JURISPRUDENCE

RESPONSE PAPER--- 1
Though I dont deny that the three forward and advanced thinkers of the twentieth
century Gandhi, Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh have had mature and reasonable
observations but I feel that their confrontation of thoughts suffered from certain loopholes
which are to be deeply examined. My understandings of these personalities proceed with
the assumption that despite the creamy points laid down by them, there are certain
quintessential residues which ought to be given serious concern.
At the outset, I do fervently admire Gandhi on the fact he is trying to preserve and retain
the old traditional concepts like dharma, duty, conduct, etc. What Gandhi is trying to
show us is the kind of interrelation of old traditional notions in a modern perspective.
Gandhi was a critical thinker in many aspects but having due regard to his reputation, his
thoughts werent stable and kept fluctuating at times when it came to the issue of doctors
and lawyers wherein he regards both their professions as immoral. Though in this light it
is to be understood that Gandhi wasnt discarding their professions completely, he
fetishized that their professions would hold no value if they dont render selfless service
to the fellow Indians and the nations instead of gaining secret profit motive for
themselves. Gandhi is trying to establish a link between the kind of civilizations between
the Western nations and the traditional setup. He calls the modern civilization as a
cultural disease and though is not vehemently promoting it but is deliberately trying to
secure its retaining ability by trying to suggest beforehand what technology would India
like to have if at all it were to succumb to civilization. I also personally view that Gandhi
is not a man of his words and his agony lay much deeper beyond the attainment of swaraj
which he is often clear and vague sometimes in a broader sense. Gandhi as of today has a
sensation today. I do understand that changes are inevitable and if that has to happen
there has to be a disturbance in the society and it becomes inevitable if such a kind of
transgression either in terms of technology, values, customs and traditions has to happen.
Gandhi feels a bit reluctant to accept this kind of statement with his own reformed ideas.

In my understanding of Ambedkar, what I specifically observe is that Ambedkar is trying

to link ever inert problem to the caste system prevailing in India. Ambedkar, as I put it, is
a new definition to Gandhi and has refined certain conceptions of what was then
misconceived. Why Ambedkar was dead against the caste comes from the point he had
to face many hostilities from the upper castes and it stuck him so deeply that he felt
anything to be impossible until a reformed social revolution would suppress the
ideologies of caste principles in the entire nation. He didnt want this revolution to sweep
like land fire immediately but wanted it with the co-operation of the central and state
governments by educating people so that they could rise and fight for rights instead of
befooling them in the name of religion and other allied superstitious beliefs.
Ambedkar, as I perceive, was not only a man of letters but a man of words. He stood on
what he fervently believed and aggressively promoted it. Ambedkars concern for caste
was closely linked to the religion of Hinduism where he extols that Hinduism sustains
caste and as a result of this, caste has outgrown its tentacles absorbing all the
overwhelming Hindu population into it. He suggests caste is a hydra headed dragon with
its associate called Hinduism in the name of religion which is trying to play on the minds
and emotions of the people. But in this regard, Ambedkar tries to delink caste with the
concept of division of labour. He suggested that caste was more rigid in the hierarchical
setup and due to this it usurped an authority over the people of the then times. Ambedkar
makes some extreme arguments like the vedas, shastraas and Upanishads had to be
reduce to ashes since they were nothing but a mere proclamation to denounce the fellow
humans in an immodest manner. The gravity of his statements helps us to deduce a
logical understanding as to how much the issue of caste has affected the Indian scenario
to a large extent. Ambedkar has a logical interpretation of the caste issues in India and
his reasoning is based on the vivid experiences and trauma he has undergone at every
stage in his life. I am not wholly backing Ambedkars argument but his critical analysis
with respect to Hinduism and caste stands at crossroads unable to meddle with each other.
So, I opine that Ambedkar has made a tactical approach to deal with this problem.

Bhagat Singh, on the other hand, in my opinion was a mature political thinker and had a
very critical but also deep understanding of complex concepts concerning freedom
struggle, swaraj and independence. Being a Marxist, he at times painted a rosy picture of
certain things but also corroborated the same with certain dismal things.

In my

perspective, Bhagat Singh was basically a revolutionary and didnt have had any sort of
aggressive or revolting tendencies in his thoughts. His inquisition of struggle and the
notion of swaraj started off indifferently. He assumes of a kind of situation wherein there
is no clash of security and insecurity in freedom as such. Concerning this fact, it is quite
evident he was in an advanced stage of understanding a situation free of political wills
and restrictions where absolute freedom flourished. Bhagat Singh extols this kind of
situation of absolute freedom where there is no insecurity in itself.
As an atheist, he was of the critical view that God doesnt exist at all. It meant that
according to him, the Almighty, omnipotent presence of a godly power doesnt exist and
if it were to exist, why would people suffer so much and always go to God to lament on
each and every single problem? His understanding takes us in a very radical yet rational
approaching and the narrow connection of God with the people. Sometimes he feels that
certain things are so hollow that arent explanatory. Even during the last moments of his
life, he hinged on to his own principles and never even prayed God once despite the
realization of his friends words who said If your last days come, you will tend to
believe God. But Bhagat Singh remained firm even when death was inviting him.
Some as he explains say that his approach towards God was due to the presence of pride
or vanity existing him. But if this is all, Bhagat Singhs approach wasnt pride or vanity
but a very rational approach based on reasoned logic of life experience and personal
trauma. I partially accept this statement. But will that explain the contrary logic in the
contemporary scenario?

If not, what are the other options that we can think of in this

century taking into account the reasoning of Bhagat Singh?

Sylvester Raj, Sec--- B, Roll No. 68.