For Gandhi, the practice of untouchability represented one of the gravest moral failures of Hindu society. While he fought British colonialism with nonviolent resistance, he waged an equally passionate campaign against what he saw as an internal enemy threatening the very soul of Hinduism. His approach to ending untouchability combined spiritual conviction with practical reform, yet it also revealed deep tensions with other leaders who sought more radical solutions to caste oppression.
Table of Contents
Untouchability as a moral sin against humanity
Gandhi’s opposition to untouchability wasn’t merely social reform-it was a spiritual mission. He declared untouchability a religious question, calling it a sin against both God and man. From his perspective, treating millions of people as polluted and inferior because of their birth violated the fundamental principles of Hinduism itself.
This conviction shaped his political strategy. When Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in the 1920s, he insisted that the removal of untouchability must be part of the struggle for Swaraj (self-rule). He believed India couldn’t achieve true freedom while millions remained enslaved by caste discrimination. At his Satyagraha Ashram near Ahmedabad, he made the eradication of untouchability one of the core vows that all members had to take. When an untouchable family sought membership in 1915, Gandhi welcomed them despite fierce opposition-even from his own wife and close associates who threatened to leave.
Gandhi’s famous statement captured his urgency: “Hinduism dies if untouchability lives, untouchability has to die if Hinduism is to live.” He argued that if the scriptures truly sanctioned untouchability, then those texts should be rejected as contrary to human dignity. This was a bold position for a devout Hindu, but Gandhi maintained that untouchability was a later corruption, not an essential part of the faith.
Reinterpreting the varna system
While Gandhi opposed untouchability, his views on the broader caste system were more complex. He accepted the concept of varna-the division of society into four functional groups based on occupation-but radically reinterpreted it to remove hierarchy and notions of superiority.
Gandhi saw varna as what he called a “law of heredity,” where one’s occupation was determined by birth and family tradition. His version of the varna system emphasized that all four groups were equal in status, with the divisions being horizontal rather than vertical. A Brahmin priest, a Kshatriya warrior, a Vaishya merchant, and a Shudra laborer all held equal dignity-each performing essential work for society.
This interpretation flatly rejected the concepts of ritual purity and pollution that traditionally defined caste hierarchy. Gandhi contended that all varnas are equal, utterly rejecting any notion of high and low castes. He drew on the Bhagavad Gita to argue that varna was about personal duty and occupation, not about one group being superior to another.
Importantly, Gandhi denied the existence of a “fifth caste” of untouchables outside the varna system. He insisted that those labeled untouchables were simply Shudras who had been wrongly degraded and excluded. In his vision, there was dignity in all labor-whether intellectual work, physical labor, or sanitation. A sweeper’s work was as honorable as a priest’s.
However, Gandhi’s defense of hereditary varna-even in this reformed version-put him at odds with more radical reformers. By the mid-1940s, his thinking had evolved significantly, and he began advocating for intercaste marriage, saying he hoped for a day when “there will be one caste, known by the beautiful name Bhangi”-the reformer who removes all dirt.
The Harijan movement and the path to reform
In the 1930s, Gandhi intensified his anti-untouchability campaign by renaming the so-called untouchables as Harijans, meaning “children of God.” This term reflected his belief that these communities needed to be welcomed back into Hindu society through the moral transformation of caste Hindus.
Following the Poona Pact of 1932, Gandhi established the All India Anti-Untouchability League, later renamed the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Between November 1933 and July 1934, he undertook an exhaustive tour covering thousands of miles across India, raising funds and campaigning for the removal of untouchability. He insisted on opening temples to Harijans, granting them access to public wells and roads, and ending discrimination in schools.
Gandhi’s approach emphasized that change must come from within caste Hindus themselves. He believed untouchability was fundamentally a problem of the Hindu conscience that required inner transformation. Caste Hindus owed it to themselves-not just to the oppressed-to purge this sin from their hearts. This meant the campaign focused heavily on moral persuasion rather than confrontation.
A different approach from Ambedkar
Gandhi’s strategy stood in sharp contrast to that of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the great Dalit leader who had experienced untouchability’s cruelties firsthand. Ambedkar argued for the complete annihilation of the caste system, not just the removal of untouchability. He believed the two could not be separated-as long as caste existed, untouchables would remain oppressed.
Ambedkar led militant Satyagraha campaigns, including temple entry movements and demands for access to public water sources. He organized the Depressed Classes to assert their own rights rather than wait for caste Hindu benevolence. He rejected the term “Harijan,” which he saw as patronizing, preferring to give his community a political identity as Dalits.
While Gandhi relied on moral persuasion and the goodwill of caste Hindus, Ambedkar demanded political power and legal guarantees. He insisted that Dalits needed their own representatives who understood their struggles, not upper-caste reformers speaking on their behalf.
The fast against separate electorates
These philosophical differences came to a head in 1932 over the issue of political representation. When the British government, responding to Ambedkar’s arguments, granted separate electorates to the Depressed Classes through the Communal Award, Gandhi was horrified. He saw this as dividing Hindu society and treating untouchables as if they were a separate community.
On September 20, 1932, Gandhi began a fast unto death while imprisoned in Yerawada Jail. He argued that separate electorates would “vivisect and disrupt” Hinduism and harm rather than help the untouchables. Ambedkar initially dismissed the fast as a “political stunt,” but mounting public pressure-and the real possibility that Gandhi might die-forced negotiations.
The resulting Poona Pact, signed on September 24, 1932, abolished separate electorates but nearly doubled the number of reserved seats for Depressed Classes in legislatures from 71 to 148. The agreement established a system of joint electorates with reserved seats, allowing the entire Hindu community to vote on Dalit representatives.
Gandhi’s fast had immediate social impact. Temples across India opened their doors to untouchables, public wells became accessible, and thousands of caste Hindus publicly embraced those they had previously shunned. However, these changes proved temporary-old prejudices soon reasserted themselves. Ambedkar remained deeply dissatisfied with the Pact, viewing it as a compromise forced upon him that left real power in the hands of caste Hindus.
The Poona Pact represented the collision of two visions: Gandhi’s belief in reforming Hinduism from within through spiritual transformation, and Ambedkar’s conviction that only political power and structural change could liberate the oppressed. Both leaders dedicated their lives to ending caste oppression, yet their paths diverged fundamentally on how to achieve that goal.
What do you think? Was Gandhi’s emphasis on moral transformation and keeping untouchables within Hindu society a practical strategy for lasting change, or did it compromise the more radical restructuring that Ambedkar sought? Can deep-rooted social hierarchies truly be dismantled through appeals to conscience, or do they require confrontational political action and legal enforcement?
References
- https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/Gandhi-Ambedkar-and-eradication-of-Untouchability.html
- https://pwonlyias.com/udaan/gandhis-harijan-campaign-and-thoughts-on-caste/
- https://sabrangindia.in/article/mahatma-gandhi-caste-varna-ashrama-system/
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/varna-Hinduism
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact
Leave a Reply