According to a newspaper, this time the RSS is going to do a big program to connect the Dalits. According to this, for the first time on Ambedkar Jayanti, flowers will be offered on photographs in branches across the country. On Ambedkar Jayanti i.e., on April 14, especially those statements of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in which Hindutva is strengthened with patriotism, will be told in the branches. Sangh will explain Ambedkar’s Hindutva in 11 points.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the right or wrong of the views/points being propagated/disseminated by the Sangh. From this point of view, it is necessary to comment on the 11 points chosen by the Sangh to explain Ambedkar’s Hindutva, which is as follows:
- In his book “Thoughts on Pakistan”, Ambedkar criticized the Congress for being pro-Muslim regarding the partition on religious lines.
Comment: This statement is wrong. Ambedkar, in the referenced book, instead of the Congress being pro-Muslim, has spoken of alienating the Muslim League in the first election by not giving the power share as promised before the election and forming the government alone, as a result the distance and mistrust grew in Congress and the Muslim League and it started moving strongly towards the demand for Pakistan.
- He was a strong supporter of the Uniform Civil Code. He had clarified that I do not understand why there is so much opposition to the Uniform Civil Code.
Comment: It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was in favour of the Uniform Civil Code but due to widespread opposition to it, he could not do anything about it. At that time there was a general opinion that instead of coercion, consensus should be made whenever possible. Will the RSS also tell how strongly they and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the bill when Dr. Ambedkar brought the Hindu Code Bill to empower Hindu women? They had called Dr. Ambedkar anti-Hindu and untouchable as a breaker of Hindu families and he was even threatened with death. In the Constituent Assembly, the President of the Assembly Dr. Rajendra Prasad and the Hindu members of the Congress did not pass it due to widespread opposition and the imminent election of 1952, on which Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the post of Law Minister. Is there any such instance in the country when a minister has resigned for women’s rights? The RSS should not forget the history of its protest and talk about the opposition of Muslims only. An effort should be made to reach a broad consensus in this regard. Muslim society should also think about this with an open mind.
- He strongly opposed Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. In the concept of nationalism, he was in favour of monolithic nationalism.
Comment: It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, he did not draft this article in the Constitution. But Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of Hinduist monolithic nationalism but was against the partition of India. He was of the firm opinion that we should try and make a serious effort to persuade the Muslim League to give up the demand for Pakistan out of fear of discrimination against Muslims in independent India. Today the policy of discrimination and oppression that RSS is adopting towards Muslims/Christians and other minorities is right for the unity and integrity of the country?
- Always supported the concept of nationalism, he has written in section-5 of Sampoorna Vangmay that I will live and die for India.
Comment: Dr. Ambedkar never supported the RSS brand Hindu nationalism. His nationalism was based on the concept of liberty, equality and fraternity of all citizens but the ideology of RSS is quite the opposite. He was against nationalism based on any kind of racial and religious discrimination. He had said, “Some people say that they are Hindu, Muslim or Sikh first and then Indian. But I am an Indian from beginning to end.”
- Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Dr. Ambedkar strongly opposed the leftist ideology.
Comment: This statement is absolutely false. He did not oppose the Left anywhere in his speech. In his speech, he opposed all forms of dictatorship, even if it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dr. Ambedkar was a socialist in his political thought. Dr. Ambedkar was actually a Liberal Democrat. He was a strong supporter of State Socialism. The biggest example of his favouring state socialism is found in the draft of his own constitution which is printed in the form of “State and Minorities” booklet. In this he had demanded the nationalization of all agricultural land and collective farming on it. Apart from this, he was also in favour of the nationalization of insurance and compulsory insurance for all citizens, whereas today the RSS-run BJP government is engaged in the privatization of all this.
- Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar had similar views on a secular nation as RSS.
Comment: Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of a sectarian but a secular nation. Dr. Ambedkar was opposed to the entry of religion into politics. He considered religion to be a private belief and was in favour of keeping it away from the affairs of the state. The RSS wants to justify its politics of Hindutva and the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra by describing Dr. Ambedkar as a supporter of a sectarian nation.
- Strongly supporting Hindu unity, Baba Saheb has written in his biography that between me and Savarkar there is not only a consensus but also cooperation. Hindu society should be united and organized.
Comment: This statement is absolutely false. Babasaheb has not written like this anywhere in his biography. This confusion is being created by misrepresenting the letter written by Babasaheb in reply to the invitation letter of Savarkar. Hence the letter is being presented completely so that the readers can come to know about the intellectual dishonesty of Savarkarites. It read: “Many thanks for your letter inviting me to open a temple at Ratnagiri Fort for the untouchables. I am very sorry that due to a prior engagement, I am unable to accept your invitation. I, however, would like to apprise you on this occasion to appreciate the work you are doing in the field of social reforms. When I look at the problem of untouchables, I think it is deeply related to the question of reorganization of Hindu society. If untouchables are to be a part of Hindu society, it is not enough to remove untouchability, for that you have to destroy Chaturvarnya. If they are not to be an integral part, if they are to be only an appendix of Hindu society, so as far as the temple is concerned, untouchability will remain. I am glad to see that you are among the very few who have felt it. That you still use Chaturvarnya’s jargon, unfortunately however you say it lets justify on merit, However, I do hope that over time you will be able to remove this unnecessary and it is clear that in this letter, Dr. Ambedkar expresses the possibility of untouchables to be included in Hindu society only after the elimination of Chaturvarna, whereas Savarkar talks of temple entry only to end untouchability. It is clear from this that there is a vast difference in the approach and strategy of both regarding the untouchable problem.
- On the issue of eradicating caste discrimination, the views of the Sangh and Ambedkar are completely identical.
Comments: This statement is absolutely wrong as Sangh and Ambedkar have completely different views on the issue of eradicating caste discrimination. Babasaheb was in favour of caste annihilation whereas the Sangh is in favour of caste harmony (as the status quo) and not the destruction of castes. Sangh considers Manusmriti as the holy book of Hindus whereas Babasaheb considered it to be a very anti-Dalit book. That’s why he also did a public burning of it on December 25, 1927. Sangh is wholeheartedly engaged in the establishment of Hindu Rashtra through Hindutva (Hindu political ideology) while maintaining the caste system whereas Babasaheb was staunchly opposed to the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. In fact, Dr. Ambedkar came to the conclusion in 1940 that “if Hindu Raj becomes a reality, it will undoubtedly be the greatest calamity for this country… [it] will be a threat for liberty, equality and fraternity. Accordingly, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj should be stopped at any cost.”
- Baba Saheb had full faith in Indian culture.
Comment: There is no doubt that Babasaheb had full faith in Indian culture but that culture is totally different from the culture defined by RSS. RSS defines Indian culture as Hindu culture whereas Indian culture is a mixture of different cultures. In this, there is a set of cultures like Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, Parsi etc. RSS considers Hindu culture to be superior to other cultures.
- Baba Saheb always considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions.
Comment: It is true that Babasaheb considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions but he never looked down upon these religions. It is a different matter that he criticized the evils prevalent in these religions in India like caste discrimination etc., considered it a contagion of Hinduism and also asked them to reform those religions according to their original spirit. Even in adopting Buddhism, he had kept the national interest above.
- Babasaheb was unanimous on the Aryans being of Indian origin.
Comment: It is true that Babasaheb has said in the book ” Who were Shudras and How” that the Aryans were of Indian origin. His study was based on the information available up to that time. But after this, the study of DNA of different races has found that the DNA of the Aryan race is similar to that of Iran and other European races which definitely came from Central Asia.
It is clear from the above analysis that the intellectual program run by the RSS from April 14 is an attempt to present Dr. Ambedkar’s ideas in a wrong way by showing them in their favour, while there is a world of difference between the ideology of Dr. Ambedkar and the Sangh.
S R Darapuri, National President, All India People’s Front