B.R. Ambedkar – Dalit Bhagwan ya Jhoota Messiah?
Former BJP leader Arun Shauri in his book, Worshipping False Gods has called Ambedkar ‘anti-national’ because
- Ambedkar opposed Purna Swaraj resolution of 1929.
- On 8th Aug 1930, Ambedkar held that depressed classes should be grateful towards British for improving their status.
- Ambedkar directed Dalits to stay away from
o Gandhi’s Harijana Sevak Sangh
o To stay away from Indian National Congress.
- Ambedkar called Poona Pact as Himalayan blunder.
- He wanted separate electorates for Dalits.
- Ambedkar criticized ‘Quit India Movement’ as ‘Mad venture of Gandhi’.
- Ambedkar supported Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan.
- Ambedkar wanted Britisher’s to stay.
- Ambedkar joined the defense advisory committee formed by British as well as Viceroy’s executive council which was set up to gain legitimacy for British efforts.
So, like Sir Sayyad Ahmed Khan, Ambedkar also emerged as the leader of the community rather than leader of the nation. Ambedkar himself held that between interests of the Dalits and interest of the nation, I will give preference to the interest of Dalits.
Life of Ambedkar:
Ambedkar belonged to the community of untouchables (Mahar caste) in Maharashtra. Due to Ambedkar’s father being an officer in the British Army, he had been allowed to attend school.
Throughout his school days, Ambedkar was segregated from the other children and forced to sit in a corner of the classroom by himself. If he was thirsty, he was forced to wait for the tap to be opened by a touchable person — lest he touch and pollute it. If such a person was unavailable, he would go without water.
Ambedkar got western education and earned the degree in law and started practicing law in Mumbai. However, because of his caste, nobody approached Ambedkar for his services.
Hence Ambedkar realized that even when Dalits are educated, they will not be able to live the life of dignity. Hence, he brought magazine MUKANAYAK, he brought newspaper BAHISHKRIT BHARAT. He established Bahishkrit Hitkarni Sabha, All India Depressed Classes Federation which was renamed as Republican Party of India in 1956.
Who created Castes in India?
The word “caste” belongs to Portuguese understanding of Indian social system. Derived from the Latin “castus” in Portuguese, casta means “lineage”, “pure”, or “chaste”.
Ambedkar attempted the anthropological understanding of caste. His important works on the issue include Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development 1916, Who Were Sudras, Origin of Untouchability & Annihilation of caste.
1) Ambedkar also rejected the theory of Aryan invasion. As per the theory of Aryan invasion, upper caste has been the Aryans whereas so called untouchables were the original inhabitants, often mentioned as dasas or dasyus. There is no such historical evidence, it means all caste in India had common origin.
2) Ambedkar rejected the view of Manusmriti according to which different varnas originated from the different parts of Viratapurusa as mentioned in Rigveda also. In Manusmriti, untouchables are mentioned as chandals. Chandals are those who are the offspring of Shudra father and Brahmin mother, which shows the pollution of Brahmins by Shudras. The entire concept of untouchability is based on purity and pollution.
Ambedkar had also explained the origin of Sudras. As per Ambedkar’s theory, there were only three varnas – Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. Sudras were originally Kshatriyas; however they were those Kshatriyas, which did not accept the hegemony of Brahmins, hence Brahmins stopped Upanayana sanskar for this group. Upanayana sanskar is linked to purification. Hence it was believed that they remain polluted.
3) In his para 15 of 1916 paper titled CASTE IN INDIA, he argues that the “superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.” Brahmins occupied the top rank in the social hierarchy. They closed the door (through endogamy) for marrying outside the circle (exogamy). Non-Brahmins imitated their example and created their own endogamous habits and practices. Consequently, Brahmins are the “creators” of the caste system. This what RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat emphasised when he said that pandits (the priestly class) created the caste system.
What is untouchability? From where it came?
Ambedkar has used the term Dalits. The term Dalit come from Marathi word dal. Dal denotes broken. Ambedkar calls Dalit as broken men. According to Ambedkar, there used to be tribal way of life, including tribal wars. Gradually some tribes started settled life when agriculture started. So, the practice of cattle rearing rather than killing cattle for food started. Initially the main wealth used to be cattle, but now it became land.
There were certain tribes which remained nomadic. Settled tribes did not include these tribes within their society. Since nomadic tribes lacked land, they were made dependent on the settled tribes.
According to Hindu literature, dalits were called antyaja because they were last to take birth from body of Bramha. Ambedkar does not accept the explanation and suggest that they were called antyaja because they were living outside village.
According to Ambedkar, these tribes have accepted Buddhism. Brahmins targeted these tribes out of anger because these tribes insisted on remaining Buddhist. Hence Ambedkar believes that the practice of untouchability is also because of anger and the rivalry between Brahmins and Buddhists. Ambedkar even mentions that originally beef eating was not prohibited but to regain the lost stage, Brahmins stopped eating non-vegetarian food. This made them to claim Brahmins as pure.
Is Hinduism Madness?
Caste system is based on the birth and so Hinduism cannot be ‘missionary religion’ and cannot do conversions like Islam or Christianity. He held that Hindus cannot form a nation. He held that Hindus are race of losers. They will continue to lose to other religions. Thus, caste system is not just responsible for the exploitation of Dalits but is responsible for the weakness of India as a nation.
According to him, Hinduism is nothing but Brahminism. It is a hegemony of Brahmins. Core idea of Hinduism is endogamy. Hence without destroying endogamy, caste system cannot end.
According to him, Hinduism is not a religion but madness. The religion which allows man to touch the excreta of cow but not touch the fellow human being is nothing but madnesses. In other societies, inequality is social, in Hinduism there is a justification of inequality even in philosophy. That is why he held that “I HAD NO CHOICE BUT BEING BORN AS HINDU. HOWEVER, IT IS IN MY CAPACITY NOT TO DIE AS HINDU.”
According to him, there is nothing in Hinduism except caste system. One cannot reject caste being Hindu. So, annihilation of caste requires rejection of Hinduism. Hence, he held that there is a need to put dynamite on Vedas and Manusmriti.
Ambedkar converted to Buddhism on 14th Nov 1956. Ambedkar held that ‘I am disowning the religion of my birth. I am reborn. I reject religion which treats me inferior.’
Gandhi-Ambedkar differences – friends or enemies?
Gandhi believed that if person is born in a particular religion, there is a divine will. One can accept good things from other religions but one should not leave one’s religion. On the other hand, Ambedkar wanted to convert.
Ambedkar and Gandhi also had debate over Varna system. Gandhi believed Varna system as division of labour. It is a feature of even advanced societies. However, Gandhi rejected caste system and untouchability.
Ambedkar held that Gandhi’s description is too idealistic, textual. Varna is a text, caste in context – Varna exists as caste. Caste is not the division of labour; it is a division of labourers.
Ambedkar compared Harijana Sevak Sanghs with Putana. The mythological character sent to kill Krishna by nursing poison in the form of milk.
Ambedkar objected the word Harijana as a misleading term because it does not tell the real status of untouchables in Indian society. It may push them into ‘false consciousness’. Hence Ambedkar preferred to use the term dalits and depressed classes.
Ambedkar also adopted Gandhian technique of Satyagraha. He organized Mahad satyagraha, to assert the rights of untouchables to take water from the same well, which is used by ‘caste Hindus’. Ambedkar was disappointed as he could not get the support of Gandhi for his satyagraha. Gandhi held that for the time being satyagraha should be used only against colonial authorities. Ultimately Ambedkar felt that it is better for untouchables to take the help of British state in improving their status.
Ambedkar never believed in commitment of Gandhi towards upliftment of untouchables. One of the grievances of Ambedkar against Gandhi has been that Gandhi never kept any fast for abolition of untouchability.
Dalit Kya Karine? – Kranti ya Aarakhsan
Ambedkar was influenced by Marx’s idea of social justice which aimed at the ending the exploitation of poor. However, Ambedkar felt that Marxist methods are not so relevant in Indian situations because the basic structure of Indian society is not economic rather ideological.
Ambedkar disagreed with Marx on two basic issues.
- Marx’s conception of religion that all religions are ‘opium of masses.’ Buddhism is not opium of masses. Untouchables can embrace Buddhism, which will provide them a source of inspiration, spiritual satisfaction and the creation of world brotherhood. Buddhism is based on Karuna (Compassion), samata (Equality) and prajna (Rejection of superstitions)
- Ambedkar also disagreed with Marx with respect to state. He didn’t accept Marx’s view that state is an instrument of exploitation. Society is more exploitative than state. Inspired by liberal scholar John Dewey Ambedkar preferred affirmative action through the state.
According to Ambedkar, caste system is a graded system of hierarchy where the life of people at the lowest levels is like a hell. Ambedkar knew that caste Hindus will not be able to come out of caste system hence Ambedkar believed political power is necessary for the empowerment of untouchables. Hence Ambedkar advocated separate electorate, though ultimately succumbed to the pressure by Gandhi and finally agreed for reservations.
Ambedkar’s Mantra for Dalits Was ‘AGITATE, EDUCATE AND ORGANIZE’.
Case No. 1 à Hindu Code Bill – Kisne rokha or Kisne socha?
Ambedkar’s idea of social justice embraced the concerns of India’s subaltern class, the bahujana samaj, that includes the untouchables, shudras, tribal, minorities, women, laborers, peasants. In pursuance of the social justice, he brought Hindu Code Bill to challenge the patriarchy present based on ‘Manuvaad’.
The bill aims to provide equal inheritance rights to widows, sons, and daughters; prohibiting polygamy for Hindu men; providing women with the right to seek divorce; and legalising widow remarriage. It most importantly sought to end marriages within the same caste. Principally there were three areas of controversy: –
- Abolition of caste as a necessary requirement for a valid marriage
- Prescription of monogamy
- Permission for a woman to seek a divorce and maintenance.
In December 1949, when the Constituent Assembly, doubling as the Central Legislative Assembly, discussed it at length, 23 out of the 28 members who spoke were opposed to it. Most of them were Congressmen.
Nehru unequivocally supported the bill and declared, “I will die or swim with the Hindu Code Bill.”
The first president of India “Rajendera Prasad” also unequivocally opposed the Hindu Code Bill, leading to a constitutional crisis.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha and BJP’s predecessor the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, opposed the bill arguing that the Hindu society has been divided into groups (castes) not with any inhuman or malicious intent but of traditions which have come down through the ages should be respected and upheld. Giving women the right to divorce was unacceptable as it destroys the fundamental and sacred nature of Hindu marriage. Lastly, he argued that if you cannot make monogamy applicable to all citizens of India do not do it for one section alone.
Ambedkar ultimately resigned on September 27 and one of the reasons, was his frustration over the Hindu Code non-passage, despite Nehru’s sincerity in supporting it.
Eventually, majority of the Hindu Code Bill were passed, piecemeal and in slow stages, and President Prasad gave assent to them all, but not before an extraordinary event in the post-1952 Lok Sabha.
Case No. 2 à Brahmins helped Ambedkar?
Claim – 1: Who took care of Ambedkar as a child? A Brahmin”
Ambedkar’s father left him under his elder brother and neighbour’s watch. Naturally, his brother was not a Brahmin. According to the academician from The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. “We are talking about social stratification a century ago when casteism was rampant. It is unlikely that Ambedkar’s neighbours would be Brahmins”.
CLAIM 2: Who took care of Ambedkar’s education? A Brahmin
CLAIM 3: Who funded Ambedkar’s foreign education? A Hindu nationalist king Raja Sayajirao Gaekwad
According to Dhananjay Keer “Among the Indian Princes, it was Shri Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda who started schools for the Untouchables in 1883. But in those days his State had to depend upon Muslim teachers for the growth of those schools, for caste Hindu teachers would not accept the posts of teachers in those schools.”
CLAIM 4: Who married Ambedkar? A Brahmin lady.
Dr Ambedkar married twice in his lifetime. Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar was the first wife of Dr Ambedkar. She belonged to a poor Dalit family. Later, Dr Ambedkar married Dr Sharada Kabir, a middle-class Sarasvat Brahmin.
Ref: https://www.altnews.in/fact-check-did-brahmins-play-a-role-in-key-events-of-dr-ambedkars-life/
Case No. 3 à Manu Smriti ko jalana hi Padega?
Manusmriti, in Chapter One, Verse 91, decreed that the only job for Shudras was to serve “meekly” the other three high castes. It creates strict caste hierarchy like punishment according to caste – severe for women and lower caste and lighter for upper caste.
Ambedkar in Writing and speeches Volume 8 page 25, argues that this book not only encourages people to create divisions, instead it instructs the adherents to follow such social stratification strictly. As a result, instead of cultivating love and brotherhood, it spreads the seeds of hatred and envy in the human hearts. This is exactly why Manu Smriti was burnt on December 25, 1927 at Mahad under the leadership of Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Case No.4 à Ambedkar – Nationalist or a casteist?
Arundhati Roy and Christophe Jaffrelot, it will be wrong to call Ambedkar anti-national because Ambedkar represented the largest section of Indian society (bahujana samaj). Person representing largest section of the nation cannot be regarded as anti-national. On the status of India as a nation, Ambedkar’s approach was as practical as that of Jyotiba Phule. It was difficult for Ambedkar to accept a society divided into castes as a nation. The concept of nation, according to Ambedkar is based on the trinity of liberty, fraternity and equality. There can be no nation without this trinity, particularly fraternity.
In his speech to the constituent assembly in Dec 1946, he held that ‘I know, we are divided politically, economically and socially. We are group a of warring camps; I am a leader of one such camp.’ However, I am convinced that day will come, when we will forget these differences and emerge as a nation. Ambedkar believed that sooner we accept that we are not a nation, better it is, at least we will start thinking how to become a nation by understanding the reasons that we are not a nation.
Arundhati Roy addresses “Gandhi as saint and Ambedkar as Doctor.”
Important comments on Dalits/Caste/Constitution/Ambedkar
Prime Minister Modi 2010:
- Modi had said at the function in Gujarat that just as people give special treatment to mentally retarded children when they visit their houses, the Dalits, too, ought to be treated the same way. He also called upon the people to change their mindset toward untouchability. He said untouchability is still an issue in the country despite several spiritual gurus campaigning to eradicate it.
RSS editorial in “The Organiser” on November 30, 1949:
- Rejecting Indian constitution, the editorial reads “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. There is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat as enunciated in the Manusmriti, which excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity.”
Ref: Digital Link not found
RSS first chief Golwalkar:
- In his work “Bunch of Thoughts, Part-2, Chapter X”, He has written under the title ‘Nation and its Problems’ that “Society was conceived of as the four-fold manifestation of the Almighty to be worshipped by all.” “If the caste system had really been the root cause of our weakness, then our people should have succumbed to foreign invasion far more easily than those people who had no castes.” India was able to withstand the onslaught of Islam. But Afghanistan, which was Buddhist and caste-free, became Muslim.
Ref: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489044/page/n13/mode/2up
Savarkar on constitution:
- “The worst about the new constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it…Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. 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”.
