In Ambedkar Gandhi History Chapters Pages from History of India The EDIT PAGE Untouchability

Gandhi, Ambedkar and the Curse of Untouchability


Leadership is something that nobody gets on demand, instead it comes inherently with leaders, as rewards. Sir Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda and Lokmanya Tilak were the few leaders till 1920s who stirred India with their deeds, powered equally with their words. After the death of Tilak, that leadership came to Gandhi, who already had led few Aandolan's (movements) such as Champaran and Khilafat, and in all these movements, he showed the way by example. India that time needed the same - a man who could show the way, staying alive. Ambedkar, a child born and grown up under the curse of untouchability, struggled whole life to get out of it. 

It was easy to give up the life for few demands, but very difficult to stay alive for the same. And, both neither Gandhi nor Dr. Ambedkar ever gave up.   

(I tried hard not to oppose Ambedkar, as the conditions he faced, it was natural for anyone to come up with a revenge mindset. Having said that it's not only the curses that help create legends, but people who lead the way by rising above the revenge mindset. Ambedkar's mind, however, had other plans to settle the score be it, raising voice for a separate nation for dailts - Dalitistan, supporting Pakistan or supporting Britishers to the extent that he didn't even mind the deaths of three million people killed during partition. He even forgot those 'Savarna Hindus' who helped him in completion of his too costly education. The scholarship he got was tiny w.r.t. whole cost, during his stay at various places, that they paid without asking for payment, when he made it very clear that he was not a social worker.)

In the history of India, 'There is not one instance, not one single, solitary instance in which Ambedkar participated in any activity connected with that struggle to free the country ...at every possible turn he opposed the campaigns of the National Movement, at every setback to the Movement he was among those cheering the failure'. - (Worshiping false Gods). He was one who was neither near to Bhagat Singh nor Gandhi nor Gurudev nor Motilal Nehru, if anyone to whom he was near to it was Britishers. For instance take this.....B R Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British) Cabinet Mission, A V Alexander.

"All me to say that the British have a moral responsibility towards the scheduled castes. They may have moral responsibilities towards all 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, Coots 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..." further in parliament, "Prime minister, permit me to make one thing clear. The depressed classes are not anxious, they are not clamorous, they have not started any movement for claiming that there shall be an immediate transfer of power from the British to the Indian people.... Their position, to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of power from the British to the Indian people.... Their position, to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of political power...."

In fact, there are plenty of writings like this those accentuating him as demagogue. He was among those who were actively writing against whatever Gandhi was doing but very few times came face to face which Gandhi wished. whenever he came, he came with the problems like he had to give Rs. 7 as rent and all....Gandhi, despite all the odds what he created; he did help him.
Quoting him (September 22, 1932, Gandhi to Ambedkar)

"I am not at all angry with you. When you use derogatory and angry words for me, I tell myself that I deserved that. I will not get angry even if you spit on my face. I say this with God as witness. I know that you have drunk deep of the poisoned cup. However, I make a claim, which will seem astounding to you. You are born an untouchable but I am an untouchable by adoption. And as a new convert I feel more for the welfare of the community than those who are already there . At the moment I have before my eyes the dumb untouchables—unapproachables and unseeables—of South India. I am scrutinizing the scheme to see how these people will be affected by it."


It was only because of Gandhi that Ambedkar could achieve this position other wise, Vallabhbhai patel, Maulana Abdul Kalam, Madan Mohan Malviya were in no mood to give any space to him within Indian Government. 

Coming to Untouchability

If there is a cockroach in your room, what you do?

You either kill it or throw it away from the room. Will you change the room saying that room was never clean and there might be more cockroaches inside?

In his long experience, Gandhi could feel that making separate religion/election won't solve the problem. it's the mentality of people that should change within society. He could see that those Savarna Hindus do behave muslims too as untouchables. Gandhi in his Ashram kept several untouchables along with the Savarnas - to break the myth by setting an example. Opposite to that, Ambedkar was in a mood to make a separate religion for these people, so that he could be worshiped as Buddha, Mahavir or Christ in future...

But, they didn't incarnate with any feeling of avenge or revenge.

After Poona pact, when it became clear that there won't be any separate election/religion for untouchables. 14 October 1956, Nagpur, Baba Saheb Ambedkar along with his two lacs dalit followers took 22 Oaths changed themselves into Bauddhism. The 19th one was:

"I thereby reject my old religion, Hinduism, which is detrimental to the prosperity of human kind and which discriminates between man and man and which treats me as inferior".
Ambedkar always represented himself as a leader of untouchables but on 14 October 1956, only two lacs people out of 20 crore, gathered at his recall. In 1952 elections, his own party could manage to win only one seat out of 454 (as per my knowledge). He lost even his own seat. He was the one who whole-heartedly supported the partition that took away 14 million lives, without feeling the heat how did it affect untouchables at large. He thought about untouchables not untouchability. To Gandhi, people were never untouchables but it was untouchability that was needed to be cured. Perhaps is the reason, in '52 election Ambedkar was shown the door, as he didn't do any commendable development work in the wake of untouchability. After getting nowhere, he turned to Buddha with the oath written above which is in against of the Noble eight-fold paths of Buddha.

There is much common between Ignorance and knowledge as both begin from the same point and end at the same point. The actual difference lies in their paths and deeds.

Related Articles

35 comments:

  1. Dear Anupam, very nice post indeed however i would rather elaborately say that anyone who criticizes Hinduism, of all religion, does not actually know about it . Hinduism is no religion.Hindus follow Sanatan Dharma and only people with limit knowledge of the vedas and upanishads can say that the religion discriminates between man to man and in fact of it actually does then let any eminent, knowledgeable, spiritual leader of any religion come and prove to me that there is one religion where discrimination is non-existent , be it Islam, Buddhism ,Jainism, Jewish, Sikhism .... It is not the religion but the human mindset which classifies and terms inferior or superior !Wish all learned people justify being termed as learned ! Our Indian history just before Independence is worth forgetting because that was the era of major follies and an era of mostly wrong leaders .... the ones who were waiting for The East India Company to leave and let them hogg on the leftover like king..the true leaders gave up their life ..like Bhagat Singh , Chandrashekhar Azad and Bankim Chandra and so many more ...thanks for a factual post of the early independence era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is not the religion but the human mindset which classifies and terms inferior or superior !Wish all learned people justify being termed as learned!"
      Point noted!

      Delete
    2. In response to the comment, I can just say that Thervada Buddhism which is its earliest form, which existed in India during the Maurya empire and which is now widespread in Sri-Lanka, does not in any way teach discrimination, it would be hard to believe at first but I suggest you to take a look yourself and if you find discrimination, please let me know also. I am not talking about Buddhism as a whole, because its forms in southeast asia and other parts of the world went through many civilization changes and hence got translated in different ways so may be you will find discriminatory belief there. But certainly Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent has no signs of it, take a look at it you will find yourself. And about the point that Mr.Anupam noted, I would rather say that, "It is not the religion but the human mindset which classifies and terms inferior or superior" BUT as far as the human mindset is concerned, religion does influence it!

      Delete
    3. Sir/Mam,copy following with quotes& paste in Youtube

      "Unreported India - Broken People" 3 VIDS

      "India Untouched - Darker side of India " 4 VIDS India's hidden secret for centuries. "Untouchability - Dignity for All ".

      It took 4 Years to shoot and 25000 km Journey to Complete the Mission of finding TRUTH.

      Delete
  2. Very interesting blog post. I don't know history so well to decide whether the points mentioned are true or not. I shall assume that you have done enough research to make such strong arguments in our country where Ambedkar and Gandhi are both generally regarded too holy to criticize. I think both leaders did their bit in laying foundations for the India of today and in process both would have committed their fair share of mistakes.
    I think you are spot on when you say "people were never untouchables but it was untouchability that was needed to be cured."
    More than 60 years on and that is still the problem. Politicians always seem to appeal to the People rather than the underlying problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have some questions,
    The poona pact, obviously made Dr.Ambedkar surrender his demands before Gandhi, So if i am not wrong, Has India as a whole EVER accepted the concepts that Gandhi introduced like abolishing untouchability, and caste discrimination?


    Don't you think this discrimination always take the cover of being a CULTURAL THING? And in 21st century if hindus still don't want untouchables to be treated equally. Then aren't we betraying humanity again under the mask of CULTURE?

    Every day a dalit is beaten, raped, murdered in 21st century, i repeat its not 1947 when Gandhi showed this MORAL way of social reform, all this is happening today in 21st century.

    Now i come to the point.
    Why are you following just the legacy of Gandhi. Tell me the implementation?


    If you think Ambedkar's solution of partition was not the solution BECAUSE muslims truly wanted pakistan, then please tell me why there is no healthy Hindu-Muslim harmony in Kashmir, and other Muslim majority cities and towns? (which, if India was not partitioned, would have been the problem of the whole Indian subcontinent, the hindu-muslim extremism)


    Why are upper castes still so 'caste-conscious'?(where conscience turns into extreme discrimination as we move towards higher caste people in rural areas, where 70 percent of our population resides)


    Western culture also had major social issues with christianity, but they have learned how much of the tradition to follow and let other rituals change because HUMANITY IS ABOVE ALL and CHANGE IS PERMANENT. Then why couldn't we? Don't forget we all are responsible. Are you going to say that it will take some time and vanish AUTOMATICALLY??

    I hope my comment will not be deleted and my weak command on english is ignored. As the not so kind views of the writer of the book Worshipping False Gods is so positively discussed, please note the lines of Ramchandra Guha, a fantastic historian and the writer of India after Gandhi who said that,

    "He(Ambedkar) was a legal brain, a constitutional brain, a top class economist, he also wrote some important work in sociology, on the cast system, and was the most well qualified INTELLECTUALLY of any Indian polititian of the 20th century, PROBABLY EVER."

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, thanks for your thoughtful comment..

      Undoubtedly, Mr. Ambedkar was one of the most profound Indian brain of that time. But from social POV, a legend must be recognized from his/her Karma and not merely from the writings and speeches. This is where, Ambedkar lags.

      Mr. Ambedkar has been referred as a top class economist and constitutional brain owing to his degrees and certificates he earned, but then why did he/constitutional Assembly copy all the 34735 rules made by britishers under the Government of India act to rule over the Indian people, certainly was not beneficial for us. Rest of the laws were copied from 16 other nations such as America, Switzerland and so on. Only around 170 laws were new that were introduced in our constitution but those were contributed by Ballabhbhai patel, Sarojini Naidu, Rajkumari Amrit kaur (health related) and few other leaders. Where is Ambedkar's contribution? Like Gandhi, who never used so called Gandhi topi, Ambedkar's name was misused by great Congress masterminds and today by almost all parties. Our consitution unlike any other constitution in the world has undergone 100 amendments within the 65 years since freedom simply shows the major drawbacks in the core constitution. people at the helm supported Ambedkar simply to gather so called untouchables' votes. That's how he was categorized, but his writings and lectures shows he had something more to share but again he didn't dare step ahead with those and was suppressed by others.

      Coming to partition, I oppose any single decision based on caste, creed or religion. Kashmir a problem has risen because of the partition that ignited and kept igniting the difference based on religion(Refer to Kuldip Nayar writings on kashmir). After partition, Pakistani Hindus (20 lacs) are facing same problems, not only Hindus but Sunnis which are in minority there are being treated as low grade citizens. There were more than 10 lac deaths across the border during partition which is highest in history of world wars. How can anybody justify those deaths. Nehru wholeheartedly accepted the partition because of very obvious reasons but why Ambedkar?

      You are counting the untouchables as being beaten raped everyday. i say, time has progressed and its strong vs. weak, In Bihar, where such casting system is too deep, you won't see the same. Mr. Lalu prasad has changed the mindset, during his 10-15b yrs. tenure he didn't do a single development work for the state, but was a single voice of those people. After they got their voices being heard, they needed development so Nitish came as a result.

      Today if we recognize someone as untouchable/backward/SC/ST, it's because our constitution keeps them reminding with its census, various forms asking their caste creed and religion. This is why the problems and so the differences continue to grow. It has been further fueled by Reservation.

      My intention was to learn from his mistakes not to malign him.




      Delete
    2. It is unfortunate to see that personalities like Gandhi and Dr.Ambedkar are compared. I wish my comment does not again intent to do the same. What I observed about Gandhi is that he was more of a moral force if we talk on any topic other than the National Movement, but not even a single goal has been accomplished till date. Non-voilence is rarely observed today, be it in the north east or the naxalites or the kashmiris or many others, and same holds true for untouchability, specially in villages where it is still the way of life.

      And about Dr.Ambedkar, well we should never forget that every common Indian who showed up for the non-voilent struggle for freedom at that time, practiced untouchability around his household in every possible way he could, even if it was voilent, the best proof being the beating up of dalits during the Mahad satyagraha.

      People who criticize that Ambedkar should have taken part in freedom struggle alongside Gandhi, hoping that after gaining freedom this very hindu-extremist population will accept Gandhi's plea of abolishing untouchability, which they still have not accepted largely, then they were asking Ambedkar to logically commit suicide.

      So Ambedkar tried to introduced legal reforms which people think was restricted to dalits, but was meant for the eradication of all the inequalities of orthodox mentality, be it be caste based, gender based or other, like he tried to do in the Hindu code bill, and also made provisions of reservations for the O.B.C. who were not untouchables and were not socially isolated. He could have brought huge differences if he got an opportunity, but he couldn't because his primary goal of equality was suppressed every now and then.

      If Ambedkar wanted himself to be worshiped, then first of all he was against hero-worship, secondly you should read his essay "Annihilation of Caste" where he clearly stated that

      "I found the solution outside the Hindu fold, and its up to you to choose yours, and whenever you need my help I will always be there."

      This clearly means that he found Buddhism as the solution, but any other way that brought equality and justice in Indian society was welcomed by him.

      Again you should observe that he sided the socially and economically suppressed minority, and challenged the 80 percent orthodox population, he actually accepted to be the villain of India for the sake of rights of the deppresed.

      Lastly, he converted to Buddhism two months before his death, when his health was deteriorating. If he had views just of creating his own religion and taking revenge, he would have done his conversion much much earlier. He did it because he did not want to die as a Hindu.

      If dalits, the ignored 20% population of India, are getting educated in our country, its because of legal reforms of Dr.Ambedkar, not because of the title "Harijan" and the sympathy that they got from the Mahatma,so we should not fall to the legacy of someone. Instead we should accept the bitter truth that Ambedkar always pointed out.

      Gandhi was no doubt a great man and Ambedkar could not have done all that he did without his help. But for every follower of Gandhi who criticizes Ambedkar and his reforms and who believes that Gandhi was always right. He or she owes many answers to every suffering dalit, every suppressed woman and isolated Muslim of modern India.

      Jay Hind, Jay Bharat!

      Delete
  4. Mr.Anupam,

    On your question as what was Dr.Ambedkar's contribution to the Constitution, first of all a law is something that protects human values, if you think acquiring human values from any source should be termed as 'copy', this is not a noteworthy statement. Laws need to be just and appropriate, not necessarily unique. About the amendments, forget Dr.Ambedkar for a while, but over 60 sixty years, for the worlds largest democracy, with a population close to 1.25 Billion, with no single regional majority, for a nation so diverse in culture, and with so many different issues that come up everyday, is it so surprising to see over 100 amendments?
    Yes i strongly believe that Dr. Ambedkar's contribution is not at all as much as it is speculated, and unfortunately he has become a way of gathering votes. It was a collective effort. But then again if you consider his contribution as negligible, then how can you blame him for amendments? Both views are contradictory.

    When somebody refers to Dr.Ambedkar, they call him the architect of the constitution. This is not true, but another way of looking at it is the fact that he contributed in many ways out of which only drafting of the constitution is highlighted which was his work while being the law minister. Nobody mentions the Mahad satyagraha, though everyone knows about the salt march, is a struggle done for taxes on salt bigger than struggle for claiming right to have access to a basic commodity like drinking water without which untouchables were forced to live for centuries? Why didn't Gandhi take out some time to solve issues like this first? I repeat solve not speak. Well this is just one instance out of many fronts where Dr.Ambedkar took a stand.
    The slavery put upon India by the British stands nowhere near the extent of cruel atrocities on Dalits. On your views on the freedom struggle, let me give you an example like you gave about a cockroach. If a lady is beaten by her husband and his family everyday, never given the respect of a lady or at least a human being, for all her life, and one day somebody slaps her husband in public, she does nothing, will you view this incident as a wife betraying her husband? No, because we know after that somebody leaves things will turn ugly again. Here the lady represents the untouchables, her husband and his family represent the Hindus and the somebody is the British.

    Anti-ambedkarite ideologists always use this ‘independence struggle’ weapon to malign Dr.Ambedkar. Gandhi and congress did not in any way represent the savarna hindus, the practice of abolishing untouchability by Gandhi in his ashram does not mean that the entire nation was following him. The Savarn Hindu and the Muslims supported him against the british because it was in their interest. But the atrocities on Dalits were much more severe and altogether a different issue than independence, and should not be confused.

    I also do not support partition on basis of religion or caste. But for the integration of a country like India, the most important issue was to safeguard the rights of minorities, which was Dr.Ambedkar’s goal(refer to’thoughts on linguistic states’ and ‘states and minorities’ by Dr.Ambedkar)and protecting the weak is a something India has always failed, a country Gandhi belonged to.
    On the issue of partition and about the bloodshed and deaths, yes they were unfortunate but that has no relevance with your claim on what Dr.Ambedkar’s POV was I suppose. Yes his views were not completely correct, but he did not say that India should be partitioned at any cost, he proposed many possibilities and partition was one of them, you can find it in his book ‘thoughts on pakistan’. He also raised a very important question that ‘if any Muslim country attacks a unparitioned India, which side will Indian Muslims take?’ Because Muslims consider Islam above nation, above all. Which side will they take?
    If allowed to speak more, I would like to comment more about Dr.Ambedkar as his strong ‘non-dalit’ supporter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Priyanka,

      First of all, let me tell you I'm not a supporter, but yes i support for a cause. The time you support a personality you support his/her wrong doings too - not a right way to learn from the mistakes they did. but yes, it's always better to adore for what they did.

      Coming to your POV, if you think Britishers made those laws for our benefits then the question is "why did we cry for the change in governance? why the rules were different in England?" The time India got freedom, population was 35 crore and not billion, whilst chinese was 55 crore, see the difference today. Don't you think it's partially because the constitution itself was partial? Your saying that the amendments were done in accord with the diversity, my take is that when already there is so much diversity - why are you still promoting them, isn't it better time to bring Equity. We are inserting diversification between man and man to bring Equality. We already done that. Did that solve the problem. We know it didn't... even then we are not trying to learn from the same. Teach for India is doing some great job in this regard.

      It's not that People don't know about 25th of dec 1927, Manu Smriti Dahak Din and there were no involvement of Gandhi as the photos carrying by the people involved in the movement were of Baba as well as of Gandhi. The problem with Ambedkar was that he always criticized people rather than their wrong doings; failed to get the support from them. To cure untouchability, doesn't mean to apread hate against Savarna Hindus. It happened when Gandhi succeeded letting temples open for all, which certainly was a first step in the process but the same was criticized by Ambedkar. He didn't stand for the same. you can't bring the change in a day, but can accelerate if you support any of such cause, he didn't because he hated Gandhi and so many other leaders involved that time. It was one of the reasons that Mahad struggle and the Nasik temple entry movement which were led by Ambedkar were not considered as Satyagraha by the mainstream.

      Coming to his POV on partition, a Study of the Scheduled Castes Federation and Dalit Politics in U.P., 1946-48, reveals that in 1946 when the nation was looking ahead to partition, Ambedkar wanted the scheduled castes to form a third nation. This is exactly where i oppose his POV. This way you are accelerating separatism and not equality.

      If you talk about Dalit and Savarna Hindus, there's no untouchability today in Bihar & UP but yes, the same is among Hindus and Muslims. Hindus in Bihar & UP still prefer not have their (Muslim's) water or food. Untouchability lies beyond Caste. This is what Gandhi pointed out in Harijan 1933. Ambedkar never went beyond dalits even if the problems were universal by root.

      About Reservation shall just point out that neither Ambedkar nor the then PM supported it. While PM commenting on the article 10 said, "This way lies not folly but disaster" Ambedker too was aware of the devil's show.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Anupam.
      First of all thanks for your reply, I appreciate your gesture and the way you are responding, taking this issue and this cause. I also agree with some of your points and will mention as the topic comes. First of all the laws which were, I say instead, ‘acquired’ from the British government were nowhere perpetuating discrimination. Yes definitely there were laws which were unjust to us and we needed change of governance to remove the same. And we did change it after we got freedom. Do you really think that people in the drafting committee and the constituent assembly other than Dr.Ambedkar really didn’t change unjust laws? But for those laws which do not need to be changed at the first place, why to change it? I am sorry I cannot mention those 170 laws in a comment but certainly observed it once and they were not related to issues like caste and differences, and all laws related to such issues were rewritten and mistakes were rectified, just go through those 170 and you will find it too, I assure you.
      You can’t compare the Chinese regime with the Indian government in any sense because firstly china is not as culturally diverse as India; secondly it is a communist government so they have done much of their development sacrificing the freedom of the masses. And about amendments I do not mean it happened solely due to diversity, but the issues and the need of amendments is what came from diversity, which is unavoidable for a nation with at least over 30 major cultural diversities, if summarized by counting the number of states, which country has such diversity? I did not say discrimination; I said diversity. Don’t confuse amendments with the cause of caste discrimination, the constitution has ton times greater dimensions than what we are focusing on, and most of the amendments had no relation with this cause. For e.g. The amendments regarding the inclusion of territories which were captured from the Portuguese needed an amendment to be recognized as union territory, and there were many amendments regarding border issues and regarding policies towards Pakistan. Where do you find discrimination or anything even slightly related to it in these amendments? There are many many such amendments. If the need of the hour is an amendment in a law and which is wholeheartedly supported by all, is it a drawback if the constitution allows changing it?

      And please I repeat do not blame reservation for discrimination.75% of our population resides in villages. And people in villages, in any part of the India, do not perpetuate atrocities on dalits because of reservation. Just look at Stalin’s documentary ‘India Untouched’ you will find it in the sting operations which they carried. That they do it because they just envy the dalits because of their ‘jati’, they don’t want to see them develop, and the priest class still justify it every now and then mentioning the ‘shastras’. Please refer it just once it will make it pretty clear. They (priests who preach such teachings at the root level) hardly care whether or not dalits get reservation. They just want them to stay untouchables in any case. That’s actually where the discrimination starts my friend.
      I am sorry I am not able to conclude in a comment and taking much of your websites space, but would want to add more.

      Delete
    3. And people at the root level actually do not know much about Dr.Ambedkar’s work. Please note that the Mahad satyagraha and Manu-Smriti dahak din are two different events, the satyagraha was done on 27th of march 1927 and Manu-Smriti dahan was done on 25th December. And the person who is most close to your ideology is Dr.Ambedkar himself as he was against hero worship and clearly stated every now and then that serving and following leaders and serving the country are all together two different things. He believed in breaking idols, not making them, even if it was he himself. Even I adore him simply because of his karma. I will tell you about his karma later. You mention there is not untouchability in Bihar and UP. Please again refer to ‘India Untouched’ and to the many reported cases regarding untouchability and horrifying caste violence. And if you want, I can send you the proof and the link myself.
      You always stated what Dr.Ambedkar’s problem was. You should also pay attention what Gandhi felt and how irresponsible his opinions were. He criticized untouchability in English paper Harijan and stated that it was beyond caste. And on the other hand in his Gujrati paper Dinbandhu, he strongly supported the caste system, the varnashram dharma and its norms. How can we speak about being united and abolish practices like untouchability when we our self want to preserve those differences which are in our interest? Where a Brahman is a Brahman and a Shudra is a Shudra, people could very easily justify all the atrocities stating that they are just following their dharma. Even if we leave untouchables, the caste system has fallen prey to its weakness and to the modern economy, and many inter-caste and inter-regional marriages have happened and are successful. Then who is divisive now? Father of the nation himself?
      Gandhi always focused on just two issues, untouchability and temple entry. Dr.Ambedkar criticized him for that and stated that mere washing of untouchability and temple entry is of no consequence. He wanted the depressed sections to rise to the level of other classes. They were deprived of land and were not allowed to gather money and there were many more religious policies that kept the untouchables and India down through ages. Is abolishing untouchability and temple entry solely the solution for the untouchables, what about them having no land and money of their own? But Gandhi still wanted just those two things. Read carefully those two papers my friend, Gandhi actually believed in it. Even the negotiations carried during the poona pact have witnesses who were on Gandhi’ side but still who questioned his rudeness during providing compensation to the untouchables, if not separate electorates. And Gandhi just told them not to interfere, without any explanation.
      I am sorry but I am not finished yet. Just one more comment and I will try to conclude.

      Delete
    4. And there lies the necessity of reservation and financial aid for the untouchables. It is well known that most of the sections other than SC/ST/VJ/NT etc had land and money of their own more often than not. If the Muslims are treated like untouchables, then also it makes relatively less difference because they are economically and socially much more self-dependent than the dalits. They and the non-dalits can sell their lands for the sake of money to provide aids to their children for pursuing costly education, also due to being relatively more prosperous and privileged, their children are brought up in a healthy environment and so they can also aim high. But from where will the SC/ST’s get the same? Does the nation bear no responsibility for it? The answer is yes, they can get the same through reservation and scholarships. If you consider it as difference than first please answer me how can you justify the economical imbalance for centuries in which every dalit was on the receiving side and how do you expect them to do the impossible that is rise on their own? Every dalit cannot become Dr.Ambedkar. The only exception you can state that what about people who were not untouchables but were economically backward. The answer is that they are separately categorized as OBC/EBC etc and provided the same. All these categories collectively comprise of 80% of our population.
      Like for Gandhi and Nehru issues beyond India were limited to their writings and speeches till the time India got freedom. Same goes for Dr.Ambedkar, the difference is that freedom was achieved in 1947, but achievement of equality is still an unfinished mission, because of which he could not focus on other issues. But if you think that he did not care, let me tell you despite of being restricted in his work by his counterparts, he tried his best to work as the law minister. He resigned from the his post as a law minister because his requirements in the Hindu Code bill regarding property rights for women and related to second marriage and rights regarding divorce for women were withdrawn by the government due to the resistance and protests by the orthodox Hindus. Is this an issue regarding the untouchables? Secondly I would like to draw your attention to his thesis on ‘the problem of rupee’ and how he strongly opposed the British government economical policies and how straight forward he was in pointing out their mistakes, because of which in the end he was forced to write it again. Also refer to his another thesis on history on Indian economy from 1765.

      Recently on a debate on a news channel as to how much contribution Dr.Ambedkar and Nehru made to the country, Mr.Sudhir Kulkarni yet again just measured the contribution just by their contribution towards the freedom struggle, and stated that Dr.Ambedkar stands nowhere near Nehru because Nehru went to jail 9 times which totals up to 9yrs and Dr.Ambedkar did not go even once. Nobody mentioned then that Dr.Ambedkar lost 4 of his sons due to not having enough money for treatment of their illness, if we are given a choice we would be willing to spend our entire life in jail instead of seeing our children die. A person holding multiple degrees from world’s most reputed institutions preferred to stay poor and struggle for equality and rated the purpose ahead of all his personal gains and sacrifices. This is just one of many untold sacrifices of him and for which I adore him.

      Delete
    5. Gandhi had invited Dr.Ambedkar just once while being in jail and Dr.Ambedkar wasted no time and showed no hesitation in meeting him. You must be well aware that during the concluding stages of British rule in India, the British assured India and the congress that if they helped them in the world war against the axis powers, then after the war ends, they will grant India freedom. Gandhi and the congress refused it and proposed to grant independence first and said that a free India would support the British. Firstly I strongly believe that it was the right decision. But the same sort of assurance was like what the British gave, was given to Dr.Ambedkar by the congress and others (eg.Lala Lajpatrai) that first he should help in the freedom struggle and later on in a free India these issues can be handled, but he also could hardly convince himself, they were not to be solved just by change of governance, but by concrete changes in rights and laws and also their implementation. My question is that when congress were correct in viewing implementation ahead of assurance, what was wrong if Dr.Ambedkar viewed the issue of untouchables different than the issue of freedom? The Savarna Hindus and the non-dalits were the culprits of untouchability and caste discrimination, not the British my friend. Does the struggle for human rights has no value and the freedom struggle stands so tall?

      You mentioned that he was planning to form a third nation, but as expected, you did not think ‘why’? The partition happened in 1947, and the movements for the untouchables by Dr.Ambedkar dates back to 1920. After around 30yrs of struggle, being opposed for a better status in the society, with the stronger sections and the congress every now and then just restricting the cause to the eradication of untouchability and temple entry, what else did you expect from Dr.Ambedkar? Do you rate the cause of a united India taller even if the weaker sections are slaughtered every day, and where they can do nothing but to wait for the conscience of the stronger sections to rise? (This still has not happened) Would that be real freedom for them in any sense? Do you wanted untouchables(1/5th of the population) to be left on their own after being deprived of all rights and basic commodities like ‘roti kapda makaan’ and water(how sick that is) and forced to live in poverty for centuries? And that we owed nothing to them?


      This is my last comment, so let me put this straight. You said you don’t support personalities but support a cause. But the title ‘why ambedkar rebellion by choice’ suggests something else. You don’t need to malign them either my friend. And my suggestion is please do not mention quotes of people like Arun Shorie because they do not have so much caliber so that people should pay attention to them when they are maligning personalities like Dr.Ambedkar. Secondly, If you Google just once searching the crimes on dalits, adivasis and other weaker sections, you will find it happens every day, more importantly irrespective of whether the culprits were educated or not, which completely proves your cause of educational equity wrong. Moral values have a different way of getting inherited, and that is by virtue of correct religious and moral teachings given by parents and by those who preach religion. But from the core, the Hindu Dharma-Gurus support caste their differences and untouchability is one of such differences (refer to pandit Batuprasad Sharma Shastri and his views on caste in the documentary ‘India Untouched’). My only question to you is will their views change with the removal of reservation? Or would you prefer to remain silent about this like everyone else? Because they would never ever preach equality, as discrimination has its deep roots in their mind. And as they preach, their followers (Hindus) will unconditionally follow them, not me or you or Gandhi or Dr.Ambedkar, as they assume their teachings to be the teaching of Hindu Dharma. Would want an answer on this.

      Delete
    6. Somewhere you are not getting right chord while solving the complications. When a constitution is being made; rules have to be defined in accord with parameters, variables, facts & figures and then their equations. There has to be difference between a parameter and variable and also matters how you define them. This is why, England, Germany and other European countries don't need to go through so many amendments. It doesn't matter how big the country is.
      As initially i pointed, Untouchability lies beyond caste, hence it can never be solved playing on caste level because it's an effect not a cause that you can suppress. Further, to improve the financial status of a family - you need to look for his/her economic aspects and not caste aspects. I have interviewed 3-4 people from Banaras and Patna those cracked UPSC exams by studying in street lights and selling banana and other fruits and they were not BCs; much more than that many have committed suicides due to the failures. Why do you oppose to give them the benefits of weaker section or you want to bring one more rule for the same? Aware of that Nehru wrote to CMs "It is true that we are tied up with certain rules and conventions about helping the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. They deserve help, but even so I dislike any kind of reservation… I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards." he warned, "It has amazed me to learn that even promotions are based on communal or caste considerations. This way lies not only folly, but disaster" K.M. Munshi tried to recorrect the parameteric definition that time in parliament which went invain, "When it is read with article 301 it is perfectly clear that the word "backward" signifies that class of people--does not matter whether you call them untouchables or touchables, belonging to this community or that,--a class of people who are so backward that special protection is required in the services."

      There are several cases those tried to resurrect the implications. TMA Pai foundation vs. Karnataka Gov, Inamdar vs. Maharastra Gov, Islamic academia of Education vs. Karnataka gov are the few where court had to stick with article 10, 30(A), 15 and so on later added clause 5 with further clarifications, even though the opposite was imperative in national interest. All these cases raised questions about the basic skelton and ammendments done to our constitutional jurisprudence. While dealing with article 10 of the draft constitution Ambedkar himself cautioned against the exception being made against the fundamental rule of equality. Now with so many amendments done, fundamental rule of equality has become an exception. he elaborated, "Let me give an illustration. Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which came to something like 70 per cent of the total posts under the State and only 30 per cent are retained as the unreserved. Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect to the first principle, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with Sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats."

      Continued...

      Delete

    7. Maintaing standards and ‘candidates must come to the standards’ are the growth wheels of a country and must be taken as global fact but what we took was ‘caste’ a variable as a fact based on very wrong parameter ‘standards must come down to the candidates’. A very wrong approach to solve a problem, check out, do the reasons evaporate because the constitution has been amended?
      Justice VR Krishna Iyer said “You can’t throw to the winds considerations of administrative capability and grind the wheels of government to a halt in the name of Harijan welfare. The administration runs for good government and not to give jobs to harijans.”
      I have written something against Ambedkar doesn’t mean that I oppose him. I wrote because during my research on his writings, I found Ambedkar did lot of promises in his writings, he pointed out what Gandhi, Nehru or Congress shouldn’t have done but failed terribly in doing the same. For me, it’s almost impossible to write against Gandhi. There are few people/organizations whose contributions are even much more promising than that of government of India. Gandhi, Tata stand there, he has created legends be it Mandela, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Martin Luther King junior, Azad, and so on the list is countless. His life/karma inspired people, not his writings. The more you read him the more you will come to know. Since you have mentioned ‘Land’ just let me tell you, Bhodaan movement run by Vinoba bhave in 1951, was totally inspired from Gandhi and is the biggest in the history of India in terms of land donation. You can’t compare it with that of Ambedkar.
      Your comment that Mahad andolan and manu Smriti Dahak divas are different is actually not. Manu Smriti was burnt by Ambedkar and his supporters on that day after he failed to achieve it through Mahad andolan. Ambedkar and many others didn’t believe in Manu Smriti which divided people in accord with their work culture but they believed in our constitution which divided people based on origin. Manu Smriti was badly practiced by people which needed to cure. You know well every body can’t be the first citizen of India, can’t enjoy the same facility even though they work harder but you perceive it as a necessity but not Manu Smriti which too was written as per their need and practiced that time.

      Delete
    8. First of all about the constitution of the European countries, those countries comprise of dominant majorities like German Christians in Germany, French Christians in France, But India is an exception, because as I said, there is no single culturally dominant group here, we are Gujaratis Hindus, Maharashtrian Hindus, Rajasthani Hindus, Bengali Hindus and many more culturally diverse groups living under the same roof, and that is what I meant by diversity, not by the geographical area, neither by its population. Greater is the diversity, bigger is the difference between their opinions, and harder is to draft a constitution for the same.

      You counted the number of students who were not BC’s but poor economically. I insist you to then count number of students who were economically poor and those who belonged to BC’s(especially SC/ST/VJ/NT). I assure you that you will be heavily, heavily outnumbered. The cases that you mentioned are bound to happen anyway, reservation or no reservation, but the numbers that I am talking about had to earn their money and land from scratch after they got the right to do so, which dates back to 1947, earlier to which for over a thousand years they had no money or land to back themselves.

      As you have mentioned what Mr.Iyer quoting dalit welfare as an ill-effect, you can easily find many, many jurists against his opinion and who wholeheartedly believe in eradication of inequalities by regal reforms, again you will be outnumbered.

      Since you mentioned about setting standards, the mistakes in setting standards are much worse in Manu-Smriti. Not only the text is discriminatory, but lacks basic human-values. Practices mentioned in it are hard to be even read without getting disgusted, leave alone following them, at any time in any era. Still we obeyed it out of fear till late 18th century, too recent to be called a different era I suppose.

      You told about Dr.Ambedkar’s failures, but which leaders have not seen failures, or didn’t fail to do what they promised? As you have read more than me about Gandhi I suppose, he failed to achieve a united India, the cause behind his assassination and in many more cases. While Dr.Ambedkar’s cause of equality and his ideologies are gaining strength day by day as so is his relevance. It depends on with what intention we carry out our research. If you read his writings from Shorie’s POV, you will more often see his failures for sure. If you Google the darker side of Gandhi, you will find many more that what you found about Dr.Ambedkar. Yet again you will be outnumbered.

      I adore a different list of idols who believed in equality ahead of anything else, like Mahavir, Gautam Buddha, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Rajmata Jijabai, Savitribai Phule, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Rajashri Shahu Maharaj, Dr.Ambedkar himself and many others. I rate them above Gandhi and others because of the circumstances and the hostile situations that they faced and the sacrifices that they made.

      I focused on atrocities on the weaker sections but I guess you don’t realize its severity, I focused on flaws in our very religion and its teaching rather than on the administration, because its religion which gave birth to discrimination so it is up to the same to end it, before we question the administration. Because the problem remains, that those who believe and preach discrimination (refer to pandit Batuprasad Sharma Shastri and his views on caste in the documentary ‘India Untouched’) hardly care about reservation and the constitution.

      My conclusion: BRING RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL EQUALITY AHEAD OF POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EQUALITY. REVIVE HINDUISM, ABOLISH CASTE, VARNA AND THEIR DIFFERENCES THROUGH RELIGIOUS REFORMS FIRST, BECAUSE
      1. RESERVATION IS BECAUSE OF CASTE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
      2. CASTE AND ITS ATROCITIES WILL CONTINUE TILL ITS VERY EXISTENCE, WHETHER THERE IS RESERVATION OR NOT.
      3. ANNHILATION OF CASTE WILL AUTOMATICALLY ENCOURAGE REMOVAL OF RESERVATION other wise it is double-dealing and nothing else.

      Delete
  5. The outside world knows about Gandhi because they just know about the non-violent struggle that he carried out. But in fact we should feel lucky that the people around the globe didn’t try to take a look at the inside of India, the caste system and its horrifying effects that prevailed here, and still continue to prevail till date, otherwise they would very easily rate it worse than that the condition of German Jews and American Black population. While we are reading articles and comments here, there surely is a dalit suffering from violence, rape because of the menace of caste. It’s just an issue for us, but for a dalit it is a matter of life and death my friend.
    Please do not just feel satisfied by seeing an Indian being getting so much respect abroad. There are far more issues from which the weak are paying the price for the crime perpetuated by the strong, and since you think time has progressed, let me tell you there not even a single state where the dalits represent the ‘strong’. If you think there is, then I suppose you are talking about a different India. Since you mentioned the vote politics of Bihar, there is not sign of decline in crime against dalits before and even after Nitish came. I don’t blame him or Lalu, I blame the belief.
    I understand what goes through your mind when somebody questions our belief. We always try to escape the debate on caste, most of the time for the bad reasons, saying that Bhagwat Gita does not support determination of caste on the basis of birth, about the sanatana dharma and things like that. But it is a fact that Hindus follow caste, its rituals, and ultimately discrimination. We all have a soft corner towards a religion under which we were born and which we followed so sincerely. You will take caste just as ‘sanskar’ under which you were born and brought up, and nothing else. But the question is that,”Do the rest of people of your community truly and wholeheartedly agree with you or do you represent their thoughts?” No. the way a non-dalit in a big city takes caste is exactly opposite to what a non-dalit in a rural area takes. In villages it is fierce. We are born in privilege so we can never understand their pain and sufferings. As we know it is becoming harder and harder to provide every Indian child with quality education as our population is increasing at threatening pace, but even if you get the best education in school, if you come home and your parents ask you ”what were you doing with that bhangi/chamar?” things won’t change at all. Equality should be taught through religion also, where unfortunately Hinduism is lagging behind big time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you think that reservation and the constitution is fueling discrimination then you must refer to the episode on untouchability by Amir Khan’s Satyamev Jayate and ‘India Untouched’ by Stalin. It will completely wipe out your confusion. Its not due to the constitution or reservation, its due to the belief.
    The Damini gang-rape incident in Delhi took so much attention as a girl from well to do family was raped by the anti-social poor. Yes undoubtedly they deserve severe punishment, but what about the rapes that are perpetuated by the police, military and landlords on dalits and adivasis? They almost think it is their right to rape dalit and adivasi women. Even the backward OBC’s which now have became powerful, never miss a chance to perpetuate violence on dalits (OBC’s are also a reserved category so according to your opinion they should not posses hatred towards the SC’s because reservation benefits them too). The Soni Sori rape incident, the shameful Khairlanji massacre, Recent riots in Dharmapuri, Honor killings in Haryana are just few of thousands of cases where dalits are treated worse than animals (excluding many more cases which were not reported out of fear).
    Before judging the morality of Dr.Ambedkar, we should first question why Hindus remain silent on a text like Manu-Smriti? Despite the immense hatred written in that text, lets make an exception to the prejudices of its writer, but it is certainly true that the writer of smriti, while he was busy creating caste and their duties, had no idea about how the world is going to shape in future and how complex the economy would become to follow caste at first place. It is a complete failure in modern society, then why caste marriages? That was the same suggestion to the Shankaracharya and Gandhi by Dr.Ambedkar, “Roti aur Beti ka len den” which will completely wipe out differences in very short span of time. But he was rejected, because that would defy the shastras. How can this belief be termed as great?
    Dr.Ambedkar lost convincingly defeated in the elections, but you did not consider the fact that he was the first dalit to get graduated. That itself explains the plight of dalits and how aware they were about their rights and who actually cared for them. There is no doubt that it was too easy to manipulate an illiterate mass of people at that time, hence he was defeated. Now that the dalits are aware of him and his work, he is connected to dalits stronger than Gandhi or Nehru or any other leader is connected with any section, there is no comparison, that’s why politicians have to take his name, otherwise what was the need to do that? As the dalits make their ground in the corporate world in coming years, you will find his legacy and relevance increase by leaps and bounds.

    We follow hororscope and kundalis and possibly everything that we can in our daily life, but all this made no difference when British attacked and consequently conquered our country. I again repeat that we all have a soft corner towards a religion under which we were born and which we followed so sincerely, and can’t accept its drawbacks. Arun Shorie is not different, a strong supporter of Hinduism will be disgusted by Dr.Ambedkar, but it’s all because he finds it too difficult to accept the truth. But its time when India puts humanity at the first place, which is all Dr.Ambedkar wanted. In the years to come, he will surely be respected more than any other leader, because his relevance in the cry for social and political equality is increasing day by day. Equality is what needs to be achieved, then there is no need to credit Dr.Ambedkar for it, he didn’t want it either.
    I also have many things to share about why reservation is necessary. But let’s not ignite that issue again and again. All I want to say is that on the day when caste and varna will be shown the door by Hindus, will be day that reservation will be shown the door by the constitution. If the root cause stays, then reservation should also.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you think that reservation and the constitution is fueling discrimination then you must refer to the episode on untouchability by Amir Khan’s Satyamev Jayate and ‘India Untouched’ by Stalin. It will completely wipe out your confusion. Its not due to the constitution or reservation, its due to the belief.
    The Damini gang-rape incident in Delhi took so much attention as a girl from well to do family was raped by the anti-social poor. Yes undoubtedly they deserve severe punishment, but what about the rapes that are perpetuated by the police, military and landlords on dalits and adivasis? They almost think it is their right to rape dalit and adivasi women. Even the backward OBC’s which now have became powerful, never miss a chance to perpetuate violence on dalits (OBC’s are also a reserved category so according to your opinion they should not posses hatred towards the SC’s because reservation benefits them too). The Soni Sori rape incident, the shameful Khairlanji massacre, Recent riots in Dharmapuri, Honor killings in Haryana are just few of thousands of cases where dalits are treated worse than animals (excluding many more cases which were not reported out of fear).
    Before judging the morality of Dr.Ambedkar, we should first question why Hindus remain silent on a text like Manu-Smriti? Despite the immense hatred written in that text, lets make an exception to the prejudices of its writer, but it is certainly true that the writer of smriti, while he was busy creating caste and their duties, had no idea about how the world is going to shape in future and how complex the economy would become to follow caste at first place. It is a complete failure in modern society, then why caste marriages? That was the same suggestion to the Shankaracharya and Gandhi by Dr.Ambedkar, “Roti aur Beti ka len den” which will completely wipe out differences in very short span of time. But he was rejected, because that would defy the shastras. How can this belief be termed as great?
    Dr.Ambedkar lost convincingly defeated in the elections, but you did not consider the fact that he was the first dalit to get graduated. That itself explains the plight of dalits and how aware they were about their rights and who actually cared for them. There is no doubt that it was too easy to manipulate an illiterate mass of people at that time, hence he was defeated. Now that the dalits are aware of him and his work, he is connected to dalits stronger than Gandhi or Nehru or any other leader is connected with any section, there is no comparison, that’s why politicians have to take his name, otherwise what was the need to do that? As the dalits make their ground in the corporate world in coming years, you will find his legacy and relevance increase by leaps and bounds.

    We follow hororscope and kundalis and possibly everything that we can in our daily life, but all this made no difference when British attacked and consequently conquered our country. I again repeat that we all have a soft corner towards a religion under which we were born and which we followed so sincerely, and can’t accept its drawbacks. Arun Shorie is not different, a strong supporter of Hinduism will be disgusted by Dr.Ambedkar, but it’s all because he finds it too difficult to accept the truth. But its time when India puts humanity at the first place, which is all Dr.Ambedkar wanted. In the years to come, he will surely be respected more than any other leader, because his relevance in the cry for social and political equality is increasing day by day. Equality is what needs to be achieved, then there is no need to credit Dr.Ambedkar for it, he didn’t want it either.
    I also have many things to share about why reservation is necessary. But let’s not ignite that issue again and again. All I want to say is that on the day when caste and varna will be shown the door by Hindus, will be day that reservation will be shown the door by the constitution. If the root cause stays, then reservation should also.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Do read this article if you can Mr. Anupam and do explain where did the constitutional 'error' happen in thousands of cases like this

    http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6220%3Athe-ashis-nandy-controversy-inside-the-mind-of-one-intolerant-dalit&catid=119%3Afeature&Itemid=132

    ReplyDelete
  9. > Ambedkar always represented himself as a leader of untouchables
    > but on 14 October 1956, only 2 lacs people out of 20 crore,
    > gathered at his recall.
    People are more attached to their religions and that's why they didn't get converted.
    Just because, 2 lakh people followed Dr.Ambedkar, doesn't mean that he was not popular or the backward class didn't like him or support him.

    Do you know, how many people went to jail in Non Co-operation Movement of 1921, Dandi March of 1930 and Quit India Movement of 1942?
    Even if you add all the 3 movements, number of people who went to jail doesn't come anywhere near 2 lakh.
    So, do you think that, Gandhi's movements were failure?

    BTW, have you analyzed, why we got independence in 1947?
    Quit India movement was done in 1942 and it died down within 1 year. And there was no movement after that.
    So, why did the Britishers quit without even asking?
    They had decided to give independence in 1948 and later advanced it to 1947 August 15th. This also, not because of any Congress movement, not because of Mahatma Gandhi's demand!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am able to see the message "21 Responses so far.", but I am not seeing any responses! Why?
    Can you please allow me to read all the responses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Narendra,

      Thanks for your comment, there might be some problem from your side, pls do check it again...

      Delete
  11. Mr. Anupam,

    Everyone can interpret the history in his own way, as it is impossible to show now that why one person behaved in such a way in that context. In your article, the way you presented the message itself is showing that how biased you are, by using the word "savarna". There are some factual errors also, like the population of Dalits in 1956 as 20 crores. But the actual population of the entire country was meager around 36 crores.

    It seems that you have great admiration for Mr.Gandhi and it also seems that you have read or observed the Indian Freedom Struggle and the History of India only from Mr.Gandhi's point of view. It is not only Mr.Gandhi who had brought independence for the nation but the contribution from everyone including Dalits, to many Martyrs who have sacrificed their lives for the independence of the country.
    Though I agree that Mr.Gandhi followed non-violence path for the independence, he was not a true follower of non-violence, in fact he led the South African soldiers and to his credit he got a war medal from the same British government. If successors of a person, rules any country for decades and if they fill every nuke and corner of this country with images of that Mahatma, it is not surprising that he appears that magnanimous to you.

    In the case of leadership also, Mr.Gandhi was not a born leader. If you observe the history he went back to South Africa again and waited for an opportunity and when he found vacuum in the leadership, then only he returned to India and jumped into the frey. But for Ambedkar, he never wanted to be a leader himself but his efforts and actions made him leader and people followed him. There were number of instances where lakhs of people followed his path under those prevailed conditions against the Varna system and caste hindus.

    The One-self only knows the oppression one underwent, agony one faced. It is very easy to comment from the outside. Everyone looks the power or authority they enjoy in any position or post. But they don’t see the capabilities it need and the responsibility he should take. In this matter, look at the stature of Ambedkar as he was selected despite the opposition to him. Here also the credit should go to Muslim brothers who have elected him from the Bengal province. No one should forget he was one of the worlds’s intellectuals and one among very few who read all the books in the London Library.
    I don’t see any instance, as you mentioned that Dr.Ambedkar was worshipping false gods. In fact he worshipped known person Gautam Budha rather than unknown so called gods rubbed on Indians by the Aryans. Dr.Ambedkar not only opposed Mr.Gandhi but everyone who believed in varna system. You may not agrre with me in this regard, you can cross check with literature, that Mr.Gandhi believed in Varna system and he wanted to preserve that culture. So it is very much justifiable, that the allegation made by Dr.Ambedkar in this issue on any one.

    It has been more than 65 years since we got the independence. Had there been any Dalit Prime Minister in India? Had there been any MP or MLA who won from any unreserved constituency?. If it is the case now, imagine the social conditions in those days. Dr.Ambedkar made great contribution here by accepting to Puna pact, otherwise there would not have been a country called India. He tried his level best to get the ‘Rajyadhikaaram’ to the depressed class. The money and muscle power would allow him the success?.

    Finally I wanted to advise you to study the History from broader perspective and open your horizons rather than presenting history in your POV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree with your perception that article seems to favor Mr. Gandhi. It is because I find more than enough reasons for the same. One just can't be compared by other.

      Sometimes I just put the dots letting my readers connect them. I would urge you read carefully not only the blog post but history in depth. It's not that difficult, after all Gandhi is the most read personality of world till date.

      > 'Savarna' the word mostly used by Mr. Ambedkar and here has been used in the same context.
      > 20 crore here, represents a particular segment of the population that Ambedkar estimated would be his side with the fact that 90% of the Buddhists, one-third of the Sikhs, and one-third of the Christians in India belonged to the notified scheduled castes or tribes of the Constitution.. Check his conversations with Sarojini Naidu 1949 @JNU library archives. that was one of the reasons that he even wanted to make third country only for dalits that was one of the reason he supported partition.(Study of the Scheduled Castes Federation and Dalit Politics in U.P., 1946-48)

      > 'Worshiping false Gods' is a book mentioned as reference.

      > have never written that Gandhi did oppose Varna System. Infact he had proudly accepted that and wanted to filter bugs. Ambedkar opposed Hindu Varna system not Varna system because others didn't touch him any way. Infact there is no religion without Varna system it all depends how you perceive. Hence changing religion won't free you from Varna system.

      > I want to see a PM by his performance not through his caste and religion. I don't draw lines in the wake of humanity but try to efface the dark lines for the same.

      Delete
  12. DP, Though I agree to many of your points, I see some factual errors.

    DP> unknown so called gods rubbed on Indians by the Aryans.
    Recent historical findings have irrefutably disproved the "Aryan Invasion Theory". Also, the "Genetic origin research" has concluded that, all Indians from North to South and East to West are all from the same genetic origin and there is no link between the Indian gene and the Iranian or any other gene.
    So, there is nobody called Aryan and everybody here are Indian.

    > Had there been any MP or MLA who won
    > from any unreserved constituency?
    There are many MPs and MLAs from the backward castes, SCs, STs, who have been elected from unreserved constituencies.
    For example, Narendra Modi is from a backward caste and has got elected as an MLA from an unreserved constituency.
    Devaraj Urs is one of the most popular chief minister of Karnataka. He was also from a very backward caste and got elected as an MLA from an unreserved constituency.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Powerful post!
    And some of my viewpoints are:
    I pray Hindu God as well Christ .I firmly believe in higher spirits and also the free will of an individual man to chose his nature of worshiping.For some sees God in himself , doesn't mean he is an atheist. After all we make decisions depending on our life circumstances (follow a path set by others or your own) - just the name differs Hindu,Muslim, Buddhist, etc

    And how many people have played their own games in the name of religions? and many Gandhi's has set an example in spite of these religions


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yup, completely agree with your point. you have simplified the religion and that is how it should be practiced.

      Delete
  14. Hi Anupam,

    On Ambedkar siding the British - The untouchables were in a much, much better position under British rule since they were given jobs which Savarna Hindus could not even think of giving. Supporting the freedom movement would have meant to crave for slavery again after you somehow found a way out of it. Sounds unpatriotic right? Once you are treated like an untouchable then only you will know.

    Ambedkar wanted to be a God - I actually laughed at this one. Long before his decision to convert to Buddhism, he approached the Hindu Gurus of that time asking for 1. Dine with untouchables and 2. Inter caste marriage. Your research is strongly influenced by your perception. Its like judging Gandhi just from his acts of chastity or judging Nehru from his personal relationships. Don't compare colonial/political freedom with freedom from probably the worst form of slavery.

    Poona Pact and reservation - Separate religion for untouchables? Separate electorates not religion. And reserved seats were given as a compensation. However, this day and Ambedkar's conversion is more than 6 years apart. He didn't convert due to that reason. Your statement is misleading (Just like some other excerpts have mislead your pov)

    Ambedkar couldn't win many seats in elections - Well, Gandhi couldn't drive British out of India as well. (Let's be honest on this point at least) The aftermath of WW2 and Netaji Subash Chandra Bose were the ones who alarmed the British of the serious threat, after 1945. Failures are plenty for Gandhi as well, it's all about what you want to know.

    Gandhi or Ambedkar - Gandhi did deserve greatness. But so did Ambedkar. Gandhi had an army of his own when it came to freedom struggle. How many people struggled against untouchability as much as Ambedkar? Now see we are not talking about charity here. It is their right and it should be given. But still, it was looked upon as 'goodwill'. No one could ever, ever make a difference of that magnitude when it came to this cause.

    I understand that changing one's perception towards something is very difficult. So I would respect your opinion. But chasing down reservation and Ambedkar rather than chasing the demon of Caste, its like chasing the wrong horse just because you can see him, or rather want to see him, instead of the culprit you are supposed to chase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sagar,

      I think we are on the same page when you say...
      "It is their right and it should be given," however, it differs wide apart owing to the opinion's alter-ego -- your perception.
      Let's go point by point.
      The first point is so flawed that you actually defy the contribution of the likes of jhalkaribai, R Srinivasan, Kalicharan Nandagavali, BS Murti and so on...the list is endless. These people fought for their freedom irrespective of the division of religion, caste and colour. There were newspapaers like Dalit Kesri where all the dalit worriors used to express their opinions, again irrespective caste and colour. Ambedkar never wrote for the same due to his romanticism with the West.
      In words of Ambedkar, "Freedom of mind is the real freedom" however, adding to the fact that there is a limited freedom out there, and absolute freedom is a myth...if suppressed or depressed are to get their due...what must be the way forward?
      Gandhi Way or Ambedkar Way?
      Ambedkar, was a good commentator, opining each and every happenings around, an observer at his best. Having said that coming to the activism, he hardly followed his own sayings, to say least.
      The best way was to engage with the other leaders, to move constructively rather than in contracdictory manner -- opening the doors of temples, to fight for the justice, to start. Ambedkar did so. Between 1927 and 1932, he actually led a series of campaigns to assert the right of “Untouchables” to draw water from public tanks & wells and to enter Hindu places. However, he wanted to have a qucik fix in return. here, comes the Gandhi.
      Secondly,
      Perception and opinions are alter-egos and we must try to avoid if we really want a better society with freedom for each and everyone beyond caste, creed & religion. better back your opinion with facts than pushing your perception as my opinion. you see!
      Thirdly,
      Separate electorate -- To me a divide is a divide, reservation creates that. one calls it religion or some caste.
      Fourth, Crying foul on the failure and success of Gandhi is like counting the runouts of Sachin. Don't want to delve into the whataboutery.

      Delete
  15. Hi, thanks for your thoughtful comment..

    Undoubtedly, Mr. Ambedkar was one of the most profound Indian brain of that time. But from social POV, a legend must be recognized from his/her Karma and not merely from the writings and speeches. This is where, Ambedkar lags.

    Mr. Ambedkar has been referred as a top class economist and constitutional brain owing to his degrees and certificates he earned, but then why did he/constitutional Assembly copy all the 34735 rules made by britishers under the Government of India act to rule over the Indian people, certainly was not beneficial for us. Rest of the laws were copied from 16 other nations such as America, Switzerland and so on. Only around 170 laws were new that were introduced in our constitution but those were contributed by Ballabhbhai patel, Sarojini Naidu, Rajkumari Amrit kaur (health related) and few other leaders. Where is Ambedkar's contribution? Like Gandhi, who never used so called Gandhi topi, Ambedkar's name was misused by great Congress masterminds and today by almost all parties. Our consitution unlike any other constitution in the world has undergone 100 amendments within the 65 years since freedom simply shows the major drawbacks in the core constitution. people at the helm supported Ambedkar simply to gather so called untouchables' votes. That's how he was categorized, but his writings and lectures shows he had something more to share but again he didn't dare step ahead with those and was suppressed by others.

    Coming to partition, I oppose any single decision based on caste, creed or religion. Kashmir a problem has risen because of the partition that ignited and kept igniting the difference based on religion(Refer to Kuldip Nayar writings on kashmir). After partition, Pakistani Hindus (20 lacs) are facing same problems, not only Hindus but Sunnis which are in minority there are being treated as low grade citizens. There were more than 10 lac deaths across the border during partition which is highest in history of world wars. How can anybody justify those deaths. Nehru wholeheartedly accepted the partition because of very obvious reasons but why Ambedkar?

    You are counting the untouchables as being beaten raped everyday. i say, time has progressed and its strong vs. weak, In Bihar, where such casting system is too deep, you won't see the same. Mr. Lalu prasad has changed the mindset, during his 10-15b yrs. tenure he didn't do a single development work for the state, but was a single voice of those people. After they got their voices being heard, they needed development so Nitish came as a result.

    Today if we recognize someone as untouchable/backward/SC/ST, it's because our constitution keeps them reminding with its census, various forms asking their caste creed and religion. This is why the problems and so the differences continue to grow. It has been further fueled by Reservation.

    My intention was to learn from his mistakes not to malign him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @priyanka . I am not a history student nor do i know right figures and dates and other thing of history that u people know.

    I am responding to ur one point that u stated
    You said along with sc/st/nt EBC people also get scholarships
    So i am a EBC person i dont have lands to sell, but the EBC earning limits are 1 lakh and the sc/st have no limits
    My friends family income is 18 lakhs per month he is sc and he dont have to pay any fees and my father have 1.5 lakh and i have to pay full fees.
    We are 2 brothers so what do u suggest that we should not get higher education.
    And i too want to mention that why should reservation or scholarship should be given to those sc/st people whose father and fore fathers are engineers or other learned people and are gov servants.
    Because reservation and scholarships was introduced to make sc/sc people educated and improve there standards of earnings.
    Dont you think as there father and grandfathers are gov servants there standard has rised and its there fathers duty to educate and pay fees not the goverment.
    If this practice goes on..we will never be a developed economy....and will always be developing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What an astonishing article this is about Ambedkar and about him being labelled as anti-national. How someone who basically talks sense can be easily termed as anti-national. Brilliant!

    http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ambedkar-birth-anniversary-ambedkar-against-nationalism/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mr.Anupam...I suggest u to read Arundati Roy "The annoted critical edition B.R Ambedkar and the second one is 'What Gandhi and Congress did with untouchables'...Hope after reading them..u may change ur biased ideas as well as distorted opinion..

    ReplyDelete