Gandhi and the Caste System

Gandhi's Campaign Against Untouchability

Gandhi declared untouchability to be Hinduism's greatest sin. He renamed untouchables 'Harijans,' meaning 'children of God,' and made the abolition of untouchability a central plank of his social reform program. He admitted Dalits to his ashrams, cleaned latrines himself to demonstrate that no work was beneath anyone, and undertook fasts to pressure Hindu society into opening temples to untouchables.

In 1932, when the British government proposed separate electorates for untouchables under the Communal Award, Gandhi launched a fast unto death in Yerwada Jail. He argued that separate electorates would permanently divide Hindu society and weaken the independence movement. The fast pressured B.R. Ambedkar, the untouchable leader, into signing the Poona Pact, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats within joint Hindu electorates. Gandhi nearly died during this fast and called off the action only after the pact was signed.

The Varna Distinction

Gandhi distinguished between varna, the four broad occupational categories described in Hindu scripture, and the rigid hierarchical caste system as practiced in India. He argued that the original varna system was a division of labor, not a hierarchy of worth, and that it had been corrupted over centuries into an instrument of oppression. He opposed untouchability categorically but defended an idealized version of varna as late as the 1930s, arguing that hereditary occupational roles promoted social harmony.

This position was deeply conservative by the standards of his own time. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule, and other Dalit intellectuals rejected varna entirely, arguing that it was inseparable from caste hierarchy and that any defense of hereditary occupational categories was a defense of inequality. Gandhi's position evolved somewhat over his lifetime. By the 1940s, he spoke less about varna and more about the ideal of each person choosing their own occupation. But he never made the full break with varna that Ambedkar demanded.

A Contested Legacy

Contemporary Dalit scholarship offers a sharp reassessment of Gandhi's role. Scholars like Arundhati Roy, in her introduction to Ambedkar's 'Annihilation of Caste,' argue that Gandhi's opposition to untouchability was real but limited. He wanted to reform Hinduism from within, preserving its social structure while removing its most extreme abuses. Ambedkar wanted to dismantle the structure entirely.

The Poona Pact remains particularly controversial. Dalit scholars argue that Gandhi's fast effectively blackmailed Ambedkar into surrendering separate electorates, which would have given Dalits independent political power. Instead, reserved seats within joint electorates made Dalit politicians dependent on upper-caste voters, limiting their ability to advocate for radical change. From this perspective, Gandhi's opposition to untouchability served the unity of the Hindu nationalist project more than it served Dalit liberation.

This debate is not merely historical. In modern India, the question of whether caste can be reformed or must be abolished remains politically explosive. Gandhi and Ambedkar represent two fundamentally different answers, and both continue to shape Indian politics today.