Saffronising Ambedkar: Why the Sangh portrays Ambedkar as anti-communist and anti-Muslim
By Anand Teltumbde | 17 June 2018
In his book Republic of Caste, the civil-rights activist and writer Anand Teltumbde explores the foundational idea of the republic—equality—and how caste has subverted this idea and its implementation in every institution in the country. Teltumbde examines education, reservation, politics and policy, alongside ideological movements such as Marxism and Ambedkarism, violence and atrocities against Dalits, and protests such as Una in Gujarat. He shows that caste—especially the oppression of Dalits—has defined modern India.
In the following extract, taken from the chapter “Saffronising Ambedkar: The RSS Inversion of the Idea of India,” Teltumbde notes that BR Ambedkar’s bitter critique of Hinduism pervaded the latter’s writings, and that his actions exhibited an “ultimate abhorrence” for Hinduism. This history, Teltumbde writes, comes in the way of the Rashtriya Swayamasevak Sangh’s goal to make India a “Hindu rashtra.” To bring Dalits into the fold, Teltumbde adds, the Sangh is left with no option but to co-opt Ambedkar and project him as opposed to Muslims and communists—effectively, to “saffronise” him.
[ . . .]
Full text here: http://www.caravanmagazine.in/politics/saffronising-ambedkar-sangh-rss
|
Showing posts with label Ambedkar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ambedkar. Show all posts
June 18, 2018
April 16, 2018
India: Why has Narendra Modi government gone on an overdrive to proclaim its devotion to B.R. Ambedkar
The Telegraph, April 16, 2018
Jai Bhim, not Ram
The spectre of Sambuka
Manini Chatterjee
Faced with growing Dalit alienation and anger that has spilled out on the streets of India, the Narendra Modi government has gone on an overdrive to proclaim its devotion to the country's greatest Dalit icon, Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar.
The prime minister, as is his wont, has repeatedly claimed over the past few days that no government has done as much to preserve and promote Ambedkar's legacy as his. He has trotted out the number of memorials built and schemes named after the icon in the last four years. Modi has also asked members of parliament belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party to spend two nights in villages between April 14 and May 5 to propagate, especially to the Dalit community, the measures taken by the party and the government to honour Ambedkar.
This zeal to appropriate Ambedkar stems from two reasons. The first is obvious. The BJP is unnerved at the prospects of losing the vote of the Dalits and the backward castes in the next general election. For purely political and electoral reasons, therefore, the party desperately needs to reach out to the community and thinks that symbolic genuflection to Ambedkar will do the trick.
The second reason is much more important, long-term and insidious. It is to appropriate Ambedkar and deify him as the architect of the Indian Constitution but simultaneously obliterate his scathing criticism of the Hindu caste order, and indeed Hinduism itself - its gods, scriptures and practices that uphold and sustain hierarchy and inequality, violence and injustice.
The second motive came out in the open when the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh issued an order on March 28 to refer to Ambedkar by his "correct" name in all government and court records - Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. The state governor, Ram Naik, had first suggested the change, arguing that Ramji was Ambedkar's father's name and it was the practice in Maharashtra to use the father's name as a middle name. Ambedkar himself had signed his full name while drafting the Constitution, Naik argued.
For Dalit leaders and activists, it was obvious that this renaming exercise was a far from subtle attempt to 'Hinduise' a man who challenged the religion and wholly repudiated it by converting to Buddhism months before he died. His grandson, Anandraj Ambedkar, pointed out that Ambedkar seldom wrote his full name and preferred his initials. Slamming the BJP government's order, another grandson, Prakash Ambedkar, said, "My sense is, close to the elections, they might try to tell the voters that Ambedkar was also a 'Ram bhakt'."
With Yogi Adityanath set to revive the Ayodhya temple issue, that is a distinct possibility. And that is why it is also imperative to realize that Babasaheb Ambedkar was the very opposite of a Ram bhakt - and penned the most devastating critique of the epic hero in his book, Riddles in Hinduism, which he could not publish in his lifetime.
The incomplete manuscript of the book, which Ambedkar wrote towards the end of his life, was published by the Maharashtra government decades later as part of the multi-volume series, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. But it remained largely obscure to the lay public till the radical publishing house, Navayana, brought out a selection from the book in 2016, richly annotated by editors, S. Anand and Shobna Iyer.
In the context of the UP government order, it is particularly illuminating to read Ambedkar's analysis of the hero of the Ramayana in the Appendix titled "The Riddle of Rama and Krishna" for it brings to light aspects that have been suppressed in most retellings of India's best-known epic.
Ambedkar's short text analyzing the character of Ram is based on a careful reading of Valmiki's Ramayana. Unlike Valmiki - and most religious Hindus - who extol the hero as a "maryada purushottam" (ideal man), Ambedkar sees nothing righteous in his conduct.
Ambedkar's criticism of Ram's role in the battle between Sugriv and Vali has been made by others. Ram, it is well known, killed Vali through unfair means to help his ally, Sugriv, win the kingdom. In Ambedkar's words, "The murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder."
Ambedkar is equally critical of Ram's treatment of his wife, Sita. On Ram's conduct with Sita after killing Ravan, Ambedkar writes, "It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Rama did to Sita when he met her in Lanka, if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki." He goes on to quote Ram's words from the Ramayana, insulting Sita and then demanding that she prove her purity through a trial by fire.
After returning to Ayodhya, Ram hears of malicious gossip against Sita and cannot bear the disgrace. Ambedkar writes at some length on how Ram plots to abandon Sita "as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame."
But more than the plight of Sita, it is Ambedkar's commentary on the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra, that is chilling - perhaps because it is so little known outside a small circle of Dalit and Dravidian anti-caste cognoscenti.
Ambedkar writes that according to Valmiki there were no premature deaths in Ram's reign but a Brahman's son suddenly died prematurely. "The bereaved father", writes Ambedkar, "carried the body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it..."
Ram is then told that "some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing tapasya (ascetic exercises) and thereby going against dharma (sacred law); for according to it the practice of tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the twice-born."
Ram then scours the countryside and finally finds a man doing tapasya. Ambedkar, drawing the details from Valmiki's account, writes that Ram then approaches the man "and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra by the name of Sambuka, who was practising tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! That very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again."
The gods congratulate Ram on his deed and the sage, Agastya, presents him with a divine bracelet. Ram then returns to the capital. Ambedkar concludes his essay with just three words: "Such is Rama."
It is a measure of the complete upper caste hegemony over social and religious discourse over millennia that even liberal Hindus know so little about Ram's beheading of Sambuka in order to uphold the sanctity of an inhumane caste order. Eklavya was made to sacrifice his thumb in order to ensure that a tribal boy does not surpass the skills of a Kshatriya prince in archery. Sambuka faced a worse fate: spiritual knowledge was denied to him because he dared adopt a practice reserved for the high born.
No wonder Dalit activists and scholars who have managed to enter higher education and government, which were once the sole preserve of the upper castes, fear that with the ascendance of virulent 'Ram bhakts' in the country today, their hard-won rights will be snatched away. The last four years have been marked not just by assaults on Dalit lives and livelihoods but also the non-release of post-matric scholarships to Dalit students amounting to nearly Rs 7,000 crore and the drastic reduction of reserved faculty positions in universities for those belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes.
Inserting Ramji to Bhimrao Ambedkar's name and building memorials in his honour is not going to make the spectre of Sambuka go away...
manini.chatterjee@abp.in
Jai Bhim, not Ram
The spectre of Sambuka
Manini Chatterjee
Faced with growing Dalit alienation and anger that has spilled out on the streets of India, the Narendra Modi government has gone on an overdrive to proclaim its devotion to the country's greatest Dalit icon, Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar.
The prime minister, as is his wont, has repeatedly claimed over the past few days that no government has done as much to preserve and promote Ambedkar's legacy as his. He has trotted out the number of memorials built and schemes named after the icon in the last four years. Modi has also asked members of parliament belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party to spend two nights in villages between April 14 and May 5 to propagate, especially to the Dalit community, the measures taken by the party and the government to honour Ambedkar.
This zeal to appropriate Ambedkar stems from two reasons. The first is obvious. The BJP is unnerved at the prospects of losing the vote of the Dalits and the backward castes in the next general election. For purely political and electoral reasons, therefore, the party desperately needs to reach out to the community and thinks that symbolic genuflection to Ambedkar will do the trick.
The second reason is much more important, long-term and insidious. It is to appropriate Ambedkar and deify him as the architect of the Indian Constitution but simultaneously obliterate his scathing criticism of the Hindu caste order, and indeed Hinduism itself - its gods, scriptures and practices that uphold and sustain hierarchy and inequality, violence and injustice.
The second motive came out in the open when the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh issued an order on March 28 to refer to Ambedkar by his "correct" name in all government and court records - Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. The state governor, Ram Naik, had first suggested the change, arguing that Ramji was Ambedkar's father's name and it was the practice in Maharashtra to use the father's name as a middle name. Ambedkar himself had signed his full name while drafting the Constitution, Naik argued.
For Dalit leaders and activists, it was obvious that this renaming exercise was a far from subtle attempt to 'Hinduise' a man who challenged the religion and wholly repudiated it by converting to Buddhism months before he died. His grandson, Anandraj Ambedkar, pointed out that Ambedkar seldom wrote his full name and preferred his initials. Slamming the BJP government's order, another grandson, Prakash Ambedkar, said, "My sense is, close to the elections, they might try to tell the voters that Ambedkar was also a 'Ram bhakt'."
With Yogi Adityanath set to revive the Ayodhya temple issue, that is a distinct possibility. And that is why it is also imperative to realize that Babasaheb Ambedkar was the very opposite of a Ram bhakt - and penned the most devastating critique of the epic hero in his book, Riddles in Hinduism, which he could not publish in his lifetime.
The incomplete manuscript of the book, which Ambedkar wrote towards the end of his life, was published by the Maharashtra government decades later as part of the multi-volume series, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches. But it remained largely obscure to the lay public till the radical publishing house, Navayana, brought out a selection from the book in 2016, richly annotated by editors, S. Anand and Shobna Iyer.
In the context of the UP government order, it is particularly illuminating to read Ambedkar's analysis of the hero of the Ramayana in the Appendix titled "The Riddle of Rama and Krishna" for it brings to light aspects that have been suppressed in most retellings of India's best-known epic.
Ambedkar's short text analyzing the character of Ram is based on a careful reading of Valmiki's Ramayana. Unlike Valmiki - and most religious Hindus - who extol the hero as a "maryada purushottam" (ideal man), Ambedkar sees nothing righteous in his conduct.
Ambedkar's criticism of Ram's role in the battle between Sugriv and Vali has been made by others. Ram, it is well known, killed Vali through unfair means to help his ally, Sugriv, win the kingdom. In Ambedkar's words, "The murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder."
Ambedkar is equally critical of Ram's treatment of his wife, Sita. On Ram's conduct with Sita after killing Ravan, Ambedkar writes, "It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Rama did to Sita when he met her in Lanka, if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki." He goes on to quote Ram's words from the Ramayana, insulting Sita and then demanding that she prove her purity through a trial by fire.
After returning to Ayodhya, Ram hears of malicious gossip against Sita and cannot bear the disgrace. Ambedkar writes at some length on how Ram plots to abandon Sita "as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame."
But more than the plight of Sita, it is Ambedkar's commentary on the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra, that is chilling - perhaps because it is so little known outside a small circle of Dalit and Dravidian anti-caste cognoscenti.
Ambedkar writes that according to Valmiki there were no premature deaths in Ram's reign but a Brahman's son suddenly died prematurely. "The bereaved father", writes Ambedkar, "carried the body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it..."
Ram is then told that "some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing tapasya (ascetic exercises) and thereby going against dharma (sacred law); for according to it the practice of tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the twice-born."
Ram then scours the countryside and finally finds a man doing tapasya. Ambedkar, drawing the details from Valmiki's account, writes that Ram then approaches the man "and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra by the name of Sambuka, who was practising tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! That very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again."
The gods congratulate Ram on his deed and the sage, Agastya, presents him with a divine bracelet. Ram then returns to the capital. Ambedkar concludes his essay with just three words: "Such is Rama."
It is a measure of the complete upper caste hegemony over social and religious discourse over millennia that even liberal Hindus know so little about Ram's beheading of Sambuka in order to uphold the sanctity of an inhumane caste order. Eklavya was made to sacrifice his thumb in order to ensure that a tribal boy does not surpass the skills of a Kshatriya prince in archery. Sambuka faced a worse fate: spiritual knowledge was denied to him because he dared adopt a practice reserved for the high born.
No wonder Dalit activists and scholars who have managed to enter higher education and government, which were once the sole preserve of the upper castes, fear that with the ascendance of virulent 'Ram bhakts' in the country today, their hard-won rights will be snatched away. The last four years have been marked not just by assaults on Dalit lives and livelihoods but also the non-release of post-matric scholarships to Dalit students amounting to nearly Rs 7,000 crore and the drastic reduction of reserved faculty positions in universities for those belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes.
Inserting Ramji to Bhimrao Ambedkar's name and building memorials in his honour is not going to make the spectre of Sambuka go away...
manini.chatterjee@abp.in
January 17, 2017
Video: Link to Lecture by Christophe Jaffrelot on Ambedkar and Democracy
8th Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture delivered by Christophe Jaffrelot on
"Ambedkar and Democracy"
https://www.facebook.com/
"Ambedkar and Democracy"
https://www.facebook.com/
May 02, 2016
India: For A New Rendezvous with Dr Ambedkar (Subhash Gatade)
..These are no ordinary times to discuss Dalit vision* or rather reach a consensus around what could be called Dalit Vision.You have on the one hand the upheaval witnessed in the country especially among educated young dalits and broader democratic sections symbolised by the institutional murder of RohithVemula and the mass movement which it has generated and at the other end of the spectrum renowned Dalit leaders paying obeisance before rabid reactionary forces. You have on the one hand slogans of Jai Bhim and Lal Salaam being raised in unison on campuses across the country and on the other the process of mythologising Dr Ambedkar and marginalising ‘his’ meaning being underway nonetheless.
Today as we embark on the task of understanding/analysing/debating Dalit Vision we have before us its multiple readings. A new radical reading of it visible in the experiences of the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle at IIT Madras or Ambedkar Students Association at HCU or at the other end of the spectrum people who venerate globalisation as the panacea of Dalit's ills or tell us that with advance of capitalism castes will vanish away are also there to proclaim that they are the true legatee of this vision.
In fact a possibility does exist that the emancipatory thrust in this worldview is slowly being marginalised on the altar of pragmatic politics or around our immediate concerns of daily life. As an aside it is important to remember that Dr Ambedkar did have apprehensions about it and had cautioned his followers to this effect. It is one of the most poignant moments of his life that in a public meeting held in Agra in Feb 1956 - where there was a large gathering of newly educated youth from oppressed communities - he literally became emotional (in fact the late Prof Tulsi Ram has written that he literally cried) when he realised that they were not bothered about society or other depressed sections.
2.
How does one proceed then to define/debate/discuss Dalit Vision in the present context, which is 'beyond rhetoric, decorative politicos and Brahminical hegemony’?
One way is to 'collect' all those 'visions' or readings and find some commonality from them. Definitely an impossible task ! What commonality could be derived from a 'vision' whose one manifestation supports status quoist politics and the other opposes it.
Perhaps the best option available is to not to look at its present day exponents or its various manifestations available but its best exponent ever and see how he envisioned things, how he analysed 'his' present or how he forecasted 'future', what sort of cautions he shared with his comrades to be taken note of and taking him as our pole star look at 'our' present, and define Dalit Vision for our times.
This revisiting would also serve another purpose.
We have been witness to a new brand of converts supposedly to Ambedkar's worldview who have started claiming him more aggressively these days surpassing even his loyal followers. Our search would also help demonstrate how the forefathers of these new converts derided him when he was alive and even after his death and how he opposed their politics tooth and nail and cautioned his followers about it.
Today when they are competing with each other to lay claim over his legacy let us not forget that one of their ideologues had even penned a few hundred page monograph 'Worshipping False Gods' in mid-nineties - which spew venom against Dr Ambedkar (http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/falsifying-the-truth/203929) - an act for which he was suitably rewarded by them when they held reins of power at the centre for the first time, an act for which one is yet to see any apology or self-criticism from them.
3.
Everybody would agree that it is challenging task to encapsulate a great wo/man's vision in a few words- who as a public figure has impacted not only her/his generation but future generations, initiated or channelised debates in the society, led struggles, mobilised people, wrote thousands of pages and left a legacy for all of us to carry forward ? And within a short timespan available before us it is next to impossible to look at Ambedkar's complete journey or rather quest to usher into - what Prof Gopal Guru writes - 'enlightened, inclusive India' from a 'bahishkrut' India.
To save time one can focus more on the last decade of his life - the most tumultuous period in his as well as the newly independent nation's life - to know the important concerns which bothered his mind and how he envisioned the future trajectory of the movement he led and how he tried to chart a roadmap for the nascent nation with due support/cooperation and at times resistance from leading stalwarts of his time.
It is true that such a focus would obviously rob us of an opportunity to look at the historic MahadSatyagrah - which we in Marathi call as 'MahadKranti' (1927) an important milestone in his political life, neither we will be able to look at the historic rally he organised against KhotPratha- a feudal practice - alongwith Communists, or his growing disillusionment with Hinduism witnessed after the unsuccessful Satyagrah for temple entry at 'KalaramMandir, Nashik' which continued for five years, the way he formed Independent Labour Party or how he told his followers (in his speech to Dalit Rail Workers) that they have to fight the twin enemies of 'Capitalism' and 'Brahminism' etc and many other milestones of his life.
4.
First of all what was his vision for independent India or how he looked at a future roadmap for India. Yes, he has been rightly called the Chief architect of the Constitution and it was his intervention/presence - definitely with due support from Nehru and others - that he could include important pro-people or pro-dispriviledged provisions into it but we cannot be under any illusion that it was only 'his vision' which triumphed ultimately. The making of constitution itself was marked by pressures and counterpressures - from believers of radical change to the status quoists - and what came out can at best could be called a compromise document between various contending forces, ideas. Dr Ambedkar's separation between beginning of political democracy in India with the advent of one man one vote regime and the long hiatus he viewed for ushering into social democracy- regime of one man one value while dedicating constitution to the nation was in fact a reminder of the fact that the struggle is still not over.
At another place he similarly underlined the limitations of such a constitutional exercise in a backward society like ours
‘Indians today are governed by two ideologies. Their political ideal set in the preamble of the constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and fraternity whereas their social ideal embedded in their religion denies it to them’
(As an aside let me mention here that I continue to have my reservations about Dr Ambedkar's participation in the making of constitution. What would have been the course of history if he would have decided to remain outside and fought for inclusion of pro-people provisions? While one can marvel at the strategic move by Gandhi who insisted for his inclusion - despite his lifelong struggle against Congress - but why Dr Ambedkar felt compelled to take up the work.Of course, that is for another time to sort out. )
And if we are keen to know his 'vision' about a future India then it can be discerned in the less discussed monograph 'States and Minorities : What are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India' which was basically a '[m]emorandum on the Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes for being submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the Scheduled Castes Federation' he led. (http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/10A.%20Statesand%20Minorities%20Preface.htm) The said monograph by the political organisation he led then does not limit itself to 'safeguards' but also talks of danger of majoritarianism, incompatibility of Hinduism with any change, and also suggests model of economic development which he himself describes as 'state socialism'
5.
It would be quite enlightening for many of us how in the same monograph he envisaged that 'state shall not recognise any religion as state religion' and 'guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience' but coming to the aspect of protection against economic exploitation declared that 'key industries shall be owned and run by the state' and even basic industries 'shall be owned by the state and run by the state'. He was of the opinion that 'agriculture shall be state industry 'where - state shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size, and farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm, in accordance with rules and directions by the government and 'tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly leviable on the farm'
He further explains this clause in the following words:
'The main purpose behind the clause is to put an obligation on the State to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out in the clause proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry.'..'State Socialism is essential for the rapid industrialisation of India. Private enterprise cannot do it and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. Consolidation of Holdings and Tenancy legislation are worse than useless.'
Interestingly he does not propose that the idea of state socialism should be left to legislatures but by 'law of the constitution.'
The plan has two special features. One is that it proposes State Socialism in important fields of economic life. The second special feature of the plan is that it does not leave the establishment of State Socialism to the will of the Legislature. It establishes State Socialism by the Law of the Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the Legislature and the Executive.'
6.
In the same monograph he clearly differentiates between 'Untouchables' and 'Hindus'.
Gone were the days when he felt that Hinduism would reform itself from within and also it had been more than a decade that he had declared at Yeola conference that he 'may be born a Hindu but he will not die a Hindu'.
He is unequivocal about the 'Hindu population which is hostile to them (untouchables)' and emphasises that it is 'not ashamed of committing any inequity or atrocity against them'. He is also not hopeful about their situation under Swaraj
what can Swaraj mean to the Untouchables ? It can only mean one thing, namely, that while today it is only the administration that is in the hands of the Hindus, under Swaraj the Legislature and Executive will also be in the hands of the Hindus, it goes without saying that such a Swaraj would aggravate the sufferings of the Untouchables. For, in addition to an hostile administration, there will be an indifferent Legislature and a callous Executive. The result will be that the administration unbridled in venom and in harshness, uncontrolled by the Legislature and the Executive, may pursue its policy of inequity towards the Untouchables without any curb. To put it differently, under Swaraj the Untouchables will have no way of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus and Hinduism have fixed for them...
He was very much aware about the dangers of majoritarianism implicit in the way Indian nationalism has developed which according to him
[h]as developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while the monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism.
And to protect the rights of the minorities (remember he does not restrict himself with religious minorities here but also includes the 'scheduled castes' in his definition) he proposes a form of executive which could serve following purposes
(i) To prevent the majority from forming a Government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.
(ii) To prevent the majority from having exclusive control over-administration and thereby make the tyranny of the minority by the majority possible.
(iii) To prevent the inclusion by the Majority Party in the Executive representatives of the minorities who have no confidence of the minorities.
(iv) To provide a stable Executive necessary for good and efficient administration.
In fact, his fears vis-a-vis the majoriatarian impulses were evident in the political manifesto of the Scheduled Castes Federation itself— the political outfit which was set up by him in 1942 which rejected the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha as “reactionary” organizations.
“The Scheduled Castes Federation will not have any alliance with any reactionary party such as the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS,”
(See Vol 10 of Dr BhimraoRamjiAmbedkarCharitragranth, a Marathi book by ChangdevBhavanraoKhairmode, or refer to http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2016/04/appropriating-ambedkar#sthash.b53dwFL4.dpuf)
And anyone who has looked at the making of Indian constitution would tell us why he considered them 'reactionary' parties. History is witness to the fact that they opposed its making and suggested in their organs that instead of a new constitution, the newly independent nation should adopt Manusmriti. A laughable suggestion right now but was seriously raised by its proponents.
“The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat, is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”...“no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity [among Hindus in India]. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.
(Excerpts of Editorial on Constitution, Organiser' November 30, 1949, whose final draft had just been presented to the Constituent Assembly by Ambedkar.
In his monograph 'Pakistan or Partition of India' he reiterates his fears vis-a-vis the possible majoritarian turn at the hands of those who vouched for 'Hindu Raj'
“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”
– Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India, p. 358
7.
Much on the lines of lack of debate/discussion around 'States and Minorities' another important intervention during that period led by him has also received little attention. It was related to the struggle for Hindu Code Bill and happened to be the first attempt in independent India to reform Hindu personal laws to give greater rights to Hindu women. Attempt was to put a stamp on monogamy and also ensure separation rights to Women and also grant them rights in property. We know very well that it was a key reason that Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet led by Nehru because he felt that despite lot of attempts not much headway could be made in granting these rights. In his resignation letter he underlined the importance he attached to the bill
“To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap. This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.” - (See more at: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2016/04/appropriating-ambedkar#sthash.b53dwFL4.dpuf)
It is now history how the Hindutva Right and the Conservative Sections within the Congress coupled with the Saffron robed Swamis and Sadhus had joined hands to oppose the enactment of Hindu Code Bill. In fact, this motley combination of reactionary, status quoist forces did not limit itself to issuing statements it opposed the bill on the streets and led large scale mobilisation at pan India level against the bill. There were occasions when they even tried to storm Dr Ambedkar's residence in Delhi.
The main argument peddled against Ambedkar was that the bill was an attack on 'Hindu Religion and Culture' One can get an idea of the resistance to the bill listening to the intervention by AcharyaKriplani on the floor of the house. While supporting the bill he said
"I am afraid I do not see the point in Hindu religion being in danger, Hindu religion is not in danger when Hindus are thieves, rogues, black marketeers and bribe-takers. Hindu religion is not endangered by people who want to reform a particular law . May be, they are over zealous, but it is better to be over zealous in things idealistic than be corrupt in material things. "
.. AcharyaKripalani on the floor of the house while discussing Hindu Code Bill, (24 Dec 1949, Economic Weekly)
An excerpt from RamchandraGuha's book gives an idea about the resistance to the bill.
“The anti-Hindu code bill committee held hundreds of meetings throughout India, where sundry swamis denounced the proposed legislation. The participants in this movement presented themselves as religious warriors (dharmaveer) fighting a religious war (dharmayudh). The RashtriyaSwayamsewakSangh threw its weight behind the agitation. On the 11th of December, 1949, the RSS organised a public meeting at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, where speaker after speaker condemned the bill. One called it ‘an atom bomb on Hindu society’… The next day a group of RSS workers marched on the assembly buildings, shouting ‘Down with Hindu code bill’… The protesters burnt effigies of the prime minister and Dr Ambedkar, and then vandalised the car of Sheikh Abdullah.” ('India after Gandhi', Guha ; See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bhagwats-ambedkar/#sthash.6ZNPVwHq.dpuf)
Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, founder of BJP’s predecessor, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, had said the Bill would “shatter the magnificent structure of Hindu culture.”
In fact, like Mahatma Phule - whom he called the 'Greatest Shudra' and included him in the triumvirate of Buddha, Kabir whom he considered to be his teachers - the concern for women's emancipation always existed in movement led by Ambedkar.
8.
I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our BouddhaDhamma is a new BouddhaDhamma, Navayan.
—Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar,Press interview on 13 October 1956 at Sham Hotel, Nagpur
An important development in the last decade of his life was his decision to embrace Buddhism with lakhs of followers. Apart from his deep fascination for Buddhism from younger days, his conversion to Buddhism had also to do with his contention that the 'untouchables' were in fact former Buddhists. He elaborates it in his book 'The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origin of Untouchability(1948). ( For details : https://kafila.org/2016/04/26/jayadeva-uyangoda-on-ambedkars-legacy/) Thus it could be also said to be return to 'their' original religion than a conversion. Interestingly one finds deep commonality between Dr Ambedkar and JyotheeThass, the great Tamil-Buddhist Scholar, who also maintained that 'Untouchables' were early Buddhists.
His 'conversion' to Buddhism was also renouncement of Hinduism which according to him had
'[p]roved detrimental to progress and prosperity of my predecssors and which has regarded human beings as unequal and despicable' ( See Pledge 19)
If one refers to the 22 pledges he administered to the followers on the occasion then one can broadly categorise them into four -complete rejection of Hindu gods (e.g. I will not accept Brahma,Vishnu and Mahesh as God and will not worship them) and their worship and the related rituals (I will not perform shraddhaPaksh or Pind Dana(Rituals to respect the dead), acceptance of the principles and teachings of Buddhism, declaration that 'all human beings are equal' and 'no faith in divine incarnation'.
An important aspect of this 'return' or 'conversion' is the fact that it was also a reinterpretation of Buddhism which he described as Navayan - a new vehicle. Apart from a big monograph 'Buddha and His Dhamma' where he tries to revisit Buddha one can get a glimpse of his reading of Buddha and his teachings from the speech he delivered in Kathmandu, merely a fortnight before his death which was posthumously published as 'Buddha Or Karl Marx.' (http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/20.Buddha%20or%20Karl%20Marx.htm)
Summarising 'The Creed of Buddhism' he while underlining necessity of 'religion for a free society' says many things which would be rather unacceptable to a scholar or follower of religion where he seems to reject the 'necessity of God' as well as Shastrasand rituals . Like he says 'Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about God, or Soul or Heaven or Earth' 'It is wrong to make God the centre of Religion.', It is wrong to make salvation of the soul as the centre of Religion, It is wrong to make animal sacrifices to be the centre of religion; real Religion lives in the heart of man and not in the Shastras ; Man and morality must be the centre of religion. If not, Religion is a cruel superstition; It is not enough for Morality to be the ideal of life. Since there is no God it must become the law of life.'
Ambedkar differentiates himself from popular definitions of religion first by criticising the way religion(s) have tried to explain origin and end of world around and says that its 'function is to to reconstruct the world and to make it happy'. And he further explores source of unhappiness and does not talk about 'sins' or 'otherworldly affairs' but says that 'unhappiness in the world is due to conflict of interest and the only way to solve it is to follow the AshtangaMarga' Further elaborating on 'Creed of Buddhism' he says that 'private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another' and 'it is necessary for the good of Society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause' While religions the world over have remained the basis of 'othering' - which in extreme cases have resulted in big genocides also - Buddhism as perceived by Ambedkar ' All human beings are equal' 'Worth and not birth is the measure of man'.
While supporting 'War for truth and justice' and also emphasising that 'Victor has duties towards the Vanquished' in the last portion of his summary of creed of Buddhism', he not only challenges monopoly of the few over learning (Every one has a right to learn. Learning is as necessary for man to live as food is) , he also discusses that ' Everything is subject to the law of causation' and 'nothing is final,; Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is subject to inquiry and examination' 'Nothing is permanent or sanatan. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.'
9.
This speech - as the title shows - also throws light on his views about Marxism. Of course it is not for the first time that he had expressed his views on the theme. In his famous booklet 'Annihilation of Caste' he had already made it clear that while he appreciates goal of Marxism but is repelled by its Indian Practioners.
In this speech also he declares that 'Buddha is not away from Marx' if 'for misery one reads exploitation',
For him non-violence is not an issue of principle. 'The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required he permitted the use of force. ' Ambedkar further writes that
'Violence cannot be altogether dispensed with. Even in non-communist countries a murderer is hanged. Does not hanging amount to violence? Non-communist countries go to war with non-communist countries. Millions of people are killed. Is this no violence? If a murderer can be killed, because he has killed a citizen, if a soldier can be killed in war because he belongs to a hostile nation why cannot a property owner be killed if his ownership leads to misery for the rest of humanity? There is no reason to make an exception in favour of the property owner, why one should regard private property as sacrosanct.'
He also underlines that even 'Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned'
The Russians are proud of their Communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do.
Of course he underlines that
'The Buddha's method was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion.
Perhaps the last para in his speech he makes concluding remarks in this debate and seems to validate [what friend Anand Teltumbde calls] 'his decision as confirming to Marxism, minus violence and dictatorship in the latter.' (http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde160812.htm)
..It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. ...
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. Communism can give one but not all.
10.
As I said in the beginning these are no ordinary times to discuss Dalit vision. We have before us an India where (to quote Prof Achin Vanaik)
‘..[t]he centre of gravity has shifted perhaps decisively to the right, in three crucial spheres : economy, secularism and democracy.’
It is an India where the political dispensation at the centre is busy furthering the exclusivist/majoritarian worldview of HindutvaSupremacism coupled with the neoliberal agenda under the glib talk of development and concerted attack has been unleashed on (what Ambedkar defined as ) minorities of various kinds and other deprived sections.
What can be said to be the contours of Dalit Vision for our times then.
It will have to be necessarily for ensuring that'state shall not recognise any religion as state religion' and 'guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience', it has to be against 'majoritarianism of every kind' and specifically -to prevent majority from forming a Government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.- for women's emancipation,, for State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry, against inequalities of wealth which private capitalism produces, it will have to be necessarily for annihilation of caste as ‘The existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence of ideals of society and therefore of democracy.’(Speech on the ‘Voice of America’ radio (20 th May 1956) It will be for reason and rationality and scientific temper and not for dumbing down of minds.
It does not need reminding that it will not be based on sanitisation or vulgarisation of Dr Ambedkar in any form as it is being experimented these days. While his appropriation by the Hindutva Right has been widely commented upon and exposed as their attempts to carve out a 'suitable' Ambedkar for their project based on exclusion and hatred, much needs to be done to expose his projection as a free market economist. (http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde110911.htm) Scholarly sounding pieces have appeared based on selective quotes from his vast corpus of writings to project him as a 'Free Market Economist” [ http://blog.mises.org/16519/ambedkar-the-forgotten-free-market-economist/ ] or Capitalism is being valorised supposedly for annihilation of caste (Chandrabhan Prasad and Milind Kamble, Manifesto to end caste : Push Capitalism and industrialisation to eradicate this pernicious system, Times of India, 23 rd January 2013). It is being argued by noted columnists and upcoming industrialists from the oppressed communities that
Capital is the surest means to fight caste. In dalit's hands, capital becomes an anti-caste weapon; little wonder that the traditional caste code prohibits dalits from accumulating wealth. Dalit capitalism is the answer to that regime of discrimination. The manifesto demands promotion of dalit capitalism through a variety of means-procurement, credit options and partnerships.
An important point is Dalit Vision will have to be wary of 'Hero worship' or laying 'liberties at the feet of a great man' as it can culminate in 'subverting of institutions' in a Democracy as Ambedkar has warned us. In fact he had this to say while dedicating Constitution to the nation.
“This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
Everybody can see that this caution has contemporary import. It was only last month that a responsible minister of the ruling dispensation told us that honourable PM was "God's gift to India'
While Bhakts can rejoice about this unique gift to India every sensible person would agree that if this trend is allowed to continue then it is a 'sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship.'
(Draft of Presentation made at a Discussion on ‘ Dalit Vision : Beyond Rhetoric, decorative politicos, Brahminical hegemony and Maharashtra’ 1 st May 2016, organised by India International Centre, Maharashtra SanskritikaniRannanitiAdhyaynSamiti and Working Group on Alternative Strategies)
Contact : subhash.gatade[at]gmail.com
April 23, 2016
India: Prof. Shamsul Islam on RSS's False love for Ambedkar
The Indian Express - April 23, 2016
No love for Ambedkar
Ram Madhav’s assertions do not match the ideological discourse of the RSS.
Written by Shamsul Islam
It is heartening to see Ram Madhav, a seasoned RSS/ BJP leader committed to Hindutva politics, praising Indian democracy, begotten by the “architect of our Constitution”, Bhimrao Ambedkar (‘What Dalits want’, The Indian Express, April 14). Madhav also demands that today’s caste system “go lock, stock and barrel” because it is a “stumbling block in achieving fraternity in society”. It’s indeed very pious, coming from an important functionary of the present government led by RSS pracharaks.
The only problem is that Madhav’s wisdom does not match the internal ideological discourse of the RSS. The most prominent RSS ideologue, M.S. Golwalkar declared: “The Hindu People is the virat purusha, the almighty manifesting himself. Though they did not use the word ‘Hindu’, it is clear from the following description of the almighty in Purusha Sukta wherein it is stated that sun and moon are his eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi (navel) and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, that is, the Hindu people, is our god. This supreme vision of godhead is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.” (From Bunch of Thoughts). Golwalkar must have been familiar with the fact that the Manusmriti, in Chapter One, Verse 91, decreed that the only job for Shudras was to serve “meekly” the other three high castes.
Madhav needs to be reminded about what the Organiser wrote about the democratic-secular Constitution framed under the guidance of Ambedkar. When the Constituent Assembly had finalised the Constitution (November 26, 1949), the RSS was not happy. It demanded the Manusmriti as the constitution of India. The Organiser, in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained: “But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day, his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits, that means nothing”.
Madhav, as an apologist for casteism, tries to confuse the issue by writing that “the present-day caste system defies its own great scriptural wisdom and knowledge”. According to him, casteism in the past was fine, but not today. But Golwalkar made no such difference. In Bunch of Thoughts, he was forthright in his belief — “look at the times of Mahabharata, of Harshwardhan, of Pulakeshi, all the so-called evils of caste etc were there no less marked than today and yet we were a victorious glorious nation then.” Golwalkar always believed that casteism “served a great purpose in critical times”. (From Spotlight).
How much the RSS/ BJP loves Dalits
can be known from the announcement of the Haryana government, led by a senior RSS pracharak, about the change in the name of Gurgaon. Gurgaon will be “Gurugram” because this area was the abode of Guru Dronacharya. This decision was taken two days prior to the 125th birth anniversary of Ambedkar, a Dalit icon. Dronacharya was the guru who deceitfully deprived a lower caste fine archer, Ekalavya, of his thumb by asking for it as “gurudakshina” so that he could not compete with the guru’s high-caste Kaurava and Pandava students. It shows the brazen insensitivity of Madhav’s Hindutva clan — the RSS/ BJP — towards Dalit sentiments and their persecution in the past.
The writer taught political science at the University of Delhi
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ram-madhav-b-r-ambedkar-indian-constitution-no-love-for-ambedkar-2766152/#sthash.G3OpwSjq.dpuf
No love for Ambedkar
Ram Madhav’s assertions do not match the ideological discourse of the RSS.
Written by Shamsul Islam
It is heartening to see Ram Madhav, a seasoned RSS/ BJP leader committed to Hindutva politics, praising Indian democracy, begotten by the “architect of our Constitution”, Bhimrao Ambedkar (‘What Dalits want’, The Indian Express, April 14). Madhav also demands that today’s caste system “go lock, stock and barrel” because it is a “stumbling block in achieving fraternity in society”. It’s indeed very pious, coming from an important functionary of the present government led by RSS pracharaks.
The only problem is that Madhav’s wisdom does not match the internal ideological discourse of the RSS. The most prominent RSS ideologue, M.S. Golwalkar declared: “The Hindu People is the virat purusha, the almighty manifesting himself. Though they did not use the word ‘Hindu’, it is clear from the following description of the almighty in Purusha Sukta wherein it is stated that sun and moon are his eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi (navel) and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, that is, the Hindu people, is our god. This supreme vision of godhead is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.” (From Bunch of Thoughts). Golwalkar must have been familiar with the fact that the Manusmriti, in Chapter One, Verse 91, decreed that the only job for Shudras was to serve “meekly” the other three high castes.
Madhav needs to be reminded about what the Organiser wrote about the democratic-secular Constitution framed under the guidance of Ambedkar. When the Constituent Assembly had finalised the Constitution (November 26, 1949), the RSS was not happy. It demanded the Manusmriti as the constitution of India. The Organiser, in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained: “But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day, his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits, that means nothing”.
Madhav, as an apologist for casteism, tries to confuse the issue by writing that “the present-day caste system defies its own great scriptural wisdom and knowledge”. According to him, casteism in the past was fine, but not today. But Golwalkar made no such difference. In Bunch of Thoughts, he was forthright in his belief — “look at the times of Mahabharata, of Harshwardhan, of Pulakeshi, all the so-called evils of caste etc were there no less marked than today and yet we were a victorious glorious nation then.” Golwalkar always believed that casteism “served a great purpose in critical times”. (From Spotlight).
How much the RSS/ BJP loves Dalits
can be known from the announcement of the Haryana government, led by a senior RSS pracharak, about the change in the name of Gurgaon. Gurgaon will be “Gurugram” because this area was the abode of Guru Dronacharya. This decision was taken two days prior to the 125th birth anniversary of Ambedkar, a Dalit icon. Dronacharya was the guru who deceitfully deprived a lower caste fine archer, Ekalavya, of his thumb by asking for it as “gurudakshina” so that he could not compete with the guru’s high-caste Kaurava and Pandava students. It shows the brazen insensitivity of Madhav’s Hindutva clan — the RSS/ BJP — towards Dalit sentiments and their persecution in the past.
The writer taught political science at the University of Delhi
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ram-madhav-b-r-ambedkar-indian-constitution-no-love-for-ambedkar-2766152/#sthash.G3OpwSjq.dpuf
April 21, 2016
India: 'Which Ambedkar?' Ramachandra Guha asks the RSS
The Indian Express
Which Ambedkar?
RSS can change its mind about Ambedkar. But it needs a frank reckoning with why, how it got here.
Written by Ramachandra Guha | Updated: April 21, 2016
The truth is that in the crucial period when Ambedkar was law minister and was framing the Constitution, the RSS reviled both him as well as his ideas.
The most recent issue of the Organiser, the English journal of the RSS, has a picture of B.R. Ambedkar on its cover, hailing him as the “Ultimate Unifier”. The issue (dated April 17, 2016) features several articles on the great man, one saying he provided the “glue for nation building”, a second arguing that his “visions and actions resembled that of Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, etc”, a third praising his interest in workers’ rights, a fourth calling him a “timeless leader” who apparently “was not against Brahmins but against [the] Brahmanical order”.
All the essays, and the issue as a whole, are entirely celebratory. But what did the RSS and its mouthpiece think of Ambedkar and his work while he was alive? In seeking an answer, I focused on the years 1949-50, when, as law minister in the government of India, Ambedkar was both finalising the Indian Constitution as well as advocating the reform of Hindu personal laws so as to give greater rights to women.
Notably, the RSS disapproved of both efforts. The Organiser’s issue for November 30, 1949 carried an editorial on the Constitution, whose final draft had just been presented to the Constituent Assembly by Ambedkar. “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat,” wrote the RSS mouthpiece, “is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. There was, the Organiser complained, “no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity [among Hindus in India]. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.
Ambedkar was not mentioned by name, but clearly, as the premier constitutional pundit, he was a major target for the RSS. The Sangh was even more critical of the personal law reforms proposed by Ambedkar. The RSS sarsanghchalak, M.S. Golwalkar, complained in a speech of August 1949 that the reforms piloted by Ambedkar “has nothing Bharatiya about it. The questions like those of marriage and divorce cannot be settled on the American or British model in this country. Marriage, according to Hindu culture and law is a sanskar which cannot be changed even after death and not a ‘contract’ which can be broken any time”. Golwalkar continued: “Of course some lower castes in Hindu Society in some parts of the country recognise and practise divorce by custom. But their practice cannot be treated as an ideal to be followed by all”. (Organiser, September 6, 1949).
The April 17 cover of Organiser. The April 17 cover of Organiser.
An article in the Organiser, dated November 2, 1949, characterised the Hindu Code Bill “as a direct invasion on the faith of the Hindus”, remarking that “its provisions empowering women to divorce is revolting to the Hindu ideology”. An editorial published a month later (“The Hindu Code Bill”, the Organiser, December 7, 1949) led with this paragraph: “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu. We condemn it because it is a cruel and ignorant libel on Hindu laws, Hindu culture and Hindu dharma”.
The editorial then turned to whom the reforms were, in their opinion, being pushed by. It wrote: “Some widows and widowers, childless women and grandpa-grooms have combined to loosen our ancient laws for the levity of a few”. Then it specifically targeted the two architects of the bill, whom the Organiser sarcastically referred to as “Rishi Ambedkar and Maharishi Nehru”, whose reforms, it claimed, “would atomise society and infect every family with scandal, suspicion and vice”.
The Organiser thought that the bill would break up families and set brother against sister (on the question of inheritance of property). In the name of defending the wisdom of ancient Hindu lawmakers and sages, the RSS was, in effect, defending patriarchy in all its aspects. What really got its goat were the new code’s provisions to allow women to choose their marriage partners, to divorce brutal husbands, and to inherit ancestral property (all rights previously denied to them).
The RSS now launched a full-fledged attack on the Hindu Code Bill. It organised hundreds of processions, dharnas and hartals to stop the bill, these addressed by sundry sadhus and sants. One speaker said “that B.N. Rau the framer of this bill and Shri Ambedkar its pilot in the Assembly today, both declared themselves to be ‘not Hindus’ and married according to non-Hindu rites. That such men should have been entrusted with the job to ‘reform’ Hindu Dharma was a tragedy and a monstrosity”. (Organiser, December 14, 1949).
The campaign against the bill carried on for months. The Organiser carried many articles on the subject, one stating that “there is more in Hindu dharma and institutions and laws than Nehru and Ambedkar can dream of”.
In its issue of January 11, 1950, the Organiser printed a long letter by one K.D.P. Shastri complaining that an essay in another journal, Free India, had praised Ambedkar as the “Manu of Modern India”. This, said the angry Hindu letter-writer, “is an instance of depicting a Lilliput as a Brobdingnag. It borders on ridicule to put Dr Ambedkar on par with the learned and god-like Manu… ”. “Surely Dr Ambedkar’s diss-ervice in the recent past to the Hindu Religion is too well-known”, said this letter-writer, this an allusion to Ambedkar’s desire to convert out of Hinduism, and his collaboration before 1947 with the pro-Pakistan Bengali Dalit leader Jogen Mandal. Ambedkar, this RSS man insisted, “may be a good Indian now, but surely he can have no claim to be ‘Manu’ of any blessed age!”
Organisations, like individuals, have a right to change their minds. But any such change of view must be accompanied by a frank and open reckoning with why and how it happened. The truth is that in the crucial period when Ambedkar was law minister and was framing the Constitution, the RSS reviled both him as well as his ideas. As that Organiser article of November 1949 suggested, what the RSS wanted was “obedience and conformity” to what the Sangh defined as Hindu culture, tradition and values, definitions that a radical, egalitarian and anti-patriarchal reformer like Ambedkar would naturally never accept.
The writer is based in Bangalore. His most recent book is ‘Gandhi Before India’.
Which Ambedkar?
RSS can change its mind about Ambedkar. But it needs a frank reckoning with why, how it got here.
Written by Ramachandra Guha | Updated: April 21, 2016
The truth is that in the crucial period when Ambedkar was law minister and was framing the Constitution, the RSS reviled both him as well as his ideas.
The most recent issue of the Organiser, the English journal of the RSS, has a picture of B.R. Ambedkar on its cover, hailing him as the “Ultimate Unifier”. The issue (dated April 17, 2016) features several articles on the great man, one saying he provided the “glue for nation building”, a second arguing that his “visions and actions resembled that of Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, etc”, a third praising his interest in workers’ rights, a fourth calling him a “timeless leader” who apparently “was not against Brahmins but against [the] Brahmanical order”.
All the essays, and the issue as a whole, are entirely celebratory. But what did the RSS and its mouthpiece think of Ambedkar and his work while he was alive? In seeking an answer, I focused on the years 1949-50, when, as law minister in the government of India, Ambedkar was both finalising the Indian Constitution as well as advocating the reform of Hindu personal laws so as to give greater rights to women.
Notably, the RSS disapproved of both efforts. The Organiser’s issue for November 30, 1949 carried an editorial on the Constitution, whose final draft had just been presented to the Constituent Assembly by Ambedkar. “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat,” wrote the RSS mouthpiece, “is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. There was, the Organiser complained, “no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity [among Hindus in India]. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.
Ambedkar was not mentioned by name, but clearly, as the premier constitutional pundit, he was a major target for the RSS. The Sangh was even more critical of the personal law reforms proposed by Ambedkar. The RSS sarsanghchalak, M.S. Golwalkar, complained in a speech of August 1949 that the reforms piloted by Ambedkar “has nothing Bharatiya about it. The questions like those of marriage and divorce cannot be settled on the American or British model in this country. Marriage, according to Hindu culture and law is a sanskar which cannot be changed even after death and not a ‘contract’ which can be broken any time”. Golwalkar continued: “Of course some lower castes in Hindu Society in some parts of the country recognise and practise divorce by custom. But their practice cannot be treated as an ideal to be followed by all”. (Organiser, September 6, 1949).
The April 17 cover of Organiser. The April 17 cover of Organiser.
An article in the Organiser, dated November 2, 1949, characterised the Hindu Code Bill “as a direct invasion on the faith of the Hindus”, remarking that “its provisions empowering women to divorce is revolting to the Hindu ideology”. An editorial published a month later (“The Hindu Code Bill”, the Organiser, December 7, 1949) led with this paragraph: “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu. We condemn it because it is a cruel and ignorant libel on Hindu laws, Hindu culture and Hindu dharma”.
The editorial then turned to whom the reforms were, in their opinion, being pushed by. It wrote: “Some widows and widowers, childless women and grandpa-grooms have combined to loosen our ancient laws for the levity of a few”. Then it specifically targeted the two architects of the bill, whom the Organiser sarcastically referred to as “Rishi Ambedkar and Maharishi Nehru”, whose reforms, it claimed, “would atomise society and infect every family with scandal, suspicion and vice”.
The Organiser thought that the bill would break up families and set brother against sister (on the question of inheritance of property). In the name of defending the wisdom of ancient Hindu lawmakers and sages, the RSS was, in effect, defending patriarchy in all its aspects. What really got its goat were the new code’s provisions to allow women to choose their marriage partners, to divorce brutal husbands, and to inherit ancestral property (all rights previously denied to them).
The RSS now launched a full-fledged attack on the Hindu Code Bill. It organised hundreds of processions, dharnas and hartals to stop the bill, these addressed by sundry sadhus and sants. One speaker said “that B.N. Rau the framer of this bill and Shri Ambedkar its pilot in the Assembly today, both declared themselves to be ‘not Hindus’ and married according to non-Hindu rites. That such men should have been entrusted with the job to ‘reform’ Hindu Dharma was a tragedy and a monstrosity”. (Organiser, December 14, 1949).
The campaign against the bill carried on for months. The Organiser carried many articles on the subject, one stating that “there is more in Hindu dharma and institutions and laws than Nehru and Ambedkar can dream of”.
In its issue of January 11, 1950, the Organiser printed a long letter by one K.D.P. Shastri complaining that an essay in another journal, Free India, had praised Ambedkar as the “Manu of Modern India”. This, said the angry Hindu letter-writer, “is an instance of depicting a Lilliput as a Brobdingnag. It borders on ridicule to put Dr Ambedkar on par with the learned and god-like Manu… ”. “Surely Dr Ambedkar’s diss-ervice in the recent past to the Hindu Religion is too well-known”, said this letter-writer, this an allusion to Ambedkar’s desire to convert out of Hinduism, and his collaboration before 1947 with the pro-Pakistan Bengali Dalit leader Jogen Mandal. Ambedkar, this RSS man insisted, “may be a good Indian now, but surely he can have no claim to be ‘Manu’ of any blessed age!”
Organisations, like individuals, have a right to change their minds. But any such change of view must be accompanied by a frank and open reckoning with why and how it happened. The truth is that in the crucial period when Ambedkar was law minister and was framing the Constitution, the RSS reviled both him as well as his ideas. As that Organiser article of November 1949 suggested, what the RSS wanted was “obedience and conformity” to what the Sangh defined as Hindu culture, tradition and values, definitions that a radical, egalitarian and anti-patriarchal reformer like Ambedkar would naturally never accept.
The writer is based in Bangalore. His most recent book is ‘Gandhi Before India’.
February 21, 2016
India: JNU professor attacked by protesters from BJP youth wing in Gwalior
scroll.in
JNU professor attacked by protesters from BJP youth wing in Gwalior
According to reports, he escaped unhurt after a clash broke out at a symposium in Madhya Pradesh.
Professor
Vivek Kumar from Delhi's Jawharlal Nehru University's was reportedly
attacked during a symposium at Gwalior's Bal Bhawan on Sunday. He was
giving a speech on "Baba Saheb Ke Sapno Ka Bhartiya Samaj" (Indian
society as envisioned by Baba Saheb) when clashes broke out between two
groups, reported the Hindustan Times.
The HT report identified the groups as the Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party, and the Ambedkar Vichar Manch. They battled with lathis and firing in the air was also witnessed. At least one activist from the Ambedkar Vichar Manch, Dinesh Maurya, was hurt while reports said that Professor Kumar escaped unhurt.
Eyewitnesses accounts suggested that the clashes were set off after Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha members tore up Ambedkarite literature outside the venue. Angry Ambedkar Vichar Manch activists blocked the roads and shouted slogans criticising the Narendra Modi government and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The police filed a First Information Report against Vivek Sharma, the district president of the Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha, and 100 unknown persons, the Hindustan Times report said.
Sharma, in his defence told the newspaper that charges against him were "false and fabricated" while JNU Prof Vivek Kumar’s speech was "provocative and anti-national.
"In the symposium, pro-Mohammad Afzal and pro-Kanhaiya Kumar slogans were also shouted," he alleged.
The HT report identified the groups as the Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party, and the Ambedkar Vichar Manch. They battled with lathis and firing in the air was also witnessed. At least one activist from the Ambedkar Vichar Manch, Dinesh Maurya, was hurt while reports said that Professor Kumar escaped unhurt.
Eyewitnesses accounts suggested that the clashes were set off after Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha members tore up Ambedkarite literature outside the venue. Angry Ambedkar Vichar Manch activists blocked the roads and shouted slogans criticising the Narendra Modi government and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The police filed a First Information Report against Vivek Sharma, the district president of the Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha, and 100 unknown persons, the Hindustan Times report said.
Sharma, in his defence told the newspaper that charges against him were "false and fabricated" while JNU Prof Vivek Kumar’s speech was "provocative and anti-national.
"In the symposium, pro-Mohammad Afzal and pro-Kanhaiya Kumar slogans were also shouted," he alleged.
June 16, 2015
Squandered heritage | A.G.Noorani, Frontline Magazine, Print Edition, June 26, 2015
For 65 years, media and academia have failed to do justice to the towering intellect that Ambedkar was. Successive governments have undermined the Constitution he so admirably piloted and his role in its framing has been either exaggerated or underestimated. And now, in a cruel irony, the Sangh Parivar is seeking to usurp his legacy, distorting everything he stood for. By A.G. NOORANI
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/squandered-heritage/article7298390.ece?homepage=true
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/squandered-heritage/article7298390.ece?homepage=true
June 05, 2015
E-Digest - Ambedkar’s Appropriation by Hindutva Ideology - A compilation by Ram Puniyani (June 2015)
A compilation by Ram Puniyani of writings by scholars and activists on two issues. One being the appropriation by Hindutva right wing circles of ideas of B.R Ambedkar; the second debate on about Ambedkar and Gandhi. This came to forefront with Arundhati Roy’s introduction to Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste’ published by Navayana. In her introduction ‘Doctor and the Saint’ Roy is critical of Gandhi’s various ideas. [This document is hosted at the sacw.net document archive]
https://tinyurl.com/nqj4xmx
https://tinyurl.com/nqj4xmx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
