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.

Image courtesy: Online Jaibhim

The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and Sangh Parivar are celebrating the instant triple talaq judgment of the Supreme Court of India, claiming credit for liberating Muslim women from the male dominating Muslim society. But there is no evidence that they took any initiative for empowering Hindu women. On the contrary they took every possible step to stall a major initiative taken by our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nahru and the country’s first Law Minister Dr. BR Ambedkar.

It may be recalled that a draft Hindu Code Bill was introduced in the Constituent Assembly which incorporated several measures to empower Hindu women, including right to divorce. The moment they came to know the contents of the bill, RSS with the cooperation of other like-minded organisations launched a vicious campaign against Nehru and Ambedkar.

What that campaign was and how they maligned both great leaders is described by eminent historian Ram Chandra Guha in his book, India After Gandhi. Relevant contents from the book are being reproduced here:
 

Courtesy: Ummid.com
 

The post When RSS likened Hindu Code Bill to “An Atom Bomb on Hindu Society” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During a recent session of Parliament, held to commemorate the Constitution and pay homage to Dr. Ambedkar; and again, during the Parliamentary debate on ‘Growing Intolerance’, Babasaheb’s name was mentioned repeatedly.  It was recognized by all that he had made the greatest contribution to enshrine the principles of Democracy, Equality and Fraternity in the Constitution and fulsome praise and accolades were bestowed upon him, speciallyby members of the NDA II (read BJP) Government.  No one, however, except for Sitaram Yechury (CPIM, General Secretary) referred to his conversion to Buddhism or the reasons for this.

Despite the enormous and significant role he played in drafting the Constitution, Babasaheb had to, eventually abandon the religion of his forefathers.  Throughout his life he made untiring and valiant efforts to bring about a change in the attitude and thinking of high caste Hindus through argument, writings, historical research and continuous appeals to reason, humanity and compassion. The drafting of the Constitution and Hindu Code Bill were, of course, the most important of these efforts. 

Unfortunately, the bill did not bring about any real change of heart, mind and outlook.  Every one of his efforts had aroused the most vicious opposition and calumny.  Every promise that the Constitution made to bring about equality between all citizens was opposed tooth and nail during the Constituent Assembly debates by conservative elements determined to thwart all efforts to legislate equality into the existing unequal social hierarchies that they were determined to preserve.

The Hindu Code Bill was met by such howls of protest both inside the Constituent Assembly and outside on the streets that it had to be abandoned. Babasaheb resigned as Law Minister saying in protest that, “The Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure ever undertaken by the legislature in this country. No law passed by the Indian Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in the future can be compared to it in point of its significance.

To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap.  This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.” (quoted from Dr. Ambedkar’s speech when he resigned from the first Indian cabinet of ministers).

The failure of his repeated and untiring efforts to bring about a change in the hearts and minds of his opponents was not unforeseen as far as Dr. Ambedkar was concerned.  As early as 1935, he had announced to his followers that although he had been born a Hindu he would not die as one because he was determined to abandon a belief system that refused to accept the principle of equality.  Finally, on the October 2, 1956, he embraced Buddhism along with many hundreds of thousands.  Tragically, within two months, on December 6, l956, he was no more.

On the same day, 36 years later, the Babri Masjid was destroyed by members of the Sangh Parivar.  This event is also commemorated, across the country, by some as “Shaurya (Valour) Diwas” and by others as a day of mourning.

There are also those, however, who feel that the choice of the date for the destruction of the mosque was no co-incidence.  They believe that it was Dr. Ambedkar’s Constitution that was the real target of the attack by the Sangh.  This is based not only on the choice of date but on the fact that the Sangh Parivar members who destroyed the mosque owed allegiance to the same RSS that had been in the forefront of the opposition to both the Constitution and the Hindu Code Bill.

The most uncompromising opposition both to the Constitution and the Hindu Code Bill came from Shri Golwalkar, head of the RSS.  Along with his supporters, he held fast to the view even after the Constitution was passed, that it was the Laws of Manu, the Manusmriti, alone that could be accepted as Law by Hindus.

As far as the Hindu Code Bill is concerned, Golwalkar castigated it by saying that it would reduce Hindu men to puny weaklings.  His views have never been repudiated by the Sangh Parivar. Today, Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s speech in Parliament is significant because while he heaped praise on the Constitution and Dr. Ambedkar, he also sharply criticized the later inclusion of the work ‘secular’ to describe the Republic that brought the Constitution into existence.

The reasons he gave for this criticism should be examined seriously by all Indian citizens.  He said “‘Secularism’ is the most misused word in the country… India’s religion itself is dharma nirpeksh. ..”Does the Constitution permit India to have a religion?  If India has a religion then can it continue to abide by its Constitution? Is it a co-incidence that the Home Minister who has now made known his commitment to a Religious State or a Hindu Rashtra was present at the site of the demolition of the mosque (Babri Masjid) on December 6, 1992?

Even at the time of its passage, Dr. Ambedkar feared for the future of the Constitution because he did not believe that the soil of India which had given birth to the worst forms of inequality would readily accept the seeds of democracy and fraternity.  Those who had opposed him then have given notice, time and again, that they continue to challenge the writ of this foundational doctrine.
 

The post India’s Sixth of December appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The semi-secularism of the secularist who ignores caste realities, and the semi-secularism of Dalit politicians and intellectuals who act as willing handmaidens of Hindutva, together endanger the secular agenda for India

Secularism is a classical concept. Normally people do not understand the basic concept and in their ignorance, political leaders especially choose to interpret it as sarvadharma samabhav (Equal respect for all religions). In fact, secularism means keeping religion away from politics and the State.

It was in 1648, after the brutal 30-year war in Europe between the supporters of Protestants and Catholics, which led to the Treaty of Westphalia, that this now historic term came to be applied and understood. This 30–year–long brutal war was a kind of fratricidal religious war fought between two sects within the Christian faith to maintain their superiority and hegemony over each other. Germany was one of the worst victims of this war and the historic Treaty of Westphalia was signed to end this bloody conflict.

According to the provisions of the Treaty, religion was to be kept away from politics and the State. And this is how the modern concept of secularism emerged in the world and many countries pursued and adopted the idea. Fundamentally, it suggested a means to operationalise this relationship in politics.

It came to India through the British and the understanding developed in the wake of the post–colonial struggle. Our political class, however, has deliberately or otherwise abandoned the genuine origin of the term. This has gone on for some time. But under the present NDA dominated by the BJP, it has reached an all–time low where the Indian State, which is mandated by a secular and democratic Constitution is, in fact, talking and implementing the religious policy of an influential majority.

This is a very dangerous trend which, in my opinion, has already rendered the Constitution redundant. This increasing and visible tendency, to ask for votes on the basis of religion, is against the provisions of the Constitution. Yet it is happening blatantly. The Constitution is being violated by the NDA government and the politics of the sangh parivar and India has, pathetically, reached the stage of pre-Westphalia treaty Europe, where xenophobic communal pogroms are being used against sections of the population.

Another key issue in the Indian context is the issue of caste in relation to secularism. Now, we must keep in mind that the caste system is a product of the Vedic system and was created by religion in this country. Basically, the problem is that even those parties and leaders who believe in secularism, understand only half the basic concept of secularism: keeping religion away from politics. They cannot, or refuse to, relate to the caste issue.

Now, if for the sake of argument, they keep religion away but use caste in politics, and caste is an intrinsic part of religion and religious identity in India, is it genuine secularism and abdication of religion from politics? No, because caste is part of religion.

Here I would especially like to come to Dalit politics because even the category or identity of Dalits has been created by religion — notions such as sudras or atisudras are created by religion. Any kind of casteist politics, Dalit or non–Dalit, amounts to using religion in politics. Therefore, from the secularist viewpoint, ignoring caste reality or the caste question is only half–secularism because only one aspect of religion has been kept away from politics.

And to Dalit politics I would like to say: emphasising caste and caste reality alone and not recognising the other manifestations of communalism apart from caste again amounts to only half–secularism. To explain further, my belief is that using caste is also using religion in politics. Therefore, even ‘Dalit politics’ is part of religious politics because caste is the pillar of Hindu religion and, therefore, if you use caste, you are, in effect bringing religion into politics. Dalit politics to date falls into this category.

If we go back in history to the concept of the caste system and the fight against it, we come to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar’s philosophy was not for a casteist movement. His fight was against the caste system itself. And, therefore, he wanted to wipe out the very basis of the caste system, that is Hinduism. Caste system is the life–breath of Hinduism; minus caste, Hinduism would die. If Hinduism has to survive, caste has to survive, he believed. Therefore, throughout his life, Ambedkar tried to destroy the caste system and that is also why he embraced Buddhism.

Ambedkar was conscious of all the parameters of the debate when he authored the Constitution. He kept in mind that since the wellspring of caste is Hinduism, caste should be legislated against. There was a huge resistance to this so he settled for the abolishment of untouchability, a heinous practice under caste Hinduism. But it was through this deep understanding of the insidious functioning of caste and the inequities dealt by this practice that inviolable equity and secular principles were enshrined in that document.

The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. 

That is why the Constitution speaks of the equality of every person before the law. Hence the Indian State as mandated by the Constitution has wiped out religion in the document and is effectively a document that has separated religion from the State.

It is this Constitution that remains the major target of the fascist designs of the sangh parivar because it carries the writ of equality, democracy and secularism. Every other week, the RSS sarsangh-chalak, K Sudarshan attacks it; just recently, he called it a ‘foreign made Constitution’. In the third week of January, the country’s deputy prime minister, LK Advani, addressing a BJP state committee meeting, raised a finger against a symbol in the national flag — the dhamma chakra — which is a Buddhist symbol. Why? Is Buddhism a foreign faith? The chakra represents the Buddhist symbol of panchsheel, of world peace. It even guided Indian foreign policy in the first decades after Independence. Why is world peace unacceptable as a concept?

Secular parties have let the concept and the country down by their self–serving definition of the word. But I also find Dalit politics in the doldrums, with, on the one hand, some among Dalits who want to destroy the Dalit community in politics, and the sangh parivar, on the other, which wants to convert India into a religious, ‘Hindu nation’ with Dalit collaboration. This is a dangerous development in respect of secularism and the tragedy is that Dalit parties are not conscious of this danger.

If secularism is destroyed in India, the main victims will not be the minorities but the Dalits first and last because religion has always been, and will be used to torment them. The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. Dalit writers have joined the bandwagon, criticising and cracking jokes at secularists, cynically turning a blind eye to what the loss or death of secularism will be to their own people.

Dr. Ambedkar who understood caste and the Hindu religion, and the consequence of religion–based politics, waged his final battle within government on the issue of liberating Hindu women from oppressive traditions. After resigning from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over the Hindu Code Bill, he spoke at a public meeting in Punjab. He said there that what he could not contribute through writing the Constitution, he wanted to achieve through the Hindu Code Bill.

The obscurantist forces were so vocal then that even though Nehru wanted to get it passed, he could not. Thereafter, Ambedkar contested elections from Bombay in the first post-independence parliamentary elections in 1951–52. For this, he wrote a lengthy manifesto for the SC Federation under whose banner he was contesting. In this, he defined the concept of democracy and outlined a charter for Dalits. In the 54th point of the charter, he advises Dalits on whom they should forge a united front with during elections and forces that ought to be taboo for Dalits and their cause, and with whom they should never ally.

Here he has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. (Tenth volume of the 15-volume Political Biography of Ambedkar by Chang Dev Khairmore, a Brahmin).

What was the rationale behind Ambedkar’s advice? The rationale was that because such ideologies and their outfits believe in religion and caste politics, Dalits who are victims of religion–driven caste should never collaborate with them.

But violating every norm and ethic, abusing his name politically, Dalit political forces are today perverting what Dr Ambedkar stood for. Worse still, Dalit writers and intellectuals are militating against Ambedkar’s understanding of the long range impact of such organisations and, therefore, his cautioning people against mocking secularism and collaborating with the religio–fascist outfits of the sangh parivar that would bring fascism into this country through religion.

Dr Ambedkar has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. 

Dalit collaboration with the sangh parivar is strengthening the RSS in India today. This has dangerous implications. The climax was Mayawati’s campaign for Modi in Gujarat. She went there but did not say a word about the 36 BSP candidates who were contesting elections in Gujarat. That is, she did not espouse the political cause of her own people and party, but was simply misusing her identity for the BJP’s benefit. This is the bottom of the pit, the most wretched degeneration of Dalit politics that we have the misfortune of witnessing today. I consider it a dangerous and frightening trend that has far–reaching implications for Indian democracy and secularism.

In a similar cynical abuse of the Dalit condition, which the BJP and the sangh parivar in their fascist religious manifestation represent, Mayawati has assured the BJP of her and her party’s support in the 2004 general elections in return for being the unquestioned chief minister of UP (this agreement was struck before May 3, 2001).

What will we see? A BJP-driven state, firm on the destruction of the Indian State as we know it, and the Indian Constitution, through a shameful collaboration with a Dalit party? As we all know, the BJP has always been open in saying that the day they get an absolute majority they will not simply build the Ram temple where the Babri mosque stood but also change the Indian Constitution.

Which Constitution? The Constitution written by Babasaheb, founded and based on secularism. The same Constitution that provides for reservation for Dalits. That is, in one stroke they want to remove whatever benefits Dalits have fought for because Mayawati’s current allies have openly stated that they want a Hindu state and that means a re-affirmation of caste oppression. If the sangh parivar gets a majority, it will destroy all of society and not just Dalits.

Regionalism and it’s attendant anti–Congressism, which has prompted regional formations to ally with the fascist BJP in their keenness to defeat Congress, is also a threat to secularism today. Worse still, this is being accompanied by regionalism and is therefore playing havoc with secular ideas. At the same time, another great danger to secularism is the Congress party’s departure from an unflinching conviction to the secular ideal.

Society is passing through a dangerous phase. It is a kind of triangular puzzle: secularism vs. religion vs. caste. In this situation, the sangh parivar is being strengthened through violent campaigns and drives with Dalits as collaborators. The trishul diksha karyakarms are being allowed under Mayawati and hundreds of thousands of weapons are being distributed because she says that this activity is entirely lawful!

I don’t want to exclude the Congress from these developments. The Congress is doing dangerous things itself, using religious symbols and religious vocabulary. It is time that secularists and Dalits resuscitate a genuine commitment to secularism.

All parties must unite to fight these fascistic tendencies. Our basic and immediate concern should be to block every chance that the BJP may have of returning to power at the Centre the next time round. They are the biggest danger to us all. They are not just a danger to a particular section of society, but to very basic democratic norms.

If they come back to power, they will destroy the democratic concept enshrined in the Indian Constitution and will introduce fascist norms. They will debar universal participation in elections, they will destroy the Constitution. And the first target in this religio–fascist State will be Dalits. In this religious State, blind faith, the ‘God given caste system’, the defeatist karma theory, the propagation of bhagyavaad (leaving everything, including the Dalit condition, to fate!) will become a reality.

Any concept of the State ruling through the writ of religion justifies indignities, cruelties. In India, these will be in the name of religion and caste. That is why I am worried about the Dalit community in such a religious State.

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 4

The post Dalits: Still doing the savarna’s dirty job? appeared first on SabrangIndia.