Caste and Untouchability in Jawaharlal Nehru’s Literary Masterpieces

Abstract

As one of the major pillars of Indian social structure, the caste system distinguishes Indian culture from all other cultures of the world. Though the Constitution of India assures equality of status and opportunity for all citizens and various academic and political discourses also appealed for the complete eradication of the caste system, it has not been eradicated even after five decades of democracy. In this context, it becomes really interesting to re-examine the views on caste as reflected in Jawaharlal Nehru’s prose writings. Nehru’s major prose works unquestionably delineate his concern for caste. Focusing mainly on An Autobiography and the Discovery of India, this article seeks to examine the different representations of caste in his prose works and will also try to locate the gaps and the shifts underlying his views on caste.

Introduction

The caste system is a unique feature of Indian society that effectively conjoins the past and present of India. In contemporary Indian socio-polity, caste continues to enjoy the same focus that it used to receive in Ancient times. Indian politics, since its inception, has been influenced by the decisive role played by caste manoeuvrings and movements. ‘Caste consciousness’, despite the desperate attempts of the post-independent Indian intelligentsia to view it as a major obstacle in the path of the country’s progress, has continued to aggravate in the ‘democratic politics’ of India (Shah, 2005, p. 28). If caste has been influential in shaping the democratic politics of India, then the latter is equally instrumental in modifying modern India’s understanding of the traditional caste system. Such was the overriding influence of caste that even political leaders, since the time of independence, could not escape from its controversial grip. The famous debate on caste between Gandhi and Ambedkar is well known to any citizen of India. Jawaharlal Nehru, the man who completes the triumvirate, was not an exception. He, too, could not avoid the clutches of caste. Significantly, while volumes have been written on Ambedkar and Gandhi’s perception of caste, Nehru’s discourse on caste continues to be less explored.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s engagement with the questions of caste deserved more attention. He was one of the principal architects of Modern India, who got the rare chance to execute his vision into a reality. As an erudite scholar, a prolific writer and an astute politician, Nehru epitomized the voice and vision of newly independent India. India, for Nehru, was to be a democratic country providing equal opportunities for every citizen. However, the perilous politics of caste became a major stumbling block to the realization of his vision. Volumes have been written on Nehru’s contribution to national and international power-politics and on his socio-political insights as reflected in his writings. But very few of them have focused exclusively on Nehru’s preoccupation with caste. In this context, it is worth mentioning that many critics have dealt with the issue of caste and Nehru and have analysed how Nehru coped with the problem of caste. Shayok Chakraborty has examined the efforts of Prime Minister Nehru to eradicate caste oppression ‘through his state-led’ model of developmentalism and has analysed the probable reasons of failure of Nehruvian socialism to destroy the perils of caste (Chakraborty, 2017, p. 2). Alok Prasad, who has surveyed Nehru’s views on ‘historicity, relevance (or irrelevance), and dysfunctions of caste system and caste-based social exclusion’, has argued that ‘Nehru was neither blind to caste-based social exclusion or nor underplayed its dysfunctional impact on India’s modernization project’ (Prasad, 2016, p. 39). Mukhtiyar Singh has made a comparative study of the thoughts of Nehru and Ambedkar on caste, economy and socialism and has highlighted the similarities and differences of opinions between the two political leaders on the issue of caste. It is important to note that all the above-mentioned works have addressed the question of caste and Nehru from a broader perspective, taking into consideration the various policies adopted by the first prime minister for the alleviation of the problem of caste oppression. In contrast to the above-mentioned articles, this paper makes a modest attempt to study Nehru’s views on caste and untouchability as reflected in his prose writings, especially his two great masterpieces—An Autobiography and The Discovery of India. This article is primarily concerned with Nehru, the writer and seeks to make a text-based analysis of Nehru’s understanding of caste and caste-based oppression. Moreover, the article seeks to examine and explore the opinions and views, of the writer Nehru, which might have influenced the decisions of Prime Minister Nehru. The paper seeks to argue that despite the conviction of Nehru to have an egalitarian state assuring equal opportunities and status for all; his writings reflect a different perspective and convey a different message: the marginalization of the untouchables. Finally, the paper seeks to find out the probable reasons for this marginalization.

The Caste System and Indian Politics During the Colonial Era

Before delving deep into a discussion of the text-based representation of the Nehruvian perception of the caste system and untouchability, it is important to make a detailed analysis of the caste system and to briefly conceptualize certain terminologies. Caste, with its enigmatic and alluring presence, is exclusively and uniquely an Indian phenomenon. Etymologically, the word ‘caste’ is derived from the Portuguese term ‘casta’ meaning lineage or breed. The word was first used by the Portuguese to suggest the social order of India. Following the Portuguese interpretation, caste may be considered as a hierarchically stratified system consisting of ‘a series of hereditary groups or jatis’ (Chakravarti, 2006, p. 10). Any attempt to provide a precise definition of caste ‘is bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomenon’ (Ghurye, 2005, p. 38). It may be better analysed through a description of the features underlying the system. Traditionally a caste-based society is a hierarchically segmented social group in which the membership is determined ‘not by selection but by birth’ (Ghurye, 2005, p. 39). The caste structure is endogamous; it restrains its members from feeding and mingling with the members of other castes. It prohibits the free choice of occupation and prevents individuals from climbing the ladder of the caste hierarchy. The roots of the caste system can be traced in the sacred books of India, especially, in a famous hymn of the Rig Veda. It sanctioned the existence of four exclusive caste groups or varnas—the Brahmin, the Rajanya or the warrior and the Vaishya and the Shudra (Thapar, 1966, p. 39). The untouchables or the outcastes were excluded from the four-fold of the varna system and were compelled to live a life of segregation, away from the settlements of the main castes and to perform menial jobs. The notion of purity and pollution makes the caste system more exclusive and rigid and is instrumental in maintaining the segregated nature of the caste system. However, in its initial years, the caste system was dynamic and encouraged mobility among the caste groups.

The two terms, Untouchables and Dalits, though often used interchangeably are not exact and one. The untouchables are ‘the subordinated sections of the Indian people’ […] ‘who had been historically disadvantaged’ in the system of caste (Jodhka, 2012, pp. 54, 55). They are forced to live a life of degradation and discrimination. Several others terms like the ‘Depressed Classes’, the Gandhian term ‘Harijan’, the Scheduled Castes are also used to address them. But the coinage of the term ‘Dalit’ by the untouchables was the first notable attempt made by them to assert their distinctive identity. They coined the term Dalit to replace the stereotypical terms like ‘Ati-Shudra’, ‘outcastes’, ‘untouchables’, ‘depressed class’ and so on. The term Dalit, meaning ‘crushed’, ‘broken’ or ‘torn-asunder’ was first used by Jotirao Phule, to describe the conditions of the exploited untouchables (Kumar, 2019, p. 3). The term was popularized by Ambedkar.

After a prolonged journey of ups and downs, the caste system became an important political tool during the colonial period and henceforth it continued to be a major deciding factor in the development of Indian socio-politics. The introduction of Western education and several other reformative measures by the colonial rule gradually awakened the Dalits and they became aware of the discriminatory nature of the upper caste society. They questioned the policies of Congress, the leading nationalist party of the times that claimed to be a pan-Indian political representative. Being dissatisfied with the silence of Brahman-dominated Congress on ‘socially sensitive issues’, the Dalits started celebrating their lower caste, untouchable identity (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 353). The Dalit groups organized themselves and launched several caste movements in the different parts of India. Leaders like Jotirao Phule, Ramaswamy Naicker and B. R. Ambedkar were instrumental in launching and giving momentum to these caste movements. They demanded reservation in education, employment and legislature and it was patronized by the colonial rulers by the policy of ‘protective discrimination’ (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 352). Consequently, the untouchables moved closer to the imperial masters and detached themselves from the Congress and its political programmes. They became glaringly anti-Congress in their stance. The gradual emergence of the untouchables as a politically conscious collective group compelled Congress to consider them. Gandhiji emerged as the saviour of the backward classes and dealt with the problems of untouchability. He desperately tried to tackle the evil by making it ‘an issue of public concern’ (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 353). The untouchables, however, were not content with the initiatives taken by Gandhi and articulated that political and economic independence would naturally empower them to enjoy social and religious dignities (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 354). Ambedkar, the most vocal of the Dalit leaders, made strenuous efforts to organize the under-privileged Depressed Class. He challenged the programmes adopted by Gandhi and Congress for the abolition of untouchability. Ambedkar argued that Congress and Gandhi aimed to prevent the organization of the untouchables as an active vocal forum. They desperately tried to oppose the self-reliant, independent nature of the untouchables during the First Round Table Conference. He claimed that the Dalits can obtain emancipation only through political power. He founded the All India Depressed Class Congress in 1930 to champion this cause. He rejected the Gandhian view of ‘uplift’ for the Dalits and claimed separate electorate for their ‘adequate representation’ and emphasized ‘the necessity of protecting their civil rights’ (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 354; Banerjee-Dube, 2015, p. 358). The Dalit leaders especially Ambedkar believed that the Round Table Conference ‘was an event of great significance’ for the Depressed Classes (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 61). The untouchables for the first time separately represented themselves in any conference and demanded necessary safeguards for their protection. Significantly, Congress was never in favour of recognizing the untouchables as a separate entity. On the contrary, Congress argued, that this demand of the Depressed Classes will be bifurcating the Hindu community. Gandhiji, the sole representative of the Congress, in the Conference, staunchly opposed the classification of the untouchables as a separate class and made it clear that the Congress represents the ‘mass of the untouchables’ and that separate electorates and separate reservation cannot be a solution for the removal of the evil practice of discrimination (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 96). Gandhiji’s opposition destroyed all hopes of the untouchables and the attempt of the minorities Committee to solve the communal problem failed miserably. Ultimately, the then British Prime Minister, Ramsay Mac Donald offered a solution by declaring the Communal Award on 17th August 1932. Gandhi and other Congress leaders firmly opposed it and considered it to be a ‘colonial ploy to divide India’ (Banerjee-Dube, 2015, p. 360). The Communal Award of 1932, by the British Government, ultimately granted this demand of Ambedkar, by allotting separate electorates for the depressed classes. But under Gandhi’s pressure, who ‘embarked on his epic fast unto death’, Ambedkar was compelled to agree on a ‘compromise constitutional package’, the Poona Pact of 1932 which allotted a fixed number of seats (148 seats) to the backward classes in the joint electorate (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 355; Bayly, 2002, p. 262). Secularist leaders like Nehru, who refused to regard ‘caste as a political problem’, were completely at odds with both Gandhi and Ambedkar (Bayly, 2002, p. 260). Nehru thought that this movement and Gandhiji’s activities diverted the ‘country’s attention’ to ‘other issues’ than the fight for independence (Nehru, 2004, p. 388).

Nehru’s Observations on the Caste System and its Significance

Even though Nehru’s Autobiography has never addressed the question of caste explicitly, there are innumerable implicit references to the caste system within the text, which, however, provide an insight into his perspective on caste. An Autobiography informs the readers that the Nehrus were Kashmiri Brahmin Pandits, who had minimum regard for the religious rituals and customs. Motilal, Jawaharlal’s father, had a strong dislike for ‘many old social customs’ like caste but his mother, Swarup Rani and the other women folk of the family were deeply religious (Nehru, 2004, p. 26). The women folk ‘indulged in various ceremonies and pujas’ and Jawahar often accompanied them (2004, p. 9). These practices, however, had little impact on his mind. Jawahar, in matters of religion, was an avowed agnostic and was never attracted towards ‘the outward ways of religion’ (2004, p. 79). Motilal’s refusal, to perform the ‘purification ceremony’ after his return from Europe, resulted in his excommunication by the upper-caste members of Allahabad (Nehru, 2004, p. 14). The Nehrus, however, were scornful of these ceremonious rituals and the practice of ostracism. They had always attempted to transcend the barriers of caste and religion. Significantly, not only the Nehrus but also the entire community of Kashmiri Brahmins had negated the barriers of social exclusion:

Large numbers of Kashmiri young men and girls have visited Europe or America for their studies and no question has arisen of their performing any ceremonies on their return. Food restrictions have almost entirely gone, …, […], and inter-dining with non-Kashmiris, Muslims and non-Indians is common. (Nehru, 2004, p. 14)

Jawaharlal Nehru himself abhorred the inequities of caste. But Nehru, despite his abhorrence and disregard for the oppression and injustices of caste, could not completely discard his consciousness of caste:

A Brahman I was born, and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in regard to religion or social custom. (Nehru, 2004, p. 126)

He was aware that despite his earnest yearning to move beyond his ‘past inheritance’, he continued to be imprisoned by the fetters of his caste origin and status: ‘… behind me lie; somewhere in the subconscious, racial memories of a hundred, […], generations of Brahmans. I cannot get rid of … that past inheritance’ (Nehru, 2004, p. 616–617). Nehru’s consciousness of his ‘past inheritance’ and superior racial identity was revealed in his objection to intermarriages (2004, p. 617):

The objection to intermarriage with others is not based on religion; it is largely racial. There is a desire among many Kashmiris to preserve our group identity and our distinctive Aryan features, and a fear that we shall lose these in the sea of Indian and non-Indian humanity. (Nehru, 2004, p. 15)

The above statement highlights Nehru’s desire to maintain and preserve his ‘group identity and … distinctive Aryan features’ (2004, p. 15). Nehru’s critics have also underscored the former’s consciousness of caste origin. Michael Brecher had commented:

Nehru detests the waste and inequities of the caste system but he cannot escape the indelible mark of his caste origin. He remains a Brahmin with everything that this status connotes. (Brecher, 2011, p. 2)

Probably, this awareness of Brahmin status was reflected in his responses to contemporary caste-centric politics. Just like an Autobiography, Nehru’s The Discovery of India also depicts his thoughts on caste.

Almost everyone who knows anything at all about India has heard of the caste system. (Nehru, 1990, p. 245)

The above statement neatly delineates Nehru’s thoughts about this age-old institution of India. For Nehru, caste, which originated as an attempt to negotiate between the conqueror Aryans and the conquered Dravidians, became synonymous with the identity of India (Tashneem, 2019, p. 115). He articulated that caste was not a forceful imposition on the conquered race, but a ‘peaceful solution’ to maintain the supremacy of the conqueror (Nehru, 1990, p. 85). Caste, according to Nehru, was one of the major pillars of the Indian social structure that ensured social security and stability (Nehru, 1990, p. 144). Caste has been defined by him as ‘a group system based on services and functions’, which was ‘all-inclusive’ in nature and permitted ‘fullest latitude to each group’ (1990, p. 252, qtd. in Tashneem, 2019, p. 115). Nehru contended that the fold of caste tolerated all forms of ‘customs, beliefs, and practices’ and required no submission of the minority to a majority (1990, p. 252). He argued that the disruption of the old Indian social structure without a proper alternative ‘would be folly’ as it upholds the ‘philosophical ideal of Indian culture’ (Nehru, 1990, pp. 247, 256). Nehru described the four main castes and even defined the depressed classes and the untouchables (Tashneem, 2019, p. 114). The untouchables, for Nehru, were the small group of people employed in the work of ‘scavenging’ (Nehru, 1990, p. 254). He asserted that the involvement of the untouchables in unclean work resulted in their discrimination. It is significant to note that these unclean works are described by Nehru as an ‘essential work’ (1990, p. 254). He had repeatedly highlighted the autonomous group-centric nature of caste which was instrumental in generating a ‘common national bond’ (1990, p. 251). He, however, proclaimed that the group-centric nature and the communal tendency of caste promoted collectivism at the cost of individualism (1990, p. 144). Nehru reiterated that caste was a dynamic system continuously absorbing and assimilating newcomers and foreign elements (Tashneem, 2019, p. 114). He pointed out that rigidity and ‘the spirit of exclusiveness’ gradually crept in the system of caste and led to the development of separatism and ‘narrow’ and ‘parochial outlook’ (Nehru, 1990, p. 226). Nehru, however, proclaimed that the ramifications are partially true and they fail to explain the ‘power and cohesiveness’ of the system of caste (1990, p. 246). He had indicated the merits of the caste system. Nehru regarded it to be an ‘integral part’ of ‘social organization’ that had survived the onslaughts of the innumerable foreign invaders. He observed that:

It survived not only the powerful impact of Buddhism and many centuries of Afghan and Mughal rule and the spread of Islam, but also the strenuous efforts of innumerable Hindu reformers who raised their voice against it. (1990, p. 246)

It is important to note that Nehru’s contention, on the power of tolerance of the caste system, was similar to Vivekananda’s statement on the power of endurance of the caste system. Vivekananda, according to Singh, was ‘not sympathetic towards those social reformers who try to do away with the caste system’ (Singh, 2018, p. 3). Vivekananda has also emphasized the enormous power of endurance of the caste system (Singh, 2018, p. 3). Vivekananda, however, as aptly pointed out by Nehru, was critical of the ‘meaningless metaphysical discussions and arguments about ceremonials and especially the touch-me-notism of the upper caste’ (1990, p. 337). Nehru, further, stated that a caste-based society functioned ‘harmoniously’ and connected all the ‘groups’ by the ‘sense of a common culture, common traditions, common heroes and saints…’ (Nehru, 1990, p. 251, qtd. in Tashneem, 2019, p. 115). He was even apprehensive that presently the system is under serious threat and the ‘break-up of a huge and long standing social organization may well lead to a complete disruption of social life…’ (Nehru, 1990, p. 247, qtd. in Tashneem, 2019, p. 115).

Nehru, however, was trenchantly critical of the growth of exclusiveness and rigidity in the caste system (Tashneem, 2019, p. 116). He opined that the caste system failed ‘to challenge the established order’ and confined ‘success and achievements’ to the upper castes by denying all opportunities to the lower castes (Nehru, 1990, p. 257). He was well aware of the fact that in contemporary society ‘the caste system’ and its ancillaries are reactionary, and restrictive, hindering progress (1990, p. 257). Nehru asserted that caste became ‘stationary, unprogressive and, later, inevitably regressive’ (1990, p. 226). Nehru’s abhorrence of the system is discernible in his reflection that it ‘degraded a mass of human beings and gave them no opportunities to get out of that condition’ (1990, p. 257, qtd. in Tashneem, 2019, p. 116). He had continuously reiterated the fact that caste is the ‘embodiment of exclusiveness’ and had oppressed and suppressed certain groups (Nehru, 1990, p. 520). Exclusiveness imprisoned India, stunted its growth and has ‘narrowed’ its ‘sphere of action’ (1990, p. 520). Nehru argued that the caste system contained the ‘seeds of destruction’ (1990, p. 226). Moreover, it curbed the ‘spirit of innovation’ and the urge for experimentation (1990, p. 226). Nehru contended that initially caste was flexible and dynamic but gradually it became a symbol of rigidity. Nehru proclaimed that the modern period ‘is in favour of equality’ and caste ‘has no place left in it’ (1990, pp. 521, 520). He articulated that India must strive towards equality and move in ‘the direction of democratically planned collectivism’ (1990, p. 522).

Reading Across Nehru, Gandhi and Ambedkar

In this connection, it would be intriguing to make a comparative study of Nehru’s insights on caste with the perception of Gandhi and Ambedkar. The problem of untouchability was a matter of major concern for Gandhiji, who claimed himself to be the ‘true leader of the untouchables’ […] ‘by … his experience of living among the untouchables and his public identification with their plight’ (Banerjee-Dube, 2015, p. 360). Gandhiji argued that the ‘excrescence of “untouchability” could be removed and an ideal scheme of cooperating castes (varna) reinstituted’ (Barua, 2019, p. 33). The untouchables, Gandhi believed, required ‘protection from religious and social persecution’ (Banerjee-Dube, 2015, p. 360). He contended that the ‘amelioration’ of the problem of untouchability ‘lay only in the hands of the caste Hindus’ and it is the latter’s responsibility to educate and ‘instil habits of cleanliness’ in the untouchables (Banerjee-Dube, 2015, p. 363; Bayly, 2002, p. 250). Gandhi’s temple entry movement and travel campaign to uplift the untouchables became a major programme of the Indian national movement. Ambedkar, however, was quite at odds with Gandhiji’s approach to the problem of untouchability. He rebelled against the idea of ‘chaturvarnya’ and termed the Hindu society as a ‘collection of castes’ (Ambedkar, 2015, pp. 265, 242). For Ambedkar, the notion of chaturvarnya was ‘the very foundation of the caste system and untouchability’ (Barua, 2019, p. 28). He called for the complete abolition of caste through inter-dining and intermarriage and a dismantling of the ‘sacredness and divinity with which caste has become invested’ (Ambedkar, 2015, p. 289). Ambedkar advocated the replacement of a caste-based society with that of an ideal ‘society based on liberty, equality and fraternity’ (Ambedkar, 2015, p. 260). In contrast to Gandhi’s ‘religious approach’ and Ambedkar’s ‘political solution’ to the problem of untouchability, Nehru’s perspective reflected an attempt to maintain a balanced stance (Bandyopadhyay, 2004, p. 354). Nehru, instead of edging on the extremes, methodically, discussed the merits and demerits of the caste system and underscored the significance of caste in providing a foundation for early Indian society. His views on caste, however, denote his vacillation over the importance of caste in modern Indian society. Nehru, despite his deep regard for the power and cohesiveness of this old Indian social structure, never shunned away from expressing his abhorrence and distaste for the exclusiveness and rigidity that crept into the system. He sought a rational solution to this predicament: the modern period ‘is in favour of equality’ (1990, p. 521). Nehru neither supported Ambedkar’s view of Indian society as a conglomeration of castes nor did he accept the Gandhian approach of attaching religion with politics. However, it is significant to note that Nehru had never been as vocal as Gandhi and Ambedkar in matters relating to caste. He had never dealt at length on this issue. Nehru was enamoured by the idea of India and caste came as a reference in his discussion and depiction of India and its culture and tradition. Consequently, caste and caste oppression never found a special focus in his writings.

Impact of the Views of Nehru, the Author, on the Policies of Nehru the Prime Minister

Nehru, the visionary, envisaged free India in his writings. He, in his literary works, especially in the Discovery of India, had spoken about ‘an unascertained future’ plan for the upcoming nation-state called India (Nehru, 1990, p. 395). The Discovery of India, thus, gave him the platform to ‘prepare the ground for real effective future planning’ (p. 396). The aim of the plan, according to Nehru was to ‘ensure an adequate standard of living for the masses’ and to eradicate the ‘appalling poverty of the people’ (p. 397). Consequently, the schemes, adopted by the first prime minister, under the state-led model of developmentalism, were the execution of the plans enlisted in the Discovery:

‘…a comprehensive scheme of national planning should be formulated. This scheme should provide for the development of heavy key industries, medium scale industries, and cottage industries…’. But no planning could possibly ignore agriculture, […]; equally important were the social services. (Nehru, 1990, p. 396)

He was aware of the fact that contemporary society requires an egalitarian organization that would be democratic and would be celebrating the pluralist tendency of India. In his determination to eliminate injustice, Nehru suggested the provision of ‘equal opportunities for all’ and especially the untouchables (1990, p. 521). Accordingly, the efforts of the first prime minister of India to tackle the evil of caste oppression reveal the formulation of innumerable legislative policies. The adoption of reservation policies in the educational, economic and political realm is a materialization of the vision that Nehru had in his Discovery of India. He articulated:

In India … we must aim at equality […] it does mean equal opportunities for all and no political, economic, or social barrier in the way of any individual or group. (1990, p. 521)

However, Nehru’s vision had several inadequacies and weaknesses. Instead of alleviating the pangs of the Dalits, the various policies were instrumental in aggravating their pains. It widened the split between the caste Hindus and the Dalits, with the former considering the latter as incompetent and undeserving of the privileges reserved for them. Following Tharoor, it may be articulated that ‘despite these constitutional protections, inequalities persist between the upper castes and the former “untouchables”’ (2018, p. 225).

Moreover, Nehru had spoken about economic and political empowerment of the Dalits in The Discovery of India. He contended that:

[N]ot only must equal opportunities be given to all, but special opportunities for educational, economic and cultural growth must be given to backward groups so as to enable them to catch up to those who are ahead of them. (1990, p. 521)

But he neither had offered a specific programme for ensuring their access to these policies nor had he provided any concrete solution for the abolition of caste. Nehru failed to foresee that economic and educational empowerment will not be functional in imparting social empowerment and abolishing ‘caste from the social matrix of modern India’ (Tharoor, 2018, p. 224). Actual social empowerment is impossible without the change in the mindset of pro-caste system, anti-Dalit people and the ‘Depressed Classes will have to face the whole force of orthodox society if they try to exercise the equal rights of citizenship’ (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 64). That is why contrary to Nehru’s vision, caste in contemporary India ‘has not merely survived and thrived, but has become an instrument for political mobilization’ (Tharoor, 2018, p. 224). Furthermore, it is significant to note that Nehru had tried to homogenize the untouchables with the rest of the underprivileged, ‘backward groups’ of the society (Nehru, 1990, p. 521). He, instead of mentioning them as a separate community of society, had considered them as a part of the ‘backward groups’ who required special opportunities. This tendency of the Congress and Nehru to recognize the untouchables as an integral part of the Hindu community was challenged by Ambedkar. The latter argued ‘that the Untouchables were a separate element in the national life of India’ and they should be the initiators of their liberation and upliftment (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 229). Consequently, they demanded political safeguards and separate electorates and reservations for their representation. The reservations should be used to ventilate their grievances. As mentioned earlier, this demand led to a heated argument between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ultimately the former was forced to surrender and sign the famous Poona Pact of 1932. It should, however, be remembered that Nehru, who was always in favour of a pluralist India, could not accept the promotion of group identities and sectarian prejudices based on the principles of caste, creed and religion. He was a champion of pragmatism and rationalism and had a firm ‘faith in humanity’: ‘Humanity is its god and social service its religion’ (Nehru, 1990, p. 557).

The ‘untouchable Other’ and Nehru’s Literary Masterpieces

Nehru, nevertheless, had been very sympathetic and compassionate towards the victims of caste oppression. He had repeatedly condemned the exclusivity and discrimination in the practice of untouchability. He had located the ‘seeds of destruction’ in the caste system. But a deeper delve into his masterpieces reveal that Nehru, to use Limbale’s terms, quite unconsciously, tried to ‘confine’ the ‘untouchable Other’ […] ‘within a discourse marked by “sympathy” and “compassion”’ (2018, p. 5). His discourse does not articulate the registers of protest made by the Dalits. Dalit politics and the Dalit point of view ‘were almost completely ignored’ by him (Nehru, 2004, p. 53). Both, an Autobiography and the Discovery of India do not make proper ventilation of the trials and tribulations of the untouchables. Nehru had spoken about the degradation ‘of a mass of human beings’ by caste oppression but had not narrated a single episode of degradation (1990, p. 257). His literary works do not articulate the ‘details of violence’ inflicted on the Dalits, and the ‘processes of labour and resistance’ of the Dalits (qtd. in Rege, 2006, p. 13). In his coverage of Indian history, Nehru virtually leaves out the untouchables and their agitation. In stark contrast, his description of the agrarian upheaval in Oudh was more detailed and elaborate:

… I resumed my visits to the villages and watched the agrarian movement grow in strength. The down-trodden kisan began to gain a new confidence in himself and walked straighter with head up. His fear of the landlords’ agents and the police lessened, and when there was an ejectment from a holding no other kisan would make an offer for that land. (Nehru, 2004, p. 62–63)

A possible reason for his silence on the untouchable movement was that the untouchables were still marginal to the mainstream history and therefore they were neglected. An Autobiography, which, according to Nehru, ‘deals with a period of our national struggle’ and makes innumerable references to our ‘internal politics and personalities’, does not portray a single chapter of the numerous caste centric incidents and movements that had influenced the contemporary Indian politics (Nehru, 2004: Preface to the 1962 Ed., Preface to the First Ed.). In Nehru’s world of imagination, the voice of the Dalits have been silenced and they ‘exist literally on the periphery’ (Limbale, 2018, p. 2). In his Autobiography, Nehru had made an elaborate observation on the Round Table Conference and its consequences. In this context, it is worthwhile to remember that the Round Table Conference, where the Depressed Class separately represented themselves for the first time, was ‘an event of great significance’ for them (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 61). But Nehru had not referred to the participation of the untouchables in his narration of the Conference:

It was all jobbery-… jobs and seats for the Hindus, for the Muslims, for the Sikhs, for the Anglo-Indians, for the Europeans …. (Nehru, 2004, p. 306)

Nehru had condemned the representatives of the Conference, who, he believed ‘opposed our (the Congress) struggle’ and worked for ‘vested interests’ (Nehru, 2004, p. 254). It is important to note that Nehru had mentioned most of the communities that represented themselves in the Conference, except the untouchables. Moreover, Nehru, in his Autobiography, had referred to the incident of granting separate electorates to the untouchables but he had not used a single word to analyse the context that led to the grant of separate electorates:

Our peaceful and monotonous routine in gaol was suddenly upset in the middle of September 1932 by a bombshell. News came that Gandhiji had decided to ‘fast unto death’ in disapproval of the separate electorates given by Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award to the Depressed Classes. (Nehru, 2004, p. 386)

Nehru had not given any detailed information about the Depressed Classes and the causes that compelled them to demand separate electorates. Nehru, rather, was very displeased with Gandhiji’s approach to the problem of untouchability: ‘I felt angry with him (Gandhi) at his religious and sentimental approach to a political question…’ (Nehru, 2004, p. 386). The Poona Pact, which brought some sort of settlement to the electoral issue, relieved Nehru, as it ended the fast of Gandhiji. Noticeably, he kept silent on the issue and had not delineated the details of the Pact, neither the signatories nor the terms and clauses that modified the Communal Award (Nehru, 2004, p. 388). Nehru, however, was not happy with the upsurge of the Harijan movement and Gandhiji’s involvement in it. He was extremely annoyed by this decision:

… I was not very happy about it. There was no doubt that a tremendous push had been given to the movement to end untouchability and raise the unhappy depressed classes, not so much by the pact as by the crusading enthusiasm created all over the country… the country’s attention had been diverted to other issues … (Nehru, 2004, p. 388)

Similarly, Nehru, in The Discovery of India, maintained an eerie silence on contemporary caste politics and ensuing caste movements. Nehru was aware of the various caste movements of his times but he felt that these movements hardly had any impact on the social fabric of India (Nehru, 1990, p. 121). He, rather, believed that Gandhiji tackled the problem of untouchability in a better manner and appealed to the masses. Not only that, Nehru maintained an ‘astonishing silence’ in his representation of the Dalit leaders who were vocal about Dalit rights (Srivastava, 1993, p. 3). Naturally, Ambedkar and other Dalit leaders do not find a place in any of Nehru’s masterpieces. Nehru, to quote Limbale, was just like ‘the upper caste Hindus’ who achieved in his ‘literature … a complete silencing, if not erasure, of the untouchable Other…’ (2018, p. 4). Mukhtiyar Singh has also rightly pointed out that ‘Dr. Ambedkar wrote a lot about untouchability and opposed it with his entire might but Nehru did not have a word to say on it’ (Singh, 2019, p. 4).

Literary Works and its Context of Publication

Nehru’s thoughts on caste and the untouchables seemed to be coloured by his upper-caste identity. A deeper probe, however, reveals that other valid factors also played a vital role in shaping his responses. One must take into consideration the time and context of the publication of his seminal works. Both the works were composed in prison and were published during the ‘period of heightened activity in the anti-colonial movement’ (Thapar, 2016, p. 436). The prime preoccupation of leaders like Nehru and others was to achieve political freedom and purna swaraj. Nehru, in his Autobiography, had repeatedly emphasized that their main objective was to gain political independence:

[T]here should be no doubt about the objective of political independence. This should be clearly understood as the only possible political goal for us […]. Then there was the social goal. (Nehru, 2004, p. 175)

He believed that the inequalities of caste will be obliterated by the achievement of political freedom. Nehru, thus, perfectly fits into the group of nationalist leaders, who, according to Nicholas Dirks, believed that a ‘preoccupation with caste reform would retard nationalist mobilization or give moral support to Britain’ (Dirks, 2006, p. 232). Nehru analysed the reasons for the inaction on the part of Congress for social reform (2004, p. 399):

[T]he real reason why the Congress and other non-official organizations cannot do much for social reform goes deeper. We suffer from the disease of nationalism, and that absorbs our attention and it will continue to do so till we get political freedom. (Nehru, 2004, p. 400)

A leader, like Nehru, who, ‘never faltered in his commitment to democracy’, thought that political independence would naturally ameliorate the social conditions but this freedom is to be achieved through serious struggles against the British imperial forces (Nanda, 1996, p.191):

I would add now that I do not think it is likely that real political freedom will come to us by itself. When it comes it will bring a large measure of social freedom also. (Nehru, 2004, p. 145)

Nehru asserted that the immediate duty of independent India was to combat poverty and raise ‘the standard of living of the Indian’ masses (Nanda, 1996, p. 193). He, who was captivated by the ideas of Fabian socialism, proclaimed that ‘poverty and subjection of the Indian people’ could be ended only ‘through socialism’ (Nanda, 1996, p. 186). Prosperity was to be attained through ‘hard work, increased productivity and equitable distribution’ (Nanda, 1996, p. 191). During the national movement leaders like Nehru encouraged the development of an Indian identity where separatist identities of caste, creed, region and religion would become irrelevant.

Nehru’s opinion, however, was challenged by Ambedkar. The latter argued:

It is wrong to say that the problem of the Untouchables is a social problem. […] Essentially, it is a problem of quite a different nature in as much as it is a problem of securing to a minority liberty and equality of opportunity at the hands of a hostile majority which believes in the denial of liberty and equal opportunity to the minority and conspires to enforce its policy on the minority. Viewed in this light, the problem of the Untouchables is fundamentally a political problem. (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 239)

Ambedkar voiced a different opinion. He believed that ‘equality between castes was an inalienable part of socialism’ (Singh, 2019, p. 4). He was trenchantly critical of the casteist mentality of Congress and Gandhi, who refused to consider ‘the problem of the Untouchables’ as a ‘political problem’ (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 239). Nehru, as a representative and an active member of Congress, supported the decision taken by his party. He believed that when ‘political freedom’ […] ‘comes it will bring a large measure of social freedom also’ (Nehru, 2004, p. 145). Ambedkar, however, contended that it was a ploy of the nationalist leaders to use the idea of political freedom as a tool to curtail the rising consciousness of the Dalits. He articulated that ‘Swaraj would make Hindus more powerful and Untouchables more helpless and … instead of putting an end to Untouchability, may extend its life’ (Ambedkar, 2018, p. 247).

Conclusion

The study of Nehru’s writings reveals that he recognized caste as a special feature of Indian society but criticized its politics of exclusion and rigidity. He had always been a critic of the sinister effect of caste and wanted to transcend the barriers of caste, creed and religion. Unlike Gandhi and Ambedkar, Nehru sought a rational solution to solve the problem of caste inequities. A visionary by nature, Nehru had a firm faith in future and envisioned a democratic India which encouraged egalitarianism. He believed that modern India has no place left for a society based on caste structures. Moreover, Nehru’s hesitancy to articulate the registers of protest made by the Dalits was nurtured by his obsession with the need for the political independence of India. His ‘primary concern’ was the national movement and ‘the imminent coming of an independent nation-state’ (Thapar, 2016, p. 451). Nehru, despite his silences, was concerned with the betterment of the suffering Indian masses in general and had continuously tried to alleviate their pain. Nevertheless, Nehru’s efforts to liberate the Dalits, though limited in scope, must be acknowledged and appreciated.