Breaking down the question

The question asks how the anti-untouchability struggle changed as it moved from the Gandhian to the Ambedkarite position — a shift in both forms (methods, tactics) and perspectives (aims, philosophy). The examiner wants a comparative account that shows a movement transformed, not two static portraits.

The core contrast is between reform from within and radical transformation from below. Gandhi sought to abolish untouchability while retaining varnashrama, working through moral appeal, upper-caste conscience and paternalist uplift of Harijans. Ambedkar rejected this, demanding the annihilation of caste itself, political rights and Dalit self-assertion. A strong answer traces the movement from a moral-reformist to a rights-and-power idiom.

For the movement context, see our note on backward classes and Dalit movements.

How to approach it

Open by naming the two positions and their central disagreement. Organise the body as a contrast along methods, aims and agency, then note the longer-term ascendancy of the Ambedkarite frame.

  • Gandhian form — reform within Hinduism, moral persuasion, Harijan uplift.
  • Ambedkarite form — political rights, legal safeguards, conversion, self-organisation.
  • Perspective shift — from paternalist reform to Dalit self-assertion and structural change.
  • Legacy — the Ambedkarite idiom becomes dominant in later Dalit movements.

Model answer

The struggle against untouchability underwent a decisive change as it passed from the Gandhian to the Ambedkarite position, transforming both its methods and its philosophy.

The Gandhian approach treated untouchability as a moral blot on Hinduism that could be removed without dismantling the caste order. Gandhi renamed untouchables Harijans, or children of God, and campaigned for temple entry, the removal of social disabilities and a change of heart among caste Hindus. His method was reformist and persuasive — fasting, appeal to conscience and paternalist uplift — and he defended varnashrama as an ideal division of labour purged of hierarchy. Agency lay largely with reforming upper-caste Hindus acting on behalf of the excluded.

The Ambedkarite position broke sharply with this frame. For Ambedkar untouchability was not an aberration but the logical outcome of the caste system, so its removal required the annihilation of caste rather than moral reform within Hinduism. He located the source of exclusion in the graded inequality sanctioned by religious texts, and therefore rejected any solution that preserved the varna scheme. His methods were political and legal — separate representation, constitutional safeguards, education and organisation — captured in the call to educate, agitate, organise. His eventual conversion to Buddhism symbolised the refusal of a religion he held responsible for degradation.

The change in perspective was thus from reform to radical transformation, and from paternalist uplift to Dalit self-assertion. Where Gandhi appealed to the conscience of the privileged, Ambedkar built the agency of the oppressed themselves, insisting on rights, dignity and power rather than benevolence. The idiom shifted from charity to justice, from Harijan to Dalit — a term of self-chosen assertion.

This shift has shaped later movements. As Gopal Guru and others note, subsequent Dalit mobilisation — the Dalit Panthers, autonomous Dalit politics and the language of annihilation and rights — draws overwhelmingly on the Ambedkarite rather than the Gandhian legacy, treating self-organisation and structural change, not upper-caste reform, as the route to emancipation.

In sum, the anti-untouchability struggle moved from a Gandhian project of moral reform within Hinduism to an Ambedkarite project of rights-based, self-assertive structural transformation, a change of both form and perspective that continues to define Dalit politics.

Examiner's perspective

A high-scoring answer is genuinely comparative, mapping the change along method, aim and agency rather than describing each leader in isolation. Naming the Harijan versus Dalit idiom and the annihilation-of-caste thesis signals precise command.

Examiners value recognition that the shift was from reform to radical transformation and from paternalism to self-assertion, and reward a sentence on the Ambedkarite legacy in later movements. A fair, non-partisan tone, British spelling and a tight contrastive structure secure the higher band.