Ambedkar

11-28-2005, 06:16 AM

Please post Ambedkar related posts here.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 26 2005, 08:53 PM)Some info on Dalit Saviour Ambedkar:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThat he staunchly opposed the Congress requires no more proof than the fact that Ambedkar was Ambedkar...his vitriolic statements against Gandhi and Nehru in fact serve as the License for Kanshi Ram and Mayawati to do the same. His statements are sometimes too vitriolic for a man of his perceived stature... things like " The Soceity is ruled by the Brahmin and the Bania..." ostensibly referring to Nehru and Gandhi and goes on to proclaim that The Bania is like a blood sucking creature on the society.

Today Ambedkar is seen as a messiah of the Dalits but then he was nothing more than a stooge of the British... an instrument of the British Policy of divide and rule. All this so amply clear when Lithglow talks of 'Strengthening the hands of A so that it may be to our advantage'. Can you believe that this messiah was never an elected representative of the Dalits. He could win only one of the reserved seats(Leave alone the General Seats) in the Provincial elections when the Congress was repeatedly sweeping the polls before and after Independence. Ambedkar was appointed by only the British as a representative of the Dalits so that he could proclaim in the round table conferences that Gandhi and Nehru did not speak for the Dalits when Jinnah was proclaiming that Gandhi and Nehru did not speak for the Muslims. In fact Ambedkar joined Jinnah in his 'Deliverance Day' Celebrations when the Congress ministries resigned in 1939.

http://www.indolink.com/Book/book8.html

QUOTE"Right till 1946-that is, till just a year before India became independent--Ambedkar was a vehement opponent of the Freedom Movement, indeed of freedom being given to India at all. He claimed with pride that it is the people whom he said he represented who had conquered India for the British. He said that he was supporting the demand for Pakistan because this would mean that the British would continue to stay in India. The freedom movement is a sham, a ruse, he proclaimed, Gandhi an agent to perpetuate the Nazi-like suppression of the masses, and the British Viceroy the saviour of the depressed classes. The British put "suggestions" to him, and reported to each other how well he had acted in accordance with those "suggestions" they urged each other to strengthen-his hands, to put him in positions that would give greater weight to the theses and formulae he was putting forth, theses and formulae which served British imperial interests to the dot. It was because his association with the British was known to all that he and his party were wiped out in every single election he fought--in 1937, 1946, 1952. But today he is Bharat Ratna.

Whereas Gandhiji taught that the way to reform is for each individual, each group to make demands on itself, Ambedkar reared his followers into a demand-and-denounce brigade, he denounced "the cultivation of private virtues" as worse than useless. Whereas Narayan Guru, himself from an oppressed caste that was not just untouchable but unapproachable, attained the highest spiritual states, thereby acquired unquestioned authority, and transformed society from within the tradition. Ambedkar heaped calumny on that tradition, and eventually proclaimed a "Buddhism" that had nothing to do with the teachings or life of the Buddha. The legacy of one kind of reformer--of Narayan Guru, of Gandhiji-- is a people transformed and ennobled, the legacy of the other is a people embittered and wallowing in backwardness. The legacy of one is a society at peace and in harmony, that of the other is a society riven. The legacy of one is enlightened and serene discourse, the legacy of the other is intimidation as argument, assault as proof. But today scarcely anyone outside Kerala even knows about Narayan Guru, and Ambedkar's statues outnumber those of Gandhiji.

What are the consequences when a society repudiates its own Gods and idols and adopts instead those of the ones who would put it down, who would tear it up?

A major reconstruction of events in our freedom movement, an exhumation of startling facts--the stratagems of the British, and of their associates, the sacrifices of Gandhiji and the nationalists. A withering examination of the myth that Ambedkar wrote the constitution.

A must for understanding our times, for strengthening our country."

https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no12359.htm
[right][snapback]42080[/snapback][/right]
</div>

11-28-2005, 06:19 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 26 2005, 09:09 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEShourie also takes a lot of pains to prove that Ambedkar was not the sole author of the constitution and that after all a magnificent document like the constitution could not have had a single author. He proves this by thoroughly describing how the constitution was framed. Ambedkar was the chairman of the Drafting committee whose purpose was to put into words whatever the constituent assembly thought. The ideas were mainly that of the Congress leadership. Shourie also demonstrated how the final constitution was so very different from what Ambedkar had all along advocated.

Nevertheless one gets the feeling that this part of the book is a bit too long and unnecessary when Ambedkar himself had never proclaimed that he was the sole author of the constitution and he had infact issued many disclaimers to the contrary.

http://www.indolink.com/Book/book8.html

QUOTEThe second part of the book traces the actual drafting of the constitution. Besides pointing out the fact that the constitution as it exists today is a variation on the drafts authored by KM Munshi and others, Shourie also cites from officially printed books on the debates in the drafting committee itself to drive home the point that if anything, Ambedkar was nothing more than an impassive and helpless bystander - a figurehead, if there ever was one.

http://www.agni.org/braindump/entries/00000071.htm
By the same token, todays positive discrimination towards Muslims must also be laid at his door step.
</div>

11-28-2005, 08:21 AM

Ambedkar love letters anger Prakash
QUOTENew Delhi: A collection of love letters written to Dr B.R. Ambedkar by British woman Francis Fritzgerald and being published by Roli Books has upset his grandson, Mr Prakash Ambedkar.

<b>The grandson, a former member of Parliament, has reportedly lodged a complaint with the Delhi police to prevent the publication of the letters. According to the complaint, the publication of these letters "could hurt dalit sentiments in the country".</b>

When contacted, Mr Prakash Ambedkar refused to comment on the issue. "I don't want to talk about it," he said. Roli Books publisher Pramod Kapoor, confirming the police complaint, said he has decided to "go ahead with the publication of the book despite the complaint".

The book, authored by Prof. Arun Kamble, a Marathi professor in Mumbai University, is a collection of love letters written to Dr Ambedkar by Francis, who was a typist in Britain's House of Commons and also worked in India House in London. The correspondence spans over 20 years, from 1922 to 1943. The address from where Francis wrote to Dr Ambedkar, as given in the letters, was 10, King Henry's Road, Hampstead, UK. Claiming that the letters were "authentic", Prof. Kamble said they were given to him by Dr Ambedkar's librarian, Mr S.S. Rege.

Mr Pramod Kapoor of Roli Books said, "There is nothing secretive about them. These are original letters."

He added that the police came to his office in early November on the basis of a complaint lodged by Mr Prakash Ambedkar. They were told that the collection of letters, if published, could "incite the dalits in the country".

However, Mr Kapoor made it clear that there was "nothing illegal and publishing the book would take at least 10 months".

Speaking to this newspaper from Mumbai, the author justified the publishing of the letters: "I am an Ambedkarite. This is purely research work. We know so much about him and his contribution to the nation. The publication of these letters will show more about his life and philosophy."

Reiterating that there was "nothing wrong" in publishing the letters, Prof. Kamble claimed that Dr Ambedkar's biographer, C.B. Khairmode, has also "written about Francis". He added that Dr Ambedkar's personal assistant, Nanakchand Rattu, had talked of Francis' letters in another book. "So you see, there is nothing new about this relationship," Prof. Kamble said. He maintained that Dr Ambedkar had dedicated his book What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables to Francis. In the preface of this particular book, Dr Ambedkar wrote: "To, F â In thy presence is the fullness of joy..."

One letter from Francis to Dr Ambedkar reads: "My darling Bhim, I was happy when I knew you were coming and I thought that we should always be together, and now you have left me again and I hear it, you will come back soon my darling... I want to you to kiss me, I want to feel your strong arms holding me tight."

http://www.asianage.com/?INA=2:175:175:193545
Â© 2005 The Asian Age

11-28-2005, 08:28 AM

Worshipping False Gods - Arun Shourie
QUOTE<i>In his latest book, Worshipping False Gods, Arun Shourie challenges Dr Ambedkar's contribution to Indian Independence. The book has already run into controversy and several dalit organisations in Maharashtra want it banned. </i>

Ambedkar's public life begins in a sense from a public meeting held at the Damodar Hall in Bombay on March 9, 1924. The struggle for freeing the country from the British was by then in full swing. Swami Vivekananda's work, Sri Aurobindo's work, the Lokmanya's work had already stirred the country. Lokmanya Tilak had passed away in 1920. The leadership of the National Movement had fallen on Gandhiji. He had already led the country in the Champaran satyagraha, the Khilafat movement, in the satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act, against the killings in Jallianwala Bagh and the merciless repression in Punjab. This National Movement culminated in the country's Independence in 1947.

In a word, a quarter century of Ambedkar's public career overlapped with this struggle of the country to free itself from British rule. 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. Quite the contrary--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.

Thus, while the years culminated in the country's Independence, in Ambedkar's case they culminated in his becoming a member of the Viceroy's Council, that is -- to use the current terms -- a Minister in the British Cabinet in India.

The writings of Ambedkar following the same pattern. The Maharashtra government has by now published 14 volumes of the speeches and writings of Ambedkar. These cover 9,996 pages. Volumes up to the 12th contain his speeches and writing up to 1946. These extend to 7,371 pages. You would be hard put to find one article, one speech, one passage in which Ambedkar can be seen even by inference to be arguing for India's Independence. Quite the contrary.

Pause for a minute and read the following:

<i>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... </i>

Who is pleading thus to whom? It is B R Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British) Cabinet Mission, A V Alexander.

Nor was this a one-of slip, an arrangement crafted just for the occasion. Indeed, so long as the British were ruling over India, far from trying to hide such views, Ambedkar would lose no opportunity to advertise them, and to advertise what he had been doing to ensure that they came to prevail in practice. Among the faithful his book What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables is among the most admired and emulated of his writings. It was published in 1945, that is just two years or so before India became Independent.

As we shall see when we turn to Ambedkar's views on how harijans may be raised, it is an out and out regurgitation of the things that the British rulers and the missionaries wanted to be said, of the allegations and worse that they had been hurling at our civilisation and people. The book has been published officially by the education department of the government of Maharashtra, and is sold at a subsidised price! It constitutes Volume IX of the set Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches. It reproduces the speech Ambedkar made at the Round Table Conference -- a speech which served the designs of the British rulers to the dot, and for which, as we shall soon see, they were ever so grateful to Ambedkar for it became one of the principal devices for thwarting Gandhiji.

In the speech Ambedkar addresses the prime minister and says, "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...." But if the British were no longer strong enough to resist the forces which were clamouring for such transfer, Ambedkar declared, then his demand was that they make certain arrangements-- arrangements which we shall encounter repeatedly in his speeches and writings, the essential point about which was to tie down the new government of Independent India.

Ambedkar and his patrons were dealt a humiliating blow by the elections of 1937. There were a total of 1,585 seats in the 11 assemblies in 'British India'. Of these 777 were 'tied'-- in the sense that they were to be filled by communal or special representation from Chambers of Commerce, plantations, labour etc. Of the 808 'general' seats, the Congress, which Ambedkar, Jinnah and others denounced from the house tops, won 456. It secured absolute majorities in 5 assemblies -- those of Madras, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar and Orissa. And was the largest single party in 4 others-- Bombay, Bengal, Assam and the NWFP.

From the point of view of Ambedkar and the British -- who had been holding him up to counter the Congress claim that it represented the harijans as much as any other section of Indian society -- worse was the fact that the Congress did extremely well in the seats which had been reserved for harijans. Thirty seats were reserved for harijans in Madras Presidency, the Congress contested 26 and won 26. In Bihar there were 24 reserved seats -- in 9 of these Congress candidates were returned unopposed; of the remaining 15 reserved seats, it contested 14, and won 14.

In Bombay of the 15 reserved seats, it secured 1 unopposed, contested 8 and won 5. In the United Provinces there were 20 reserved seats; two of its candidates were returned unopposed; it contested 17 seats and won 16. In Bengal of the 30 reserved seats, it contested 17 and won 6. In the Central Provinces of the 19 reserved seats, it contested 9 and won 5.

The lesson was there for all to see. Reporting to the Viceroy on the result in the Bombay Presidency, the Governor, Lord Brabourne wrote, "Dr Ambedkar's boast of winning, not only 15 seats which are reserved for the harijans, but also a good many more -- looks like being completely falsified, as I feared it would be."

The electorate, including the harijans, may have punctured his claims but there was always the possibility of reviving one's fortunes through politicking and maneuvers. Efforts of all these elements were focused on the objective of installing non-Congress ministries in Bombay and wherever else this was a possibility. Brabourne reported to the viceroy that Jamnadas Mehta, the finance minister "who is chief minister in all but name", was telling him that the ministry in Bombay would survive motions on the budget and may even get through the motion of no-confidence:

"His calculations are based on the fact that he expects to get the support of the bulk of the Muhammadans, the whole of Ambedkar's Scheduled Castes Party, and of half a dozen or so of those individuals who stood as Congressmen merely to get elected," he reported. But added, "I gather that he is in touch with Ambedkar, who is carrying on negotiations for him, but, as you will find from the next succeeding paragraph, it rather looks to me as if Ambedkar is playing a thoroughly double game, in which case Jamnadas Mehta's hopes are likely to be rudely shattered."

The governor went on to report that he had also had a long conversation with Jinnah, and that Jinnah had told him that, in the event of the ministry being defeated, the Muslim League would be prepared to form a ministry provided they could secure a majority of even two or three in the assembly. "He (that is, Jinnah) went on to say that Ambedkar and his party were prepared to back him in this," Brabourne reported, "and that he expected to get the support of ten or a dozen of the so-called Congress MLAs mentioned above.

He made it quite clear to me that they would not support the present ministry. The governor was sceptical about the claims and assurances of all of them. He wrote, "It is, of course, quite impossible to rely on anything that Jinnah tells me, and the only thing for me to do is to listen and keep silent. I obviously cannot tell Jamnadas Mehta what Jinnah told me, or vice versa, as both of them are hopelessly indiscreet. The only thing that is clear is that a vast amount of intrigue is going on behind the scenes, but, in the long run, I cannot see anything coming out of it at all, as none of these people trust each other round the corner. Were to hazard a guess, it would still be that the present ministry will be defeated on the budget proposals and the alternative will then lie between Congress or Section 93"-- the equivalent of our present-day governor's rule.

Congress ministries were formed. And in 1939 they resigned in view of the British government's refusal to state what it intended to do about Indian Independence after the War. Jinnah announced that the Muslim League would celebrate the resignations as 'Deliverance Day.' Guess who was at his side in these 'celebrations' addressing meetings from the same platforms? Ambedkar, of course.

Nationalist leaders were neither surprised that Ambedkar was on the platforms with Jinnah, nor had they any doubts about the inspiration behind these celebrations. Addressing the Congress Legislature Party in Bombay on 27 December, 1937, Sardar Patel noted, "We cannot forget how Sir Samuel Hoare set the Muslims against the Hindus when the unity conference was held at Allahabad. The British statesmen in order to win the sympathy of the world, now go on repeating that they are willing to give freedom to India, were India united.

The 'Day of Deliverance' was evidently calculated to make the world and particularly the British public believe that India was not united and that Hindus and Muslims were against each other. But when several sections of Muslims were found to oppose the 'Day of Deliverance', the proposed anti-Hindu demonstrations were converted into a Jinnah-Ambedkar-Byramji protest against the Congress ministries and the Congress high command..."

That rout in the election remained a thorn in the heart of Ambedkar for long. A large part of What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables which Ambedkar published in 1945 is a tortuous effort to explain that actually the Congress had not done well in the election, that in fact, while groups such as his which had opposed Congress had been mauled even in reserved constituencies, they had triumphed, and the Congress, in spite of the seats having gone to it, had actually been dealt a drubbing!

Though this is his central thesis, Ambedkar gives reasons upon reasons to explain why he and his kind have lost and why the Congress has won! One of the reasons he says is that the people in general believe that the Congress is fighting for the freedom of the country. This fight for freedom, Ambedkar says, "has been carried on mostly by Hindus." It is only once that the Mussalmans took part in it and that was during the short-lived Khilafat agitation. They soon got out of it, he says. The other communities, particularly the untouchables, never took part in it.

A few stray individuals may have joined it -- and they did so, Ambedkar declares, for personal gain. But the community as such has stood out. This is particularly noticeable in the last campaign of the "Fight For Freedom", which followed the 'Quit India Resolution' passed by the Congress in August 1942, Ambedkar says. And this too has not been just an oversight, in Ambedkar's reckoning it was a considered boycott. The Untouchables have stayed out of the Freedom Movement for good and strong reasons, he says again and again.

11-28-2005, 08:34 AM

Worshipping False Gods by Arun Shourie (contd)

QUOTEIndependence came. For all the venom he had poured at Gandhiji and the Congress, Ambedkar was back in the Cabinet, this time Pandit Nehru's Cabinet of Independent India. How did he get there?

Ambedkar's own explanation was typical of the man: he had done nothing to seek a position in the new government, Ambedkar told Parliament later, it was the new prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who had urged him to join the new government; the offer had come to him as a surprise, he said, he had been full of doubts, but in the end he had yielded to the call of duty and to the plea that he make his talents available to the new government -- that is how things had gone according to Ambedkar. Recall the pleas to Atlee, and set them against Ambedkar's reconstruction of the sequence in the speech he made in the Lok Sabha. It was 10 October 1951 and Ambedkar was explaining his resignation from the Cabinet of Panditji:

<i>It is now 4 years, 1 month and 26 days since I was called by the prime minister to accept the office of the law minister in the Cabinet. The offer came as a great surprise to me. I was in the opposite camp and had already been condemned as unworthy of association when the interim government was formed in August 1946. I was left to speculate as to what could have happened to bring about this change in the attitude of the prime minister. I had my doubts. I did not know how I could carry on with those who had never been my friends. I had doubts as to whether I could, as a law member, maintain the standard of legal knowledge and acumen which had been maintained by those who had preceded me as law ministers of the government of India. But I kept my doubts at rest and accepted the offer of the prime minister on the ground that I should not deny my co-operation when it was asked for in the building up of our nation... </i>

In a word, the reluctant expert who eventually yields to the implorings of others so as to help the poor country that needs his talents. Far from a word of gratitude for the fact that, even though he had been heaping scorn at them for a quarter of a century, even though he had been a most ardent member of the British government which had thrown them and kept them in jails for years, the Congress leaders had put all that aside and invited him to join the government, far from there being any word of gratitude, there was not a word even of appreciation, even of a mere acknowledgment at least for their sagacity, if not their magnanimity, in putting so much of the past -- of the past that was so recent, of the past that had been so bitter -- behind them. The new leaders had implored him to join the government as they had no alternative, so indispensable were the man's talents -- that was the implicit refrain.

The diary of <b>Indrani Devi, the widow of Jagjivan Ram</b>, records the exact opposite. In the entry entitled, <i>Ambedkar ki sifaarish</i>, she records,

<i>And on this side Ambedkar had started coming over to our house. One day he (Ambedkar) told him to put in a word with Gandhiji to have him (Ambedkar) included in the Cabinet. Before talking to Gandhiji he (Jagjivan Ram) talked to Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel said, do what you think is appropriate. He (Jagjivan Ram) got into quite a quandary -- that Ambedkar had always opposed Gandhiji and the Congress, how could he now recommend his case to Gandhiji? Even so, given his large-heartedness, he pleaded with Gandhiji on behalf of Ambedkar, and told him that as he has surrendered in front of you please request Nehruji so that he may be taken into the first Cabinet. </i>

In any event, either as a result of his lobbying or because Pandit Nehru requested him, Ambedkar joined the government. He broke with Nehru four years later and denounced the Congress and Nehru. He entered into an electoral alliance with the Socialists to oppose the Congress in the 1952 elections. His party was wiped out. There were a total of 489 seats in the Lok Sabha. Of these the Congress secured 364, that is almost three-quarters. Ambedkar's party got no seat in the Parliament, only one set in the Bombay assembly, and one in that of Hyderabad.

But presumably the inference to be drawn from this defeat too is the same. "It was a colossal failure, and Ambedkar fell like a rocket," writes his admiring biographer, Dhananjay Keer, about the election result. "It proved once again that there is no gratitude in politics. The nation which had conferred so much glory on him seemed now unwilling to show him gratitude..."

But I anticipate. For the moment we need bear in mind just a few facts.

Throughout the twenty-five years of his public life before the British left India, Ambedkar took positions which were ever so convenient for the British, throughout these twenty-five years he hurled pejoratives at the Congress, in particular Gandhiji. At every turn he put forward formulae and demands which enabled the British to counter the national movement for freedom. The British were fully aware of the use he was to them, and they were anxious to give him a hand so that he could become even more the exclusive leader of the scheduled castes.

We shall have occasion soon to see what happened at the Round Table Conference in 1931, and what happened in its wake: Gandhiji had to stake his very life to thwart the maneuver the British made -- in consultation with Ambedkar, and to his great acclaim -- to split Hindu society asunder. Gandhiji survived, but he was kept in jail, as were the other Congress leaders. Ambedkar, of course, was again on his way to England to attend yet another Round Table Conference. And as on the previous occasion, what he said and did was to the full satisfaction of the British rulers.

On 28 December 1932, the Secretary of State, Sir Samuel Hoare, was recounting the proceedings for the Viceroy. He wrote, "Ambedkar had behaved very well at the (Round Table) Conference, and I am most anxious to strengthen his hands in every possible way. Coming from a family whose members have almost always been in the (British) Army, he feels intensely that there are no Depressed Class units left. Could you not induce the Commander-in-Chief to give them at least a Company? Ambedkar tells me that the Depressed Class battalion did much better in the Afghan War than most of the other Indian battalions. In any case, I feel sure that at this juncture it would be a really valuable political act to make a move of this kind."

Next, Ambedkar argued long and vehemently that India must not be given Independence in the foreseeable future. We have already seen some of his urgings in this regard. Consider an example from another sphere. As is well known, apart from the Communists, Ambedkar was one of the few politicians who supported the Muslim League demand for Pakistan. One side of his argument was that Muslims cannot stay in a multi-religious society; the other side of his argument was that no one can stay with the Hindus either, by which he always meant "upper-caste exploiters".

That in brief was the thesis of his book, <i><b>Thoughts on Pakistan</b></i>. In private he was telling the British something quite different. He had been yearning to be included in the Viceroy's administration, and in mid-1940 it was presumed that, in view of what he had been saying and doing, his induction was just a matter of days.

But those were uncertain times and the calculations of the British were changing from day to day: they were at war with Hitler; they knew that opinion within the Congress was divided, some important elements were of the view that Britain should be supported even though they were not prepared to spell out what they would do about India after the war; so they had to keep in mind the possibility of strengthening this section within the Congress. They also knew that inducting a person like Ambedkar would offend the Congress as a whole no end.

At the last minute, therefore, the Viceroy had called Ambedkar and the other aspirant, M S Aney, and told them that he would have to put off the expansion of his Council for the time being. Not only that, in view of what he might have to do to win co-operation of the Congress, the Viceroy had had to tell Ambedkar that he could not bind himself or his successor about the future. Recounting his meeting with Ambedkar the Viceroy told the Secretary of State on 19 November 1940, in a communication marked "Private and Personal," "I was at pains to protect my successor and myself so far as he was concerned by making it clear that while if circumstances led me to invite him to work with me again, it would give me personal pleasure to have him as a colleague, I or my successor must be regarded as wholly uncommitted in the matter, and under no obligation of any sort."

The conversation had then turned to the demand for Pakistan. The Viceroy noted, "He (Ambedkar) was quite clear that Muslims proposed to hold to their demands for 50:50 and so gradually lay the foundation of Pakistan, and he was perfectly content himself, he said, with that state of things, and in favour of the Pakistan idea quite frankly because it meant the British would have to stay in India. He saw not the least prospect of our overcoming difficulties here by guarantees of any sort and (like most minorities) he has, I suspect, little interest in constitutional progress...."

Eventually, of course, the British had decided that they would just have to leave. Ambedkar then pleaded with them that they tie the new government by a Treaty. Then that they get his organisation a place in the new set up. Then he went and pleaded with Jagjivan Ram, the sort of man on whom he had poured scorn for decades.

But today that very Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna!

11-28-2005, 08:37 AM

Worshipping False Gods by Arun Shourie (contd)

QUOTEAll the facts which have been recounted above were well known fifty years ago. With the passing of the generation that fought for Independence, with the total abandonment of looking up the record, most of all with the rise of casteist politics, they have been erased from public awareness. And that erasure has led to the predictable result: schizophrenia.

To start with, those trading in Ambedkar's name and their apologists have sought to downplay the struggle for Independence: the freedom it brought is not "real", they insist. Exactly as that other group did which teamed up with the British at that crucial hour, 1942 -- the Communists. Indeed, as we shall see in the concluding part of the book, to justify Ambedkar's conduct his followers insist that British Rule was better.

Next, they have sought to exaggerate the hardship that Ambedkar had to put up with, to almost rub out the fact, for instance, that at every step -- for instance in his education -- <b>he received fulsome help from persons belonging to the higher castes</b>; by exaggerating the hardships the apologists seek to explain away Ambedkar's collaborating with the British, his hankering for office: these hardships were the sort that are commonplace in India -- one has only to recall the circumstances in which Swami Vivekananda matured, one has only to recall the starvation which stared him in the face, the calumny and humiliations he had to fight back; but in the case of one and each of our leaders the hardships became the crucible which steeled their resolve to rid our country of British rule; <b>it is only in Ambedkar's case that his followers and apologists think that those hardships justify his collaborating with the British against the national movement.</b>

And, of course, these persons have made a practice of denouncing and calumnising Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhiji was the great leader, even more so he was the great symbol of that struggle for Freedom; as Ambedkar collaborated with the British to undermine him, as for 25 years he heaped on the Mahatma calumnies which the British found so valuable, his apologists abuse and denigrate and belittle the Mahatma. In doing this they work out their own poisons -- poisons which, as we shall see, are the inescapable legacy of leaders who have not cast out the thorn of hatred before they come to wield influence.

Today the abuse he hurled at Gandhiji provides the precedent: the apologist's case, as Kanshi Ram said recently while explaining the venom his associate Mayawati had spewed at the Mahatma, is, "We are followers of Babasaheb, we only keep repeating what he used to say." They are at the same time serving their convenience: they have made Ambedkar's style, so to say, as also the facility with which he allied with those who were out to keep the country subjugated, the rationalisation for their own politics.

But the facts lurk in the closet. Lest they spill out and tarnish the icon they need for their politics, lest their politics be shown up for what it is -- a trade in the name of the dispossessed -- these followers of Ambedkar enforce their brand of history through verbal terrorism, and actual assault.

And intimidation works. Editors and others conclude, "Better leave bad enough alone."

01-21-2006, 04:02 AM

QUOTEDR B.R. AMBEDKAR (BOMBAY: GENERAL)
...Another criticism against the Draft Constitution is that no part of it represents the ancient polity of India. It is said that the new Constitution should have been drafted on the entire ancient Hindu model of a State and that instead of incorporating Western theories the new Constitution should have been raised and built upon village panchayats and District panchayats. There are others who have taken a more extreme view. They do not want any Central or Provincial Governments. They just want India to con-tain so many village Governments. The love of the intellectual Indian for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic. It is largely due to the fulsome praise bestowed upon it by Metcalfe who described them as little republics having nearly everything that they want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations. The existence of these village communities each one forming a separate little State in itself has according to Metcalfe contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to their happiness and to the enjoyment of a great portion of the freedom and independence. No doubt the village communities have lasted where nothing else lasts. But those who take pride in the village communities do not care to consider what little part they have played in the affairs and the destiny of the country; and why? Their part in the destiny of the country has been well described by Metcalfe himself who says:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEDynasty after dynasty tumbles down. Revolution succeeds to revo-lution. Hindoo, Pathan, Mogul, Maharatha, Sikh, English are all masters in turn but the village communities remain the same. In times of trouble they arm and fortify
themselves. A hostile army passes through the country. The village communities collect their cattle within their walls, and let the enemy pass unprovoked.

Such is the part the village communities have played in the history of their country. Knowing this, what pride can one feel in them? That they have survived through all vicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. The question is on what plane they have survived. Surely on a low, on a selfish level. I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am therefore surprised that those who condemn provin-cialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.
</div>

01-21-2006, 05:10 AM

Manch renews plea to confer title on Ambedkar

G.Subramaniam · 01-21-2006, 11:20 AM

worse was the fact that the Congress did extremely well in the seats which had been reserved for harijans
----

These reserved SC seats, had a common hindu electorate
Meaning then as in now, SC reserved seats have an electorate about 25% SC and 75% non-SC

Meaning only a SC chamcha of the caste hindus could get elected from these seats

---

As is well known, apart from the Communists, Ambedkar was one of the few politicians who supported the Muslim League demand for Pakistan.

----

So did Lala Lajpat Rai in 1925, Rajaji in 1942 and Gandhi in private negotiations with Jinnah

All of them recommened the Radcliff line without the blood shed
Ambedkar went even further, he called for population transfer of muslims

Does Shourie want Akhand Islamistan ?

-----

In 1948, Ambedkar asked harijans not to trust Jinnah or the Nizam and leave Pakistan for India by any means possible immediately

He was also opposed to article 370, per Balraj Madhok

G.S

01-22-2006, 12:33 AM

QUOTESo did Lala Lajpat Rai in 1925, Rajaji in 1942 and Gandhi in private negotiations with Jinnah

GSub-ji,

Any reference for this would be great.

G.Subramaniam · 01-22-2006, 01:44 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Jan 22 2006, 12:33 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTESo did Lala Lajpat Rai in 1925, Rajaji in 1942 and Gandhi in private negotiations with Jinnah

GSub-ji,

Any reference for this would be great.
[right][snapback]45280[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Rajaji

---

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2003/11/30/storie...13000310500.htm

Looking back to 1942, when the Congress rejected the "Cripps Plan", Rajaji came up with his "CR-Plan". He advised the Congress to accept the formation of Pakistan but was violently opposed by the party. Some historians think that if only the Congress had only accepted the CR-Plan, the trauma of Partition in 1947 could well have been avoided. Do you agree?

The CR-Plan anticipated in acute detail what actually happened later in 1947. In a way he paved the way for talks if not a solution. Rajagopalachari largely engineered the Gandhi-Jinnah Talks of 1944. It gave Jinnah much publicity, much propaganda of his cause, much force and increased the chances of formation of Pakistan

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1826/18260810.htm

Rajaji's formula, in March 1944, accepted plebiscite on Partition in areas "wherein the Muslim population is in absolute majority." On September 24, 1944 Gandhi himself offered Jinnah his plan for "two sovereign independent States" with a Treaty of Separation on defence, foreign affairs, etc

http://pib.nic.in/archive/50yrs/50featr/raja.html

At the Allahabad meeting of the Congress Working Committee (July 1942) Rajaji came out with the bold suggestion that the party accept the principle of partition as the basis for an understanding with the Muslim League.

`CR Formula' for Partition

The `C.R. Formula' which formed the basis of the 1944 Gandhi-Jinnah talks, relied on the premise implicit in the formula itself, of a treaty of separation which would provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration for a difficult phase of transition.

G.Subramaniam · 01-22-2006, 01:46 AM

G.Subramaniam,Jan 22 2006, 01:44 AM Wrote:[quote=rajesh_g,Jan 22 2006, 12:33 AM]
Quote:So did Lala Lajpat Rai in 1925, Rajaji in 1942 and Gandhi in private negotiations with Jinnah

GSub-ji,

Any reference for this would be great.
[right][snapback]45280[/snapback][/right]

Lala Lajpat Rai

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1826/18260810.htm

The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India."

G.Subramaniam · (This post was last modified: 01-22-2006, 01:52 AM by G.Subramaniam.)

From the hindu viewpoint, there was much logic in favor of partition
United Punjab and United Bengal both had a 55% muslim majority and sooner or later, just like the kashmiri pandits, in a United India, all non-muslims
would have been ethnic cleansed from United Punjab and United Bengal

We eventually would have partition with a much bigger pakistan

Partition also helped in dealing with the Nizam
The Nizams kingdom alone had as many non-muslims as were trapped in east and west pakistan

Only Ambedkar had a vision to call for muslim population exchange

Between Gandhi and Ambedkar, Ambedkar wins by a mile
On balance Ambedkar offered hindus an opportunity for a muslim free India
whereas Gandhi doomed hindus to another partition

Gandhi should be reviled as a fool like Prithvi raj chauhan

Finally all the post partition riots in India have killed less than 1 day of Direct Action in 1946

G.Subramaniam · 01-22-2006, 07:28 AM

Ambedkar must not be deified, but Gandhi is an even worse candidate for deification and the entire hindu society deifies Gandhi

Ambedkar must be looked at in whole, warts and all
On balance, Ambedkar was good for hindus
He opposed commies, islam, xtianity, AIT, wanted expulsion of muslims, questioned loyalty of muslims, refused to convert to islam or xtianity and overall had good relations with Savarkar, Munje and the Hindu Mahasabha crowd

Shourie usually has good things to say about Gandhi, refers to him as Gandhiji

Ambedkar understood islam and knew that co-existence was impossible
Gandhi confused hindus with iswar allah tere naam

The same shourie quotes Ambedkar in proving that islam, not hinduism destroyed buddhism in India

01-22-2006, 07:34 AM

Despite his naivity regarding Islam, Gandhi was a devout Hindu in his personal life. Don't you agree?

01-22-2006, 07:53 AM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Jan 22 2006, 07:34 AM)Despite his naivity regarding Islam, Gandhi was a devout Hindu in his personal life. Don't you agree?
[right][snapback]45309[/snapback][/right]


Gandhi was more of a Jain than a Hindu. Which resulted in his extreme propagation of non-violence. In Bhagawata Gita, SriKrishna exhorted all and sundry to fight against the injustice. India remains a majority Hindu/Sikh because of continuous resistance.

Gandhi or his mother was even initiated by a Jain guru (nothing wrong with that except that is it practical to preach non-violence when your house is being looted/female members harassed/children attacked???).

Check out this site:
http://www.jainheritagecentres.com/jainavo...oice37.htm#edit

Ambedkar did a right thing by converting Dalits in to Buddhism till broader Hindu society is ready to accept Dalits in a dignified manner. Converting to Buddhism still retains Indianness among neo-Buddhists.

In any case, Buddha is considered as 9th incarnation of SriVishnu.

01-22-2006, 08:22 AM

Nobody needs to be deified. We have separate threads for both MKG and BRA. We just need to keep both in perspective.

G.Subramaniam · 01-22-2006, 12:17 PM

Despite his naivity regarding Islam, Gandhi was a devout Hindu in his personal life. Don't you agree?
----

Gandhi was also naive regarding xtianity and jesus

Unlike Ambedkar who read both the koran and the bible and found it flawed, Gandhi made foolish hindus into respecting bible and koran

Gandhi was a big fraud on hindus
Gandhi took the Gita in his hands and told hindus that the Gita preached ahimsa, whereas the Gita preaches righteous vengeance, even against family members

[edited]

Jainism too does not preach blind ahimsa
From 700-1300, Gujurat had several Jain kings and they all defeated the muslim invaders

Arun Shouries book was not a comprehensive view of Ambedkar, but rather a one sided hatchet job

Ambedkar had a very good relationship with Savakar and the hindutva crowd

01-22-2006, 01:19 PM

QUOTEGandhi was a big fraud on hindus
Gandhi took the Gita in his hands and told hindus that the Gita preached ahimsa, whereas the Gita preaches righteous vengeance, even against family members

[edited]

I am not trying to whitewash Gandhi.

Gandhi did appear a little crazy in some instances.

But the main reason majority of Hindus have a high regard for him is his practice of Brahmacharya. We all know Hindus hold a Brahmachari in very high esteem.

I don't think it is possible to change the majority Indian view on this point.

QUOTEArun Shouries book was not a comprehensive view of Ambedkar, but rather a one sided hatchet job

Ambedkar had a very good relationship with Savakar and the hindutva crowd


This is good to know. I didn't know this.

What about Ambedkar's descendents are they pro or anti Hindu?
What about the people who run ambedkar.org?

Also did only the Mahars in Maharashtra convert to Neo-Buddhism or other SCs as well?

G.Subramaniam · 01-22-2006, 08:01 PM

Ambedkar.org is run by anti-hindus

Most converts to neo-buddhism are caste based
In Maharashtra it is Mahars, In UP it is Chamars and so on

Initially Ambedkar thought of converting to sikhism and he had the blessings of Munje the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha
The sikh leadership turned him away, since having a huge influx of SC will take power away from the Jat sikh leadership

Always remember that Ambedkar refused to convert to islam or xtianity despite huge bribes

Login




Remember me Lost Password?