Abstract

The contribution of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to understand the complexities of Indian society has acquired greater prominence in contemporary times. Particularly, his discourse on equity and inclusiveness has made his ideas imperative and critical in the unravelling of realities hitherto invisible and unknown to the larger populace. This paper is an attempt to identify and contextualise the ideas of Ambedkar to the overarching context of Indian environmentalism. With ‘nature for all’ and ‘all for nature’ forming the theoretical crux of Ambedkar’s eco-philosophy, analysis in this paper is carried forth at three conceptual domains- the ideas of Ambedkar from the perspective of environment; exploring the activist role of Ambedkar from the perspective of environmental justice to the poor and finally the solutions he offers to Indian environmental problems by invoking the ideas of Buddhism from the perspective of a bio-centric world.

V.M. Ravi Kumar is Assistant Professor, Department of History, Babasaheb Bhimroa Ambedkar University, Lucknow, and can be reached at vmravikumar@gmail.com
Introduction

In contemporary times, the concept of ‘Environment’ has emerged as an omnipresent phenomenon in academic and public discourses. In particular, climatic change, within this framework is now being accepted as a threat to the well being of the biotic world. In a country like India, which is sharply stratified socially by the caste system, the social dimension of impact by climatic changes is critical. This reality necessitates a critical conceptual engagement in unravelling the linkages between the caste system and larger environmental processes. From an Ambedkarite standpoint, this paper proposes methodological linkages between the ideas of Ambedkar and the phenomena of environmentalism at one level and his ideas on Buddhist Dhamma and biotic world at another. The main argument proposed in this paper, which is the concept of inclusive environmentalism, posit that adequate representation to dalits, tribes, minorities, women, and other marginalised sections of Indian society in the planning and execution of policies and strategies related to environment can be formulated and deepen by borrowing ideas from Ambedkar.

This paper is organised into four sections; The first section deals with the conceptual framework derived from the thoughts of Ambedkar in the domain of ecology; the second section demonstrates the sensitivity of Ambedkar towards ecological resources and the exclusion of lower strata of Indian society from accessing such resources; the third section narrates the ecological dimension of Ambedkar’s Buddha and his Damma and its ecological dimensions and finally the last section unravels and proposes the potentiality of Ambedkar thought in addressing critical environmental issues from the perspective of marginalised sections of Indian society.

1. Ambedkar and Green Discourse

Undoubtedly the thought of Ambedkar has embedded within itself fascinating ecological dimensions that need both theoretical and methodological appreciation. In fact these ideas are capable of transforming the concept of environment from ‘exotic’, generally disembedded to the ‘organic’ which is thoroughly embedded within each and every one of us. Linkage between the ideas of Ambedkar and the context of Indian environmentalism is essential to comprehend the social and politico-ecological nexus between social exclusion and environmental problems. The ideas and practices of Ambedkar thought from the perspective of ecology can be located and captured from the prism of intellectual environmental history which concentrates on the contribution of philosophers, poets, politicians and activists towards ecological thought (Mcneil, 2003, Wroster, 1977). It must be stated at the outset that the subject of intellectual environmental history has been a less explored domain in India. However with the critical need arisen to deepen enquiry towards sharpening public sensitivity on environment and the need for more informed policy making on the subject at hand, it has become imperative that the ideas of Ambedkar be critically explored.

Existing literature on intellectual environmental history in India can be classified into three broad categories. The first category being state-centric which focuses on ideas and contribution of technocrats and administrators employed during British rule. Within this category particular attention has been devoted to the contributions of H. Cleghorn, founder of scientific forest conservation and D. Brandis, the father of Indian forest service (Guha, 1996, Grove, 1995). The second category of intellectual environmental history is generally identified as ethno-intellectual concentrating mainly on contributions of colonial ethnographers who explored the tribal societies during the British period. Within this framework, it is claimed that these individuals played a crucial role in the documentation of the life-world of tribes and forest landscape (Guha, 2005, Phillip, 2003). The third category of intellectual environmental history deals with ecological dimensions from within nationalist thought. This is carried forth at two levels: attention to the ideas of native bureaucracy (Guha, 1993), political parties (Sinha, 2007), and nationalist intelligentsia’s views on management of common pool resource management and the ecological dimensions of ideas of prominent political leaders. M.K. Gandhi in particular has received greatest attention in this process with his philosophy generally being treated as an epitome of Indian ecological wisdom (Guha and Alier, 1998) that must be incorporated in the policies of environmental management (Shiva, and Bondyopadhya, 1985).

Historically, Indian environmentalism has been mainly dominated by a nationalist perception of ecology. Under its persistent advocacy, community centric resource management policies gained prominence in the form of joint forest management, water management, grass land management, etc. Theoretically the implementation process of these varied reforms required inclusive participation of all stakeholders and equitable distribution of benefits, however it has been observed that it is at this juncture that the reform process is unable to impact and usher any substantial changes. This fundamental predicament is termed by some studies (Adhikari and Faloo, 2008) as being a problem of second generation policy reforms in the domain of natural resources management. The impact of social divisions on policy performance within this domain is being identified as one of the key impediments and utmost reasons for underperformance. Within such a context, it has become imperative for Indian environmental discourse to turn to and probably incorporate ideas of dalit intellectuals who advocate for an inclusive Indian society based upon the principles of equity (Sharma, 2012: 50).

II Natural Resources for All: From Ambedkar Standpoint

For a long period of time, the ideas of Ambedkar were forced into a state of dormancy and kept hidden from mainstream academics. Mainstream Indian academia was more than happy to attribute the image of Ambedkar as only a leader of dalits (Guru, 1998). However, by 1980s the process of invoking Ambedkar for academic discourse started as most of his writings began to be widely published and made accessible to the general public. The contribution of Ambedkar in the domains of economic thought (Ambrajan, 1999), politics, history, education, religion, etc, received the attention of scholars both within India and abroad. However the relevance of his ideas for understanding human and environmental relationship rarely received any adequate attention. With the exception of some studies that attempted to explore the ideas of Ambedkar on water management (Abraham, 2002, Thorat, 2006) focusing on the concept of economically driven distributive justice.

Ambedkar, in many of his writings explicitly brought out the impact of an iniquitous socio-economic structure in the usage of common pool resources in India. His primary interest, it could be argued, was to highlight how the caste system prevented dalits from accessing common pool resources which in his opinion was the root cause of poverty and pauperisation. According to Ambedkar, the exclusion of dalits from resources was operationalised and legitimised by a system of graded inequality that was sanctioned by the shastras that Ambedkar identified as forming the theoretical core of what we now identify as the Hinduism.

In many other areas within south Asia, environmental historians mainly employed the Marxian concept of alienation of man from nature by capitalist exploitation of nature. They saw from this perspective a colonial state that is conceived as an exploitative agent and where people are victims. This approach, while critical, could only bring forth and track a single one sided dimension of human environmental relationship i.e., India versus British. However conflicts for ecological resources are certainly more complex than this approach envisaged. This is more so in the case of India where social stratification significantly determines the access of resources of various social groups at any point in time. It is in this context that an Ambedkar theory on Indian society and its critical application especially in the context of environmental studies would enable us to evolve effective linkages between society and environment.

Ambedkar’s sensitivity toward exclusion of dalits from ecologically important resources can be observed at two levels; his ideas on exclusion of dalits from possessing land, and his reflections on the nexus between caste system and access to forests and water. He appears to have engaged with the practice of untouchability in public goods by caste Hindus. A quote from Annihilation of Caste reveals this process; ‘Balais (an untouchable caste from Maharastra) were not allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so that if the fields a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the Balais could have no access to his own field…. hundreds of Balais with their wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations and to migrate to adjoining States’ (Ambedkar, 1992: 26). Ambedkar highlights a peculiar aspect of Indian society which excludes lower strata people in the name of untouchability. He highlights the instance of the Punjab Land Alienation Act which prohibits dalits from purchasing land (Ambedkar, 1989).

Contrary to essentialist and nationalist representation of human environmental relationship, Ambedkar offers wider perspective which reflects the complexities of human ecology. For Ambedkar, deprivation of forest dependent people had taken place due to colonial forest policies at one level and the attitude of upper caste Hindus at another. This phenomenon can be captured from the following quote:

When the agriculture season is over the Untouchables have no employment and no means of earning a living. In such seasons they subsist by cutting grass and firewood from the jungles and sell it in a nearby town. Even when it is open it depends upon the forest guard. Only if he is bribed he will let them take some grass and firewood from the Government forests. When it brought to the town, they have always to face a buyer’s market. The Hindus who are the main body of buyers will always conspire to beat down the wages. Having no power to hold out, the Untouchables have to sell their stuff for whatever is offered to them. Often times they have to walk 10 miles each way from the village to the town and back to sell their stuff (Ambedkar, 1989: 24).

Ambedkar consistently engaged with the issue of exclusion of dalits from accessing natural resources. He mentions an instance where a Chamar (person belonging to an untouchable castes of North India) was severely beaten for drawing water from a village well. The justification for this punishment was that the Chamar’s touch had polluted the water. He mentions this incident to show how inhuman caste Hindus are. Further he relates about a dalit being assaulted by caste Hindus when he attempted to save the life of a young woman who fell in a well. Also in 1932 a band of Rajput women had beaten a dalit man severely as he attempted to drink water from village well. Ambedkar quotes a report by Lala Ramprasadji, secretary to Achut Uddharak Committee Punjab on severity of untouchability in accessing water reading as follows:

‘During the hot season complaints were received from everywhere that supply of water is becoming a great problem. The depressed class people, who have no wells of their own, sit near the well with their vessels in their hands. If some man is kind enough to pour out some water, well and good, otherwise they sit helpless. In some places, however, no one is allowed to pour out water to these people even for money and if anyone does so mortal fight ensue. Not only is the use of the village wells forbidden to them, but they are not even allowed to make wells of their own with their own money’ (Ambedkar, 1989:38).

Ambedkar in the above highlights an interesting point about untouchable reality that they are not only prohibited from access to water from public wells but are also denied the rights to build wells. He points to the fact that the nature of Indian society which is built upon caste hierarchy, wherein social status rather than ability determines access to resources. For Ambedkar this phenomenon can be specially observed in the domain of access to drinking water. This peculiar feature exists according to Ambedkar for the following reason:

‘Untouchability may be a misfortune to the Untouchables. But there is no doubt that it is a good fortune to the Hindus. It gave them a class which they can look down upon. The system of untouchability sustains the natural pride of the Hindus and makes them feel as well as look big’ (Ambedkar, 1989:102).

This is an important fact pointing to the treatment of dalits as a separate social segment which is meant to consistently cripple them through treatment by a caste Hindu society. The exclusion of dalits from access to public goods was done by an institutionalised mechanism in the form of untouchability. The deterministic character of caste in accessing common pool and public resources that was explicitly brought out by Ambedkar can be captured in the following expression; ‘In the use of public facilities, the spirit of discrimination manifests itself in the exclusion of untouchables from school, wells, temples and means of conveyance’ (Ambedkar, 1989:108).

The point Ambedkar made is that dalits as a community, (like coloured people of America) suffer from myriad forms of social exclusion and hence needs separate strategic initiatives for development. According to Ambedkar separate strategy for emancipation of dalits is required by civil society and the state for the following reason:

‘there is community (dalit) economically poor, socially degraded, educationally backward which is exploited, oppressed and tyrannized without shame and without remorse, disowned by society, unknown by Government and which has not security for protection and no guarantee for justice, fair play and equal opportunity’ (Thorat and Kumar, 2008: 30).

While for M.K. Gandhi restrictions on the wants of individuals is solution to ecological problems, for Ambedkar democratisation of access to resources solves ecological problems.

Ambedkar championed the concept of environmentalism for the poor. The Mahad Satyagraha was a historic movement in which two issues were highlighted by the activism of Ambedkar- he attempted to dismantle the very root of Hindu belief system i.e., burning the Manusmruti and fight against water Untouchablity (Zelliot 2005). In this context Ambedkar advised his followers to violate the age old restrictions on accessing drinking from common pool resources which is a vital common pool resource (Rao, 2009). The Mahad Satyagraha took place in a small town of Maharashtra in 1927. Ambedkar along with three thousand followers violated the traditional restrictions of preventing untouchables from accessing water. Ambedkar took water into his hands from the Chowdar Tank and violated the age old Untouchability. While most of the studies on the Mahad Satyagraha treat the incident as crusade against caste oppression, while true, this incident has historical significance as being one of the pioneering attempts of environmentalism for the poor. It is interesting to note the politico-philosophical reflection of Ambedkar on this occasion;

‘At the outset, let me tell those who oppose us that we did not perish because we would not drink water from this Chowdar Tank. We now want to go to the Tank only to prove that, like others, we are also human beings’ (Jaffrelot, 2005).

Environmental historians of India mainly subscribed to the teleological approach to human environmental relationship, which notes and treats only the resistances of people mainly to policies of colonial state. However the episode of the Mahad Satyagraha demonstrates the complexity of competing interests of Indian society over access to resources and attempts of marginalised sections of Indian society to fight for justice in the domain of environment.

III. Egalitarian Environmentalism and Ambedkar

Environmental historians in India obsessed with preservationist discourse which has proclivity to invoke romantic preservationist ideas from Brahminical scriptures and practices. The main agenda of these ideas is to provide a conceptual structure to the multiple patterns of resource use under the framework of Hindu culture. Ambedkar on the other hand takes recourse to the ideas of Siddharta Gautama while sourcing his ideas for the arguments he puts forth. By invoking the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama- the Buddha, Ambedkar formulates and introduces the construct of egalitarian environmentalism which is an anti-thesis to romantic Hindu environmentalism. At the core of this philosophy is the premise that resources of nature are not meant for few rather for all, and all human beings possess equal right to use these resources of nature. In the ethical domain of relationship between humans and nature, Ambedkar moves close to the ideas of Marx who believes in the idea of eco-equality.

In the monumental text Buddha and his Dhamma which starts with an analysis of the process of transformation of Siddhartha Gautama to Buddha, for Ambedkar it happened in the context of Gautama’s attempt to find a solution to water disputes between the Sakhyas and the Koloyas which is the tribal confederation of ancient India. The decision of the Sakhyas to undertake war against enemies was bitterly opposed by Siddhartha Gautama who eventually chooses the path of self-exile. The point to be noted here is that the character of the Buddha in Ambedkar’s vision of Buddhism emerges from eco-sensitive resources such as water (Ambedkar, 2006: 28-29). The engagement of Ambedkar with ecological justice using the case of Buddha could be seen at three levels: the conception of evolution of nature; the relationship between human beings and other living forms and finally the ethical aspects of human ecology.

While reviewing the process of the genesis of the world in the philosophical tradition of Indian thought, he put forward Buddha’s version of nature. For Ambedkar, a biotic world does not have any superior and inferior qualities, rather ‘all individual things are analogues to one another and therefore, no one can be regarded as the final sources to any other’. This means that all living forms in the world are mutually depended upon each other for survival. While reflecting the social philosophy of Ambedkar i.e, importance of all social class to the broader social system, this concept also closely resembles very intricate eco-biological concept of food chain. Ambedkar thus propose the concept of socio-ecological egalitarianism which facilitated the thought process of inclusive environmentalism.

Another interesting aspect of Neo-Buddhism (Ambedkar Buddhism) which addresses these complex processes is the relationship among human beings, and the relationship between living forms and human beings. The main crux of Buddhist Dharma according to Ambedkar is the engagement of ‘man and the relation of man to man in his life on earth’ (Ambedkar, 2006: 121). By invoking Buddhist Dharma, Ambedkar was addressing two things: reflection on the iniquitous social order wherein powerful sections exploit nature for selfish class and caste interests and secondly, visualising his dream society i.e., society free from exploitation and deprivation. Neo-Buddhism does not restrict itself to harmonious relationship between human beings alone but goes to the extent of proposing an organic relationship with all living forms. Ambedkar invoked Buddha to reflect upon this aspect as follows:

‘Love is not enough; what is required is Maitri. It is wider than love. It means fellowship not merely with human beings but with all living beings. Is not such Maitri necessary? What else can give to all living beings the same happiness which one seeks for one’s own self, to keep the mind impartial, open to all, with affection for everyone and hatred for none’ (Ambedkar, 2006:129).

Thus, loving kindness and compassion towards living forms is an essential feature of Buddhism and it is one of the important ecological virtues that it contributed to the world. Ambedkar himself purports to propose a self emphatic and reflexive ethical code for human beings while engaging with other species, meaning he was not satisfied with the dominant anthropocentric conception of the world but prefers an inclusive bio-ecological centric world wherein all species have equal rights for their existence.

For Ambedkar the essence of true India lies in Buddhist tradition. For him Brahmanism is an anti-thesis to humanistic values and nature’s biological ethics. He upholds the views of Buddha on conservation of animals and all life forms from destruction. While invoking the ideas of Buddha, Ambedkar condemned the killing of animals in the following passage:

‘that sacrifice neither were nay oxen slain, neither goats, nor fowls, nor fatted pigs, nor were any kinds of living creatures put to death. No trees were cut down to be used as posts, no Dabbha grasses mown to strew around the sacrificial spot’ (Ambedkar, 2006: 267).

This bitter critique on nature’s exploitation was launched by Buddha against Brahmanism more than thousand years back and it was recalled by Ambedkar with his Neo-Buddhism.

The third important feature of Neo-Buddhism is its powerful eco-sensitivity and eco-gospel, based upon ethical treatment of all living forms. In the perception of Buddha; a king, a rich man and popular persons are not great men. A great man according to him is ‘a man given to the welfare of many of many folks, to the happiness of many folk’ (Ambdekar, 2006: 293). Thus the essence of being human in Buddhist thought is one who lives for others. This ethical dogma is reflected in the discourse of Buddhist ecology. While countering the Brahminical notion of out-castes, Buddha defined who is out castes in the following words: ‘whosoever in this world harms living beings once-born or twice-born, in whom there is no compassion for living beings is an outcast’ (Ambedkar, 2006: 307). Ambedkar invoked Buddha to counter Brahmanical notion of the caste system, and reintegrated that outcast should not be determined by birth rather by qualities of the person. Thus, Ambedkar marshalled the ideas of Buddha and evolve a powerful critique of not only iniquitous social order but also of eco-sensitive ideas which are capable of bringing eco-sensitivity in society.

Conclusion

Ecology has emerged as an important phenomenon in academic and public discourse. It is indeed necessary to expand its scope by invoking new ideas to find solutions to emerging ecological crisis. The ideas of Ambedkar offer a fresh perspective to Indian environmentalism. His ideas show that environment needs to be located in the dynamics of social forces that ultimately determines the nature of human relationship with environment. The ideas of Ambedkar reminds us that environmental governance should be crafted based upon the principle of equity and bio-ethical spirit to cater to the needs of all sections of human society. In a way, Ambedkar’s ideas enable us to focus on ecological democracy and inclusive environmentalism, meaning environment for all. Particularly his engagement with Buddhism proposes a bio-centric approach to look at social process. This means all species including human beings have equal rights over nature and at the same time all human beings has responsibility to participate in conservation of environment. To conclude, the eco-philosophy of Ambedkar can be termed as ‘environment for all and all for environment’. Its relevance both at the global and local levels notwithstanding Ambedkar’s contribution to ecology needs to be furthered to usher a just ecologically embedded society.

References

• Abraham, P. (2002). ‘Notes on Ambedkar’s Water Resource Policies’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.37, No. 48, Nov. 30-Dec 6, pp. 4772-4774.
• Adhikari, B and Faloo, S.D. (2008). Social Inequalities and Collective Action: An Empirical Study of Forest Commons, Working Paper, International Forestry Resources and Institutions Programme, School for Natural Resource Management, University of Michigan.
• Ambedkar, B.R. (1992). Annihilation of Caste with a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi, Anand Sahitya Sadan, Aligarh.Ambedkar, (1989). Untouchables or The Children of India’s Ghetto” in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol.5, Bombay, Government of Maharashtra
• Ambedkar, B.R. (2006). Buddha and his Dham ma , Siddharth Books, Delhi.
• Ambirajan, S. (1999). ‘Ambedkar’s Contribution to Indian Economics’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No, 46/47, November, 20-26, pp. 3280-3284.
• Grove R. (1995). Green Imperialism: Conservation and colonial Expansion, 1600-1860, Cambridge University Press, Indian Prints, New Delhi.
• Guha, R. (1996). ‘Denedith Brandies and Indian Forestry, A Vision Revisited and Reaffirmed’, Profenberger, M, and McGean, B, (ed), Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
• Guha, R. (2005). The Ramachandra Guha Omnibus, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
• Guha, R. (1993). An Early Environment Debate: Making of the 1878 Forest Act”, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol.27, No. 1, 1993, pp.65-84.
• Guha, R. Alier, J.M. (1998). Verities of Environmentalism: Essays North and South, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
• Guru, G. (1998). Understanding Ambedkar’s Construction of National Movement’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 33, No.4, Jan, 20-30, 1998, pp.56-58.
• Jafferlot, C. (2005). Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
• McNeil, J.R. (2003). ‘Observations on the Nature and Culture of Environmental History’, History and Theory, Vol.42, No. 4, December, pp. 5-44.
• Philip, K. (2003). Civilising Nature: Race, Resources and Modernity in Colonial South India, Orient Longman, New Delhi.
• Rao, A. (2009). The Caste Question: Dalits and Politics of Modern India, University of California Press, London.
• Sharma, M. (2012). ‘Dalit and Indian Environmental Politics’, Economic and Political Weekly, June 9, 2012, vol.xlvii, no. 23. Pp. 46-52.
• Sinha, J.N. (2007). ‘Congress and Conservation: A look at the NPC Reports’, in Rannaj Ckakrabarti, (Eds). Situating Environmental History, Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 279-305.
• Shiva, V and Bondyopadhya, J. (1985). Chipko: India’s Response to the Forest Crisis, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
• Thorat, S. (2006). Ambedkar’s Role in Economic Planning and Water Policy, Shipra, New Delhi.
• Thorat, S and Kumar, N Eds, (2008). B.R. Ambedkar: Perspective on Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies, Oxford University Press , New Delhi 2008.
• Worster, D. (1977). Nature’s Economy; A History of Ecological Ideas, Cambridge University Press, London.
• Zelliot, E. (2005), From Untouchable to Dalits: Essays on Ambedkar Movements, Manohar, New Delhi.