Remarks at a event exploring the legacy of Dr Ambedkar

I would like to begin with a question.

What kind of society do we want to live in?

Most of us, regardless of our background, would probably give similar answers. We want to live in a society where people are treated fairly. We want opportunities to be available to everyone, not just a privileged few. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, we want our children to be judged by their abilities and character rather than by the circumstances into which they are born. We want dignity, respect and freedom for all.

Yet when we look around the world today, we continue to see division and inequality. People still face barriers because of their social background, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or economic circumstances. Many people feel unheard, excluded or treated as though they matter less than others. I wish I could put my finger on just one thing that is causing this division, and maybe I can with the help of a passage from a text from my own religious tradition:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion (D&C 121:39).

People like power. They like to feel important. They like to feel special. Unfortunately, we live in a society where sometimes the way that a person makes themselves feel important is through diminishing others. We live in a society where people want to be the main character. What does that mean? It means that other people become mere actors in our lives, things to service our image of ourselves. People become objects to use rather than individuals to value. The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber provides a powerful framework for thinking about the relationships we develop as he distinguishes between what he terms I-It and I-Thou.

An I-It relationship treats another person as an object. The other becomes a means to an end, a service provider, a resource, or a commodity. Such relationships are transactional and instrumental. People are valued primarily for what they can provide. This can happen more often than we would like to admit. An I-It mentality also shapes how we interact with the natural world. The environment becomes something to consume rather than something with which we exist in relationship. We can look at many structures within society and see this mentality as underpinning approaches to life. One of Dr Ambedkar’s most famous sayings is:

Caste is not just a division of labour, it is a division of labourers.

It is argued within historians of caste that when it was first created, caste was for exactly what Dr Ambedkar suggests in the first part of his saying. It was to provide structure to society and ensure that all tasks were filled. Over time, it turned more into a birth-based system, which was/is used as a weapon to discriminate. Within a Marxist approach to society, the system of the varnas can be seen, when they are ‘corrupted’ to be evidence of the superstructure of society. Its identification with Hinduism may well have helped people to come to a sense of meaning about their position in life, but it did so in a way that benefited the ruling classes. Consequently, Marx argued that the primary function of religion, and in this case the varnas, is to reproduce, maintain and make legitimate class inequality. According to Marx, religion serves as a means of controlling the working population by promoting the idea that the existing hierarchy is natural, God-given and therefore unchangeable – in other words, the rich are rich and powerful while the poor are poor and powerless because this is the way it is supposed to be. It may seem strange to use Marx when Dr Ambedkar rejected communism and Marx, but it may be on this point he would agree with the objective of structures of society. Ambedkar recognised that social systems can become tools of oppression when they benefit those with power and deny opportunities to others.:

They were denied the right to knowledge, with the result that by reason of their enforced ignorance they could not realize what had made their condition so degraded. They could not know that Brahmanism had robbed them completely of the significance of their life. Instead of rebelling against Brahmanism, they had become the devotees and upholders of Brahmanism. The right to bear arms is the ultimate means of achieving freedom which a human being has. But the Shudras were denied the right to bear arms. Under Brahmanism the Shudras were left as helpless victims of a conspiracy of selfish Brahmanism, powerful and deadly Kshatriyas, and wealthy Vaishyas (Ambedkar, The Buddha & His Dhamma).

Within caste people became things to be acted upon rather than to act for themselves, meaning it feels as though “somebody else is pulling the strings” (James E. Faust), that the means to change our situation is outside of ourselves. This feeling is not just limited to caste, this is a feeling common among those considered to be ‘othered’ especially when they are being exploited. We can see in the dehumanisation of ‘others’ economic factors at work. Dr Ambedkar highlighted this important fact:

History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.

When did people become consumables to be done to? Contemporary consumer culture often encourages an I-It approach. We risk treating both people and the environment as commodities whose primary purpose is to satisfy our wants and needs. Such attitudes contribute to social fragmentation and environmental degradation. We have to recognise the intrinsic value of the individual. It might be argued that a person’s place in society is an important factor in their identity, but we are not just a cog in the machine. Just as we live life in community and in relationship, we are also individuals. Dr Ambedkar taught:

Unlike a drop of water which loses its identity when it joins the ocean, man does not lose his being in the society in which he lives. Man’s life is independent. He is born not for the development of the society alone, but for the development of his self too.

Every person needs the opportunity to flourish and not be contained by the strictures placed upon them by societal prejudice and discrimination. We see this in the life of Dr Ambedkar. He faced discrimination from an early age as a Mahar or outcast. At school, he was often separated from other pupils and denied the same treatment as higher-caste children. Such experiences left a deep impression on him and helped shape his commitment to social justice. One of the most important ways he was able to overcome caste restrictions was through education. Despite social barriers, he excelled academically and became one of the most highly educated Indians of his generation. These achievements were remarkable at a time when very few people from so-called “untouchable” communities had access to higher education. Ambedkar used his learning to challenge social prejudice and demonstrate that ability was not determined by caste. Dr Ambedkar was one of the principal architects of the Indian Constitution, a pioneering advocate for Dalit rights, and one of the most influential thinkers on social justice in modern history. These experiences are probably very familiar to you; but it did not immediately follow that Dr Ambedkar would challenge the structures of society once he found his place therein. There are many examples in society and in history when people were able to achieve much greater status and once there reinforced the status quo. A person might feel threatened that others would take their place if the same opportunities were afforded to them. Somehow, they believe raising others up would diminish their own achievements. Dr Ambedkar did not subscribe to this. He recognised that all should have these opportunities. He suggested:

If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not ? What objection can there be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.

Let me be self-indulgent for a moment; also recognising the different situation that I was born into that was not as discriminatory as others find themselves in. Over the summer I was promoted to and appointed as Professor of Religion and Education. I am thrilled and proud for many reasons. Not least because of the journey that has led me to this point. I do not share some of that here to suggest that this achievement is in spite of these circumstances, not at all- this achievement is because of all of those experiences. My mum is amazing- at the age of 23 she was left a widow with two young sons to care for and look after. She had O levels but not many other qualifications because she hadn’t been allowed to stay at school, she needed to get out and start earning some money. As a child I didn’t know that we lived in difficult circumstances or that life had dealt my mum a harsh set of cards. I knew that I was loved; I also knew of the value of hard work as my mum worked in a series of jobs that enabled her to be there for us- as a bar maid or as a care assistant. I was also taught that I could achieve anything that I wanted to- the sky was the limit, or at least that is what my mum taught me. I often tell a story that I have never had the opportunity to test- apparently if you put fleas in a jar with no lid they jump out. I think that’s fairly obvious. If you put them in a jar with a lid, then they would still try and jump out but they would be prevented by the lid. Again, no real surprise there. However, if you then take the lid off the fleas only jump as high as the level of the lid- they have been taught that they can’t go any higher. There was no lid placed on my imagination.

This does not mean that life is without its setbacks. As a child there were many things that seemed to work against me though I never realised them at the time. I am blind in one eye which apparently means I am no good at catching but no one ever told me that and so I loved to play cricket and was a goalkeeper through most of my school life. Up until the age of about five or six only my older brother could understand a word I was saying; and as such my reading age was far below what it should have been. However, I remember one year in particular where my mum and my teacher- Mr Starkey worked together- I began to speak with the help of a speech therapist that my mum took me to every week despite it being an hour away on the bus, and my reading age increased as I had a teacher who didn’t judge me on what he saw in front of him but took an interest in me and worked patiently with me. It didn’t hurt that he was amazing in other ways- threatening to tear my arm off and hit me with the soggy end when I made a mistake or dangling my friend over the toilet threatening to drop in him because he had done something wrong. It will be no surprise to you that it was that year at the age of 6 that I decided I wanted to be a teacher! We fast forward to this point! I look back and credit my achievements to those people who supported me, not least my family and teachers, and the opportunities afforded to me by society and education.

I am conscious that in all of this I was not treated as a faceless entity among many; I was treated as an individual. This is reflected in Martin Buber’s second type of relationship: I-Thou. This recognises the full humanity of the other person. Here the individual is encountered not as an object but as a person possessing dignity, value, and intrinsic worth. Others are not there to service our needs, but they are people to be raised up and loved. Buber’s distinction between I-It and I-Thou relationships raises an important question:

What kind of attitude enables us to encounter another person as a Thou rather than an It?

I would suggest that the answer is love. Now, when we hear the word love, many of us immediately think of romance, attraction or family affection. Important as those forms of love are, they are not what I have in mind here. The ancient Greeks used several words for love, each describing a different aspect of human relationships. There is eros, associated with romantic and physical love. There is storge, which describes familial affection. There is philia, often translated as friendship or brotherly love. Then there is agape. It is this final form of love that is particularly important for our discussion today. Agape is not based upon attraction, family ties or personal preference. Within Buddhism this might be better understood as metta. In tandem with metta bhavana, metta as a virtue is developed in stages:

Within oneself (not in an egotistical sense but recognizing our ability to love and be loved).

• Friends and loved ones.
• Neutral people (perhaps a stranger).
• Enemies.
• The whole of nature.

Metta suggests that Buddhists should view the whole world as a parent views her baby. As well as the stages that a person must pass through, metta could also be seen to be developed in gradations, from goodwill to friendship and then love to others. However, the goal of metta is for it to become an integral part of a person – they have been trained over the years to show metta. Thus, it becomes a spontaneous action rather than an  action motivated by the desire for merit. It is a love grounded in recognising the inherent worth and dignity of another person. It is a love that asks not, “What can this person do for me?” but rather, “How should I respond to this person as a fellow human being?” This distinction is crucial because it transforms how we think about relationships.

If I only love those who are like me, who agree with me, who belong to my family, my community or my social group, then my capacity for connection remains limited. Agape invites something far more challenging. It asks us to recognise the humanity of people whose beliefs differ from our own, whose political views frustrate us, whose lifestyles we may not understand and even, perhaps, those whom we find difficult to like.

One of the observations we often make is this:

We do not have to like everybody, but we can choose to love everybody.

That statement usually provokes a reaction because we all have people we find difficult. Yet love, in this sense, is not an emotion. It is a disposition. It is a commitment to treat another person with dignity and compassion regardless of how we feel about them. This is why love sits at the centre of so many religious traditions. Maybe this is why one of Dr Ambedkar’s pillars of society is fraternity. Vinod Kumar notes:

According to B. R. Ambedkar, social justice is a means to create an ideal or a just society. To him a just society is a casteless society, based on the principles of social justice and a combination of three components: liberty, equality and fraternity. Ambedkar’s ideal society is based upon two fundamental principles. The first is that the individual is an end in himself and that the aim and object of society is the growth of the individual and development of his personality. Society is not above the individual and if the individual has to subordinate himself to society, it is because such subordination is for his betterment and only to the extent necessary. The second essential is that the terms of associated life between members of society must be regarded by consideration founded on liberty, equality and fraternity.

We need to live a life of love and compassion:

A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society (Dr Ambedkar).

This distinction extends beyond human relationships. Buber also invites us to consider how we relate to the natural world. Do we see nature merely as a resource to be consumed, or as something with which we exist in relationship?

What does this mean for me as an individual? It is recognising that society is a collection of individuals, and change begins with me. If I struggle with things that I see within society, then I can begin to make changes in the sphere of influence I have. Dr Ambedkar taught:

I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.

If I reflect on the misogyny that I see in certain places and in certain media, then I must speak up. I must agitate so that systems are fair for everyone and not just for me. This is not restricted to issues of gender. Anything that separates or holds people back must be challenged. If we are to seek justice for all we are reminded that “Justice is another name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” I cannot sit back and watch injustice prevail: “Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can affect people.” (Ambedkar). He further taught:

Lost rights are never regained by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggle… goats are used for sacrificial offerings and not lions.

Let us be lions as we seek for social justice in all areas of society. A call to compassion, to alleviate suffering, and the establishment of equality and fraternity is a call to action. Let us have the courage to challenge injustice wherever we encounter it, while never losing sight of the dignity and humanity of those around us. Drawing on the example of the Buddha we learn:

Asceticism he found to be useless. It was vain to attempt to escape from the world. There is no escape from the world even for an ascetic. He realised that what is necessary is not escape from the world. What is necessary is to change the world and to make it better (Ambedkar, The Buddha & His Dhamma).