The confrontation between Ambedkar and Gandhi was a historic one. It had its beginnings in the Round Table Conference of 1930-32, Ambedkar had gone earliest, as the prime representative of Dalits, or Untouchables. But when Gandhi finally decided to attend the second conference, he argued fervently that he represented the Untouchables, because they were an integral part of the Hindu fold – which he represented.

To Ambedkar, Untouchables were not a part of Hindus but “a part apart” (a phrase he had once applied to himself), a uniquely oppressed people. They could accept, even welcome, the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by Congress (ie by caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards.”

Ambedkar himself had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient. But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues at the conference revolved around separate electorates. Gandhi was reconciled to giving these to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity as a separate community. Not so for Dalits. When the Ramsay MacDonald Award was announced giving separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast to death. And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar. For Ambedkar, the problem was simple. If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms directed against Dalits and a massacre. Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalized this with reserved seats for Dalits – more than they would have had otherwise, but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.

Following the fast and the compromise made by Ambedkar, Gandhi formed what he came to call the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Here again, crucial differences arose. Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organization which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits – entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties — and he wanted it under control of the Dalits themselves. Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organization, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables. This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism — but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed; upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the Dalits. This included programs of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth.

This debate about the Harijan Sevak Sangh had as its background a fundamental difference in the very goals of Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar stood for the annihilation of caste. He saw untouchability as a fundamental result of caste and believed that there could be no alleviation, no uplift, no relief from untouchability without the abolition of caste. Gandhi here was not simply a devoted Hindu, but also a fervent believer in his idealized version of “varnashrama dharma.” He felt that what he considered to be the benign aspects of caste – its encouragement of a certain kind of solidarity — could be maintained while removing hierarchy and the extreme evil of untouchability. This was, in fact, the essence of his reformism.

Gandhi did not see untouchables as individuals born into a particular community; rather as somewhat unthinking members of an existing Hindu community; Hinduism he saw as their “natural” religion; their task was to reform it; they should not leave it. Ambedkar, in contrast, put the individual and his/her development at the centre of his vision and believed this development was impossible without a new, true religion. The confrontation was inevitable.

The final difference between the two was over India’s path of development itself. Gandhi believed, and argued for, a village-centred model of development, one which would forsake any hard path of industrialism but seek to achieve what he called “Ram Raj”, an idealized harmonized traditional village community. Ambedkar, in contrast, wanted economic development and industrialization as the basic prerequisite for the abolition of poverty. He insisted always that it should be worker-friendly, not capitalistic; at times arguing for “state socialism”, (though he later would accept some forms of private ownership of industry) and he remained to the end of his life basically a democratic socialist.

There were important and irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Two great personages of Indian history were posed against one another, giving alternative models of humanity and society. The debate never stopped.