A statement by the Union home minister and the closest confidante of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, has set the Parliament on fire. In a very demeaning manner, Shah had told the Opposition that “instead of chanting the name of [B.R.] Ambedkar if they (the Opposition) would have said God’s name they would have been granted heaven”.
After Shah’s statement, the entire Opposition demanded his resignation. The fact that Shah would not relent was apparent when he convened a press conference. The Opposition seems to be in no mood to relent.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on its part, has accused the Indian National Congress of insulting Ambedkar ‘historically’. Funny videos are circulating on the web showing how ill-informed the BJP folks are about the so-called ‘historical insult’ that was meted out to Babasaheb, as Ambedkar is fondly known, by the Indian National Congress.
As the tug of war goes on, we need to sieve through what Babasaheb stood for. First and foremost, we need to understand that if the forces of Hindutva were in power instead of the Indian National Congress, Babasaheb would never have been invited to lead and participate in the drafting of the Indian Constitution of free India.
The Hindutva-inspired Constitution would have been a document inspired by Brahminism with no regard for the marginalised sections of society. One can glean this from a letter that M.S. Golwalkar, the second sarsanghchalak (head) of the Hindutva organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) wrote to his friend Telang on February 9, 1929, two years after Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti.
Golwalkar wrote: ‘‘I have not found even a small basis of Untouchability in the Manusmriti.’’ This proves that Ambedkar would not have associated himself with ‘Guruji’, as Golwalkar was called by his followers, and his egregious followers who found no fault in the Manusmriti.
Secondly, Ambedkar was perhaps the most well-read and well-educated person in the long list of anti-caste crusaders. Most of his important works were a ruthless and unrelenting critique of Brahmanical Hinduism.
He not only perused the Hindu scriptures and pointed out their caste biases and inconsistencies but also offered a history of revolution and counter-revolution in ancient India, with Buddhism representing the former and Brahmanical Hinduism the latter.
Ambedkar wrote, to the great displeasure of the Hindutva zealots, ‘‘The whole history of India is made to appear as though the only important thing in it is a catalogue of Muslim invasions. But even from this narrow point of view, it is clear that the Muslim invasions are not the only invasions worth study…
“Surely if Muslim invasions of Hindu India are worthy of study at the hands of historians, the invasions of Buddhist India by Brahmanic invaders are equally deserving of study… The Brahmanic invasions of Buddhist India have been so profound in their effect that compared to them, the effect of Muslim invasions on Hindu India have been really superficial and ephemeral.’
For all Hindutvavadis who are deeply drunk on the history of hate peddled by their progenitors, Ambedkar’s aforementioned passage would never be palatable.
Thirdly, Ambedkar was opposed to the racial idea of a nation that was theorised and espoused by Hindutva ideologue V.D. Savarkar. Of the latter’s Hindu Raj, Ambedkar wrote: ‘‘If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.
“No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.’’
Even before fascism bared its fangs and cultivated followers in India (in the form of the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha) Ambedkar wrote, ‘‘Hinduism (not just Hindutva) is a political ideology of the same character as the fascist and Nazi ideology and is thoroughly anti-democratic.’’
Savarkar’s call for a blood-based unity of the Hindus was opposed by Ambedkar. Ambedkar welcomed the new taxonomy adopted by the 1911 census wherein the distinction of caste was formally adopted.
Vinayak Chaturvedi writes in his book Hindutva and Violence: Savarkar and the Politics of History, “The distinction between Untouchables and Hindus was for Ambedkar not a matter of blood, but rather the modes of treatment and observance of certain practices… Savarkar’s construction of Hindu through an argument of common blood (in which all blood was impure) was a strategy to build solidarity at a time when there was this clear perception of the fragmenting of Hindu identity at multiple levels.’’
Ambedkar also faulted Savarkar’s two-nation theory and argued that ‘‘Savarkar’s ambition was not for a Hindu nation to coexist with a Muslim nation within India; instead, he wanted Hindus to establish ‘an empire over Muslims’ for the purpose of creating ‘an imperial race’ of Hindus.’’
During the Second World War, Ambedkar was part of the Viceroy’s Executive Council as Labour Minister. This was the time when the forces of Hindutva were cheering the Nazis in Germany and calling for a ‘final solution’ for the Muslims in India on the lines of Jews in Germany. During this period, Ambedkar warned workers of the dangers of Nazism and its pernicious racial philosophy.
Prasenjit Bose has written a fine article on Ambedkar’s election to the Constitutional Assembly. Therefore, there is no further need for elaboration. What must be stated is Ambedkar’s own statement on his experience in the Constituent Assembly.
On November 25, 1949, Ambedkar acknowledged, ‘‘The task of the Drafting Committee would have been very difficult if the Assembly had been a motley crowd, a tessellated pavement without cement, a black stone here and a white stone there… [T]here would have been nothing but chaos… The Congress party, therefore, is entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the Draft Constitution in the Assembly.’’
It is a matter of historical record that Ambedkar had troubles with the Jawaharlal Nehru-led government. Nehru did not have any acquaintance with Ambedkar before his inclusion into the cabinet at the instance of Gandhi.
They differed on many issues. For instance, Ambedkar lamented the non-inclusion of his version of ‘State Socialism’ in the Objective Resolution. Nehru, on his part, defended it with an excuse that any delineation of a socialist State would be “something which may be agreeable to many and not be agreeable to some”.
The differences between the two represented two points on the continuum of progress. Ambedkar wanted to push it harder whereas Nehru desired to maintain the unity of the Congress which meant carrying the Congress conservatives along. There was no question of insult and personal dislike at least the way RSS–BJP portrays it.
Historically, Ambedkar’s relationship with the forces of Hindutva is that of oil and water. They will never mix. No matter how much the saffron spoon is stirred.
