While paying lip service to Ambedkar, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat equated him to RSS Founder K.B. Hedgewar, “Both dedicated their lives to social progress and held a common aspiration for nation’s growth”. Now what is common between Ambedkar’s dream of social equality, democratic, federalism, abolition of caste and RSS founder’s vision of a Hindu nation, based on the ancient holy books upholding caste system and patriarchy? These are polar opposites. But as paying tribute to Babasaheb has become mandatory for all for electoral compulsions, Bhagwat has to stretch things to pull Babasaheb in the ambit of list of their icons.

Not to be left behind, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India went on to criticise the Indian National Congress “Congress has become the destroyer of Constitutions. Dr Ambedkar wanted to bring in equality… Babasaheb wanted every poor, every backward to be able to live with dignity and with their heads held high, to have dreams and complete them…Congress has always treated SCs, STs, and OBCs as second-class citizens.”

In a way Narendra Modi is distorting the facts. It is true that Ambedkar was critical of Congress and Gandhi at various occasions; still it was Congress and Gandhi with whom he interacted maximally to achieve his goal of social equality in particular. Gandhi is much criticized for betraying the cause of Dalits. ‘Poona Pact’ has come under severe criticism, but all said and done this was the most practical step towards affirmative action for Dalits. Gandhi was so touched by Ambedkar’s positions that he understood the ills of caste in a deeper way and made eradication of untouchability as his major mission for the next two years. Going from village to village, ensuring that Dalits are permitted entry into the temples and are able to draw water from the village wells. This also became the mission for many Congress workers.

This is the time when BJP ideology founders were singing praises for the values of the caste system and arguing that it is this system which has given stability to Hindu society! Ambedkars yeoman service to the nation was recognized by the national leaders and they were keen that Ambedkar should be part of the Constituent Assembly, In her biography ‘BABASAHEB: My Life with Dr. Ambedkar’, Savita Ambedkar quotes correspondence between Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of Constituent Assembly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister-elect, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, G. Mavalankar, Speaker and BG Kher, the CM of Bombay state to stress how all the top Congress leaders were extremely keen to have her husband elected to the Constituent Assembly unopposed. For instance Patel wrote to Mavalankar on July 5, 1947: ‘Dr Ambedkar’s nomination has been sent to PM. I hope there would be no contest and he would be returned unopposed so that he could come here on the 14th.’ “

Congress ensured that Babasaheb won the seat for Constituent Assembly and made its Chairman. The participation and Contribution of Babasaheb, well supported by Congress, yielded the fruit in the form of the Indian Constitution. On the contrary Organiser, the mouthpiece of RSS, the father organization of BJP, came out heavily saying that this Constitution has nothing Indian about it. The ideological mentor cum fellow traveller of RSS, Savakar was against it saying the “Manusmriti is the Constitution for India.”

Same way Ambedkar handled the responsibility of drafting the Hindu Code Bill, with Nehru standing behind him. The Code was opposed by some elements within but mainly by the ideologues of Hindu Nationalism, who went on to burn the effigy of Ambedkar on 12 December 1949. While RSS-BJP are upholding the Brahmanical version of Hinduism Babasaheb had already declared that I was born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu.

Similarly as RSS was talking of Hindu Rashtra, Babasaheb in revised edition of the book on Pakistan, opposed it on the ground that this may pave the way for Hindu Raj which will be the biggest tragedy for us. BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology is deeply opposed to Babasaheb’s dream of Annihilation of caste and has been deeply opposed by Modi’s ideology. Modi’s parent organization RSS has floated Samajik Samrasta Manch, which talks about harmony among caste rather than its annihilation.

Currently some ideologues are arguing that since annihilation is not easy, so let us resort to strengthening sub caste identities to get them more privileges! This will be a disaster for the values of our Fraternity, the core principle of Indian Constitution. RSS is also trying to wean sections of Dalits by co-option and social engineering. RSS organizations are also inventing icons of sub communities among Dalits and giving them values of patriarchy, and caste hierarchy along with Anti Muslim slant.

One could see the response of BJP to implementation of Mandal Commission, which was a major step towards social justice. In response, BJP did not oppose it for electoral calculations but instead intensified their Ram Temple campaign. The way BJP is floating the identity issues and derailing the path of social justice is highly despicable. At the same time through various manoeuvres it has also succeeded in turning a section of deprived youth as its foot soldiers who dance in front of mosques with naked swords.

On the top of that it is Rahul Gandhi of Congress who brought to fore the implementation of the Constitution as the major path for social and economic justice. Putting the blame on the plight of Dalits/OBC and neglect of Babasaheb by Congress is like putting the truth on its head! At the same time it is putting the blame of one’s own doings on others.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If we observe the glorification of Dr. BR Ambedkar by the RSS-BJP rulers on his birth anniversary, it appears that they, the sangh parivar are the most loyal followers of him, none other. According to Prime Minister Modi, Ambedkar was ‘architect of the Constitution of India’ and ‘Messiha of the Schedule Castes’.

The UP government has announced a grand celebration of ‘Ambedkar Jayanti’ beginning with a series of programmes from the morning of April 13 (2025), leading up to the main celebrations on April 14 at Lucknow which will be attended by the Hindutva icon, chief minister, Adityanath. These programmes “aim to acquaint the younger generation with Dr Ambedkar’s remarkable life, visionary leadership, and his unwavering commitment to justice, equality, and social reform”.

Dr. Ambedkar is receiving fullsome praise after his death. In life, the RSS and its bandwagon which included the VD Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha, never missed an opportunity to denigrate him, often resorted to the burning of his effigy! If Dr. Ambedkar were to appear now, in the India ruled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadres, make no mistake, he would be either lynched or put in jail under terror laws for his trenchant opposition to Caste and the attendant denigration of Sudras, Women. Especially his sharp critique of Privileged Castes hegemony and Hindutva.

1. Ambedkar supported the burning of Manusmriti

The RSS wants Indian constitution to be replaced by the Manusmriti or Manu Code or laws of Manu which is known for its derogatory and inhuman references to Sudras, Untouchables and women. This is the very Book that Babasaheb burned.  The Constituent Assembly of India finalised the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949, RSS was not happy. Its organ, 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.”

By demanding promulgation of laws of Manu in an Independent India, the RSS was simply following its mentor, philosopher and guide VD Savarkar who declared that,

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by the crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. He also called for burning Manusmriti on December 25 each year.

2. Ambedkar held ‘High’ (Privileged) Caste Hindus which control Hindutva politics responsible for the miserable life of Hindus and hatred for Muslims

He was crystal clear in his view, that,

“[The] high caste Hindus are bad as leaders. They have a trait of character which often leads the Hindus to disaster. This trait is formed by their acquisitive instinct and aversion to share with others the good things of life. They have a monopoly of education and wealth, and with wealth and education they have captured the State. To keep this monopoly to themselves has been the ambition and goal of their life. Charged with this selfish idea of class domination, they take every move to exclude the lower classes of Hindus from wealth, education and power, the surest and the most effective being the preparation of scriptures, inculcating upon the minds of the lower classes of Hindus the teaching that their duty in life is only to serve the higher classes. In keeping this monopoly in their own hands and excluding the lower classes from any share in it, the high caste Hindus have succeeded for a long time and beyond measure…

“This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power, as they have done to the lower-class Hindus. This trait of the high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding of their politics.”

[B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), p. 123, first Published December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

3. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism

Ambedkar, in his historic speech in Nagpur on October 15, 1956, a day after he had embraced Buddhism, said,

“The movement to leave the Hindu religion was taken in hand by us in 1935, when a resolution was made in Yeola. Even though I was born in the Hindu religion, I will not die in the Hindu religion. This oath I made earlier; yesterday, I proved it true. I am happy; I am ecstatic! I have left hell — this is how I feel. I do not want any blind followers. Those who come into the Buddhist religion should come with an understanding; they should consciously accept that religion.”

If he tries to convert now we can imagine what terrible fate he will meet!

4. Ambedkar fought for equal rights for women

For the RSS Hindu women are inferior in every respect. The outfit, demands promulgation of Manusmriti as constitution of India which shockingly denigrates women as we will see in the following [few out of dozens]:

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
6. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

Sharply to the contrary, Dr. Ambedkar believed in equality for women. He was clear that, “We shall see better days soon and our progress will be greatly accelerated if male education is persuaded side by side with female education…” He went on to stress that “I measure the progress of community by the degree of progress which women had achieved”. He advised Dalit women, “Never regard yourself as Untouchables, live a clean life. Dress yourselves as touchable ladies. Never mind, if your dress is full of patches, but see that it is clean. None can restrict your freedom in the choice of your garments. Attend more to the cultivation of the mind and spirit of self-Help.”

Liquor was a bane in Dalit families and in order remedy it he asked women “do not feed in any case your spouse and sons if they are drunkards. Send your children to schools. Education is as necessary for females as it is for males. If you know how to read and write, there would be much progress. As you are, so your children will be.”

5. Ambedkar did not subscribe to the idea of Hindu nation and decried Hindutva

Dr. Ambedkar, a keen researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, while underlying the affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of Two-Nation Theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

According to him, the idea of “Hindustan for Hindus…is not merely arrogant but is arrant nonsense”. He was emphatic in warning that,

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country… [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”

6. Ambedkar believed in Socialism

Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objective Resolution [OR] on December 13, 1946. Dr. Ambedkar’s turn to respond to OR came on 17 December 1946. He stated:

“If this resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity, of which I have not the least doubt, coming as it does from the mover of the resolution [Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru], I should have expected some provision whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality and i should have from that point of view expected the resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there would be nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land, I do not understand how it could be possible for any future government which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically, unless its economy is a socialistic economy.”

7. Ambedkar’s antipathy towards ‘Hindutva ‘nationalists’ & ‘Patriots’

Dr Ambedkar, as early as 1931, said that whenever he demanded equality for lower Castes, marginalised sections and Depressed classes he would be called a communalist and anti-national. He was forthright in telling the ‘nationalists’ & ‘patriots’:

“India is a peculiar country, and her nationalists and patriots are a peculiar people. A patriot and a nationalist in India is one who sees with open eyes his fellowmen treated as being less than men. But his humanity does not rise in protest. He knows that men and women for no cause are denied their human rights. But it does not prick his civic sense to helpful action. He finds the whole class of people shut out from public employment. But it does not rouse his sense of justice and fair play. Hundreds of evil practices that injure man and society are perceived by him. But they do not sicken him with disgust. The patriot’s one cry is power and more power for him and for his class. I am glad I do not belong to that class of patriots. I belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy, and which seeks to destroy monopoly in a very shape and form. Our aim is to realise in practice our ideal of one man one value in all walks of life, political, economic and social.”

[Dr BR Ambedkar in the Plenary Session of Round Table Conference, London, 8^th Sitting, January 19, 1931.]

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Rediscovering Ambedkar to Fight Against Hindutva

Hindutva Forces Want to Appropriate Ambedkar but not Impart his Teachings

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Scathing Attacks on Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra

The post On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Besides, Dalits and Ambedkarites do not set much store by gods and goddesses. The entire premise of Dr Ambedkar’s philosophy was that ‘religion should revolve around the concern for human beings’ and not for the ‘happiness’ of the ‘god’. As Buddha said, human philosophy should concern the welfare of human beings and that was the principle that the Charvakhas had, too. So, Baba Saheb’s real fight was not against either the Congress or BJP but against the Brahmanical Social Order (BSO). It is crucial to understand that there were people who stood firm against privileged caste domination and manipulation and those who supported the BSO within all parties.

In the midst of these pulls and pressures, movements and counter-moves during the struggle for independence, the Constitution making process was itself the single largest effort towards the reconciliation of Indian society with all its contradictions. Babasaheb Ambedkar understood this well, as did the Congress leadership of the time, particularly Nehru.

We all need to understand that Dr Ambedkar and the Congress Party had different paths and opinion but to rebuild India they joined hands. Interestingly Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the leader of Bhartiya Jan Sangh (BJS) was also part of this. They had, amongst them, serious differences but none were so adversarial as to dub each other as anti-national or inferior. They debated issues in Parliament and agreed to frame the Constitution which emerged as one of the finest documents in the modern world, a document moreover that signalled India as one.

Unfortunately, the process of the selective quoting and referencing of events has harmed our polity today. This practice functions in the vacuous public sphere of overall ignorance and lack of grounding of sound democratic principles. How many of those speak today have understood the rich cadences of the Indian national movement?

It is crucial for all us, all of us, not use the events and differences of the time for our political purposes. Congress was an umbrella organisation for all those who fought for India’s freedom. After independence, many of these organisations that were part of the Congress originally, actually formed their own parties and groups. Naturally, they emerged as political rivals too. This should be seen as a healthy development as India, now a free nation needed different checks and balances that came from those in and out of power, those who had varying world views and perspectives. Both Dr Ambedkar and Syama Prasad Mookerjee were part of Jawahar Lal Nehru’s cabinet. Even when Gandhiji was murdered in cold blood on January 30, 1948, Syama Prasad Mookerjee dissociated himself with the Hindu Maha Sabha and remained in the Indian cabinet. None asked him to resign. His resignation came in 1951 after he became President of Bhartiya Jan Sangh (BJS). The resignation was based on the Nehru Liaquat Pact. Nehru, Ambedkar and Mookerjee were members of the same Constituent Assembly and cabinet and I am sure, despite their political differences they must have been acquaintances if not good friends, with a healthy respect for each other. Those were different times.

There are a whole lot of issues which need comprehensive analysis and not selective usage of symbols and facts. Babasaheb was unhappy on the issue of Nehru’s inability to get through the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament but he knew well that it was not easy for him as many bigwigs from both within the Congress and Jan Sangh were opposed to Hindu Code Bill. The prominent among those who were deadly opposed to the Hindu code bill were Dr Rajendra Prasad, Pattabhi Sitarammaiya, K M Munshi, Purushottam Das Tondon, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee and various leaders of Jan Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha etc. Sardar Patel though in the middle, leaned towards those who opposed it. So, in terms of ideological unity, it was only Nehru and Ambedkar who wanted this progressive legislation to be passed.

As I said before, all these leaders were both highly knowledgeable and deeply respectful to each other. None questioned the integrity of others but they put forth their political points very powerfully. While Nehru’s credentials as a secular modern progressive nationalist was not ever questioned, Ambedkar and Mookerjee actually were raising the issues of safety of Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan which was not out of the box and was real.

Dr Baba Saheh Ambedkar fought his Lok Sabha elections from North Bombay and Bhandara on two different occasions and lost. That the Congress ensured his defeat is without doubt. As I said, they were political rivals. Who was responsible for making Babasaheb’s secretary stand in elections against him? Nehru? Perhaps, Praful Patel can provide an answer as his father was a powerful leader of the Congress. Perhaps, too many Aambedkarites can provide details about his work. Secondly, in the North Bombay seat, it was not merely the Congress but both the Communist Party of India as well as the Jan Sangh or Hindu Mahasabha that had also actually fielded rival candidates.

There is no doubt that Congress’s history in the subsequent years was in continual denial of Dr Ambedkar’s legacy. One needs also remember that Babasaheb used to call Congress the original Brahmanical party of India but what would he have had to say about the RSS-BJP in today? That the BJP has now replaced the Congress and is the perhaps the main Brahmin Bania party of India? This is the reality.

Now, the remains on who loves Dr Ambedkar and who does not. Who awarded him the Bharat Ratna? Certainly not the BJP. Nor the Congress. The man at the helm who accorded this honour, the Bharat Ratna to Dr Ambedkar was V P Singh, another hero who has been vilified by the Congress and Sanghis together. It is VP Singh who provided the reservation to Neo Buddhists too and got who also installed the prominent portrait of Babasaheb in parliament, got Ambedkar’s books published through the union’s Ambedkar Foundation, declared Babasaheb Jayanti as a national holiday and took several other steps.

Unfortunately, for both the Congress and the BJP –which was then supporting the National Front government headed by VP Singh from outside—decried these measures. Recently, an arrogant Brahmin spokesperson of BJP actually abused VP Singh, terming him Samanti or feudal. Frankly, the only other person who was active those days and did his work on spreading saheb’s thoughts was one of VP’s most trusted colleagues, the late Ram Vilas Paswan.

Let us not debate how big a memorial is now being built for Dr Ambedkar or how much you worship him. My simple question for the political leadership today is this. If you really believe in Dr Ambedkar’s ideology then please implement the Constitution in true spirit. Please undertake land reforms, redistribute land to the most marginalised, ensure free health services, right to education for all, stop the privatisation of our natural resources, implement reservations in true spirit and everywhere.

It is equally important to understand not to confine Dr Ambedkar to merely Constitution making alone because that way you actually see his historical role in critiquing Brahmanical Hinduism. Yes, he critiqued all Brahmanical text, gods and everything. That apart, if we believe his philosophy, then let us respect what he asked his followers at the historical Deekshabhoomi grounds in Nagpur on October 14, 1956, Dhammachakra Pravartan Diwas, in his 22 vows to follow the path of humanism, as defined by Lord Buddha.

In a true sense, if we really care for, value, Dr Ambedkar’s principles, then please stop telling us how you respect Samvidhan or how much land you have allocated to make his statue rather than redistribute land to landless people which has now been forgotten. Ensure free quality education for all and equally free qualitative health care for all.

We need an inclusive governance structure which reflects our diversity where each one of us can express our opinion without any fear or intimidation. Dr Ambedkar’s India will not, simply cannot be the model where regressive religious pontiffs lead us to the path of destruction. It must ensure the path for progressive humanist leaders to take us to the path of enlightenment.

It is time the state ensured welfare measures for the millions of oppressed Dalits, Adivasis Backward classes, from all ethnicities and religious identities and make this integral to our decision-making process.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia

Related:

Sangh Parivar’s tortured bid to appropriate Dr Ambedkar

Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence

Ambedkar varsity ‘on brink of collapse’, 32 faculty members resign, 22 embroiled in legal battles

The post Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today marks the centenary of the publication of ‘Mook-Nayak’, founded by Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Exactly on January 31, 1920, Baba Saheb Ambedkar launched this fortnightly to give voice to the voiceless as reflected in its name. I won’t go into many details of the newspaper as many scholarly articles have already appeared on it commemorating its century run. What is more important is to reflect on the influence Baba Saheb Ambedkar had on the media in India. What emerged out of Baba Saheb’s influence was what we can safely call was the Ambedkarite media. People may differ but I write based on my experiences and interactions with whole lot of Ambedkarites and those who were part of Baba Saheb’s mission. I feel extremely proud that I could interact and learn a lot from intellectual giants Bhagwan Das ji, NG Uke Saheb, L R Balley, V T Rajshekar, J V Pawar, Raja Dhale, Vijay Surwade and many more who had been regularly writing and contributing in different forms to strengthen mission Ambedkarism and its intellectual ethos. There are hundreds other unknown soldiers of the movement who in different nooks and corners of the country started various journals and periodicals to spread it in their impact domains and areas.

Photographs and quotes of Baba Saheb Ambekar today are visible in every protest and dharna everywhere. His bitter opponents, both the Congress and BJP quote him. The Left forces which portrayed him ‘constitutionalist’ and too narrow ‘caste’ focused are quoting him now too, but things were not the same when Dr. Ambedkar started his journey. We were a country in awe of Gandhi as he represented the Savarna power of India even when he played patron saint for Muslims. No ‘Manustream’ media would focus on Ambedkar’s work and thought. All his life, Baba Saheb fought not with Gandhi or Gandhians but the dishonest brahminical intellectual class too which felt threatened and had no keen interest that his thought and vision reach to the people of India. But his  mission of Ambedkarism was carried forward by his dedicated followers who started publishing periodicals and magazines everywhere and it is because of their work and dedication that Ambedkarites today are one of the most enlightened and intellectual class. It is these dedicated icons who took immense pain to make this literature available to us.

Today, we have a hugely powerful Ambedkarite opinion making class, a majority of who, would not like to get legitimised or justified by the brahminical intellectual of media yet many of those who are active and visible on social media and have made their way into the ‘Manustream’ media. The difference is that in the yesteryears, no brahminical intellectual had the capacity to publish the roar of an L R Balley or Bhagwan Das or V T Rajshekar or Raja Dhale. Today, they have started publishing the new young which is a good sign but for me, I would still appreciate and respect those more who don’t care for the brahminical mainstream media and continue to do their work of spreading Ambedkarite enlightenment through their own network. It is a fact that Ambedkarism is the most potent weapon against brahminism and it has survived despite India’s power elite never wanting it to. Such was the power of the movement, which never got any good ‘press’ or review by the ‘nationalists’ and who always blamed Ambedkarites as Casteists.

Today, in the one hundred years of Mook Nayak, it is important to continue with autonomous publications. Let more flowers bloom and young Ambedkarites take charge of new media, use social media and engage in constructive debates. Dr Ambedkar was an intellectual giant who responded to various issues confronting the nation. We need to use his basic tools to respond to the current crises that we face today. Reach more and more groups diverse from your own and make alliances with common minimum programmes without undermining the basic identity of Ambedkarism. The real fight against the brahminical caste hegemonists or fascists in India can only come through an inclusive and diverse coalition of Ambedkarite Bahujans with Ambedkarism playing the lead role of coordinating these diverse groups, but in a collective leadership.

It is essential to understand that Baba Saheb Ambedkar paid great emphasis on interacting with his people and through his media. He could also have written in the Manuwadi media of his time but he preferred his own publications so that his view remained undiluted and unadulterated. Also important is that he changed his strategies from time to time – from Mook Nayak to Bahishkrit Bharat, and ultimately to ‘Prabuddh Bharat’ which was his vision for an enlightened India as he knew well that without providing an alternative to brahminism you cannot really liberate people; and hence it was essential to continue with the intellectual dialogue.

Today’s leadership actually don’t want an intellectual debate. Most of them hate the idea and never felt that a professional media was required which could give its professional guidance by inviting community intellectuals, silent activists, grassroots workers to write and not merely report or produce all the garbage of party reporting or neta bhakti. Intellectuals need to come beyond the bhakti as Baba Saheb said categorically why ‘bhakti’ in politics was a way towards disaster. Through the media, leaders give their vision and people interact with them. More than that they listen to their own critique but today criticism is not liked and brahminical media will not critique Bahujan leadership for the point of the community interest but its own interest and therefore such media was needed which could warn leaders of their faults and not become their propaganda tool as it would never help in the long run. Media can also be used in creating new young leaders but for that one needs a long term strategy.

While we salute all those known and unknow Ambedkarites who carried forwarded the legacy of Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s journalism, it must continue its work unmindful of whether others appreciate it or not. The real power does not lie in brahminical acknowledgement but in awakening the masses and making their issues public. The ‘Manustream’ media today is distorting facts, hiding them and vilifying dissenters. It is important therefore, we support and participate with all such forces who have stood with people for their human rights, social justice and raised their issues and provided space for all kind of discussions.

In the 21st century, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s philosophy will play the real ‘liberation theology’ for all the oppressed people and if we want that this philosophy is not distorted then it is essential we keep safe the legacy of all those who dedicated their life to spread Baba Saheb’s ‘Prabuddha Bharat’ mission. Ambedkarite media is not reporting cut and paste from the manuwadi media but essentially a constructive ideological alternative of the hierarchical varna system, a complete annihilation of caste which is necessary for a stronger and democratic India. No Manuwadi media would be interested in annihilation of caste as it is only possible through Ambedkarite media but for that we all will have to learn to listen to even disagreements and try forge a coalition with all. Ambedkarite media can be an individual enterprise but will have to work in close association with the community and should not only raise their issues but work towards creating new young writers, photographers, cartoonists, reporters and editors. The task is tough but nothing is impossible and will ultimately benefit the nation enormously where media is the ‘exclusive’ domain of two or three jaatis.

In the 100 years of the celebration of Mook-Nayak, our main goal should be to break the hegemony of these exploiting castes and classes in our knowledge and information system so that brahminical exploitation is exposed, people get justice and rule of law is restored. We have seen the dirt and filth that ‘Manustream’ media has unleashed on us and to counter this we need an enlightened media and better analysis of the current situation. Ambedkarites can do that, and if they do so, it will be the best tribute to Baba Saheb Ambedkar.

The post Century ago, Mook-Nayak beckons a new Ambedkarite movement today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The President of India speaks about ‘constitutional morality’ while the Prime Minister says that Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar would have been the ‘proudest’ person to see ‘democracy’ flourishing in India and the ‘success’ of our ‘democracy’.

Yesterday, my friends talked about Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj and we were sitting in the place ‘owned’ by Lord Jagannath. It is reported that the Lord is the biggest owner of land and properties in Odisha. And like the Lord here, we have so many Lords in this country, with so many billions of rupees and gold in their bank that they can ‘remove’ poverty in just a day’s time.

Baba Saheb Ambedkar had said that unless there is social democracy, our political democracy will fail. If the political system fails to provide justice to people, they will revolt and break this structure we have so laboriously built, he warned.

What have we done to make Baba Saheb proud of our ‘achievements’?

A government is ‘formed’ in the middle of the night and the President of India signs the document without cabinet proposal. It goes straight from the Prime Minister’s office and a governor ensures that a chief minister takes charge before anyone gets to know about it. Is this constitutional morality? Are we really practicing constitutional morality, atleast those who are supposed to be the ‘custodians’ of the Constitution?

Will the things happening in Kashmir make Dr Ambedkar proud where, except for Kashmiri Muslims, the government is speaking to everyone else outside Kashmir?

Will Baba Saheb be happy to see that our universities and educational institutions are being converted into brahmanical gurukuls and students from SC-ST-OBC-Minorities, Economically Poor are finding it difficult to study there? So many students have committed suicide, or shall we say they have been murdered by the highly hostile brahmanical institutional pressure. Would Baba Saheb not have questioned the government and taken it to task on the issue of the deaths of RohithVemula, Payal Tadwi, Fatima and Najeeb? How can anyone be proud of these dirty facts that our institutions are collapsing and unable to provide justice to people?

Baba Saheb devoted his time to the benefit of labourers. He sought minimum wages and fixed timing for them so that they are not exploited. After 70 years, we are witnessing the ‘death’ of ‘labour. Conditions are being created to deny them justice and make things harsher for them.

Farmers are committing suicide. Violence against Dalitsis rampant and police does not file cases. Judiciary, too, has no time to hear cases related to civil liberties. People are languishing in jail just because they dare to stand up with the adivasis and dalits against the oppression by the state and feudal corporate forces.

How would have Baba Saheb responded when an incident like JNU happens, when the entire state machinery is out to defame an institution and ensure that children from the marginalised sections do not turn up or go for ‘voluntary retirement’?

We have laws for every situation but they are not implemented in letter and spirit. Baba Saheb had said that a good Constitution can be made redundant by those who implement it. The dark fact is that those who worship Manu in their hearts and want its social order to flourish in India cannot go along with a humanist Constitution.

Over 10 million Adivasis have been displaced from their land and were never rehabilitated. They were never asked about their choices. ‘Development’ was imposed on them and an entire generation of adivasis was eliminated in many villages, just for the purpose of ‘building’ a modern India. How can we allow this? Where is democracy? Democracy is not merely Parliament and assemblies. It is not just this election or that election. It is also about my choices and right to reject. How many times has the government asked the adivasis as to what kind of development they want or whether they want it or not?

Seventy years have passed and we have not been able to ‘democratise’ our villages because we never wanted that to happen. Social democracy cannot happen if the privileged are not ready to give up their privileges. And noone is going to do it on his own. The state will have to act as per the Constitution, but what happened? A majority of the Dalits in India remain absolutely landless, not even having the homestead land, while Gods and cows can have as much land as possible. In cows and Gods live our ‘privileged’ and tax evading class, who shout ‘tax payers’ money when JNU-type issues crops up but it is these classes and castes which have used the state patronage. Will the government and the civil society talk about the land redistribution process and equal distribution of it or access to the Dalits, a promise we made through the Zamindari Abolition Act and by enacting the Land Ceiling Act? All these were rarely implemented and most of the big landlords became Godmen or vice versa. So in India, statues can live in air-conditioned environs and be fed ‘delicious’ dishes while the poor live in hunger and misery. A statue can have no ceiling on it while poor does not have a small piece.

Baba Saheb spoke of fraternity as he was a peace maker, a man of great revolutionary ideas. He did not ask the oppressed to pick up guns and shoot the thugs who created the superficial racist caste structure. Can there be fraternity without the rich and powerfulsharing the agonies of the poor? Instead of using constitutional provisions to implement ceiling laws and distribute the land to poor, the government and its policies ended up creating new monopolies. Our old Rajas and Maharajas stand nowhere near the luxury of the new monopolists, whose corporate empires are accumulating land and properties at an unprecedented scale. It is not aquestion of poverty now, it is aquestion of the huge gap between the power elite and the rest of us. Does the government really have the will to follow constitutional morality?

A fraternity will never happen if citizenship is made conditional on religious basis, an act which violates our constitutional principles. Acts like the NRC are nothing but an attempt to intimidate citizens and snatch their land. Land grabbers are fast grabbing everything while the poor are being made to fight each other. How do we celebrate ‘achievements’ when people are still dying of hunger and manual scavenging has not yet been eradicated?Most of those engaged in it face the worst form of caste apartheid. Baba Saheb would have been proud if our political class had honestly spoken and worked against ‘caste terrorism and the hidden apartheid’, which is still the order of the day in a major part of India.

Baba Saheb will be there to guide us all the time as his vision has already reached the nooks and corners of the country. Any government, which claims to follow his principles, particularly constitutional morality, must adopt secular socialist principles and treat each citizen of India as an equal citizen. Is this government really following this principle? Dr. Ambedkar laid great emphasison quality education so let us askourselves this question as to where are we in this field? Our education was supposed to develop critical thinking but the current leaders donot want to develop our ‘critical’ thinking capacities, instead they want brainless ‘bhakts’ or devotees, who can shout at the top of their voice and violently oppress those who disagree with them.

We must celebrate the Constitution Day but also be careful as what is being said in the name of Baba Saheb. The best would be for all to think, what would have Dr Ambedkar thought or said on major socio-political issues of our times today? Celebrate the spirit of Baba Saheb and think of his ideas of social democracy and provide cultural alternatives to brahmanism. Manuwaad and manavvad cannot go together.

Constitutional morality in India is only possible if those who implement it have faith in the humanist values as espoused by Baba Saheb Ambedkar. You cannot really implement this Constitution with caste superiority complexes in your heart. Be human and believe in humanity and that is the only towards constitutional morality.

RELATED ARTICLES :

1. “Have we really done away with our Constitution?”
2. BJP has been laying the base for a new CAB (Citizenship Bill) since 2015
3. Demolition of democratic, secular Constitution, old project of Hindutva gang
4. India is not quite yet a Hindu Rashtra: 70th Constitution Day
5. Maharashtra governor’s action unconstitutional

The post Constitutional morality only through humanist principles of Babasaheb Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this note, I wish to clarify that I don’t want to quote him here again, but certain facts about Dr Ambedkar must be kept in mind. First and foremost was his concern for the interest and welfare of the Dalit community and ensuring its fair representation everywhere. In fact, we always discuss the sub continental history from the Hindu-Muslim binary – basically, Hindu upper castes and Muslim upper castes or landed peasantry. Why shouldn’t the others issues be discussed? So Dr Ambedkar’s concern, during that time, were the Dalits and ensuring their human rights, and he articulated them at every opportunity. That made him put forth the case of a strong centre, because he felt that if the laws have to be implemented, it is essential that centre plays the lead as a guiding force,since states might have their prejudices.

I am not going to quote what Dr Ambedkar said about Kashmir, because the portions being quoted from two important worksmight be his own concern. We may agree or disagreewith them. However, my point is not with what he said, but what he would have said today.

Now, I want people to think for a moment. Leave aside all ideological prejudices and think about Dr Ambedkar and who he was. Atleast,people like me would always say that he was the greatest dissenter of independent India, a leader and a statesman, a human rights icon for all of us. So, what would have Dr Ambedkar said today on Kashmir? Would he have supported the suspension of people’s political rights? Would he have supported the arrest of political leaders? Would he have supported the curtailment of dissenting voices, which are nothing compared to what he has written and spoken, which can still send shivers down the spine of the brahmanical elite and yet they are forced to chant his bhajans, though they may not like his ideological dissent.

It is sad that many people are suggesting today that Dr Ambedkar did not want Article 370 or the autonomy of Kashmir. The question is not what happened in the Constitution Assembly debates. Dr Ambedkarwas worried about the condition of the untouchables in Pakistan, particularly in East Pakistan or present day Bangladesh, where the Muslim fundamentalists and the Pakistani Army, at that time,were torturingthe non-Muslims and forcing Hindus, Christians and Dalits to embrace Islam. There was a lot of pressure on the government and Ambedkar wanted the central government to look into it. I am not exaggerating thefacts, but this is the reason why Jogendra Nath Mandal, the first law minister of Pakistan and the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, had to relinquish his post and his Pakistani citizenship and come to India.

In Kashmir, what is at stake is a valid assurance given by the Government of India to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 is a strong pillar of that. My simple point is whether Dr Ambedkar, today, would have endorsed the way things were done. I can say – never. Talking about Kashmir, he always said that it has three parts –the Kashmir valley- where the Muslims dominate, Jammu – which is Hindu dominated and Ladakh, which is mainly Buddhist. He was pragmatic enough about these things that, at the end of the day, no domain wants to work under any one. He never wanted a war, hence he wanted to resolve the Kashmir issue. Obviously, Nehru, hailing from Kashmir, wanted it as his personal conviction towards secularism.

Dr Ambedkar wrote that democracy does not mean the rule of the majority alone. The minorities have to be included in decision making. All his life, he was fighting for the rights of the depressed classes and the minorities. Even in Kashmir, his concern would have been for the Dalits there, but if he were present today, I can say with full conviction that he would have chosen to stand with the people of the state, who have been denied the right to speak, communicate and assemble, the right to express political dissent. There is no question of his siding with those who claim everything is normal after enforcing a complete communication blockade.
 
RELATED  ARTICLES

1. Kashmir – and the strange paralysis of the Indian civil society
2. Abrogation of Article 370: SC refers petitions to Constitution Bench, issues notices to Center
3. Kashmir: The Worst Conflict Area In The World
4. Kashmir Blackout: In Conversation with AnuradhaBhasin
5. Government’s Decision on Jammu and Kashmir: A Long Leap into Unconstitutionality

The post If alive today, Dr Ambedkar would have been speaking for the rights of the people in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has become a ritual by now to pay respects to Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), on his death anniversary. Leaders and parties, not to speak of activists, are busy in the formality, with full arrangements for media and social media coverage. Their real intention is to cover up all their crimes and show that they are bound by the Constitution. Ambedkar is projected as the father of Indian democracy and of course as the architect of the Constitution, and they swear by him.

This time the day has come in a season of Legislative Assembly elections in parts of India that have a huge chunk of population: Chattisgarh, Madya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Telangana. Prime Minister Modi has been telling people that but for Ambedkar, and the electoral democracy devised by him, a chai-wala like him would not have been elected to become the leader of a most populous country. It is a half-truth that covers up the façade of Indian democracy.

How Modi and his clan now invoke Ambedkar
Modi used him for his Telangana election campaign at Hyderabad on December 3, as reported by PTI:
“ Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday alleged the caretaker Telangana government is betraying the country and insulting the Constitution architect B R Ambedkar by proposing religion-based reservation with 12 per cent quota for Muslim minority while stealing the rights of Dalits. Addressing an election rally, he said that great leaders of the country, while framing the Constitution, had decided against religion-based reservation at any cost in the interest of the nation’s unity and integrity and for its bright future.Targeting caretaker Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao, Modi said he was surprised that “these power-hungry people, to save their chair for their family, resorted to such a step”. “Minority ko aarakshan dene ka khel, yeh desh ke saath gaddari hai ki nahi? (Playing this game of promising quota to the minorities, is it not a betrayal to the nation)?” he said and wondered how the promise will be met as the current Supreme Court’s order does not permit it. “Is it not an insult to the Constitution Assembly, is not an insult to B R Ambedkar…?” Modi asked. “The Supreme Court has put a ceiling (of 50 per cent). You can’t go beyond that. Does it mean that you would steal from the rights (quota) of Dalits, STs, and OBCs?,” he asked.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2018/dec/04/minority-quota-is-betrayal-to-country-it-insults-ambedkar-pm-modi-1907138.html

Thus he invoked Ambedkar to woo the SCs STs and OBCs and simultaneously to pitch them up against Muslims in a purely election-oriented speech. The other BJP leaders have been doing that as part of centrally-guided speeches. Paripoornanada, saffron-clad Bachelor Swami, a new recruit to BJP as a party, has been doing that for a few weeks now. This is the first time, a swami has been drawn into open politics in Telugu-speaking states that did not offer much foothold to the sangh pariwar till now. This swami, projected as a would-be Yogi Adityanath, has been visiting dalit colonies too for some years now, to spread his activities. The TRS led by KCR was not worried much, as one of its leaders said : Who can beat KCR who spends lot of time and money (hundreds of crores) on Hindu temples, yagas, homams, even while allying with MIM, the Muslim party. It is rumoured KCR had a tacit deal with Modi; the contest will benefit both sides.

This does not mean, mind you, Sangh pariwar will oppose reservation for Muslims in a blind manner. Electoral considerations will decide, and they vary from place to place and time to time. It is all tactics, not merely principles. For instance, in Madhya Pradesh where BJP has been in power for several terms in a row, reservation for more than a dozen OBC Muslim castes has been in operation. And in Karnataka BJP Chief Minister Yeddyurappa did not even speak of abolishing similar reservation for dozens of Muslim castes that have been there for decades. In Maharashtra where a Bill for reservation for Marathas was passed recently, a BJP MLA, a Hindu, crtiticised his own party government for not extending reservation to Muslims. Not Manu but Chanakya and Machiavelli guide RSS. The old ways of opposing the pariwar need to be re-calibrated.

Then Ambedkar was invoked to uphold autocratic ways of Modi government. See how ingeniously RSS invoked Ambedkar recently: When others were harping on Ambedkar and Koregaon against Modi regime’s autocratic ways, RSS Chief quoted, not wrongly, Ambedkar to criticize those framed up by Modi government.

Hindustan Times of Oct 19, 2018 reported : “ To sharpen its attacks against so-called urban naxals, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is now invoking the author of India’s constitution, BR Ambedkar. On Thursday, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, delivering the annual Vijayadashami speech in Nagpur, drew attention to Ambedkar’s speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, in which he spoke about the need to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving social and economic objectives and abandoning the bloody methods of revolution. …
“He then went on to cite Ambedkar’s speech underlining the need to adopt only Constitutional methods, within the ambit of the democratic discipline. “…Every citizen and politician may remember the famous speech by honourable Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar delivered on 25th November 1949….Ambedkar had stressed that where constitutional avenues are open, there can be no justification for unconstitutional methods, which he said were “nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy”.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rss-invokes-ambedkar-in-fight-against-urban-naxals/story-KUKShK9pnAWAbSGIynSxHI.html

The Ambedkar passage the RSS Chief, in his key Vijaya Dasami speech, referred to about the Grammar of Anarchy was this :
“ If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?
“ The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
(Excerpts from the speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949)

Even Gandhian methods like the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha must be abandoned. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy. Now we can see better why Sangh pariwar opted to celebrate every year November 25 as Constitution Day.

We can see not only the logic of this government, but also the Supreme Court that heeded and allowed continuation of imprisonment of so-called urban naxals. It may be recalled Indira Gandhi invoked ‘Ambedkar’s Constitution’ for her Emergency (1975-76), and the Supreme Court upheld negation of Fundamental Rights during emergency.

Thus Ambedkar, who is allegedly appropriated by all and sundry, needs to be relooked even as he has been actively invoked in current elections, in four major states, North and South, even by the Sangh pariwar. Quite successful in making inroads into the dalit community vote bank, the BJP and its allies had won 75 out of 85 reserved seats in the last UP assembly polls. BSP despite its vote-bank, got not a single seat in the outgoing Lok sabha. Mayawati, after her pre-poll, Karnataka alliance with Deve Gowda’s JDS, is now wary to take an anti-BJP posture. She did not repeat the experiment in current elections in four states. Apparently, she decided NOT to attend a conclave, planned for late December, of some anti-BJP ruling class parties. All this is a trailer for 2019 General Election to the Lok Sabha.

Those who wish to oppose Modi-led BJP now in power at the Centre, as well as other reactionary forces who ruled in the past and currently ruling in several states, need to re-study and recalibrate their Ambedkar. Explicitly SC caste-based parties like RPI, BSP cannot hope to reserve Ambedkar for their politics. This reservation has been broken for sometime now. No one can hope to win with their old and outmoded tools and techniques.

****        ****
It is time to recall some of the related aspects that are sought to be erased from public memory, particularly of the younger generation, even if it involves some repetition for the knowledgeable. In fact even for the latter, it is a good reminder. It is hoped they will help de-addiction from the opium of India’s electoral democracy, which has become worse than a gamble and a fraud by now. Extracts from some articles published in countercurrents.org and a few comments are used to bring out the issue.

There is no doubt that Indian ‘democracy’ has been rotting over the decades, severely distorted by big corporates, linked as they are with imperialism, black-money bags, muscle power, casteism, communalism, liquor barrels, defections, misuse of official machinery, criminality, hereditary politics and what have you. In the process, an impression is created, retrospectively, that the past was based on value-based politics, which is a falsehood. Despite the towering personality as a scholar, politician and a social reformer, Ambedkar’s own bitter electoral experiences belie these claims. They are briefly recounted here:

****       ****
‘Maker of the Constitution? No, I was a hack’ : Ambedkar
The present Constitution, of which Ambedkar is often referred to as THE architect, was born in bizarre circumstances. It was adopted by a Constituent Assembly that was ‘conceived’ and ‘elected’ much before 1947 August, to be precise in 1946 itself. Who conducted those polls, and under which laws? Obviously, the British colonial masters. They were held under the colonial, much-despised, Government of India Act 1935. Who were the voters? There was no universal, adult franchise at the time. The 1946 elections were held with a limited franchise. Only a small proportion (less than 10 percent ) of the population constituted the voters: Those who paid a certain level of taxes, those highly educated, those deputed by the princely kingdoms were the voters, in the main. That is, only the elite classes of the day who represented no more than 7-8 percent of the population of those days. ‘We the people of India … give to ourselves this Constitution’ – such words were merely formal. In fact, not true. It had no democratic credentials. It was elected not by people, but by only elite. Even those elite were not sovereign; they were subjects, many of them henchmen, of a colonial regime.

There was religion-based communal representation in the ‘secular’ Constitution : There were representatives, besides Hindus, of Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, of scheduled castes. (BJP and Modi not only swallow it all but glorify this Constitution, it needs to be pointed out.) Then there were nominated members. Thus 292 were members indirectly elected from various provinces, by the elite. Then there were 93 who were not elected, but deputed by princely kingdoms. Thus this Constituent Assembly that had no people’s mandate, and no sovereignty, discussed a draft, came to some agreement, and that was worded and reworded into a final draft, which was formally adopted on November 26, 1949. It was this day Modi government highlighted in 2015 November and decided the day would be celebrated every year.

Ambedkar was the Chairman of a seven-member Drafting Committee, that worked from 1947 August 29 to 1950 January 24, which would do the necessary word-smithy as decided by the Constituent Assembly that was NOT founded on a democratic basis. As if this was not enough, the drafting committee had a British-nominated Advisor sitting on its head, Benegal N. Rao, ICS, a top expert in (British) Constitutional Law etc. The draft was nothing original. It was overwhelmingly borrowed – often copied verbatim, or slightly modified –from the Government of India Act, 1935, that was described by Nehru as a “charter of bondage”. Nehru had said we would and should have one based on adult franchise, which never happened. The 1935 Act in turn had borrowed from that of 1919. Cooperation with 1935 Act would amount to a “betrayal”, the AICC had said in a Resolution. At least 250 Articles were thus taken from 1935. Then there were clauses borrowed from France (ideas of liberty etc.), from Ireland (Directive Principles etc.), from Japan (Acts related to Supreme Court etc.), from Russia (planning-related), and then May’s Parliamentary practices of UK. There were borrowings from US too. One renowned expert and commentator had said: The Constitution was prepared after “ransacking all the known constitutions of the world”. The end product was a “beautiful patchwork”, said one Member in the course of discussions in the House (Durgadas vol-2, p. 613-616). It was a “slavish imitation of the west” said another Member. Congress Working Committee Member Sarat Chandra Bose had said: The very preamble was conceived in “fraud”. A popular cinema–song of Nehru era (Mera Joota hai Japani … phir bhi Dil hai Hindustani, or something like that) perhaps was a reflection of this admixture.

(Most of these facts in this section were taken from, among other sources, Indian Constitution Unriddled : Search for Sources (2015), a 500-page volume by SG Nadgir and KS Sharma, published by Purogami Sahitya Prakashana, Hubli-580032.)
https://countercurrents.org/2017/01/24/indian-constitution-unriddled-search-for-sources/

Given the above background, one can understand why Ambedkar had said he was only a “hack”; why he was not owning up the Constitution, and said he was ready to burn it:
In the course of a debate in Rajya Sabha on September 2, 1953, Ambedkar said : “People always keep saying to me: ‘Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution’. “My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will.” (Oxford Dictionary says ‘hack’ is ‘a person hired to do dull routine work.’)

Then a Member from Rajasthan said: “But you defended it.” Ambedkar shot back: “We lawyers defend many things.” The then Home Minister Katju said Ambedkar was responsible for drafting the Constitution. And Ambedkar said: “you want to accuse me of your blemishes?” Then he later added: “ Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody.”
https://www.countercurrents.org/adithya140416.htm

****    ****
Ambedkar was never allowed to be elected on his own
The circumstances under which Ambedkar was made the Chairman of the Drafting Committee were themselves bizarre and painful. He was not allowed to be elected as a member of the Constituent Assembly (in 1946) by the ruling classes of the day, represented by the Congress in the main and Hindu Mahasabha , from Maharashtra which was his original and natural constituency. He could enter the House only from the Eastern part of the then undivided Bengal thanks to the support of GS Mondal, of Bengal’s SC Federation, supplemented by some votes of Muslim League. And with 1947 August, partition of Bengal took place and as a result his seat from East Pakistan was lost. By that time, his significant role in the House was noted. And in the wake of partition and related strife, the congress felt it was wise to rope him in so as to impart and retain a semblance of representation to the depressed classes. Thus he was co-opted, also into Nehru’s Union Cabinet, along with Shyama Prasad Mukherjee though both were non-Congressmen.

Thus when the new Constitution was heralded on January 26, 1950, he was very much there. Election based on adult franchise was part of this constitution. for the first time. It was NOT so in 1946 when it was based on a limited franchise, hardly representing less than 10 percent of India’s population.

Under the circumstances, Ambedkar was keen that he should get elected to the Loksabha in the First General Election of 1952. He did not like to be co-opted or nominated. But the “architect” as they call him was defeated by them by a considerable margin of 14000 votes through Congress candidate Kajrolkar, obviously in a seat reserved for SCs. It hurt him badly, morally also. His wife and colleagues were worried about his health, and lobbied for him and he was elected to the Rajya Sabha in an indirect election, allowed or supported by the Congress bigwigs. There came a by-election to the Loksabha in 1954 May which he contested again . And again was defeated by Congress. Thus he was not allowed on his own strength. And he was allowed only to be co-opted and that he humiliation swallowed. He continued in the Cabinet until he resigned later as a protest when the Hindu Code Bill he had piloted with Nehru’s support, could not be passed in the face of Hindu reactionary forces, most of them from within the Congress, in the House. Nehru developed cold feet, backed out, and Ambedkar was let down. So he resigned.
(https://www.countercurrents.org/adithya140416.htm)

All dirty tricks were played in the process of defeating him, and that in seats reserved for SCs. He was allowed to be in the Constituent assembly or parliament, not on his own, but only at the mercy of the ruling classes. This situation remains unchanged basically in vast parts of India. Unless one surrenders or compromises with ruling classes as well as principles, no sincere candidate can win elections in today’s India, however deserving and merited. This is the take-away from Ambedkar’s electoral experience
    
Ambedkar’s historical speech at Agra
Ambedkar was indeed highly disappointed and demoralized, no doubt by the electoral defeats, but that was only one factor. He was physically ailing, and emotionally wailing for more than an year before his death on 6 December 1956. He poured out his anguish in one of his last major political speeches, i.e., Dr. Ambedkar’s historical speech (18th March, 1956) at Agra. It was a short but loaded speech.

“ So far this speech was available in Hindi only. I have translated it into English,” wrote SR Darapuri, a retired IGP, an IPS officer, who later chose to be an activist, as a Founder of platforms, Jan Manch and All India Peoples’ Front (Radical), based in UP, who had the honor of being arrested by the current Chief Minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath, for the crime of trying to exercise his Fundamental Right of protest. It was published in countercurrents.org not long ago (August 26, 2016).
In a brief but telling intro to the speech, SR Darapuri wrote:
“ In fact it was a guideline for future Dalit movement but it is quite agonising to say that Dalits have forgotten it…. Today Dalit society has moved away from Dr. Ambedkar’s agenda of annihilation of caste and conversion to Buddhism. Unprincipled and opportunistic Dalit politics has pushed back social and religious movement. Today Dalit society is infected with caste divisions. It appears that caravan of Babasaheb is moving backward in place of moving forward. It should be a cause for worry for all Ambedkarites.”

We can recall a few lines, from that translation, to size up the reality, more relevant today than ever:
“ To Government Servants : Our society has progressed a little bit with education. Some persons have reached high posts after getting education. But these educated persons have betrayed me. I expected that they would do social service after getting higher education. But what I see is a crowd of small and big clerks who are busy in filling their own bellies….” It is these sections that, in the main, are fuelling the dalit movement.

“To Students
“My appeal to the students is that after completing education instead of becoming a petty clerk they should serve their village and nearby people so that exploitation and injustice arising out of ignorance may be ended. Your rise is included in the rise of society.”

“ Future Worry
“Today I am just like a pole which is supporting huge tents. I am worried about the moment when this pole will not be in its place. I am not keeping good health. I do not know when I may leave you people. I am not able to find a young man who could defend the interests of these millions of helpless and disheartened people. If some young man comes forward to take up this responsibility I will die in peace.”
But most important was a self-critical note by Ambedkar:

“ To the Landless Labourers
“I am much very much worried about landless labourers. I could not do enough for them. I am not able to bear with their sorrows and hardships. The main cause of their vows is that they do not own land. That is why they are victims of insults and atrocities. They won’t be able to uplift themselves. I will struggle for them. If the government creates any hurdles in it I will give them leadership and fight their legal battle. But I will make every possible effort to get them land.”
https://countercurrents.org/2016/08/26/dr-ambedkars-historical-speech-at-agra/

Eversince this speech Ambedkar was unwell and could do little that he promised for the rural poor.
It is well known that bulk of the dalits are landless laborers, most of them also being landless peasants, tenants who are actual tillers and producers. Eversince 1956, more and more of them are deprived of their means of production and pauperized. The dalit movement after 1960s totally ignored the land question, reduced itself into mere identity movement, to please the landlord classes and the State. The educated persons who betrayed Ambedkar are at the head of this betrayal. It is only recently a few like Jignesh Mevani, a new entrant to politics, raised this question. And all efforts are on to turn him into the mainstream of politics of ‘betrayal’ mentioned by Ambedkar. And his being elected as an MLA in Gujarat, welcome, is blown up to lure and floor him. Not only the opportunist Ambedkarites and the worn-out parliamentary Left, but a few tired and retired ex-CPI ML factions, are engaged in drawing him away from the land question he stressed, and deeper into the parliamentary mire. It is better to remind all concerned what Ambedkar himself once said about this mire.

****    ****
“Parliamentary Democracy is in reality a government of a hereditary subject class by a hereditary ruling class.”
It appears as if this is a statement of very recent origin. But it was long ago in 1943 Ambedkar made this statement, not casually but as part of a prepared speech. The following views of Dr.Ambedkar are extracted from the speech he delivered at the concluding session of the All India Trade Union Workers Study Camp held in Delhi from 8th to 17lh September 1943 under the auspices of the Indian Federation of Labour. This historic document seems to have been lost sight of by political pundits, even those who are severe critics of parliamentary democracy.
His Labor connection may be understood better by recalling that Dr. Ambedkar established Independent Labour Party in August, 1936, obviously not limited to SCs. After this on 19^th July, 1942, he formed another party known as All India Scheduled Castes Federation (AISCF). Dr. Ambedkar dissolved AISCF on 14^th October, 1956 at Nagpur and announced the formation of Republican Party of India (RPI), of which he himself drafted the constitution. However, RPI came into existence on 3 October, 1957, one year later, i.e.. after his death on 6^th December, 1956.His political views and experiments obviously varied over time. And he recalled and regretted his bitter experiences in his Agra Speech (18th March, 1956).

In his opening remarks of this 1943 speech, Dr. Ambedkar says that “as the autocracy of Despotic Sovereigns was replaced after a long and bloody struggle by a system known as Parliamentary Democracy, it was felt that this was the last word in the frame of Government. It was believed to bring about the millennium in which every human being will have the right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. It is therefore a matter of surprise that there has been a revolt against Parliamentary Democracy although not even a century has elapsed since its universal acceptance and inauguration”.

Dr.Ambedkar says:
“I have no doubt that what has ruined Parliamentary democracy is the idea of freedom of Contract. Parliamentary Democracy took no notice of economic inequalities and did not care to examine the result of freedom of contract on the parties to the contract should they happen to be unequal. It did not mind if the freedom of contract gave the strong the opportunity to defraud the weak. The result is that Parliamentary Democracy in standing out as protagonist of liberty has continuously added to the economic wrongs of the poor, the downtrodden and the disinherited classes”.
And adds : “Democracy is another name for equality. Parliamentary Democracy developed a passion for liberty. It never made even a nodding acquaintance with equality. It failed to realize the significance of equality, and did not even endeavor to strike a balance between liberty and equality, with the result that liberty swallowed equality and has left a progeny of inequities“.

(It may be added: In reality, in post-1947 India , even liberty remains a mirage, it disappears the moment rights are sought to be exercised by toiling classes and their supporters. Ex-IPS officers being imprisoned and suppressed, even tortured in some cases, as in UP, Gujarat, Punjab etc are instances of a perennial police-military state, occasionally added with fascist topping, as under the leadership of Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi.)

Dr.Ambedkar further says: “All political societies get divided into two classes – the rulers and the ruled. This is an evil. If the evil stopped here it would not matter much. But the unfortunate part of it is that the division becomes, stereotyped and stratified so much so that the Rulers are always drawn from the Ruling Class and the class of ruled never becomes the Ruling Class. People do not govern themselves; they establish a government and leave it to govern them, forgetting that it is not their government. That being the situation, Parliamentary Democracy has never been a government of the people or by the people and that is why it has never been a government for the people. Parliamentary Democracy, notwithstanding the paraphernalia of a popular government, is in reality a government of a hereditary subject class by a hereditary ruling class.”

Dr.Ambedkar further analyses and advises the oppressed and toiling classes as follows:
“In the first place, they have shown most appalling indifference to the effect of the economic factor in the making of men’s life….The labouring class far from being fat like pigs are starving, and one wishes that they thought of bread first and everything else afterwards …. The labouring classes have failed to acquaint themselves with literature dealing with the government of mankind. Everyone from the labouring classes should be acquainted with Rousseau’s Social Contract, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the conditions of labour and John Stuart’s Mill on liberty, to mention only four of the basic programmatic documents on social and governmental organization of modern times. But the labouring classes will not give them the attention they deserve. Instead, Labour has taken delight reading false and fabulous stories of ancient Kings and Queens and has become addicted to it”.

He continues to analyse this aspect and says: “There is another and bigger crime which they have committed against themselves. They have developed no ambition to capture government, and are not even convinced of the necessity of controlling government as a necessary means of safeguarding their interests. Indeed they are not even interested in government”.
Dr.Ambedkar laments that of all the tragedies which have beset manki nd the biggest is that whatever organization the working class has, has taken the form of Trade Unionism. He categorically states that “it would be a great mistake to suppose that Trade Unions are a panacea for all the ills of labour”.

These statements of Ambedkar are reminiscent of the statement of Karl Marx in Communist Manifesto, wherein he said: “The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy”. It is important to note that Karl Marx, the founder of Scientific Socialism had given this prescription of the Proletarian Class becoming the Ruling Class in order to put an end to the exploitative capitalist system.

After a perusal of Ambedkar’s views presented above, anybody would say that it looks as if he was speaking of Parliamentary Democracy as prevalent today. Perhaps, he had thought UK’s parliamentary democracy was an exotic plant for a feudal India that would lead to a hereditary ruling class.

Now we have a semi-feudal, semi-colonial hybrid democracy, funded by a big business that is a junior partner of imperialism so that it better serves the latter.
Though his views are akin to Marxist Left, it should be noted that the above views of Ambedkar are rooted in UK’s Fabian Socialism and Labor politics of the day. That was but one phase in his political life, even as Ambedkar the politician evolved and changed.
These views, however, need to be taken note of by Ambedkarites as well Leftists, in fact by all those who cherish real democracy, a democracy of people. They are more relevant today than ever.

Ambedkar on nationalism and patriotism
These are days when nationalism and patriotism has been marketized and corporatized as never before. There is only a thin line dividing them from national chauvinism and jingoism. And electoral politics are increasingly pegged to nationalist pretences. It is the sugar-coated poison sold by the ruling classes. Those who are critical of them are branded as anti-nationals and face the risk of sedition cases. If Ambedkar were alive, he would be the first to be branded as anti-national, and framed in sedition cases. Or would he be slapped with a post-humous sedition case like post-humous Bharat Ratna, as asked earlier by a writer in countercurrents? Ambedkar’s views on nationalism etc are also very significant as he says:
“Free independent nation-state turns to be the enemy of the working class under the hegemony of their masters”

Dr.Ambedkar further said: “The third besetting sin of the labouring class is the very way which they are led away by an appeal to nationalism”. This remark coming from Ambedkar exhibits the depth of his understanding of the class dimension of nationalism, which is a product of industrial revolution and came to be used by the bourgeois for strengthening and perpetuating capitalism. To put it in the words of Ambedkar himself :
“The working classes who are beggared in every way and who have very little to spare, often sacrifice their all to the so-called cause of nationalism. They have never cared to enquire whether the nationalism for which they are to make their offerings will, when established, give them social or economic equality. More often than not, the free independent nation-state which emerges from a successful nationalism and which reared on their sacrifices, turns to be the enemy of the working class under the hegemony of their masters. This is the worst kind of exploitation that labour has allowed itself to be subject to”.
(September 1943 Speech at the Indian Federation of Labour, cited above)

(Note : It is another matter that Ambedkar himself, in the later years, did not focus on these views and goals that he stated in his speech of 1943. However, he in his Agra Speech regretted about his bitter experiences. Why ? This question needs a separate discussion.… For the present, it may be noted that his priorities and pre-occupations as a politician were undergoing a change culminating in his being co-opted as Chairman of Drafting Committee of the Constitution, and later into Nehru’s Cabinet. As Anand Teltumbe writes: “Ambedkar was not a Marxist. His intellectual upbringing has been under Fabian influence in Columbia University and London School of Economics, the institution founded by the Fabians. ….Fabians believed socialism could be brought in an evolutionary manner not through revolution….”( see Countercurrents.org of 16 August, 2012.)

(The above section is based on and extracted from the article Ambedkar And Parliamentary Democracy, By Dr KS Sharma, published in Countercurrents.org on 14 April, 2016. https://www.countercurrents.org/sharma140416.htm )
KS Sharma wrote another article with the apt title : The Forgotten Message of Ambedkar. As Darapuri says : “ it is quite agonising to say that Dalits have forgotten it” all. Kanshiram and Mayawati probably had not forgotten but left it all.

Do BSP’s politics uphold Ambedkar?
Eversince BSP came to power in UP, lot of claims have been made by many. It is projected as if the golden era of Ambedkarite politics had arrived.
Her critics however see Mayawati as a dalit-clone of Jayalalita, authoritarian, arrogant and corrupt to the core. Some of her apologists do acknowledge BSP’s flaws as they see them, but still see it as the hope of the future. It needs to be evaluated objectively. Beyond Ambedakar statues all over, there was no basic change. But if statues are the criterion, they are there everywhere in India, more so in the last 25 years or so. A section of the ruling classes found him useful as a distinct icon, different from Gandhi-Nehru dynasty. After a belated Bharat Ratna to Ambedkar, the Congress too woke up to claim his heritage they neglected for decades. Now the Sangh pariwar, not only BJP but also RSS, finds him useful.

So BSP’s claims need to be evaluated in the light of Ambedkar’s Agra speech, more so about betrayal of the rural poor by elite dalits. SR Darapuri, an IPS officer from UP, who has been making a valuable concrete study of Mayawati’s performance puts it in objective terms. The article dated October 31, 2016 points out:
“ It is known that in Uttar Pradesh from 1995 to 2012 Mayawati, a Dalit, was Chief Minister for four times. During her regime only some land was distributed in 1995 in Central and Western Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and that too in a very small quantity and no land was distributed in the remaining parts of the state. In Eastern U.P. which has got a dense population of Dalits no land was distributed except in Gorakhpur district which was due to the initiative of Mr. Harish Chandra, the then Commiissioner of Gorakhpur Division. I witnessed the pitiable condition of landless Dalits in Sonbhadra and Chandauli districts of eastern U.P. when I contested Lok Sabha election in 2014 from Robertsganj constituency. The condition of the Adivasis of these districts is really very shocking.

“It is a fact that in 1995 there was sufficient land available under Ceiling Surplus Land, Gram Samaj, Fallow Land and Bhoodan Land in U.P. for distribution to landless Dalits, Adivasis and other landless families but Mayawati did not distribute it with the result that it continued to remain in the posession of illegal occupants. Not only this, she did not take any action to give possession of land to the families who were given land pattas (land entitlements) during earlier Congress regime. After 1995, Mayawati did not take any initiative to distribute land or restore possession to the owners of Land Pattas just to avoid ire of the powerful communities who became her voters under the so called “Social Engineering.” It came to light from the Land Owners statistics of 2001 Census that during 10 years span of 1991-2001, 23% of Dalits became landless who previously owned land. It is worth noting that during this period Mayawati was thrice Chief Minister of U.P.

“ For empowerment of Adivasis, Forest Rights Act-2006 and Rules came into force in 2008. Under this Act the Adivasis and others living in the Protected Forest area were to get title of the land as a matter of right which they had in their possession and under cultivation . For this they had to submit their claims to the Revenue authorties.

Mayawati was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh from 2007 to 2012 but Mayawati government did not take any effective action to implement this Act with the result that as on 30.1.2012 out of 92,406 claims 74,701 claims i.e. 81% claims were rejected. The result was that only 17,705 claims (19%) were accepted and 13977 hectares of land was distributed….

“ In the face of Mayawati’s carelessness and anti-Dalit/Adivasi policy, All India Peoples Front (AIPF) had to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Allahabad High Court in which the Court gave an order for reprocessing of claims under Forest Rights Act but neither Mayawati nor Mulayam Singh Yadav government took any interest to reprocess the claims…. At the national level the rate of rejection of claims is 53.8% whereas it is 80.15% for the state of Uttar Pradesh which has been ruled by Mayawati, a Dalit and Mulayam Singh, a Backward Class Chief Minister. It transpires that, both Mayawati and Mulayam Singh are responsible for the tardy implementation of Forest Rights Act in Uttar Pradesh….”
(https://countercurrents.org/2016/10/31/dalits-adivasis-and-the-land-rights/)

Let alone handling the land question, even minimum demands of agri labor were not attended to. Darapuri reveals in an earlier article of 2 September, 2008 :
“ From the above it transpires that in U.P majority of the workers (75%) are agriculture labourers whereas there is no official arrangement for payment of minimum wages and assured employment. According to the findings of a study it has been found that the average employment of agriculture laborers in U.P. is 60 to 80 days only during a year. On account of lack of development of agriculture in U.P. the average of Dalit agriculture workers is lower than the national average. Apart from backward agriculture, not a single heavy industry has come up in U.P. during the last 15-20 years. As such no employment has been created during this period.

“ National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) has been in place for the last two years but on account of rampant corruption and utter neglect on the part of implementing government machinery , the job card holders could hardly get 8 days’ average employment during a year as against the guaranteed 100 days employment. Only 6.23 percent families got the benefit of this scheme. On the other hand Mayawati has threatened to abolish this scheme as and when she becomes the Prime Minster of India. It is because this scheme has been initiated by the Central Government headed by Congress Party with whom she has got adverse relations. Her statement had an adverse effect on the attitude of the official machinery which even otherwise is quite complacent in the implementation of such schemes concerning poor men. ”
(https://www.countercurrents.org/darapuri020908.htm)

Not surprisingly, Maywati’s Dalit Vote Bank Has shrunk, Darapuri analysed in another article of 18 May, 2014 : “ In 2007 Assembly election BSP got 30.46 %, in 2009 Lok Sabha election 27.42 % (-3.02%), in 2012 Assembly election 25.90 % (-1.52%) and now in 2014 Lok Sabha election it has come down to 19.60 %.”

Going by these details, it looks as if BSP proved Ambedkar right about what he said of betrayers of the cause of the oppressed.

Dalit elite roped in by the Big Business
Obviously, the Indian ruling classes and their State encouraged and backed up the evolution of a dalit elite to join their own ranks. Renowned scholar-activist, Anand Teltumbde, who focused on the dalit question, wrote years ago, in March 2011:
“ It is this section which has been having five star conferences and international conclaves and had even planned a Dalit Capitalism March in 2006 of 5000 Dalits in three piece suit and an umbrella in hand on the roads of Delhi to demonstrate their progress. It is a different matter; they could not do the latter.” …

“The celebration of Dalit capitalists and their Chamber of Commerce on the basis of some hundred odd individuals (out of more than 17 crores) in businesses, the cumulative value of which may not even be a droplet in the corporate ocean will certainly elate the neoliberal propagandist but in itself it is not a great development.” (Teltumbde : Dalit Capitalism And Pseudo Dalitism)
(https://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde070311.htm)

It may be noted that the big business organizations and the Indian state have been fostering them, with a few crumbs and quotas too. It is part of their endeavors to broadbase their social base, and secure their hegemonic rule from any possible revolt from the oppressed masses.

Reservations are no panacea
The dalit movement over the decades has been reduced to identity politics. The ruling classes claim they spent thousands of crores on doles and sops for SCs, most of which fattened a few power brokers and the officialdom. Despite reservations for seven decades, the plight of the dalit masses remains basically the same. Anand Teltumbde further writes :
“If one looks at the profile of Dalits as the predominantly (81 percent) rural people, linked with land as landless labourers and marginal farmers with a small (19 percent) section living in urban areas, a large part of which lives in slums and works in informal sectors, one surely finds that the historical Dalit discourse revolving around reservation has always been unrelated with the majority of people, because it was articulated by upwardly mobile urbanite Dalits, who detested stereotypical Dalit description and aspired to see themselves as ‘arrived’.”

More recently, Teltumbde afte a deeper study for his latest book, Republic of Caste: Thinking Equality in the Time of Neoliberal Hindutva, (Navayana 2018) Anand Teltumbde went deeper into the question . See this Report of May 18, 2018, of the Book Release function, titled Reservations are not a measure of justice: Anand Teltumbde .
“ Teltumbde has reasons to be vehemently anti-reservation. Pointing to the abolition of untouchability, he remarks, “Untouchability is just an aspect of caste. Unless caste is abolished, how can this practice end? The newly-independent Indian state was projected as a progressive one, so untouchability was abolished while caste was preserved through reservation.” In 1935, the colonial government introduced an administrative category of Scheduled Caste, which snapped the connection with the caste system. In 1950, the Indian government restored this connection by instating caste-based reservation. It also created another Schedule for tribes, also linked with backwardness. This, according to Teltumbde, was a move that preserved caste. “If the intention to root out caste was honest, then the government would have combined the Schedules, since tribes do not come with the stigma of caste. It would have gone a long way in diluting the effect of caste discrimination.”

“ Reservations are simply a mechanism to ensure dalit participation, not a measure of justice, he argues further. This is how caste is written into the Constitution. “If it is justice one is aiming for, then you need to focus on three basic factors — healthcare, education, and livelihood security; and these have to be provided universally — to all people, regardless of caste or background. Without this, reservation policies will always be detrimental to the people they are meant for, especially when associated with caste.”
The Report significantly added:
“… Mewani, is disarmingly honest about how no one in the movement still had any clear idea on how to go about annihilating caste. “For too long, dalit demands have coalesced around reservations and untouchability, but now the focal points of the anti-caste struggle must be public health, education, land, and roti-kapda-makaan,” he says to resounding applause.”
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/know/reservations-are-not-a-measure-of-justice-anand-teltumbde/article23923480.ece

New and young politician , Jignesh Mewani stressed the obvious message about future tasks. He had famously remarked : You take the cow-tail. And give us land.
Teltumde’s is not the only voice. Speaking to The Hindu, May 23, 2016, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s grandson Prakash Ambedkar , who heads the Bharip Bahujan Mahasangh (BBM), had said, “Political reservation should be done away with because voting for a Dalit candidate is not a big issue now. But educational and services reservation should stay as Dalits still face social discrimination.”

He was bold enough to call a spade a spade. In an interview to OUTLOOK , weekly magazine, as early as 23 August 2004, he explained :
“ the cancellation of political reservation would have made no difference to the Dalit movement because Dalit politicians who have benefited from the reservation of constituencies have turned out to be puppets in the hands of parties like the Congress and the BJP. These parties exploit political reservation to increase their own seat count. The welfare of Dalits has been lost in political calculations. So if political reservations end today, it may not make a difference to the larger welfare of Dalits.”
(https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/amp/what-if-reservations-had-come-to-an-end-in-1960/224881)

Now we can understand why the Sangh pariwar, Modi, even RSS , re-assured that they would continue as long as necessary. “ These parties exploit political reservation to increase their own seat count.”
There have been movements , natural as well as sponsored, to divide and divert the masses from the path of struggles. Among them are those for categorization of SC reservations, among sections of dalits, piting one against the other, on the basis of caste like one by MRPS (Madiga Reservation Porta Samiti. Madigas may be grouped with chamars of the North). There was one occasion when around one lakh Malas confronted one lakh people of Madigas in Hyderabad. An imminent clash was engineered but stopped at one stage. After all the SCs are not one caste, but a grouping made by the State of a few hundred dalit castes across India. The same thing happened among STs for categorization of reservations.

It may be recalled that Dr. BR Ambedkar had himself called for the abolition of reservations for elections to Legislatures both in states and at the Centre. Very few mention this fact, and those who had mentioned also stopped doing that. This he did in a speech he made at the All India Conference of SC Federation on December 27, 1955. In fact the Conference passed a resolution to that effect. (The text of this resolution, not with us, needs to be brought out. Someone may help it.)
 
(All emphases added. The author is a political observer.)

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post B.R.Ambedkar and Electoral Politics: A Relook appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

By Badre Alam & Sanjay Kumar for TwoCircles.net
Editors: Prof. Christophe Jaffrelot and Dr Narender Kumar
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Pages: 263
Price (Hardbound): Rs 850

It is sad to see many ministers in the current regime who secured their seats riding on their communal views on minorities and against Muslim in particular. No wonder, a BJP minister recently has openly expressed that the provisions of minority rights should be deleted from the Indian Constitution. Some politicians from the ruling party engaged in propaganda that Indian minority has more rights than the majority, which sounds clearly against the principle of equal opportunities and the very spirit of the constitution. However, the point must be underlined here that studies carried out in several states by a number of civil society groups, clearly noted that the socio-economic and educational conditions of Indian Muslims are close to the bottom. Sachar Committee report (2006), Rangnath Mishra Report (2007), and Kudu report (2014) have shown that Muslims marginalization in all walks of life continues unabated.

It is clear that the BJP is interested in only appropriating Ambedkar symbolically and on the ground, the party betrays his egalitarian approach. Moreover, BJP-RSS combine use Ambedkar as anti-Muslim and quotes his selected writings and comments out of context to prove their points. However, from his writings and speeches, one could argue, that Ambedkar had always stood for social justice, irrespective of caste and communities. In this respect, the present volume is a timely intervention that addresses the communal question.

Cover page of the book

In this regard, well-known scholar, Prof. Sukhdeo Throat and editors of this volume have pointed out that the project of ‘nation- building’ could not be realised unless Ambedkar’s ideas on social justice, substantive democracy, minority rights, women rights etc. are addressed by the current regime. Prof. Thorat in his forward has mentioned the Ambedkar’s views on democracy, social and economic representations, Buddhism, etc. and highlighted their relevance in today’s context. While introducing the idea of democracy, as Babasaheb had put forth about the formative stage of nation-building, Prof Thorat quotes, “for Dr Ambedkar, democracy is primarily a mode of associational living with an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow men”. Prof. Thorat further says, “Ambedkar proposed an alternative economic framework in the form of a particular type of socialism in which he suggested state ownership in agriculture and basic industries”. While citing Dr Ambedkar observation on Buddhism, Throat mentions- ‘the rise of Buddhism in India was as significant as the ‘French Revolution’. In the words of Dr Ambedkar, “Buddhism paved way for the establishment of democracy and socialistic pattern of society in India” (p-201) Moreover, Prof. Throat also discusses the idea of minority representation as conceptualized by Ambedkar.  It is pertinent to note that Dr Ambedkar reminded us long back that if communal majority captures the state power then some forms of safeguards for minority groups is extremely crucial for the survival of liberal democracy. Dr Ambedkar’s understanding of minority rights is not based on numbers and demographics alone but ‘social discrimination’ and position in the power structure of the larger public sphere must be also taken into account while defining minorities. For Ambedkar, the Untouchables are the minority in India. It is be noted that editors of this volume have underlined that in today’s context of communal politics, Dr Ambedkar’s idea of giving more rights and weight to minority communities against the communal majority has now become more significant.

More importantly, while discussing the need for ‘Constitutional socialism’, Prof Throat observes, ‘Dr Ambedkar brought the provision for social and economic justice through directive principles of state policy, which place responsibility on the state to follow the principles to pursue the objective of social and economic equality through laws and policies’. While highlighting the intimate connection between social democracy and political democracy, he points, ‘Ambedkar viewed Social democracy as a necessary condition for the success of political democracy. Dr Ambedkar argued that social democracy primarily involves the idea of social justice’.

The editors in this anthology have explored that Ambedkar’s views on the representation of minorities are very elaborate and insightful on three aspects of minorities– the definition of minority, principles justifying minority representation, the electoral method for minority representation, and general safeguards against the communal legislative majority. Ambedkar observed in the mid-1940s the implication of communal majority for the nation and nationalism. In this regard, ‘State and minorities’, Ambedkar said: “Unfortunately, for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the divine right of the majority to rule the minorities 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.” (p.-172)
It is pertinent to underlined here that Ambedkar’s idea of democracy is very relevant in the current socio-political scenario.  Because, Indian democracy still not able to maintain equality in social and economic life and there is a lack of fraternity in our social relations, undermine the efforts towards strengthening democracy and the nation. For Ambedkar, Hindu caste society is against the notion of egalitarianism. This idea of hierarchical Hindu Social order has been sanctified by Hindu scripture. That is why; Dr.Ambedkar had advocated the Buddhism which promotes the idea of liberty, equality, and fraternity in all walks of life. While discussing the conditions precedent for the successful democracy, long back he reminded that democracy cannot be achieved if ‘glaring inequalities’ prevailed in the society.  In this context, he defined democracy in the following terms. As he writes, “Democracy is a form and method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the economic and the social life of the people are brought without a bloodshed”(P-219). He went on to say that, “we made this constitution because we did not want a hereditary monarchy and we did not want a hereditary ruler or a dictator”.(p-225). And finally, he stresses that for the successful working of democracy, ‘Constitutional morality’ must be prevailed over the so-called public morality.

The danger of Hindutva politics to the idea of India is well addressed by this volume and hence a welcome addition to engaged with. The volume has successfully brought out fundamental questions like social justice, democracy, representations, minority rights, etc. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that after the rise of Hindu Nationalists in the Indian politics, the principles and ideas championed by Dr Ambedkar are critically under threat. The dreams and aspirations of nation-building could not be realized unless we safeguard the rights of the underprivileged.

Badre Alam is a Research Scholar at Delhi University, Department Of Political Science, and Sanjay Kumar is Post- Doctoral Fellow at JNU 

Courtesy: Two Circle

The post Dr.Ambedkar’s views on minority rights, democracy and Hindu majoritarianism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Bezwada Wilson Remembers B.R. Ambedkar on his 61st Death Anniversary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the Deeksha Bhumi you can today see thousands and thousands of people coming. They come at their own. It is not a politically purchased crowed, neither is it a crowd where some babas or swamis are preaching or misguiding them. It is a crowd who want to pay tribute to Dr Ambedkar. It is their message to the world that despite your million attempts to deny Ambedkar his rightful place in history, he will always remain the biggest icon in the heart of people. They don’t care what you write in your text books as they know that his life mission was to make them better, liberate them from the cycles of slavery and democratize the entire society.

 What impressed me at the Deeksha bhumi is the passion with which people come. It is not a government sponsored programme as happens for any other Jayanti including October 2, Gandhi Jayanti’s sarkari programmes when government impose their instructions on people.

Here, the flow of people is spontaneous and with devotion. Yes, Dr Ambedkar today is an icon of icons but this has not come to him because politicians or government wanted that. In fact, since independence governments, political parties and above all, India’s dishonest intellectuals have tried everything to sideline Dr Ambedkar and his literature though they have been compelled to read him now. Definitely, his writings give new ideas and extraordinarily modern viewpoints for liberation for everyone including so called OBCs and Sawarnas too in case they wish to liberate themselves. Nothing stops them to understand both Buddha and Dr Ambedkar as their path is the path of liberation and wisdom which is different than having ‘knowledge’ which makes people proud and exploit others on the power of their knowledge. Buddha never exploited people and that is why there is a huge difference.

Dr Ambedkar was an iconoclast, a man who demolished the biggest icon of our time as he never believed that just because somebody is older, or bigger or famous or great could always be right and it made him challenge Gandhi, the Pope of Hindus.

It is not that Ambedkar just challenged Gandhi, he also challenged all forms of orthodoxy and did not have time to listen to Pope who had just informed him that it will take several hundred years to liberate the people from caste system. Dr Ambedkar just walked out of Pope’s meeting and this is the story on Dr Ambedkar in Time magazine in the year 1936.

Nagpur is the den of the Sangh Parivar also. The Chitpawan Brahmins of Nagpur that dominated the Sangh Parivar found different ways and means to justify the caste order. Even today they are forced to say Jai Bhim. I was at the Resham Bagh today but it was kind of closed door programme. I and my friend Vivek just roamed around the ground when the speech was being delivered because we did not have courage to go in because we felt a strange secrecy there. We know most of the lathi wielding Sanghis never wanted any óutsider’ in their meeting and that is why the huge police presence along with these so called Swayamsevaks. The only change I saw that the Sanghi cadres were now wearing a full pant. This speech of the Sangh’s chief is broadcasted live by many channels including Doordarshan. The speech is more for the consumption of media than for the people at local level. The lathi wielding Bhakts have got support from the administration and the political leadership of the day. I wonder why they continue to keep these lathis with them, whether to intimidate and harass people or not ?

Nagpur’s two events symbolize the fight that we have in India. Between the two ideas. One idea which is brahmanical, which has all support from the status quoist media and power elite despite losing ground and the other is the huge mass at Deeksha bhumi yet no live from the channels and newspaper and other is at the Deekshabhmi. One is protected by the police and secrecy though broadcast live on TV while other is spontaneous and democratic where any one can come any time, pay their tribute, organise an event and speak to the people. One is purely a brahmanical agenda with full encouragement and protection of the Indian state while other is sea of humanity without any protection of the state but at their own. This is the real India.

This India wants betterment in life and a democratisation of society. This India does not want a hereditary control over knowledge or power but an honoured sharing of resources. This India does not want to pick up guns at those who suppressed and humiliated the Bahujan masses. This India simply want its own way of life, it want to enjoy democracy, it want to enjoy the cultural revolution that has happened. It is purely an ideological battle and it will continue. Those who worship arms will never be able to win it from those who have ideas and democracy in heart.

We know these will never be part of narratives of our media. The report will barely merit one small column in the inside pages of newspapers or a little passing reference in the TV news. That was one reason why I tried my first hand in livestreaming these events from Nagpur. The aim was just to show friends that a silent revolution has already taken place in India without hatred and without bombing others in retaliation and it can witnessed in Nagpur.

The Dhammachakra Pravartan Diwas event overshadows any other event that the Sanghis might do here including their main Dushera which is much small event compare to what we see at Deekshabhumi, even Nagloka too attract thousands of people coming there, paying tribute to Dr Ambedkar and wandering around the Iconic walking Buddha. That is what I say, is the biggest cultural revolution, and it is big and remain unreported most of the time. I want to part of this cultural revolution and feel attached to it and that is the reason that despite all my schedule, Nagpur during this period remain on annual chart. It has become part of my life and I thoroughly enjoy it.

The post An Inspiration for Thousands Where the Media Lens Does not Reach: Deekshabhumi, Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.