Gandhi’s views on caste premised on critique of capitalist modernity, says scholar

Akeel Bilgrami discusses Gandhi's evolving views on caste in relation to capitalist modernity and political liberalism.

Mahatma Gandhi’s views on caste could be understood only if they were premised around a critique of capitalist modernity, and they kept on changing over the decades of the freedom movement as well, Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, U.S., has said.

He was here on Wednesday (January 8) to deliver a talk on ‘Mahatma’s denial of caste: Unexplored areas in Gandhian thoughts’ in memory of ‘Kerala Gandhi’ K. Kelappan. It was organised by the Gandhi Peace Foundation, Kozhikode.

Mr. Bilgrami said that Gandhi had repeatedly and explicitly stated that he believed in caste, not as a form of hierarchy, but as reflected in the idea of ‘varna’. “He believed in caste because it represented a society’s heterogeneity, or a kind of cultural pluralism, where various types of people lived side by side with genuine differences. His view was that caste heterogeneity is the aspect of our cultural pluralism that reflects professional diversity,” he added.

Mr. Bilgrami also pointed out that Gandhi’s views on caste kept changing over the decades of the national movement. “From 1927, he began to say things similar to B.R. Ambedkar. In his essay in 1935, titled Caste must go, Gandhi spoke in resonance with Ambedkar’s idea of ‘annihilation of caste’,” he said. A major reason for the change in his views, apart from Ambedkar’s influence, was the British crown’s granting of constitutional concessions to the Indian people for increasing forms of self-rule through constitutional measures. Gandhi had to speak to the demands of the people and he had to change his views. 

“You cannot understand Gandhi’s views on caste unless you situate them in a critique of capitalist modernity and the forms of political liberalism that have accompanied capitalist economic formation. Gandhi recoiled from capitalism as much as Karl Marx did. It was not based on a critique of capital but on a critique of the effect of capital on the culture and mentality of people. He perhaps understood more deeply than Marx the effects it has on culture and people’s way of thinking,” Mr. Bilgrami added. U. Ramachandran and T. Balakrishnan, functionaries of the foundation, were present.