Conclusion:

It is possible to argue that Ambedkar and Gandhi played complementary roles in the fight
against Untouchability. While this may partly be true, it must not make us lose sight of
the serious implications of their fundamentally different approaches to the problems. We
shall briefly summarise these different approaches to the problem. We shall briefly
summarise these differences below.

To begin with, Gandhi may be seen as coming from the dominant sections of Hindu
society, while Ambedkar mainly represented the mahars (although he attempted, with
limited success, to moblilise Untouchables all over Inida) The former believed that a
change of heart on the part of the caste Hindus could revitalise Hinduism and permit the
development of a varna system where all sections would be equal. For Ambedkar,
however, Untouchability and Hinduism were inextricably interwoven.

Through calling Untouchables Harijan (children of God) Gandhi attempted to give them a
new self-respect. His efforts to change the heats of the caste Hindus did result in creating
acclimate of concern among at least some of them, particularly the educated sections.
During the crucial years of Ambedkar’s struggle to uplift the untouchables, this climate
probably helped to prevent a stiffening of caste Hindu attitudes against him.

For Ambedkar, equality did not a stop with all varnas being equal. In fact he harshly
criticised the caste-system and wanted Untouchables to have no part in it. When he
advocated equality, he referred to equality in the economic. Political and social spheres.
While Ambedkars dreams are still far frombeing realised, his contribution was realistic
and lasting. He was largely responsible for creating reserved positions for untouchables
in the civil service, legislatures and higher education. But moreimportantly, his major
contribution was to have emphsised the importance of action from below: that political
organisation was indispensable to securing justic and basic human rights.

The differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar still continue to haunt the various Dalit
movements and reformist Hindu organisations. For the reformist Hindu organisations
the big dilemma is to keep the Harijans within their fold without watering down Hindu
values and beliefs. This is not an easy task; for Harijans see lurking paternalism and
upper-caste biases even with in those organisation which have formally condemned
Untouchability. We have the Jatav Untouchables of Agra who quit the Arya Samaj
because of the above mentioned reasons.

Ambedkar was clear that, as Hindus, the Untouchables could not hope to be treated as
equals with the rest. He therefore advocated another identity through conversion to
Buddhism. This did help considerably in giving the Dalits (mainly in Maharashtra) a
new sense of purpose and militancy, although some people have stated that Buddhism as
a religion would end up dampening the militancy of the Dalits. However, many caste
Hindus persisted in seeing the neo-Buddhists as Untouchables.

The Dalit movements which have not embraced Buddhism are busy securing social,
economic and political gains for teir members. Some of the non-Buddhist Dalit leaders
have been influenced by Marxixm and Secularism. They do not see the religious
question as being of importance. They feel that it is a sufficient to criticise and condemn
Hinduism. They do not see any need to convert to Buddhism, In our opinion, this
position is fraught with ambiguity. Can the Dalit masses in the rural areas content
themselves with rejecting Hinduism without finding an alternative religious identity? We
do not think so. it is our opinion that many of the non-Buddhist Dalit masses will remain
Hindu in some sense or the other while struggling for economic, political, social and
educational rights. As for the non-religious Davit intellectuals, it would be interesting to
probe to what extent they remain culturally Hindu even if they have rejected Hinduism.
And what would it mean to be a Hindu only in the cultural sense of term? Traditionally it
was not possible to separate culture and religion. Today, it seems possible. But what this
constitutes in theory and practice needs to be further explored.