You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.66 AVERAGE
4.66 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
fast-paced
informative
medium-paced
hopeful
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Dr. Ambedkar's language is so powerful and sophisticated, that I must admit I took my own time to read it carefully and try to grasp it as much as my tiny brain could handle. The concepts and the numerous eloquent points have made me question all my privileges and my barely-there beliefs in my religion. My parents are lucky I didn't get to this book ten years ago because they would not have liked its effects on me. This book is essential reading for everyone born into Hindu families.
dark
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
fast-paced
The book has two main parts and a smaller third part.
First part is written by Arundhati Roy and is actually a separate essay titled: The doctor and the saint. She starts her essay with the reality of caste today. From the types of crimes that are inflicted on the untouchables to their statistics. Everything is covered unflinchingly.
She then introduces a brief sketch on the life and thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Being critical of him, she juxtaposes it with her sketch of B.R. Ambedkar.
Second part is the actual AoC written by Ambedkar. He starts off his address (that is what this essay of his was supposed to be) by establishing a common ground, that of recognising the ills of caste system and the need to abolish it. He spends considerable space to make a point about it. Finally concluding with his proposed solution to abolish caste: abolishing the religious sanction to it. That is, denying the authority of the scriptures.
The 3rd and the final part is a correspondence between Gandhi, Ambedkar and the leader of Jat-Pat mandal. Some points are elaborated here.
First part is written by Arundhati Roy and is actually a separate essay titled: The doctor and the saint. She starts her essay with the reality of caste today. From the types of crimes that are inflicted on the untouchables to their statistics. Everything is covered unflinchingly.
She then introduces a brief sketch on the life and thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Being critical of him, she juxtaposes it with her sketch of B.R. Ambedkar.
Second part is the actual AoC written by Ambedkar. He starts off his address (that is what this essay of his was supposed to be) by establishing a common ground, that of recognising the ills of caste system and the need to abolish it. He spends considerable space to make a point about it. Finally concluding with his proposed solution to abolish caste: abolishing the religious sanction to it. That is, denying the authority of the scriptures.
The 3rd and the final part is a correspondence between Gandhi, Ambedkar and the leader of Jat-Pat mandal. Some points are elaborated here.
Ambedkar’s arguments make a clear indictment of the caste system, along with dissecting its spiritual base, and the many denials of its problematicness (i.e. “it’s a division of labor” or “every caste it’s treated with the same respect”) that are very much still around today. I was worried by the influences of Western liberalism coming across as out of touch, but Ambedkar incorporates Dewey and many others to ground in “the only constant is change”, counter hereditary/ancestral destiny, and lay out a case for a less divided society. I was especially impressed with his (implicit) analysis of power, which is the main backing to the claim of caste having a hierarchy. Another tidbit along the same lines is how he plays out the plight of a group who is stripped of knowledge, physical fighting, and other means of fighting for justice. Roy’s fiery intro puts the speech into perspective with issues that very much still alive today.
- 10 hr, edition w intro by Arundhati Roy and extensive contextual footnotes
- 10 hr, edition w intro by Arundhati Roy and extensive contextual footnotes
4. Apr. 2021
1. This review is for an annotated edition of The Annhilation of Caste, Gandhi's reply to it, Ambedkar's reply to that, as well as an additional reply to Gandhi from Sant Ram.
2. Ambedkar's speech, imo, is very long-winded and indirect. In his defense, I think he was trying his best to be as gentle as he possibly could on the feelings of the potential listeners, given his own experiences with Hinduism. But it twists and turns a lot, often into itself and I think is at times, deliberately confusing. None of that detract from the very valid points he's trying to make, even if he makes them with a considerable amount of vitriol.
3. Gandhi's reply is considerably better constructed, I think. Although his arguments are rooted in tradition and religion and don't as Ambedkar rightly points out in his reply, actually answer his considerations about the religion. I see in here two people who have had entirely different experiences trying to explain them to each other, with very limited success. Religion does that.
4. I like Sant Ram's letter best, although the annotations tell me that he was effectively mostly bark. Maybe it's just my preference for the middle ground? Idk.
5. I'm inclined to favor Ambedkar's view, purely because his statements paint the picture of a world where inequality is both holy and enforced. I hope we are better about it than we used to be- but I'm of only middling caste and only knew my caste when I had to filled it in my form at 16 so my view of the matter is decidedly uninformed. But then again, India is dredging up right wing nationalism and religious frevour and those things don't usually lead anywhere good. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
6. Oh, and I should probably read more Independence era documents. Reading the issues in question and the differing points of view involved was pretty interesting, if both a little saddening and a little terrifying, in how these are words and lives of people who actually lived in what seems like a very different world.
1. This review is for an annotated edition of The Annhilation of Caste, Gandhi's reply to it, Ambedkar's reply to that, as well as an additional reply to Gandhi from Sant Ram.
2. Ambedkar's speech, imo, is very long-winded and indirect. In his defense, I think he was trying his best to be as gentle as he possibly could on the feelings of the potential listeners, given his own experiences with Hinduism. But it twists and turns a lot, often into itself and I think is at times, deliberately confusing. None of that detract from the very valid points he's trying to make, even if he makes them with a considerable amount of vitriol.
3. Gandhi's reply is considerably better constructed, I think. Although his arguments are rooted in tradition and religion and don't as Ambedkar rightly points out in his reply, actually answer his considerations about the religion. I see in here two people who have had entirely different experiences trying to explain them to each other, with very limited success. Religion does that.
4. I like Sant Ram's letter best, although the annotations tell me that he was effectively mostly bark. Maybe it's just my preference for the middle ground? Idk.
5. I'm inclined to favor Ambedkar's view, purely because his statements paint the picture of a world where inequality is both holy and enforced. I hope we are better about it than we used to be- but I'm of only middling caste and only knew my caste when I had to filled it in my form at 16 so my view of the matter is decidedly uninformed. But then again, India is dredging up right wing nationalism and religious frevour and those things don't usually lead anywhere good. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
6. Oh, and I should probably read more Independence era documents. Reading the issues in question and the differing points of view involved was pretty interesting, if both a little saddening and a little terrifying, in how these are words and lives of people who actually lived in what seems like a very different world.
A powerful case for destroying caste by dismantling Hinduism