Surprisingly, I vividly remember that the story of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Gandhi, was narrated to us by a Brahmin teacher in my village. What struck me even more was the tone of his narration—it seemed to express a subtle sympathy for the killer of Bapu. Yet, that same teacher never took the time to tell us who Babasaheb Ambedkar was.

The entry of Dr. Ambedkar into my life came quite late. I cannot say exactly when I first heard his name, but my real engagement with his work began when I enrolled in a postgraduate programme in Political Science in Delhi.

Traditional Political Science syllabi gave very little space to Ambedkar’s ideas, although they readily imposed the political thoughts of Manu and Kautilya—both of whom were staunch upholders of the caste-based social order—on students. If someone wants to pursue research on Manu, they are free to do so. But I am still unable to understand the rationale behind compelling every student to study Manu at the undergraduate or postgraduate level in a course on Indian political thought.

It may be understandable that M. S. Golwalkar, one of the key ideologues of the Hindutva ideology, praised Manu as “Lord (Bhagwan)” and called him as “the greatest lawgiver of mankind.” However, the disproportionate space assigned to Manu in political science textbooks raises serious questions about the fragility of the secular character of India’s educational system. That Ambedkar—one of the staunchest critics of the caste-based social order and a vocal opponent of “Hindu Raj”—has remained neglected in the mainstream educational system and media should not come as a surprise to many.

My stay at Delhi’s two universities over a span of 11 years—two years at Jamia Millia Islamia and nine years at Jawaharlal Nehru University—brought me significantly closer to the thoughts and legacy of Babasaheb Ambedkar. In the classroom, our professors did make references to Ambedkar’s ideas, but I found myself unsatisfied with the way they interpreted and explained his work. I noticed that they had a vested interest in highlighting only certain aspects of Ambedkar while concealing others. The professors soon lost their influence over us when many of us realized that their discussions of Ambedkar inside the classroom and their actions outside were quite disconnected. For them, teaching Ambedkar, writing about him, publishing books, and getting projects in his name seemed more like career-building strategies. For many of us, however, Ambedkar was a ray of light—an inspiration to escape the darkness of an unequal social order. I began to look beyond the classroom and found that engaging with Ambedkarite activist-scholars at the university and those actively involved in Ambedkarite movements was far more fruitful than simply taking notes from careerist professors.

Since Ambedkar wrote in lucid prose, he was not particularly difficult to understand. Unlike many other politicians, he never neglected the importance of scholarship. He read, researched, and wrote until his last breath. The focus of his scholarship was not on fairy tales, nor was he interested in metaphysical or divine questions. As an organic intellectual, he wrote about the problems faced by the most marginalized sections of society—people whom the caste-based system did not even consider human, let alone treat as equals. Ambedkar’s writings, spread across thousands of pages, continue to serve as a torchlight for marginalized communities. Those who uphold the status quo are trying hard to appropriate Ambedkar, but they cannot bury the power and truth of his dozens of volumes of writings.

But unlike armchair scholars confined to the ivory towers of the establishment, Ambedkar believed that the process of thinking is intrinsically linked to action. In contrast to the so-called “objective” scholarship of the mainstream, his writings had a clear purpose and stood firmly with the downtrodden. He recognized that the cloak of “objectivity” and “neutrality” often serves to maintain the status quo and reinforces existing hegemonies. That is why he not only wrote but also acted. He agitated, and he penned. In Ambedkar’s philosophy, the process of thought and action-oriented programmes are inseparable. He was truly a “concerned” scholar and an organic politician.

In my understanding, Ambedkar belongs to the tradition of materialist-rationalist thoughts shaped by Buddhism, Kabir, and Jyotirao Phule. Consequently, he was deeply critical of metaphysical, idealist, Vedantic, and Brahminical frameworks for interpreting the world. Unlike Brahminical thinkers, Ambedkar did not shy away from confronting material reality. Nor did he resort to explaining concrete problems through metaphysical abstractions or the construction of myths. In contrast to the Brahminical scholarly tradition, he categorically rejected the notion of divinity and the role of supernatural beings.

Although he acknowledged the social significance of religion, his conception of it was radically different—his vision of religion excluded the presence of God. For Ambedkar, religion was not about ritual performance or appeasing a higher power; rather, it was a social space where marginalized communities could assert their dignity and forge collective solidarity.

In essence, Ambedkar deconstructed Brahminical myths and laid the groundwork for a new social order rooted in the ideals of equality, liberty, and fraternity. Throughout his life, he remained deeply uneasy with the idea of human beings surrendering—whether to divine forces or to fellow humans. For him, both the worship of gods and the veneration of heroic figures were equally unacceptable.

Ambedkar was a staunch advocate of equality in the political, social, and economic domains. Continuing the legacy of Buddha, Kabir, and Phule, he offered a scathing critique of the caste-based social order. As an iconoclast, he denounced the religion into which he was born and criticized the Hindu social order and its religious texts for perpetuating caste-based discrimination.

Since most of us are raised within a Brahminical social milieu, we are trained from childhood to perceive the caste hierarchy as “natural” and the prevailing social system as one that fosters “harmony” and “equilibrium.” From structural-functionalist scholars to most upper-caste leaders and intellectuals, there has long been a tendency to normalize and defend the caste order. However, the emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the broader political stage began to challenge this entrenched narrative. His powerful call for the annihilation of the caste system resonated with millions who had long been treated as pariahs by the upper castes.

Ambedkar’s enduring contribution lies in his ability, much like a skilled doctor, to diagnose the deep-seated stagnation of Indian society. He prescribed a clear remedy: without the annihilation of caste, the achievement of political, social, and economic equality, and justice for women and minorities, the nation cannot truly progress.

While it is true that the mainstream Indian Left—whose leadership has largely been dominated by Brahmins and other upper castes—ignored Dr. Ambedkar and excluded Dalit leadership until the Ambedkarite movement brought him into public consciousness, this should not be used to validate the Hindutva narrative that portrays Ambedkar as an “enemy” of Marxism or socialism. Marxism and socialism are not monolithic ideologies; they are interpreted and shaped by prevailing parties or dominant leaders, and thus, no single definition is universally accepted. What matters is that Ambedkar engaged with Marxism on his own terms, expressing both agreement and disagreement with its dominant interpretations during his time.

Given that Marxism is a materialist philosophy that advocates for the removal of class-based inequality and the establishment of material equality, Ambedkar’s own work resonates strongly with Marxist principles. His efforts to organize the working class, his emphasis on eradicating economic inequality, and his commitment to a materialist, scientific, and rational worldview align him closely with Marxist ideals and practice.

However, Dr. Ambedkar differed from the dominant Marxist interpretation on the questions of class, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the use of violence. Unlike mainstream Marxist thinkers, Ambedkar’s understanding of class emphasized the social identities of labourers and rejected the notion of the working class as a homogenous entity. His key contribution lay in highlighting the lack of solidarity among workers, despite their shared exploitation.

While Marxists called for unity among labourers, Ambedkar insisted that unity could not be achieved without first addressing the internal divisions created by caste. Upper-caste comrades were often eager to bring about revolution, overlooking the fundamental reality that caste—structured around graded inequality—stood in the way of genuine worker solidarity. Ambedkar argued that caste must first be annihilated to lay the foundation for a truly classless society. This view diverged sharply from that of upper-caste Marxists, who often saw the caste question as a distraction or even a threat to working-class unity. The mainstream Left’s continued failure to enact meaningful social transformation should prompt a serious re-examination of Ambedkar’s nuanced perspective on class and caste.

No doubt Ambedkar was a great scholar, a brilliant lawyer, and an influential Parliamentarian. The construction of his image as a legal scholar holding the Constitution of India has created the impression that Ambedkar only believed in legal and constitutional methods, and therefore, had no ideological connection with Marxists, who are often associated with violent means. To support such a claim, Ambedkar’s famous speech titled “Buddha or Karl Marx” is frequently cited.

It is true that Ambedkar acknowledged that both Buddhism and Marxism opposed private property. However, according to him, Buddhism diverged from Marxism on the question of violence. Ambedkar emphasized that Buddhism, unlike Marxism, rejected violence. That said, his critique of Marxism in this regard must be situated within the historical context of his time. It is a matter of historical record that some communist leaders, backed by the brute force of the state, resorted to violence in their attempt to establish a “class-less” society.

Supporters of such violent methods might argue that radical social change and reordering of class relations cannot be accomplished through purely constitutional and legal means, and that violence by the oppressed is not a violation but an act of liberation. While Ambedkar may have agreed with the goal of achieving a class-less society, he preferred to pursue a different strategy—one that did not involve violence. This belief was deeply held and unwavering, despite criticism from the Left, who at times dismissed Ambedkar as “at best a radical bourgeois leader.”

Ambedkar and his critics held different perspectives on these issues. However, the failures of various communist regimes—though not of Marxism as a philosophy—have led even some of his critics to reconsider his principled critique of violence. Importantly, Ambedkar’s rejection of violence does not imply a lack of belief in peaceful yet radical movements. His famous call to “educate, organise, and agitate” reflects a commitment to constitutional and legal methods, but not a confinement to them.

Consider the historic Mahad Conference of 1927, where Ambedkar led thousands of untouchables to assert their right to access a public tank that had been denied to them by caste-based restrictions. During this agitation, upper-caste aggressors attacked Ambedkar and his followers, yet he stood his ground. His editorials in Bahishkrit Bharat are a testament to his unwavering message urging Dalits not to accept caste discrimination and to rise in rebellion. In one editorial dated May 20, 1927, Ambedkar clearly stated that no one would grant Dalits their rights out of charity—they had to be prepared to fight for them. Is this not strong evidence that Ambedkar was far more than merely a legal scholar? His call to struggle against discrimination and exploitation, and his insistence on securing a life of dignity, align him with mass movements—and place him ideologically close to the Left.

However, one of my biggest attractions to Babasaheb Ambedkar is his theory of minority rights, which is inherently linked to the broader concept of social justice. In light of the rise of right-wing forces in India and elsewhere, Ambedkar’s ideas have become even more relevant today. As previously mentioned, Ambedkar was a staunch opponent of any dictatorial or authoritarian regime. He understood well that the suppression of liberty is often justified in the name of lofty goals, and he consistently cautioned marginalized communities not to fall prey to such narratives.

With the advent of democracy and the introduction of universal suffrage, Ambedkar recognized the transformative potential of the right to vote for bringing about social change. However, he did not believe that formal political equality alone was sufficient to ensure justice and equality in society. He argued that social reform, economic equality, and robust safeguards for minority rights were essential complements to political democracy. In other words, while equal voting rights represent a significant achievement, they are only truly effective when accompanied by social and economic justice, along with institutional protections for minorities.

Ambedkar frequently cautioned that democracy as an institution can only survive when social and economic equality is achieved. While he did not believe in using violent methods to bring about radical change, he also disagreed with liberals who believed that formal equality and a market-driven economic order would eventually lead to a just society. In various writings and speeches, Ambedkar highlighted the threat that class-based inequality poses to the sustainability of democracy.

Today, economic inequality in India has increased significantly compared to Ambedkar’s time. The ongoing crisis of Indian democracy and rising societal instability can largely be attributed to this widening economic gap. If Ambedkar were alive today, his foremost agenda would likely include launching mass movements for full employment, equitable access to quality public education, and comprehensive healthcare for all. He would also have been at the forefront of resisting reactionary and conservative forces that disguise themselves as nationalist. He would have strongly opposed the conflation of religion and politics, and any attempts to align the Indian state with the majority religion. No one denounced Hindu nationalism as forcefully as Ambedkar, who called it “the greatest calamity for this country.” Undoubtedly, he would have aligned himself with the Left.

Ambedkar’s democratic theory and his idea of social justice are closely linked with his concept of minority rights. He opposed authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes because he believed that one person, one party, one caste group, or one class cannot be entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all. He was acutely aware of the fact that ruling castes often attempt to serve their own interests under the guise of “nationalism,” dismissing the legitimate concerns of marginalised communities as “communalism.”

Perhaps he was among the first to expose the trope of nationalism versus communalism as a tool to silence the voices of the oppressed. His critique of nationalism does not imply support for communal politics. Rather, Ambedkar demonstrated how the category of nationalism has been co-opted by sections of the upper castes to present their own interests as “national interests”, while branding those who question this dominance as “communal.”

Ambedkar has also been unfairly accused of being a supporter of British imperialism. However, the historical reality is that he was not against India’s freedom. While the upper castes considered the mere transfer of power from British rulers to Indian elites as the attainment of Swaraj, Ambedkar pressed nationalist leaders to explicitly define the rights and safeguards that minorities would receive in post-Independence India. These upper-caste leaders often appeared “radical” in their political critique of British rule but remained deeply conservative and status quoist when issues concerning Dalits, Adivasis, lower castes, and religious minorities were raised.

Ambedkar’s critique of Indian nationalism stemmed from a commitment to social justice. Throughout the freedom struggle, he consistently raised the issue of caste-based inequality and worked to amplify the voices of the marginalised. He firmly believed that caste-based social order was a significant obstacle to fostering fraternity among Indians. Without addressing the caste question, he argued, the process of nation-building could not be complete.

In contrast, upper-caste leaders and their allies in the Hindutva camp often promoted an ascriptive theory of nationalism, asserting that the idea of the Indian nation has existed for thousands of years. In tracing the nation back to ancient times, Hindu right-wing ideologues positioned the Hindu community as the authentic nation and cast minorities and non-Hindus as outsiders. Since the minorities were not considered fully part of the Hindu nation, their patriotism was constantly questioned. As a display of loyalty, the Hindu right demanded that minorities abandon their distinct identities and assimilate into the dominant culture in order to receive validation as true patriots. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the dangers posed by religious and communal interpretations of nationalism and citizenship. That is why, he opposed strongly communal majority. That is why he strongly opposed attempts by upper-caste Hindus to forge a communal majority.

For Ambedkar, the antidote to the politics of communal majoritarianism—which posed a serious threat during his time and continues to endanger India’s social fabric—was the establishment of mechanisms to check authoritarian tendencies and institutionalize safeguards for minorities. One of the greatest threats to democracy, in his view, was the concentration of power. In other words, Ambedkar was a strong opponent of absolute power and an ardent advocate of power-sharing among communities.

As a true democrat, Ambedkar was disheartened by the suppression of opposition voices during Nehru’s regime. While numerous books celebrate Nehru’s democratic credentials and openness to dissent, little attention is paid to the fact that he dismissed the first democratically elected communist government in Kerala, played a key role in the centralization of power, and presided over a Parliament that lacked an official Leader of the Opposition until 1967—during the peak of the Congress system. Ambedkar himself noted that he was not granted his ministry of choice in Nehru’s cabinet, even as some ministers were assigned multiple portfolios. Today, under BJP rule, the marginalization of opposition voices and the stifling of dissent has intensified manifold. That is why Ambedkar’s unwavering commitment to defending dissent and opposition remains profoundly relevant in today’s political climate. Ambedkar’s critique of hero-worship also offers a powerful lens through which to understand the rise of populist right-wing leaders. We still await a critical analysis of Narendra Modi’s rise through the lens of Ambedkar’s political thought.

Ambedkar was deeply pained to witness the Congress Party using its own Dalit leaders to silence him whenever he raised his voice. Today, the BJP has perfected the art of delegitimizing authentic Dalit leadership by grooming its own representatives through the ideological apparatus of the Hindutva laboratory. Consequently, while Dalits are now nearly proportionally represented in legislative bodies, most of these leaders—elected through joint electorates and reliant on their party’s backing—tend to remain silent or toe the party line on critical issues affecting their communities.

It is important to remember that Ambedkar strongly demanded a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes during the Round Table Conference, a demand that the British Government ultimately granted. However, he was compelled to give it up following Gandhi’s fast. He observed that authentic Dalit voices often struggle to garner support from both mainstream political parties and caste Hindu voters, resulting in their continued marginalization.

It is unfortunate that most mainstream scholars of India’s electoral system rarely acknowledge the structural inequality inherent in the first-past-the-post system. There is little advocacy for proportionate and effective minority representation, a demand that Dr. Ambedkar passionately championed. While many European countries have embraced proportional representation for minorities, Indian intellectuals often take pride in pointing out the shortcomings of other nations rather than engaging in introspection and learning from successful democratic models to advocate for reform at home.

While Ambedkar contributed significantly to the shaping of democracy, the safeguards for the interests and rights of minorities were especially close to his heart. It is important to note that the term minority, for Ambedkar, was not confined to religious minorities alone. He defined minorities broadly to include socially discriminated groups. According to Ambedkar, the category of minority applies not only to religious communities such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, but also to Dalits and Adivasis.

Several political scientists have later classified minorities into types such as religious, linguistic, caste-based, and tribal (Adivasi) minorities. Ambedkar believed that the true measure of a successful democracy lies in how well it protects the interests and rights of its minorities. He was acutely aware that, in a democratic polity, governments are formed based on majority support—meaning that minorities are often excluded from power. To address this structural inequality, Ambedkar warned against the creation of a communal majority.

Today, the danger Babasaheb foresaw has become increasingly apparent. The deliberate strategy of stoking communal tensions and demonizing the Muslim minority as the “other” in Indian society is designed to unite the majority community through a shared religious identity and thereby forge a communal majority. From Ambedkar’s perspective, the formation of a communal majority is anathema to democracy, as it inevitably leads to the suppression of minority rights.

Keeping in view these dangers, Ambedkar clearly stated that a government formed through majority rule should not be regarded as holy or sacrosanct. Speaking at the Annual Session of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945, Ambedkar said, “Majority Rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. A majority community may be conceded a relative majority of representation but it can never claim an absolute majority.”

In simple terms, Ambedkar argued that while the formation of a government may occur through majority support, it must never overlook the necessity of respecting the consent of the minority. For this reason, Ambedkar opposed the enactment of any law that lacked the approval of minority communities, warning that such disregard could provoke rebellion. Law after law directly affecting minorities—especially the Muslim minority—is being enacted by the Modi-led BJP Government without seeking their consent. In fact, the recent enactment of the Waqf Amendment Bill (2025) is widely seen as a majoritarian assault on minority rights.

On multiple occasions, Ambedkar demanded both proportionate and effective representation for minorities. It is important to note that while proportionate representation is necessary, it is not sufficient. The term effective is crucial in Ambedkar’s framework for safeguarding minority rights. Once the principle of effective representation is acknowledged, it essentially grants the minority a form of veto power. This veto power serves as an assurance that minorities need not fear majority rule, as no law would be passed and no policy formulated without their equal participation and consent.

In other words, the success of democracy lies in ensuring that minorities feel confident, secure, and prosperous. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, sought to give the country a strong and just constitution, and he did his utmost to safeguard the interests of weaker sections within it. However, Ambedkar was also aware that, without the active participation of minorities and other marginalized groups in policymaking, even a good law would not ensure justice. To emphasize his point, Ambedkar argued that if marginalized communities are included in decision-making processes, they can interpret even a bad law to deliver justice. But if they are excluded from executing policies, even the best of laws will fail to serve their interests.

One of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s greatest achievements was securing constitutional, institutional, and legal protection for the policy of social justice and reservations—thus removing it from the whims of any individual, whether in the executive or the judiciary. Ambedkar understood that justice could not be achieved without addressing gender inequality and legally granting Hindu women equal rights. This is why he pushed hard for the passage of the Hindu Code Bill in its undiluted form.

No one understood better than Ambedkar the suffering of Hindu women during the post-Buddhist era, particularly under the social codes of Manu, which stripped them of their rights and severely restricted their mobility. As a feminist, Ambedkar recognized that the caste system was perpetuated by controlling the sexuality of Hindu women and prohibiting inter-caste marriages. He aimed to eliminate these social evils and liberate women through the Hindu Code Bill. Unfortunately, the Hindu Right—both within the Congress party and outside it—conspired against him. When he found himself isolated, Ambedkar was forced to resign. To this day, Ambedkar’s mission to liberate Hindu women remains unfulfilled.

As is evident today, the philosophy and goals of Dr. Ambedkar are more relevant than ever before. However, the struggle for emancipation from the caste-based social order can only succeed if broader solidarity is forged. I find that Ambedkar’s thoughts and programs align more closely with Leftist agendas. When I use the term “Left,” I refer to the broader Marxist and socialist philosophy. While I acknowledge that Ambedkar did not agree with every aspect of mainstream Marxist and socialist interpretations, that does not mean Ambedkar—and by extension, Ambedkarites—are not natural allies of the Left. Here, the term “Left” does not refer to any specific political party. Nor am I ignoring the reality that leadership within mainstream Left parties in India has historically been dominated by upper castes, who often neglected caste issues and hesitated to elevate Dalit leaders to top positions. Nevertheless, the historical failures of certain Left organizations should not become a permanent obstacle to an alliance between Ambedkarite and Leftist forces.

That is why, for me, my Ambedkar is a Leftist Ambedkar.

Dr. Abhay Kumar holds a PhD in Modern History from the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His forthcoming book explores Muslim Personal Law. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com

The post My Ambedkar is a leftist Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

They go on to quote Ambedkar that Swami Shraddhanand was the “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables”. They ignore the fact that that same Swami was involved in Shuddhi, ‘Conversion of Muslims to Hinduism’. This is what annoyed the Muslim clerics.

On this Shuddhi, Ambedkar responded, “If the Hindu society desires to survive, it must think not of adding to its numbers but increasing its solidarity and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition of castes is the real sangathan of the Hindus, and when sangathan is achieved by abolishing castes, shuddhi will be unnecessary.” This was parallel and opposite to Tanzim by Tablighi Jamaat, which was trying to convert Hindus into Islam. Though Shraddhanand later became part of the Indian National Congress, he was also part of Hindu Sangthan, a part of the revitalised Hindu Mahasabha committed to establishing a Hindu Nation.

New constructs are now being floated that Ambedkar and Savarkar are two sides of the same coin. True that Savarkar started the Patit Pavan temple that allows entry of Dalits into temples. As per Babasaheb, this will create a separate temple where only Dalits will visit. “An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of “Bahishkrit Bharat” states that Ambedkar had opposed the construction of the Patit Pawan temple from the very beginning. He believed that these temples would later be called temples for the untouchables.” However, Ambedkar did appreciate Savarkar’s efforts. Though he felt they were irrelevant.

These are some points that are being raised by Hindutva ideologues. They go hyper while describing Ambedkar’s relations with Congress. Some of them argue that after the death of Gandhi and Patel, Nehru became authoritarian and ignored the Opposition. BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru cabinet due to “differences” with Nehru on the issue of Article 370, foreign policy and on the condition of SC/STs (Scheduled Castes/Tribes).

The crux of the issue is that the major reason for Ambedkar resigning from the cabinet was his disappointment with the shabby treatment given to the Hindu Code Bill. A huge opposition and meetings against the Bill were organised by RSS. Their volunteers demonstrated in front of Parliament. The peak of this was the massive protest in Ramlila Maidan on December 11, 1949, in which effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt.

Opposing the Hindu Code Bill, The Organiser (mouthpiece of the RSS), December 7, 1949, wrote: “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu.” The result of this aggressive campaign by RSS on the Hindu Code Bill was that it had to be delayed and diluted. This was the painful moment for Babasaheb, that led him to resign.

The question of Manusmriti, the Chaturvarnya, was a crucial part of the differences between Ambedkar and Savarkar to BJP. While on December 25, 1927, Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti, the second sarsanghchalak of RSS, M.S. Golwalkar went on to write eulogies on Manusmriti.

Savarakar also detailed his support to Chaturvarnya and praised Manusmiriti: “Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable 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 crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” And “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”.

The central point of difference that Ambedkar had with the Hindutva ideology is being pushed under the carpet. On October 13, 1935, Ambedkar spoke in a meeting in Yeola near Nasik, dropping a ‘bombshell’ when he said, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu!” As per him, this religion has no place for liberty, compassion and equality. In the revised edition of his book, Thoughts on Pakistan, he opposed the formation of Islamic Pakistan as that may pave the way for Hindu Raj or Rashtra and that will be a “big calamity” for its people.

As he declared this, there were many pressures on him to embrace Sikhism or Islam. Dr. Moonje from Hindu Mahasabha struck a pact with Ambedkar that if he avoided conversion to Islam, Hindu Mahasabha would not oppose his move. Babasaheb’s own deeper studies led him to choose Buddhism.

Today, the BJP is trying to project that they have “honoured” Babasaheb by erecting his statues, raising an International Museum in his memory and other symbolic things. These are identity-related issues, while the crux of Babasaheb’s values remains undermined. When the Mandal Commission (on reservations) was implemented, the BJP resorted to kamandal (Hindutva) politics. As veteran BJP leader L K Advani was arrested during his Rath Yatra (as a part of kamandal politics), BJP, which was part of the parties supporting V P Singh’s government, withdrew its support and the government fell.

Congress, along with Hindu Mahasabha, opposed Ambedkar in Lok Sabha elections. Yet, it was Congress again that ensured that he was made a Rajya Sabha member. He was made a member of the Interim Government and also Chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution.

BJP’s anxiety to prove that Ambedkar was part of Hindutva politics is, therefore, a pure concoction to derive legitimacy from the memory of a person who stood totally against their very ideology of a Hindu Nation.

What an irony, that those who stood/stand for a Hindu Nation are today trying to project Ambedkar, who was opposed to Hindu Rashtra and wanted to have democratic, secular republic, as a part of their ideological parivar!

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Does Babasaheb’s Ideology Match With Hindu Nationalist Politics? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

History of the Hindu Code Bill

Talks about a Hindu Code Bill had emerged since the 1920s itself. The AIWC (All India Women’s Conference) demanded a revision of the Hindu Code to overcome deficits in women’s rights. This was the crucial difference between the reforms of the 19th century which were piloted from above and these, which were reforms actively sought by the women themselves. The AIWC declared a Women’s Legal Disabilities Day in 1934 at the instance of Renuka Ray. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was then tabled by its author G.V. Deshmukh in the Central Legislature.

The same year, the Shariat Application Bill tabled by H.M. Abdullah was passed which gave the daughter a share in property. However, in both the Hindu and Muslim case agricultural land was exempted from the application of the respective bills. This was because agricultural property fell under the ‘jurisdiction of provincial legislation’ while these two Acts of 1937 were Central legislations. (Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy:The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India 1941–1956, 2012). Why was this the case? Probably, the vote-influencing elite class couldn’t be touched or angered!

However, the demand for codification of Hindu personal law driven by Hindu women did gain legitimacy with the 1937 “Deshmukh Act.” A Hindu Law Committee was appointed on January 25, 1941 headed by B.N. Rao (who went on to become the constitutional advisor of the Constitution’s drafting committee). Other members were- Shri Dwarakanath Mitter, ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Shri R. Gharpure, Principal, Law College, Poona and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer from Baroda. The committee appreciated the role of Women’s Associations across the country. The committee suggested two measures in its final report submitted in June 1941. These were largely related to an enlargement of the terms of reference and the need for provincial legislative changes to apply to the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act in agricultural landed property.

With these suggestions in mind two draft bills on the law of marriage and inheritance were prepared and presented before a joint committee of both the houses. The two bills together came to be known as the draft Hindu Code Bill and were presented before the Legislature to be debated in 1943-44. The Committee was invoked again and began working from 1945 onwards. Dwarkanath Mitter presented a dissenting opinion stating that of the total number of people interviewed for the bill, only 33.4% supported the codification drive [the percentage being even smaller in the “Hindu Heartland” (coined by Gyanesh Kudasia)]. The figures are from the Report of the Hindu Law Committee, 1947.

Maharashtra offered the greatest support in favour of the Code Bill. Dharma Nirnay Mandal (formed at Lonavala in 1936) which was at the forefront went to many places in Maharashtra raising awareness on the codification issue. It brought out several publications including Why Hindu Code, co-authored by T.K. Tope and H.S. Ursekar. The Hindu Code Bill was thereafter referred to the Select Committee in April 1948. The ball was now in Ambedkar’s court.

Views of Ambedkar and Nehru on the Bill

Ambedkar believed the Code Bill to be a vehicle towards reforming Hindu society. He therefore considered the Hindu Code Bill as historic as the Constitution making process. He spoke of the aims and objectives of the bill in the simplest of terms to make it accessible to all. He stated that – “in order to reduce the confusions surrounding Hindu laws and also to make these more equitable and relevant to contemporary Indian society, the Bill seeks to codify the law relating to certain aspects covering marriage, property, succession etc.”

With these essential points in mind, let us now move to see the people who opposed the Bill who have been grouped into categories by Reba Som in her article ‘Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?’(Modern Asian Studies, February 1994).  We shall simultaneously accentuate the contradictions and paradoxes of these people on the issue which exposes their hesitance for reforms and their unwavering commitment to not want women being treated at par with men. These were-

One. Those stalwarts within the Congress who had been arrayed against the likes of Nehru from 1930s onwards. These were represented by Rajendra Prasad who had been unhappy over the issue since the start. Prasad believed that the progressive idea of introducing basic changes in personal law was only the view of a microscopic minority and its imposition on the Hindu community as a whole would have disastrous consequences. When frustrated by Prasad and others in the assembly over the issue of the bill, Nehru told them that the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige for him. Prasad had drafted a letter in response to this on which he consulted (luckily for him), Vallabhbhai Patel before sending it. Patel counselled him on the benefits of remaining quiet as this would brighten his chances of being elected the first President of India. Prasad thus, kept quiet and got elected the first President. However, once he assumed this constitutional role, his obduracy over the bill continued, sometimes citing procedural lapses on Nehru’s part (for which there was no provision but only convention) and sometimes by terming the efforts at getting the bill passed as anti-democratic. He in fact, even threatened to withhold Presidential assent to the Bill even if it was passed from both the houses. Surprisingly, Prasad was the President when, later, in five parts the Hindu Code Bill was largely passed by Indian Parliament.

Along with the likes of Prasad were Hindu fundamentalists within the Congress like the Deputy Speaker, Ananthasayanam Aiyyangar who was convinced of the soundness of polygamy. This group never made an earnest effort to carry through the reformist agenda Congress propagated. Some among those who were not so opposed to the contents of the Bill were at sixes and sevens because of the fact that the Bill was piloted by Ambedkar, an untouchable. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a liberal member of the Congress too criticised Ambedkar for his “professional, pedagogic and pontifical attitudes” which will “only alienate attitudes that have almost been reconciled,” records Reba Som.

Two. The Hindu Mahasabha with people like N.C. Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who opposed the Bill based on the fact that it threatened the very foundation of Hindu religion. The Mahasabha tried to argue that the “Hindu” Code Bill was a communal legislation (only for the Hindus) and instead that a Uniform Civil Code should be introduced in its place. Thus, it becomes clear that it was not out of a progressive reformist zeal that the Mahasabha wanted a Uniform Civil Code but only so that the state power interferes in Muslim affairs as well. Mukherjee argued that the Hindu Code be made optional, an argument similar to what Jinnah made during the passage of the Shariat Application Bill 1937. Mukherjee had been in Nehru’s cabinet and wholeheartedly supported the Code which he was now opposing and therefore, Ambedkar dismissed his remarks as non-worthy of consideration.

Within this category let us add a subcategory of Hindu reactionaries outside the Parliament represented by the RSS. In March 1949 the All-India Anti-Hindu-Code Bill Committee with Swami Karpatriji Maharaj at its head was formed which opposed the Constituent Assembly’s interference in personal laws of Hindus based on Dharma Shastras. (Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi, 2008) Alongside this Committee was also a battery of lawyers from various Bar Councils across the country who absolutely condemned the Code Bill. The Committee held several hundred meetings throughout the country opposing the Bill. The All India Hindu Code Bill Virodha Samiti even published a book, Hindu Code Bill: Praman Ki Kasauti Par in Hindi by Swami Karpatriji Maharaj, condemning the government propaganda about the Bill and presenting the Bill in complete opposition to the ideology of Sanatan Dharma. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) This Committee even marched on to the Parliament raising derogatory slogans like “Down with the Code Bill” and “May Nehru Perish.”

Three. The Sikh group represented by men like Sardar Mann and Sardar Hukum Singh inside the Parliament and Master Tara Singh outside it, who resented being clubbed with the Hindus in the broad framework of reform. Tara Singh denounced the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament. This can be found dated 13th December in G. Parthasarathi edited Letters to Chief Ministers Vol.2 1950-1952. Interestingly, after Ambedkar had resigned and not much alteration had been made to the Bill, Sardar Hukum Singh stated that the Bill could now be passed as the objectionable parts had been removed.

Four. Muslims represented by Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal who argued that the Hindu Code Bill was a bid to end the Mitakshara joint family. This would lead to division of families and property issues. The most baffling part is that despite hailing from Bengal which was the epicentre of Dayabhaga School, Naziruddin Ahmad chose to speak about Mitakshara. Even more fascinating is the fact that provincialism, evoked by Jinnah during the debate on Shariat Application Bill 1937, was ensured among Bengali legislators by the very same Naziruddin Ahmad. Of the scant information on him over the Internet, his appointment as the chief whip by A.K. Fazlul Haq, then Bengal chief minister is surely significant. The same provincialism is found wanting in Naziruddin Ahmad while speaking on the Hindu Code Bill. When he remarked that Hindu families would suffer the same fate as Muslims, he was given a shut up call by Renuka Ray who asked why he was not ready to let the Hindus enjoy the same advantages that the Muslim society enjoys.

Six. Women Parliamentarians, largely the ones who were consistent in their approach and most fully committed to get the Code Bill passed. Even their criticism, expressed through Sucheta Kriplani and Hansa Mehta, was sound and logical based on the fact that the reforms did not go as far as they should have and that they were half-hearted.

Ambedkar’s resignation and his assessment of Nehru

Correspondence between Ambedkar and Nehru on the topic brings out the differences in views as well as approach to the Hindu Code Bill. On August 10, 1951, Ambedkar wrote to Nehru-

“My health is causing a great deal of anxiety to me and to my doctors. They have been pressing that I must allow them a longer period of about a month for continuous treatment and that such treatment cannot now be postponed without giving rise to further complications. I am most anxious that the Hindu Code Bill should be disposed of before I put myself in the hands of my doctors. I would, therefore, like to give the Hindu Code Bill a higher priority by taking it up for debate and consideration on August 16 and finish the matter of by September 1, if the opponents do not practice obstructive tactics. You know I attach the greatest importance to this measure and would be prepared to undergo any strain on my health to get the Bill through.” (Selected Writings of Ambedkar)

Nehru however, knew that the conservatives were too many and quite vehement in their opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. There was now no Patel to ensure the whip in support of the measure. However, Ambedkar did not pay attention to this view and he felt extremely frustrated that Nehru wasn’t able to get the Bill passed.  The fact remains that with the active support of the then President, many members including the chief whip were all firm in their disapproval of the Hindu Code Bill. Nehru could not hurry it through since elections were also round the corner. As Ambedkar sarcastically put it, ‘I have never seen a case of chief whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal whip.’(Reba Som, 1994) Ambedkar was, however, convinced of Nehru’s sincerity, it was only his lack of determination that he criticised.

There were a few more issues (not connected to Nehru directly) over which he resigned. Nehru’s sincerity is reflected in a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers on October 4, 1951. He stated- “it was obviously a controversial measure and it was not our desire to suppress debate or even to treat this as a strictly party measure necessitating a Whip.” He cites this as the reason for failure to get even parts of the Bill through. He goes on to say, “I have no doubt that a considerable majority in Parliament desired the passage of this bill with minor alterations. But that majority was helpless before a determined minority and we had to confess defeat.  For the moment at least I do not think, however, that all this time on the Hindu code bill has been wasted. It has kept this important subject before the public and made people think about it. It had made it one of the major issues in India and I have little doubt that it will have to be taken up and passed sometime or the other. For my part I am convinced that progress in India must be on all fronts- political, economic and social. Unless this happens we shall get held up.” 

Nehru’s reaction to Ambedkar’s resignation

Frustrated and flabbergasted over the stoicism of conservative elements within the Congress, Dr. Ambedkar rendered his resignation on September 25, 1951. On his resignation, Nehru spoke in the Parliament with a sense of loss. “It is a matter of regret for me, if for no other reason, for the fact that an old colleague should part company in the way he has done today.”

Moreover, Nehru wrote to Ambedkar on September 27, 1951 with mixed feelings of appreciation for Ambedkar’s efforts and determination on his part to get the Bill through sooner or later. He wrote,- “I can quite understand your great disappointment at the fact that the Hindu Code Bill could not be passed in this session and that even the marriage and divorce part of it had ultimately to be postponed. I know very well how hard you have laboured at it and how keenly you have felt about it.” Nehru goes on to state that “I tried my utmost, but the fates and the rules of Parliament were against us.” He promised to keep fighting stoutly, “personally, I shall not give up this fight because I think it is intimately connected with any progress on any front that we desire to make.” 

Conclusion

Eventually, when the Hindu Code Bill was passed in various parts in 1956, Nehru offered his tribute to Ambedkar. He stated that Ambedkar would be remembered above all ‘as a symbol of the revolt against all the oppressive features of Hindu society’. But he “will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits.” (Ramchandra Guha, 2008)

The glowing tribute by Nehru to Ambedkar and Ambedkar’s admission of Nehru’s sincerity of efforts says it all. It was not these two but rather “the orthodox of all religions united” (from the title of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Essay) who were pitted against them on the issue of Hindu Code Bill. What’s more concerning is the remark heard from certain quarters of the Parliament after the passage of the Hindu Code Bill. During 1955 and 1956, when the Hindu Code Bill was enacted in fragments, Ambedkar’s absence was cited as a reason for the smooth passage of the Bill. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) Throughout the trajectory of the Hindu Code Bill, Nehru and Ambedkar remained consistent in pushing for reforms. Therefore, this struggle for the Hindu Code Bill and those who opposed it and actually disrespected Ambedkar should be clearly identified. Lest History Forget!

(The author is a PhD Candidate at the department of history, AMU)

[1] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh formed in 1925

Related:

Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial

What Nehru Flagged as ‘Most Dangerous’ Modi Now Invokes for Votes

Nehru’s Prescient Words During 1st General Elections Resonate Today

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

The post A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Various factions of Dalit Sangharsha Samithi (DSS) came together and gave a wake up call to fellow Dalits to resist against government anti Dalit policies in Bengaluru. This is at a time when atrocities against Dalits have increased all around.

On November  6, The “Dalit Cultural Resistance – Massive Unity Convention of DSSs” organised by the ‘Aikya Horata Chalana Committee of Dalit Sangharsha Samithis’ (United Struggle Convening Committee of Dalit Sangharsha Samitis) instilled new hopes among dalit masses. Over 40,000 Dalits who had come from all corners of Karnataka sounded off a war cry against the BJP governments’ anti-dalit policies.

The show of strength by various DSS factions at the National College grounds, Bengaluru on 6th December, the Parinirvana Day of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar holds immense significance especially in the light to silencing of dissenting voices.

The program began with the inaugural speech of Ms. Rama Ambedkar Teltumbde, the grand-daughter of the Architect of the Indian Constitution Babasaheb Dr. B.R.Ambedkar.

“Today is Dr. Ambedkar’s ‘Parinibbana’ day. As Ambedkar said, it is our birth right to agitate. Babasaheb has given voting rights to everyone. He has given emphasis to women’s education. The whole society advances if women get education. It is only by making progress through education that we can pay real homage to Babasaheb”, Rama said.

“Build your organisation by electing your own leaders and agitate for your rights. Scholarships of the students have been snatched, education as such is being snatched away. Struggle is the only way as Babasaheb has said” she prodded.

“The Constitution is being nullified inch by inch. All our facilities are being snatched away. But I feel very happy seeing so many Dalits assembled here. We need to tread the path of struggle. You have all stood by us and supported us when my husband Dr. Anand Teltumbde was in jail, I thank you all for that” she said.

The National College grounds in Bengaluru city literally overflowed with people. People came to Bengaluru from even very distant districts hiring buses and other vehicles. There were people inside the grounds, on the compound walls around it and the streets around the grounds. The slogan of “Jai Bheem” resounded throughout the ground, intermittently all through the event. Dalit organisations, which came together on the same stage after decades, pronounced the importance of unity.

Related:

Dr. Ambedkar saffronised in a poster, Hindu outfit leader arrested in TN

Turning Ambedkar into an icon bereft of his principles

The post Our birth right to agitate!: Rama Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

May 19 marks the birth anniversary of the founder of Buddhism. Born as Siddhartha Gautama in 563 B.C. to the Sakya king Suddhodana and his wife Mahamaya, Buddha eventually grew up as a great thinker who started an egalitarian religion after abandoning privileges of the aristocratic life and wandering among the less privileged, and attaining the enlightenment for a just society. 

His teachings were unique in many ways and remain even more relevant today in the light of growing superstitions and bigotry across the world.

Buddha was an extraordinary child who showed early signs of his quest for truth. He began questioning why there was so much misery and human exploitation and what was behind the class conflict and uneven distribution of wealth.

He decided to leave the luxurious life to find answers to these questions and opposed an unjust war between the Sakya state he belonged to and the neighbouring Koliya rule. The war was precipitated due to conflict over the control of waters of a river that divided the two states. For this. he chose to go into exile rather than compromise on his principles for the sake of patriotism. Thus began his journey in search of the eternal truth.

He gradually found out reasons behind human sufferings and laid the foundation of a new order that challenged inhuman and orthodox value systems practiced by the dominant Hindutva driven society. Among them is the caste system that discriminates against the so-called untouchables.

Unlike other old and established religions, Buddha emphasised on the ability to question everything and not to accept anything professed in the name of faith blindly. 

He also ensured that everyone in Buddhism is treated equally and embraced the ill and the destitute.

Although Buddha has been interpreted in many different ways, the analysis of his life and teachings are more logically presented by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, a towering Indian scholar and an undisputed leader of the Dalits or the untouchables in his famous book, The Buddha and his Dhamma. 

Ambedkar had later co-authored the Indian Constitution and kept fighting against repression of Dalits in the Hindutva-dominated India. Above all, he believed in science and reason and found Buddha as an answer to superstitions promoted by the Hindu priest class. 

Throughout his life, Ambedkar faced caste-based discrimination first hand and was frustrated to see Hindu leadership remaining indifferent to the pain of his community.  That was the precise reason why Ambedkar quit Hinduism and adopted Buddhism before he died in 1956.

The book on his understanding of Buddhism was first published after his death and became a bible of neo-Buddhists that gives hope to the Dalits who are increasingly getting alienated from the Hindu society. After all, the caste-based discrimination has only grown under a right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP government. Not surprisingly, the BJP founders believed in the caste system that enjoys religious sanction from Hinduism.

It is a separate matter that many conventional Buddhists had rejected Ambedkar’s approach.

But the book comes handy to comprehend the message of Buddha especially in these dark times of growing bigotry and pandemic. Not only do we see a spike in hate crimes in India and other parts of the world, but the science is also being challenged by the anti-maskers and Covid-19 deniers who have become emboldened because of the populist leaders. In India, the BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi have repeatedly gone to the extent of portraying Hindu mythology as science. As if this wasn’t enough, a BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Thakur recently stated that drinking cow urine can prevent Coronavirus. The government which lacks scientific vision has clearly put the country in danger as a result of which more than 2,50,000 human lives have been lost. 

Buddha, particularly of Ambedkar’s book, gives us hope as he stood up against his own government when it was determined to wage war against Koliyas without giving peace a chance. Today, when most nation states want its citizens to blindly follow them in the name of patriotic duties, we need to think of Buddha who stood up for humanity instead of jingoism. 

*Views expressed are the author’s own. 

More by Gurpreet Singh:

Sikh priest’s suicide exposes double speak of the ruling BJP and its apologists  

Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest: Justin Trudeau 

If Modi really cares about Nanak’s teachings, he must treat farmers with respect 

The post The Buddha and his Dhamma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This acute denial of access to common resources continues today… countrywide. In fact, the assertion of a right to life of equality has made Dalits even more susceptible to brute violence as a complicit state simply looks on. In terms of fair access, re-distribution and equality other categories of Indians have joined Dalits as victims of targeted brutality and hate. Notably Indian Muslims and Christians.

In 1927, in rural Maharashtra, the denial of access continued despite the Bombay legislative council passing a resolution in August 1923, years before, making resources, especially water to be freely available to all. The Chavdar Tale Satyagraha, 94 years ago today has entered protest folklore in Maharashtra and is also known as Mahadcha Mukti Sangram (Mahad’s Liberation Struggle) and Mahadchee Samajik Kranti (Mahad’s Social Revolution). India’s government institutions observe March 20 as Social Empowerment Day. Tragically, despite the history and the date India continues on a path of collusive denial.

21st century India remains cruel to her most oppressed sections, the state is often a silent onlooked, complicit in violence unleashed when rights are asserted and dignity fought hard for. Gujarat, hailed as a model state for a certain kind of development, saw the brute murder of Amrabhai Boricha, a 50-year-old activist, who was attacked with spears, iron pipes and swords till he died in Sanodar village, while a policeman silently watched No action to date has been taken against the policeman for this brutal attack that was carried out by Kshatriyas of the village, right in front of his daughter’s eyes. This was 18 days ago.

The present central government has admitted to parliament (Rajya Sabha, March 17) that in 2019 and 2018 respectively, there were 2,369 and 2,067 registered rape cases against women of the Scheduled Castes! Bad or worse, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, that deals with penalising perpetrators for sexual crimes against children, 2019 reported 1,117 cases and 2018 reported 869 cases against Dalit children.

Adivasi women and girls fared no better: registered rape case against women and children of the Scheduled Tribes for the last two years, 2019 saw 714 cases against women and 396 cases against children. In 2018, as many as 609 women registered rape complaints, whereas 399 cases were registered by minors. In this bleak scenario, Rajasthan reported the highest number of cases against Dalit women (491) and Madhya Pradesh reported the highest number of cases against Dalit minors (214). Shockingly, Madhya Pradesh also recorded the maximum number of cases against Scheduled Tribe women and children with 219 and 139 cases, respectively.

Apart from violent crimes, many parts of India still follow the caste practice of not allowing Dalits to access handpumps, tube-wells, etc located in areas dominated by the more privileged castes One such area is Bundelkhand, which is constantly hit by water scarcity. Water tankers are not sent to Dalit villages, Dalits are not even allowed to touch functional water pumps and have to walk multiple kilometres just to get water.

A report by India Today in 2019 revealed how some of these water pumps in rural India are guarded by lathi-wielding men. When someone was asked why this protection of tubewells from people who need it, the answer was: “This is to prevent the theft of water. Unknown people (read Dalits) come here to steal water and we cannot afford this because there is already a water shortage.” 

What is the mindset that treats the drinking of water, a common resource as theft? The recent case of the young Muslim child beaten for drinking water from a temple in Ghaziabad is another case in point. Justifying the brutal beating up of the young boy, the logic used by the temple priest was that Muslims are not allowed entry into temples and, therefore his drinking of water is ‘theft.’

Denying water to the oppressed classes is a caste Hindu practice that continues, and is one of the most prevalent forms of othering that still exists. As we pay tribute to the Chavdar Tale (pond/tank) satyagraha, the words of Babasaheb in the lead up to the protest remain prescient: “The Untouchables, either for purposes of doing their shopping and also for the purpose of their duty as village servants, had to come to Mahad to deliver to the taluka officer either the correspondence sent by village officials or to pay Government revenue collected by village officials. The Chawdar tank was the only public tank from which an outsider could get water. But the Untouchables were not allowed to take water from this tank. The only source of water for the Untouchables was the well in the Untouchables quarters in the town of Mahad. This well was at some distance from the centre of the town. It was quite choked on account of its neglect by the Municipality”

(“The Revolt of the Untouchables”, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol 5).

That day 94 years ago, was preceded by a conference organised by Depressed classes on the issue of Civil Rights and Babasaheb Ambedkar was the chief guest and guide of the event (March 19-20). Mahad, a town in Konkan, was selected for the event because it had a nucleus of support from ‘caste hindus’. These included A.V.Chitre, an activist, GN Sahasrabudhe of the Social Service League and Surendranath Tipnis who was then president of the Mahad municipality. Babsaheb was felicitated.  Over 2,500 delegates participated in it. The conference decided to start a Satyagrah led by Baba Saheb Ambedkar and drink water at the Chavdar Talab. This was a historic moment. Dr Ambedkar and the other Satyagrahis defied all the public pressure and reached the Chavadar Talab, drank water and got ‘implemented’ the resolution passed by the Bombay Legislative Assembly.  Ambedkar also made a statement addressing the Dalit women during the Satyagraha. He asked them to abandon all old customs that provided recognisable markers of untouchability and asked them to wear saris like the privileged caste women. (Before that time, the Dalit women were not allowed to drape saris completely).

The 1920s had myriad instances of caste Hindus defying the bonds of despicable and exclusionary caste practice and speaking against both untouchability, deprivation and denial.  The Manusmriti Dahan (burning of the Manu Smriti) was undertaken by both Sahasrabudhe and Ambedkar on December 25 of the same year. Ten years later, in December 1937, the Bombay High Court ruled that untouchables have the right to use water from the tank!

The India of today does not merely turn its eyes and ears away from instances of violent caste exclusion. Today’s privileged elite, disengaged with the realities of millions of Indians do not care to identify themselves with any symbolic protest for a more dignified or egalitarian society. So many comparative examples come to mind.

In 2020, USA broke out in outraged protest when a brutal killing of a Black man by a police officer leading to weeks and weeks of protests. This was in a country maimed by the impact of the Covid-19 outbreak where the protesters were overwhelmingly white. Or take yesterday when the president of the USA, Joe Biden ordered the US flag to be flown at half-mast due to the brute killings of Asians in Atlanta. India, ruled by a militarist and supremacist ideology today scoffs at the more modern parametres of equality and dignity. Tragically, the tricolour is also sought to be appropriated by those who have no regard for either the Constitution, Babasaheb, Social Justice or Empowerment.

An Ode then to the Mahad Satyagraha….

Flyer published before Mahad Satyagraha in 1927

Related:

Dalit RTI activist hacked to death in Gujarat
3,110 rape cases recorded against Dalits and ST women in 2019: Centre in RS

The post Mahad Satyagraha: After 94 years, do we have Equality, Dignity & Access? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s prefaces to his works were often as penetrating and incisive as the main body of the work that followed. His book, Who were the Shudras? How they came to be the  Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society  written in 1946, was dedicated to Mahatma Phule (or Fule): “Inscribed to the Memory of  MAHATMA JOTIBA FULE,” runs the dedicatory line in the book.

For Dr. Ambedkar, Phule (or Fule) was the “Greatest Shudra of Modern India,” of course, “because he made the lower classes of Hindus conscious of their slavery to the higher classes” but more specifically because he “preached the gospel that for India social democracy was more vital than independence from foreign rule.”

Babsaheb had already set forth this argument in his book from the 1930s, Annihilation of Caste (AoC), wherein he had stressed on the need for social reform to precede political reform. It was in the spirit of searching for ways to get to the bottom of social deformities and emerging with clues towards social reform that he had undertaken the project of investigating the history of the Sudras.

Who were the Shudras was written before Dr. Ambedkar embarked upon the successor volume, Who were the Untouchables, which appeared in 1948. As the title of the former book makes it clear, it was regarding the Shudras, who were, in the caste hierarchy, a rung above the Untouchables, Ambedkar’s own people. Yet, in the overall spirit of seeking justice from the Hindu social order, in tribute to the groundwork laid by Jotiba Phule in anti caste struggle, and to address the “problem of the Shudras,” as he calls it, he undertook the remarkable project of researching and writing Who were the Shudras. 

He explained the seriousness of the problem at hand to justify a penetrating study into the historical background of the problem: 

Under the system of Chaturvarnya, the Shudra is not only placed at the bottom of the gradation but he is subjected to innumerable ignominies and disabilities so as to prevent him from rising above the condition fixed for him by law. Indeed until the fifth Varna of the Untouchables came into being, the Shudras were in the eyes of the Hindus the lowest of the low. This shows the nature of what might be called the problem of the Shudras. If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem it is because they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is. Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But there is no doubt that excluding the Untouchables the Shudras form about 75 to 80 per cent of the population of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast a population cannot be considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.

What mattered to Ambedkar was the fact that the Shudras were “subjected to innumerable ignominies and disabilities,” and given their large proportion in the population of Hindus, their condition pointed to the severity of the social ills within Hinduism – and thus the crying need for social reform.

But, being the brilliant legal mind, he also undertook this painstaking study based on empirical evidence of the fact of the Shudras’ and Untouchables’ actual prevailing condition as proof of the continuance of the Varna system, despite what someone might have claimed. “The best evidence to show that the Varna system is alive notwithstanding there is no law to enforce it, is to be found in the fact that the status of the Shudras and the Untouchables in the Hindu society has remained just what it has been. It cannot therefore be said that a study such as this is unnecessary,” he observed.

He repeated his conviction about the primacy of social reform at different places over the years. In the Preface to Who were the Shudras, he once again alludes to it explicitly, when he describes the possible reactions from his Hindu readers to his book. Speaking about the “politically minded” class of Hindus – surely an influential class of Hindus – Babsaheb felt that they would be “indifferent to such questions” because for them, “Swaraj [was] more important than social reform.”

His book, with its deep interrogation of Hindu sacred literature, was directed at scholars too, since Ambedkar knew that his thorough engagement with that literature had scarcely been carried out by anyone else, either by the Brahmanical Hindus for whom the literature was sacred, or by the Indological scholars who had pioneered the study of India’s past by utilizing its Brahmanical literature. 

Ambedkar was confident of the fruit of his labours, for he felt that even his scholarly critics would “have to admit that the book [was] rich in fresh insights and new visions.”

But, while he was solicitous of the reaction of the scholars and the general Hindu reader, he also anticipated their charges against him, as a non-expert in matters of religion and religious history of India: “I have already been warned that while I may have a right to speak on Indian politics, religion and religious history of India are not my field and that I must not enter it.”

With disarming simplicity and directness, Dr. Ambedkar, while agreeing to the charges that he was not proficient in the Sanskrit language, responds to the accusations against him by turning them on their head by revealing their pettiness: “For I venture to say that a study of the relevant literature, albeit in English translations, for 15 years ought to be enough to invest even a person endowed with such moderate intelligence like myself, with sufficient degree of competence for the task.”

Dr. Ambedkar is actually making several very important points here, all at once, even under the modesty of acknowledging himself as “ a person endowed with…moderate intelligence.” He is making the claim that a sufficient amount of engagement with so-called specialized material (“15 years”) by someone even of moderate intelligence should be grounds enough for a certain degree of understanding of the material. 

He also seems to be  undermining the vaunted loftiness and impenetrability of the Hindu sacred literature while making a case for the non-expert to be fully capable of acquiring a modicum of competence in dealing with an area deemed for experts. He also seems to be conveying that, despite the accusations of not using the sacred texts in the sacred language, he has utilized the best scholarship available in the form of translations. 

For, anyone with even a superficial familiarity with the fields of scholarship in matters of Hindu Brahmanical traditions and their literature, what is termed Indological research, will know that Dr. Ambedkar utilized the most recent and reliable scholarship in the field in his time and before, whether Indian or European. 

In Who were the Shudras, he references a stunning array of scholars as was his hallmark, and these include not just Europeans like Max Mueller, John Muir, V. Fausboll, Horace Wilson, but Indian scholars like P.V. Kane (of Dharmashastra fame), V.S. Sukhthankar (“the erudite editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata”), K.P. Jayaswal (Hindu Polity) and S.D. Satwalekar (Rig Veda).

It might be pertinent to note that Dr. Ambedkar’s zeal to explore the depths of Indian religious traditions. He had attempted, while still in London for his London School of Economics thesis, to try to learn Sanskrit from one of Europe’s leading Indologist, Hermann Jacobi, at the Bonn University in Germany, as described by scholar Maria Bellwinkel-Schempp. That did not come to pass but it just goes to indicate the burning quest Dr. Ambedkar was on. Those 15-years of study that he mentions in the Preface were marked by intense effort at engaging with all manner and complexity of textual material, as recorded by his personal aide in Delhi, Nanak Chand Rattu, in his book Reminiscences and remembrances of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Even when referencing Indological scholars, many Europeans among whom were the target of niggling disagreements about their methods and intentions down the years, Ambedkar exercised his own judgement in evaluating every interpretation they offered. Consider his verdict on the description of Shudras as “anasa” at several places in the Rig Veda. While heavyweight Sanskritist and Indologist Max Mueller parses it as “one without a nose,” Sayana, the 14th century commentator on the Rig Veda, holds that it means “mouthless, that is devoid of good speech.” Dr. Ambedkar casts his vote for Sayana’s version based on a contextual evaluation of the description of the Shudras, thereby not blindly privileging a leading Indologist’s opinion.

Not just that, as a uncompromisingly conscientious scholar, he left nothing to chance, especially the issue of Sanskrit passages in his text, which he had cross-checked by competent scholars: “I must thank Prof. Kangle of Ismail Yusuf College, Andheri, Bombay. He has come to my rescue and has checked the translation of Sanskrit shlokas which occur in the book. As I am not a Sanskrit scholar, his help has been to me a sort of an assurance that I have not bungled badly in dealing with the material which is in Sanskrit,” he notes in the book.

It is worth noting at this stage that the so-called expert’s domain as also fenced-off by the expert’s language is an exclusionary stance, meant to keep away the well-meaning “non-expert” who might uncover inconvenient truths. All traditions which originally record their sacred literature in a sacred language – Brahmanical Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism – also develop traditions of commentaries (and sub commentaries) to elucidate the message and purport in the sacred language. 

Many of these commentaries are not written in the sacred language but in other, “non-sacred” languages, but are held in great esteem down generations. Casting doubts on Dr. Ambedkar’s relatively less-advanced grasp of Sanskrit as evidence for his ineligibility to make a foray into Indian religions and their literature is obviously baseless. This is more so if one considers the kind of utilitarian research that Dr. Ambedkar sets out to perform in Who were the Shudras, where he mostly looks for evidence of certain names, meanings of some terms, and some more historical and mundane information, rather than engaging with possibly multi-layered ideological interpretations. 

More recently, the noted linguist and political activist, Noam Chomsky, when faced with similar criticism for expressing opinions in a field he is not considered an expert in, is said to have observed that, “Virtually anybody who stops watching television, paying attention to sporting events, or playing the stock market, and concentrates, instead, on the society in which he or she lives, could effect an appropriate political critique.” 

Even with regard to the historical method he employs, Dr. Ambedkar makes his procedure clear: “Firstly I claim that in my research I have been guided by the best tradition of the historian who treats all literature as vulgar – I  am using the word in its original sense of belonging to the people—to be examined and tested by accepted rules of evidence without recognizing any distinction between the sacred and the profane and with the sole object of finding the truth.” One cannot miss the method of constant examination and testing “by accepted rule of evidence” employed scrupulously by this polymath who also happened to be a legist. 

The book itself, Who were the Shudras, is testimony to the thoroughness of a scholar on a quest for uncovering the truth. Dr. Ambedkar probes every “sacred text” he can lay his hands on to make his argument. His reading and references are staggeringly vast, covering pretty much the entire Vedic corpus as it is known – from the Vedic Samhitas, to Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads – to other “sacred texts” such as the Dharma Sutras, Dharma Shastras, the Epics and Puranas. He also strays into Indo-Iranian texts and linguistics to find instances and meaning of cognate terms.

His methods, mostly of textual analysis, are not unlike those utilized by a lot of Indological scholars, but crucially, Dr. Ambedkar was not writing a generalist’s descriptive book on Vedic history of mythology; he scoured these often repetitive and ritualistic texts for instances of things like origin stories and was able to compare them with acute observation – and draw conclusions. Just dealing with the host of ancient personages especially in Vedic literature and  keeping all the accounts with their tiny variations in some sort of order and organization is a feat that even experienced Indologists and textual scholars might not be able to match. 

All this, “to proclaim the truth,” as he declared in the book, and needless to say, to seek justice for those who suffered from the system of graded inequality, which, as he reiterates in the book, “is not merely notional [but] is legal and penal.” 

But even in his quest against this system of inequality, engaging with the Brahmin’s books which, according to him, “contain[ed] fabrications which are political in their motive, partisan in their composition and fraudulent in their purpose,” he never lost his grace and magnanimity. Much like in the Annihilation of Caste, he addressed the  Orthodox Hindus too: “[N]o matter what happens…follow the determination of Dr. Johnson in the pursuit of historical truth by the exposure of the Sacred Books so that the Hindus may know that it is the doctrines contained in their Sacred Books which are responsible for the decline and fall of their country and their society; secondly, if the Hindus of this generation do not take notice of what I have to say I am sure the future generation will.” 

Despite all the doubts cast on his abilities and abuses hurled at him for challenging orthodoxy, he still had kind advice for the orthodox Hindus – and hope in the future generation of Hindus. He even had the intellectual capaciousness to quote a line from the Sanskrit poet and playwright, Bhavabhuti: “Time is infinite and earth is vast, some day there will be born a man who will appreciate what I have said.” He can rest assured that there are an increasing number of women and men around the world who deeply appreciate what he said. —

Umang Kumar is a socially conscious citizen living in the National Capital Region of Delhi.

The post Reading Dr. Ambedkar’s Who Were The Shudras appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dalit and tribal bodies have called for a boycott of the products of Patanjali after Ramdev, the brand’s founder, allegedly accused Dalits, tribal communities, Muslims and the followers of the late Dravidian leader Periyar of spreading “intellectual terrorism”, The Telegraph reported.

प्रिय, रामदेव (@yogrishiramdev) आपने अब तक माफी नहीं माँगी, आपकी ये हिम्मत? ये हिम्मत आती कहाँ से हैं? सत्ता व हुक्मरानों से। ध्यान रहें, हम सबको झुकाने जानते हैं। पेरियार,अम्बेडकर, मूलनिवासी अस्मिता पर वाहयत टिप्पणी और हमें वैचारिक आंतकवादी कहना बर्दाश्त नहीं। #shutdownPatanjali pic.twitter.com/1ZrviDrOt1

— Hansraj Meena (@ihansraj) November 17, 2019

Ramdev made the statement on Republic TV during a show with Arnab Goswami on the subject of the ‘victory’ of the Hindus with regards to the Ayodhya land dispute. He had posted the same on Twitter too.

हमसब भारतवासियों को भारत का मूलनिवासी एवं सबको समान सबको महान मानते हैं,अपने महान पूर्वजों को आदर्श मानते हैं,
लेकिन कुछलोग भारतीयों कोही विदेशी कहकर व अपने महान पूर्वजों पर झूठे आरोप लगाकर उनको जूते मारते हैं यही डिस्ट्रक्टिव सोच वैचारिक आतंकवाद है,
एकभारत जातिमुक्त भारत बनाएं! pic.twitter.com/vKO7uhCXku

— स्वामी रामदेव (@yogrishiramdev) November 17, 2019

“Ramasamy Periyar, an atheist, described the followers of God as fools and labelled religion a poison. Their message is spreading. They are carrying out character assassinations of our saints. This is intellectual terrorism. This will divide the nation”, Ramdev had said during the interview.

The All India Ambedkar Mahasabha, All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation and the Bhim Army condemned his statement, describing him as a follower of the Manu Smriti, which codifies the caste system.

“The words used by Ramdev will not be tolerated. He has exposed himself as a believer in the Manuwadi philosophy. We have called for a boycott of Patanjali’s products,” said Ashok Bharati, president of the Ambedkar Mahasabha, which represents Dalit and tribal communities.His organisation has called for the burning of Patanjali’s products on the streets on Tuesday.

The Bhim Army, another champion of Dalit rights, has demanded an apology and a retraction from Ramdev, as has Employees Federation president Waman Meshram.

“The Baba has openly insulted the Dalits and the crores of Periyar’s followers. Like the RSS, the Baba does not believe in any alternative narrative about religious beliefs. We will boycott his products and protest everywhere,” Bhim Army spokesperson Kush Ambedkarwadi said.

यह देश बाबा साहेब अम्बेडकर के दिये संविधान को मानने वाले लोगों का है जो संविधान को नही मानते है वो देशद्रोही है और उन्हें तुरन्त देश छोड़कर चले जाना चाहिए @BhimArmyChief भाई चंद्रशेखर आजाद के दिये हैशटैग #रामदेवभारतछोड़ो का मैं पूरा समर्थन करता हूँ।#रामदेवभारतछोड़ो pic.twitter.com/NpF79Z53fI

— कुश अम्बेडकरवादी (@Kush_voice) November 19, 2019

E.V. Ramasamy Periyar (1879-1973), a social activist and politician who had started the Dravidian Self-Respect Movement, had in his book The Ramayana: A True Reading provided an alternative narrative on the epic. He had interpreted it as depicting a conflict between a Brahminical, caste-ridden and Sanskritic north and a non-Brahminical south.

Taking to Twitter, Bhim Army and other Dalit organizations have asked Ramdev to apologize for his words.

Yesterday, as Dalit activists and members from the community trended the hashtag #BoycottPatanjaliProducts, today they are demanding stricter action with the hashtag #रामदेवभारतछोड़ो.

यह 21 वी सदी का भारत है और बाबा साहब ने कहा था कि 21 वी सदी हमारी है, हमारे भारत में पाखंडियो के लिये कोई स्थान नही होगा। यहां इस देश की अखंडता, एकता और बाबा साहब के संविधान को मानने वाले लोग रहेंगे। जो भी संविधान विरोधी बात करता है, उसे यह देश छोड़ना ही होगा।
#रामदेवभारतछोड़ो

— Chandra Shekhar Aazad (@BhimArmyChief) November 19, 2019

रामदेव-पेरियार विवाद पर अब तक की सबसे महत्वपूर्ण प्रतिक्रिया. DMK के अध्यक्ष एम. के. स्टालिन की ओर से.

रामदेव की दुकान तमिलनाडू में बंद. वैसे भी वहां चार शहरों में ही उनके स्टोर हैं. वहां के लोग पतंजलि के चक्कर में कभी पड़े ही नहीं. #पतंजलिकाबहिष्कार https://t.co/15lsunHUcV

— Prof. Dilip Mandal (@dilipmandal) November 19, 2019

#रामदेव_ठग_है #ArrestRamdev
Ramdev says anti caste, anti patriarchy, working class liberators Periyar, Ambedkar, Lenin are “intellectual terrorists”. Why? Because their social & political movements threaten caste, class, patriarchal oppression, exploitation!

— Kavita Krishnan (@kavita_krishnan) November 18, 2019

This is not the first time that Ramdev has invited criticism for making casteist comments. In 2014, Ramdev was severely trolled for accusing Rahul Gandhi of visiting Dalit homes for honeymoon and picnic.

As the call for a boycott on Patanjali products was being made on social media, another video was widely shared Monday where Ramdev can be heard openly insulting Periyar.

प्रिय, बाबा (@yogrishiramdev) हम आपके विचारों से सहमत नहीं हैं इसका मतलब आपके अनुसार जुते मारने चाहिये। नहीं, बाबा नहीं। ये हमारे संस्कार और ज़मीरी सभय्ता में नहीं हैं। अंधभक्तों की ज़मात में आप फिर से बहुत गलत बोल गये। ये बिलकुल बर्दाश्त नहीं। #रामदेव_ठग_है pic.twitter.com/ggQZKpXvzH

— Hansraj Meena (@ihansraj) November 18, 2019

Ramdev’s repeated comments against Dalits and minorities have proved that he is a serial offender spreading hate speech and propagating communal disharmony. His links with the right wing party and now the sly repetition of their Hindutva supremacist narrative, has proved that he is anti-equality.

Related:

Spreading Saffronisation? Complaint filed against BHU official for allegedly removing RSS flag
NO to AZAD, WELCOME SAVARKAR!
Madhu Kishwar- Hate Factory personified
The Hindu Alt-Right asserts its Rule over Twitter

The post Ramdev insults Periyar, calls followers ‘ideological terrorists’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Babasaheb Ambedkar with Maulana Hasrat Mohani. Photo credit: The Wire

In a speech he made to the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation (AISCF) in 1945, B.R. Ambedkar distinguished between a “political majority” and a “communal majority”. According to him, “a political majority is not a fixed or a permanent majority… it is always made, unmade and remade. A communal majority is a permanent majority, fixed in its attitude. One can destroy it, one cannot transform it.” Ambedkar then brusquely declares that in “Indian conditions”, only a communal majority exists. 

In these circumstances, no simple electoral majority can be trusted to represent all of the constituency. No elected party or individual can be trusted to represent all the constituent communities or be accepted by them as their true representative. This creates, according to Ambedkar, a “communal deadlock”, which cannot be solved either by majoritarian bullying of the minority communities or by the endless “appeasement” of those bullied. The deadlock can only be broken by adopting a new principle to supplement the rule of the electoral majority: the principle of justice.

According to the principle of justice, mere electoral majority shouldn’t determine participation in the political life of a society. So for instance, the government shouldn’t be only composed of members of the majority party in the legislature. In Ambedkar’s view, minorities should find a place of participation in government relative to their position in society. The principle is the following: the weaker the social position, the proportionately compensatory opportunity of political participation for the community and individual. This is the way to break the “communal deadlock” such that the majority community does not enjoy an absolute majority in the political process and the minority doesn’t have to tolerate either the bully’s harassment or the patron’s appeasement. 

Ambedkar didn’t think the British had done enough in this direction and he didn’t trust the “Hindus in Congress” (Ambedkar’s phrase) to solve the communal deadlock. On the eve of independence, Ambedkar didn’t believe that the future constitution of a democracy could be merely a codification of institutions such as the institution of elections governed by the rule of majoritarian representation; it had to lay down emancipatory principles that would compensate for structural bottlenecks on realising fundamental principles of freedom and egalitarian fraternity. Otherwise, the formal distinction between political majority and communal majority would be perpetually falsified in the real situation of political power. Elections would be a kind of periodic ritual device to reinforce the majority communities’ rule over the minorities. This was Ambedkar’s diagnosis in 1945. 

Let us agree that between then and 2014, till when Congress mostly ruled, the communal deadlock mostly carried on. To that extent, the “Indian conditions” formally retained the gap between a political majority and a communal majority. Elections were a complexly deceptive mask of the real conditions. In the short run, the political majority could be occasionally seen to depart from the communal one but in the long run, the “Hindus in Congress” still ruled. With BJP’s victory in 2014 and since then, the mask has substantially come apart and the situation has changed from that of a communal deadlock to one of a communal emergency.

By “communal emergency”, I mean a phenomenon that Ambedkar himself indicated when he said that the Hindus “insist” on an absolute majority: they will not accept a relative majority and they refuse to politically co-exist and co-work with the minorities. Since 2014, we have seen BJP, their party president, the prime minister, RSS personnel, media ideologues…, more and more insist. Insist that the 2014 election was not just any other election where at least a ritual distinction between the political and the communal majority was still made. This election was not simply a “result”: the 2014 verdict was, indeed, a decision, a command that the course of Indian history, once having changed, must never be reversed. And the essence of this change being claimed, even as I write, is that the 2014 Lok Sabha verdict is that one election by which all future elections must be measured. In this sense, we move from a democracy of elections, which itself was the degraded and – congressist – realisation on the ground of a constitutional democracy of principles, to a democracy of one election. This is clearly Amit Shah’s dream: to engineer, manage and fight the same election in every election where openly, proudly and immaculately the political majority is fused with the communal majority. The long history of congressist rule with its oscillation between harassment and appeasement, closes in on itself with a sudden flash – when we see the terrible miracle of the Party and Leader speak the Truth: “We area communal and an absolute majority – we insist”. 

The insistence that 2014 was a miracle, everything is renewed since then and New India has no time to waste on thinking about democratic or constitutional principles is felt today as excruciating violence in a time of emergency by the minorities. For the minorities, everything is staked on thinking; only when the principle of justice is thought, the dalits, the Muslims, adivasis, and women begin to exist in the Ambedkarite sense – they begin to exist politically. Otherwise only the communal majority exists, absolutely, stupidly and without thought. Which is the miracle of New India as Brand free of the labour and disturbance of thinking, a brand that the miracle-makers advertise and insist on. 

However, the violence of the miracle insisted upon 2014 onwards, reaches even deeper. If the minorities aren’t allowed a political existence, then their lives are reduced to their physical presence as “populations”. It is in this context that the situation of Muslims is particularly distressing. If BJP is, in essence, a Hindu majoritarian party which advertises itself as a “communal miracle” and it doesn’t have a congressist manipulative interest in Muslims, then what is its relationship with the Muslim “population”? It is, to begin with, negative and tautological. The BJP has nothing to do with or gain from the Muslims. No candidates and hardly any votes from that quarter…

But we soon see the apparent “non-relation” produce a series of imaginary monsters: The Muslim as essentially belonging to a vaguely and malevolently crafted “Muslim world” which includes India’s prime “enemy country”, the Muslim, as intrinsically, “backward” as if backwardness were not a matter of historical discrimination but of something like a social and religious gene… And this lurid Islamophobic figuration, this breathless denunciation, not only of those with Muslim names, but of the very name “Muslim” is particularly ironic when we recall that in 1945, when Ambedkar was putting the “communal deadlock” to the labour of thought and principles, he was doing it to offer the Indian Muslim a real alternative between a future democratic India and a future Pakistan whose schema was itself based on a communal majority. This he did while accepting the principle of self-determination on which the demand for Pakistan was based. Today when the ideologues of the nation are revolted and crazed by the sound of “self-determination”, they disdain to spend any effort on India’s self-determination as a popular democracy, which includes all the people. 

However, just because BJP wants to impose an irreversible electoral miracle (2014) on India’s destiny and its president would like every election than to fall in line and emulate that one election, just because they “insist”, doesn’t mean things have to inevitably turn out that way. So BJP has lost several state and local polls as well as Lok Sabha by-election since 2014. However, the party still insists! Based on its doctrine of the 2014 “miracle” out of which the communal majority is reborn, or rather born for the first time, in principle, it considers any subsequent election defeat to be an error. Any election, in which the distinction between the political and the communal majority becomes visible again, is now an anachronism. So, by the logic of destiny, even when history rules otherwise, the party (BJP) is entitled to intervene and rectify the electoral error, however illegitimate the intervention might look (for instance, the cold-blooded use of Governors of states). It is a neo-fascist program of electoral eugenics, which, in the short run, doesn’t require the classic precondition of fascism and political emergency that is the suspension of the constitution. At the same time, this electoral eugenics is not interested so much in tampering with election results, as with ensuring that irrespective of these results, any fluid post-electoral scenario of multiple lobbies, parties, and groups vying for power can smoothly pass through a porous electoral verdict and be grafted on the fixed pre-electoral body of a communal majority. The stakes don’t ultimately lie in democratic legitimation through a tampered or a genuine election; they lie in exercising power, in as much as a certain sovereign and obscene glory attaches to this exercise.

However, to reach that ultimate glory, the logic of electoral representation must first be twisted in the following way: the people must be persuaded into submitting to the brute “fact” and the divine “principle” of the communal majority. If they are sure that it is not possible to “make, unmake and remake” a political majority anymore, only the communal majority exists, then elections become the site of a blackmail: if you don’t vote for the majoritarian party, you forsake the obscene taste of power and rather feel only its sovereign violence. On the other hand, if you do vote for it, you, by proxy, enjoy that very violence (as the lynch mobs do today). For the minority then the choice is either to hide or to politically resist in the face of communal terror – or to fall in love with the blackmailer (enjoin the RSS…). One can detect a tendency towards the Stockholm Syndrome in a lot of the love for BJP and Modi that is sweeping across the country these days. 

This, in my view, is the fundamental nature of an ongoing project that is delusional, violent and, in the current phase, distressingly effective. However, all of this perverse success doesn’t allow any melancholic liberal consensus contra the jubilant communal one that political exclusion, cultural derision and physical terror directed against the minorities, particularly the Muslim, are the “new normal” of our national life. What can be melancholically – or jubilantly – accepted by the rest of us as “normal” can only be lived as a time of emergency by the minorities. However insistent, the new “Indian conditions”, are not, and must never be, normal. 

Soumyabrata Choudhury is Associate Professor at the School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

This story was first published on Indian Cultural Forum. Read the original here.

The post From Communal Deadlock to a Communal Emergency: An Ambedkarite Assessment of “Indian Conditions” Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

जब देश की आज़ादी का भी, सदियों  से चले आ रहे हिंदू धर्म के जाती प्रथा पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ा, तो आख़िरकार बाबासाहेब ने अपने लाखों साथियों के साथ १९५६ में बौद्ध धर्म की दीक्षा ले ली । सबरंगIndia में देखिए, उस दिन उनके द्वारा ली गयी २२ प्रतिज्ञाएं.

The post Thus vowed Babasaheb appeared first on SabrangIndia.