INTRODUCTION

There were large differences in the number of instances of Gandhi and Ambedkar. The
definition of India's problems, India's future road and India's history were kept separate.
Check out some of their differences on various topics prevalent in the 19th century: -

• Untouchability: - Ambedkar was of the view that in order to eradicate untouchability from
Indian society, it was necessary to abolish the caste system from India but Gandhi saw
untouchability and caste system as two characters of Indian society and that particular caste.
The system did not stand to be removed.

• Definition of "untouchables": Gandhi defined untouchables as part of the Hindu

Means of Reform: -Gandhi wanted to uplift the people called untouchables through
awakening the general public through internal reforms, while Ambedkar wanted to achieve
this through political power, hence Ambedkar suppressed the oppressed. K stood for a
separate state, while Gandhi opposed it. Gandhi formed "All Indian Anti-Untouchability" and
published Harijan magazine and toured all over India and spread the message for total
abolition of untouchability.

• Meaning of Indian Independence: - Gandhi believed that India's independence could be

• System of government: - Gandhi was against the parliamentary system as he believed that in
due time the parliamentary system becomes a system of domination by the leaders whereas
Ambedkar always advocated the parliamentary system as he believed that it oppressed Will
help in uplifting classes.

• Flexibility and rigor: - Gandhi was flexible in his views while Ambedkar was rigid on his
terms and conditions. Gandhi was open to any form of government system prevalent at the
time, such as liberalism, fascism or communism whereas Ambedkar's inclination was towards
liberalism.

• History of India: - Gandhi always propagated the unity of India and believed that the unity
of India was tortured by the Brithishers, while Ambedkar advocated that the discrimination of
India was from the country and the British "rule of law" unity. Brought
• Religion view: - Gandhi believed that religion is the relationship between God and man
whereas Ambedkar believes that it is a human-to-man bond.

• Language: - Gandhi used the vernacular while Ambedkar used English. This shows that
Gandhi was trying to join the masses as he had nothing to prove while Ambedkar showed the
world using English that he was equal for all.

GANDHI AND OUTLOOK

Gandhi said that if the country depends on the guru for its material needs, education and
social harmony, then it can never be independent. It should be noted here that Gandhi's love
for the village was not as a mystic or orthodoxy, and not merely tied to tradition; He fully
realized that the Dalits, the 'Harijans', as he said they were attached to the village, therefore
the village structure in his scheme was extremely worrying. Gandhi believed that freedom is
never the best; it should be fought with authority by those who demand it and intend to use it,
while B.R.Ambedkar hoped for the best of independence by the imperial rulers.
Constitutional rigor and complexities did not form a part of Gandhi and the approach, he
preferred a suitable constitution to work for democracy; Unlike B.R.Ambedkar, he was not
constrained by dogma in this regard. Gandhi had a simple nature in this. In his opinion, the
Free India government would establish a constitution suited to Indian talent, which would
develop without being decided from outside, the dictatorial factor would not be an outsider
but knowledge. The parliamentary system of government was a model approved by
B.R.Ambedkar for independent India, but Gandhi had little regard for the parliamentary
system. Similarly, both Gandhi and BR Ambedkar shared differing views on the nature and
scope of democracy as a mode of government. The conversion of democracy into a form of
mass democracy for the supremacy of leaders was seen as a dangerous drift of Gandhi. BR
Ambedkar was unconcerned about such a possibility, instead, he developed an inclination for
large-scale democracy, where pressure could be created by the advancement of the oppressed.
The Gandhian vintage was establishing Swadeshi and Swarajya for one and all, and not only
for some westernization, all areas had to be allowed, the poor and the beneficiaries also used
it. But the politics of denuclearization was not the adopted instrument because they predicted
that the mobilization based on castes and the upliftment through public employment and state
regulated aid were only peripheral in effect. This marks a distinction between Gandhi and
B.R.Ambedkar; the latter was for mobilization on the basis of caste and uplift mainly through
the instrumentality of the state. Both Gandhi and B.R.Ambedkar were political and social
activists. In the approach of B.R.Ambedkar certain categories were very rigid but Gandhi had
no rigidities of ideology or principles except the uncompromising category of nonviolence.

B.R.AMBEDKAR PERSPECTIVES

On the other hand, BR Ambedkar provided impartiality to liberal ideology and appropriate
institutional structures and structures. BR Ambedkar also had a strong caste identity. Gandhi
neither had a religious identity nor a caste identity, both of which made only supportive or
subordinate partners in cultural identity and political orders. B.R.Ambedkar's politics
highlighted the aspect of lndian disunity while Gandhian politics showed the aspect of Indian
unity. In Hind Swaraj 'Gandhi says and establishes that India has always been a nation before
the beginning of imperial rule and it was the British who broke this cultural unity.
B.R.Ambedkar subscribed to the notion that Indian unity was a by-product of the British legal
system introduced by the colonial state. Gandhi was fully aware of the internal mysteries of
colonial rule, the way he played factions and groups in India against each other. This was
necessitated by domestic compulsions in Britain and the declining economy of the British.
Here, Gandhi, reading these realities in full, implicated the opposition or reactions to colonial
rule. The British strategy was to get a separate common testis; In William Shear's opinion,
"The game was meant to keep Hindus and Muslims, and other minorities, as untouchables, to
clash among themselves, so that the government could declare that unless the Indians
themselves wanted them to In vain. To make any of their own proposals. Bravedkar was keen
to take advantage of a situation that expected colonial states to make sincere efforts to uplift
the marginalized sections, and to the extent that they would have to remain in the colonial
political system. There was faith. Ram Gramraj is 'raj Ramraj' and there is real freedom. But
for the status quo of Indian villages, Brambedkar made a strong exception to this, denying
equality and fraternity and freedom. The village system would rather shame us. .
Brahmadekar opposed the use of compulsion or force for social integration and reform. N.
Reform and unification as the stance of both BRAmbedkar and Gandhi. Gandhi ressed the
depressed 'chacha untouchables' and a Harijan BRAmbedkar did not approve the approach of
naming as because he considered it as a clever plan by Gandhi to give the untouchables a
sweaty name. Therefore, when Gandhi's Depressed Classes League was renamed Harijan
Sevak Sangh, BR Ambedkar protested and quit arguing that untouchability was only a
platform for Gandhi, not an honest program. Unlike Gandhi, B.R.Ambedkar considered that
the centre of religion should be between man and man and not between man and God as
Gandhi. Like Gandhi, BR Ambedkar also wanted to remove bad practices in Hinduism, his
effort was to reform and rebuild, not to destroy it completely.

INDIAN POLITY

B.R.Ambedkar was not the village community, the basic unit of Indian politics; the
untouchables had no stake in the power structure of the village. It was not caste but
individual, then state and then centre was the political structural order envisaged by BR
Ambedkar and it finds adequate expression in the constitution. Gandhi was against any
oscillation towards the Centre, or even of a political organization at the state level; despite
being a personal focal point in Gandhi's principles, corporate life had to revolve around the
gram panchayat. B.R.Ambedkar's contribution towards the upliftment of untouchables spread
over a period of decades achieved some decisive milestones. But this would not have
happened if Gandhi had not done the other commendable part of the enlightenment of the
Harijans and educated the Hindus as well. Her stubbornness helped BR Ambedkar’s work to
do caste Hindus austerities and adopt Harijan girl and establish Harijan Sevak Sangh.
Between the two, their attitudes and values provided the frame for socio political uplift of
depressed classes; Gandhi and BR Ambedkar provided the basic basis for the legal
framework aimed at the upliftment of Dalits. B.R.Ambedkar portrayed a serious symptom of
untouchability and the disease was the moral decay of society and religious perversions, the
notion of 'untouchability' is irrational and attempts at more irrational reform and so-called
untouchability, reform and perfection are needed. Other levels. He presents the regiment in
the following words, everyone who feels shaken by the harsh conditions of the untouchables
begins by saying that we should do something for the untouchables. Hardly anyone with an
interest in the problem will say that we should do something to change the Hindu. 'It is
essentially believed that the object to be reclaimed is untouchable, though untouchability was
misdiagnosis and wrong prescriptions that attracted criticism of BR Ambedkar. Gandhi also
found that the sin is not of the so-called untouchables, therefore, the conversion of the mind
from the upper caste as an act of self-purification and penance. The target groups of
B.R.Ambedkar and Gandhi differed, even though they had changed at some points. The
methods and skills of communication and mobilization of the two were different; Gandhi
spoke in plain language and that too in local language. BR Ambedkar had no strong base
outside Maharashtra and had to depend on English educated local leaders. Inside
Maharashtra, he spoke in English and did not have second-level nobility or leadership in his
movement, his audience was poor and illiterate and did not have Gandhi's emblem and an
enthusiastic lifestyle. The lack of a well-knit organizational network was an additional
disadvantage for B.R.Ambedkar. Gandhi, a paradigm more viable, for untouchables to
depend on wealthy landowners, landowners in rural areas, a mere conversion to religious
conversions, not delivering goods. Could have been such a milestone. Social justice and
social equality; Improvements in property relations were always more widespread through
the education and change of caste Hindus, trusteeship; Gandhi had a very firm and consistent
view of the place of the untouchables in society, he was seen as an integral part of the entire
Hindu, while BR Ambedkar was a commoner on this issue; He had a difference in attitude
towards the method of eradicating untouchability. Untouchability was one of the many
problems faced by Indian society for Gandhi, but for B.R.Ambedkar it was the only problem
that attracted his only attention. B.R.Ambedkar conducted a thorough detailed study of the
problem from a historical angle, and Gandhi was more seized with the problem in his
contemporary position and attempted to apply practical solutions to its elimination.
B.R.Ambedkar as an insider had caste disabilities, and Gandhi belonged to the Vaishya caste
who did not face untouchability problems. Both BR Ambedkar and Gandhi found themselves
politely using their identity and self-expression as a result of caste system. The subjugation of
the individual to the caste makes the caste, not the individual, the basic block of the social
organization caste hierarchy not having a negative effect on the individual not performing
their responsibilities to the larger group.