Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.66 AVERAGE
4.66 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Babasaheb Ambedkar's analysis of Indian caste-ridden society and his solution to this problem is phenomenal. But the unexpected bonus for me was in reading his correspondence with Gandhi. 'The Mahatma appears not to believe in thinking'. I'm in stitches!
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I was born a Hindu, but I shall not die a Hindu.
People know that Ambedkar 'bowed before Gandhi's superior popularity' and had to 'surrender' and sign the Poona Pact in 1932, which effectively ended the concept of Reserved Electorates, as envisioned by him - meaning that the system of dual representation for the Depressed Classes (or the Scheduled Castes, as they are now called), that Ambedkar had envisioned as a means of upliftment, effectively died a premature death. Arundhati Roy, S. Anand, and Ambedkar demolish this argument to smithereens, and express in no unclear terms that Gandhiji's fast unto death was a method of blackmail, and that Gandhiji was not so 'radical' as the nation was made to believe. That, alone, is worth the read.
In this manifesto against caste (yes, the Marx comparison that most people assign to this is very apt), Ambedkar speaks with the logic of a pragmatist, who believes that the caste system was founded as a method of segregation, not so different from the racial segregation practiced in the West (and in some ways, he argues, even worse). He believes that the caste system pollutes even religious conversions - in some ways, Ambedkar says, the Muslim and the Sikh religions grew caste systems because of mass conversions of the downtrodden Hindu populace looking to escape their chains. He believes that the methods adopted by 'moderate' reformers such as the Arya Samaj (and even its more radical offshoots, such as the Jat Pat Todak Mandal), such as inter-dining and inter-marriages between castes, were always doomed to fail. Above all, he believes that the system of pandits should be made on the basis of merit, not on birth - and the number of pandits 'passing out' each year should have a fixed quota.
Writing this masterpiece now would be ahead of its time. Writing it in 1936? No wonder it remained as just a speech manuscript, which Ambedkar had to print with his own money. Gandhiji also started an argument from his own magazine, Harijan, which started an intellectual clash that is responsible for much of Ambedkar's maligned image. Because, who, after all, would dare to argue with the Mahatma?
The Outlook, a magazine of some renown, carried out a poll in June-August 2012, which asked readers and scholars - who, according to you, is the greatest Indian, after Mahatma Gandhi? Ambedkar won by an overwhelming margin. If you read Annihilation Of Caste, you'll understand why. One of the most important Indian pieces of literature ever written.
People know that Ambedkar 'bowed before Gandhi's superior popularity' and had to 'surrender' and sign the Poona Pact in 1932, which effectively ended the concept of Reserved Electorates, as envisioned by him - meaning that the system of dual representation for the Depressed Classes (or the Scheduled Castes, as they are now called), that Ambedkar had envisioned as a means of upliftment, effectively died a premature death. Arundhati Roy, S. Anand, and Ambedkar demolish this argument to smithereens, and express in no unclear terms that Gandhiji's fast unto death was a method of blackmail, and that Gandhiji was not so 'radical' as the nation was made to believe. That, alone, is worth the read.
In this manifesto against caste (yes, the Marx comparison that most people assign to this is very apt), Ambedkar speaks with the logic of a pragmatist, who believes that the caste system was founded as a method of segregation, not so different from the racial segregation practiced in the West (and in some ways, he argues, even worse). He believes that the caste system pollutes even religious conversions - in some ways, Ambedkar says, the Muslim and the Sikh religions grew caste systems because of mass conversions of the downtrodden Hindu populace looking to escape their chains. He believes that the methods adopted by 'moderate' reformers such as the Arya Samaj (and even its more radical offshoots, such as the Jat Pat Todak Mandal), such as inter-dining and inter-marriages between castes, were always doomed to fail. Above all, he believes that the system of pandits should be made on the basis of merit, not on birth - and the number of pandits 'passing out' each year should have a fixed quota.
Writing this masterpiece now would be ahead of its time. Writing it in 1936? No wonder it remained as just a speech manuscript, which Ambedkar had to print with his own money. Gandhiji also started an argument from his own magazine, Harijan, which started an intellectual clash that is responsible for much of Ambedkar's maligned image. Because, who, after all, would dare to argue with the Mahatma?
The Outlook, a magazine of some renown, carried out a poll in June-August 2012, which asked readers and scholars - who, according to you, is the greatest Indian, after Mahatma Gandhi? Ambedkar won by an overwhelming margin. If you read Annihilation Of Caste, you'll understand why. One of the most important Indian pieces of literature ever written.
I'd mark it as spoilers but honestly, the title gives it away. It's exactly what you expect, for the most part. I won't go into the annihilation of Hinduism, those are points I can understand, from his perspective.
What no one, however, EVER told me was that Ambedkar was a eugenicist that considered racial purity something valid, and that tribal people were subhuman. He CRITICISED caste because it DID NOT ensure caste poverty. He also lambasted Hindus for NOT """CIVILISING"""" the tribals. I mean.
It was an insightful read, not because of his perspective, but because it shattered the positive image of him I had in my mind. :(
What no one, however, EVER told me was that Ambedkar was a eugenicist that considered racial purity something valid, and that tribal people were subhuman. He CRITICISED caste because it DID NOT ensure caste poverty. He also lambasted Hindus for NOT """CIVILISING"""" the tribals. I mean.
It was an insightful read, not because of his perspective, but because it shattered the positive image of him I had in my mind. :(
This book is the undelivered speech Ambedkar has prepared for a conference. The essay is a masterpiece. I have never highlighted so many times in such a small book. Exclude the appendix and the introduction and the main essay is well thought through. In the introduction, Ambedkar speaks about why the speech was not delivered and in the appendix, he gives his reply to Gandhi's reply to this essay.
I felt the book is bit outdated since the social-political landscape of the country has changed a lot since the book was written. Still, we have a long road to go to abolish caste from India. And sadly no current politician is speaking about this anymore. Caste has a direct correlation to the votes and I wonder if Ambedkar ever dreamt of such a day would come.
I felt the book is bit outdated since the social-political landscape of the country has changed a lot since the book was written. Still, we have a long road to go to abolish caste from India. And sadly no current politician is speaking about this anymore. Caste has a direct correlation to the votes and I wonder if Ambedkar ever dreamt of such a day would come.
"You must not only discard the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have courage to tell the Hindus, that what is wrong with them is their religion— the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage?"
Something about his writing brought me to tears. But it has also has given me the courage to endure the conflict ravaging my mind regarding my religion.
Something about his writing brought me to tears. But it has also has given me the courage to endure the conflict ravaging my mind regarding my religion.
Disclaimer: The 4- star rating is for this particular edition- The Annotated Critical Edition. For the text of the Annihilation of Caste itself- well it's too important a document to be going about giving ratings.
See, in this 350~ page book the text of AoC itself is around 170 pages. Now, does a 170 page book need a 140 page introduction? Really? I mean I know it is Arundhati Roy. I enjoyed 'The Doctor and the Saint' but reeeeaaaally? 140 pages? Gandhi does pop up a couple of times in AoC. And there are the two letters from Gandhi that Ambedkar himself attached at the end of AoC. But basically what AoC is is a deconstruction of the Great Indian Caste System and an indictment of Hinduism by the one person who understood the first with the clinically incisive precision of a barrister and who made it his life-long nemesis. All this is to say that it stands on its own. Roy tries to give a historical basis to the struggle of the Untouchables, led by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, that led to the views held by Ambedkar and Gandhi. And I don't feel it was necessary, at least in the size it took shape in.
Therefore it was that I read the essay by Roy after reading AoC. I'm glad to say that I did not miss anything in AoC that TDaTS could have helped me catch.
This edition also has annotations in almost every page, written by S. Anand. I haven't yet read 'Hatred in the Belly' yet (I'm gonna read it after writing this review.) and I guess there are arguments in there against these annotations but I found them quite helpful. Some of them, in any case. For someone like me who has been privilege-blind and caste-deaf all their life, and utterly impaired in Indian history (My only education in history was through textbooks and reading them gives you an impression that all India was one big non-violent mass coming together against the only problem it had - the British) without any fault lines which , the annotations explaining a few of the terms that might have gone right over my head were a great help. I could have struggled on my own, but they helped.
There's also 'A Note on the Poona pact' by S. Anand after AoC in the book. It was interesting and felt relevant but Anand confused me in a few places. Like, the explanation of the voting system which came about as a result of the Poona pact was sketchy. I'm only familiar with the 'first past the post' system we have in India now. So I had great difficulty with understanding what Ambedkar wanted in the pact and what ended up being signed and how it affected the Dalit politics.
AoC itself is, I think, mandatory reading for every Indian (and it wouldn't hurt non-Indians to read it too). I do not know how precisely applicable Ambedkar's ideas are to the caste landscape of India now (I assume 94.46%), but Ambedkar then destroyed arguments used by caste apologists and reservation abolitionists even now. You could see the clarity of thought and statesmanship of the Doctor in every argument. In my Annotated Critical Edition of AoC, I would just add the phrase 'LAWYERED' at the end of every argument he makes. He breaks caste system into little chunks and forces your eyes to look at each chunk while he lights it on fire and you can't help but be watch with wide-eyed amazement.
I guess I wouldn't have cared about the edition this much if this one wasn't the only one available to buy. And it costed me 350~. (It costs 250~ rupees at the time of this review). My point is that essential reading like this should be available ultra-cheap and possibly in its purest form.
TL;DR: JUST READ IT. OKAY?
See, in this 350~ page book the text of AoC itself is around 170 pages. Now, does a 170 page book need a 140 page introduction? Really? I mean I know it is Arundhati Roy. I enjoyed 'The Doctor and the Saint' but reeeeaaaally? 140 pages? Gandhi does pop up a couple of times in AoC. And there are the two letters from Gandhi that Ambedkar himself attached at the end of AoC. But basically what AoC is is a deconstruction of the Great Indian Caste System and an indictment of Hinduism by the one person who understood the first with the clinically incisive precision of a barrister and who made it his life-long nemesis. All this is to say that it stands on its own. Roy tries to give a historical basis to the struggle of the Untouchables, led by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, that led to the views held by Ambedkar and Gandhi. And I don't feel it was necessary, at least in the size it took shape in.
Therefore it was that I read the essay by Roy after reading AoC. I'm glad to say that I did not miss anything in AoC that TDaTS could have helped me catch.
This edition also has annotations in almost every page, written by S. Anand. I haven't yet read 'Hatred in the Belly' yet (I'm gonna read it after writing this review.) and I guess there are arguments in there against these annotations but I found them quite helpful. Some of them, in any case. For someone like me who has been privilege-blind and caste-deaf all their life, and utterly impaired in Indian history (My only education in history was through textbooks and reading them gives you an impression that all India was one big non-violent mass coming together against the only problem it had - the British) without any fault lines which , the annotations explaining a few of the terms that might have gone right over my head were a great help. I could have struggled on my own, but they helped.
There's also 'A Note on the Poona pact' by S. Anand after AoC in the book. It was interesting and felt relevant but Anand confused me in a few places. Like, the explanation of the voting system which came about as a result of the Poona pact was sketchy. I'm only familiar with the 'first past the post' system we have in India now. So I had great difficulty with understanding what Ambedkar wanted in the pact and what ended up being signed and how it affected the Dalit politics.
AoC itself is, I think, mandatory reading for every Indian (and it wouldn't hurt non-Indians to read it too). I do not know how precisely applicable Ambedkar's ideas are to the caste landscape of India now (I assume 94.46%), but Ambedkar then destroyed arguments used by caste apologists and reservation abolitionists even now. You could see the clarity of thought and statesmanship of the Doctor in every argument. In my Annotated Critical Edition of AoC, I would just add the phrase 'LAWYERED' at the end of every argument he makes. He breaks caste system into little chunks and forces your eyes to look at each chunk while he lights it on fire and you can't help but be watch with wide-eyed amazement.
I guess I wouldn't have cared about the edition this much if this one wasn't the only one available to buy. And it costed me 350~. (It costs 250~ rupees at the time of this review). My point is that essential reading like this should be available ultra-cheap and possibly in its purest form.
TL;DR: JUST READ IT. OKAY?
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced