caster to join in elite social structure, there by break hierarchy,
    ii)economic development and provide reservation irrespective of meritorious
    iii)re-engineer the system by re balancing the power-
    3. He wanted to abolish all pvt schools and establish upgraded municipality schools to provide equal academic access

    Br Ambedkar

    1. BR Ambedkar himself a dalit, who wanted total annihilation of caste through legal methods such as constitutional
    protection and acts
    2. In his view caste not only deviding labour but deviding labouers. He wanted total reformation of hindu system
    3. He encouraged meritocracy not reservation, instead focused on annihilation of caste through hindu religious reforms such as – All hindus should have only one sacred holy book , Priesthood should either be abolished or he should not be hereditary and He should be state appointed, Shashtras should be disowned.

    Till date we embraced Lohia strategy to end caste descrimination. But the sporadic events such as jat reservation, patel reservation in Gujarat indicate, instead of transformation it became more solidfied through political nexus.As ambedkar said, we should strive for creating society where meritocracy is appreciated, evoke public spirit, morality and charity not based on caste
    lines through providing equal opportunity for development.

    • Jagdish Soni

      very good written bro…


      Your answer mentions 2 new points – abolition of private school (lohia) and encouragement of merit not reservation (ambedkar). THanks for that.
      But, your conclusion could have been better

    • bronoptimist

      good answer…as per demand of the question but as mentioned by terminator conclusion could have been better.

    • Sunny

      pls review mine.

  • Ambalika

    – 214 words

    Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. Ambedkar both were critical of the caste system.
    Similarities of views over caste system.
    – It is an autonomous and significant dimension of inequality, injustice, and oppression.
    – It is responsible for a number of ills in Indian society, from economic stagnation to cultural degeneration and vulnerability to external powers.
    – Caste system should be brought to an end
    – Recognition of the spiritual dimension of struggle against caste injustice
    – Both supported inter caste dining and marriages.
    But they differed over this in their strategies
    1. Lohia extends the idea of intersection of caste with class and gender beyond the point of origin of the caste system while Ambedkar was totally for annihilation of caste
    2. Lohia was not as attentive as Ambedkar on the institutional mechanisms
    3. Ambedkar followed a strategy of political segregation of dalits from the rest of Hindu society as evident from his support for a separate electorate, system of reservations or conversion to Buddhism while Lohia believed economic development will help social mobility and re-engineering of caste system through shift of power among classes.
    4. Ambedkar believed caste system has got Hindu scriptures sanctions while Lohia was not interested in the high textual tradition of the Vedas or dharmashastras but considered caste system as a sign of civilizational decline.

  • ajeet singh

    The views of Ambedkar and Lohia on caste system are similar on many ways.

    a) They referred the Varan theory, Manu’s Law etc. to understand the criticality of Caste System. They found that, as the society get complex, its division and segregation is inevitable.

    b) They regarded caste as an oppressive, exploitative system which restricts opportunities and create imbalances and inequalities.

    c) They agreed that caste should be annihilated though they differed in the basic approach and the means to
    annihilate it.

    However, their views are also different in the following ways:-
    a) Ambedkar was a Dalit who assumed the role of social, political, and spiritual leader first for the Dalits and then for the whole nation. Whereas Lohia was a socialist by ideology and concerned with the disadvantaged of India including minorities and women.

    b) Ambedkar viewed caste system as system based on graded inequality, fixed occupation and status by birth.
    Whereas Lohia believed that caste system is directly related with the division of labour. He stated that in reality castes are found in the Shudra varna only.

    Various strategies followed by them to end caste discrimination
    By Ambedkar:-
    a) He talked about one common book of Hindu religion.
    b) Abolition of the institution of traditional priesthood.
    c) To implement law(s) to change the caste system.

    By Lohia:-
    a) He focused attention on creating situations of common feasting, cultural interactions and cultural exchange.
    b) To give up caste specific surname or titles and promote inter caste marriages.
    c) He also favored implementation of preferential policies for the weak and the downtrodden.

  • Robinhood

    First of all for me to write this question in restricted 200 words is like unjust to my views..

    So here is my answer.

    comparison of two is inevitable because both’s concern are same that is caste system in india and how to get rid of it.

    Dr ambedkar has expressed his views on caste system in not less then 50 books and one of the famous are.. anhilination of caste, frustration, the philosophy of hindu, notes on manu smriti, comparison of various indian dynasties and evolution of office of priest, and many more .. he concludes his remarks by saying that…
    Superposition of class endogamy over class exogamy results into caste formation.
    Some points he genrally expressed in his public talks were how the divine origin of caste system(as mentioned in purush sukta in reg veda) which is unique and can’t be seen in any major world religions and how the divine origin of caste has spoiled and disparaged the whole of humanity. Dr ambekar oftenly used to quote hymns form manu smiriti, nard smriti, vishnu puran, chandogya upnishad ann many more.. some hyms he used to quote are follows..
    If any shudra’s limb touches to the brahmin then that limb must cutoff..
    The shudra women is most disgraced as she lives life in stress. Manu smriti.

    If any shudra chants the hyms of vedas or puranas then his tongue must cuttoff or must put hot coal into his mouth..
    Narad smiriti..
    Innumerable hyms are there which one cant think in todays time.
    Even shadow of shudra can spoil the life of brahmin. This kind of ideology was prevailing among upper caste hindus at that time.

    So these were views by Dr ambedkar on caste system.

    Now the strategies by Dr ambedkar to eradicate the caste system.
    In his book anhilination of caste he has mentioned with utter detailed description that if shudras want to get rid of this caste system they must leave sanatan dharma and should adopt Buddhism and he gave a simple one explaination to this is that in all major world religions the sages of that religion is considerd as supreme but BUDDHA was only satisfied as being a teacher.
    And one of the important point which ambekar point of view in caste system is that shudras must avoid all superstition practices by hindus, dont include ur self in sanskritization dogma, and important on is the collective conscience to transform from CLASS INIT SELF to CLASS FOR ITSELF.

    Now RAM MANOHAR LOHIA voews on caste system can be concluded from his book THE CASTE SYSTEM and his lacture in hydrabad in 1952 where he defined caste as immobile class and class as mobile caste.
    Lohia didn’t agree with the anti brahminism as supported by ambekar.
    Lohia also found the necessity to connect the movements for unity among the non dwija caste with socialist movements to strengthen the struggle for equality and prosperity in india after independence

    In lohia’s view the caste system has not created a bipolar system of forward and bakward caste but infact the three layers in the society because of the logic of the caste system. Three layers are
    The real upper caste who are affluent.
    The fake upper caste who are poor.
    And backward shudras

    Lohia also under line the pathetic conditions of all woman across caste line.

    Thus he wanted unity of all the women, shudras and fake upper caste people. Who are together trapped for centuries in the prison of poverty and power lessness.

    Possibilities that lohia wanted preferential opportunities for all backward secrion of indian society includes.
    Women, the backward, sc, st, and other sections of mualims and other minorities.

    The opportunities were in the field of
    Political leadership
    Govt jobs,
    Economic enterprises etc..

    But lohia was against prevention of children of non backward sections from educational opportunities.

    Lohia’s stand on reservation.
    Lohia was against reservation in the field of education in certain.
    As he wanted quality of basic education for all children and open opportunities for higher education for all students
    While Dr ambedkar view was the rigid caste system would not allow shudras to sit beside uppercaste in same class or same platform if reservation is not there because ambedkar during his childhood was not allowed to sit in class foor therefore he used to sit outside the claasss door.

    Lohia was only a partial supporter of the recommendations of first backwars class commission.

    So lohia policy for eradication was lived in the transformation of views of the all indians and his view was somewhere around collective responsibility of all to eradicate caste system because
    He did agree that there will be need of large heartedness on the part of youth of the uppercaste as the programme of preferential opportunities may contain element of short term injustice against them but it has to be tolerated in order to energies the backward millions of mam and woman who are arrested in two prison of caste and gender based segregation for centuries,

    So this was little comparison between Dr AMBEDKAR and RAM MANOHAR LOHIA.

    Now my own words.
    I can write one full year on caste system as I am marathon writer and in my above writing I have just touced the point becuse only three months left for mains..
    So if anybody wants my writing on caste system and on comparitive religion specially hindusis and Buddhism can comment ..
    And all comments are welcome.

    • batman

      thanks… one can use this as reference…

      • Robinhood



      It might be a really good content for essay. Keep in mind that we might not have this much space in answer sheet for 200 words.

      You said “to write this question in restricted 200 words is like unjust to my views”. But that is the challenge in present day mains – expressing your views in least possible words even 150 to 180 will also be fine.

      Keep writing.

      Although I am not an expert, the above comments are my personal views.


      • Robinhood

        Yess. U r right.. but I intentionally exceeded word limit..
        And as far as word limit is concern I will keep ur advice in my mind while writing answer..
        Thanku tamash..

  • Kalaiselvi

    This is the first answer i am writting for mains. Kindly provide inputs and help me to improve.

    Ambedkar and lohia both believed that caste discrimination is the main reason behind inequalities in Indian society. There were differences in the approach they followed to eliminate it.
    Ambedkar was confined to harijans and their upliftment alone where as lohia worked against the discrimination of muslims,women and other backward classes
    Both of them were against the hindu upper class(brahminism) oppressing the lower society and favoured inter caste marriages
    Ambedkar advocated caste conversion, implemented western ideologies whereas logia tried to revive the society from within by reviving the cultural aspects of religious text
    By starting labour party and other organisations ambedkar tried to include lowercaste politically wherein lohia’s ideas didn’t reach masses as expected.
    Though there were differences they worked for the uplifment of Indian and to revive the minds of people socially culturally also politically.

    • Robinhood

      Lohia was not anti bhrahmins

      • Kalaiselvi

        Ok Robin thank you. Will refer

        • Robinhood

          Good luck and keep writing

  • noboundriz

    Ram manohar lohia want end the caste discrimination by providing reservations and empowering the dalits economically whereas Ambedkar wanted to annihilate the caste altogether to end the caste discrimination.

    It is true that caste discrimination leads to economic disadvantage but it is not correct to assume that economic prosperity will do away the caste. Lohia’ s idea of reservations as a means to end caste discrimination has only helped in solidifying the caste from the consciousness of individuals.

    It led to resentment and counter reservation movements by other castes. Caste has assumed political nature and used for political mobilization rather than eliminating discrimination.

    On the other hand Ambedkar’s idea of annihilating the caste has more merit in ending the caste discrimination. He proposed conversions to Buddhism to end caste. Theoretically ambedkar’s views would eliminate the caste consciousness from people. But in practice it is very difficult to achieve. whereas Lohia’s views as easy to implement but could not eliminate caste consciousness.

    The ideal of egalitarian society as enshrined in the constitution will not be realized as long as caste consciousness pervades in one way or other. What we need is a new paradigm thinking in eliminating caste consciousness from individual consciousness.


    Ambedkar held view that caste system derives its genesis from the Hindu Shastras and from there it acquires its divinity and sanctity. Therefore in order to annihilate caste system, the sacredness and sanctity of Shastras has to be attacked. In addition to this, Ambedkar also sought intervention of democratic state to subserviate caste system under democratic laws. For instance he proposed to abolish hereditary priesthood,to replace with a meritorious system. Similarly he ardently advocated Uniform Civil Code.

    In order to annihilate caste Ambedkar proposed various solutions, such as – intercaste marriages, interdinning, extending reservations to dalits in education and govt jobs.
    Ram Manohar Lohia also sought to dismantle caste system but he did not wanted to attack its roots, rather he wanted to make caste system obsolete through democratic social transformation which would include awarding reservations to not only Shudras but also to women, adivasis and, depressed Muslims and Christians. Like ambedkar he also advocated mixed dinning, intercaste marriages and reservations in education and jobs. In addition to this he also suggested people to adopt caste neutral title, ex – Kumar surname in Bihar.

    Ambedkar was critical of socialists of the day who believed that economic empowerment of shudras would enable them to attain a respectable position in society. Lohia also took a critical stance towards those wanted to uplift shudras economically without actually harming the caste system.

    In addition to this, Lohia was also mindful of certain limitations of political empowerment of dalits through universal adult franchise. He pointed out that populous caste group may obtain political power but they would not share this power with other lower caste people, rather they would work up their position to replace dominant caste of the time. Therefore only readjusting their position in social hierarchy without actually harming the caste system.

    Both Ambedkar and Lohia were great thinkers caste system and activists who fought for destruction of caste system through their strategies whether “Annihilation of Caste” or “Democratic Social Transformation”. However in reality, half-a-century later caste system has not faded away, instead it has acquired a more perverted form and managed to seep into our democratic institutions. Due to this caste identities are only becoming more rigid.
    Fundamentals of reservation are noble but in today’s socio-political arena it has significantly contributed towards perpetuation of caste distinctions, political mobilisation, vote bank politics and caused serious damage to meritocracy. Due to frustration, those who belong to prosperous community are also demanding reservation, such as Jats, Marathas, and now Patels, widening existing cleavages in society.

    Lohia advocated awarding reservation to deprived sections of society irrespective of merit. He identified shudra, adivasis, women, depressed Muslims and Christians as those deprived sections. The principle is right but it requires only a definitional change.
    Identification should be done on the basis of actual deprivation and not through some proxies (such as caste). Only poors and socio-economically marginalised families should avail the benefits of reservation. This will make caste identities and thus caste system wither away. India recently has conducted its first socio-economic census. With advent of e-governance and Information Communication Technology, such census has great potential to identify beneficiaries of reservation without bringing about caste.


      I feel the point here is not to mention everything. you should concentrate on conveying your views within 200 words. even if it is 150-180 words is fine.
      So please do keep 200 words in mind and then answer. It should be less words and more conveyed message.

      Even the structure of answer is cluttered. You have all the content and quality in this answer only thing which is needed is a proper structure keeping word limit in mind.

      I am just trying to think like an examiner and pointing out things.
      Although I am not an expert, the above comments are my personal views.



        Thank You Tamansh, I was mindful of the word limit but ques required us to address too many demands – “critically”, “compare”, “contrast” , “views”, and “strategies”. So I found it hard to stick to the word limit.
        I will keep on making effort to make my answers more lucid, structured and crisp.


    Caste is reality in India. Earlier in Rig vedic period varna system as identified with the work one performed but later during the later vedic period it became hereditary giving rise to caste discrimination.
    Ram Manohar Lohia described three strategies in ending the caste discrimination.
    1. First strategy he called as wordy one where political establishment wanted brightest people from lower caste to join mainstream without disturbing caste system. He criticized this strategy on account that economic development alone does not create avenues for upliftment of lower castes to join mainstream.
    2. Second strategy he called as empty one where different caste tries to gain political power in order to displace the dominant caste of the day rather than sharing the political power with the deprived castes. This is most prominent philosophy followed by political parties in India today.
    3. Third he defined as the true strategy as this gives reservation to the deprived groups like women, tribes, muslims and schedule castes irrespective of merit which he thinks was necessary for democratic social transformation.

    Dr.Ambedkar however was in favour of complete annihilation of caste system as he was of view that caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. Virtue has become caste-ridden, and morality has become caste-bound. There is no sympathy for the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity, but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy, but not for men of other castes.

    Modern Strategies in ending caste discrimination
    1. Stricter implementation of laws like SC &ST(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, Protection of Civil Rights Act.
    2. Value based education must be imparted in schools to make students understand the evolution of caste as a concept which is largely vocation based where each caste is complementary to each other with no question of higher or lower.
    3. Print and electronic media help shall be taken to sensitize people on caste issue and urge them not to indulge in caste discrimination.
    4. PRIs should also take suitable measures to address this discrimination.
    5. Political parties must lead from front to promote welfare of all rather than a particular caste. They must tickets for election to members coming from all social groups equally.

    Though these measures only provide short term solution to the problem which is rampant in India. The real solution lies in the abolition of caste system itself then only India can rise on higher echelons of prosperity and development.


      You have simply copy pasted the lohia section from the reference link, without actually understanding that Lohia was actually critically analysed those strategies which were prevalent in those times


      You have simply copy pasted the lohia section from the reference link, without actually understanding that Lohia was actually critically analysing those strategies which were prevalent in those times


    B R Ambedkar views on caste system are:
    1. He belonged to liberal school of thought, was radical in his approach and very harsh and staunch critic of caste system of india.
    2.He advocated that lower caste has suffered in the hands of caste hindus and brahmans for centuries and forced to live inhuman and undignified life.
    3.He denounced the varna system, because it is not based on natural divison of labour but ‘unnatural divison of labourer’.
    4.Caste system suffers from another defect of KARMA theory which doesn’t give any scope for change in present life of a man and only deals with next life.
    a)His main emphasis was on the LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL means to secure the rights of untouchables and improving their lives.
    b)In his major work ANNIHILATION OF THE CASTE , he advocated applying dynamite to vedas and bycotting all hindu religious scriptures and rituals.
    c)He demanded saperate electorate for dalits in three round table conferences but was opposed by Gandhiji. Finally in POONA PACT with congress he agreed on reserved seats for dalits
    d)In later part of his life after all the frustrations , he adovcated conversion to other religions and he himself converted to Buddhism.

    Ram Manohar Lohia views on caste system are:
    1.He was a Gandhinian Socialist and was not as much radical like Ambedkar on caste system.
    2. Although he was a socialist but he thought that CASTE rather than CLASS was major impediment to progress of india.
    3.He doesn’t deal mainly with caste but it was on component of his SEVEN REVOLUTIONs.
    4.He gave a wider definition of backward class and included in it not just dalits but also women,SC,ST,muslims and other weaker sections.
    a)He advocated for affirmative action i.e.reservation for backward classes in jobs, higher posts etc.
    b)He gave a phrase of ROTI AUR BETI i.e. people will have to break caste barriers for interdining and give their daughters for marriage in other castes.
    c)He started his campaign of JATI TODO from 1952 to 1967 .
    d) As a gandhinian he urged upper classes to serve as a soil for lower caste to flourish and grow so that country could progress.

  • Udit Malik

    criticism are welcome!

    • c_alam_ity

      Hi Udit, your answer is factually incorrect as lohia did in fact oppose the caste system and did not believe that it should continue. I think you are confusing lohia’s views with gandhi’s who argued that while untouchability was an abhorrent practice, the caste system should continue. The primary difference between ambedkar and lohia’s views lies in the their ideological basis. Lohia’s critique of the caste system was based on socialist principles while ambedkar’s was a more humanist view.

      • Udit Malik

        yr i’ve not revised yet.. but i remember that he was against caste discrimination but he never criticised caste system much as he saw it as social structure.. thats why all modern political party adopted this view….

        vaise if you are saying it, then i will search it

  • c_alam_ity

    Dr. Ambedkar was perhaps one of the strongest critics of the
    caste system. Being from a lower caste himself he had experienced the inhumane
    practice of untouchability first hand. Therefore he had famously argued in his
    treatise, “The Annihilation of Caste” that untouchability was a barbaric
    practice that had no place in the modern world. He went on to argue that merely
    abolishing untouchability would not stop the mistreatment of the lower castes
    but the entire tradition of the caste system needed to be destroyed.

    Lohia’s views on the caste system were similar to Dr.
    Ambedkar’s in many ways. He too opposed untouchability in all its forms and was
    opposed to the caste system as well. However, the genesis of his views on the
    caste system was based on his socialist ideology. He was opposed to hierarchical
    differentiation of men in all ways, be it caste based or class based. He
    believed that in modern times, the traditional caste system had persisted only
    as a means of repression of those who were economically weaker.

    They both supported the idea of reservations as a form of
    affirmative action for the backward castes. The system of reservations was
    expected to put those belonging to lower castes in positions of power in the
    administration and in politics. This was expected to upset the existing social
    order and integrate the backward castes into the mainstream.


      You have written an apt ans given the word limit but your conclusion could use more words.

  • c_alam_ity


    This makes for a great reference for this answer.

  • SriD

    Both Ram Manohar Lohia and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar were social activists and nationalists who opposed caste system as well as the inequalities and oppression which prevailed in the Indian society due to it. Both leaders were proponents of social justice and equality but they differed in the strategies they adopted to fight caste evils.

    1) Ram Manohar Lohia advocated reservations to depressed classes irrespective of merit. Ambedkar was not in favour of this proposal. He accepted the reservation measure reluctantly and insisted on a strict time frame of 10 years.

    2) While Lohia included various weak sections of Indian society such as women, harijans, adivasis, muslims and shudras in his reservation proposal, Ambedkar mainly campaigned for untouchables and fought against the practice of untouchability.

    3) Ram Manohar Lohia proposed three strategies against caste evils. These were wordy strategy to generally condemn caste system, empty strategy to reengineer caste system by replacing dominant castes and the true struggle through reservation for weaker sections irrespective of merit. B. R. Ambedkar initiated mainstream campaigns against caste system like public burning of Manusmriti copies, organising mass conversion to Buddhism and formed reform organisations like Bahishkrit Hithakarini Sabha and Bharatiya Bauddha Mahasabha.

    4) Ambedkar wanted to end untouchability through legal means within the constitution. Lohia wanted weaker sections to occupy key positions of power.

    Extension of reservation system has only resulted in political lobbying for the same by caste groups using their strength in numbers as is evident from the recent struggle of Patiaras in Gujarat or earlier protests by Jats of North India and Marathas in Maharashtra. At the same time, caste discrimination continues in the society like ever before. Therefore it is time to rethink the whole strategy of fighting caste system and untouchability instead of blindly extending the reservation system that is not yielding the desired results while allowing caste groups to riot for it.

  • Sunny

    According to ram manohar lohia unequal distribution of power in society between casts is the most problem instead of cast system.

    he think that upliftment of so called lower caste to join the elite without disturbing overall social structure.According to him by shifting the power to lower caste is neccasory.he is in the favour of reservation “irrespective of merit” would pitchfork the most downgrades of society in to the position of leadership.

    In ambedkar’s view inter cast dining and inter cast marriage is not sufficient to remove cast discrimination but Annihilation of the cast system is the only way to stop cast discrimination.He never think that the hindu religion will give equal respect to all casts.

    Strategy to remove cast discrimination by ram manohar lohia:

    1. By distributing the power within the all casts of society and Re-engineer the cast system .

    2. Upliftment of lower cast without disturbing the whole structure of system.

    3. Reservation “irrespective of merit” would pitchfork the most downgrades groups of indian society in to a position of leadership.

    4. increasing awareness between the the people and giving favour to inter cast marriage.

    According to Dr. B.R.Ambedkar :
    1. destroy not only the cast system but also the religion upon which is founded is the only way to remove cast descrimination.

    2. shastras should not be followed.
    3. Giving extra power to lower cast to protect their right that religion had never given to them.

    • alok rai

      over all good effort. You understand the demand of question. But little bit effort on structuring is needed. Keep writing…

      • Sunny

        thank you friend ..can you pls tell me what should i do for good structuring ?

        • alok rai

          Truly speaking there is no Pythagoras theorem for that 😛 even no one can define the good structure. It develop as you practice. Good thing is that you understand the demand of the question. so keep writing….

    • FWP

      good one bro .. keep writing but where is the conclusion part..

  • kunal singh

    Both, B R Ambedkar and Ram Manohar Lohia, recognized caste as an autonomous and significant dimension of inequality, injustice and oppression in India and held caste system responsible for a number of ills in Indian society from economic stagnation to cultural degeneration and vulnerability to external powers. Caste system was a national malaise, and not just a problem for its victims. While both of them aimed at ending the caste based discrimination, they held different views towards it in the following manner:

    1) While B R Ambedkar wanted to eradicate the whole caste system from Hinduism, Shri Lohia advocated for empowerment of lower caste in the national mainstream, much like the views held by Gandhi Ji.
    2) To end casteism, Ambedkar wanted constitutional reforms making it mandatory to shun all the caste related recognition, Lohia, on the other hand, emphasied on reservation in jobs and political institutions to bring the lower castes up and at par with the upper castes.
    3) Ambedkar view on casteism was more radical and demanded fundamental changes including abolition of the caste system itself, Lohia attempted to abolish the distinction and differential treatment among the various castes through reservation, intercaste marriage, inter dinning etc.

    Though both the social reformers tried to free India by the various degenerating effects of age old casteism through various means, converging sometimes and contrasting at other, the nobel views that castiem is detrimental to national growth and unity deserve admiration. Despite all these efforts, castiesm is still a poisonous reality in indian Society. Conflicts for caste based reservation between the government and a caste, and among various castes is emerging as a new form of caste challenge. The social organisations, government and political parties need to work together to come up with a robust policy to eliminate the danger posed by this modern day castiesm.

  • Tendulkar

    Feedback is to be given daily as per Insight feedback initiative. Who give feedback? how to identified feedback giver persons name. E.g. INSIGHTS. Others also review which is gd thing, bt who from insights side review ans??

  • Bashar

    Ram Manohar Lohia saw reservations as a means for Dalits, women, Muslims and tribal people to overcome the marginalisation suffered by them due to the social constraints and which is why he did not see mere economic prosperity as the solution for these sections of India. Dr. Ambedkar saw reservations as a means to meet the end of annihilation of the caste system in India. Both the scholars ultimately wanted to bring these sections of people out the historical cycle of marginalization due to the social constraints.
    The recent developments in the country have brought the caste based reservations under public scrutiny. Many are advocating reservations based on economic status rather than the caste based system. The point which is being missed here is what these great scholars had in mind while implementing the system. The reservations were not solely based because of economic reasons they were granted to these sections of people because their impoverishment which was a result of the socially enforced unreasonable discrimination against these sections.
    The reservations went out of control because of politics of granting reservation in exchange of votes which turned it into a game of numbers. Thus what needs to be done is to go back to the roots and revisit the true ideas based on which these great scholars had devised the system of reservations so that the real end as intended by them which is to do away this evil of caste based divisions can be done away from India.