December 28, 2001
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a very learned social
crusader. Widely read in history,
culture, religion, economy, law and jurisprudence; realised very early in his
career that distortion of religion and misinterpretation of history and culture
did more harm to Indian Social life than foreign invasions and domination for
centuries.
The revolution and counter-revolution has been the
continuous process in India. The distortion of history and misinterpretations
of facts has not been restricted to ancient and Medieval History where only
conjectural evidences are available, but efforts on part of quack-historian are
on to deprecate the modern Indian History, where contrary tangible evidences
are still available. Stated in words of
Dr. Ambedkar- History has been made mythology to amuse women and children. Babasaheb Ambedkar himself is a victim of
this sullen and sunken tactics.
A recent book, ‘India after Independence’ written by Bipin
Chandra and published by Penguin has many such stories. The facts regarding the social movements,
especially those attacking the Bramhanical social (dis) order have been
ignored, distorted or tailored with any impunity. Scope of this article is however limited to reproach of Dr.
Ambedkar by the author.
It was the firm belief of Babasaheb Ambedkar that the
social revolution in India is possible only by the annihilation of caste and
discarding the social disorder based on mythical Brahmanical superiority. He believed that the caste system based on
graded social hierarchy is the backbone of Hinduism. He therefore wanted to denounce the Hinduism. He made an in depth study of different
religions before making a decision to embrace the Buddhism. What could be reason to choose
Buddhism? As per Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
he had chosen Buddhism because it was Indian in origin and had flourished here. According to him Buddhism teaches Prajna (understanding as against superstition and
supernaturalism) Karuna (pity) and Samata (equality). Besides, conversion to Buddhism has given
the followers a sense of self-respect, self-reliance and dignity, which is in a
way a great boon to society.
This historical transformation has been dubbed as
political stunt by Bramahanical Historians in past. Bipin Chandra has moved a step ahead. He discovers a new, hitherto unknown fact, “…by 1936, he (Babasaheb Ambedkar) argued
that conversion to another religion was necessary and even chose Sikhism. But the conversion was deferred since the
British Government would not promise that the benefits of reservation would be
continued in the case of conversion.”(Page 445). Bipin Chandra further synthesizes a new fiction “In 1956, he reverted to his position of
conversion being necessary and, with himself at the head, led half a million
people (some say 6 million), mainly Mahars to become Buddhist. He could probably do this because
reservations were not denied to Buddhist coverts as they were to SCs who
converted to Christianity and Islam.” (Page 446). The basis of this eclectic story is best known to Bipin
Chandra! The fact remains that the
reservation facility was not available to Buddhist converts till the V. P.
Singh government extended this facility vide ‘The Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order (Amendment) Act 1990’.
Perhaps Bipin Chandra is not aware that the reservation facility is
available to Scheduled Tribes irrespective of their religion. Was it not easy for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
to get the reservation facilities extended to Dalits, from the incumbent
British Government, after getting converted to Christianity?
On May 30 1935 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had convened a
two-day conference at Yevla (Nasik) to ponder over the declaration of
conversion, which he had made. In his Speech he had stated, “Wherever you may
go, your political rights and safeguards will accompany you. I have no doubt
about it. If you become Muslims, you
will get the political rights as Muslims. If you become Christians, you will
get your political rights as Christians, if you become Sikhs, you will have
your political safeguards as Sikhs, Political rights are based on
population. The political safeguards of
any society will increase with the increase of its population.” He even went to extent of advising his
brethren that it was not proper to depend solely on political rights. Similarly in the concluding part of that
speech he hinted his followers for embracing the Buddhism. Therefore Bipin Chandra’s claim that he
chose Sikhism is based on wild speculations.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar after the conversion had remarked,
“Buddhism is a part and parcel of Bhartiya Culture. I have taken care that my conversion will not harm the tradition
of the culture and history of this land.”
Referring to offers from two other religions he said if he had been
converted to that faith, “I am sure crores of rupees would have been showered
at our feet, and I would have ruined this country within five years. But I do
not desire that I may be recorded in History as an iconoclast.”
Despite these facts, it is not known from where Bipin
Chandra has gathered material to deliberately deprecate Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar. The queasiness by author does
not stop here. He further observes,
“Buddhist converts in the villages have not given up their old Hindu gods and
goddesses, but have only added photographs of Ambedkar and Buddha, in that
order, to the pantheon…. we find that Dalits feel equality with caste Hindus
only when they are able to practice that same religious rites and customs which
the upper castes had denied to them.
Gandhiji’s understanding and strategy of struggle against the Dalit
problem, which emphasized gaining temple entry, stand validated. The fate of
converts to Christianity, who continue to have separate Dalit churches, or of
promotions within Church hierarchy, denial of right to perform ceremonies,
refusal by priests to accept water from their hands, etc., also proves that
conversion has only transformed the problem of cast-based discrimination from
Hinduism to Christianity. The same is true of Muslims, ..” (page 447)
A fantastic logic indeed! It is true that the reason
should be logical but the logic itself cannot be a reason. Bipin Chandra is trying his best to defend
the Brahmanism by making such observations against other religions. Further he fails to understand the
difference between the cosmetic methods of Gandhiji and radical surgery
recommended by Ambedkar. Gandhiji showed a merciful attitude towards
Dalits. He wanted to retain the caste
system with caste-based occupations. On
the other hand Babasaheb Ambedkar stood for annihilation of caste itself by
inter caste marriages. What Gandhi
wanted to achieve by asking the untouchables to bow before Brahminical Gods and
Brahmin priests? His temple entry for
the untouchables was too a matter of benevolence upon Dalits and not a matter
of right.
It is true that the caste system has penetrated into other
religions too. However, it is the
Hinduism and high caste Hindus which are responsible for spreading that poison,
and not the Christianity or Islam.
Unlike Hinduism, equality is the basic tenet of Christianity or Islam.
Caste system is not the Chief characteristic of their body social. The Indian
Christians and Muslims have begun to seriously examine the influence of caste
in the Church and Mosque. The all India
Christian Council (AICC) is making appeals to Churches to promote Dalits in all
spheres of spiritual life. Any such
appeal from any Hindu organisation; for let apart making an untouchable priest
of the small temple (let apart Shankaracharya) would go against the basic
tenets of Brahmanic religion. Instead
of making polemic arguments why Bipin Chandra doesn’t admit that the conversion
has brought a distinct improvement in the life of converts?
The worship of Hindu Gods by neo-Buddhist is a partial
truth. Bipin Chandra conveniently
forgets that not even 50 years have elapsed since the conversion. The impact of Hinduism will diminish in due
course. The religious conversions to
Islam and Christianity are quite old, even then the ruminants of Hindu and
Tribal practices continue in the converts despite the best efforts made by
religious functionaries to eradicate those. Let apart the Muslims, Christians
or Buddhist, the photos of Laxmi are seen in the Jewellery shop run by many
Jains. On the contrary the process of,
what Anthropologists call, ‘De-sanskritisation’ has accelerated in the
neo-Buddhist. They are not only giving
up the Hindu way of life but the new generation is keen that the names of
children, dwellings, organizations etc. should be distinct from Hinduism. A silent revolution is going on. It shall be
pertinent to mention few lines from the speech made by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
next day after the conversion, “When Christianity entered Europe, the situation
around Rome and adjoining countries was deplorable. People were not even
getting two square meals. That time hotchpotch used to be distributed amongst
the poor. who became the followers of Christ then? Poor and sufferers. Entire poor and lower strata of people in
Europe has became Christian. ‘This Christian religion belongs to beggars’ so
said Gibbon. Gibbon is not alive today to answer, how Christianity in Europe
became religion of all.” Alas Bipin Chandra won’t be alive to see the day when
truly Buddhistised people destroy the shackles of Brahmanism.
It appears that Bipin Chandra is scared about the future
of Brahmanism. His book is full of manipulation of facts to denounce the
anti-Brahmin movements and leaders. For
instance, to malign the image of Dr. Ambedkar he makes a very false
observation- ‘His loyalty won him the seat in Viceroy’s Council.’ (page 445)
Does Bipin Chandra wants to suggest that all the 14 (out of 19) Indian Members
of Viceroy’s Council were appointed due to their loyalty, or would he like to
say that all the elections which Congress fought during pre-Independence period
were due to their loyalty to British Crown? Would Bipin Chandra like to call
the some of late ninetieth century moderates traitors, as they had expressed
symbolic loyalty to British Crown?
Writing history is not predicting the future like an astrologer; it should be based upon the unbiased study of available facts. Bipin Chandra defiantly knows this. Even then he has tried to remould the past. Is it with purpose, intend and motive to uphold the Brahmanism?
|
|
Satish Kumar
Gajbhiye M.Sc. (Zoo), M.A.
(Pol. Sc.) M.A. (History) 88, Dayalu
Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur
440 014. E-mail: gajbhiye@nagpur.dot.net.in |
|
This article aims at refuting certain observations against Dr.
B. R. Babasaheb Ambedkar made by Bipin Chandra in his recent book, ‘India
after Independence’. Any
communication is solicited through e-mail to author of this article. The sources of this article:
|
|