Author - Aravindan Neelakandan 2012 on CRI
Terming Baba Saheb Ambedkar as a Hindu nationalist would be the ultimate blasphemy in ‘secular’ India. But if there is an ideology that can resonate with Dr.Ambedkar’s mindscape it is Hindutva – the much maligned Hindu nationalism.
Dr.Ambedkar always struggled for justice and liberty. He naturally knew that the caste system was inherently unjust and anti-democratic. He wanted Hindu society to be free of this malaise. But to remove it one should understand the problem in its socio-historic context. In quest for such an understanding the good doctor arrived at a cardinal truth. It became a fundamental truth all his life. It is the ‘indubitable cultural unity’ of India. As early as 1916, in his famed paper presented at an anthropology seminar of Columbia University, Dr.Ambedkar made an observation that may well become the definition of what is today called the ‘cultural nationalism’ in Indian context:
It may be granted that there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture. It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and a much more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end.[1]
Caste then becomes a problem for Dr.Ambedkar – not of this ‘homogeneity’ but it is a problem because it ‘is a parceling of an already homogeneous unit’. In other words it fragments the cultural unity of Indian society and thus inhibits the development of national feeling among Indians.
Yet he was a pragmatist and a visionary. Dr.Ambedkar would return to the same topic in 1940. While discussing the problem of partition, he became as he labeled himself, ‘the philosopher of partition’. And here rejecting the idea of territorial nationalism, he would emphasize a qualitatively different type of nationalism:
If unity is to be of an abiding character it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short it must be spiritual. Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed there is more spiritual unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between Pakistan and Hindustan.[2]
The idea of Hindus and Buddhists belonging to a larger single spiritual culture is something axiomatic to Ambedkar. He justified partition because even Sikh axe could not resist the Islamist imperialism which was preventing the return of ‘Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to the rest of India before Hwen Thasang’.[3]
Dr.Ambedkar also cautioned Hindus that in the coming battles they would be a disunited force and their unity even if achieved would be unsustainable if the Hindu society remained casteist.
In 1933 Mahatma Gandhi asked Dr.Ambedkar to give a message for his magazine ‘Harijan’. And Baba Saheb gave a statement which was crisp, blunt and more important prophetic:
The Out-caste is a bye-product of the Caste system. There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing can emancipate the Out-caste except the destruction of the Caste system. Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu Faith of this odious and vicious dogma.[4]
The ‘coming struggle’ Ambedkar had visualized was the partition and the pre-partition riots which were actually a series of well-planned riots unleashed on a population of disunited Hindus. It was his quest for justice and his constant worry about the survival of Hindus which led him on a quest for an alternative that will bring unity among Hindus of India.
In his classic work ‘Annihilation of Caste’ (1944). Dr.Ambedkar makes it clear that it was caste which is making conversion of other religionists to Hinduism impossible. He is vision of Hinduism is a united strong Hinduism – battle ready and prepared to take on Abrahamic religions. To realize this battle-ready Hinduism and a united Hindu society, there is only one major crucial obstacle and that is caste. So it has to go not only for Hinduism to survive but for it to prosper:
So long as caste remains, there will be no Sanghatan and so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek. …Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is the result of Caste System which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.[5]
In this context it should be noted that Baba Saheb Ambedkar was extremely appreciative of all held at Ratnagiri district/ genuine reform works that were taken up by Hindu nationalists. It was true of Veer Savarkar and Swami Shradhanand –both Hindu Maha Sabha leaders.
Veer Savarkar diagnosed without mincing words that the scripture based caste system is a mental illness and he offered a cure to this social psychological disease plaguing the Hindu psyche, “the disease gets cured instantly when the mind refuses to accept it" .[6] While the whole traditional orthodoxy of Hindu traditional leadership was making a fetish out of Varna system as the basis of Hindu Dharma, Veer Savarkar boldly declared:
Both chaturvarnya and caste divisions are but practices. They are not coterminous with Sanatana Dharma … Sanatana Dharma will not die if the present-day distortion that is caste division is destroyed.[7]
With regard to untouchability his clarion call to Hindu society was a heart-breaking cry, a lone voice in the wilderness:
To regard our millions of co-religionists as ‘untouchables’ and worse than animals is an insult not only to humanity but also to the sanctity of our soul. It is my firm conviction that this is why untouchability should be principally eradicated. Untouchability should go also because its eradication is in the interests of our Hindu society. But even if the Hindu society were to partially benefit from that custom, I would have opposed it with equal vehemence. When I refuse to touch someone because he was born in a particular community but play with cats and dogs, I am committing a most heinous crime against humanity. Untouchability should be eradicated not only because it is incumbent on us but because it is impossible to justify this inhuman custom when we consider any aspect of dharma. Hence this custom should be eradicated as a command of dharma. From the point of view of justice, dharma and humanism, fighting untouchability is a duty and we Hindus should completely eradicate it. In the present circumstances, how we will benefit by fighting it is a secondary consideration. This question of benefit is an aapaddharma (duty to be done in certain exceptional circumstances) and eradication of untouchability is the foremost and absolute dharma.[8]
When Savarkar was at Ratnagiri, his movements as well as participation in political activities were both restricted. Yet he championed the cause of the Dalits and presided over the Mahar conference held at Ratnagiri districts. In his letter to Savarkar, expressing his inability to visit him owing to previous engagements, Dr.Ambedkar wrote:
I however wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reform. If the Untouchables are to be part of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove untouchability; for that matter you should destroy ‘Chaturvarna’. I am glad that you are one of the very few leaders who have realised this.[9]
In 1933, Dr.Ambedkar’s Janata magazine in a special issue paid a tribute to Veer Savarkar to the effect that his contribution to the cause of the Dalits was as decisive and great as that of Gautama Buddha himself.[10] Later Baba Saheb Ambedkar would come to the rescue of Veer Savarkar, when Savarkar was arrested for Gandhi murder. The most authoritative historian on Gandhi murder, Manohar Malgonkar, the author of the definitive volume on the subject ‘The Men Who Killed Gandhi’ (1978) revealed in 2008 that it became ‘incumbent upon him to omit certain vital facts such as, for instance, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar’s secret assurance to Mr. L B Bhopatkar, that his client, Mr. V D Savarkar, had been implicated as a murder suspect on the flimsiest ground.”[11]
Another person held in high esteem by Dr.Ambedkar was Swami Shradhanand. Swami was at the fore front of the Hindu Sanghatan movement. He was one Hindu leader who fully realized that to achieve Sanghatan in the truest sense casteism had to die.
Swami Shradhanand a fearless patriot was one of the foremost leaders of Gandhian movement during Khilafat agitation. Just after Amritstar massacre, when none in Congress was ready to preside over Congress session in Punjab, he came forward and bravely presided over the Congress Committee session at Amritstar. He repeatedly attacked casteism and upheld the rights of Dalits. He went on to establish ‘Dalit Uddhar Sabha’ in Delhi. He worked ceaselessly for the upliftment and liberation of Dalits till his life was cut shot tragically by the bullets of an Islamic fanatic in 1926. He was also initially an active supporter of Gandhian movement to win Dalits their rights. However he soon found that Gandhian leadership was not as committed to Dalit liberation as Swami expected it to be. In frustration Swami wrote to Mahatma Gandhi in 1921:
The Delhi and Agra Chamars simply demand that they be allowed to draw water from wells used by the Hindus and Mohammedans and that water be not served to them (from Hindu water booths) through bamboos or leaves. Even that appears impossible for the Congress Committee to accomplish…. At Nagpur you laid down that one of the conditions for obtaining Swarajya within 12 months was to give their rights to the depressed classes and without waiting for the accomplishment of their uplift, you have decreed that if there is a complete boycott of foreign cloth up till the 30th September, Swarajya will be an accomplished fact on the 1st of October…I want to engage my limited energy in the uplift of the depressed classes. I do not understand whether the Swarajya obtained without the so-called Untouchable brethren of ours joining us will prove salutary for the Indian nation.[12]
In 1922 he had to resign his position from Depressed Classes Sub-Committee of Congress. Subsequently on 19th August 1923 at the Benares Hindu Maha Sabha annual session, Swami unveiled a grand action plan to remove the stigma of untouchability from Hindu society for ever. He brought a resolution which was attacked by the wolves of orthodoxy with such venom that the session almost went to the brink of collapse. The resolution Swami brought was for the basic dignity and fundamental human rights of Dalits:
With a view to do justice to the so-called Depressed Classes in the Hindu Community and to assimilate them as parts of an organic whole, in the great body of the Aryan fraternity, this conference of Hindus of all sects holds:
a. That the lowest among the depressed classes be allowed to draw water from common public wells,
b. That water be served to them at drinking posts freely like that as is done to the highest among other Hindus,
c. That all members of the said classes be allowed to sit on the same carpet in public meetings and their ceremonies with higher classes and,
d. That their children (male and female) be allowed to enter freely and at teaching time to sit on the same form with other Hindu and non-Hindu children in Government, National and Denominational education institutions.[13]
He also formed ‘Dalit Uddhar Sabha’ to work for Dalit liberation. Ailing Swami was murdered treacherously by a Muslim fanatic on 23rd December 1926. Till the end of his life Swami fought for Hindu solidarity through abolition of social stagnation.
Dr. Ambedkar admired Swami Shradhanand very much. Though critical of Hindu Maha Sabha as a political party, (for there were many prominent Hindu Maha Sabha leaders who were very orthodox and socially stagnant), he finds Swami a very sincere fighter for the Dalit cause. In his highly critical book ‘What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables’ Dr.Ambedkar examines the hasty way in which the Congress leadership abandoned their Dalit upliftment programme.:
Was it because the Congress intended that the scheme should be a modest one not costing more than two to five lakhs of rupees but felt that from that point of view they had made a mistake in including Swami Shradhanand in the Committee and rather than allow the Swami to confront them with a huge scheme which the Congress could neither accept nor reject? The Congress thought it better in the first instance to refuse to make him the convener and subsequently to dissolve the Committee and hand over the work to the Hindu Mahasabha. Circumstances are not quite against such a conclusion. The Swami was the greatest and the most sincere champion of the Untouchables. There is not the slightest doubt that if he had worked on the Committee he would have produced a very big scheme. That the Congress did not want him in the Committee and was afraid that he would make big demand on Congress funds for the cause of the Untouchables is clear from the correspondence that passed between him and Pandit Motilal Nehru, the then General Secretary of the Congress…[14]
That Ambedkar found the Swami ‘the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables’ is very interesting for this is a title which Baba Saheb though deserving never claimed for himself. This also calls to myth the Gandhian propaganda that Ambedkar-Gandhi conflict was because Ambedkar did not want someone else to be called the leader of the Untouchables. Dr.Ambedkar was able to see beyond empty words and party identities, the hearts of those who wanted really to stand by the Dalits in their quest for liberation.
This holistic vision of understanding Dalit liberation as crucial for Hindu Sanghatan, in the largest sense of the term, always shaped Dr.Ambedkar’s attitudes and actions. His statement issued on the temple entry rights for Dalits in 1927 approaches the issue from a cultural-historical point of view and rejects any theistic need from his side:
The most important point we want to emphasize is not the satisfaction you get from the worship of the image of God… Hindutva belongs as much to the untouchable Hindus as to the touchable Hindus. To the growth and glory of this Hindutva contributions have been made by Untouchables like Valmiki, the seer of Vyadhageeta, Chokhamela and Rohidas as much as by Brahmins like Vashishta, Kshatriyas like Krishna, Vaishyas like Harsha and Shudras like Tukaram. The heroes like Sidnak Mahar who fought for the protection of the Hindus were innumerable. The temple built in the name of Hindutva the growth and prosperity of which was achieved gradually with the sacrifice of touchable and untouchable Hindus, must be open to all the Hindus irrespective of caste.[15]
The important element of the statement is that Dr.Ambedkar replaces the term ‘Hinduism’ by Hindutva. In doing this he attempts to make the Hindus realize that the issue of Dalit liberation should be at the core of Hindu nationalist politics for that should be the logical development of the larger historical processes shaping Indian history. It was an appeal to do away with obscurantist traditional casteism and embrace a dynamic Hindu nationalism. Unfortunately Hindu orthodoxy and Hindu leadership failed him. So on 13th October 1935 Dr.Ambedkar made that famous declaration that while it was beyond his power to have been born an untouchable it was within his power to make sure that he would not die a Hinduu and he resolved that he would not die a Hindu.
This was indeed a well calculated and well deserving blow to Hindu orthodoxy. But only Hindu nationalists actually understood both the seriousness of the situation as well as the just nature of Dr.Ambedkar’s reaction. Despite the despicable treatment of Hindu orthodoxy towards Dalits, Dr.Ambedkar still respected the monument of Hindutva and took national interest paramount in his choice of an alternative religion. He had detailed discussion with Dr.BS Moonje – the mentor of Dr.KB Hedgewar.
Dr.Ambedkar observed:
What the consequences of conversion will be to the country as a whole is well worth bearing in mind. Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize the Depressed Classes. If they go over to Islam the number of Muslims would be doubled; and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real. If they go over to Christianity, the numerical strength of the Christians becomes five to six crores. It will help to strengthen the hold of Britain on the country. On the other hand if they embrace Sikhism they will not only not harm the destiny of the country but they will help the destiny of the country. They will not be denationalized.[16]
Dr.Ambedkar always took this care that he should never allow his people to get denationalized in their quest for justice and liberation. Closely related to this is the definition of the term ‘Hindu’. He wanted the Dalits to go out of the oppressive orthodoxy infested ‘Hindu religion’ but remain within ‘Hindu culture’.
In discussing the problem of partition, Dr.Ambedkar makes a careful study of Savarkar’s definition of Hindus:
According to Mr. Savarkar a Hindu is a person:
“. . . .who regards and owns this Bharat Bhumi, this land from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land;—i.e., the land of the origin of his religion, the cradle of his faith. The followers therefore of Vaidicism, Sanatanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmosamaj, the Devasamaj, the Prarthana Samaj and such other religions of Indian origin are Hindus and constitute Hindudom, i.e., Hindu people as a whole.”…
This definition of the term Hindu has been framed with great care and caution. It is designed to serve two purposes which Mr. Savarkar has in view. First, to exclude from it Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews by prescribing the recognition of India as a Holy Land as a qualification for being a Hindu. Secondly, to include Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc., by not insisting upon belief in the sanctity of the Vedas as an element in the qualifications. Consequently the so-called aboriginal or hill-tribes also are Hindus: because India is their Fatherland as well as their Holy Land whatever form of religion or worship they follow.[17]
However, Dr.Ambedkar is not satisfied. Though culturally homogenous through historical processes, in his opinion Hindus had not yet made themselves a nation, in the modern sense of the term. They are fragmented. Hindus are a potential nation favoured by cultural unity but disunited politically. They need more modern homogenizing factors. Later in formulating those to whom the Hindu Code Bill would apply, Dr.Ambedkar has used the same frame of definition Veer Savarkar had used in his definition of Hindu:
This Code applies, (a) to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or developments, including Virashaivas or Lingayatas and members of the Brahmo, the Prarthana or the Arya Samaj; (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion; (c) (i) to any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus within the meaning of this section. (ii) to any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu within the meaning of this section; provided that such child is brought up as a member of the community group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; and (d) to a convert to the Hindu religion. This Code also applies to any other person, who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.[18]
When sectarian complainted about Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs being grouped together with Hindus in his Bill, he replied:
Application of Hindu code to the 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 and 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.[19]
Why should Dr.Ambedkar who found Hinduism based on Smrithis and its stranglehold of orthodoxy, so despicable love Hindu culture and Hindustan so dearly? And how did this reflect in his actions throughout his life? That is what we shall see in the next two parts of this series.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[1] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, (Originally a paper presented at an Anthropology Seminar at Columbia University on 9th May 1916), Siddharth Books, 1945:2009 p.7
[2] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co., 1941, p.60
[3] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, ibid. p.59
[4] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Message published in Harijan dated 11-Feb-1933
[5] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste: With reply to Mahatma Gandhi, 1944:pdf document: p.30
[6] V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Vangmaya, Vol-3 ed. SR Date, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Pune, pp 497-9
[7] V.D.Savarkar, SSV, Vol-3 1930: Essays on the abolition of caste, p.444
[8] V.D.Savarkar, SSV, Vol-3 1927, p.483
[9] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s letter quoted by Dhananjay Keer, Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, 1950:1966, p.190
[10] Janata special number, April 1933, p.2 (quoted in Dhananjay Keer, 1950:1966 p.195)
[11] Manohar Malgonkar, The Men Who Killed Gandhi, in the ‘Introduction’ to 2008 edition, Roli Books, 2008
[12] Swami Shradhaanand letter to Mahatma Gandhi dated 9-Sep-1921
[13] Amrita Bazar Patrika report, 17-Aug-1923
[14] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, Gautam Book Center, 1945:2009, p.23
[15] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Bahiskrit Bharat, 27-Nov-1927: quoted in Dhananjay Keer, Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.96
[16] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Times of India, 24-July-1936: quoted in Dhananjay Keer, Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.280
[17] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co., 1941, p.136
[18] The Draft of the Hindu Code Bill 1950, by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar: Part-I preliminary : 2.Application of Code
[19] Dr.Ambedkar in The Times of India, 7 February 1951: quoted in Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.427
Dr.Ambedkar was an ethical pragmatist and a practical patriot. He realized that if Hindus remain disunited the future of nation was doomed. Hindus need to be united not momentarily in flashes of emotion or hours of crisis but in a sustained manner. His solution to achieve a sustained Hindu unity, both cultural and political, was to abolish caste system completely. But what was his perception of Hinduism itself?
The public psyche has been fed to saturation with his quotes highly critical of Hinduism and his statements denouncing Hinduism in no uncertain terms. ‘I was born a Hindu but will not die one’ is a statement that has been made so popular by a section of his followers. However when one goes through the writings of Dr.Ambedkar one finds that he has used the word ‘Hindu’ in two ways. In one level of association, the term refers to what he would call ‘Brahminical’ or Smrithi-based religious system that endorses at different levels birth-based discriminations. Unfortunately even today most of the traditional ‘Hindu’ heads fall in this category. Then he uses the term ‘Hindu’ in another meaning – to embrace all indigenous spiritual traditions of India. Here he too embraces the term.
How much did Baba Saheb Ambedkar love Hindus? Here is the authoritative statement from the good doctor himself. One can see here the soul of a Hindu Sanghatanist in rapture and anxiety. Rapture at the freedom which Hindus have obtained and anxiety because they might get it lost in linguistic feuds:
I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher, so to say, of Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only by partition that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India and Pakistan had remained united in one State Hindus though independent would have been at the mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus. It would have been a Government of one country by two nations and of these two the Muslims without question would have been the ruling race notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh. When the partition took place I felt that God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one, great and prosperous.[i]
Why should Baba Saheb Ambedkar love a people whom elsewhere he had denounced completely? Why should the author of the ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ become euphoric about Hindus becoming free of Islamist threat? To find the answer one has to go through the writings of BabaSaheb deeply. Dr.Ambedkar had visualized Vedic community as an egalitarian one. His own study of Vedic literature led him to reject the Aryan race theory concocted by the British. He also discovered valuable insights that revealed to him the real nature of Shudras. In the ‘Preface’ to his monumental book ‘Who were the Shudras?’ Dr.Ambedkar expressed his thankfulness
… to the writer of Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata. Whether it is Vyasa, Vaiashampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu it is difficult to say. But whoever he was, he has rendered great service by giving a full description of Paijavana. If he had not described Paijavana as a Shudra, the clue to the origin of the Shudra would have been completely lost.[ii]
In a crucial passage he further noted in his ‘Preface’ as to whom this book (Who were the Shudras?) would actually appeal:
The only class of Hindus, who are likely to welcome the book are those who believe in the necessity and urgency of social reform. The fact that it is a problem which will certainly take a long time to solve and will call the efforts of many generations to come, is in their opinion, no justification for postponing the study of that problem. Even an ardent Hindu politician, if he is honest, will admit that the problems arising out of the malignant form of communalism, which is inherent in the Hindu social organization and which the politically minded Hindus desire to ignore or postpone, invariably return to plague, those very politicians at every turn. These problems are not the difficulties of the moment. They are our permanent difficulties, that is to say, difficulties of every moment. I am glad to know that such a class of Hindus exists. Small though they be, they are my mainstay and it is to them that I have addressed my argument.[iii]
Who were these minority Hindus on whom Ambedkar had such a tremendous faith? As seen earlier the only section of Hindus whom Dr. Ambedkar perceived as genuinely interested in erasing casteism and integrating Dalits with Hindu community were the Hindu nationalists. If we take this into consideration one will realize that the whole discourse of Dr. Ambedkar was aimed at the proponents of Hindutva. He was offering them a clear and holistic road map to realize the elusive goal of Hindu Sanghatan.
Discovering such valuable hints in reconstructing ancient Indian history, Dr.Ambedkar visualized a Vedic society where the Varna system was not birth-based but based on merit. Here we should remember that Dr.Ambedkar found even this Varna system absolutely meaningless in the current social context as this cannot be imposed on the society in any practical or meaningful way:
A close examination of this ideal has convinced me that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view, the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists do not seem to have taken into account.[iv]
Yet Dr. Ambedkar, the Vedic historian, visualized a Vedic society based purely on merit and not on birth. It’s worth quoting Dr.Ambedkar’s view in detail here:
According to ancient tradition as embodied in the Puranas the period for which the Varna of a person was fixed by Manu and Saptarshi was a period of four years and was called Yug. At the end of the period of four years there occurred the Manwantar whereby every fourth year the list was revised. Under the revision some changed their old Varna, some retained it, some lost it and some gained it. The original system seems to have in contemplation the determination of the Varna of adults. It was not based on prior training or close scrutiny of bias and aptitude. Manu and Saptarshi was a sort of a Board of Interview which determined the Varna of a person from how he struck them at the interview. The determination of the Varna was done in a rough and tumble manner. This system seems to have gone into abeyance. A new system grew up in its place. It was known as the Gurukul system. The Gurukul was a school maintained by a Guru (teacher) also called Acharya (learned man). All children went to this Gurukul for their education. The period of education extended for twelve years. The child while at Gurukul was known as Bramhachari. After the period of education was over there was the Upanayan ceremony performed at the Gurukul by the Acharya. The Upanayan ceremony was the most important ceremony. It was a ceremony at which the Acharya determined the Varna of the student and sent him out in the world to perform the duties of that Varna. Upanayan by the Acharyas was the new method of determining Varna which came into vogue in place of method of determination by Manu and Saptarshi. The new method was undoubtedly superior to the old method. It retained the true feature of the old method namely that the Varna should be determined by a disinterested and independent body. But it added a new feature namely training as a pre-requisite for assignment of Varna. On the ground that training alone develops individual in the makeup of a person and the only safe way to determine the Varna of a person is to know his individuality, the addition of this new feature was undoubtedly a great improvement.[v]
BabaSaheb Ambedkar in his argument with Mahatma Gandhi points out that the Varna system is not only different from caste system but inherently opposed to it:
The principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The former is based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth to vacate that status? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth? For this you must first break up the caste system, in order to be able to establish the Varna system…. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between the two.[vi]
Dr.Ambedkar also rejected any revival of traditional Varna system also as attempted by Arya Samajists. It was not the principle of categorization based on worth that forms the basis of Varna system which Dr.Ambedkar rejected. He explained:
To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent and my whole being rebels against it….If new notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare.[vii]
As a seasoned historiographer Dr.Ambedkar sees throughout Indian history two fundamental movements: one of social emancipation and another of social stagnation. He sees the roots of both in larger Hindu culture itself and aligns himself with the movement for social emancipation. He sees Buddhism as the culmination of this emancipation movement. Social emancipation was not something new to Vedic civilization brought in by Buddhism. Rather Dr.Ambedkar sees Vedic period and its continuation as one in which women enjoyed educational rights:
That a woman was entitled to Upanayan is clear from the Atharva Veda where a girl is spoken of as being eligible for marriage having finished her Brahmacharya. From the Shrauta Sutras it is clear that women could repeat the Mantras of the Vedas and that women were taught to read the Vedas. Panini’s Ashtaadhyai bears testimony to the fact that women attended Gurukul and studied the various Shakhas of the Veda and became expert in Mimansa. Patanjali’s Maha Bhashya shows that women were teachers and taught Vedas to girl students. The stories of women entering into public discussions with men on most abstruse subjects of religion, philosophy and metaphysics are by no means few. The story of public disputation between Janaka and Sulbha, between Yajnavalkya and Gargi, between Yajnavalkya and Maitrei and between Shankaracharya and Vidyadhari shows that Indian women in pre-Manu’s time could rise to the highest pinnacle of learning and education.[viii]
Dr.Ambedkar further explains:
That at one time women were highly respected cannot be disputed. Among the Ratnis who played so prominent a part in coronation of the King in ancient India was queen and the King made her an offering as hid to the others. Not only the King elect did homage to the Queen he worshipped his other wives of lower castes. In the same way the King offers salutation after the coronation ceremony to the ladies of the chiefs of the Srenies (guilds). This is a very high position for women in any part of the World.[ix]
He sets the implementation of Manu Smrithi as the bench mark for the fall of Hindu women. To him this was the triumph of counter-revolution in India. The same Ambedkar, who completely rejected the inhuman dimensions of Manu Smrithi, demonstrated that the Smrithi tradition with diverse traditions it contained can be distilled to create a Hindu law that is just and democratic. Hindu Code Bill, he believed, shall be instrumental in molding Hindus into a unitary society based on the principles of liberty and equality. Talking about the Hindu Code Bill in 1950, he declared:
The present bill is progressive. This is an effort to try to have one civil law for all the citizens under the constitution of India. The law is based on the religious scriptures of the Hindus.[x]
Thus we see Baba Saheb Ambedkar advocating the formation of a Hindu society which has learnt its lessons from its past follies and tragedies, a Hindu society which is inclusive and universal and ready to make it assertive in the new global context of the battle of civilizations. That Baba Saheb Ambedkar opted for Buddhism in bitterness, as Hindu society stubbornly and foolishly refused to come out of the clutches of casteist vested interests donning the garbs of religious authority, was actually the failure of Hindu society and its leadership to realize the dangers it was facing and adapt itself to the new challenges. Yet all these factors could never diminish the love Dr.Ambedkar had for the nation as we will see next, how he constantly worried about the national security and made the interests of India the primary factor in all his equations.
[i] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on linguistic states, Anand Sahitya Sadan, 1955:1989, p.16
[ii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Who were the Shudras?: How they came to be the fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan society, Thackers, 1946:1970, p. xxii
[iii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Who were the Shudras?: How they came to be the fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan society, Thackers, 1946:1970, p. xix
[iv] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste: With reply to Mahatma Gandhi, 1944:pdf document: p.34
[v] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, 1987, pp.286-7
[vi] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste: With reply to Mahatma Gandhi, 1944:pdf document: p.66
[vii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste: With reply to Mahatma Gandhi, 1944:pdf document: p.34
[viii] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, 1987, p.432
[ix] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol 17, Part 2, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, 1979 p.122
[x] Dr.Ambedkar statement made on 11-January 1950: quoted in Vasant Moon (trans.Asha Damle), Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, National Book Trust, 1991:2002 p.192
Baba Saheb Ambedkar was a holistic patriot. His patriotism emerges from his vision of India as an evolving spiritual-civilizational process. He saw its essence as ultimate liberation of humanity in all dimensions –material, political and above all spiritual. To understand his harsh criticism of Hinduism and his discovery of an alternative, we need to understand him in the deeper contexts of the definitive moments of his socio-spiritual evolution. One of the earliest and full-hearted supporters of Dr.Ambedkar was Shridhar Pant Tilak – son of Lokmanya Tilak. This brilliant youth defied the trustees of Keshari and invited Dalit youths to Tilak’s Gaikwad Wada for music recital. Dr.Ambedkar had attended a tea party at Tilak’s Gaikwad Wada at the invitation of Shridhar Pant Tilak.[1]
Unfortunately this promising youth died under tragic circumstances. Despite Ambedkar’s opposition to Tilak’s conservatism, Junior Tilak’s social awareness should have assured Ambedkar that not all is lost with Hindu society. However he saw with increased bitterness how caste-Hindu vested interests were gaining their strength around Congress leadership, under the shadow of Mahatma Gandhi. Dr.Ambedkar perceived this as inhibiting the radical social reform that was needed in Hindu society.
In fact Sri Aurobindo had condemned caste system in no uncertain terms. As early as 1907 Sri Aurobindo wrote:
The Nationalist does not quarrel with the past, but he insists on its transformation, the transformation of individual or class autocracy into the autocracy, self-rule or Swaraj, of the nation and of the fixed, hereditary, anti-democratic caste-organisation into the pliable self-adapting, democratic distribution of function at which socialism aims. In the present absolutism in politics and the present narrow caste-organisation in society he finds a negation of that equality which his religion enjoins. Both must be transformed. The historic problem that the present attitude of Indian Nationalism at once brings to the mind, as to how a caste-governed society could co-exist with a democratic religion and philosophy, we do not propose to consider here today. We only point out that Indian Nationalism must by its inherent tendencies move towards the removal of unreasoning and arbitrary distinctions and inequalities.[2]
Mahatma Gandhi was trying to take these thoughts forward and transform them into actions with the help of moderates in Congress circles but again and again he was defeated by orthodoxy that was dominating Congress at every level. Meanwhile Khilafat movement led to the consolidation of Muslims into a strong political force and inadvertently awakened in them the idea of reviving an Islamic empire.
Even under such circumstances the orthodoxy in Hindu society was not ready to integrate Dalits with rest of the Hindu society by recognizing their denied share in the power structure of Hindu society. In 1924 Hindu Maha Sabha leader and Congress stalwart Lala Lajpati wrote acidly:
It is inconceivable to think of a democracy which recognizes ‘untouchability’ as part of individual ‘Dharma’ and as a permissible form religious and social prejudice. It is useless to talk of a democratic State as long as this kind of prejudice sways our mind and influences our conduct … The process of building a nation is a moral process. You cannot engage in a work of this kind with success by practicing duplicity….It is sufficiently humiliating that we should have to mention untouchability at all in our programme; but to have avoided it for fear of offending the sensibilities of some classes of our country men could have been worse. It would have been immoral. The democratic mind should clear itself of all such prejudices.[3]
Earlier the Calcutta Congress session had passed a resolution, “respectfully asking religious heads to help the growing desire to reform Hinduism in the matter of its treatment of the suppressed classes”.[4]
Even years after the passing of these Congress resolutions the situation had not improved any better. Dr. Ambedkar and his followers had to face the brutality of a violent orthodoxy in their fight for the rights to enter the temple tank and temple premises at Mahad. On the 4th January 1931, Dr.Ambedkar submitted to the Round Table Conference a ‘Supplementary Memorandum’ in which he stated that the term ‘Depressed Classes’ was considered by the Dalit communities as ‘degrading and contemptuous’.
Instead he suggested three official names: “Non-caste Hindus”, “Protestant Hindus” or “Non-conformist Hindus”.[5] This was actually two years after Dr.Ambedkar had announced in Jalagon at a conference of Dalits (May 1929) that their disabilities could not be rectified within Hindu fold.
In other words renouncing even the caste-infested Hinduism was psychologically a tough decision for Dr.Ambedkar. He had repeatedly envisioned a casteless Hindu society where his people would be accepted without disabilities and discrimination and at every such step Hindu orthodoxy failed his expectations and Hindu reformers, even those who could stand up against the most powerful Empire on earth then, remained powerless to counter effectively the stranglehold of orthodoxy.
Hindu orthodoxy because of their suicidal arrogance and inhumanity had closed the doors in the face of one of the greatest sons Hindu civilization had ever produced. Thus in 1934 after the violent ordeal of Nasik Satyagraha, Dr. Ambedkar wrote a letter to the leader of the movement in which he declared:
I would advise the Depressed Classes to insist upon a complete overhauling of Hindu society and Hindu theology before they consent to become an integral part of Hindu society. I started temple entry satyagraha only because I felt that that was the best way of energising the Depressed Classes and making them conscious of their position.[6]
And in 1935 the final declaration of conversion came from Ambedkar like the Vedic thunderbolt of Indra striking the serpent Vrtra. Here the serpent that was struck was casteism. The inhuman treachery of the orthodoxy left a deep scar of bitterness in Baba Saheb which he overcame only through compassion and his erudite scholarship. Though he had resolved to leave Hinduism which he perceived as ‘a veritable house of horrors’ for the Dalits his love for Indic Dharma never left him. Even in the worst critique of Hinduism, which he attempted, ‘Riddle in Hinduism’ this love is evident. In this book Dr.Ambedkar makes the harshest pronouncement against Hindu social order. It is not only devoid of democracy but it is designed that way:
The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It is designed to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and of castes and outcastes are not theories but are decrees. They are all barricades raised against democracy.[7]
It would appear that Dr.Ambedkar had found entire Hindu Dharma worthless. Then the doctor springs out a surprise:
From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity was unknown to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion would not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought gave rise to an idea which had greater potentialities for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the doctrine of Brahmaism.[8]
Making Upanishads as the spiritual basis of a new casteless Hindu society was an idea very dear to Dr.Ambedkar. Ten years ago he had adviced those Hindus who wanted to remove casteism, he had adviced that they need not search for a spiritual basis of casteless Hinduism outside Hinduism:
… for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.[9]
Now we are nearing the crucial point of the thesis which the author puts forth in his ‘Riddle’. If Dr.Ambedkar’s aim is merely mindless condemnation of Hinduism, as was done by Dravidian racist EVR, then he could have embraced with glee the usual Western criticism of Vedic Advaita which Dr.Ambedkar calls ‘Brahmaism’. (He had borrowed from work ‘The Great Epic of India: Character and Origin of the Mahabharata’ by Edward Washburn Hopkins).
Now Dr.Ambedkar proceeds to give a brilliant defense of Vedic Advaita against the usual Christian theological criticisms:
There are two criticisms which have been leveled against Brahmaism. It is said that Brahmaism is piece of impudence. For a man to say “I am Brahma” is a kind of arrogance. The other criticism leveled against Brahmaism is the inability of man to know Brahma. ‘I am Brahma’ may appear to be impudence. But it can also be an assertion of one’s own worth. In a world where humanity suffers so much from an inferiority complex such an assertion on the part of man is to be welcomed. Democracy demands that each individual shall have every opportunity for realizing its worth. It also requires that each individual shall know that he is as good as everybody else. Those who sneer at Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) as an impudent Utterance forget the other part of the Maha Vakya namely Tatvamasi (Thou art also Brahma). If Aham Brahmasmi has stood alone without the conjunct of Tatvamasi it may have been possible to sneer at it. But with the conjunct of Tatvamasi the charge of selfish arrogance cannot stand against Brahmaism.[10]
What about the second objection? Dr.Ambedkar uses that objection as a spring board to expand Vedic Advaita into a social philosophy. This was something not attempted even by Sankara and that was not because Sankara lacked the intelligence needed for it:
It may well be that Brahma is unknowable. But all the same this theory of Brahma has certain social implications which have a tremendous value as a foundation for Democracy. If all persons are parts of Brahma then all are equal and all must enjoy the same liberty which is what Democracy means. Looked at from this point of view Brahma may be unknowable. But there cannot be slightest doubt that no doctrine could furnish a stronger foundation for Democracy than the doctrine of Brahma.[11]
Then Dr.Ambedkar calls to task the Western and Christian scholars who attribute Christianity and Greek thoughts as the seeds of democracy:
To support Democracy because we are all children of God is a very weak foundation for Democracy to rest on. That is why Democracy is so shaky wherever it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize and realize that you and I are parts of the same cosmic principle leaves room for no other theory of associated life except democracy. It does not merely preach Democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of one and all. Western students of Democracy have spread the belief that Democracy has stemmed either from Christianity or from Plato and that there is no other source of inspiration for democracy. If they had known that India too had developed the doctrine of Brahmaism which furnishes a better foundation for Democracy they would not have been so dogmatic. India too must be admitted to have a contribution towards a theoretical foundation for Democracy.[12]
Till now a traditional Hindu would enjoy what Baba Saheb had to say. But now Ambedkar comes to the riddle part of it. It is an uncomfortable question which can be answered only through honest introspection by Hindus who really care about the survival of all Hindu society:
Why then Brahmaism failed to produce a new society? This is a great riddle. It is not that the Brahmins did not recognize the doctrine of Brahmaism. They did. But they did not ask how they could support inequality between the Brahmin and the Shudra, between man and woman, between casteman and outcaste? But they did not. The result is that we have on the one hand the most democratic principle of Brahmaism and on the other hand a society infested with castes, subcastes, outcastes, primitive tribes and criminal tribes. Can there be a greater dilemma than this? What is more ridiculous is the teaching of the Great Shankaracharya. For it was this Shankarcharya who taught that there is Brahma and this Brahma is real and that it pervades all and at the same time upheld all the inequities of the Brahmanic society.[13]
That Baba Saheb Ambedkar placed this truly remarkable passage inside his book that offers the harshest critique of Hinduism should be a real eye-opener. In fact Swami Vivekananda had made very similar observations about Hinduism is worth remembering here. In a criticism as harsh as that of Baba Saheb Ambedkar almost word for word, Swami Vivekananda wrote:
The poor, the low, the sinner in India have no friends, no help — they cannot rise, try however they may. They sink lower and lower every day, they feel the blows showered upon them by a cruel society, and they do not know whence the blow comes. They have forgotten that they too are men. And the result is slavery. Thoughtful people within the last few years have seen it, but unfortunately laid it at the door of the Hindu religion, and to them, the only way of bettering is by crushing this grandest religion of the world. … Religion is not in fault. On the other hand, your religion teaches you that every being is only your own self multiplied. But it was the want of practical application, the want of sympathy — the want of heart. The Lord once more came to you as Buddha and taught you how to feel, how to sympathise with the poor, the miserable, the sinner, but you heard Him not. Your priests invented the horrible story that the Lord was here for deluding demons with false doctrines!
True indeed, but we are the demons, not those that believed…. A hundred thousand men and women, fired with the zeal of holiness, fortified with eternal faith in the Lord, and nerved to lion’s courage by their sympathy for the poor and the fallen and the downtrodden, will go over the length and breadth of the land, preaching the gospel of salvation, the gospel of help, the gospel of social raising-up — the gospel of equality. No religion on earth preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty strain as Hinduism, and no religion on earth treads upon the necks of the poor and the low in such a fashion as Hinduism…. religion is not in fault, but it is the… hypocrites, who invent all sorts of engines of tyranny in the shape of doctrines of Pâramârthika and Vyâvahârika.[14]
If interchanged, what Dr.Ambedkar says about Vedic Advaita can well fit in as a passage from the writings of Swami Vivekananda and what Swami Vivekananda had written to his friend Alasinga in the year 1893 may well be part of a passage in Dr.Ambedkar’s Riddles written in 1950s. In fact this is the real core riddle Dr.Ambedkar had been mercilessly attacking. His vehement criticisms of mythologies and epics in the unfinished manuscript, which today forms the book ‘Riddles’, are actually the pain of a passionate patriotic Dalit leader who loved the Hindu culture and society but was thrown out literally by the arrogance of Hindu orthodoxy.
There is no doubt that a Hindu will find most of the ‘riddles’ stated by Dr.Ambedkar abusive and nothing less. But these abuses are nothing when compared to the abuses that have been hurled upon Dalits by orthodoxy and other non-Dalit castes. By denying Dalit their share in the spiritual and cultural structures of Hindutva, of which Vedic Hinduism is a subset though a dominant one, we are diminishing Hindus as a nation. If and only when this fundamental flaw is rectified in Hinduism, then all other ‘riddles’ Dr.Ambedkar speaks of will become irrelevant.
To understand what might be perceived as the abusive nature of the ‘Riddles’, one should understand Dr.Ambedkar in perspective. It is well known that Dr.Ambedkar always rejected Bhakti tradition which he connected with hero worship which in turn he cited as the reason for the downfall of Hindu society. However talking at the conference of Dalit Railway workers, Dr.Ambedkar said:
Character is more important than education. It pains me to see youths growing indifferent to religion. Religion is not opium as is held by some. What good things I have in me or whatever benefits of my education to the society, I owe them to the religious feelings in me.[15]
Apart from the calculated rejection of Marxist view of religion when particularly talking to the workers, the words of Ambedkar also reveal another important aspect of his life. The religious environment of his early life provided him with an ever abiding moral-spiritual compass. It never departed him even after he embraced Buddhism and continued to reside in him till the end of his life.[16] Dr.Ambedkar’s family belonged to Kabir Panth. Kabir was the radical proponent of Vaishnava Bhakti through the Guru-lineage of Ramananda of Sri Ramanuja tradition of South India. Prof. Edmund Weber explains:
Concerning the religious background of Ambedkar we have to take notice that his family belonged to the Kabir Panth. This Bhakti religion did not acknowledge any jati and Varna boundaries in religious, not yet in practical respect, and worshipped the Nirguna Rama. The origin from a Ram Bhakti Hinduism strongly denying the ruling Varna system by religion and interpreting the Holy in the Nir-guna way determined his further religious and political development.[17]
If one combines the understanding of this deeper spiritual nature of Dr.Ambedkar with his words that all that was good in him he owed to the religious feelings in him, then one can understand how Dr.Ambedkar is a phenomenal fulfillment of a larger Indic Guru-tradition that has been constantly rebelling against social stagnation. Despite the harsh criticism of Hindu mythology and belief Dr.Ambedkar exhibited in his writings, his attitude towards the beliefs of Hindu Dalits was again one of compassion. Dhananjay Keer the authentic biographer of Dr.Ambedkar narrates an incident:
An old devout man went to his ‘Baba Saheb’ and entreated him to allow him to bring the image of Ganapati the Hindu God. Ambedkar smiled at the guileless heart of the old man and said to him in a loud voice: “Who told you I do not believe in God?” “Go! Do as you like!” was the reply. And then the old man fulfilled his vow.[18]
In fact Dr.Ambedkar was careful that the Dalits should not fall into the traps of non-Indic religious and political ideologies in their frustration with caste-Hindus. Prof. Balkrishna Govind Gokhale explains:
It would have been quite in character with his movement if it had finally resulted in a certain loss of “religiosity” among his followers. That Ambedkar was aware of this possibility is evident from his speeches and writings. For a rationalist such a loss could not be alarming and far from a fatal circumstance. But Ambedkar had within him a deep sense of the spiritual and his vision of future of his own people was not just in terms of economic advance, social equality or political bargains…. He was aware that by their conversion to other faiths or their espousal of Marxism they would create more and serious problems for themselves either as new minorities or turn themselves to a new tyranny under a “Dictatorship” that would use them and exploit them ruthlessly, if not worse, than Hinduism had done. Secondly he knew that the untouchables were a deeply religious people whose spiritual hunger had to be satisfied only by offering them an alternate religious system of religious percepts, values and ritual if they were not to be transformed into a rootless mass…. The rebel within marched out of the fold but assured the Hindus that he was close enough to them as their equal in the contributions of their new faith to the making of Indian culture [19]
For a proponent of modernity in colonial environment, Christianity could have been a natural choice positioning itself as a religion of modernism and democracy. It was the time when ‘Protestant ethics’ of Max Weber and Marxist ideas of Soviet Union were dominating the intellectual realm. It is then to the eternal credit of Dr.Ambedkar that he rejected both these dominant players and zeroed in on Buddhism. Again his Buddhism was different from all other types of traditional Buddhisms found around the world. His was a Buddhism that he saw as a socio-political implementing of the spiritual thesis of Vedic ‘Brahmaism’.
The passionate love which Dr.Ambedkar had for this nation and her culture, demands a radical reform in our part. When that is done, ‘The Riddles’ will lose its relevance and become a mere historic document and a caution against social stagnation. Then the only riddle to remain eternally shall be this: how the Bhakti tradition which Dr.Ambedkar considered as the cause of social stagnation was actually a catalyst in the producing a Bodhi Sattva who was the personification of social emancipation.
Next we shall see how Dr.Ambedkar’s actions manifested his love for Hindustan.
[1] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.93
[2] Sri Aurobindo, The Unhindu Spirit of Caste Rigidity, Bande Mataram, 20-Sep-1907
[3] Lajpat Rai, Ideals of Non-Cooperation and other essays, Ganesan Publishers, 1924, pp 29-30
[4] Ibid. p.125
[5] Dr. Bhimrao R Ambedkar & Rao Bahadur R. Srinivasan, Supplementary Memorandum on the Claims of the Depressed Classes for Special Representation submitted at Round Table Conference,4-Jan-1931, London
[6] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Letter to to Mr. Bhaurao Gaikwad on 3rd March 1934.
[7] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Riddles in Hinduism, p.216
[8] Ibid.
[9] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1944, p.52
[10] Ibid., p.217
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid, p.218
[14] Swami Vivekananda, Letter to Alasinga dated 20th August 1893
[15] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Volume 17, Part 3,p.193
[16] His faithful assitant Rattu had recorded that the last he saw his master on the night of 4-Dec-1956, he heard him singing a song of Kabir. (Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.513)
[17] Edmund Weber, Ambedkar and the Hindu Culture, Journal of Religious Culture, No.18(b), 1999 : http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/irenik/relkultur18b.pdf
[18] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.477
[19] Balkrishna Govind Gokhale, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar: Rebel against Hindu Tradition, pp.20-22 in ‘Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia’, Ed. Bardwell L. Smith, BRILL, 1976
Baba Saheb Ambedkar was undoubtedly a great visionary and a nation builder. He deeply felt that India has an underlying organic unity which needs to be evolved into a vibrant democratic modern nation-state. Dr.Ambedkar’s practical patriotism manifested itself in his actions, in a way decisive for the destiny of the nation he loved. Despite his harsh criticism of Hinduism, his love for those Hindus who wanted to reform Hinduism and infuse life into it was always openly manifest. Dr.Ambedkar had even signed a telegraphic Memorandum sent to the Goa Government protesting against the arrests of the Hindu missionaries who had carried out reconversion movement in Goa.[1]
One of the harshest criticisms Dr.Ambedkar made on Mahatma Gandhi was on the occasion of latter’s action against Dr.Narayan Bhaskar Khare.
Dr.Khare was a Hindu nationalist and a strong social reformer. He was responsible for the legalization of Arya Samaj marriage which allowed widow remarriage as well as inter-caste marriage. In 1938 Dr Khare was the Prime Minister in the first every elected Congress Ministry in the Central Provinces. Due to some internal problems in the ministry he got rid of the old cabinet and formed a new cabinet in which he included Mr.Agnibhoj a well-qualified Dalit as a minister. This was opposed by Congress Working Committee as an act of indiscipline. Dr.Ambedkar writes:
In explaining what was behind the charge of indiscipline in forming a new ministry, Dr. Khare openly said that according to Mr.Gandhi the act of indiscipline consisted in the inclusion of an Untouchable in the Ministry. Dr.Khare also said that Mr.Gandhi told him that it was wrong on his part to have raised such aspirations and ambitions in the Untouchables and it was such an act of bad judgment that he would never forgive him.[2]
When public meetings were organized to protest against the treatment meted out to Dr.Khare by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr.Ambedkar appeared on the dais along with Hindu Maha Sabha leader Dr.Moonje and Jamanlal Mehta.[3] Ever conscious of Hindu movements supporting Sanghatan – social solidarity, Dr.Ambedkar visited RSS camp in Pune in May 1939. He expressed his satisfaction:
“I am surprised to find Swayamsevaks here moving about in absolute equality and brotherhood without even caring to know the castes of others.”[4]
Dr.Ambedkar was extremely worried about the increasing number of Muslims in Indian army. He was sure that partition would happen and Pakistan would become a reality. The weak position of Hindus in the British-Indian army would then become a serious factor. When the partition became an important issue Dr.Ambedkar wrote his famous ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’ in 1941. The book analyzed the problem from every point of view. Here Dr.Ambedkar made a strong and rational case for partition. Unrealistic dreams of Mahatma Gandhi and unyielding stand of Hindu Maha Sabha, both could not match the cold logic of facts marshaled by Dr.Ambedkar. February 1942, saw a three day lecture-cum-analysis of his book. Here Dr. Ambedkar explained his logic:
They cannot make history, those who forget history. To bring down the preponderance of the Muslims in the Indian army and to make India safe, it is wise to let out the hostile element. We will defend our land. Do not be under the false impression that Pakistan would be able to spread its Muslim empire over India. Hindus will make it lick the dust. I confess I have my quarrel with the caste Hindus over some points but I take a vow before you that I shall lay down my life in defense of our land.[5]
So as clouds of World War II started accumulating in the horizon of Europe, Dr.Ambedkar saw that as a good opportunity to get Dalits enrolled into British-Indian army. He saw the governor of Bombay and asked him to remove the bar on Mahar recruitment in the army.
Dr.Ambedkar’s efforts were actively supported by Veer Savarkar who announced that under the able guidance of Dr.Ambedkar Mahar brethren would become a martial community.[6] Savarkar-Ambedkar support for military recruitment, as against the pacifist stand of Congress, became crucial in changing the demographic profile of British-Indian army. When in July 1941 Viceroy Amery announced his executive council, no member belonging to Depressed Classes and Sikhs were included in that. Veer Savarkar telegraphed Amery then the Secretary of State for India, that such non-inclusion of Depressed Classes was a breach of trust. He upheld Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s demand that members of Depressed Classes should be included in the Executive Council and went a step further. Veer Savarkar wired the Viceroy that Dr.Ambedkar should be included in the executive council.[7]
In 1942 Dr.Ambedkar’s Golden Jubilee was celebrated. The function was presided over by Dr.M.R.Jayakar who was a Hindu Maha Sabha leader. On this occasion, Veer Savarkar felicitated Dr.Ambedkar thus:
Ambedkar’s personality, erudition and capacity to lead and organize would have by themselves marked him out as an outstanding asset to our nation. But in addition to that the inestimable services he had rendered to our motherland in trying to stamp out untouchability and the results he has achieved in instilling a manly spirit of self-confidence in millions of Depressed classes constitute an abiding patriotic and humanitarian. The very fact of the birth of such a towering personality among the so-called untouchables could not but liberate their souls from self-depression and animate them to challenge the superiority claims of the so-called touchables.[8]
Authoritative biographer of Dr.Ambedkar, Dhananjay Keer considers Veer Savarkar’s felicitation as ‘the most important tribute full of appreciation’.[9]
Despite his aligning with Muslim League in certain unfortunate situations, mostly because of the thoughtless follies of Congress, Dr.Ambedkar was always distrustful of Islam as a religion and as a political force. After his announcement of conversion, when some Dalit youths expressed their decision to convert to Islam he discouraged them from conversion to Islam.[10]
His seminal work ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’, is a must read for every Indian who wants to understand the Islamist psyche and its play in Indian politics. More than to get a few potshots at Muslims, Hindu nationalists should read the book to understand Islamic politics in all its dimensions. In the book, Dr.Ambedkar repeatedly asserted that the Islamic politics is designed on Nazi way of politics:
The leaders of the Muslims League seem to have studied deeply Hitler’s bullying tactics against Czechoslovakia in the interest of the Studeten Germans and also learned the lessons which those tactics teach. See their threatening speeches in the Karachi of the League held in 1937.[11]
… [With] this new demand of 50 per cent, the Muslims are not only seeking to reduce the Hindu majority to a minority but they are also cutting into the political rights of the other minorities. The Muslims are now speaking the language of Hitler and claiming a place in the Sun which Hitler has been claiming for Germany. For their demand for 50 per cent, is nothing but a counterpart: of the German claims for Deuchland Ubcr Alles and Leibenstraum for themselves, irrespective of what happens to other minorities.[12]
Dr.Ambedkar supported the partition of the country. His reasoning for this was not because he was against Indian unity but he wanted India to be democratically free of a community hijacked into a hostile anti-Indian mindset. In that context he differentiated between appeasement and settlement. He considers appeasement to be as much a social evil as casteism:
Appeasement means to offer to buy off the aggressor by conniving at or collaborating with him in the rape, murder and arson on innocent Hindus who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does….[The] policy of concession has increased their aggressiveness and what is worse the Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation.[13]
If he cautioned the caste-Hindu pseudo-secular Congress against appeasement policy and Hindu Maha Sabha against arrogant closure of their eyes to ground reality, he also had a warning for the Dalits. Repeatedly Dr. Ambedkar had cautioned Dalits against trusting Muslims. It was a constant refrain throughout his life. He was totally convinced that non-Indic religions and ideologies cannot provide Dalits holistic emancipation. He further feared that they might imprison them into a worse form of slavery. In his letter from London, during his visit for Round Table Conference, he stated:
When Hindus and Muslims fight among themselves, the Untouchables tend to incline towards Muslims. They feel, they would be benefitted if they develop friendship with Muslims. But Untouchables should keep in mind that it is not all that true as it appears and so they should be very careful. What I experienced at the time of Sarada Act about the Muslim policy, cannot called satisfactory. I got first severe jolt when I found that almost all the Muslims got ready to oppose the essential Act like Sarada Act along with the obsolete and puranic, fundamentalists and revivalist orthodox Hindus.[14]
Here it should be noted that the famous Sarada Act, hated by both Hindu orthodoxy and Islamic fundamentalists, was the result of the tireless work of Har Bilas Sarada who was a staunch Hindu nationalist. In his celebrated book ‘Hindu Superiority’, Hari Bilas Sarada wrote:
No religion in the world claims to be in complete harmony with the spirit of modern science except the Vedic religion. Buddhism, being only a modified form of Hinduism does not differ materially from the Vedic religion in its scientific aspects. … Even at the present moment more than half of the human race, are the express followers of the religions that emanated from India. If the population of the world be taken in round numbers at 1,000,000,000 we shall find from authentic records, that 53,000. 000 men profess Hinduism and Buddhism (the religions that originated in India), while only 47,000,000 men follow religions which are of non- Indian origin.[15]
It will be seen that Dr.Ambedkar had used the same grouping together of Buddhists and Hindus as one group.
The ironical tragedy of the fact, that an act of reform brought by a fierce Hindu nationalist was so hatefully resisted by Hindu orthodoxy, was not lost on Dr.Ambedkar. Whenever he wrote he always gave that space for those reformist Hindu nationalists – small was their tribe he knew. Perhaps one day they might capture the Hindu discourse now dominated by Hindu orthodoxy, he wished. But even that wish and knowledge cannot become factors to delay the charting of the liberation map of Dalits. The road map and destination should be within Indic Dharma – for this he took his at most care.
In his letter from London, Dr.Ambedkar also revealed a very strange fact. A special telegram from the Brahmin President of Varnashram Brahman Sangha was received by one of the Muslim delegates, Mr. Gazanavi. It was a message seeking Islamic cooperation with orthodox Hindus in opposing the Untouchables temple entry movement. The telegram suggested that, it would be dangerous to the religion of both Hindus as well as Muslims, if India became independent and laws seeking social reforms were enacted.[16]
Dr.Ambedkar in a hard-hitting chapter, supported with facts and figures states how social stagnation in Islamic society goes unperceived unlike the Hindu social stagnation and hence becomes doubly dangerous:
The publication of ‘Mother India’ by Miss Mayo… created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus were groveling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus were a progressive people. That, such an impression should prevail, is of course surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters. One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims?…Can the position of the Musalmans so far as child marriage is considered better than the position of Hindus ?…No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman….Take the caste system. 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….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….Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects, upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhea….Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does set in.[17]
As stated earlier Dr.Ambedkar had seen how Hindu nationalists had actually fought against their own orthodoxy to remove their social evil. This is a feature conspicuous by its absence in Islamic society. Unlike the proponents of pseudo-rationalist movement in Tamil Nadu who irrationally eulogized Islam closing their eyes to the social evils of Islam and condemned all things Hindu, Dr.Ambedkar was well aware of this reality:
The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them namely that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. But the Muslims on the other hand do not realize that they are evil and consequently do not agitate for their removal. On the other hand they oppose any change in their existing practices.[18]
Here it should be pointed out that Dr.Ambedkar was aware of the limitations that Islamic factor was forcing upon Hindu reform movement. Dr.Ambedkar should have been aware of the different strands working inside Hindu Maha Sabha. For example Veer Savarkar had forcefully stated that caste shouldn’t grow and had condemned intra-caste marriages as the reason for India’s weakness. He had advocated inter-caste marriages as early as 1916. Writing from the cellular jail to his brother Veer Savarkar wrote:
For though I long to see the day, when inter –provincial marriages amongst the Hindus would throw down the artificial and harmful barriers of castes and creeds and the Great River of life – our Hindu Life would, having freed itself of all bogs and sands, flow in an ever fresh and mighty current- uninterrupted and uninterruptible –still the first and foremost thing to be effected. In that direction is to restore to love her sole privilege and right of presiding over the wedding rights….Centuries of child marriages and marriages by proxies! Centuries of love banished from its legitimate sphere of influence to attract and develop elements that tend to the betterment of body and mind and soul; and the inevitable result is a race puny, debilitated, all vigour and manhood sapped out of it. Thousand things have wrought this-and the marriage customs that prevail in us are one of the few important factors contributing to it. Authorities should come in to sanctify but not to silence love altogether.[19]
Veer Savarkar unveiled a radical programme against casteism by declaring that removal of seven cardinal sins from Hindu society. They were, ‘Ban on Vedic education’, ‘Ban on intercaste marriage’, ‘Ban on Interdining’, ‘Ban on certain professions to certain castes’, Untouchability, ‘Ban on sea voyage’ and ‘Ban on reconversion’.[20] Dr. Ambedkar had published the address of Dr. Jayakar, who was the President of Hindu Rashtriya Samajik Parishad, demanding intercaste marriages in his magazine Bahishkrit Bharat.[21]
However Dr.Ambedkar noted with increased frustration how the Hindu orthodoxy thwarted all the moves for radical reforms in Hindu nationalist movement. For example, in 1936, at the 17th convention of Hindu Mahasabha in 1936 Dr.Jayakar brought a resolution for inter-caste marriages and it was vetoed by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya.[22] Even Veer Savarkar who forcefully advocated abolition of caste system lock stock and barrel could not have his way with the official stand of Hindu Maha Sabha lest it suffered a vertical split. Dr.Ambedkar caustically observed the dilemma of Hindu nationalists:
[Hindu Maha Sabha] is organized for the protection of Hindu rights against Muslim encroachment. … As a body organized to protect Hindu rights it is all the time engaged in keeping an eye on political movements on seats and posts. It cannot spare any thought for social reform. As a body keen on bringing about a common front of all Hindus it cannot afford to create dissensions among its elements as would be the case if it undertook to bring about social reforms. For the sake of the consolidation of the Hindu rank and file the Hindu Maha Sabha is ready to suffer all social evils to remain as they are.[23]
Dr.Ambedkar believed that freeing Hindus of their anxiety over Islamic threat and making them really free could catalyze social emancipation process in Hindus. It is in this context that one has to understand his happiness over partition:
I advocated partition because I felt that it was only by partition that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India and Pakistan had remained united in one State Hindus though independent would have been at the mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus.[24]
Apart from the social life of Islam, Dr.Ambedkar also made a clinical assessment of Islamic politics. No Hindu nationalist leader, not even intellectuals like Veer Savarkar, ever attempted to understand the basic nature of Islamic politics as Dr.Ambedkar:
Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and laymen, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place and they must because they arc irrepressible they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.[25]
Dr.Ambedkar explains how this operates in real political realm. Here we have an explanation that is radically different from the usual pseudo-secular negations given to Islamist savagery on Hindus like Moplah riots where Hindu-secular categories used perversely by Marxist scholars to white-wash Islamic atrocities:
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 mill owner is a disservice to the Muslim Community for it weakens the Community in its struggle against the Hindu Community.[26]
[1] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p. 264
[2] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, Gautam Books, 1945: 2009, p.96
[3] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p. 311
[4] M.G.Chitkara, Dr.Ambedkar and Social Justice, APH Publishing, 2002, p.234
[5] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol-17, Part- 3 Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, p.233
[6] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p. 338
[7] Ibid, p.339
[8] Ibid, p. 344 & p.346
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., p. 252
[11] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co, 1941, p.111
[12] Ibid., p.262
[13] Ibid., p.268
[14] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Letter published in Janata dated 24-Dec-1932
[15] Harbilas Sarada, Hindu superiority: an attempt to determine the position of the Hindu race in the scale of nations, Rajputana Printing Works, Ajmer, 1906, p.439
[16] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Letter published in Janata dated 24-Dec-1932
[17] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co, 1941, pp.221-7
[18] Ibid., p.232
[19] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Letter from Cellular Jail dated 6-7-1916
[20] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, The Spirit of Hindutva, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 81
[21] A.K.Vakil, Gandhi-Ambedkar Dispute, Ashish Publishing House, 1991 , p.48
[22] K.N.Kadam, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and the significance of his movement: a chronology, Popular Prakashan, 1991, p.110
[23] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co, 1941,p.235
[24] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on linguistic states, Anand Sahitya Sadan, 1955:1989, p.16
[25] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co, 1941, , p.229
[26] Ibid., p.232
Understanding the intrinsic nature of Islamic politics was not a mere theoretical exercise. Dr.Ambedkar had learnt first hand and in bitterness how Islamic politics could use Dalit frustrations with Hindus, as a coin in the Chess board solely for its advantage. He knew how they could then throw them completely off in a heartless manner. He stated:
I would like to tell the Scheduled Castes who happen today to be impounded inside Pakistan to come over to India by such means as may be available to them. The second thing I want to say is that it would be fatal for the Scheduled Castes, whether in Pakistan or Hyderabad, to put their faith in Muslims or Muslim League. It has become a habit with the scheduled castes to look upon the Muslims as friends simply because they dislike Hindus. This is mistaken view. The Muslims wanted the support of the scheduled castes but they never gave their support to the scheduled castes. Mr. Jinnah was all the time playing a double game. He was very insistent that the scheduled castes were a separate entity when it suited him, but when it did not suit him, he insisted, with equal emphasis, that they were Hindus.[i]
He wanted the Schedules Castes trapped in Pakistan on the eve of Partition, to save their lives and come to India. He offered them a very practical advice, a method as intelligent as the escape of Shivaji from the prison of Aurangazeb:
As regards conversion to Islam, I ask all the scheduled castes not to succumb to it as an easy way to escape. I cannot say that they should die rather than be converted. What I say is that they must look upon it as a last resort forced upon them by violence. I say that they must not regard themselves as lost to the fold forever. Fortunately, for us we are not hampered by the rules of the Hindu Shastras. To all those who was forcibly converted I pledge my word that if they wish to come back I shall see that they are received back into the fold and treated as brethren in the same manner in which they were treated before the conversion.[ii]
When some misguided Dalits were lured into supporting Hyderabad Nizam’s plan for not merging with India, Dr.Ambedkar gravely warned them:
The Scheduled Castes of Hyderabad should under no circumstances side with the Nizam and the Ittehad-ul- Muslimeen. … No person from the Scheduled Castes should bring disgrace upon the community by siding with one who is an enemy of India.[iii]
During the partition migration, Hindu refugees from Pakistan were being incessantly attacked all along by Muslim mobs actively supported by Pakistani army. After repeated demands from Dr.Ambedkar to the government Mahar regiment was sent for the safety of Pakistani Hindu-Sikh refugees. The Regiment helped in the safe transfer of lakhs of refugees in the face of violent armed mobs.[iv]
Soon after the partition, Kashmir problem began. October 1947 saw Pakistani army backed raiders enter Kashmir. They started widespread looting and killing. Pandit Nehru was clueless as to what to do that he complained to the British Prime Minister out Pakistani aggression. In Kashmir issue the crucial role of Dr.Ambedkar, has not yet been fully appreciated by many. Dalit scholar and historian Dr.K.Jamanlaldas has made the crucial step in assessing his role. According to Dr.Jamanlaldas:
Military operations were under Major General Kalwant Singh. The Mahar Battalions were employed as advised by Dr. Ambedkar. Their stay was for 18 months. Their work was highly appreciated. They stopped the aggression and repealed the enemy with great valor. It was exclaimed that if they were allowed to fight fully, there would have been no POK…. The Times of India 26.10.52 praised the valor of Mahar battalion in the following terms: “In Kashmir War in December, 1947, a battalion of the Mahar Regiment earned undying fame by its bravery and devotion to duty. The part, which this battalion played in the battle of Jhangar, will be written in the golden letters in the history of Indian Army."[v]
Despite the advantage Indian army had on the ground, despite being cautioned by many seasoned Indian leaders, Nehru autocratically took the Kashmir matter to UN. Dr.Ambedkar was also critical about Indian government ready to give special rights to Kashmir. Dr.Jamanlaldas reveals:
…Dr. Ambedkar had clearly told Sk. Abdullah: “You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.”
Then Sk. Abdullah went to Nehru, who directed him to Gopal Swami Ayyangar, who approached Sardar Patel asking him to do something as it was a matter of prestige of Nehru, who has promised Sk. Abdullah accordingly. Patel got it passed when Nehru was on foreign tour. On the day this article came up for discussion, Dr. Ambedkar did not reply to questions on it though he did participate on other articles. All arguments were done by Krishna Swami Ayyangar.[vi]
Later talking to the students of Lucknow University, Dr.Ambedkar said regarding Kashmir, “If we cannot save the whole of Kashmir at least let us save our kith and kin.”[vii] His ‘kith and kin’ were the Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir and the Buddhists of Ladakh. It was the same categorization Harbilas Sarda had made earlier. Veer Savarkar too had also dreamt of a pan-Hindu-Buddhist alliance to counter a possible pan-Islamic onslaught.[viii]
In 1948, Dr. Khare, whom Dr.Ambedkar had supported in 1938, was the Chief Minister of the state of Alwar. Dr.Khare was sacked by Nehru government, following the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. He was then the member of Constituent Assembly and he was made to submit that post also. When Dr.Ambedkar heard of these humiliations, he went to meet Dr.Khare in person to his house and consoled him. Dr.Ambedkar’s words reveal the respect and love he had for Dr.Khare: “Dr.Khare, hence forward, nobody will come to see you. You will feel very lonely. Whenever you feel, you can call on me for a chat. My house is open to you.”[ix] With Dr.Ambedkar’s emotional help, Dr.Khare overcame this tough period in his life. Later Dr.Khare left Congress and joined Hindu Maha Sabha.
In 1950 anti-Hindu pogroms broke out in East Pakistan against Hindus which were actually genocidal in nature. Against this background Nehru signed a pact with Liaquat Ali of East Pakistan which left Hindus of East Pakistan helpless. Indian government had totally washed off its hands from protecting their lives, honour and properties. Soon after the pact Dr.Shyama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Nehru cabinet. Dr.Ambedkar too was critical about the pact. He resigned from the Nehru cabinet on 27-Sep-1951. In his resignation statement he condemned the callousness shown by Nehru against the sufferings Hindus of East Pakistan were undergoing and the foolishness of the plebiscite Nehru had made in his own romanticism unconcerned about the plight of ‘our people’:
There are two grounds which have disturbed our relations with Pakistan – one is Kashmir and the other is the condition of our people in East Bengal. I felt that we should be more deeply concerned with East Bengal where the condition of our people seems from all the newspapers intolerable than with Kashmir. Notwithstanding this we have been staking our all on the Kashmir issue. … What I am afraid of is that in the proposed plebiscite, which is to be an overall plebiscite, the Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir are likely to be dragged into Pakistan against their wishes and we may have to face same problems as we are facing today in East Bengal.[x]
In October 1951 Dr.Ambedkar attacked Congress for doing nothing for the Scheduled Castes and termed Nehru as being heartless towards Dalit communities while suffering from ‘Muslim mania’.[xi] In 1952 Dr.Ambedkar revealed how Congress behaved with respect to Dalit Hindus held captive in Pakistan:
Immediately after the Partition, Pakistan Government issued orders prohibiting the scheduled caste people, from leaving Pakistan for India. Pakistan did not bother so much if the Hindus left, but who would do the dirty work of the scavengers, sweepers, the Bhangis and other despised castes if the untouchables left Pakistan. I requested Pt. Nehru to take immediate action and strive for the removal of this ban on their migration. He did not do anything at all. He slept over the issue and did not even casually mention it during the course of various discussions with the Pakistanis. None of the Congress Harijans raised a finger at this persecution of their brethren in Pakistan.[xii]
Dr.Ambedkar was equally critical about the Marxists. He had an admiration for the analysis of Karl Marx regarding the capitalist system. But he considered Marx to have made a correct diagnosis of the disease but judged him of having provided a charlatan cure. As early as 1937, Dr.Ambedkar had declared that he was a confirmed enemy of the Communists, who exploited the labourers for their political ends.[xiii] Marxist theoretician Rahul Sankrityayan attacked Dr.Ambedkar in his book “From Volga to Ganga” terming his efforts as shallow and merely trying to create a Dalit capitalist class.[xiv]
In his seminal but incomplete work, “Buddha or Karl Marx” Dr.Ambedkar had made a comparison between Marxism and Buddhist Indic philosophy with Parliamentary democracy as an important factor of distinction:
The Bhikshu Sangh had the most democratic constitution. He was only one of the Bhikkus. At the most he was like a Prime Minister among members of the Cabinet. He was never a dictator. … What about the value of the means? Whose means are superior and lasting in the long run? Can the Communists say that in achieving their valuable end they have not destroyed other valuable ends? They have destroyed private property. Assuming that this is a valuable end can the Communists say that they have not destroyed other valuable end in the process of achieving it? How many people have they killed for achieving their end. Has human life no value? Could they not have taken property without taking the life of the owner?
Take dictatorship. The end of Dictatorship is to make the Revolution a permanent revolution. This is a valuable end. But can the Communists say that in achieving this end they have not destroyed other valuable ends? Dictatorship is often defined as absence of liberty or absence of Parliamentary Government. Both interpretations are not quite clear. There is no liberty even when there is Parliamentary Government. For law means want of liberty. The difference between Dictatorship and Parliamentary Govt. lies in this. In Parliamentary Government every citizen has a right to criticise the restraint on liberty imposed by the Government. In Parliamentary Government you have a duty and a right; the duty to obey the law and right to criticise it. In Dictatorship you have only duty to obey but no right to criticise it.
Humanity does not only want economic values, it also wants spiritual values to be retained. Permanent Dictatorship has paid no attention to spiritual values and does not seem to intend to. Carlyle called Political Economy a Pig Philosophy. Carlyle was of course wrong. For man needs material comforts” But the Communist Philosophy seems to be equally wrong for the aim of their philosophy seems to be to fatten the pigs as though men are no better than pigs. Man must grow materially as well as spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarised by the French Revolution in three words, Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. The French Revolution was welcomed because of this slogan. It failed to produce equality.
We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha.[xv]
Regarding his seeming praise for Soviet Union, one should remember two things: Leftist elements in the nationalist Indian media were carrying out a pro-Soviet propaganda blitzkrieg at that time. Secondly, the original Russian revolution of Czar abdicating in favour of a democratic government had nothing to do with the October takeover of Russia by Bolsheviks under Lenin’s leadership and with German monetary support.
In 1949 as the head of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution Dr.Ambedkar had countered the attack of Communists:
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.[xvi]
Then he went on to give a brilliant defense of Parliamentary democracy. Acknowledging that Parliament democracy is not the ‘the only ideal form of political democracy’, he saw the roots of present democratic system he was defending in the fertile soil of ancient Indian past. Here he makes a tantalizing suggestion that the Buddhist Sangha adapted and perhaps improved upon the democratic system of pre-Buddhist and hence Vedic India:
It is not that, India did not know what democracy is. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.[xvii]
In other words Dr.Ambedkar was rejecting the Euro-centric Marxism for an Indic evolute of Parliamentary democracy. Here it is worthwhile to remember that elsewhere in his hard hitting ‘Riddles’ he had stated that Vedic ‘Brahmaism’ was the most suited spiritual philosophy for social democracy.[xviii] In dealing with Communist countries, Dr.Ambedkar proved prophetic. He stated with regard to USSR:
The Communist system is based on force. Supposing tomorrow the dictatorship in Russia fail and we see signs of its failure, what would happen? I really like to know what would happen to Communist system. As I see it there would be bloody warfare among the Russian people for appropriating the property of the state. That would be the consequence of it.[xix]
Dr.Ambedkar was emphatic that India should approach them through the prism of civilizational philosophy India upholds as a nation namely social freedom as against empty pipe dreams of socialist fellowship. He warned Nehru regarding his romantic overtures to China, allowing Lhasa to be taken over by Mao’s China. The warning he made regarding Chinese aggression turned chillingly prophetic:
The Prime Minister has practically helped the Chinese to bring their border down to the Indian border. Looking at all these it seems to me that it would be an act of levity not to believe that India, if it is not exposed to aggression right now, is exposed to aggression and that aggression might well be committed by people who always are in the habit of committing aggression.[xx]
He also considered Nehruvian Panchsheel a wrong policy, particularly when applied to Communists:
The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be called the Panchsheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet Treaty of non-aggression. Well, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister should take this Panchsheel seriously. The Panchsheel, as you, Sir know it well, is the essential part of the Buddhist religion, and if Mr. Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in politics and secondly not in the politics of a communist country.[xxi]
Communist states have no fixed morality according to Dr.Ambedkar. “Their morality is always in a flux; there is no morality.”, he said. So nations with such a philosophy cannot be trusted with principles like Panchsheel. Dr.Ambedkar wanted India as a democratic state to join SEATO (South-East Asian Treaty Organization) rather than join the Soviet bloc. Dr. Ambedkar warned Nehru of ‘Communist giant’ and considered Nehru’s opposition to SEATO as resulting from ‘some estrangement’ Nehru had with United States.[xxii] Dr.Ambedkar was also worried about the takeover of Buddhist countries of South East Asia by Communism. Here Dr.Ambedkar presented the social gospel of Buddhism as an alternative to Marxist model of Communism which lacks freedom and is built on dictatorship.[xxiii]
Baba Saheb Ambedkar was also very conscious of the power of national symbols. Even as a boy, he had great love for Sanskrit. He considered Sanskrit to be “the golden treasure house of epics, the cradle of grammar, politics and philosophy and the home of logic, dramas and criticism”.[xxiv] His sincere love for Sanskrit as the civilizational language of India did not prevent the casteism of Hindu orthodoxy from brutally denying him access to learning Sanskrit. Yet he adored the language and wanted it to be the national language of India. At the executive committee of All India Scheduled Caste Federation, conveyed on 10th September 1949, Dr.Ambedkar announced his personal preference for Sanskrit as the national language of the union.[xxv]
During the discussion of the draft of the constitution, Prof.K.T.Shah, suggested that the words ‘Secular, Federal Socialist’ be included in the preamble of the constitution, Dr.Ambedkar rejected the amendment. He stated:
I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. … [The Constitution] is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.
If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves.[xxvi]
Twenty years after Dr.Ambedkar’s demise the words ‘secular socialist’ would be sneaked in by pseudo-secular politicians, through 42nd amendment, when India moved very close to Fascism – in 1976 during those days of darkness at noon, Emergency. During the Hindu Code Bill controversy even as Shyama Prasad Mukherjee of Hindu Maha Sabha opposed it, Veer Savarkar stated that if the government was convinced that the Hindu code bill was a good thing that really helped the society then irrespective of opposition and electroal ambitions it should pass the bill.[xxvii]
Dr.Ambedkar had written pages upon pages about how beef-eating was used by upper castes to perpetuate untouchability. Nevertheless he had respect for the cow veneration of Hindus. He explained rationally how cow veneration makes sense in an agricultural civilization like India:
The love of the ancient Hindoo and for that matter of the modem for agriculture transcends that of the ancient Greek and is just manifested in the worship of the cow. The Hindoo devotion to the Cow has been an enigma to most of the foreigners and above all has been an efficient lore in the hands of those half-baked theological failures, who go to India to conduct their missionary propaganda for blackmailing the Hindoo. The origin of cow worship is as much economic as that Roman practice of not offering wine to the Gods from unpruned vines.
The cow and for that matter all draft animals, is the soul of the farmers. The cow gives birth to oxen which are absolutely necessary to the cultivation of the farm. If we kill the cow for meat, we jeopardize our agricultural prosperity. With full foresight, the ancient Hindoos tabooed cow-flesh and thus prevented cow killing. But man hardly pays any attention to dry rulings. It must have religious sanction; hence the grotesque mythology around the cow in old Hindoo religious literature.[xxviii]
This scientific sociological understanding of Hindu cow veneration never left Dr.Ambedkar. At the same time the casteist abuse of beef-eating practicies against his people by Hindu orthodoxy also weighed heavily on him. Dr.Ambedkar made protection of cow and her progeny part of the directiive principles of the Constitution. Directive principles are not enforced by courts. In a functioning democracy, they demand a societal inner change for them to be implemented in the society through governmental will. The distance of deviation from the Directive Principles and a polity is a meaure of the quantum of future well being of the society which has been sacrificed at the altar of short term political gains. Directive Principles of Indian Constitution says:
The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall in particular take steps for preserving and improving the breed and prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Dr.Ambedkar also assured Hindu Maha Sabha members that he would support their agitation for making saffron flag the national flag of India if they would start a movement demanding the same.[xxix] However the political currents moved in other directions and Hindu Maha Sabha never mobilized such a movement.
[i] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol- 17, Part 1, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra,p.367
[ii] Ibid., p.368
[iii] Ibid.
[iv]V. K. Shrivastava, Infantry, a Glint of the Bayonet, Army Directorate General of Infantry, 2000, p.144
[v] Dr.K.Jamanlaldas, Kashmir Problem From Ambedkarite Perspective, http://www.ambedkar.org/jamanadas/KashmirProblem1.htm
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p. 438
[viii] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, ‘Front of a Hindu-Buddhistic alliance from Jammu to Kashmir’, Speech on 25-April-1941
[ix] Vasant Moon, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar, National Book Trust, India, 1991:2002, p.185
[x] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol- 14, Part 2, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, pp.1317-1327
[xi] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p. 438
[xii]Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thus Spoke Ambedkar, Selected Speeches, Vol.II, 1969, Bhim Patrika Publications, Jalandhar, pp.31-42
[xiii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol- 17, Part 3, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, p.163
[xiv] Rahul Sankrityayan, From Volga to Ganges, (Tamil), Tamil Pushtakalaya, 1948 p.529
[xv] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol-3, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, pp.452- 462
[xvi] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, 25th November, 1949: http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol11p11.htm
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol-4, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra,p.286
[xix] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.508
[xx] Ibid., pp. 455-6
[xxi] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol-15, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, p.882
[xxii] Dr.Ambedkar warns Nehru of ‘Communist giant’, The Canberra Times, 28 August 1954
[xxiii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Talk on BBC, London, 12 May 1956
[xxiv] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.19
[xxv] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar interview in The Sunday Hindustan Standard dated 11-Sep-1949
[xxvi] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly of India Debate dated 15-Nov-1948
[xxvii] Dhananjay Kheer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 1990, p.426
[xxviii] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol-12, Education Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, p.7
[xxix] Vasant Moon, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar, National Book Trust, India, 1991:2002, p.183
This part will analyse the impact of Dr.Ambedkar’s thoughts and actions on Hindu Nationalist movement.
In September 1948, the second leader of RSS, Guruji Golwalkar met Baba Saheb Ambedkar in latter’s house.[i] Dr.Ambedkar’s views had influenced Guruji Golwalkar’s own perception of caste and Varna. He considered both of them as irrelevant to the essential nature of Hindu dharma and stated that their destruction would not affect Dharma. Guruji declared:
As the older dried branches fall off a growing tree, to give place to the new ones, the society would shed Varna Vyavastha the existing social structure at one time and give place a new necessary one. This is a natural process of the development of the society. … I have told you once that for the sake of construction of a new house, old house requires to be destroyed.Similarly purturbed social system must be put to an end here and now and should be destroyed root and branch. Going further we should proceed to establish a pure and harmonious society on the basis of pure Nationalism.[ii]
Dattopant Thengdi who later became the founder of BMS – the largest trade union in India, was very close with Dr. Ambedkar and was also his election agent. He had a very intimate conversation with Dr.Ambedkar on caste problem. Dr.Ambedkar revealed very thoughtfully what he considered as the Achilles’ heels of Hindu nationalist movement like RSS:
Dattopant Thengdi: The members of RSS do not believe in untouchability.
Ambedkar: Whether you handful of people believe it or not is not of much consequence in the context of solving the problem.
Thengdi: You said this because of the smallness of their numbers.
Ambedkar: Not necessarily because of that. there is an additional reason., which is of greater importance. Suppose on some critical social or religious issue your Golwalkar lays a particular line and the Shankaracharyas give a different verdict. Whose decision will carry weight with the ordinary orthodox caste Hindus?
Thengdi: Of course Shankaracharyas’.[iii]
Guruji Golwalkar concurred with Baba Saheb Ambedkar, when Thengdi put forth the same question to him:
It does not matter whether you or I recognize a Shankaracharya. The point is that the “touchables” whom we want to reform, accept their authority. They recognize neither you nor me. For them the Dharmacharyas’ word is a religious commandment.[iv]
So based on this input from Baba Saheb, Guruji tried an experiment. He tried to reform the Acharyas. It was an uphill task. Suryanarayana Rao a senior RSS official explains the hardships Guruji faced:
The First National Conference of VHP was held at Prayag — Triveni Sangam — in 1966. Nearly Fifty thousand delegates including hundreds of Dharmacharyas, Jagadgurus, Mahamandaleswars participated in the conference from all parts of the country and all sections of Hindu Society. Shri Guruji thought that this was the most opportune moment to bring before the vast assembly the subject of old religious taboo such as untouchability and its related ills.
While all the delegates welcomed the resolution with great enthusiasm, the then Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhana Peetha vehemently opposed stating that there is no provision in our Shastras. There was a big disappointment all round. Shri Guruji personally met the Shankaracharya and discussed the matter in detail. He explained to the Acharya about the dangers the Hindu Society and the country have to face if this same attitude continues…. The Acharya ultimately agreed.[v]
But Guruji was not satisfied merely with such pious resolutions. He wrote a warning letter to the secretary of the conference:
The resolution on untouchabiliy –blessed by all our Acharyas- cannot be translated into actual life by mere pious expressions. Centuries old prejudices do not disappear by words or wishful thinking. Hard work and right propaganda need to be taken from town to town and village to village, house to house, not merely as a concession to the pressure of modern times but as an abiding principle and way of life in the humble spirit of atonement of past mistakes. A change of heart, a moral and an emotional change in the attitiudes and behaviour has to be brought about. Working for the economic and political betterment of those, who had been relegated to the background, and bringing them up to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the rest of our people is a Herculean task. But this in itself is not enough. For such ‘equality’ can be brought about without shedding the feeling of separateness. What we should desire and strive for is not merely economic and political ‘equality’ – we want a real change a complete integration.[vi]
The third all India leader of RSS was Bala Saheb Deoras. He was very aware of Dr.Ambedkar’s pain with regard to Hindu society. Paraphrasing from ‘Riddles’ Bala Saheb Deoras stated:
Dr. Ambedkar felt very much pained that in this society which considers all human beings as children of God, nay, as part and parcel of that Divinity Itself, there should be found a sense of high and low. He also said that there could be no better basis for equality than the basic faith in the existence of a common spark of divinity in all human beings.
He declared:
Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery in America, said, “If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.” Similarly it is for all of us to declare, “If untouchability is not wrong, then nothing in the world is wrong!” Every one of us must therefore aim at eradicating social inequality in each and every form. We must clearly explain to the people at large how our society became weak and disorganized on account of social inequalities.[vii]
This speech, which in many ways reflected the thoughts expressed by Dr.Ambedkar in his ‘Annihilation of Caste’, decades ago, became a very important motivating speech for Swayam Sevaks. When anti-reservations riots were at its peak in Gujarat Bala Saheb Deoras made a historical move. Senior Sangh official and author Ramesh Patange gives a vivid picture:
The problem of reservations had become a delicate and sensitive issue. Gujarat, a Western state of India witnessed a big agitation against the Reservation policy in 1981. A meeting of the All India Delegates of the RSS took place in March that year. The issue of agitations in Gujarat inevitably came up in the meeting. The workers from Gujarat had become high strung on the issue. When Resolution justifying reservations came up for discussion at the meeting, every word of it was subjected to minute scrutiny. Many representatives opined that the Resolution was hasty, and likely to evoke adverse reaction in a large section of the people. Swayamsevaks from Gujarat understandably were naturally were unhappy. I was intently listening to the discussions.
In view of so much opposition from workers, I was worried and felt the resolution would not go through. Sarsanghachalak Balasaheb Deoras was calm but attentive at the meeting. After debate was over, the meeting broke for tea. When the meeting resumed, Balasaheb Deoras said,
“I have heard the discussion in the meeting. I have understood that Many amongst us are not in favour the of Resolution. I request you all to imagine yourself in the place of those for whom the Reservations are meant. Try to enter their minds and see the present condition of those of our brethren, who have been neglected for hundreds of years. Understand their feelings. Then only take your decision.”
After his speech, there was hardly any discussion and the Resolution was passed. The Sangh had officially endorsed the Reservations.[viii]
Another important incident happened during these times. Sangh intellectual Ramesh Patange explains:
In 1978, the Maharashtra Assembly passed a resolution approving the change in the name of the Marathwada University. The approval produced sharp and bitter reactions in Marathawada. Dalit localities were set on fire. The issue of the changing the name of the University soon turned into an issue about the very identity of dalits…. Later, I found that many Sangh activists in the Marathawada region wanted to support the change in the university’s name. When I too became active in the change-of-name issue from the Samajik Samarasata Manch platform, Damu Anna told me a story. In 1978, Balasaheb Deoras was touring the Maharashtra Province. He had a programme in Sambhaji Nagar. In his discussion of the name issue, he said “I think the change in the name should be endorsed. Those who oppose it are not right in their thinking.”[ix]
Maharashtra Government published the works of Dr.Ambedkar. During July/August 1992, the ‘Riddles’ of Rama and Krishna, written by Dr.Ambedkar were pojected by certain elements as hurting the feeling of Hindus. The issue of ‘hurt Hindu feeling’ was taken up by one Madav Gadkari who was a close friend of Sharad Pawar. Soon the issue was fanned up as Shiv Sena also fell into the race. They wanted a ban on ‘Riddles’ because it hurt the Hindu sentiments. At this time Ramesh Patange, who was in charge of RSS front organization, ‘Samajik Samarasata Manch’ (SSM) was charged with the duty of making the official statement on ‘Riddles’ issue. He made the official statement that ‘Riddles’ should not be banned. Later senior Sangh leaders like Dattopant Thengdi endorsed this statement and opposed the ban on ‘Riddles’ in public.[x]
In all incidents one can see Sangh taking a stand exactly opposite to its stereotype image. This shows how Sangh the largest Hindu nationalist network in India has internalized Dr.Ambedkar’s principles of social justice and Sanghatan. In 2004 Dr. Suraj Bhan, a RSS pracharak, became the chair person of Scheduled Castes Commission chairperson. Even a Western RSS baiter as Christopher Jafferlot had no other way but to appreciate his work as the governor of Uttar Pradesh where according to Jafferlot, Bhan had shown “great dynamism assessing the performance of schemes concerning Scheduled Castes such as reservations or the virtually unused SC/ST MLAs Forum in the state assembly.”[xi]
In 2005 as chairperson of SC Commission, Suraj Bhan asked the religious authorities to remove all derogatory remarks against Dalits in the so-called scriptures like Manu Smrithi. He conveyed his wishes to Shankaracharya of Sringeri himself that this detoxification of Hindu scriptures should be done. While orthodoxy expectedly claimed that there was not a single word of objection in Hindu scripture, VHP President Ashok Singhal openly sided with Suraj Bhan and stated that Manu Smrithi did contain objectionable derogatory references towards Dalits.[xii] In 2006 noted Marathi poet and Dalit Panthers founder Namdeo Dhasal shared the platform with KS Sudarshan the fifth all India leader of RSS. In the function Dhasal, a devoted follower of Dr.Ambedkar stated:
“Nothing can be more wrong than any attempt to separate Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism from the Hindu track.”[xiii]
In 2008 RSS leader, KS Sudarshan graced a historically important function in Gaya, Bihar of appointing a Dalit as the chief priest at the Jagannath temple of Gaya. The function was attended by Buddhist monks from the Mahabodhi temple.[xiv]
The dream of casteless Hindu Sanghatan, whose possibility became a remote one, pained Dr.Ambedkar. But thanks to his chastisement and yet his compassion, his vision of a civilizational Hindutva-Indic Dharma- is taking shape, slowly but surely. A democratic Hindu Dharma true to its spirit of Vedic ‘Brahmaism’, as Dr.Ambedkar called Vedic Advaita, is emerging. But the challenges still remain.
There is still scriptural apartheid in Hindu society. Orthodox instututions openly flaunt birth-based dicriminations. Even residential areas have been gives ‘caste only’ labels. Anti-Dalit violence is still a reality in majority of the villages. Spiritual Democratization of Hindu society is still a task that needs the strength of a Bhim. Ultimately there is a talisman that Dr.Ambedkar had given us. It’s a talisman that constantly warns us. In his ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’ while examining Veer Savarkar’s idea of Swarajya which is not territorial, Dr.Ambedkar presents this passage of Savarkar:
Did that mean that the rule of Aurangazeb or Tippu was a “Swarajya” to Hindus? No! Although they were territorially Indians they proved to be the worst enemies of Hindudom and therefore, a Shivaji, a Gobindsingh, a Pratap or the Peshwas had to fight against the Moslem domination and establish real Hindu Swarajya.[xv]
Later speaking at the Constituent Assembly Dr.Ambedkar spoke the following words filled with the emotional pride of being the son of Hindustan and an anxiety over Her future:
Here I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers). What would happen to her independence ? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again ‘? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time ? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future.
What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors.
When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.[xvi]
India- the eternal everlasting spiritual fountainhead of democracy to the world protecting her and her civilization is a duty bound on every one of us. Social justice is an inalienable part of spiritual democracy. Implementing and protecting this spiritual value of India through Indic traditions is the only way left for us to survive as a nation.
This is the understanding that makes every Hindu nationalist bow his or her head in humble reverance to the universal compassion of Bodhi Sattva Ambedkar rooted in the sacred soil of Bharat that is Hindustan.
Jai Bheem! Jai Hind!
[i] Ibid, p.189
[ii] Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, Sri Guruji ka Samajik Darshan, 2006, pp.24-26
[iii] Thengdi-Dr.Ambedkar conversation Quoted in L.R.Balley, India needs a cultural revolution, Outcry, 1984: Untouchable!: Voices of the Dalit Liberation Movement, Ed. Barbara Joshi, Zed Books, 1986, p.147
[iv] Ibid.
[v] K. Suryanarayana Rao, Seva Pramukh – R.S.S., ‘The Historic Role of Guruji Golwalkar’
[vi] Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, letter dated 14-01-1970 cited in K. Suryanarayana Rao, Shri Guruji Reminiscences, Vijaya Bharatham Publications, 2010,pp.277-8
[vii] Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, ‘Social Equality and Hindu consolidation’, Speech delivered on 8th May 1974
[viii] Ramesh Patange, Manuvath and RSS (Manu Sangh and I) , 1999, http://www.sanghparivar.org/blog/vikas/manu-sangh-and-i-the-book-by-ramesh-patange-ji
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Christopher Jafferlot, India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2003, p.487
[xii] VHP, Hindu religious leaders differ on Suraj Bhan’s demand, PTI Report, 19-Jul-2005
[xiii] Dalit poet, RSS chief exchange notes, The Indian Express, 31-Aug-2006
[xiv] Dalit appointed the Chief Priest at Jagannath Temple, Sahara Samay, 15-Feb-2008
[xv] Vinayak Damodar Savarka quoted in Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co, 1941, p.130
[xvi] Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Clause wise Discussion on the Draft Constitution, November 17, 1949 to November 26, 1949