Worshipping False Gods
- ARUN SHOURIE
The feedom for struggle could be traced long back to 1920's,when it was in full swing.
While the years culminated in the country's independence,in Ambedkar's case they culminated in his becoming a member of the Viceroy's Council,that is- to use the current terms-a Minister in the British Cabinet
Government has by now published 14 Volumes of the speeches and writings of Ambedkar.These cover 9996 pages.Volume up to the 12th contain his speeches and writings up to 1946.These extend to 7371 pages.You would be hard put to find one article,one speech,one passage in which Ambedkar can be seen even by interference to be arguing for India's Independence.Quite the contrary.
Pause for a minute and read the following:
Allow me to say that the British have a moral responsibility towards the Scheduled Castes.They may have a moral responsibility towards all the minorities.But it can never transcend the moral responsibility which rests on them in respect of the untouchables.It is a pity how few Britishers are aware of it and how fewer are prepared to discharge it.British rule in India owes its very existence to the help rendered by the Untouchables.Many Britishers think that India was conquered by the Clives,Hastings,Cootes and so on.Nothing can be a greater mistake.India was conquered by an army of Indians and the Indians who formed the army were all Untouchables.British rule in India would have been impossible if the Untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India.Take the battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India.In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all Untouchables...
Who is pleading to whom?It is B.R. Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British)Cabinet Mission, A.V.Alexander.#1
Ambedkar refused to join the struggle for feedom.
The reason they have not joined this sham "Fight for Freedom", Ambedkar claims, "is not because they are the tools of British Imperialism but because they fear that freedom of India will etablish Hindu domination which is sure to close to them and forever all prospect of life,liberty and persuit of happiness and that they will be made the hewers of wood and drawers of water."#2
And they have from the beginning been the loyal supporters of and the beneficiaries of British rule in India,he says."Until the advent of the British,the Untouchables were content to remain Untouchables."Ambedkar writes."It was a destiny pre-ordained by the Hindu God and enforced by the Hindu State.As such there was no escape from it.Fortunately or unfortunately,the East India Company needed soldiers for their army in India and it could find none but the untouchables.The East India Company's army consisted,at any rate in the early part of its history,of the Untouchables are now included among the non-martial classes and are therefore excluded from the army,it is with the help of an army composed of Untouchables that the British conquered India..."The Untouchables too gained,he adds:among the things that were done to the recruits was to give them education.This awakened them both to their condition,and to the fact that there was no just no justification for it...#3
The Freedom Struggle,in his words
For one thing the Movement is unnecessary,for it is a sham,a hoax to fool the people of India.
The Movement which Gandhi is leading is unjustified,it is unnecessary,Ambedkar declares,for the simple reason that the British do not want to stay,they do not want to rule India in any case,indeed they are anxious to leave.They are being compelled to stay by the fact that Indians are not able to come to an agreement among themselves about the form that the new country,the new constitution must take.
"The British conquered India by the sword and they will hold it by the sword"as proclaimed by Lawrence whose statue in Calcutta has this motto.This attitude is dead and buried and it is no exaggeration to say that every Englishman today is ashamed of it.
This stage was followed by another,Ambedkar acknowledges in which,in which the argument of the British government against India's freedom was the alleged incapacity of the Indians for the parliamentary institutions.The British government admits India's right to freedom,even to independence,if Indians so desire.The British government admits thr right of Indians to frame their own constitution.There can be no greater proof of this new angle of vision than the Cripp's Proposals.The condition precedent laid down by the British government for India's freedom is that Indians must produce a constitution which has the concurrence of the important elements in the national life of country.Such is the stage we have reached.The untouchables therefore cannot understand why the congress instead of trying to achieve agreement among Indians,should keep on talking in terms of a "Fight for Freedom" and maligning the Untouchables in not joining it...#4
Notice first that were this claptrap to be written by anyone today-unless of course,he is a champion of "social justice"-he would be hauled up and prosecuted:for not only is it full of conjured up falsehood about groups and classes,it is nothing but incitement and is calculated to sow enmity between groups.But,as it has been written by Ambedkar,and Ambedkar has been anointed the Redeemer,with his books sold all over the country at subsidised prices!
That very Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna!
With a national holiday granted on 14th April as "Ambedkar Jayanti"
#1The letter is reproduced in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume X,the pp.492-99
#2Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.168
#3Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.189
#4Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,Writings and Speeches,Volume IX,p.177
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey it's rahul
ReplyDeletewow i didn't know who this ambedkar guy was before i read your post. haha i need to work on my indian history!
i have heard a lot about this mayawati character though, while i was in india. (i just came back to america).
this was really interesting; i'd like to learn more. :)
Hey Rahul:)
ReplyDeleteM terrible at Indian history myself
Although its really interesting and m really working on it
Well,ull hafta help me with ur American politics too
Republicans,M counting on ur views
And yes
ReplyDeleteMayawati is definitely an amusing person
Hey...this is very enlightening post!
ReplyDeleteAnisha
ReplyDeleteAlthough the post is quite enlightening in terms of what facts and perspectives
it projects, I am not quite detached from Ambedkar's viewpoint. In the sense that I cam empathize with the context ion which this must have been written. Seeing the whole situation from an "untouchable" person's perspective, I would agree that the Britiush ruled system would have suited their perspective more than the prospect of a Hindu dominated world - its a fact after all that majority communities in India tend to be somewhat unsympathetic to the others. Now whether that literally qualifies him to be a traitor - I dont know. But I didnt feel offended by reading what he said or had to say. I have always thought of him as
someone who stood for the rights of untouchables... And even in this writing, he is true to that. As far as being a great "Indian" or a "freedom fighter" is concerned, I am not sure. Perhaps he wasnt. But
perhaps he isnt to blame that the Govt of India has declared something as an "Ambedkar Jayanti". Or that they conferred a "Bharat Ratna" on him. He didnt ask them to. Bullshit like this is done by the current breed of politicians and office bearers for attracting vote pools...
- Puneet
You support him for the fact that he stood for the rights of untouchables,right...Now when a person supports someone that means its not only an emotional support(for some people it just ends here only)and then there is developmental support,when the person tries to raise the standard of people in the real sense(If u can get me).Now if for untouchables a person stands with only emotional support in his mind then tell me would u really call it a stance...?,introducing laws which no longer prohibits his/her to enter any temple,a law that advocates that every individual must treat every other individual equally irrespective of his caste,creed etc.(no discrimination please!)Now,there is nothing against introducing such laws but if the effort remains confined till only here,then would you really call it a developmental support?I can never do so.What all he did to raise their standard is something we all very well acquainted with.I dont think that introducing reservation system for backward classes was and still is any option at all to raise the standard^^
ReplyDeleteAnd then look at the live example of his pupil Mayawati.She says it herself,"We are followers of Babasaheb,we only keep repeating what he used to say."
It didnt take long for today's politicians to raise his image from "that"(as the way I have mentioned in my post)to this when people acknowledge him as their 'God'.
The reason everyone knows:support babasaheb,support reservations,get votes and win.
And I am not at all blaming him for getting "Bharat Ratna" and someday being declared as "Ambedkar Jayanti"
Hello Anisha
ReplyDeleteMuch has been said and commented upon this enlightening blog post of yours already. I must confess that the stand I am inclined to take is a very pro-Ambedkar, though rest assured I am no supporter of reservations of any kind for any class. More than fostering equality, they hamper it.
However, I would say that your argument of Ambedkar's efforts being confined to introducing laws not being developmental support is where our ideologies clash.
Consider the fact that here was a class of society completely neglected in all ways, and here was a man fighting for the rights of that particular section . Equality in its truest sense can never be achieved as long as there are still groups and individuals being excluded out of it. Ambedkar's intentions were never wrong. For him, he was fighting for a noble cause, a just cause. He was championing the rights of a section that had been neglected for years. In his capacity as an intellectual and decision-maker, the support he lent - that of introducing laws to abolish untouchability and guarantee equality - was definitely developmental. It is the IMPLEMENTATION of those laws that, we could argue, has not been developmental and has been distorted by individuals seeking to gain personal profit from this scenario. Individuals claiming to be pupils of Ambedkar, but who politically manipulate his word and will to discard developmental support and replace it with a politically useful emotional one.
The second clash is that of the justification and legitimacy of reservations. Like I have already stated, I am highly anti-reservation, yet upon taking a third-person neutral perspective, I must confess that at that point of time in history, reservation was a justified option necessary to bring certain neglected socio-economic sections of the society up to par.
Please note that my justification for reservation is limited to 'socio-economic' classes and not any particular 'caste.' However, due to the unique nature of Hindu society, caste was - at that point of time - a good measure of socio-economic condition, and without having the resources to conduct extensive census programs, was a reasonable choice for identifying the underprivileged. Yet under no circumstances, should reservations of any kind have been allowed to continue for more than one generation.
Whatever Ambedkar did in his time thus, was justified at that point of time and done in the true spirit of equality. The fault lies with future decision-makers and political predators who, for their own gains, project the word of leaders of the past as the unalterable will of god. Our leaders of the past had enough sense to understand that things don't remain the same in a dynamic world and made our constitution amendable. Our leaders of the present though, lack the sense to amend it.
I am not a politically active individual, nor do I know much about Ambedkar. What I do know and believe in though, is that you cannot convict a man for not having foresight, but rather thank him for doing what was required in his day and age, and convict his future generations for failing to do what was required in theirs.
PS - There was actually one more point of clash with your blog post, viz. the tone of the narrative with respect to Ambedkar's stance on Freedom and Independence. As a student of the Arts, my notions of Freedom and Independence are somewhat different from that accepted by the majority. Nonetheless, as this comment has become too big already, I am currently leaving that clash aside, and keeping it as an argument for another day :-)
ssp:)
ReplyDeleteI suppose thats the way the entire perceptions of two different people go.I may present something and then you will present something else totally contradicting my views.
However to continue it I would say that to me developmental support is in accordance with one's ability to actually raise the mental level of thinking.Reservations got introduced but not at BASIC PRIMARY level.Do u really understand a doctor's job(I would talk about this particularly since it is what I will become)?They get the seats but if you could understand what level of skill and what excruciating devotion it goes to acquire that skill,then you would understand the importance of my seat and many other deserving people who could not get through because of such reservations.But,yes today you do not support such reservations.Has there level been 'actually' raised?Today why dont you support it if you supported it then?
You would say then it was to bring socio-economic sections of the society up to par.So now there is no need for that?Now they are totally up to par!
I would agree to the fact that Hindus never treated backward classes equally,and again I would say I have nothing against the laws which Ambedkar introduced;but those laws never raised their standard in the real sense,because allowing someone to go to a place of worship could never teach him to work and to use his mind.
You say that I must not convict a man for 'not' having 'foresight' but rather thank him for doing what was required in his day and age,but I am very sorry to say that is not possible.
To your entire argument, I will say not a word and will concede that it is our individual perceptions, and perceptions which hold today, but might change tomorrow.
ReplyDelete"allowing someone to go to a place of worship could never teach him to work and to use his mind."
Very true. But allowing someone to go in a place of worship did instill in him the dignity that one deserves. It might not have charged his mind up, but at least assured him that he need not live in fear. That he could walk as freely as any other man living on the planet. That he was no one's slave. That he could aspire to all the happiness he wanted to and nobody would curse or beat him up for it. To a certain extent - if not all - it instilled a little equality in this society. And 'tis well the little drops that fill up the ocean.
Oh, and just to assure you that these arguments do not stem from any religious perspective, I gave up religion when I was 12 years old. I have no affiliation to Hindu religion or its unique idiosyncrasies. I have no religion, I do not believe in God; I am an atheist.
To the last bit of your comment, I raise a simple question. Was it ever required of Ambedkar to do what he did? No one compelled him to stand up for the untouchables. He did it because he felt for it and because he wanted to. He did it Voluntarily. A voluntary action cannot be condemned for not having foresight. At least he did something, when others did nothing! Instead of commending him for what he did, to actually condemn him for not doing enough, seems a tad bit unfair to me.
All this said and done, I am a strong supporter of subjectivity and individual perception. If you still choose to have a different stance, I respect that completely!
To each their own:)
ReplyDeleteI guess that calls for it and will not add more.