A Project Report on

BRIEF DISCRIPTION ON ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABLITY

Subject:
Constitutional Governance

Submitted to:
Ms.RAJPUT SHRADDHA BHAUSINGH
(FACULTY OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE)

Submitted by:
Vivek kumar sai
(B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 8th semester, Roll no. 146)

Date of submission:
April 5th, 2014

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 1

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,RAIPUR (C.G).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on this dynamic & highly popular topic BRIEF DISCRIPTION
ON ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABLITY .I want to make it clear that I am not a master in the
subject, but, I have tried my level best to give a clear picture. This project, however, does not
deal with the topic exhaustively. Not to forget the deep sense of regard and gratitude to my
adviser, MS.SHRADDHA B. RAJPUTwho has played the role of a protagonist, who has always
given me guidance to go ahead with my topic. I also take up this opportunity to thank my
colleagues for helping me in completing this project.

Finally I would like to thank God, the Almighty without whose blessings this project would
never have been a success.

VIVEK KUMAR SAI

EIGHT

SEMESTER

B.A. L.L.B.(HONS.)
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 2

RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims & Objectives:

Gandhiji and Ambedkar differed in their understanding of modernity in assessing traditions and
in proposing options for India and the world. However, across their differences there was much
that united them, not merely on issues and concerns, but on substantive positions as well. This
project thus aims, at a study of the visions of these two constitutional giants of India. In addition
to exploring the ideologies, assets and thoughts, this project shall attempt to draw out the
relevance of philosophies as advocated by Gandhiji and Ambedkar respectively.
Scope and Limitations:
As this project intends to dwell into the technicalities and philosophical concepts of Ambedkar
and Gandhiji, a peculiar issue of untouchability has been addressed. The research is thus limited
to agreements and disagreements between Ambedkar and Gandhiji on the issue of
untouchability.
Research Methodology:
The researcher has used descriptive method of research. Critical analysis of the policies has been
done in an analytical manner. Doctrinal method is preferred for corroborating the peculiar
features of the concepts adopted by Gandhiji and Ambedkar.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 3

Table of Contents
The Issue of Untouchability: An Introduction ........................................................................ 5
Untouchability: The Abolished Menace ................................................................................ 5
Forms of Untouchability ........................................................................................................ 5
Abolition of Untouchability under the Indian Constitution, 1950 ......................................... 6
Landmarks in Indian Legal System:....................................................................................... 6
The Story of Ambedkar and Gandhiji: ................................................................................... 7
The Philosophies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar ............................................................................ 7
Gandhijis Concept- Untouchability ...................................................................................... 7
Ambedkars Concept- Untouchability .............................................................................. 10
Analysis of Ambedkars Concept: ....................................................................................... 12
The Disagreements: Analysis of written and unwritten ........................................................... 12
The Social Transformation of Ideas: A Changing Untouchability .......................................... 15
A.] Early Sensitizations against Untouchability: ............................................................... 15
B.] Life Experiences and its Reflections on Anti-untouchability Sentiments: .................... 16
C.] The Social Movements: Campaigns against Untouchability:...................................... 17
D.] Oppositions and Political Campaigns: ........................................................................... 18
E.] Gandhijis Encounters with Ambedkar: Divergences and Disagreements: ................... 18
F.] Post Yeravda Divergence: .............................................................................................. 20
G.] Perceptions of Untouchability: Ambedkar and Gandhi: ................................................ 21
H.] Measures for Elimination of Untouchability: .............................................................. 22
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 24

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 4

The Issue of Untouchability: An Introduction

"My fight against untouchability is a fight against the impure in humanity."

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Untouchability: The Abolished Menace
Untouchability is a direct product of the caste system. It is not merely the inability to touch a
human being of a certain caste or sub-caste. It is an attitude on the part of a whole group of
people that relates to a deeper psychological process of thought and belief, invisible to the naked
eye, translated into various physical acts and behaviors, norms and practices.1 The problem is of
great amplitude and has various facets that are studied and researched time and again. 2
The greatest contribution of Ambedkar and the Congress, which represented the views of
Gandhiji, for the cause of the Scheduled Castes, was that in the Constitution of India, the
fundamental rights including equality before thelaw were made applicable to all citizens of India,
irrespective of caste and creed. It should not be forgotten that Ambedkar was the only member of
the Scheduled Caste in the Constituent Assembly who was elected on a nonCongress platform.
The Constituent Assembly was dominated by the Congress. Although Ambedkar had a major
role as Law Minister in the drafting of the Constitution, all the provisions were much debated
and scrutinized by various luminaries.3
Forms of Untouchability
Over 80 forms of untouchability have been identified, many of which are apparently free Indias
additions to the list. From time immemorial Dalits have been deprived of their right to education
and the right to possess land and other forms of property. Left with nothing but their physical
labor to earn their livelihood they have all along been forced to do the toughest and most menial
jobs for survival. Apart from the denial of access to public roads, tanks, temples and

http://navsarjan.org/navsarjan/dalits/WhatIsUntouchability(last accessed on 11.08.2011); See also, H. Kotani, Caste

System, Untouchability and the Depressed,
2
The Survey by National Law School, Bangalore on Evaluation of the Protection of Civil Rights Acts, 1955 and
its impact on the eradication of untouchability, 2008, (http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/survey-onuntouchability-bynational-law-school-bangaluru/) (last accessed on 11.08.2011)
3
Constitutional Assembly Debates, Vol. XIV, p. 994

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 5

burial/cremation grounds there are other forms of untouchability. While untouchability is still
rampant and is taking new forms particularly in villages, the constitutional ban and compulsions
of modernity and development have to some extent blunted its rigor. Rail transport has been
unifying forces in society. Although all state governments claim that they have abolished manual
scavenging reports reveal that this practice is very much alive in many places. Postmen have also
been found to practice untouchability.4

Abolition of Untouchability under the Indian Constitution, 1950

The fundamental rights have been extended to every citizen of this country to guarantee the basic
freedoms extended to individuals. Article 17 of the Constitution has abolished the practice of
untouchability and severely punishes those who practice it. Article 21 guarantees right to life
and liberty. The Indian Supreme Court has interpreted this right to be free from degrading and
inhumane treatment, the right to integrity and dignity of the person, and the right to speedy
justice.5 When read with Article 39A on equal justice and free legal aid. Article 21 also
encompasses the right to legal aid for those who faced imprisonment and for those who were too
poor to afford at least a counsel.6
Landmarks in Indian Legal System:
In 1989, the Government of India passed the Prevention of Atrocities Act (POA) which
delineates specific crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as atrocities and
describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. Repeated suggestions
concerning reforms to be done in various provisions of POA, 1989 have been advocated by the
Supreme Court and other legal reform organisations.

In the protective sphere, untouchability

was abolished and its practice in any form was forbidden by the AntiUntouchability Act of 1955.
This Act was later reviewed by the Government of India and Protection of Civil Rights Act was
passed in 1976. Due to ongoing need of a further stringent legislation on the subject, Prevention
of Atrocities Act, 1989 was passed.
4

http://azadindia.org/social-issues/untouchability-in-india.html(last accessed on 11.08.2011)

S. K. Singh, Bonded Labor and the Law, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1994, p.47
6
Suk Das v. Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991
7
See Surya Narayan Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1989 Raj. 99; Rupabhai v. State of Gujarat; Ismail
KalubhaiGharasia v. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/0795/2004
5

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 6

The Story of Ambedkar and Gandhiji:

Both Gandhiji and Ambedkar were great men. While Gandhiji was the Father of the Nation,
Ambedkar was the Father of the Indian Constitution. While Gandhiji was an apostle of peace and
non-violence, Ambedkar became a convert to Buddhism, which preached universal peace and
non-violence. Both of them work edassiduously for the emancipation of the Scheduled Castes,
though their means differed. For Gandhiji, the change had to come primarily in the hearts of
caste Hindus. He staked his life for retaining the Scheduled Castes within the Hindu fold.
Gandhiji wanted political freedom before the rights of various classes could be secured.
Ambedkar agitated for separate electorates but showed generosity of spirit and gave up this
demand to save Gandhiji's life. Ambedkar was fortunate enough to see for himself the initial
progress made by the Scheduled Caste arising out of the safeguards provided in the
Constitution.8

The Philosophies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar9

Gandhijis Concept- Untouchability
In 1919, when Gandhiji appeared as a shining star in an Indian political horizon, His magnetic
personality gave a new life to the Indian freedom movement as well as the old congress. Under
Gandhijis Indian Congress got face lift and was converted into a mass organization, adopting
the policies of non-cooperation and civil disobedience. In the beginning, Gandhiji was firm in his
belief that if the untouchables were permitted to enter the temples, the blot of untouchability
would vanish. It was this belief which prompted Gandhiji to incorporate temple entry as a part of
his anti-untouchability campaign which was intensified during post-Poona Pact period.10
Therefore Gandhijis anti-untouchability campaign started when he was released from Yervada
prison, Gandhiji made fervent appeals to the orthodox and Santana caste Hindus to open up their
8

Krishnan, Asha, Ambedkar and Gandhiji: Emancipators of Untouchables in Modern India, (Mumbai: Himalaya
Publishing House, 1997)
9
The researcher has attempted broad analysis of views of Ambedkar and Gandhiji on Texts and Traditions. The
general ideology concerning specific issues seems to be a product of these divergent perceptions of fundamentals of
a dynamic society.
10
Anil Bharadwaj, Welfare of Scheduled Caste in India, 2002, p.23 11Ibid,
p.24

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 7

hearts and treat the untouchables as their brothers and sisters. He also undertook the tour which
is commonly referred to as the Harijan tour during the period of November 1933 to August
1934. On this tour Gandhiji addressed 161places and covered a distance of 12650
miles.11Gandhiji was a devoted Hindu, and strongly believed that untouchability was
acorruption of Hinduism. His aim was social reform, transforming the Untouchables into a
Varna and removing their former stigma, thereby rectifying the original spiritual corruption of
Hinduism. He believed this would change the attitude of caste Hindu, encouraging the
acceptance of Untouchables as children of God, or harijan, a term coined by Gandhiji in 1933,
and used much more by other castes than Untouchables themselves.11
After a long campaign for Untouchables, Gandhiji also realized the ugly reality of the caste
system and there was a considerable re-conceptualization of the issue. In 1935, he become a
critic of the caste system but continued to be a votary of ChaturvarnainVarna Dharma.12 That is
the time when his all the comments still criticize by many Dalits activist to dominate and ignore
what Gandhiji did for untouchables but we forget that the same Gandhiji who in 1930 fully
opposed to inter-dining and inter-marriage as he felt that such things should be left to the
unfettered choice of the individuals. In 1935, he was against creating artificial little groups which
would neither inter-dine nor inter-marry.
However, by 1946 there was a complete volte-face in his approach. It was in this year Gandhiji
made a startling announcement to the effect that in Sevagram, his Ashram at Wardha, no
marriage would be celebrated unless one of the parties was untouchable by
birth.14
And he said:
Untouchability is the sin of the Hindus. They must suffer for it, they must purify themselves,
and they must pay the debt they owe to their suppressed brothers and sisters. Theirs is the shame
and theirs must be glory when they purged themselves of the black sin. The silent loving suffering
of one single pure Hindu as such will be enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus; but the
suffering of thousands of non-Hindus on behalf of the untouchables will leave the Hindus
11

Pervez, 2004, and Hardtmann, 2003, 51, Infra note 18

Based on four varna system, thats why is called as Chaturvarna system 14Harijan,
November 16, 1935 at p. 316
12

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 8

unmoved. Their blind eyes will not be opened by outside interference, however well intentioned
and generous it may be; it will not bring home to them the sense guilt. On the contrary, they
would probably hang the sin all the more for such interference. All reforms to be sincere and
lasting must be from within.13Gandhiji in the name of reborn he also said:
I do not want to reborn, but if I have to reborn, I should be born as untouchable, so that I share
their sorrow and suffering, and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may endeavour to free
myself and them from the miserable conditions. I, therefore, pray that if I should be born again, I
should do so not as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra, but as an Atishudra
(untouchable).14Analysis of Gandhijis Perspective:
It is to be identified here that W.H. Morris-Jones makes a distinction between different languages
in which political discourse and discussion may be couched. He refers to three such languagessaintly, traditional and modern.15 It appears that Gandhiji is located in a stream of thinking that
inclines towards the spiritual end of the spectrum of thought ways. If we go with the
classification as has been made by Morris-Jones, it could aptly be concluded that Gandhiji had
been a speaker of saintly language. For Gandhiji, what is paradoxical is that the industrial
civilization does offer to everybody the promissory note of bettering his material condition
through the fulfillment of ordinary life needs. Influenced by this promise, every individual
unashamedly strives to attain an ever rising level of bodily comfort and luxury. However, it
creates a situation in which only a few can succeed in this and that also at a great cost not only to
themselves but also to others. However, the promissory note keeps alive the hopes that, if one is
not able to break through the barrier of dispossession and deprivation today, perhaps he will be
able to do so tomorrow. But that tomorrow never comes, and, if it comes, it comes only for a few
fortunate ones among the disposed and the deprived. Looking from Gandhijis vision,
Untouchables are an integral part of Hindu Social Order and solution to this problem must be
sought within the fold of that order. This requires removal of all social, ritual, economic
distractions affecting the Untouchables.16 Thus, it could be noted that Gandhiji was attempting to
unite the society in the sense that man is equal in all respects and love can only identify the
13

The collected works of Mahatma Gandhiji (New Delhi: government of India, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting), 1967, Vol. XXIII, p. 515-16
14
Young India, 4th May, 1921, p.144
15
These classifications are not exact however, they overlap each other at perspectives and times.
16
Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 403

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 9

solution to all evils. He strongly advocated that Untouchables should not be regarded as a
community separate but should be treated as a class of Hindu Social Order.
Ambedkars Concept- Untouchability
Ambedkar was born in Mahow Indore on 14th April 1891, an untouchable Mahar, and a caste
group that traditionally worked as village servants in Maharashtra. With the help of the Maharaja
of Baroda who was impressed with his intellectual capacities, and due to the fact that his father
had worked in the British army and had some financial means, Ambedkar gained access to an
education traditionally inaccessible to someone of his social position.17 Still, his education and
later his professional life were strongly marked by the stigma of untouchability. In primary
school he had to sit outside the classroom and was not allowed to drink from the common water
tanks and later, at secondary school, there was objection to his studying Sanskrit, the language of
the scriptures, strictly forbidden for an Untouchable. He had difficulty finding accommodation
both at university hostels, and later when he was stationed in different parts of the country as a
government official. Even when he was appointed Minister for Finance in Baroda (a political
post never before occupied by an Untouchable), he was discriminated against by his peers, who
refused to touch any document he may already have handled.18 Based on his own experiences,
Ambedkar adopted a social and political perspective contrary to Gandhijis; to him, the problem
of untouchability wasintrinsic to the whole construction of Hinduism, and he believed there
would be no emancipation of Untouchables without the destruction of the caste system.19
Ambedkar was popularly known after completing his education he started to work for his people.
First, in 1919, he gave evidence before the South Borough Committee to constitute separate
electorates for untouchables. He started a weekly paper Mooknayak (Leader of Dumb) on 31st
January 1920, to mobilize untouchables for their struggle.20

17

Ambedkar obtained a Ph.D. in economics at Colombia University, New York, in 1916, and a D.Sc. in economics
from London School of Economics and Political Science in 1923, the same year he became a barrister at law and
was admitted to the British Bar.
18
Perez, R. M. (2004),Kings and Untouchables: A Study of the Caste System in Western India, (New Delhi:
Chronicle Books), p.17-18
19
A full exposition of this view can be found in AmbedkarsAnnihilation of Caste: With a reply to Mahatma
Gandhiji (1936)
20
Kuber, W. N., 1963, p.18.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 10

Ambedkar deeply craved a new social order based on the lofty principals of liberty, equality,
fraternity and justice. These principals are the core of his philosophy. In 1924, he established the
BahishkritHitkariniSabha, the untouchables welfare forum. The aim of which was to prepare
the untouchables for future struggle. Through this Sabha, Ambedkar gave a clarion call to his
peoples to Educate, organize, and agitate.21 He looked upon law as a vital means for social
change or social engineering, the aim of which should, of course, be social justice. The concept
of social justice is at the center of Ambedkars socio-legal philosophy.
Ambedkars vision of a good social order signifies the need to have a good match between what
is good for one individual and what is good for all individuals. It is this match that constitutes the
foundation of social democracy that he visualizes as the most preferred social and political
system. This match, has however, to be achieved and maintained in a situation where man is
primarily, to use a Greek term, idiotic, that is, a being who is engaged in the sole task of meeting
the demands of his own private existence, demands that have their roots in the private dimension
of his existence, as separated from others of his kind in the society.
Though analyses of the problems of untouchables as put forth by Ambedkar may only be an
indicator of the prevailing system and condition of his times, His ideas continued to guide the
successive government in formulating the welfare policies for Dalits and others depressed
classes. At present, Dalit activists and NGOs who work for Dalits Human rights, using his three
words Educate, Organized, Agitate to libratesDalits.
Thus, Ambedkar did not contend himself with elaborating a theory of casteswhich culminated in
the idea of graded inequality; he also devised an untouchabletradition susceptible to remedy the
former. If they recognized themselves assons of the soils and Buddhists, the Untouchables could
better surmount theirdivisions into so many jatis and take a stand together as an ethnic
groupagainst the system in its entirety. Omvedt underlines that by the end of his lifeAmbedkar
was working on a grand theory of the origin of the Untouchables andthe conflict between their
civilization and Hinduism. The notion of autochthonyplayed a key role in this theory. Ambedkar

21

Anil Bharadwaj, Welfare of Scheduled Caste in India, 2002, p.45

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 11

argued that if Hindu India had beeninvaded by Muslims, Buddhist India had been subjugated by
Brahmins outsidersmuch before.22
Analysis of Ambedkars Concept:
Ambedkar has vehemently opposed Gandhiji and his condemnation of machines. Ambedkar did
so precisely because Gandhiji celebrated toil or at least, physical labor with a view to promoting
self-dependence in fulfilling the need for food, on the one hand, and, on the other hand to
counterbalance the pronounced tendency today towards intellectual voluptuousness. Ambedkar
equally detested Marxists although he praised Marx for advancing a philosophy that was
satisfying the lower order of the society.23
For Ambedkar, equality did not a stop with all varnas being equal. In fact he harshly criticized
the caste-system and wanted Untouchables to have no part in it. When headvocated equality, he
referred to equality in the economic. While Ambedkars dreams are still far from being realized,
his contribution was realisticand lasting.24 He was largely responsible for creating reserved
positions for untouchablesin the civil service, legislatures and higher education. But
moreimportantly, his major contribution was to have emphasized the importance of action from
below: that political organization was indispensable to securing justice and basic human
rights.25Ambedkar was committed to secular perspective on man and his world.26 His social
philosophy could be said to be in the words, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.27

The Disagreements: Analysis of written and unwritten

The disagreements in the ideologies of Gandhiji and Ambedkar could be aptly illustrated in the
period 1930-1940, wherein major criticisms of Gandhiji and his movements were advocated by
Ambedkar. It is relevant to note that, given the socio-economic conditions of untouchables and

22

Christopher Jeffrelot, Dr.Ambedkars Strategies against Untouchability and Caste System, Indian Institute of
Dalit Studies, 2009, Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3
23
Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 393
24
B. R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables: who were they and why they became untouchables, p. 37-39
25
SukdeoThorat, Ambedkars Role in Economic Planning
26
Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 391
27
Dr. Baba SahebAmbedkar: Writings and Speeches, Government of Maharastra, 1982, p. 222-223

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 12

their concomitants of degradation, humiliation and exploitation, it was natural for Ambedkar as
their undisputed leader to prefer their social and economic uplift. He is on record to say that, for
him, the untouchables interest was prior to that of the country and that he would always give
precedence to the former.28It has been pointed out earlier in the project that ideologies of
Gandhiji and Ambedkar were different in many respects. It is nonetheless relevant to state here
that their approach as to untouchables and untouchability is in entirely antithetical ways. It is
therefore, not surprising that Gandhiji chided Ambedkar for his particularistic obsession with the
good of the untouchables alone ignoring the larger claim of the whole of which the untouchables
formed only a part.2930Ambedkar was however adamant in getting social, economic and political
concessions for untouchables. In his discussion with Gandhiji about the terms of speculated
Poona Pact, Ambedkar insisted: I want political power for my community. The basis of
agreement should be: I should get what is due to me. I wish to tell the Hindus that I should be
assured of my compensation. Gandhijis counter-argument that he has in his mind the interest of
whole community, and that he does not like the idea of dividing the community for the benefit of
the untouchables alone had no effect on Ambedkar. Influenced by this perspective, Gandhiji
vehemently opposed separate electorates and argued that it would spell their bondage in
perpetuity. The radical difference between Gandhiji and Ambedkar in viewing the problems of
untouchables and in advancing solutions to these problems can be better appreciated by their
statements.
Gandhiji said: With all my regard for Dr Ambedkar, and for his desire to see the untouchables
uplifted, with all my regard for his ability, I must say in all humility, that great wrong under
which he has labored and perhaps the bitter experiences that he has undergone, have for the
momentwarped his judgment. It hurts me to say this, but I would be untrue to the cause of the
untouchables, which is as dear to me as life itself, if I did not say this. I will not bargain away
their rights for the kingdom of the whole world.32 Moreover, Gandhiji was convinced that
Ambedkar was not at all working for the promotion of the interests of all untouchables; what he
was, in fact, doing had the consequence of bringing about a double split, one among the

28

Writings and Speeches of B.R. Ambedkar, Bombay Legislative Assembly, Vol. II, p. 258
Gandhiji Marg, Gandhiji, Ambedkar and the Untouchables, January-March 2005, p. 403
30
November, 1931 at Minorities Committee of the Round Table Conference
29

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 13

untouchables and other in Hindu social order.31 Responding to the observations of Gandhiji,
Ambedkar in the single-minded pursuit of his mission, hinted that he treated everyone who failed
to see his point of view enemies. And this was one point that pitched Ambedkar against
Gandhiji. As he himself made it clear to Gandhiji when he met him in England on 22 September
1932 I have only one quarrel with you. You are working for so-called national welfare and not
for our interest alone. If you devoted yourself entirely to the welfare of the depressed classes, you
would then become our hero.34It is out of this attitude that Ambedkars concept of politics
differed sharply from that of Gandhiji. For Gandhiji, politics, devoid of its spiritual underpinning
was an invitation to conflict and violence. However, Ambedkar held entirely a different view of
politics. Underlying this difference was their differential understanding of what the term
political signified.32If Gandhiji embraced this idea of political, Ambedkar did not. For
Gandhiji, the principal objective of political action was to preserve harmony and goodwill in the
community. He recognized that there are conflicting interests and views; however, they could be
reconciled through persuasion based on the commitment to the exploration of truth. His
conception of satyagraha is rooted in this perspective which he treated as not only the
instrument par excellence of avoiding conflict but also of preserving order and harmony; in
addition it was an apt of exploring the truth also. In contradiction to this, Ambedkar treated
society simply as an aggregate of separate socio-economic groups, each of which is looking for
the promotion and preservation of its own interest. In this process conflicts do emerge which
have to be resolved on the basis of negotiation, bargaining and compromise. In this perspective,
politics is nothing else than a process of reciprocal resistance in which superior power position
and, dependent on it, the bargaining powers are crucial factors. It is neither morality nor the
concern for the collective interest of the community that matters. Ambedkars single minded
pursuit of interest of the untouchables stemmed from this differential conception of political
action. Writing about the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar, Nagraj refers to the
irony of the ironies that is to understand the nature of Babasahebs political career one has to
place it along with Gandhijis for the divergence between the two will highlight the unique

31

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhiji, Vol. 57, Appendix A, p. 440 34

Ibid, p. 439
32
John H. Schaar, Escape from Authority: The Perspective of Erich From on, (New York: Basic Books), 1969, p.
296

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 14

problems of the former. 33Thus, the conflict between Gandhiji and Ambedkar is not ideological;
it is essentially philosophical reflecting antagonistic views on how to order human life. It is this
aspect of the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar that most commentators and critics
lose sight of and, therefore, fail to see the cosmic drama played out in the microcosmic event of
the movement of Harijan uplift.34 As a result, they offer seemingly credible but really highly
distorting interpretation of the relationship between Gandhiji and Ambedkar. As a result, we
enter into a stage of confusion, in which anybody can easily be right because everybody else is
wrong to the extent that it is sufficient to stress the opposite of what somebody else says in order
at least to be partially right as the opponent.35 This is what has happened in the case of Gandhiji.
While Ambedkars brand of politics has become regent, philosophical realist cannot escape the
strange destiny that is his. Uncompromising attacks are his lot and equally incomprehensible
praise, at best some pragmatic misuse of his arguments for a partisan purpose, and for the rest
oblivion.36
Ambedkars policies could best illustrated in the following terms: "But I tell you that the
Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been sincere, it would have surely madethe
removal of untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of
the Congress."37

The Social Transformation of Ideas: A Changing Untouchability

A.] Early Sensitizations against Untouchability:
Gandhiji has stated that his first encounter to untouchability was during his visit to India in 1896
from South Africa.38 While Ambedkar refutes, western authors explaining caste hierarchy by
resorting to racial factors.39 There were great disagreements amongst the two philosophers as to
untouchability and problems appended thereto. Both Gandhiji and Ambedkar had unpromising

33

JhrglnGebhart and Thomas A. Hollweck, eds., Eric Voegelin, History of Political Ideas: The New Order and
Last Orientation (Missouri University Press, Columbia), 1999, p.194
34
Bombay Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 October 1939 in Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 529
35
Ibid, at p. 197
36
Ibid at p.198-199, Loccit
37
From an article of New York Times, Nov. 30, 1930
38
M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part II, Chapters XXIV Homeward and XXV in India, pp. 152157.
39
B.R. Ambedkar, The Untouchables. Who were they and why they became Untouchables? in
Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 7, pp. 290-303.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 15

views against untouchability and its other credentials.40Ambedkars observation could be

analyzed from his statement: It explains why the Untouchables regard the Brahmins as
inauspicious, do not employ them as their priests and do not even allow them to enter into their
quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables. The
Broken Men hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were the enemies of Buddhism and the
Brahmins imposed untouchability upon the Broken Men because they would not leave
Buddhism.44
Similarly Gandhiji noticed the invidiousness of untouchability and the segregation
ofuntouchables in towns and villages. He refers to them as some of the classeswhich render
us the greatest social service, but we Hindus chose to regard asuntouchables and they are
relegated to the remote quarters of a town or village called in Gujarati Dhedvado.41 Thus, we
can see that there remains something inherent in the ideology of the philosopher deriving a lot
from their experiences. To put it more accurately, we can see writings of William James on
Pragmatism, wherein he mentions that there is an underlying truth in the philosophy of our life
and to those of us as well to whom such truths remain unknown, and that such instances of truth
gives the coherence and direction to thoughts and actions.42
B.] Life Experiences and its Reflections on Anti-untouchability Sentiments:
Gandhiji has considered the travails of Indians in South Africa to be a replica of the condition of
untouchables in India. Gandhiji has recorded his abomination in the following words: Hindu
defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but
be a rotten part or an excrescence.43Ambedkar on the other hand, was confined to the
leadership skill of the untouchables.Thus, Ambedkar did not contend himself with elaborating a
theory of casteswhich culminated in the idea of graded inequality; he also devised an
untouchabletradition susceptible to remedy the former. If they recognized themselves assons of
the soils and Buddhists, the Untouchables could better surmount theirdivisions into so many jatis

40

See for example, Gandhijis speech on untouchability, Akola on 6 February 1927, reported in the Young India
of 17 February 1927, reprinted in M.K. Gandhiji (Collected Works, Vol. XXXIII, p. 49) 44Supra note 42 at p. 317
41
M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part IV, XIV Coolie Locations or Ghettoes?, pp. 264-265
42
N.M. Butler, Philosophy, p. 18, 43 in Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process, 1921, (Oxford
University Press, London), Lecture I, p. 4
43
M.K. Gandhiji, An Autobiography, Part II, Chap. 15, pp. 125-128 48Supra
note 24 at p. 8

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 16

and take a stand together as an ethnic groupagainst the system in its entirety.48 Thus differed
views were concomitantly united.
C.] The Social Movements: Campaigns against Untouchability:
Gandhiji, soon after his induction to Indian National Congress, started his movement against
untouchability in which he motivated the untouchables to join the national movement.44In fact, in
the memorandum submitted by Dr.Ambedkar to the Minorities Committeeof the Round Table
Conference (RTC) in 1930, he mentioned that socialboycott is the most formidable weapon in
the hands of the orthodox classes with which they beat down any attempt on the part of the
Depressed
Classes to undertake any activity if it happens to be unpalatable to them.45In the Young India of
25 May 1921, as seen from Swami Shraddhanandsletterdated 23 May 1922 to the All India
Congress Committee (AICC) General SecretaryVithalbhai Patel, Gandhiji put the question of
untouchabilityin the forefront of the Congress program.46Many of Gandhijis formulations are
unrealistic, but they show that Gandhijihad become acutely aware of and seriously concerned
about the Panchamasandthe practice of untouchability against them and took a firm stand
againstuntouchability. During the inner practices

52

that were considered by various

commissions and meetings, Ambedkar had praised quite a few of them, more specifically
Swami Shraddhanands feelings about untouchables and untouchability.47 It appears to be the
most important instance of concurrence of Gandhi and Ambedkar while they appreciate writings
of Swamiji on untouchability.4849Gandhiji came closer to the issues of SCs (depressed
classes/untouchables) and OBCs through the Vaikkom and Guruvayursatyagrahas in Kerala, his

44

Recorded in Young India, October 27, 1920

B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done,cited in Moon, 1990: 43
46
B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done, cited in Moon, 1990, Appendix I, pp. 298301 52 In
1922, the Congress adopted a Constructive Programme of social amelioration at the meeting of its Working
Committee at Bardoli, held in February, 1922, known as the Constructive Programme of social amelioration and
also as the Bardoliprogramme.
47
B.R. Ambedkar refers to him as the greatest and the most sincere champion of the untouchables (Ambedkar,
What Congress and Gandhi Have Done cited in Moon, 1990: 28).
48
Gandhijis speech on untouchability at Akola on 6 February 1927, reported in Young India dated 17 February
49
, reprinted in M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Volume XXXIII, p. 49; his speech at Jamui, on 27 January 1927,
reported in the Search Light dated 4 February 1927, reprinted in Collected Works, pp. 2324; his convocation
address at Gurukul, Kangri on 19 May 1927, reported in Young India dated 31 March 1927, reprinted in Collected
Works, Volume XXXIII, pp. 16869.
45

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 17

interactionswithNarayanaguru and finally his famous encounters with Dr Ambedkar in the

Second RTC and thereafter.50
D.] Oppositions and Political Campaigns:
It is worth remembering thatSwamyShraddhanand was the first person to use the term dalit,
translatingSwami
Vivekanandas term Suppressed Classes to refer to the untouchablesandGandhiji adopted
Vivekanandas term in 1920an interesting and significantconvergence.Gandhiji continuously
expressed his appreciation of the significance of thissocio-religious movement in his various
articles and interviews. But, unrealistically,he held that the silent, living suffering of one single
pure Hindu as suchwould be enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus.51The Guruvayur
Krishna temple, then in the PonnaniTaluk of British Malabar andnow in the Thrissur district of
Kerala, was the venue of an important satyagrahain 1932 which started with the agitation for
securing the untouchables entry intothe temple by a Congress leader K. Kelappan, a caste Hindu
who was working forthe cause of untouchables of Malabar. This satyagraha too attracted wide
participationof the victims of untouchability as well as upper castes. Among theparticipants
were E.M.S. Namboodirippad and A.K. Gopalan, then CongressSocialists, who later became
important communist leaders of Kerala and India.On the 20 September 1932, Kelappan
commenced a protest fast lying in front ofthe temple in the sun. On Gandhijis request he
suspended his fast on 1 October1932.52
E.] Gandhijis Encounters with Ambedkar: Divergences and Disagreements:
a.) The First Interaction of Gandhiji with Ambedkar:
Gandhijis first recorded notice of Dr Ambedkar is in 1927 in his article in YoungIndia dated 28
April 1927 in which he also expresses his support for the MahadSatyagraha. The exercise of their
lawful right to take water from the public tankon 20 March 1927 by the

50

The Vaikkom Satyagraha, started in 1924, was the first organised mass struggle against untouchability
conducted in Kerala by the victims of untouchability. It was undertaken under the leadership of T.K. Madhavan, a
prominent disciple of SreeNarayanaguru and a Congressman. [See P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising
Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1]
51
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhiji, Vol. XXIII, Vaikkom Satyagraha, pp. 515-519
52
Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done cited in Moon, 1990: 11516 in P.S. Krishnan,
Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 18

untouchables gathered at a conference of depressedclasses under the leadership of Dr

Ambedkar and the violence unleashed by a mobof touchables on peaceful untouchables was
brought to the notice of Gandhiji.Gandhiji describes this incident as unprovoked lawlessness on
the part of the socalled higher castes. Gandhiji was unequivocal about who was at faulthe said
that the blame is all on the side of the touchables. Brute force will notsustain
untouchability. It will bring about a revolution of feeling in favour of thesuppressed
classes.53Gandhijis introduction to Dr Ambedkar and his work and his referenceto them were
positive and showed convergence. Unfortunately, this convergencedid not continue and the
divergences between the two began to find expression.
b.) Primary Divergence- Constitutional Project and YeravdaConvergence:
The main divergence between Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar arose against the backgroundof the
Constitutional reforms which the British government was contemplatingin partial response to the
nationalist movement under the leadership ofGandhiji. A Royal Commission under the
chairmanship of Sir John Simon (SimonCommission) was appointed in 1928 by the British
government. After the SimonCommissions work, representative Indians were called to London
at

RTC

withthe

representatives

of

the

British

parliament

and

the

British

government.DrAmbedkar and DiwanBahadur R. Srinivasan were invited to represent

theuntouchables at the RTC.Thefundamentalissue in the controversy between the Congress and
the untouchables, according toDrAmbedkar, is: Are the untouchables a separate element in a
nation like India or are they not?54They are a separate element according to Dr
Ambedkar.According to the Congress and Gandhiji they are not a separate element but are
achip of the Hindu block. According to Dr Ambedkar they are not only a separateelement, but
the most vulnerable section of the Indian population.From this difference arose the difference in
their approach to the proposedConstitution for a free India. According to the Congress, the
Constitution of freeIndia would be democratic, based on adult franchise.55This was followed by
theprotest fast unto death against the grant of separate electorates for untouchables,from the
20th September, 1932, undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi who was lodgedin the Yeravda prison in
53

M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Volume XXXIII, pp. 267-268

B.R. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done, cited in Moon, 1990: 181
55
P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications,
2011, 41:1, at p. 14
54

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 19

Pune from the time he returned to India after the secondRTC. The entire national leadership
rushed to Yeravda prison in a bid to find asatisfactory solution and save Gandhijis life. On their
request Dr Ambedkaralsowent to Yeravda. As a result of intense negotiations a compromise was
struckbetween them whereby an agreement known as the Poona Pact or YeravdaPactwas signed
on 24 September 1932 by which separate electorates were given upand a system of
representation for the depressed classes by reservation in a largernumber of seats then provided
in the McDonald Award was agreed upon.56In a speech in 1917, Gandhiji, referring to
untouchability as a serpent, warnedthat if Hinduism does not destroy this serpent while there
is yet time, it will bedevoured by it.57
It is for the caste Hindu leaders of society,polity, economy, academia and media to show by their
personal behaviorandactive social action and performance that there is no link between the
Hindu religionand untouchabilityunfortunately they are yet to seriously undertake
thisresponsibility they owe not only to the SCs, but also to the memory of Gandhiji,Ambedkar
and other great nationalists of Yeravda and to the cause ofthe Indian nation. If they are not
prepared to perform this type of socialamputation, no amount of arguments will convince the
victims of untouchabilitythat it is not part of Hinduism and it is not sanctioned by Hindu
scriptures. Theball is in the court of the caste Hindu leaders of society, polity, economy,
academiaand media.58
F.] Post Yeravda Divergence:
In true Yeravda spirit, within a week after the pact, at a large public meeting on30 September
1932 under PanditMadan Mohan Malaviyaspresidentship, resolutionswere passed assuring
Mahatma Gandhi that a quickening of conscience hasbeen seen in the Hindu community in the
last few days on the question ofUntouchability and that all possible steps will be taken to
translate this enthusiasminto action with a view to remove the virus of Untouchability from
theHinducommunity and deciding to establish an All-India Anti-UntouchabilityLeague
(AIAUL).59Certain actions of the Congress leaders of AIAUL, differences in approachleading to

56

Ibid at p. 15
M.K. Gandhi,Collected Works, Vol. XIV, 20. A Stain on Indias Forehead, p. 73
58
Supra note 60 at p. 20
59
Pyarelal, The Epic Fast, 1932, Ahmedabad: MohanlalMaganlal Bhatt, at p. 181-193 in P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising
Gandhi-Ambedkar-Narayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1, at p. 19
57

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 20

the resignation of Dr Ambedkar from the Central Board of the AIAUL, its renaming as
HarijanSevakSangh, brought about a fissure, which could havebeen avoided by Gandhians if
they had strictly adhered to the Yeravda spirit. Thepost-Yeravda divergence was widened by
differences in approach betweenGandhians and Dr Ambedkar on the temple entry Bill,
introduced in 1933 in theCentral Legislature, which was too weak in Dr Ambedkars view as it
did notcondemn untouchability as a sin and as immoral, but only as a social evil, andthe
unceremonious abandonment of even this weak Bill by Congress leaders in1934 when the
Viceroy announced new elections.
G.] Perceptions of Untouchability: Ambedkar and Gandhi:
The divergence of Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar in their understanding and perceptionof the
phenomenon of untouchability, a difference that existed before theYeravda Pact and resurfaced
soon after that pact, was basic. Many of Gandhijisspeeches and letters give the impression that
he took untouchability almost in itsliteral sense of touch-me-not-ism.60But it is also true that he
noticed untouchability as a practice of denying to theuntouchables admission to schools and
use of public facilities like the road, thedrinking water, well, etc., denial of freedom to buy or
hold land and access tocourts.61Even today, long after Dr Ambedkar made the foregoing in-depth
and incisiveeconomic analysis of the position of SCs in the Indian economy, especially its
ruraleconomy, villages and agriculture remain the predominant socio-geographical factofIndia.
Of the SC population, the proportion in rural India is much larger than theproportion of non-SC,
non-ST in the rural area out of the total non-SC, non-STpopulation.It is this economic dimension
of untouchability that completely bypassedGandhiji or Gandhiji totally missed. The issue of
landlessness of and denial oflandownership to SCs does not figure in his speeches, letters and
writings, exceptfor a passing notice of the land-related grievance of Panchamas of

60

Gandhijis notes in Navajivan dated 30 May 1920 under the head Miscellaneous Issues, reprinted in
Collected Works, Volume XVII (FebruaryJune, 1920), pp. 47072; his article in Navajivan dated 20 April 1924,
reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XXIII, My Notes, pp. 46266, under the heading Meaning of Eradicating
Untouchability, pp. 46566; his letter to C.F. Andrews dated 25 May 1920, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume
XVII, pp. 53435; his speech at a weavers meeting on 31 August 1919 published in Young
India of 10 September 1919, reprinted Collected Works, Volume XVI, 53. Speech at Weavers Meeting, Dohad, p.
81.
61
Gandhijis article in Navajivandated 20 April 1924, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XXIII, My Notes, pp.
46266, under the heading Meaning of Eradicating Untouchability, pp. 46566; his speech at Mayavaram in
Tamil Nadu on 1 May 1915, reported in the Hindu dated 3 May 1915, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume XIII,
69. Speech at Reception at Mayavaram, pp. 6970.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 21

Mayavaramin his speech on 1 May 1915.

62

Connected with the divergence of Gandhiji and Dr

Ambedkar in their perceptionand understanding of untouchability was the divergence in their

views onthe caste system. Gandhiji believed that caste system minus untouchability isauseful
social arrangement worth preserving.63
H.] Measures for Elimination of Untouchability:
Based on their basic differences of perception of untouchability, its meaning, itsramifications,
its socio-economic functions and its political implications in thecontext of Constitution-making,
the approach of Gandhiji and Dr.Ambedkartothe solution of the problem of untouchability also
had certain fundamentaldifferences.Gandhiji carried out a consistent campaign, before the
Yeravda Pact and moreintensely after that pact, and the resolution of 25 September 1932 against
untouchability.But

this

campaign

was

directed

against

touch-me-not-ism

and

centrallyagainst denial of entry of untouchables into temples.

He believed that if templeentry was achieved, at one stroke it would open the door to the
achievement offreedom of education and economic advancement to the untouchables. 64Dr
Ambedkar criticized RangaIyers Temple-Entry Bill because it did not referto
untouchability as a sin. Gandhiji, day in and day out, referred to untouchability as a sin and
as a crime 65a significant convergence in the midst of theirdivergence on untouchability.The
decades after the GandhiAmbedkar controversy on this point, includingthe decades after
independence has, brought home how pernicious andpersistent the caste system is. Though the
Constitution does not specifically outlawthe caste system as it has outlawed untouchability, the
Supreme Court hasinterpreted the Constitution to mean that its goal is a casteless society in
itsjudgment on 10 April 2008 in Central Educational Institutions (Reservation inAdmission) Act,
2006 case.66Dr Ambedkars efforts from the time of the Simon Commission onwards werein the
context of the imminent constitutional reforms and focused on ensuring thatthe Constitution
62

Reported in Hindu dated 3 May, 1915; Reproduced in M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. XIII, 69. Speech at
Reception in Mayavaram, pp. 69-70
63
Supra note 59 at p. 108-113
64
Gandhijis interview to the Associated Press on 14 February, 1933, reproduced in What Congress and Gandhi
Have Done to the Untouchables, cited in Moon, 1990, p. 108-113 in P.S. Krishnan, Synthesising GandhiAmbedkarNarayanguru-marx visions for dalit liberations, Sage Publications, 2011, 41:1, at p. 24
65
M.K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol XIII, p.225, 259
66
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Government of India, (2008) 6 SCC 172
Supra, note 69 at p. 27

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 22

which came in the shape of Government of India Act, 1935 hadin-built safeguards for the SCs,
but his movement was much larger and covered abroad spectrum including education, and
economic measures apart from a frontalattack on caste system and untouchability.72

CONCLUSION
The contribution by both Ambedkar and Gandhiji is of utmost importance while dealing with the
issues directly or in any incidental manner. For an objective study of the debate, it is essential to
concentrate historical events prevalent at the time of the origins of the concept of untouchability.
In order to critically analyze the importance of contributions that have been made by Ambedkar
and Gandhiji, one needs to ponder over the philosophical contexts under which the authors have
advocated the spirits of untouchability and thus pursued its various spirits.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ambedkar, B.R., Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, Indian
Antiquary, May 1917, Vol.61 reproduced in Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and
Speeches, Vol. 1, Bombay, Government of Maharashtra, 1979.
2. Ambedkar, B.R., The Untouchables: Who they are and why they became
Untouchables? in Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 7
3. Bharadwaj, Anil, Welfare of Scheduled Castes in India, 2002
4. Chandra, Ramesh; SanghaMitra: Untouchability and the Law
5. Constitutional Assembly Debates available at www.loksabha.nic.in, Vol. XIV
6. Gandhi Marg, January-March, 2005
7. Gandhi,

M.K. Collected

Works,

Volume

23

available

at http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL023.pdf
8. Gandhi, M.K., An Autobiography, Part III
9. Harijan, a national daily newspaper
10. Jefferlot, Christopher, Dr.Ambedkars Strategies against untouchability and Caste
System, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, 2009, Vol. III, No. 4
11. Kotani, H. Caste Sytem, Untouchability and the Depressed
12. Krishna, Asha, Ambedkar and Gandhi: Emancipations of Untouchables in Modern India
(Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House), 1997
13. Moon, Vasant (Ed.) (1990), Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume 9,
Part I (pp.240-42), Education Department, Government of Maharashtra: Mumbai.
14. Perez, R.M., Kings and Untouchables: A study of the Caste System in Western India,
New Delhi: Chronicle Books, 2004
15. Purane, K D, Untouchability and the Law
Singh, S.K, Bonded Labor and the Law, Deep and Deep Publications: New Delhi

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Page 24