Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.66 AVERAGE
4.66 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
How can you not admire the depth of Ambedkar’s thoughts? Ideas backed by powerful facts and a fair vision is an admired radicalism, no matter what one’s beliefs are and something that is a rarity in the times we live in.
“Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable them to realize that what they are told is religion is not religion, but that it is law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.”
Caste has always wondered me. Why should we have to oppress or disallow a specific group of people? Why are they considered untouchables & treated worst? Or why are they even not considered humans enough?
Through his Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar criticizes the Hindu Vedas and the principles on which the system of caste is built. A person is born in a specific Hindu Caste and he or she is assigned with that caste. The only way to annihilate the caste and avoid the myriad problems it creates is to destroy the religious system that facilitates discrimination and oppression.
“You must not only discard the Shastras, but you must also deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have the 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?”
According to him, unless and until there is no social reform that binds society together, there is no political and economic reform as both these factors are also related to religion and caste. For eg: we have seen enough political parties in India using religions as their weapons. Also, people are categorised into various varna or caste according to their occupation that directly relates to their economic status.
Annihilation of caste was originally supposed to be a speech that Ambedkar was to deliver at the conference organized by Jat Pat Todak Samaj. Founded in 1922, it was an Anti caste organization that pledged to be responsible for bringing about reforms by methods like Intercaste Dining, Intercaste marriages, etc. But on prior reception of this speech, members of Jat Pat Todak Samaj demanded certain changes which Ambedkar denied doing. And hence, he self-published this speech and tried bringing the reform.
In this profound work, Ambedkar rationally explains why annihilation of caste is necessary. He logically presents arguments and you will get agreed without a second thought. Ambedkar is, undoubtedly, a scholar and this work shows how intelligent, brave, and the reasoned person he was.
Caste has always wondered me. Why should we have to oppress or disallow a specific group of people? Why are they considered untouchables & treated worst? Or why are they even not considered humans enough?
Through his Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar criticizes the Hindu Vedas and the principles on which the system of caste is built. A person is born in a specific Hindu Caste and he or she is assigned with that caste. The only way to annihilate the caste and avoid the myriad problems it creates is to destroy the religious system that facilitates discrimination and oppression.
“You must not only discard the Shastras, but you must also deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have the 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?”
According to him, unless and until there is no social reform that binds society together, there is no political and economic reform as both these factors are also related to religion and caste. For eg: we have seen enough political parties in India using religions as their weapons. Also, people are categorised into various varna or caste according to their occupation that directly relates to their economic status.
Annihilation of caste was originally supposed to be a speech that Ambedkar was to deliver at the conference organized by Jat Pat Todak Samaj. Founded in 1922, it was an Anti caste organization that pledged to be responsible for bringing about reforms by methods like Intercaste Dining, Intercaste marriages, etc. But on prior reception of this speech, members of Jat Pat Todak Samaj demanded certain changes which Ambedkar denied doing. And hence, he self-published this speech and tried bringing the reform.
In this profound work, Ambedkar rationally explains why annihilation of caste is necessary. He logically presents arguments and you will get agreed without a second thought. Ambedkar is, undoubtedly, a scholar and this work shows how intelligent, brave, and the reasoned person he was.
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.