Ram Puniyani
As the insult hurled on Babasaheb by Amit Shah in Lok Sabha is coming under heavy criticism from all over the country, the right wing Hindu Nationalist ideologues are trying to create a narrative that Babsaheb was on same page as the politics of those from Savarkar- RSS- and BJP in particular. (Balbir Punj on X: “The resurrection of Dr Ambedkar ” / X) They are trying to pick and choose selectively from Ambedkar’s (BA) massive work, a bit from here and a bit from there, to construct a picture as to how much Babasaheb appreciated the ideology of Hindutva.
They go on to quote that Swami Shraddhanand was the “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables” by BA. They ignore the fact that that same Swami was involved in Shuddhi, ‘Conversion of Muslims to Hinduism’. This is what annoyed the Muslim clerics. To this Shuddi, Ambedkar responded, “If the Hindu society desires to survive, it must think not of adding to its numbers but increasing its solidarity and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition of castes is the real sangathan of the Hindus, and when sangathan is achieved by abolishing castes, shuddhi will be unnecessary.” It was parallel and opposite to Tanzim by Tablighi Jamaat which was trying to convert Hindus into Islam. Though Shraddhanand later became part of Indian National Congress, he was also part of Hindu Sangthan, a part of revitalized Hindu Mahasabha committed to Hindu Nation.
New constructs are being floated that Ambedkar and Savarkar are two sides of the same coin. True that Savarkar started the Patit Pavan temple which allows entry of dalits into temples. As per Babasaheb this will create a seperate temple where only dalits will visit. “An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of “Bahishkrit Bharat” states that Ambedkar had opposed the construction of the Patit Pawan temple from the very beginning. He believed that these temples would later be called temples for the untouchables.” However Ambedkar did appreciate Savarkar’s efforts. Though he felt they were irrelevant.
These are some points which are raised by Hindutva ideologues. They go hyper while describing Ambedkar’s relation with Congress. Some of them argue that after the death of Gandhi and Patel, Nehru became authoritarian and ignored the opposition. As Amit Shah said Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru Cabinet for his differences with Nehru on the issue of Article 370, Foreign policy and on the condition of SC/STs. The real crux is that the major point of Ambedkar resigning from Cabinet was his disappointment due to the shabby treatment given to Hindu Code Bill. A huge opposition and meetings were organized by RSS. Their volunteers were coming and demonstrating in front of Parliament. The peak of this was the massive protest in Ramlila Maidan on 11December 1949, in which effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt.
Opposing the Hindu Code bill The Organiser, 7 December 1949, “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu.” The result of this aggressive campaign by RSS, on the Hindu code Bill was that it had to be delayed and diluted. This was the painful moments for Babasaheb, due to which he resigned,
The question of Manusmriti, Chaturvarnya, was the crucial part of differences between Ambedkar on one hand and Savarkar to BJP on the other. While in 1927, 25th December Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti, the second Sarsanghchalak of RSS, M.S. Golwalkar went on to write eulogies for Manusmriti. Savarakar details his support to Chaturvarnya and praises Manusmiriti ““Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” And “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”.
The central point of difference of Ambedkat from the Hindutva ideology is totally put under the carpet. In 1935 Ambedkar spoke in a meeting in Yeola near Nasik, On October 13, 1935, B.R. Ambedkar dropped a ‘bombshell’ when he said, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu! As per him this religion has no place for liberty, compassion and equality. In the revised edition of his book ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’ he opposed the formation of Islamic Pakistan as that may pave the way for Hindu Raj or Rashtra and that will be a big calamity for its people.
As he declared this, there were many pressures on him to embrace Sikhism or Islam. Dr. Moonje from Hindu Mahasabha struck a pact with Ambedkar that if he avoids conversion to Islam, Hindu Mahasabha will not stand to oppose his move. Babasaheb’s own deeper studies led him to choose Buddhism.
Today BJP is trying to project that they have honored Babasaheb by erecting his statues, raising the International Museum in his memory and other symbolic things. These are identity related issues while the crux of Babasaheb’s values remains undermined. When the Mandal Commission was implemented BJP resorted to Kamandal politics. As Advani was arrested during his Rath Yatra (as a part of Kamandal politics), BJP which was part of the parties supporting V P Singh’s Government withdrew its support and V.P. Singh’s Government fell.
Congress along with Hindu Mahasabha opposed Ambedkar in Lok Sabha elections. Still it was Congress again which ensured that he was made a member of Rajya Sabha. He was made a member of the Interim Government and also Chairman of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution. BJP’s anxiety to prove that Ambedkar was part of Hindutva politics is a pure concoction to derive legitimacy from the memory of a person who totally stood against their very ideology of Hindu Nation. What an irony, those who stood/stand for Hindu nation are trying to project Ambedkar, who was opposed to Hindu Rashtra and wanted to have democratic, secular republic, as a part of their ideological parivar!
અહીં, સોક્રેટીસ અને સ્વર્ગસ્થ ભારતીય દેશભક્ત વચ્ચે સ્વર્ગમાં થયેલ એક કાલ્પનિક સંવાદ રજૂ કરવામાં આવ્યો છે. સ્વર્ગના શાંત પ્રાંગણમાં, સોક્રેટીસ એક પ્રખર ભારતીય દેશભક્તને મળે છે. દેશભક્ત ભારતની પ્રાચીન સંસ્કૃતિની પ્રશંસા કરે છે અને પોતાની દેશભક્તિનું નિરૂપણ કરે છે. સોક્રેટીસ તેને પૂછે છે કે : શું સાચી દેશભક્તિનો અર્થ એ નથી કે પોતાની દેશની પ્રાચીન પરંપરાઓ બદલાયેલ સંજોગોમાં પણ પ્રસ્તુત છે, ન્યાયી છે, અને સારી છે તેની ખાતરી કરવી ? અને તે માટે આલોચનાત્મક અભિગમ અપનાવવો જરૂરી નથી ? દેશભક્ત ભારતની એકતા અને સાંસ્કૃતિક જાળવણીનો બચાવ કરે છે, અને બતાવે છે કે પોતાના દેશની એકતા માટે એક જ સંસ્કૃતિ હોવી તે હિતાવહ છે. તે માને છે કે પોતાના દેશની પરંપરાગત સંસ્કૃતિની વિવેચના કરવી કે તેથી ભિન્ન વિચારો વ્યક્ત કરવા એ દેશની એકતા માટે જોખમકારક છે. સોક્રેટીસ દલીલ કરે છે કે આલોચનાત્મક અભિગમ કે વિચારવૈવિધ્ય દેશની એકતાને મજબૂત બનાવે છે. અંતે, દેશભક્ત સ્વીકારે છે કે અવિચારી અભિગમ કરતાં પોતાના દેશ પ્રત્યે સતત વિવેચનાત્મક દૃષ્ટિકોણ અપનાવવો એ જ સાચી દેશભક્તિ છે. આમ, આ સંવાદમાં તાર્કિક વિચારવિમર્શ થકી, ઉત્સાહી દેશભક્તની સમજ વિકસતી જોવા મળે છે. તે વધુ શાણપણ-યુક્ત બને છે.