Prof Ram Puniyani
AS the insult hurled at Babasaheb Ambedkar by Home Minister Amit Shah in the 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 Babasaheb was on the 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 massive work, a bit from here and a bit from there, to construct a picture of how much Babasaheb appreciated the ideology of Hindutva.
They go on to quote that Swami Shraddhanand was “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables”. 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 shuddhi, 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 the Indian National Congress, he was also associated with Hindu Sangathan, a part of revitalised Hindu Mahasabha committed to the Hindu Nation.
New constructs are being floated that Ambedkar and Savarkar were 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 separate 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 Pavan 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 relationship with Congress. Some 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 over his differences with the prime minister 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’s resigning from the Cabinet was his disappointment due to the shabby treatment given to the Hindu Code Bill. A huge opposition was mounted and several protest meetings were organised by RSS. Its volunteers demonstrated in front of Parliament. The peak of this was the massive protest in Ramlila Maidan on 11 December 1949, wherein effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt.
Opposing the Hindu Code Bill, The Organiser (7 December 1949) wrote: “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 a painful moment for Babasaheb, leading to his resignation.
The question of Manusmriti and Chaturvarnya, was the crucial part of the differences between Ambedkar on one hand and Savarkar to BJP on the other. 25th December in 1927, Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti; the second Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, MS Golwalkar went on to write eulogies for Manusmriti. Savarakar details his support to Chaturvarnya and praises Manusmiriti: “Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable 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 Ambedkar from the Hindutva ideology is put under the carpet. In 1935, Ambedkar spoke in a meeting in Yeola near Nasik and on October 13, 1935, he 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 BS Moonje from Hindu Mahasabha struck a pact with Ambedkar that if he avoided conversion to Islam, Hindu Mahasabha would 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 honoured Babasaheb by erecting his statues, raising an 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 report was implemented, BJP resorted to Kamandal politics. As LK Advani was arrested during his Rath Yatra (as a part of Kamandal politics), the BJP which was part of the parties supporting VP Singh’s Government withdrew its support and the 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 the Rajya Sabha. He was made a member of the Interim Government and also Chairman of the drafting committee of the 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 the very ideology of the Hindu Nation. What an irony! Those who stood/stand for the Hindu nation are trying to project Ambedkar, who was opposed to Hindu Rashtra and wanted to have a democratic, secular republic, as a part of their ideological parivar!
__________
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
