Dr Ambedkar was not in favor of Hindutva, former IPS officer exposes RSS
According to a newspaper, this time the RSS is going to do a big program to connect the Dalits. According to this, for the first time on Ambedkar Jayanti, flowers will be offered on photographs in branches across the country. On Ambedkar Jayanti i.e. 14th April, the shakhas will especially tell about those statements of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, in which Hindutva is strengthened along with patriotism. Sangh will explain Ambedkar’s Hindutva with 11 points.
By S. R. Darapuri
Therefore, it is necessary to analyze whether the ideas/points propagated/broadcast by Dr. Ambedkar are right or wrong. In this view, it is necessary to comment on the 11 points chosen by the Sangh to explain Ambedkar’s Hindutva, which are as follows:
- In his book Thoughts on Pakistan, Ambedkar criticized the partition on the basis of religion, calling the Congress pro-Muslim.
Comment: This statement is incorrect. Ambedkar in the referred book, instead of the Congress being pro-Muslim, in the first election with the Muslim League, by not giving them a share of power as per the pre-election promise, and by forming a government alone, the Muslim League has been told to isolate, due to which the Congress and Distance and distrust grew in the Muslim League and it began to move strongly towards the demand for Pakistan.
- He was a strong supporter of Uniform Civil Code. He clarified that I do not understand why there is so much opposition to the Uniform Civil Code.
Comment: It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was in favor of Uniform Civil Code but due to widespread opposition, he could not do anything about it. It was a general opinion at that time that instead of coercing it, consensus should be built whenever possible. Will the RSS also tell that when Dr. Ambedkar brought the Hindu Code Bill to give rights to Hindu women, how strongly he and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed this bill? He called Dr. Ambedkar as anti-Hindu and untouchable who breaks Hindu families and even threatened to kill him. It was not passed in the Constituent Assembly due to the widespread opposition of the Speaker of the Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and the Hindu members of the Congress, and due to the impending elections of 1952 by Nehru, on which Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the post of Law Minister. Is there any example in the country when a minister has resigned for the rights of women? RSS should not forget its history of opposition and talk only about opposition to Muslims. Efforts should be made to build a broad consensus in this regard. The Muslim society should also think about this with an open mind.
- He strongly opposed Article-370 in Jammu and Kashmir. In the concept of nationalism, Akhand was in favor of nationalism.
Comment: It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was not in favor of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. So he did not draft this section in the constitution. But Dr. Ambedkar was not in favor of Hinduist monolithic nationalism but was against the partition of India. He was of the firm opinion that we should try and make a serious effort to persuade the Muslim League to give up the demand for Pakistan by removing the fear of any discrimination against the Muslims in free India. Today, the policy of discrimination and persecution towards Muslims/Christians and other minorities, which RSS is adopting, is it right for the unity and integrity of the country?
- Always supported the concept of nationalism, he has written in section-5 of Sampurna Vangmaya that I will live and die for India.
Comment: Dr. Ambedkar never supported the RSS brand of Hindu nationalism. His nationalism was based on the concept of liberty, equality and fraternity of all citizens but the ideology of RSS is completely opposite to this. He was against nationalism based on any kind of racial and religious discrimination. He had said, “Some people say that they are Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs first and Indians second. But I am an Indian from beginning to end.
- While speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Dr. Ambedkar strongly opposed the leftist ideology.
Comment: This statement is absolutely false. He did not oppose the Left anywhere in his speech. In his speech, he opposed all forms of authoritarianism, even if it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dr. Ambedkar was socialist in his political thinking. Dr. Ambedkar was actually a Liberal Democrat. He was a strong supporter of State Socialism. The biggest example of his favoring state socialism is found in the draft of his own constitution, which appeared in the form of a “State and Minority” booklet. In this, he demanded nationalization of all agricultural land and collective farming on it. Apart from this, he was also in favor of nationalization of insurance and compulsory insurance for all citizens, while today the RSS-led BJP government is engaged in privatization of all these.
- Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar had similar views of RSS on secular nation.
Comment: Dr. Ambedkar was not in favor of secular but secular nation. Dr. Ambedkar was against the entry of religion into politics. He considered religion a private belief and was in favor of keeping it away from the functions of the state. RSS wants to justify its Hindutva politics and establishment of Hindu nation by calling Dr. Ambedkar in favor of secular nation.
- Strongly supporting Hindu unity, Baba Saheb has written in his biography that there is not only agreement between me and Savarkar, but also cooperation. Hindu society should be united and organized.
Comment: This statement is absolutely false. Babasaheb has not written like this anywhere in his biography. This confusion is being created by misrepresenting the letter written by Babasaheb in response to Savarkar’s invitation letter. Therefore, the letter is being presented in its entirety so that the readers can come to know about the intellectual dishonesty of Savarkari. It read: “Many thanks for your letter inviting me to open the temple at Ratnagiri Fort for the untouchables. I am very sorry that due to prior engagement, I am unable to accept your invitation. I would, however, take this opportunity to convey to you my appreciation for the work you are doing in the field of social reforms. When I look at the problem of the untouchables, I feel that it is closely related to the question of the reorganization of Hindu society. If untouchables have to be a part of Hindu society, it is not enough to remove untouchability, for that you have to destroy Chaturvarnya. If they don’t want to become an integral part, if they want only Hindu society
To add, untouchability can remain as far as the temple is concerned. I am glad to see that you are one of the very few who have felt it. That you still use the jargon of Chaturvarnya, although you justify it on merit, is unfortunate. However, I hope that with time you will have enough courage to drop this unnecessary and mischievous jargon.” It is clear from this that in this letter, Dr. Ambedkar expressed the possibility of inclusion of untouchables in Hindu society only after abolishing Chaturvarna. while Savarkar only talks about temple entry to end untouchability. It is clear from this that there is a vast difference between the approach and strategy of both regarding the untouchable problem.
- Sangh and Ambedkar have completely same views on the issue of eradicating caste discrimination.
Comment: This statement is absolutely wrong because the views of Sangh and Ambedkar are completely different on the issue of eradicating caste discrimination. Babasaheb was in favor of caste annihilation whereas Sangh is not in favor of caste annihilation but in favor of caste harmony (status quo). Sangh considers Manusmriti as the holy book of Hindus while Babasaheb considered it as a very anti-Dalit book. That is why he also publicly burnt it on December 25, 1927. The Sangh is passionately engaged in the establishment of a Hindu nation through Hindutva (Hindu political ideology) while maintaining the caste system, whereas Babasaheb was staunchly opposed to the establishment of a Hindu nation. In fact, Dr. Ambedkar came to the conclusion in 1940 that “If Hindu Raj becomes a reality, it will undoubtedly be the greatest calamity for this country… [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity . In that sense it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be stopped at any cost.”
- Baba Saheb had full faith in Indian culture.
Comment: There is no doubt that Babasaheb had full faith in Indian culture but that culture is totally different from the one defined by RSS. RSS defines Indian culture as Hindu culture whereas Indian culture is a fusion of different cultures. In this, there is a set of cultures like Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, Parsi etc. RSS considers Hindu culture superior to other cultures.
- Baba Saheb always considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions.
Comment: It is true that Babasaheb considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions but he never looked down upon these religions. It is a different matter that he criticized the evils prevalent in these religions in India like caste discrimination etc., considered it as an infection of Hindu religion and also asked them to reform those religions according to the original spirit. Even in adopting Buddhism, he kept national interest above all.
- Baba Saheb was unanimous on Aryans being of Indian origin.
Comment: It is true that Babasaheb has said in the book “Shudra Who and How” that the Aryans were of Indian origin. His study was based on the information available at that time. But after this, it has been found from the study of DNA of different races that the DNA of Aryan race is found in Iran and other European races which definitely came from Central Asia.
It is clear from the above analysis that the intellectual program being run by the RSS from April 14 is an attempt to misrepresent Dr. Ambedkar’s views in his favor and present him as a supporter of Hindutva, while the ideology of Dr. Ambedkar and the Sangh There is a difference between land and sky.
Courtesy: Dalit Dastak
Note: This news piece was originally published in dalitdastak.com and used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Rights.
Leave a Reply