Tag Archives: Dr.Ambedkar

Partitioned Freedom – 5

(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 1” from this link – 1)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 2” from this link – 2)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 3” from this link – 3)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 4” from this link – 4)
(Read “Partitioned Freedom – 5” from this link – 5)

(Conclusion: Read “Partitioned Freedom – 6″  from this link)

Part 5

The Khilafat misadventure was not without consequences. It had set a trend, both in the Congress as well as the League. For the League, it was more demands, and for the Congress, more capitulation.

Moplah Rebellion:

The Khilafat movement had led to massive violence in the Malabar Coast of Kerala when a local leader, Variankunnathu Kunjahammad Haji declared himself as the Khalifa and also designated two tehsils as ‘Khilafat Kingdoms’. He instigated his followers against the British. The rebellion, famously known as the Moplah Rebellion or the Malabar Rebellion, was launched on August 20, 1921, and continued for four months.

Taken aback initially by the unexpected aggression of the local Muslims called the Moplahs, the British returned with greater force and brutally suppressed the rebellion. All its leaders, including Haji were arrested. As the British were suppressing the rebellion, the Moplahs turned their ire against the local Hindus, blaming them for not fully supporting the Khilafat cause. Houses and temples were destroyed, women were dishonored, and people were forcefully converted or burnt alive. The atrocities committed by the Moplahs shook the conscience of many leaders, including Dr Ambedkar and Annie Besant. While Annie Besant vividly described the brutality against the Hindus, especially the women, Dr. Ambedkar minced no words in condemning the massacres by describing them as ‘blood-curdling’ and ‘indescribable’. Gandhi’s close confidant C. Rajagopalachari was so distraught by the cruelty of the Moplahs that he shot off a letter to Gandhi stating that “the atrocities of the Moplahs have made men, women, and children lose faith in the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity completely”.

However, strange was the Congress reaction. When the AICC met at Ahmedabad in December 1921, the entire effort seemed directed towards downplaying the atrocities by the Moplahs. While the Servants of India Society led by Annie Besant reported that over twenty thousand Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam, the Congress claimed that as per their information, only three people were converted. The Ahmedabad session of Congress witnessed intense tussle between the Congress and League members over the Moplah incidents. All that could be said in the resolution was that the Congress “…is of the opinion that the…disturbance in Malabar could have been prevented by the Government of Madras accepting the proffered assistance of Maulana Yakub Hassan”.

Describing the events at the session, Swami Shraddhanand, a senior leader, wrote: “The original resolution condemned the Moplas wholesale for the killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the forcible conversion to Islam. The Hindu members themselves proposed amendments until it was reduced to condemning only certain individuals who had been guilty of the above crimes. But some of the Muslim leaders could not bear this even. Maulana Fakir and other Maulanas, of course, opposed the resolution, and there was no wonder. Nevertheless, it was most surprising that an out-and-out Nationalist like Maulana Hasrat Mohani opposed the resolution on the ground that — the Mopla country no longer remained Dar-ul-Aman but became Dar-ul-Harab and they suspected the Hindus of collusion with the British enemies of the Moplas. Therefore, the Moplas were right in presenting the Quran or sword to the Hindus. Moreover, if the Hindus became Mussalmans to save themselves from death, it was a voluntary change of faith and not forcible conversion—Well, even the harmless resolution condemning some of the Moplas was not unanimously passed but had to be accepted by a majority of votes only”.

All this for the sake of keeping the League as a bed-fellow. When Gandhi too downplayed the incident by commenting that the Moplahs were ‘brave and God-fearing, and were fighting for what they considered as religion, in a manner which they consider as religious,’ even Dr Ambedkar could not help but express his despair. He decried saying ‘Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Muslim unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats.’

Vande Mataram (‘Partitioned’):

After the Khilafat and the Moplah rebellion, the Muslim League’s price went up further. It started insisting on rejecting the essential symbols of national unity as a price for its support to the Congress. The first to come in the League’s crosshairs was the song Vande Mataram. It became a regular practice since 1905 to sing it at all the important Congress events. But the League members in the Congress started raising objections to it.

The AICC sessions were held in Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh in 1923. Maulana Mohammad Ali was presiding over the Congress. Senior leaders, including Motilal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sarojini Naidu, Sardar Patel, and Kasturba Gandhi, were present along with over twelve thousand delegates. Gandhi was in prison and hence could not attend.

Like in the past, Pt. Vishnu Digambar Puluskar, a Hindustani musician from Maharashtra, was there to sing the song at the inaugural. When Pt. Puluskar climbed the dais to sing Vande Mataram, Mohammad Ali raised objection saying that singing the song would hurt the sentiments of religious Muslims. Seeing the silence of the leaders present on the dais, Puluskar took it upon himself to challenge Mohammad Ali and went ahead with its rendition. Mohammad Ali, in protest, walked away while the song was being sung. It may be worthwhile to mention here that on many earlier occasions, the Ali Brothers and other League leaders used to rise together with other Hindu and Muslim members of the Congress when the song was sung. The objection at the Kakinada session was thus more a part of the enhanced bargaining than a genuinely religious issue. To placate the League members, Congress introduced Mohammad Iqbal’s famous song ‘Saare jahan se Acchha – Hindustan Hamara’ in its sessions. Yet, the opposition to Vande Mataram continued.

In 1937, when the elections were held for the Provincial Councils, the Congress formed governments in several of them. The controversy over Vande Mataram was raised once again when the proposal to sing the song at the commencement of the sessions was opposed. A ‘committee’ had to be constituted to review Vande Mataram. Rabindranath Tagore, Subhash Chandra Bose, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru were made its members. The committee recommended that the song be truncated and only the first two stanzas be sung.

The national song was partitioned in 1937 to appease the Muslim League. Ten years later, the nation was partitioned.

(To continue)

(Courtesy: The article was originally published in Chintan, India Foundation on August 17, 2020).

How RSS Bridged Society After The Riddles of Hinduism Turmoil

AmbedkarWith each passing year, many new dimensions of Dr.  Babasaheb Ambedkar contributions to the nation  have emerged.

At the same time, there have been attempts to drive a wedge in society esp among Scheduled castes and non Scheduled castes, ( some call them as Dalits & non-Dalits ) using some of his works.  A tool that they use is to quote from the “Riddles of Hinduism” & “Riddles of Rama & Krishna”, part of Volume IV of Complete Works of Dr.Ambedkar.  Generally , a believing Hindu who reads this feels not only disappointed but sometimes enraged. In the process, loses perspective of the overall contribution of Dr.Ambedkar to the society. They then make public utterances which can be construed as being anti-Ambedkar and thereby branded as Anti-Dalit. This is precisely what the “Breaking India Cottage Industry” wants.

Muslim leaders like Owaisi and organisations are in the forefront of many movements which seem to support”SC/ Dalit” cause. But, it is significant to note that Dr.Ambedkar in his book ” “Pakistan , or the Partition of India” clearly saw the designs of the Muslim leadership to break India and warned the “depressed classes” against the designs of the Muslim leadership. 

Considering the fact that Maharashtra had gone through this turmoil once in the 1980’s, it would be worthwhile to consider the various forces then and how semblance was brought about in the society.

The publication of the above book was in 1987 by the Government of Maharashtra. The book was unpublished in Dr.Ambedkar’s lifetime. The book lead to mass scale protests by the Shiv Sena & counter protests by some Scheduled caste organisations ( under the name of Dalit organisations ) leading to a lot of turmoil in Maharasthra.

The Sangh ( RSS ) works towards the unity of the Hindu society. Naturally a disturbance of high proportion in the society was to be addressed on priority. The Sangh inspired “Samajik Samarasta Manch” took the lead to try and diffuse the tension in society.

Ramesh Patange 2Shri Ramesh Patange, founder Secretary of Samajik Samarasta Manch was entrusted with the work of the Manch. Dr.Shripati Shastry was the provincial secretary of the RSS, ( Prant  Karyavah ).

Madhav Gadkari, the then editor of Loksatta wrote about  it  in  his  column The  government, by  publishing  literature  maligning  Rama  and  Krishna,  has  hurt  the  feelings  of  Hindus, he said.

Madhav Gadkari moved about  in  progressive  circles  and was  generally  known  to be in  Sharad Pawar’s camp and an internal opponent to the then Maharashtra CM, Shankar Rao Chavan. His criticism of  Dr. Ambedkar’s  work  had  a  distinctly  political purpose.

Shri Patange observes

The Shiv Sena Pramukh (Chief) demanded that the controversial chapter should be deleted from the fourth volume of Ambedkars writings. His stand was that the calumny of Rama and  Krishna  had  hurt  the  sentiments  of  Hindus,  and  we  would  no longer tolerate anybody at will coming and kicking us this way. He  naively  walked into the trap set by Sharad Pawar and Gadkari, and got enmeshed in it. The  declaration of the Shiv Sena policy awakened  the Dalits.  Their  leaders  like  Ramdas Athavale, Prakash Ambedkar, and Gangadhar Gadhe joined hands, and the  socialist bands gathered around them. They did not obviously want to  let  go  the  opportunity  to  attack Hindutva through Dalits.

Dalits took out a huge procession on the issue of the Riddles chapter. Highly  provocative speeches  were  made  by  their  leaders. The Shiv Sena too, organised a huge procession, and inflammatory harangues were   duly delivered. There was already a wide social gulf between Dalits and non-dalits (savarnas). The processions and counter processions  widened  the  gulf. The rancour spread to far off villages too. Tremendous social tensions ensued.  A single  untoward incident might have resulted in our own people cutting  each  others  throat. Once it is decided to politicize an issue, the question of social stability  and  solidarity  becomes superfluous.

Regarding the RSS swayamsevaks, Shri Patange observes

” Strictly speaking, Sangh workers do not need any training in the “Samarasata” or brotherhood of Hindu society. They live it every moment in their Sangh work. Sangh Swayamsevaks and Sangh Karyakartas do not believe in caste nor do they harbour inequality in their minds and therefore their actions too are never tainted with it. “

Keeping in view the developments, an official view from the RSS was required to bring perspective to the issue.

shripati ji shastri.jpg

On 18th Jan  1988, Dr.Sripati Shastri , State Secretary of RSS spoke

A noisy controversy has been raised in Maharashtra on the chapter, Riddles of Rama and Krishna written by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. It would be a great blunder to regard Dr.  Ambedkar  as  the  enemy  of  Hinduism  by  misinterpreting  his  controversial writings. To resort  to  this  type  of  propaganda  in  respect  of  Dr Ambedkar is tantamount to distortion of his work and message. Dr Ambedkars lifetime mission was to reconstruct and reorganize the  Hindu  society  on  the  basis  of equality, freedom and fraternity. A thorough study of his entire life and literature should therefore be made before making any comments on him inthe present context.

Instead of doing so, to conduct disinformation campaigns about him by using his writings, which he kept unpublished, would be the height of myopia

He further said in his speech that to create a gulf between Dalits and non-Dalits  would  be   against  the  interests  of  our  country.  Mahatma  Gandhi  staked  his  life to prevent such rifts in  the  society.  Dr Babasaheb  Ambedkar  too,  while  working for the uplift of Dalits, did not resort  to  any  step  which  might  cause  cleavage in society or would lead to unnecessary conflicts.

In today’s  difficult  times,  it  is  exceedingly  necessary  to  maintain  social  harmony  and solidarity, to promote  fraternity  and  friendliness  in  the  society, and to ensure amity and  cordiality.  Efforts in this direction will be conducive to the interests and happiness of all of us.

Giving a note of caution, he added

 Crores of people in this country have faith  in  Shri  Rama  and  Shri  Krishna.  Dalit  leaders should bear this in mind while projecting  their  views  on  them.  Dalit brothers would not like this type of strong language being used in respect of  Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar whom they hold in faithful reverence. Similarly, unnecessary use of harsh words about Ram and Krishna would disturb  social peace and harmony.

The show of strength against each other by Dalits and non-Dalits  would  benefit  the enemies  of  society.  Christian missionaries,  Muslims  and  Communists are waiting for such  an  opportunity.  The  Hindu  society,  therefore,  should  not  sentimentalize the Riddles issue  and  should  look  at  it  in  the  perspective of reason.

Finally in his speech, Dr. Shripati Shastri  appealed  to  the  wise  and   mature people in the society to come together to evolve a common platform & that that  was  the  need  of  the hour.

The role that the Sangh played in that time had a great impact in being able to bring perspective to the whole issue and sensitizing the Hindus about the trap that was being laid out to divide them by using Dr.Ambedkar as a tool.

In the last 2 decades, after the internet revolution, the book is now made use of in a number of articles with each writer giving his/ her own angle. Even an anarchist like Arundhati Roy wrote a preface to a re-published book of Dr.Ambedkar ( Ambedkar abhorred anarchy ) .  The preface was bigger in size than the actual book itself !  It shows that some selected portions will be used by those who want to use Dr.Ambedkar for their nefarious purposes.

These ideologues hide the fact that Dr.Ambedkar wrote in his Pakistan, Or Partition of  India

“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.”

As expected they don’t talk about the fact that Dr.Ambedkar spoke highly of the Vedic period of society. He debunked the Aryan Invasion theory, a pet theory of the communists, missionaries of Abrahamic cults and the anarchists.

His study of Vedic literature led him to reject the Aryan Race Theory concocted by the British.  In Who Were The Shudras? he writes:

“That the theory of the Aryan race set up by Western writers falls to the ground at every point goes without saying “

In his Annihilation of Caste, he extols the Vedic period stating

” I must admit that the Vedic theory of varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth.”

A pet topic of feminists who attack Hindu society is that the women had a low status in Hindu society from times immemorial. On the contrary,  Dr Ambedkar sees the Vedic period and its continuation as one in which women enjoyed rights equal to men:

“That a woman was entitled to Upanayan is clear from the Atharva Veda where a girl is spoken of as being eligible for marriage having finished her Brahmacharya. From the Shrauta Sutras, it is clear that women could repeat the mantras of the Vedas and that women were taught to read the Vedas.”

It is important to look at the works of an individual in its entirety rather than in bits and pieces. It is possible not to concur with some opinions of a person and yet respect the contribution to the overall progress of the nation.

Wise  and   mature people in the society must come together to evolve a common platform & that  is the  need  of  the hour for the common progress of the society.

  • Ayush Nadimpalli


. References :

  • Manu, Sangh & I by Shri Ramesh Patange –
  •  http://www.hindunet.org/hvk/specialrepo/mms/ch3.html
  • Annihilation of Caste – Dr.Ambedkar
  • Who Were the Shudras – Dr.Ambedkar
  • Pakistan, Or the Partition of India



Mr.Owaisi Do Read What Dr.Ambedkar Had to Say on Invasions

In an interview, Asaduddin Owaisi questioned how Narendra Modi could say that the battle for Independence was for 1200 years. ( video below from 5 mins to 5:21 secs)

Well Mr.Owaisi, long before Modi, Dr.Ambedkar wrote this in his book , “Pakistan, Or The Partition of India”. 

The first Muslim invasion of India came from the north-west by the Arabs who were led by Mahommad Bin Qasim. It took place in 711 A.D. and resulted in the conquest of Sind. This first Muslim invasion did not result in a permanent occupation of the country because the Caliphate of Baghdad, by whose order and command the invasion had taken place, was obliged by the middle of 9th century A.D. to withdraw its direct control from this distant province of Sind. Soon after this withdrawal, there began a series of terrible invasions by Muhammad of Ghazni (the idol breaker)  in 1001 A.D. Muhammad died in 1030 A.D., but within the short span of 30 years, he invaded India 17 times. He was followed by Mahommed Ghori, who began his career as an invader in 1173. He was killed in 1206. For thirty years Muhammad of Ghazni ravaged India and for thirty years Mahommad Ghori harried the same country in the same way.

Then followed the incursions of the Moghul hordes of Chenghiz Khan. They first came in 1221. They then stayed on the border of India but did not enter it. Twenty years later, they marched on Lahore and sacked it. Of their inroads, the most terrible was under Timur in 1398. Then comes on the scene a new invader in the person of Babar who invaded India in 1526. The invasion of India did not stop with that of Babar. There occurred two more invasions. In 1738 Nadir Shah’s invading host swept over the Punjab like a flooded river “furious as the ocean”. He was followed by Ahmad Shah Abdali who invaded India in 1761, smashed the forces of the Marathas at Panipat and crushed for ever the attempt of the Hindus to gain the ground which they had lost to their Muslim invaders.

These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest, but also to strike a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India. 

Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al’Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes:

“He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured ……cities, destroyed the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam……..and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind.”

Does it leave any shred of doubt that Dr.Ambedkar had no doubt that India’s freedom struggle wasn’t just for 150 years but for over 1200 years. Narendra Modi just resonated that fact.

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar on Anarchy

20th Jan 2014

As we now have the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal announcing that he is an “Anarchist”, it would be good to understand what Dr.Ambedkar and other constituent assembly members said about anarchy.

The definition of anarchy as per the Webster dictionary is as follows :

” a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws”

1a   :  absence of government

1b   :  a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

1 c   :  a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a   :  absence or denial of any authority or established order
2b  : absence of order :

Dr.Ambedkar on Anarchy