Inequality/ Social Justice:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Madhurima KVS

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar set to understand the inbuilt system of
inequalities and tried to provide a solution to remedy the situation. While Rousseau sets his
understanding of human nature as primitive step towards inquiring inequality, Ambedkar
observes the evil of caste inequality and untouchability by understanding the causes for it, both
social and religious. This paper tries to understand the causes of inequality and the social justice
recommended by both these thinkers.

Rousseau’s Thought

Rousseau’s work is divided into four sections: Dedication, the Preface, the First and Second
Parts of “A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind.” He
dedicates this seminal work to his birthplace, Geneva by praising the social system in Geneva to
be close to the perfect one. In this utopian view of Geneva, he mentions how the laws created a
just and stable system. It is said that this very creation of Geneva is more of embodying the
virtues he always wished for than the accurate representation of Geneva itself. The text runs as
counter-discourse against the contemporary Paris, which Rousseau disapproves of.

Rousseau in the Second Discourse pertaining to the Origin of Inequality attempts to demonstrate
the modern moral inequality that exists among people, juxtaposing with the true nature of man.
He seeks to chart out the human nature that has evolved and produced the inequality that we see
in the modern day. Rousseau, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, begins by imagining the
state of nature, a condition before society and the development of reason. He conjectures that
man, like any other animal is motivated by two key principles of pity and self-preservation.
Rousseau charts out the presence of two kinds of inequality among humans; he calls the first as
natural or physical inequality and moral or political inequality. The former depends on the
physical or bodily aspects of strength, age; health etc., while the latter arises through the
conventions based on the consent of men. Rousseau sets out to dissect this ‘natural man’ who is
in ‘the embryo of his species.’ The only attribute that separates from animals is ‘perfectibility’
and the innate sense of freedom. In the state of nature, man has few needs, no idea of good and
evil and little contact with other humans. The man is sub-moral as he doesn’t know what is right
or wrong. Rousseau’s natural man cannot conceive of death or any other catastrophic due to lack
of reasoning abilities. Natural processes like earthquakes and floods naturally force men to
interact and develop societies, improve skills. As a man comes to close contact with the other, he
finds the quality of amour propre driving him as he tends to compare themselves to others and
the urging need to dominate others to be happy.
The invention of private property and division of labor represent the beginning of moral
inequality as property allows the exploitation of the poor by the rich, leading to unstable relations
between them. The natural liberty is thus destroyed and gave legitimacy to the exploitative acts
of rich. In order to maintain the rich supremacy, they tend to create a political society as a
resolve to the state of war between them. Poor are tricked into the belief that this compromise
shall secure freedom and safety for them; but it merely affirms the existing dominant relation
between the rich and poor. In his famous quote, he is seen saying ‘man is born free and
everywhere he is in chains.’ Human relations due to the differences in the propertied classes and
the poor are based on interest rather than pity. ‘People are duped into consenting for the very
institutions based on egoistic individualism or self-love; that compound artificial inequalities that
re social in origin: honor, prestige, power and privilege. Rousseau explains various levels of
injustices and inequalities.’ (Boucher 2003) The peak of inequality is reached with despotism or
unjust rule. According to him, the worst kind of society is that in which money alone is the only
measure of value.

In order to overcome the inequality in the society, Rousseau advocates the Social Contract which
is based on multiple particular wills. In his understanding, there exist three wills, the particular
will that is colored by desires, which shall be replaced by real will in the light of reason and
arrive at a general will for all the people. Rousseau suggests that there exists the general will
which seeks to capture the real will of the citizen, free of selfish interests. He commits himself to
civil equality and the full responsibility of all citizens to participate in legislative process.
(Rousseau 2002)

Ambedkar’s Thought

Ambedkar belongs to Mahar community, one of the many untouchable communities in

Maharastra. He dedicated his life in understanding the caste system in India and set to liberate
Dalits from their caste oppression. He describes the journey to Goregoan as one of the life-
turning events as he got to experience the inhumane way of treating untouchables and this has set
him on the path of exploration and emancipation. The Constitution of India is living document of
his will to abolish untouchability and provide rights for the Depressed Classes.

Caste is a highly organized, non-voluntary social grouping recognized by a common name. Caste
system thrives within the folds of Hinduism and is defined as an endogamous, communal unit
who share food and occupation. The status of a person is hence fixed and is hereditary. In the
paper, Castes in India: their mechanism, genesis and development’, the origin of caste may be
traced to social homogeneity obtained in the distinct ethnological groupings of Aryans,
Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians, where caste is a ‘parceling’ in the already existing within
the homogenous unit. (Ambedkar, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development
1916) By rejecting the racial theory of caste, eugenic theories, Ambedkar regards ‘endogamy’ as
the characteristic and cause for caste system. In earlier matrimonial relations, it is to be noted
that people of sagotras can’t marry each other and thus looking for exogamous relations. He
regards endogamy to be foreign to the primitive social culture and mating. He exclaims that ‘the
superimposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste’. In order to maintain
endogamy it should be understood that there exists numerical equality between the sexes within
the caste. Ambedkar talks about the conditions meted out to the ‘surplus man’ and ‘surplus
woman’ who has become widow/widower by (i) the practice of sati (ii) enforced widowhood (iii)
marrying a girl who is not yet marriageable to the widower. ‘Caste is an enclosed class’; the
Brahmin class organized themselves into caste in order to establish superiority. Ambedkar
regards the multiplication of caste system and organization in non-Brahmin classes due to the
‘infection of imitation’ and process of excommunication. He qualifies this understanding from
the Gabriel Tarde’s laws of imitation based on distance. Such imitation brings prestige to a given
caste organization. In addition, in a theocratic society, ‘who (else) could set the pattern but the
servant of god (namely the Brahmins)?’ This explains the mechanistic formation of caste.

The practice of untouchability can be understood in two ways: literal and notional. In the literal
understanding of untouchability, it can be seen that the Brahmins shall not touch an untouchable
in the literal sense of the word. This idea is manifested in the refusal to use common well, to
share food, water or debarring access to public temples or cremation or burial ground etc. to
name a few instances. The mental attitude towards untouchability underlies the ‘pollution’
aspect. The outward registers of untouchability are a result of the inward feeling of defilement,
odium, aversion and contempt. In the notional sense of understanding, even though a Brahmin
doesn’t literally treat a person as untouchable or purify them of the pollution caused by the
touch; the person shall still be regarded as impure by virtue of his belonging to the untouchable
class. Ambedkar argues that this moving away from literal to notional understanding of
untouchability is happening only due to adjusting modern conditions and it is a misconception to
say it portends the collapse of caste system. (Rodrigues 2017) Ambedkar has pressed the origin
of untouchability to religion. He says the practice still persists because it was not based on
rational, economic or ritual grounds while it is based on the practice of Hinduism. Even though a
person doesn’t have any motive of deliberate cruelty, a Hindu looks upon the observance of
untouchability as an act of religious merit; and moving away from that would mean total
abandonment of basic religious tenets of Hinduism as understood by the mass of Hindus.

Hinduism has stringent rules and regulations in relation to pollution and purification. A Hindu
cannot acquire a new or better or different caste. Some rules are essential to the practice of
religion and thus, the maintenance of the caste system. Ambedkar says, ‘In every Hindu the
consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste.’ There exists the usage of concept of
prayaschitas1 or penances for committing certain offences. The existence of prayaschita means
that the offence is compoundable. There are two offences for which no penance exists- 1.
Change from the Hindu religion to another religion and 2. Marriage with a person of another
caste or religion. A person committing any of the above two shall be revoking of all benefits of

1
Prayaschita is the system by which a person expelled from the caste due to committing certain offence, perform or
take certain measures to be readmitted into the caste fellowship.
the caste organization and can’t reclaim the caste. This becomes the core content of caste. The
caste system in India consists of myriad of castes that are distinct and sovereign in the internal
affairs of the caste system. The castes touch but they do not interpenetrate and the order among
castes is vertical. In the missionary understanding of Hindu religion, Ambedkar said, Hindu
religion ceased to convert individuals with the growing importance of caste, as the question of
social position of the convert was brought into picture. Due to caste system, there shall be no
Sanghatan among the Hindus versus the fellowship and brotherhood prevalent among Sikhs and
Muslims.

In the speech, Annihilation of the Caste, Ambedkar rejects caste on the contention that the
occupation of individual is pre-destined and doesn’t allow for exploring the potential of the
laborers in the face of changing industrial scenario. Slavery is the state of society in which some
men are forced to accept from others the purposes which control their conduct; Ambedkar draws
parallels slavery with caste system. The Chaturvarna system and the caste system are
fundamentally opposed because, the Varna system is based on ‘worth/guna’ of the individual; to
reorganize masses into the Varna system would mean the break up with caste system and
grouping the castes in the folds of 4 Varnas only. Ambedkar presupposed a social and religious
revolution before political revolution among the Dalits. He vehemently pushed for religious
conversions to Buddhism and the annihilation of the Hinduism in order to annihilate caste
system. Despite the existence of caste in other religions, he notes that caste among non-Hindus is
only a practice and not a sacred institution.

In order to attain economic equality, Ambedkar proposes the industrialization and state
socialism. He pressed for adequate representation to the depressed classes for ten years, the
current reservation system, in the memorandum submitted to the First Round Table Conference.
He suggested inter-caste marriages to be a powerful tool to challenge the rigidity of the caste
system. Ambedkar’s suggested two sets of remedies: a set of remedies against continuing current
discrimination and another set to remedy the historical deprivation due to denial of economic,
civil and cultural rights in the past and structural inequalities in Indian society.

Discussion

The reading of Ambedkar is very pertinent even today in the light of caste oppression and
violence in India. The well-built structure of arguments in his discourse tries to question and
debunk the myth of caste and untouchability on which the Hindu religion is based on. On the
other hand, Rousseau theorized the origin of private property as the source of inequality among
masses. It can be seen that both Ambedkar and Rousseau talk of certain Brahminical or
propertied understanding of the origin of inequality. While Rousseau talks about material cause
of it, Ambedkar reads beyond the material and explores the social and psychological reasons for
inequality. Rousseau recommends the Social Contract drawn on the general will of people to
remedy the inequality, while Ambedkar calls for the annihilation of Hinduism, affirmative action
to the Depressed Classes in order to attain equality, both social and opportunity.
Bibliography
Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. "Annihilation of Caste." May 15, 1936.

—. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. Vol. XLI. Indian Antiquary,
1916.

Boucher, David. "Rousseau." In Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present, by David
Boucher and Paul Kelly, 235-252. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Rodrigues, Valerian. The Essential Writings of B.R.Ambedkar. New Delhi: Oxford Universtiy
Press, 2017.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses. Edited by
Susan Dunn. New York: Yale University Press, 2002.

Shah, Ghanshyam. "Caste and Untouchability: Theory and Practice." In Ambedkar in Retrospect:
Essays on Economics, Politics & Society, edited by Sukhadeo Thorat and Aryama, 223-
245. New Delhi: Rawat Publication, 2007.

Thorat, Sukhadeo, and Aryama. "Remedies agaisnt Discriminination and Inequalities." Chap. 3
in Ambedkar in retrospect: Essays on Economics, Politics & Society, edited by Sukhadeo
Thorat and Aryama, 58-75. New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2007.

Zelliot, Eleanor. "The Social and Political Thought of B.R.Ambedkar." In Political Thought in
Modern India, edited by Thomas Pantham and Kenneth L Deutsh, 161-175. SAGE
Publications, n.d.