11-28-2005, 06:16 AM
Please post Ambedkar related posts here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Nov 26 2005, 08:53 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 26 2005, 08:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some info on Dalit Saviour Ambedkar:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]42080[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Nov 26 2005, 08:53 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 26 2005, 08:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some info on Dalit Saviour Ambedkar:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]42080[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->