The Mahad Satyagraha, held in Mahad, Maharashtra, was an important milestone in the political life of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. On March 20, 1927, Ambedkar and his followers took out a procession to Chavdar Pond located in Mahad in Colaba district of Maharashtra. Those people were protesting against untouchability.
Thousands of untouchable people drank water from a public pond in Chavdar under the leadership of Ambedkar. First of all, Dr. Ambedkar drank water from Chavdar, and then following him, thousands of his followers drank water.
At that time, while addressing the people present there, Ambedkar had said, “Have we come here because we do not get water to drink? Have we come here because we are thirsty for the water that is called tasty here? Absolutely. No. We have come here so that we can express our right to be human beings.”
This was a symbolic protest that challenged the thousands-year-old upper caste and feudal power, which refused to grant even the same rights to the bottom rung of the social ladder that animals had.
It had widespread repercussions on other castes. The upper caste people took revenge for this and went to the untouchable colony and created a huge ruckus.
In his recently published biography of Ambedkar ‘A Part Apart: The Life and Thought of B.R. Ambedkar‘, Ashok Gopal writes, “The upper caste Hindus beat up children, old people and women badly.”
“There were also rumours that untouchable people were planning to enter the Veereshwar temple in the city. A day after this protest by Ambedkar, on March 21, 1927, Sanatani Hindus ‘purified’ the water of Chavdar Pond.”
Ambedkar had to be a victim of untouchability even in his childhood
Bhimrao Ambedkar’s father was in the army and was posted to Koregaon. He invited Bhimrao, his brother, and his sister’s children to Koregaon to meet him. However, the news of their arrival failed to reach him, so no one was at the station to pick them up.
The station master asked him who he was and where he wanted to go. As soon as he found out that they were all Mahars, he stood back in shock. With great difficulty, a bullock cart was called. During the conversation on the way, the bullock cart driver learned that they were all Mahars.
Savita Ambedkar, a social activist and the second wife of Babasaheb Ambedkar, writes in her book ‘Babasaheb: My Life With Dr Ambedkar’, “The bullock-cart driver immediately got them all down from the cart. By then, it was dark. When the children lured him to pay double the fare, he was ready to run.”
“His demand was that the children drive while he walked behind them. It was summer, and all the children were very thirsty, but they were not given any water on the way. They all reached their father’s house the next day in a very weak state.”
No one is ready to give a house on rent
Another incident happened with Baba Saheb Ambedkar in Baroda which shook him. After receiving education abroad, he got a job in the Baroda Secretariat in January 1913. To avoid touching them, the peons used to throw the files at them from a distance. No one was ready to give him his house on rent.
Savita Ambedkar writes – “Baba Saheb adopted the identity of a Parsi and started living in a Parsi hotel at a daily rent of one and a half rupees. On the 11th day, ten-twelve goons with sticks came and stood outside his room on the first floor.”
“He started abusing them for polluting the hotel. He left the hotel and took shelter at a Christian friend’s house, but there too, as soon as people knew about his caste, he had to leave that house and leave his job in Baroda overnight and come to Bombay.”
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar supported Mahad movement
Many such incidents changed Baba Saheb’s thinking towards caste. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had given unconditional support to Ambedkar’s Mahad Satyagraha.
Famous biographer Dhananjay Keer writes in Savarkar’s biography “Savarkar and His Times”, “At that time he had said that untouchability should not only be condemned, but now the time has come to root it out as a mandate of religion. It is not a question of policy or propriety, but issues of justice and service to humanity are also involved.”
“Savarkar declared that it is a sacred duty of every Hindu to protect the human rights of people who follow their religion. The concept of purifying oneself with the urine of an animal is far more ridiculous and condemnable than the concept of becoming impure from the touch of a human being.”
Difference in the thinking of Ambedkar and Savarkar
But despite this, Ambedkar was disappointed with Savarkar’s campaign of social reform.
Ashok Gopal, author of the recently published book ‘A Part Apart: The Life and Thought of B.R. Ambedkar’, says, “Dr. Ambedkar believed that if Savarkar wanted to achieve his goal of creating a Hindu nation, he would have to break down the barriers between the untouchables and the rest of Hindu society.”
After being released from prison in January 1924, Savarkar did some work in this direction because he was only allowed to do non-political work in the Ratnagiri district.
He also launched a campaign to allow untouchables to enter temples and for people of all castes to eat together.
By giving such examples, Savarkar’s biographer Dhananjay Keer has tried to show that Ambedkar and Savarkar were both working to reform Hindu society.
Ashok Gopal writes further, “Dhananjay Keer also mentioned the letter written by Ambedkar to Savarkar on February 18, 1933. This letter was written after a wealthy merchant in Ratnagiri built a Patit Pawan temple on Savarkar’s initiative. This temple allowed untouchables to worship. He invited Ambedkar to attend the inauguration ceremony of a similar temple.”
Ambedkar did not attend the event, citing his busy schedule, but he told Savarkar, “However, I would like to praise you for starting a campaign to work for social reforms on this occasion.”
Differences with Savarkar on Chaturvarna system
However, this is not the whole truth. An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of “Bahishkrit Bharat” states that Ambedkar had opposed the construction of the Patit Pawan temple from the very beginning. He believed that these temples would later be called temples for the untouchables.
In his articles published in “Kesari” from November 1930 to March 1931, Savarkar clarified that he opposed casteism, but was not opposed to the four-fold caste system. Ambedkar was aware of Savarkar’s views.
In a letter to Savarkar dated February 18, 1933, he wrote, “It is unfortunate that you still advocate the use of the word ‘Chaturvarna’, claiming that it is based on merit. However, I hope that in the coming times, you will have the courage to get rid of this unnecessary and mischievous jargon.”
Ashok Gopal writes that Savarkar did not show any intention of doing so, and after that, Ambedkar’s interest in reform efforts began to wane.
Support for brother Paramanand and then distance from him
But in the meantime, Ambedkar began to see the efforts of Brother Parmanand, a Hindutva Arya Samaji leader from Punjab, with hope. Like Savarkar, Parmanand was also imprisoned in the Andaman Jail for allegedly plotting to overthrow the British government in India by violent means.
After being released from the Andamans in 1920, Parmanand became the president of the “Jaat-Paat Todhak Mandal”. In 1927, he changed its name to the “Hindu Samayvad Mandal”.
Writing in the 16 September, 1927 issue of Bahishkrut Bharat, Ambedkar called the Mandal a healthy alternative to the Hindu Mahasabha.
Ashok Gopal believes that “Ambedkar was probably unaware that Bhai Parmanand renamed the Jat-Paat-Todakh Mandal to the Hindu Samajwadi Mandal because the Arya Samajis of Lahore were not comfortable with the name Jat-Paat-Todakh Mandal.
They wanted a name that would justify the caste system. Later, Ambedkar also lost interest in the Jat-Paat-Todakh Mandal.
In December 1935, the organisation invited Ambedkar to deliver the keynote address at their annual conference in Lahore. When Ambedkar sent a copy of his speech there, they asked him to make some changes to it, which Ambedkar refused.
After a long correspondence, they cancelled the conference. Ambedkar later published the speech in his book “Annihilation of Caste.”
A casteless society is more important than Swaraj
Dr. Ambedkar believed that it was necessary to create a casteless society in Hindu society before Swaraj. He wrote in one place, “There is no use of such Swaraj which you cannot defend. In my opinion, only when Hindu society becomes casteless will it have the strength to defend itself.”
At that time, organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha were also talking about making Hindu society stronger. Their formula for increasing the number of Hindus and reducing the number of Muslims was to purify those people whose ancestors had converted to Islam for some reason.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote in an issue of ‘Telugu Samachara’, “If Hindu society wants to survive, it should focus on increasing its unity instead of increasing its numbers. This simply means the eradication of caste. If Hindu society is organised by eradicating caste, there will be no need for purification.”
Difference between Hindutva of Ambedkar and Savarkar
Baba Saheb Ambedkar had said long ago, “We want the right to equality in society, and we want to take these rights by staying in the Hindu society as far as possible. If it is necessary, we will not hesitate to get rid of Hinduism. If we leave Hinduism, we will not have any interest in visiting temples.”
Ambedkar and Savarkar had different opinions on issues related to Hinduism. When Ambedkar had said that he would not hesitate to leave Hinduism, he had not clarified that he was thinking of adopting Buddhism.
On this subject, Savarkar wrote a detailed article in the November 3, 1935 issue of ‘Nirbhid’. Questioning Ambedkar’s desire to leave Hinduism, Savarkar wrote that “Hinduism also has some elements of irrationality, like every organised religion. But this kind of irrationality is also found in other religions.”
Savarkar appealed to Ambedkar to “use his intellectual knowledge and influence to try to reform Hinduism while remaining in it.”
“If you are troubled by untouchability, you should be patient for 10 years. During this time, this problem will be removed from the root.”
Ambedkar responded by saying that untouchability would still exist in Hindu society even after 100 years.
In September 1929, Ambedkar planned to travel to Savarkar’s hometown of Ratnagiri in connection with a lawsuit.
Savarkar invited him to give a speech at the Vitthal Temple on behalf of the city’s citizens.
Ambedkar agreed to do so. However, at the last minute, he received a telegram that made it necessary for him to travel to Bombay. He had to cancel his trip to Ratnagiri, and the city thus missed the opportunity to see Ambedkar and Savarkar sitting on the same platform.
Announcement of leaving Hinduism
Ambedkar had made it clear in a speech that he had no intention of remaining in the Hindu religion.
He said, “It is my misfortune that I was born with the stigma of being an untouchable Hindu, which was beyond my control. But even then, I can improve my condition by changing this humiliating situation. I have not the slightest doubt that I will be able to do so. Let me make it clear that I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu.”
The first comment on Ambedkar’s statement came from Mahatma Gandhi, who said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency, “Doctor Ambedkar’s statement is not believable.”
Hindu Mahasabha leader Balkrishna Moonje and Congress leader Dr. Rajendra Prasad said that conversion could have serious consequences.
Savarkar said that “untouchability will end within ten years and more than ten people in a million untouchables and a thousand Mahars will not follow Ambedkar in converting to religion.”
Savarkar argued that “no religion stands up to reason. If Ambedkar wants to promote reason, he should open a logical institution.”