Response Paper - Doctor and the Saint

Response Paper –The Doctor and The Saint

Gandhi and Ambedkar worked for a common cause- Emancipation.The immediate politicalintrests of Aambedkar and Gandhiji lashed.Ambedkar was the leader of untouchable and continued to dream to be authentic representation of untouchable community.Gandhiji opposed the conservation of separate interest of untouchable in the context of freedom struggle.

Caste System

Ambedkar being an untouchable believed that untouchability is the byproduct of the caste system. For Gandhiji untouchability was the basic organising principle of Indian society. Caste system functions on the basis of hierarchical discrimination. Removal of untouchability means symbolically burry the caste system which means disruption of the socetyGandhiji extended support to temple entry movement but his philosophy did not give any answer to the question of practicing untouchability.

Gandhiji tends to search possible areas of cooperation and integration of castes.Although he used the term 'harijans' (brethrens) to refer untouchable, he refused to recognise the political nature of caste divisions.

Gandhiji's attachment to the tradition is another versionof this ignorance. He never asked anything 'new' but asked for the continuation of the old tradition. Gandhiji's ability to arouse revolutionary potential arise from his appeal to the conscience of the masses through tradition. But Ambedkar was in search of the ideology of exploitation and tradition synonymous to Brahminical interest. But Ambedkar never rejected the tradition itself. Gandhiji and Ambedkar despite of theie differences visualised a community based on justice and fraternity.

Ambedkar's essay Annihilation of Caste draw contemporary public attention by its introduction written by Arundhati Roy, the booker prize winning author. Through her powerful introduction she denouced politician Gandhi by tearing his mask as a saint or mahatma. At the same time she has brightened the powerful figure Dr. B R Ambedkar who has been neglected and forgotten by 'history'.

Roys essay was criticised on the ground that it is more of a criticism on Gandhi rather than a true evaluation of Ambedkars essay.

According to Nishikant Golke

“Ambedkarist might find some reasons to ignore the article.However no Gandhian can afford to ignore her article...Gandhians are left mainly with two options: accepting the powerful criticism of Roy and reassessing their perception of Gandhi”.

Basic problem with Roy's analysis is that from the very outset she assumes.Gandhi was a born saint and she expects that his every writing and action should confirm to her own perception as a saint”.(Nishikant 146)

Arundhati Roy analyses history of caste, how they are muted by others. How they were treated as 'less than animal' in his or her very existence. She illustrates how the caste system which worked as a 'multi storeyed building without entrances or staircases' promoted the capitalist interest. She explored the defect of 'democracy' which functions as the tools of big tycoons. As Fanon says “They are white because they are rich , they are rich because they are white”. Richness and whiteness are inextricably linked to each other. The same principle works in the case of caste. The caste itself decides ones future..

She also sharply cut the 'beautiful dream of democracy . Democracy is nothing but rule of certain elite class who create a meke belief world which is portrayed as Jana (Subject Adhipathya(domination). People are present only as voters but absent in governence.Roy also point out how the 'issue of caste has been put aside by all including the so called 'socialist parties'.

Roy was strongly criticised by all.

“We object to Roy’s text not because of her non-Dalit origin but due to her poor grasp of the seminal text and even shallower and sensational out-of-context introduction to the original text at risk of maligning Ambedkar”

Anu Ramdas ( Editor of RTI. Online media which deals with anti caste issue)

Arundhati Roy compares Amebdkar and Gandhiji.

“Gandhi know how to make charity an event, a piece of theater, a spectacular display of fire works. So while the Doctor was searching for mere lasting cure, the Saint journeyed across India distributing Placebo.”

The concept of freedom which we believe as a reward of Gandhiji's sathyagrha is questioned by Roy. She sharply asks the question “whose freedom it was?”

She says in an interview with Saba Navalan

“What was ‘freedom’ for some was, for others, nothing more than a transfer of power. Once again, I’d say the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate deepens and complicates our understanding of words like “imperialism” and “freedom”. In 1931, when Ambedkar met Gandhi for the first time, Gandhi questioned him about his sharp criticism of the Congress, which at the time amounted to criticising the struggle for the homeland. Ambedkar’s famous, and heart-breaking, reply was:

“Gandhiji, I have no homeland. No untouchable worth the name would be proud of this land.” Even after he returned from South Africa, Gandhi still saw himself as a ‘responsible’ subject of Empire. But in a few years, by the time of the first national non-cooperation movement, Gandhi had turned against the British. Millions of people rallied to his call, and though it would be incorrect to say that he alone led India to freedom from British rule, of course he played a stellar part.”

Throughout the essay Roy portrays Gandhinji as a diplomatic political saint and Ambedkar as a leader of untouchable who was despised by all.She says “

Though Ambedkar had a formidable intellect, he didn’t have the sense of timing, the duplicity, the craftiness and the ability to be unscrupulous—qualities that a good politician needs.”

Such a sharp statement often make Roys view as very subjective.Just like Sartre's preface to Fanon's Concerning violence' changed the focus of the whole essay so does Roy's preface too.

Roys comment on simulated poverty is relevant. She relates it with power. She defines it well.

“Poverty is about having no power. As a politician, it was Gandhi’s business to accumulate power, which he did effectively. Satyagraha wouldn’t have worked, even as much as it did, if it wasn’t for his star power. If you are powerful, you can live simply, but you cannot be poor.”. So poverty is not synonymous to simplicity. She despises Gandhiji's insistence of saintly life.

Bibliography

Kolge Nishikant. “The Politicain :A Response to Arundhati Roy's The Doctor and The Saint”.Gandhi Marg Quarterly.36.1. 145-164.

Palshikar Suhas. “Gandhi- Ambedkar Interface...When shall the twain meet?” Economic and Poitical Weekly. 49.13.Web. 25 September. 2015.

“Arundhati Roy's Book on caste rejected by some anti caste hindu activists”
<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts entertainment/books/features/arundhati-roy-s-book-on-caste-rejected-by-some-anti-caste-activists-9929233.html Web. 23 Sept .2015