Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: A much-Misappropriated Scholar

 

 

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: A much-Misappropriated Scholar

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

In my last article on "A Revised History of the Partition of India in 1947: A Trailor of Things To Come", I gave a quotation from Dr. Ambedkar's book "Thoughts on Pakistan", on the question of why Muslim society (especially in India) was so resistant to reform of any kind. In reply to a comment (not about Ambedkar), I had occasion to point out that one of the purposes of the article was to highlight this quotation for my readers:

"the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of  communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the land-lords. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the land-lord he may have to fight against a Muslim land-lord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to Muslim landlord or to a Muslim millowner is a disservice to the Muslim Community for it weakens the Community in its struggle against the Hindu Community. How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States". (AMBEDKAR 1941:232).

This brought to my mind the fact that Dr. Ambedkar is indeed one of the most misunderstood and even most misappropriated leaders of the Independence era. On the one hand, all kinds of casteist hate-politics (most of which goes blatantly against whatever he stood for and whatever he wrote and expressed in his writings) is played in his name by self-styled "followers" and "Ambedkarites". On the other hand, he is an object of hatred for many misguided Hindus. That he should be hated by casteist upper-caste Hindus is understandable. But even many more scholarly Hindus are lacking in respect for this very great man. I remember a popular and prominent Hindu writer (now long dead) once telling me: "Oh, you must not pay much attention to what Ambedkar wrote and said. He was often in a state of inebriation, and wrote anything at all", which shocked me by the degree of sweeping contempt which that writer seemed to have for Dr. Ambedkar. Other Hindu writers (and of course the BJP Parivar, which uses every trick ever invented if it can be used to its advantage) have misappropriated him whenever and wherever they could do so.

Hence I realized it was necessary for me to write an article on Dr. Ambedkar.

 

Before Ambedkar,  I must mention (as I did in my reply to the comment on my last article) Veer Savarkar, my most respected leader from the Independence era, who was not only a great revolutionary freedom-fighter, Hindutva exponent, social reformer, outspoken rationalist, poet and writer, and whose stirring songs set to music by the Mangeshkar family (Ne Mazasī  Ne  and Jayonstute) can bring tears to the eyes, and who suffered isolated imprisonment in the Andamans for 13 years, but also a person who never sought any kind of material reward or position from Independent India (which he could very easily have angled for and got) as a reward for having devoted his entire life to the nation: in this respect he stands out from all the rest.

There have been plenty of scurrilous writings on Veer Savarkar, as a search of the internet will immediately bring to anyone's notice, by people not worthy of even taking his name or wiping his shoes. That all these slanderous writings have been completely destroyed by the deeply researched and truly great recent two-volume magnum opus, "Savarkar: A Contested Legacy 1924-1966" by Vikram Sampath, only serves to highlight the fact that truly great people will always be the target of scandal-mongering hate-writers, who can pick up small incidents (true or false) and distort and magnify them to any extent to malign them.

On a personal note, I remember that when I "joined" the RSS in 1977 (after the Emergency, when I had read the book "Freedom at Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre, and decided that I would become a member of both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, both of which were much maligned in that book) I was uncomfortable with most of the things that I saw in the organization. I realized it was a purely political organization, a kind of recruitment-and-volunteer organization for the then Jana Sangh, with mindless activities (calculated to inculcate a kind of blind cult of affiliation, devotion and obedience to the "Sangh"), no intellectual pursuits (beyond the most juvenile ideas of history, religion and nationalism): all the organizations emanating from it were only calculated to enlarge the recruitment-and-volunteer base in different fields (students, farmers, workers, etc.). There was actually no commitment to any aspect of Indian Culture: no organization for protecting and propagating Indian flora, fauna and environment, or Indian history or philosophy, or India's extremely rich heritage in music, dance, architecture, handicrafts, etc. (and nor for social reform or social work). I spent most of my time asking the elders in my "shakha" why the uniform (which I refused to wear), the marching instruments and music, etc. of the organization were based on British cultural models rather than on Indian cultural ones — and was told each time that all these aspects of culture were irrelevant to nationalism, and definitely to the "Sangh's" ideas of nationalism ("we are not nationalistic in that way"): ironically the same answer I continued to receive in later years when swayamsevaks criticized Rajiv Gandhi's "Festival of India" or defended the Shiv-Sena-BJP Maharashtra Government's active sponsoring of the Michael Jackson show in Mumbai. Now, with the BJP Parivar actively carrying on all over India the active mercenary destruction of India's forests and natural heritage, this is doubtless the unspoken logic behind it.

And, on every single point, I realized that the swayamsevaks had two sets of rules and principles, not just different from each other but diametrically opposite to each other, to judge the acts of Congressmen and Jana Sanghis. The only positive thing I can say is that I made many new friends and acquaintances in and through the RSS.

[On a personal note, the most representative incident concerning the cultural attitude of devout swayamsevaks was in 1978-1980 (I forget the exact year) when I went to see a Ganesh Chaturthi musical program at Shastri Hall, a prominent Maharashtrian Brahmin colony near Grant Road station (and near my house) with some elderly swayamsevaks. The program, "Mantarlelyā Caitravanāt" based on songs composed by the preeminent composer G.D.Madgulkar, and sung by truly excellent singers (I particularly remember the name of Shaila Datar), had me spellbound. A senior swayamsevak (now long deceased), one of the nicest and most innocent swayamsevaks of my acquaintance, saw my spellbound look and smiled amusedly and indulgently. "You must be liking all this?" he asked. I said "Yes, don't you?" a little surprised. His reply with a fond smile was "malā āplī saṅghācī gāṇī āvaḍtāt" ("I like our RSS songs")].

One thing that puzzled me (after having read "Freedom at Midnight") was that the RSS prātahsmaraṇ recited at every function contained the name of  Gandhi but not the name of Savarkar. When I questioned some of the senior members of the shakha and even some pracharaks, I was told that Savarkar was a man who was full of ahaṅkār (ego) and did not want to come under the umbrella of the Sangh and chose to follow an independent path. I do not say this was the official reason, but this was what I was told. This was in 1978: in later times, of course, all kinds of persons (including  Savarkar) have been appropriated and misappropriated by the RSS and now find place in the RSS prātahsmaraṇ.

 

Both Savarkar and Ambedkar in my opinion were perhaps the greatest leaders of the Independence era. While it was always easy and safe to criticize Savarkar in the most scurrilous terms in post-Independence India, it was less easy or safe to criticize Ambedkar. One book usually cited is Arun Shourie's book "Worshipping False Gods". Let me be very honest: I have never read this book and cannot give any comments on it. Knowing Arun Shourie's meticulous style of research, I cannot condemn it as false or scurrilous either, though I do not think the title appropriate: there are many False Gods today who do, and will do, anything for money and power; and they have millions of blind bhakts. While Ambedkar did have genuine bhakts as well as fake ones, he cannot be dismissed as a False God (except to the extent that treating any human being as a "God", and as not to be questioned, is intrinsically foolish), and he was indeed truly a unique person. The book is supposed to document his various lapses and sins of commission and omission in various matters, and his compromises and dubious actions for personal gains or to achieve his personal objectives. All I can say (without having read the book) is:

1. Every human being (when recognized as a human being and not a "God") has faults. The question is whether they outweigh his achievements and contributions. Gandhi, lauded as the "Father of the Nation" had many more faults, and not just personal ones (many of them quite inexcusable) but major ones which have cost India very dearly, and which perhaps outweigh his positive points. And yet, in my article "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism" (an extract from my much larger article in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume "India's Only Communalist", 2005),  I have taken his good points (in my opinion) and even written: "The basic foundation of this Hindu Nationalist Socio-Economic Ideology must be based on the philosophy and principles of Mahatma Gandhi, which best represent this basic humanitarianism developed to its full potential".

2. In any case, anything that can be genuinely said against Ambedkar will only emphasize what I have said about Savarkar standing out as different from all other leaders (in being totally indifferent to power and material gains) of the Independence era. But it does not reduce Ambedkar's greatness.

But, since this article is about Ambedkar, let me point out that he was genuinely one of the deepest and most intelligent thinkers of his time, the most genuine scholar among all the political leaders of that era, and in many respects, his scholarship, perception and insight was far ahead of the times, and far above that of even Savarkar (which, again, does not reduce Savarkar's greatness). If he often wrote things that a Hindu activist would not like, well, it is not surprising and only what one should expect from an intelligent thinker belonging to a "lower" caste in the mid-twentieth century when "upper" caste politics was at its height. Which is what makes the following all the more admirable and impressive:

 

I. The Aryan Invasion Theory.

II. Caste as a Non-Racial Division.

III. Conversion to Christianity or Islam as Denationalization.

IV. Rejection and Criticism of Islam and the Koran.

1. On Islamist Assassinations and the Moplah Riots of 1921.

2. On the burqa and related Islamic female apparel.

3. On Islamic Invasions and Destruction.

4. Specifically on the Destruction of Buddhism in India.

5. On Casteism, Slavery and the Koran.

V. On the Partition of India.

 

I. The Aryan Invasion Theory:

The first subject (it being my own particular subject) is the Aryan Invasion Theory. While most scholars of the time were completely ignorant of the issues involved, and most of them (including Savarkar) swallowed the theory without analysis, or offered specious arguments against it, Ambedkar did not. He rejected it outright:

According to him, the Western scholars "proceeded to invent the story of the invasion of India by the Aryans and the conquest by them of the Dasas and Dasyus" (AMBEDKAR 1990:79), and, in the process, "they start on a mission to prove what they want to prove, and do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas as they think is good for them"(AMBEDKAR 1990:80).

These scholars assume "that the Aryans are a European race"(AMBEDKAR 1990:79). But, "the European races were white and had a colour prejudice against the dark races"(AMBEDKAR 1990:79); hence these scholars try "to find evidence for colour prejudice in the Aryans who came into India"(AMBEDKAR 1990:79).

 

But Ambedkar proves with references from the Rigveda that "the Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice.  How could they have?  The Vedic Aryans were not of one colour.  Their complexion varied; some were of copper complexion, some white and some black"(AMBEDKAR 1990:81). He examines the word varṇa, which is treated as evidence that the caste-system was originally based on colour, and proves that "it originally meant a class belonging to a particular faith and it had nothing to do with colour or complexion"(AMBEDKAR 1990:85).

He also examines the words mṛdhravāka, anās, kṛṣnayoni, etc. in the Rigveda, which are construed as evidence of a dark, flat-nosed, aboriginal race of India, and concludes that "it would be childish to rely upon (them) as a basis of consciousness of race difference"(AMBEDKAR 1990:76).

He further examines the word dāsa (or dasyu) and concludes that "there is no evidence to show that the term is used in a racial sense indicative of a non-Aryan people"(AMBEDKAR 1990:103), but, in fact, "it was the word of abuse used by the Indo-Aryans for the Indo-Iranians"(AMBEDKAR 1990:104). He further concludes that the battles in the Rigveda were not between Aryans and non-Aryans but between "different communities of Aryas who were not only different but opposed and inimical to each other".  In sum, Ambedkar arrives at the following conclusions, "(1) The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race. (2) There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India. (3) There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryas, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction. (4) The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus"(AMBEDKAR 1990:85).

 

II. Caste as a non-Racial Division:

After rejecting (above) the textual arguments for the AIT based on the Rigveda, Ambedkar fell prey to doubt, in the face of the confident assurance of linguists that the AIT was a "linguistically proved" fact (linguistics not being his own direct field of study), that perhaps there was some kind of linguistic inward movement of Indo-European people, and tried to find some other signs of it in the ancient texts. But even then, he absolutely rejected the idea that the caste system was based on any racial division between "Aryans" and "non-Aryans", and stridently opposed any such idea:

"The racial theory of Mr. Rice contains two elements: (1) That the Untouchables are non-Aryan, non-Dravidian aboriginals. (2) That they were conquered and subjugated by the Dravidians.  This raises the whole question of the invasion of India by foreign invaders, the conquests made by them, and the social and cultural institutions that have resulted therefrom.  According to Mr. Rice, there have been two invasions of India.  First is the invasion of India by the Dravidians.  They conquered the non-Dravidian aborigines, the ancestors of the Untouchables, and made them Untouchables.  The second invasion is the invasion of India by the Aryans.  The Aryans conquered the Dravidians.  He does not say how the conquering Aryans treated the conquered Dravidians.  If pressed for an answer he might say they made them Shudras.  So that we get a chain.  The Dravidians invaded India and conquered the aborigines and made them Untouchables.  After Dravidians came the Aryans.  The Aryans conquered the Dravidians and made them Shudras.  The theory is too mechanical, a mere speculation, and too simple to explain a complicated set of facts relating to the origin of the Shudras and the Untouchables" (AMBEDKAR 1990:290-291).

And, after detailed arguments against the racial origin theory of castes, he concludes "that the Brahmin and the Untouchable belong to the same race.  From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans, the Untouchables are also Aryans.  If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the Untouchables are also Dravidians.  If the Brahmins are Nagas, the Untouchables are also Nagas" (AMBEDKAR 1990:303).

[His assertions can be compared with those of Tilak who supported the AIT as well as the idea that Brahmins were racially "Aryans" and different from the "lower" castes who were "non-Aryans", and who gloried in the "superiority" of his "Aryan" ancestors, and described with pride "the vitality and superiority of the Aryan races, as disclosed by their conquest, by extermination or assimilation, of the non-Aryan races with whom they came into contact in their migrations in search of new lands from the North Pole to the Equator" (TILAK 1903:431). And again: "the very fact that [….the Aryans….] were able to establish their supremacy over the races they came across in their migrations from the original home, and that they succeeded, by conquest or assimilation, in Aryanising the latter in language, thought and religion under circumstances which could not be expected to be favourable to them, is enough to prove that the original Aryan civilization most have been of a type far higher than that of the non-Aryan races" (TILAK 1903:409).]

 

III. Conversion to Christianity or Islam as Denationalization:

 

When Ambedkar, fed up of the treatment of the "lower castes" by the "upper castes", decided that it was necessary to convert from Hinduism, and chose Buddhism (and before that Sikhism) over Christianity or Islam, his views for his choice are worthy of note:

“If the depressed classes join Islam or Christianity, they not only go out of the Hindu religion, but they also go out of the Hindu culture…What the consequences of conversion will do to the country as a whole is well worth bearing in mind. Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize the depressed classes” (Dhanajay Keer: “Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Life and Mission”, p.279-280).

It was only to provide an escape-route for "lower caste" people from a system which seemed to show no signs of improving, that he chose conversion. He wanted to remain within the Indian framework not only from the point of view of culture, but also all other matters which did not involve caste repression: “The application of the Hindu Code to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains was a historical development, and it would be too late, sociologically, to object to it. When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, he did so only in matters of creed, but left the Hindu legal framework intact. He did not propound a separate law for his followers. The same was the case with Mahavir and the ten Sikh Gurus” (Keer, p.427). Hence he classified all religions, other than those which had come from outside India (whether Christianity and Islam which entered India as invaders, or Zoroastrianism and Judaism, which came to India to escape persecution elsewhere), and including Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism, and all local tribal forms of religion, as falling under the category of Hindu in the matter of application of laws.

 

IV. Rejection and Criticism of Islam and the Koran:

Unlike his predecessor in social reform (Jyotiba Phule), who had swallowed the anti-Hindu agenda hook, line and sinker, and who treated Christianity and Islam as morally superior to Hinduism (or other Hindu scholars, including Savarkar, who did not study and analyze Islam and Christianity at their sources), Ambedkar put his eyes, mind and brain to full use; and his criticism for example of Islam and the Koran, and of those who defended them, was extremely courageous and rare in the days before Sita Ram Goel and Voice of India: the entire book "Thoughts on Pakistan" is a Classic in this matter. One wonders what woke-leftists, Islamists and the present "Hindutva" government in India would have said, and what they would have done to him, if he were alive today. Some extracts:

 

1. On Islamist Assassinations and the Moplah Riots of 1921:

"These are not the only things Mr. Gandhi has done to build up Hindu-Moslem unity. He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shudhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalman. First to suffer was Swami Shradhanand, who was shot by Abdul Rashid on the 23rd December 1926 when he was lying in his sick bed. This was followed by the murder of Lala Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist of Delhi. Rajpal the author of the Rangila Rasool was stabbed by Ilamdin on the 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop. Nathuramal Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in September 1934 who stabbed him to death in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind where he was seated in Court awaiting the hearing of his appeal against his conviction under Section 195, I. P. C. for the publication

of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. Kar>na, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha was severely assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans after the Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in Ahmedabad and very narrowly escaped death.

This is of course a very short list and is capable of being expanded. But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count towards these murderers. The murderers of course paid the penalty of law where law is enforced.

But the leading Moslems never condemned these criminals. On the contrary they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for showing clemency to them. As an illustration of this attitude one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.

Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress much against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders : nor the Muslims have ever been in the habit of condemning.* Has he ever called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them ? He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu- Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives. This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong lest it should injure the cause of unity is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots.

The blood-curling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of "Congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafatists who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Mopalas as the "brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious"..." (AMBEDKAR 1941:153).

Further on, Ambedkar is even more forthright on the issue, when he approvingly quotes the words of Annie Besant:

"The world has gone beyond such so-called theocracies, in which, God's commands are given through a man. The claim now put forward by Mussalman leaders that they must obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State in which they live, is subversive of civic order and the stability of the State; it makes them bad citizens for their centre of allegiance is outside the Nation and they cannot, while they hold the views proclaimed by Moulana Mahomed Ali and Shaukat Ali, to name the most prominent of these Muslim leaders, be trusted by their fellow citizens. If India were independent the Muslim part of the population for the ignorant masses would follow those who appealed to them in the name of their prophet would become an immediate peril to India's freedom. Allying themselves with Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Persia, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey and Egypt and with such of the tribes of Central Asia who are Mussalmans, they would rise to place India under the Rule of Islam those in "British India" being helped by the Muslims in Indian States and would establish Mussalman rule. We had thought that Indian Mussalmans weie loyal to their Motherland, and indeed, we still hope that some of the educated class might strive to prevent such a Mussalmani rising ; but they are too few for effective resistance and would be murdered as apostates. Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the "Khilafat Raj" in India. How much sympathy with the Moplas is felt by Muslims outside Malabar has been proved by the defence raised for them by their fellow believers, and by Mr. Gandhi himself, who stated that they had acted as they believed that their religion taught them to act. I fear that that is true ; but there is no place in a civilised land for people who believe that their religion teaches them to rnurder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatise from their ancestral faiths, except in its schools, under surveillance, or in its goals. The Thugs believed that their particular form of God commanded them to strangle people especially travellers with money. Such "Laws of God" cannot be allowed to override the laws of a civilised country, and people living in the twentieth century must either educate people who hold these Middle Age views, or else exile them. Their place is in countries sharing their opinions, where they can still use such arguments against any who differ from them as indeed, Persia and with the Parsis long ago, and the Bahaists in our own time. In fact, Muslim sects are not safe in a country ruled by orthodox Muslims. British rule in India has protected the freedom of all sects : Shiahs, Sunnis, Sufis, Bahaists, live in safety under her sceptre, although it cannot protect any of them from social ostracism, where it is in a minority. Mussalmans are more free under British rule, than in countries where there are Muslim rulers. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohamedan rule has to be considered." (AMBEDKAR 1941:272-273).

Then Ambedkar approvingly quotes Lala Lajpat Rai:

"There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Mohamedan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think, it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohamedan leaders in the Non- co-operation movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. You remember the conversation, I reported to you in Calcutta, which I had with Hakim Ajmalkhan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Mohamedan in Hindustan than Hakimsaheb but can any other Muslim leader override the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic Law is incorrect, and nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this that although we can unite against the British, we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines, we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of seven crores in Hindustan but I think the seven crores of Hindustan plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim Unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Moslem leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them" (AMBEDKAR 1941:274).

And then he approvingly cites Rabindranath Tagore:

"another very important factor which, according to the Poet, was making it almost impossible for the Hindu-Mohamedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohamedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even such men as Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohamedan" (AMBEDKAR 1941:274-275).

All this was written by Dr. Ambedkar, not by Sita Ram Goel!

One wonders also what Dr. Ambedkar would have said about the current "Hindutva" leadership which is silent on killings of Hindus, which punishes those who hurt the feelings of Muslims, and which has joined in suppressing and giving such callous treatment to Ali Akbar = Rama Simhan (the  writer-director of the film "1921 - Nadī Se Nadī Tak" on the Moplah riots).

 

2. On the burqa and related Islamic female apparel:

"There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils which afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of Purdah for Muslim women. [….] These burka women walking in the streets is a one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. [….] Not that purdah and the evils consequent thereon are not to be found among certain sections of the Hindus in certain parts of the country. But the point of distinction is that among the Muslims, purdah has a religious sanctity which it has not with the Hindus. The evil of purdah has deeper roots among the Muslims than it has among the Hindus and can only be removed by facing the inevitable conflict between religious injunctions and social needs. The problem of purdah is a real problem with the Muslims apart from its origin which it is not with the Hindus. But, of any attempt by the Muslims to do away with it, there is no evidence" (AMBEDKAR 1941:226-228).

In these pages (AMBEDKAR 1941:226-228), Ambedkar writes at length on the physical, intellectual, moral and social "evil consequences" of the purdah system, and even on its negative effects in relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. It would have been interesting to see a debate on the subject between him and present representatives of the woke-leftist-vulture brigade like Barkha Dutt who claim it is the "right" of Muslim women to wear items of purdah apparel. Ambedkar would have been amazed to know that his assertion "of any attempt by the Muslims to do away with it, there is no evidence" is even more true today then even thirty years ago: large sections of the Muslim educated population all over the world who had shed the burqa and hijab decades ago are now militantly back in the purdah age with the strong support of woke-leftist instigators.

More fundamentally, Ambedkar indicts, in very strong terms, the practice of polygamy and talaq in Islam, and the pathetic position of women (AMBEDKAR 1941:221-224) and categorically characterizes the Muslim woman as "the most helpless person in the world" (AMBEDKAR 1941:223) .

 

3. On Islamic Invasions and Destruction:

It has been a regular tactic of woke-leftist historians  to camouflage the Muslim invasions of India as having nothing to do with any religious motive, but as just having been done by raiders out to capture wealth. However, Ambedkar makes no bones about the fact that the invasions were motivated by religious zeal and hatred. Ambedkar gives a detailed list of the most prominent among the Muslim invaders from 711 A.D. to 1761 A.D., a period of over a thousand years, and tells us in very clear words and in detail (massacres, largescale temple destruction, capture of countless women and children for slavery, etc.), with quotations from the original historical sources of all the invasions and of subsequent Islamic rule (AMBEDKAR 1941:48-57) — almost like a summary of a Voice of India book — that "These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest […..] there is no doubt that striking a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was one of the main aims" (AMBEDKAR 1941:49) of these invaders and rulers who openly regarded their activities as "the waging of a holy war" (AMBEDKAR 1941:50). He adds: "They were not a loving family cemented by the feeling of Islamic brotherhood. They were deadly rivals of one another and their wars were often wars of mutual extermination. What is however important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith" (AMBEDKAR 1941:51)

 

4. Specifically on the Destruction of Buddhism in India:

In a separate paper published later in another volume, Ambedkar writes specifically on "The Decline and Fall of Buddhism" in India (AMBEDKAR 1987:229-238). Again, he basically demolishes the woke-leftist attempt to exonerate Islam and indict Hinduism for the disappearance of Buddhism from India:

"There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But’ as everybody knows is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people however know what the derivation of the word ‘But’ is. ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship has come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism. As Vincent Smith points out: “The furious massacre perpetrated in many places by Musalman invaders were more efficacious than Orthodox Hindu persecutions, and had a great deal to do with the disappearance of Buddhism in several provinces (of India).”

Not all will be satisfied with this explanation. It does seem inadequate. Islam attacked both, Bramhanism and Buddhism. It will be asked why should one survive and the other perish. The argument is plausible but not destructive of the validity of the thesis. To admit that Bramhanism survived, it does not mean that the fall of Buddhism was not due to the sword of Islam. All that it means is that, there were circumstances which made it possible for Bramhanism and impossible for Buddhism to survive the onslaught of Islam. Fortunately for Bramhanism and unfortunately for Buddhism that was the fact" (AMBEDKAR 1987:229-230).

Elaborating on this, Ambedkar writes:

"The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The Monks fled away in thousands to Napal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Budhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 A.D. Mr. Vincent Smith says: “The Musalman General, who had already made his name a terror by repeated plundering expeditions in Bihar, seized the capital by a daring stroke. The almost contemporary historian met one of the survivors of the attacking party in A.D. 1243, and learned from him that the Fort of Bihar was seized by a party of only two hundred horsemen, who boldly rushed the postern gate and gained possession of the place. Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the ‘shaven headed Brahmans’ that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. ‘It was discovered’ we are told, ‘that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.”

Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India" (AMBEDKAR 1987:232-233).

 

His explanation for the fact that "Brahmanism" survived but Buddhism did not consists of two parts:

1. "It may be said that the same thing must have happened to the Brahmanic priesthood. It is possible, though not to the same extent. But there is this difference between the constitution of the two religions and the difference is so great that it contains the whole reason why Brahmanism survived the attack of Islam and why Buddhism did not. This difference relates to the constitution of the clergy. The Brahmanic priesthood has a most elaborate organization" (AMBEDKAR 1987:233).

According to Ambedkar, every Brahmin is a potential priest even if he does not function as one: "Under Brahmanic dispensation every Brahmin who is not an outcast has the capacity to be a priest. The Bhikshuka is an actual priest, a Grahastha is a potential priest. All Brahmins can be recruited to form the army of Brahmanic priesthood. Further no particular training or initiation ceremony is necessary for a Brahmin to act as a priest. His will to officiate is enough to make him function as a priest. In Brahmanism the priesthood can never become extinct. Every Brahmin is a potential priest of Brahmanism and can be drafted in service when the need be. This is not possible in Buddhism. A person must be ordained in accordance with established rites by priests already ordained, before he can act as a priest. After the massacre of the Buddhist priests, ordination became impossible so that the priesthood almost ceased to exist." (AMBEDKAR 1987:234-235).

2. The second aspect, according to Ambedkar is that the Hindu kings supported and patronized the Hindu priests, but no-one (there being no Buddhist kings) supported or patronized the Buddhist priests. And even before the arrival of the Muslims, the Buddhists were being "persecuted" by the Hindu kings (although he is not able to give documented details of this, beyond reference to persecution by a non-Indian invader king Mihiragula, and a mythical destruction of a tree which resurrected itself in no time), which led them to expect support from the Muslim invaders. However, the Muslims refused to do so unless they converted to Islam. Although he still accepts that the Muslims (by conquest, destruction and conversion) were responsible for the death of Buddhism in India, he seems to indirectly suggest some indirect Hindu responsibility also for it. (AMBEDKAR 1987:236-238).

This however suffers from basic flaws (most of them found in his own above accounts):

(a) As pointed out by Ambedkar above, "in the Moslem mind idol worship has come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism", and, "Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism". As all those areas were only Buddhist at the time and not "Brahmanic", nor ruled by Hindu kings persecuting Buddhists (which is neither recorded, nor is evidenced by any "wiping out"  of Buddhism before the Muslims arrived), it is clear that only Buddhism was wiped out everywhere: areas where only Buddhists predominated became predominantly Muslim, while in areas where Hinduism predominated only Buddhism was wiped out.

Moreover, after seeing the role of Muslim invaders in "Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, [….] the whole of Asia", it is extremely unlikely that the Buddhists in Hindu areas could have (even in hypothesis, as there are no records of such expectations) expected anything better from the Muslim invaders..

(b) The actual reason why Buddhism was wiped out, but not Hinduism, has been pointed out by many scholars in later times. It was the pacifism introduced by Buddhism which left the Buddhists powerless to resist the Islamic onslaughts, which is why the predominantly Buddhist areas succumbed, and mainly the Buddhists succumbed in areas where they were not predominant.

Even Ambedkar's assertion, that all the kshatriyas and militant Indian rulers were not Buddhist but Hindu, indicates that Buddhism had become almost non-existent among the more martial parts of the populace and been reduced only to pacific priestly and householder parts of the populace unable to resist violent coercion. Again, Ambedkar's reference to how "the Fort of Bihar was seized by a party of only two hundred horsemen" indicates the same thing.

In spite of this faint deviation, Ambedkar very categorically indicts Islam alone for the decline and fall of Buddhism in India. And his writings in this regard have been quoted many times, for example when woke-leftist "historians" and politicians tried to foist the blame for the destruction of the Nalanda University on Hindus.

 

5. On Casteism, Slavery and the Koran:

In speaking on casteism and slavery, Ambedkar approvingly cites the following explosive statement by John J. Pool (whom he describes as "no enemy of Islam"): "the Koran, in this matter of slavery, is the enemy of mankind" (AMBEDKAR 1941:224). He repeatedly, throughout his descriptions of the history of Islam in the book, keeps referring to the special place of slavery in that history: for example, in the case of Ghazni alone, he mentions that "half a million Hindus, 'beautiful men and women', were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni" and describes "how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia" (AMBEDKAR 1941:55). He quotes a Muslim authority (quoted by Lane Poole) saying: "the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, 'Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and property.'" (AMBEDKAR 1941:57). And he asks: "Accompanied as the invasions were with the destruction of temples and forced conversions, with the spoliation of property, with the slaughter, enslavement and abasement of men, women and children, what wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a source of pride to the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus?" (AMBEDKAR 1941:57).

He points out that slavery is a part of Islam: "Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries", and adds tongue-in-cheek: "While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends to the abolition of this curse. As Sir W. Muir has well said: " . . . . rather, while lightening, he rivetted the fetter …. There is no obligation on a Moslem to release his slaves""(AMBEDKAR 1941:224-225): i.e. that these prescriptions, while seeming to lighten the fetters of slavery, only tightened them.

[In fact, while Islam seems to accept that the freeing of slaves can be considered an act of piety, the following Hadis actually shows that it was not advised in practice: according to Sahih Muslim 2187, a woman Maimuna bint Harith set free her female slave and mentioned this to the Prophet, and he told her "If you had given her to your maternal uncles, you would have had greater rewards". In other words, giving the slave to her maternal uncles was more of a piety than freeing her. What would the maternal uncles have done with the slave? Ambedkar does not mention this hadis, but he does point out about the fate of female slaves: "in addition to the four legal wives the Muslim Law permits a Mahomedan to cohabit with his female slaves. In the case of female slaves nothing is said as to the number. They are allowed to him without any restriction whatever and without any obligation to marry them" (AMBEDKAR 1941:223)].

 

But apart from slavery, Ambedkar points out that Islam is not free from the evils of a caste system, "as much a part of Muslim society as it is of Hindu society"  (AMBEDKAR 1941:26), and not just as a carry-over from pre-conversion caste status. Quoting the census of 1901, Ambedkar points out that "The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means 'noble' and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, 'Ajlaf', "wretches" or "mean people" : they are also called Kamina or Itar, 'base' or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, 'worthless'. In some places a third class, called Arzal or 'lowest of all' is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground." He adds: "Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature us one finds among the Hindus" and proceeds to list them. Finally, he concludes: "There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils which afflict the Hindu Society." (AMBEDKAR 1941:226-227). [It is immediately after this that he adds: "Indeed the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more" and describes the status of women already described earlier].

Ambedkar has much more to say on Islam and Muslim history, but these extracts are illustrative of his outspoken candor, objective honesty, and fearless expression of his findings and views. One more very important aspect, his actual views on Partition, though also bound up with his analysis of Islam, requires a separate section to emphasize its unique and insightful nature.

 

V. On the Partition of India:

The partition of India is one of the most momentous moments in Indian history. It was a moment when the Hindu leadership in India was given the chance to make or break India — and they chose to break it in the most destructive manner. Partition took place in the aftermath of the cacophony of three important long-drawn events: World War 2, the Freedom Movement in India, and the Pakistan Movement asking for a Partition of India on religious lines. The large scale violence unleashed by the Muslim League all over India in pursuit of its demands — violence which clearly showed no signs of abating and was on a continuous acceleration mode — made it necessary for Hindu leaders in India to decide the course to pursue in order to achieve Independence in response to these demands.

There were three different responses to the Partition demand:

1. The first was the response of the main Congress Party. The party had been following for decades a course of appeasement and compromise to try to persuade the Muslim league to accept a joint Independence agenda, by giving in to almost every demand of the Muslim League. The Congress response to the Partition demand was to continue to follow this course and, while rejecting the idea of Partition, to press for a United Independent India to be guided in future also by these same principles of appeasement and compromise.

However, the Muslim League stuck uncompromisingly to its demand for Partition, and finally the Congress capitulated (the history of which need not be repeated here), and Hindus in India were left in the position of the proverbial prisoner who ended up with both: eating the 100 onions on the one hand and suffering the 100 whiplashes on the other. That is, Partition with a fully Muslim Pakistan on the one hand and a truncated Independent India (to be guided in future also by the same principles of appeasement and compromise which had characterized the preceding decades of the still-United-India) on the other.

2. The second was the response of the Hindu organizations, mainly the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, who wanted an Akhanda Bharat (Undivided India) rooted in its ancient history and tradition, though, as they repeatedly emphasized, not a theocratic or religion-based nation discriminating against "minorities".

While this demand seemed to be vested in the roots of the soil, and to represent to a great extent the aspirations and sentiments of Hindus in general, it was actually an emotional, sentimentalist and ill-thought-of demand which turned a blind eye to the practical consequences of such an Akhanda Bharat.

3. The third, and most logical, response was that of Dr. Ambedkar, who strongly backed the demand for the Partition of the country into a Pakistan and a Hindustan with a complete (or almost-complete) exchange of religious population so that all Hindus from the Pakistan-designated areas were systematically and organizedly transferred into the Hindustan-designated areas, and all Muslims from the Hindustan-designated areas areas were systematically and organizedly transferred into the Pakistan-designated areas. The far-sightedness of this demand was completely rejected or ignored both by the Congress on goody-goody grounds and the RSS-Hindu-Mahasabha on emotional grounds. If his formula had been carried out, after systematic thought, organization and peaceful cooperation among all the main stakeholders (the Congress, the Muslim League, the RSS-Hindu-Mahasabha, and the outgoing British), there would have been none (or far less) of the suffering, tragedies and bitterness of Partition, and India would have been free of the Hindu-Muslim conflicts once and for all. In time, the two nations would have been able to concentrate on their own, as well as on mutual, development, and (even if they remained enemy nations) there would have been no more Hindu-Muslim conflicts at least within the borders of either nation.

Unfortunately, even today, after more than 75 years of "independence" with the Hindu-Muslim situation within truncated India having once more (whether one is willing to accept it or not) reached the proportions of the pre-1947 Undivided India, many Hindus are still in their dream world of an Akhanda Bharat, and refuse to even realize (much less accept) that Ambedkar was a true visionary and the only truly far-sighted leader of the Independence era to see it and tell it as it is (or was). [Much later, it is only Bal Thackeray that I have heard, in one of his Vijayadashami rallies, trying to din some common-sense into the thinking of Hindu activists, when he ridiculed the idea of an Akhanda Bharat comprising India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, and told his listeners that when Hindus in India were finding it almost impossible to cope effectively with the politics of the Muslims in truncated India, they should try to imagine what would have been the consequences if all the Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh had also been the citizens of this nation].

 

The entire purpose of his book "Thoughts on Pakistan", published in 1941 was to try to open the eyes of the Hindu leaders of various parties as to the disastrous consequences of any attempt to try to establish an Independent India with a large Muslim minority in it. Not only are the eyes of India's Hindu leaders still unopened, leaders of most western nations seem to have also closed their eyes as well to what is happening in their own countries with increasing numbers of Muslim "minorities" fed on the nectar of Islamic teachings, Muslim-appeasement policies and Muslim-victim-card politics.    

Throughout his book "Thoughts on Pakistan", Ambedkar repeatedly cites chapter and verse from Islamic texts, Islamic history and Muslim politics to show that it is almost impossible for a Muslim minority population to live in peace in a nation with a non-Muslim majority. I intended to give detailed quotations to this effect from the book, but I think that would be superfluous and unnecessary: the book speaks for itself.

They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. When history was first taking place in the nineteen-forties as tragedy, Ambedkar was alive and well, but no-one heeded his prophetic words, much less took action based on those words. Today, when history is repeating itself as farce, he is alive no more, his name has been very badly misappropriated even by those calling themselves (and being called by others) "Ambedkarites" who now say the exact opposite of whatever he had said on almost every issue, and those speaking in the name of Hinduism are no more the principled giants who still existed as Hindu leaders in those days. It is not very likely that his words will be heeded today, and lessons learnt from them, any more than in the past.

So the ultimate purpose of this article is to only ask those who love this country and its culture to at least give him his due as one of the greatest visionaries and scholars of the Independence era, and at least not allow anyone to misinterpret his views.

 

[Note Added 17-1-2023:

In the matter of the book "Worshipping False Gods", I am informed by R. Jagannathan that "Shourie's book documents Ambedkar's close collaboration with the Brits because he felt that the depressed classes were better off under British rule. Also he wanted social change before independence and not after". If that is so, it is a continuation of the old debate between Tilak and Agarkar (made famous in a Marathi Drama "Tilak Ani Agarkar") about which should come first: Independence or Social Change. Whether he was right or wrong (i.e. whether British rule facilitated reform or not — it certainly did not in the case of Islam), it was a genuine and pressing concern for him, and, at least in my opinion, this was perfectly understandable in the face of numerous very orthodox elements of Upper Caste leadership who were very prominent in Indian politics in the twentieth century who, Ambedkar feared, would derail the process of social reform].

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

AMBEDKAR 1941: Thoughts on Pakistan. Ambedkar, Dr. B. R., Thacker and Company Ltd, Bombay 1941.

AMBEDKAR 1987: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, volume 3. Ambedkar, B.R. ed. Vasant Moon, Education dept., Government of Maharashtra Publications, Mumbai 1987.

AMBEDKAR 1990: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, volume 7. Ambedkar, B.R. ed. Vasant Moon, Education dept., Government of Maharashtra Publications, Mumbai 1990.

KEER 1954: Dr. Ambedkar Life and Mission. Popular Prakashan, Bombay. 1954.