AMBEDKAR – FACTS, MYTHS & POLITICIZATION
AND DALIT UPLIFTMENTS
Introduction to Blog
There has been so much hype around the name Ambedkar that if you are found asking question about his contribution, you will be termed anti dalit or may be a traitor. There has been books and dramas to compare Ambedkar with Gandhi. Frequently these are to tarnish the image of Mahatma Gandhi and project him as anti Dalit.
But I knew two main facts that – Mahatma Gandhi was not anti Dalit and Ambedkar had no role in freedom struggle of India. Much has been written about Ambedkar as Father of Indian Constitution or the person who gave constitution to India.
I therefore decided to explore the role of Ambedkar in upliftment of Dalits, framing of Indian constitution as well as his relations with Gandhi. I also explored the contribution of other players in Dalit upliftment and framing of Indian Constitution.
I also looked into the use of Ambedkar name by different political parties to garner votes. I must confess that some political parties do have social agenda of dalit upliftment.
Lastly, I presented the snapshot on present condition of dalits, reservations for dalits after conversion to another religion etc. and way out for dalits for future.
I wish to emphasize that the blog is very much objective and I have presented only facts which are well documented. I have also taken due care to ignore/ disregard the opinion and views as they may be biased.
At the outset, I have deep regards for feelings and efforts of Ambedkar towards the improvement of dalits in the country. They were true, selfless and deep to the core of his heart.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar – Life History in Brief
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956) was an Indian jurist, economist, social reformer and political leader who headed the committee drafting the Constitution of India from the Constituent Assembly debates, served as Law and justice minister in the first cabinet of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, and inspired the Dalit Buddihist movement after renouncing Hinduism.
Ambedkar was scholar par excellence. Below is his brief education history starting from Graduation.
1. B.A, 1913, Elphinstone College, Bombay, University of Bombay, Economics & Political Science
2. M.A, 1915 Majoring in Economics with Sociology, History Philosophy, Anthropology, and Politics
3. Ph.D., 1917, Columbia University conferred a Degree of Ph.D.
4. M. Sc 1921 June, London School of Economics, London. Thesis – ‘Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India’
5. Barrister-at- Law 30-9-1920 Gray’s Inn, London
6. (1922-23, Spent some time reading economics in the University of Bonn in Germany.)
7. D. SC Nov 1923, London School of Economics, London ‘The Problem of the Rupee – Its origin and its solution’ was accepted for the degree in Economics
It is almost impossible to state his extraordinarily vast educational experience. No wonder he is also popularly known as the Symbol of Knowledge.
Very few Indians may have got education qualification of this level in India at that time. What makes these educational accomplishment remarkable is the fact that these were obtained under most trying circumstances.
He was born in to a Mahar Dalit community on 14 April 1891 in Mhow M.P.
Traditionally, the Mahar lived on the outskirts of villages and performed a number of duties for the entire village like village watchman, messenger, wall mender, street sweeper, and remover of carcasses. They also worked as agricultural labourers. Mahar community were treated as untouchables and subjected to socio-economic discrimination.
He faced insult and discrimination from very beginning. His family was of Marathi background from the town of Ambadawe in Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra. His original surname was Sakpal but his father registered his name as Ambadawekar in school, meaning he comes from his native village ‘ Ambadawe’ . His Marathi Brahmin teacher, Krishnaji Keshav Ambedkar, changed his surname from 'Ambadawekar' to his own surname 'Ambedkar' in school records. The surname stuck with him throughout.
Socio - Economic Discrimination
Ambedkar has described his experiences of discrimination and insult of being Dalit (Untouchable) in the book ‘Waiting for Visa’.
The title, “Waiting for a Visa,” is metaphorical. A government gives a “Visa” only when the individual is a conventionally approved citizen of a country, and therefore, shows that the country will take complete custody of the safety and safety of that person.
Waiting for a Visa is a 20-page autobiographical document written by B. R. Ambedkar during 1935–36, about eighteen years after his return from America and Europe. It contains some of the reminiscences drawn by Dr. Ambedkar in his own handwriting. The manuscripts were traced in the collection of the People's Education Society and were published by the society as a booklet on 19th March 1990.
It was subsequently published by the Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, in 1993 along with some collections in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 12, Part I.
The book consists of a brief introductory passage followed by six sections relating Ambedkar's experiences with untouchability, starting from his childhood. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 consist of Ambedkar's own experiences, while Sections 5 and 6 mainly consist of first-hand accounts of other people's experiences with untouchability, presented by Ambedkar.
In a single-paragraph introduction, Ambedkar introduces the theme of the book, primarily aimed at foreigners and those who may not be familiar with the concept of untouchability.
An individual from Europe will be unaware and unable to realize how oppressive untouchability may be in its actuality. It is difficult for them to understand how it is possible for a few untouchables to live on the edge of a village consisting of a large number of Hindus; go through the village daily to free it from the most disagreeable of its filth and to carry the errands of all and sundry; collect food at the doors of the Hindus; buy spices and oil at the shops of the Hindu Bania from a distance; regard the village in every way as their home--and yet never touch or be touched by any one belonging to the village.
No Peon, No Water:
The first incidence relates to his primary school days. In the primary school, Ambedkar and other untouchable children were segregated and given little attention or help by teachers. They were not allowed to sit inside the class. When they needed to drink water, someone from a higher caste had to pour that water from a height as they were not allowed to touch either the water or the vessel that contained it. This task was usually performed for the young Ambedkar by the school peon and if the peon was not available then he had to go without water; he described the situation later in his writings as "No peon, No Water". He was required to sit on a gunny sack which he had to take home with him.
Both of these measures were taken by the school to ensure the ground and water weren't "polluted", respectively, by an untouchable.
A childhood journey to Goregaon
This incidence happened, when in 1901, nine-year-old Ambedkar and his siblings took a trip from their residence in Satara to Goregaon to meet their father. The discriminatory behaviour they encountered along the way, made their journey appear impossible and dangerous.
Unable to find lodging in Baroda
In 1918, upon returning to India—after spending three years in the United States and a year in London—Ambedkar went to Baroda state to work as a probationer in the Account General’s Office. However, upon arriving in Baroda, he found that none of the Hindu hotels would allow him to stay due to his lower caste, something that he had largely grown unaccustomed to due to his time abroad.
He eventually found a Parsi inn; however, non-Parsis were not allowed to stay. Ambedkar negotiated a compromise with the inn-keeper, proposing to register with a false Parsi name. The inn-keeper agreed, and Ambedkar was allowed to stay; however, this was eventually discovered by other Parsis on the eleventh day of Ambedkar's stay, when a group of angry Parsi men, armed with sticks, arrived to remove him from the inn. After issuing a barrage of questions and threatening remarks, the Parsi men told Ambedkar that he was to leave that same day by the evening.
Dismayed, Ambedkar left and attempted to find temporary shelter elsewhere until his application to the Minister for a bungalow was answered. His only two friends in the area were a Hindu and an Indian Christian, but both indirectly rejected Ambedkar's requests due to his lower caste. Ambedkar, seeing no other option, left Baroda and returned to Bombay. He concludes that I learnt that a person who is an untouchable to a Hindu is also an untouchable to a Parsi."
The deep divides existed in Baroda during the period, not only between castes, but also between religions.
Pride, awkwardness and a dangerous accident in Chalisgaon
In 1929. Ambedkar was to visit Chalisgaon to investigate a case of social boycott by Hindus against untouchables of that village. The untouchables of the village requested him to spend the night with them, but as the "tonga walas" considered it below their dignity to cart an untouchable, the villagers were forced to hire a carriage and drive it themselves, which they proceeded to do. However, the untouchable driving the carriage was inexperienced, and consequently caused an accident. Ambedkar was thrown off the carriage onto the pavement, sustaining multiple injuries, such as a leg fracture.
Ambedkar, recounts that the pride and dignity of the village untouchables (due to their unwillingness to bring their guest on foot) led them take unnecessary risks regarding the safety of the passenger. He also reflects on the fact that even menial tonga walas inherently felt that a highly educated Barrister at Law was below them due to his status as an untouchable.
Polluting the water in the fort of Daulatabad
This section relates to an incident that serves to illustrate Indian Muslims invariably retaining the same prejudice against untouchables as Hindus.
In 1934, Ambedkar and a group of his friends had gone to visit Daulatabad fort during a trip to Aurangabad. Upon arriving at the fort, Ambedkar and his friends washed themselves with water kept in a tank at the fort entrance, due to dust having gathered on them during the journey. However, after a few minutes, a Mohammedan began to run towards them, shouting, "the Dheds (untouchables) have polluted our water!", consequently causing a commotion; a large group of Muslims eventually accumulated and began directing loud abuse towards both Ambedkar's group for "polluting" the water, and the local untouchable community for allowing them to do so. Ambedkar writes, "They [the Mohammedans] the kept on abusing them and us. The abuse was so vulgar that it had exasperated us."
Ambedkar reflects that a person who is an untouchable to a Hindu is also an untouchable to a Parsi and also an untouchable to a Mohammedan.''
A doctor refuses to give proper care and a woman dies.
The incidence was reported in Young India, a journal by Mahatma Gandhi, in its 12 December 1929 issue in the form of a letter by a Harijan school-teacher in Kathiawar, whose wife fell sick soon after giving birth to a child. The local doctor (who was a Hindu Brahmin) refused to treat her directly, or even enter into their village, due to their low caste status. The doctor eventually agreed to see the ill woman, but only on the condition that she was brought outside the Harijan colony and diagnosed and treated without physical contact.
The school-teacher assented to this, and the process was carried out, in which the doctor first passed the thermometer to a Muslim, who passed it to the school-teacher, who passed it to his wife. The doctor diagnosed the wife with pneumonia and left. Over the course of the next few days, the wife's condition worsened, and the doctor refused to return, despite the school-teacher paying the fee. The school-teacher's wife eventually passed away due to a lack of sufficient care.
Ambedkar concludes that the doctor felt no qualms of conscience in setting aside the code of conduct which is binding on his profession. The Hindu would prefer to be inhuman rather than touch an Untouchable.
A young clerk is abused and threatened until he gives up his job
The incidence happened with a young man of Bhangi community (Members of the Bhangi caste were restricted to cleaning latrines and handling dead bodies) who was employed as a Talati (Village Accountant) in the government district offices of Borsad, Kheda (Gujarat). However, due to the man's status as an untouchable, he was refused accommodation at the office. The untouchables of the village also did not accommodate or help him, as they feared the resentful upper-caste Hindus who felt that the man had taken a job that was beyond his natural rights.
At the government office, his colleagues discriminated against him in numerous ways, treated him poorly, and did not allow him to drink water. Ultimately, the situation exacerbated, and an incident prompted a mob of locals to threaten to kill him. The man, distraught, immediately vacated his job position.
The incidents mentioned in the book reinforce the atrocities on untouchables and help to understand casteism in India. It uncovers the continued struggle of transforming Hindu society.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_a_Visa , https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_waiting.html )
After leaving Baroda, Ambedkar tried to find ways to make a living for his growing family. He worked as a private tutor, as an accountant, and established an investment consulting business, but it failed when his clients learned that he was an untouchable.
In 1918, he became professor of political economy in the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai. Although he was successful with the students, other professors objected to his sharing a drinking-water jug with them.
These incidences especially the personal experiences transformed Ambedkar to crusader with mission to annihilate the caste system specially untouchability.
It was because of the efforts of some prominent leaders like Mahatma Jyotirao Phule the struggle for liberation of Dalits was launched in India during the 19th century. After him it was Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Ambedkar’s Actions against Untouchability
The caste system in India is still an existing social institution and the topic of everyday discussion. There is a famous saying that- In India, you do not cast a vote-you vote a caste.
Caste System has a long history and has been in various forms. Historically, it was known as "the varna system" and was based on organizing social life into four varnas
– Brahmins (the teachers and preachers), kshshitriya (the warriors or protectors), Vaishashya (the business men and artisans ) and Shudra (the Cleaners and Scavengers).
At the lowest level or bottom layer of the caste system are Shudras. Originally these varnas were set up to organizing social life but the Shudras were looked down and treated as the "untouchables". Another name assigned to this class was Depressed Class. Nowadays this category in India is known as Dalits and Scheduled Castes.
A major movement against untouchability was launched by Ambedkar in the 1920s in Maharashtra, which continues in various forms till today and has acquired an all-India character.
The programmes were intended to integrate untouchables into Indian society in modem (not traditional) ways based on education and exercise of legal and political rights. It also included refusal to perform the demeaning traditional caste duties.
His movement provided an all-India organization for the rejection of all forms of feudal bondage imposed upon the Dalits, and ranged from mass campaigns, to a demand for separate electorates, disregarding the Manusmriti, the breaking of caste restrictions like use of temples and wearing of prohibited colour like red.
For the defence of Dalit rights and to propagate the gospel of social equality between caste Hindus and untouchables, he started many periodicals like Mooknayak (Leader of the Silent) in 1920, Bahishkrit Bharat, and Equality Janta (both in 1927). The same year he established the Samaj Samta Sangh. Ambedkar also organized the Independent Labour Party on secular lines for protecting the interest of the labour classes.
Legal defence of non brahmins
Ambedkar went on to work as a legal professional. In 1926, he successfully defended three non-Brahmin leaders who had accused the Brahmin community of ruining India and were then subsequently sued for libel. The victory was resounding, both socially and individually, for the clients and the doctor.
Establishment of Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha
While practising law in the Bombay High Court, he tried to promote education to untouchables and uplift them. His first organised attempt was his establishment of the central institution Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha in 1924 in Bombay. It was intended to promote education and socio-economic improvement, as well as the welfare of "outcastes", at that time referred as depressed classes.
He was appointed to the Bombay Presidency Committee to work with the all-European Simon Commission in 1925. This commission had sparked great protests across India, and while its report was ignored by most Indians, Ambedkar himself wrote a separate set of recommendations for the future Constitution of India.
Satyagraha for the right of untouchables
By 1927, Ambedkar had decided to launch active movements against untouchability. He began with public movements and marches to open up public drinking water resources. He also began a struggle for the right to enter Hindu temples. In December 1927, he led a satyagraha in Mahad to fight for the right of the untouchable community to draw water from the main water tank of the town. He also organized temple entry movements like the Parvati temple satyagraha of 1928. There were similar satyagrahas in Kerala, such as the Vaikom temple road satyagraha of 1924-25 and the Guruvayoor satyagraha of 1930-32.
Burning of Manusmriti
In a conference in late 1927, Ambedkar publicly condemned the classic Hindu text, the Manusmriti (Laws of Manu), for ideologically justifying caste discrimination and "untouchability", and he ceremonially burned copies of the ancient text. On 25 December 1927, he led thousands of followers to burn copies of Manusmriti. Thus annually 25 December is celebrated as Manusmriti Dahan Din (Manusmriti Burning Day) by Ambedkarites and Dalits.
In 1930, Ambedkar launched the Kalaram Temple movement after three months of preparation. About 15,000 volunteers assembled at Kalaram Temple satygraha making one of the greatest processions of Nashik. The procession was headed by a military band and a batch of scouts; women and men walked with discipline, order and determination to see the god for the first time. When they reached the gates, the gates were closed by Brahmin authorities.
The Kalaram Temple is a temple in Nashik in Maharashtra, dedicated to the God Rama. The temple derives its name from a black statue of Rama. The literal translation of kalaram is "black Rama". The sanctum sanctorom also houses the statues of the goddess Sita and the god Lakshmana. Thousands of devotees visit the temple every day. Nearby, there is Goraram Temple which houses white coloured statues of Gods Rama, Sita and Lakshmana.
According to ancient epic of the Ramanaya, Rama was sent in exile for fourteen years. After the tenth year of exile, Rama along with Lakshmana and Sita, lived for two and half years on the northern bank of the Godavari near Nashik. This place is known as Panchavati. Lord Rama lived in Panchavati or five banyan trees with his consort Sita and brother Lakshmana. Today, where the temple of Shri Kalaram stands is the site where Panchvati was thousands of years back.
According to legend, the name Nashik is derived from the Sanskrit word Nasika meaning Nose. It denotes the place where the incidence took place when Lord Lakshmana severed the nose of she devil Surpnakha, sister of demon king Ravana of Lanka. She had nails (nakha) like murams (sup) thus the name Supnakha. Lakshmana severed her nose as she wanted to marry Rama and attacked his wife Devi Sita. When Ravana came to know about the treatment meted to his sister he was enraged and decided to abduct Sita.
Close to the Kalaram Temple in Nashik is the Sita Gumpha or cave of Mother Sita which is a landmark site in the history of India.
According to legend, the demon Ravana kidnapped Devi Sita from Sita Gumpha. This site is considered very pious and is spiritually charged. It attracts thousands of pilgrims and Vaishnavite devotees every year.
Nashik is one of the Hindu pilgrimage sites of the Kumbh Mela, which is held every 12 years.
Ambedkar organized a large protest outside this temple on 2 March 1930, in order to enter into the temple. Many dalit protesters arrived to the town by trucks, they surrounded the temple and sat around it. They sang songs, often raised war cries, demanded to enter in the temple. The people of Nashik boycotted the protesters. On the day of Rama Navami, 9 April 1930, the dalit protesters tried to stop the temple Rath Yatra; fights and stone pelting began in-between caste Hindus and dalit protesters, later Ambedkar reached at the riot spot, he and other all the protesters suffered minor injuries.
Somehow a protester named Bhaskar Kendre broke the police cordon who were protecting the temple and enter in it and fell on the floor. This Satyagraha continued for 5 years and finally the temple gates were opened for untouchables in 1935. The Kalaram Temple Satyagraha helped to remove the tag of untouchable from the head of the lower caste giving them equal rights. Ambedkar in his speech on inauguration of Satyagraha said - “We don’t want to go to temples but we should have rights”
(https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_02.pdf )
(https://www.ambedkaritetoday.com/2020/03/kalaram-temple-entry-movement-by-ambedkar.html
)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaram_Temple
)
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/shri-kalaram-temple-and-sita-gumpha/articleshow/59631557.cms#:~:text=Also%20known%20as%20Panchavati%2C%20this,captivity%20for%20many%20months%20later
)
Before the Round Table Conference of 1930-31 Ambedkar emerged as the major leader of the depressed classes. He took a separatist stand and demanded constitutional safeguards for the depressed classes. In the Round Table Conference in the 1930s, he demanded separate electorates for the untouchables. This led to a conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhiji. This is being described separately in detail.
In 1942 Ambedkar founded the Scheduled Caste Federation. The Federation fought for the reserved seats in the 1946 elections but lost heavily to ‘Congress Harijans’ in the strongly nationalist and caste-Hindu dominated constituencies. The Scheduled Caste Federation then launched satyagrahas in Bombay, Poona, Lucknow, Kanpur and Wardha, demanding that the Congress make known its proposals to Dalits.
Ambedkar had concluded in 1930s that the only way of improving the status of the untouchables was to renounce the Hindu religion, and gave the slogan “You have nothing to lose except your religion.” In the 1950s he embraced Buddhism.
Ambedkar- Gandhi Conflict
The India Act 1919, Simon Commission and Round Table Conferences
Background
The British came to India in 1611 in the garb of manufacturing and business when East India Company (EIC) established it’s first Indian factory at Masulipatnam on the Andhra Coast of the Bayof Bengal. An English Diplomat, Sir Thomas Roe represented England in the Mughal Empire. On 18 September 1615, he arrived at the Surat port as the ambassador of the English King, James I to Mughal Emperor Nur-ud-din Salim Jahangir's (r. 1605–1627) court.
On instruction from King, In 1615 he visited the court of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir with the purpose to arrange for a commercial treaty between EIC and Mughal Empire that would give the company exclusive rights to reside and establish factories in Surat and other areas. In return, the EIC offered to provide the Emperor with goods and rarities from the European market. This mission was highly successful, and Jahangir sent a letter to King James through Sir Thomas Roe.
The EIC after receiving the imperial patronage expanded its commercial trading operations. In 1634, the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan extended his hospitality to the English traders. The EIC's mainstay businesses were by then cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, and tea.
The EIC seized control of large parts of Indian subcontinent and colonized parts of South east Asia and Hongkong. At its peak, the EIC was the largest corporation in the world by various measures. The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company's three presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time.
The EIC eventually came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858. In the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858, the British Government nationalized the company. The British government took over its Indian possessions, its administrative powers and machinery, and its armed forces. This led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company )
The British Raj
After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Government took over the administration to establish the British Raj. The British Raj was the period of British rule on the Indian Subcontinent between 1858 and 1947, for around 89 years of British occupation. The system of governance was instituted in 1858 when the rule of the East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria.
India was and is multiple times bigger than UK in terms of size, population, religious and language diversity. It also had different princely states which fought among themselves. Governance of such a country required that British use the existing mechanism to large extant and manage rather than govern with little interference. It also required that British use the distrust and animosity between princely states to the advantage with guile and deception in which they were master.
They continually analyzed the situation and used Divide and Rule strategy for the benefit of Raj. For them, the princes, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others in Congress, Muslim League with Jinnah, and others like B. R. Ambedkar, Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malviya etc were chess pieces. They often propped one against other to suit their purpose.
During the period of British rule in India, a series of legislative measures were enacted. These measures regulated various aspects of Indian society and governance. Legislation in British India were introduced to bring about changes in India in accordance with the British colonial agenda. The British enacted laws that impacted a wide range of areas.
The Legislation in British India was often controversial. Some were hailed as progressive, and others were criticized as repressive or oppressive. These included - Government of India Act 1858, Indian Council Act of 1861, Indian Council Act of 1892, Indian Councils Act of 1909 and Government of India Act 1919.
It was during the preparation of the Government of India Act 1919 that Ambedkar made intervention. Southborough Committee also referred to as the Franchise Committee was set up by the British Government between 1918-19 for preparing the Government of India Act of 1919. It was headed by Francis Hopewood.
Ambedkar was invited to testify before the Southborough Committee. On 27 January 1919, he submitted a memorandum and gave evidence before the Southborough Commission. The memorandum was attached as a supplementary in the commissions report. In the examination of Ambedkar’s views the commission found that he had unmistakably presented the division of Hindu society into touchables and untouchables. At this hearing, Ambedkar argued for creating separate electorates and reservations for untouchables and other religious communities.
The Government of India Act 1919 (known widely as India Act 1919) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was passed to expand participation of Indians in the government of India. The Act embodied the reforms recommended in the report of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu and the Viceroy Chelmsford.
The Act provided a dual form of government (a "diarchy") for the major provinces. Diarchy means a dual set of governments; one is accountable, the other is not accountable. Subjects of the provincial government were divided into two groups. One group was reserved, and the other group was transferred. The reserved subjects were controlled by the British Governor of the province; the transferred subjects were given to the Indian ministers of the province answerable to the provincial council. The 'transferred list ' included agriculture, supervision of local government, health, and education. The provincial councils were enlarged.
At the same time, all other areas of government (the 'reserved list') remained under the control of the Viceroy. The 'reserved list' included defence (the military), foreign affairs, and communications.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1919 )
Though Ambedkar’s memo didn’t find place in India Act 1919 but he was recognized as a person having independent views.
The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to 1929. This Act began the genesis of responsible government in India. It was set to be reviewed by another commission in 10 years. The Act received royal assent on 23 December 1919.
Simon Commission
The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced the system of diarchy to govern the provinces of British India. Indian opinion clamored for revision of this form of government, and the Government of India Act 1919 stated that a commission would be appointed after ten years to investigate the progress of the government scheme and suggest new steps for reform.
In November 1927, the British government appointed the commission two years ahead of schedule. It was broadly known as Simon Commission .The commission consisted of seven members under the joint chairmanship of the distinguished Liberal lawyer, Sir John Simon and Clement Attlee, the future prime minister.
The commission was strongly opposed by the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, and prominent Indian leaders including Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah, because it contained only British members and no Indians. However, it was supported by Ambedkar, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and Chaudhary Chhotu Ram.
Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (17 September 1879 – 24 December 1973), revered by his followers as Periyar, was an Indian social activist and politician who started the Self- respect Movement and Dravidar Kazhagam. He is known as the 'Father of the Dravidian movement’.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periya )
Sir Chhotu Ram , (born 24 November 1881 – 9 January 1945) was a prominent politician and thinker from the Punjab province of British India. He worked for the welfare of the poor of the Indian subcontinent.
(https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9B%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE )
The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras (now Chennai), resolved to boycott the Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian populace. A faction of the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the commission.
However opinion was divided, with support for co-operation coming from some members of the Muslim League and also both Hindu Mahasabha and members of the Cenral Sikh Leauge, An All-India Committee for Cooperation with the Simon Commission was established by the Council of India and by selection of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. The members of the committee were: C Sankar Nair (chairman), Arthur Froom , Nawab Ali Khan, Shivdev Singh Uberoi, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Hari Singh Gour, Abdullah Al- Mamun Suhrawardy, Kikabhai Premchand and Prof. M. Rajah.
Ambedkar was of the view that Simon commission was legitimately sent by Britain and their co-operation could help him give a space for the Dalits in the political, economic and social arena of Indian state. The reason for cooperating with the Commission was probably to create pressure on the upper caste leaders to give legitimate political rights to the Depressed Classes. Ambedkar even made a presentation to Simon Commission on 23rd October 1928 regarding depressed class citizens of India.
(https://velivada.com/2019/09/03/dr-babsaheb-ambedkar-and-simon-commission/ )
The Simon Commission members arrived in Bombay on 3 February 1928. Almost immediately with its arrival , its members were confronted by throngs of protesters. The members were greeted black flags on which was written 'Simon Go Back' in every major Indian city that the seven British MPs visited.
One protest against the Simon Commission became infamous. On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore, the protest was led by the prominent Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai. The protesters blocked the road in order to prevent the commission members from leaving the railway station. The local police led by Superintendent James Scott began beating protesters to clear the way for commission members. Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured and died on 17 November 1928 due to the head injuries he had sustained.
The Commission published its 2-volume report in May 1930. The commission proposed to abolish the diarchy, an extension to autonomy of provinces by establishing representative government in provinces. However it allowed the British governors of provinces to retain much of their emergency powers, hence in practice very little autonomy was to be given to the provinces. Most notably the commission's report did not mention dominion status at all. Inspite of the demand for separate electorate for the Depressed Classes, the Simon Commission recommended for reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes but did not support the demand for separate electorate.
By the time it was published the commission was already overshadowed by a declaration by the Viceroy of India Lord Irwin on 31 October 1929 which reinterpreted the 1917 declaration (which had led to the Mortagu- Chemsford reforms) as the British government's final policy goal always being India's attainment of dominion status. He also called for a round table conference in London regarding this.
The tragic death of Lala Lajpat Rai acted as ignition in already volatile situation. In Hindi it will be called that death acted like pouring Ghee on Fire.
Snapshot of Indian Freedom Struggle
The situation was quite volatile in India right from the beginning of century for Indians wanted to be free from British subjugation. On 01 June 1916, veteran freedom fighter Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak gave declaration in the form of slogan that Swaraj Humara Janmsiddh Adhikar Hai aur Hum ise lekar rahenge ( Self Rule is our Birth Right and We shall attain it at any cost).
Following are the most important events that took place beginning 1901 -
- 1915: Return of Mahatma Gandhi to India
- 01 June 1916: Tilak declaration - Swaraj Humara Janmsiddh Adhikar Hai aur
Hum ise lekar rahenge
- April 1917: The Champaran Satyagraha
- 13 April 1919 : Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
- 5th Sept. 1920: Non-Cooperation Movement
- 17 Nov. 1928: Death of Lala Lajpat Rai
- 26 Jan.1930: Declaration of Purna Swaraj
- 12 March 1930: The Dandi March also known as Salt March or Civil
Disobedience Movement
- 27 Feb. 1931: Killing of Chandra Shekhar Azad.
- 24 March 1931: Hanging of freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and
Sukhdev.
-
August 1942: Creation of the Indian National Army (INA)
- 8 Aug. 1942: Quit India Movement.
- 14 April 1944: Subhash Chandra Bose hoisted India’s Tri colour Flag At Moirang in Manipur after victory of INA
- 18 Feb. 1946: Royal Navy Strike
- 15 Aug. 1947: Partition of India and the Independence of the country.
When the country was simmering with patriotic fervor of Independence struggle, Ambedkar was unconcerned with it. His contribution to the freedom struggle was NIL.
However,
he was transparent about it and didn’t hide his antipathy towards
it. In his opinion, the Dalit upliftment was his primary goal. He
also viewed that his goal can be served better under British Raj
rather than independent India.
Round Table Conferences
The three Round Table Conferences of 1930–1932 were a series of peace conferences organized by the British Government and Indian political personalities to discuss constitutional reforms in India. These started in November 1930 and ended in December 1932. They were conducted as per the recommendation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah to Viceroy Lord Irwin and Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, and by the report submitted by the Simon Commission in May 1930.
Demands for Swaraj or self-rule in India had been growing increasingly strong. B. R. Ambedkar, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, K. T. Paul and Mirabehn were key participants from India. By the 1930s, many British politicians believed that India needed to move towards dominion status. However, there were significant disagreements between the Indian and the British political parties that the Conferences would not resolve. The key topic was about constitution and India which was mainly discussed in that conference. There were three Round Table Conferences from 1930 to 1932.
After a discussion in Delhi in December 1929, Gandhi had refused to attend the London meetings. Gandhi was arrested on the midnight of 4–5 May 1930, just days before the planned action at Dharasana Salt Works, 40 KM south of Dandi as part of Civil Disobedience (Salt Satyagraha) Movement.
First round table conference (November 1930 – January 1931)
The First round table conference was officially inaugurated by His Majesty George V on November 12, 1930 in Royal Gallery House of Lords at London and chaired by the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.
The eight British political parties were represented by sixteen delegates. There were fifty-eight political leaders from British India and sixteen delegates from the princely states. In total 74 delegates from India attended the Conference. However, the Indian National Congress, along with Indian business leaders, kept away from the conference. Many of them were in jail for their participation in Civil Disobedience Movement. Ambedkar attended the conference as representative of Depressed class. Lot of discussions were held but without any conclusion.
As such, they wished for the success of the Round Table Conference but every body knew that it would carry little weight without the presence of Gandhi. Mahatma's presence would prove vital for the conference success.
In January 1931, at the closing session of the Round Table Conference, Ramsay MacDonald expressed hope that the Congress would be represented at the next session. The Viceroy, taking the hint, promptly ordered the unconditional release of Gandhi and all members of the Congress Working Committee.
In response, Gandhi agreed to meet the Viceroy.
Gandhi – Irwin Pact
Gandhi and Lord Irwin had eight meetings that totalled 24 hours. Although Gandhi was impressed by Irwin's sincerity, the terms of the pact fell manifestly short of those Gandhi had prescribed as the minimum for a truce.
The Gandhi–Irwin Pact was signed by Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin, Viceroy of India, on 5 March 1931 before the Second Round Table Conference in London. British Govt. agreed to the following conditions out of all the conditions proposed.
Withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions.
Release all political prisoners, except those guilty of violence.
Permit peaceful picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops.
Restore confiscated properties of the satyagrahis.
Permit free collection or manufacture of salt by persons near the sea-coast.
Lift the ban over the Congress.
The conditions not agreed were:
Congress' demand of inquiring into police excess.
Mahatma Gandhi's demand of converting death penalty of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev to lesser punishment.
Gandhi managed to have over 90,000 political prisoners released under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.
Gandhi agreed to the following of British terms
Discontinuation of the Salt Satyagraha by the Indian National Congress.
Participation by the Indian National Congress in the Second round table conference.
Many British officials in India, and in Britain, were outraged by the idea of a pact with a party whose avowed purpose was the destruction of the British Raj. Winston Churchill publicly expressed his disgust "...at the nauseating and humiliating spectacle of this one-time Inner Temple lawyer, now seditious fakir, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceroy’s palace, there to negotiate and parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi%E2%80%93Irwin_Pact )
Second round table conference (September 1931 – December 1931)
The second round table conference is famous for the open clash between Ambedkar and Gandhi. The conference opened on September 7, 1931. In terms of participants there were three major differences between the first and second Round Table Conferences.
Congress Representation — The Gandhi-Irwin Pact opened the way for Congress participation in this conference. Gandhi was invited from India and attended as the sole official Congress representative accompanied bySarojini Naidu and also Madan Mohan Malaviya, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Mirza Ismail (Diwan of Mysore), S. K. Dutta and Sir Syed Ali Imam.
National Government — Two weeks earlier the Labour government in London had fallen. Ramsay MacDonald now headed a National Government dominated by the Conservative Party.
Financial Crisis – During the conference, Britain went off the Gold Standard, further distracting the National Government.
Ambedkar attended the conference as representative of the Depressed Classes as in the 1st round table conference..
During the conference, Ambedkar made appeal for exclusive treatment of untouchables as a minority separate from the rest of the Hindu community. He also demanded separate electorate for the Untouchables.
Gandhi claimed that the Congress alone represented political India; that the Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a “minority”; and that there should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities. These claims were rejected by the other Indian participants.
Obviously, the British Govt. representatives in the conference were more than happy to see this confrontation. They also liked somebody (Ambedkar) standing up and opposing Gandhi.
Upon the conclusion of the second round table conference on December 1, 1931, Gandhi declared an end to the negotiation phase with the British government.
In India, the situation was tense with local congress committees declared their intention to initiate Civil Disobedience Movement - satyagraha and protests against the government. In response, the government began implementing a series of regressive measures, particularly in the Northwest Frontier Province, Bengal, and the United Provinces.
Gandhi was arrested on 4 January 1932 and put in Yerwada Jail Poona.
Communal Award
At the end of the conference Ramsay MacDonald undertook to produce a Communal Award for minority representation, with the provision that any free agreement between the parties could be substituted for his award.
Gandhi took particular exception to the treatment of untouchables as a minority separate from the rest of the Hindu community. Other important discussions were the responsibility of the executive to the legislature and a separate electorate for the Untouchables as demanded by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
British Prime Minister Ramsay Mac-Donald announced the Communal Award on 15 August, 1932. The Communal Award gave the Depressed Classes voting right along with caste Hindus in the general constituencies and also the scheme of separate electorate for the Depressed Classes.
Gandhi, in his letter to the British government on 18 August, informed his decision for going to fast unto death unless the government withdrew the scheme of separate electorate for the Depressed Classes. He further explained that he might be wrong in taking this decision but to him the scheme of separate electorate was against the interest of the Depressed Classes. Gandhi was supportive of adequate representation of the Depressed Classes but he was not agreeable to the proposal of separate electorate. he reiterated the same on 9 September, but the British refused to renege on their decision.
The British government justified its action of announcing the Communal Award on the ground that Indian leaders failed to arrive at an agreement on the issue of representation of the Depressed Classes in the Round Table Conference. In the given situation, to protect the interests of the Depressed Classes, the government had announced this scheme. It was also clarified that if Congress and Depressed class leaders come to any agreement, it will be acceptable to the British Government.
Gandhiji began a fast unto death on the separate electorate issue on 20 September, 1932.
As soon as the news of Gandhi’s fast unto death spread, all hell broke loose. Newspapers ran daily bulletins on his health and news of Gandhi’s health dominated public discussion. Ambedkar’s response to Gandhi’s decision of fast was different and he said, ‘I do not care for these political stunts. This threat of Mr. Gandhi to starve himself to death is not a moral fight but only a political move.
The weapon of fast used by Gandhi aroused strong public opinion. Public meetings were organised in different places to bring the caste Hindus and the Depressed Classes together. Appeal was also made to the Depressed Classes not to press for separate electorate. The pressure on the Ambedkar was mounting. Almost all major newspapers were backing Gandhi and opposing Ambedkar. Gandhi’s blood pressure, whether he had water, were front page news every day.
Ambedkar finally relented after his friend and Tamil leader, MC Rajah, pointed out that Dalits would battle insurmountable prejudice if they were seen as not having compromised for Gandhi’s life.
Poona Pact
Gandhi’s moral weapon forced various sections of the Indian leaders to work out a compromise formula between the separate electorate and joint electorate.
After prolonged deliberations between the leaders of the two groups, a formula based on the principle of joint electorate was devised and against 71 seats given by the Communal Award, 148 seats were reserved for the Depressed Classes in the provincial legislatures. As regards the central legislature, 18 percent of the total seats meant for general electorate were kept for the Depressed Classes. It was also decided that the continuance of reservation would be decided in future by mutual agreement.
On 24 September 1932 at 5.00 PM, the Poona Pact was signed between the leaders of the Depressed Classes and caste Hindus. Madan Mohan Malaviya signed it on behalf of Hindus and Gandhi, and Ambedkar on behalf of depressed classes.
The same was sent to the British Prime Minister for acceptance. At the end, Gandhi’s trusted emissary, C Rajagopalachari, exchanged his fountain pen with Ambedkar. As promised, Gandhi ended his fast after the signing of the pact. He found in this victory of his political and social goals. This further encouraged him to carry forward his movement for social equality. The promise of a large number of seats for the Depressed Classes aroused the hope of strong voice of the Depressed Classes in public life.
The Poona Pact created positive environment for Upliftment of Depressed Class in the country.
The very next day (25 September 1932) a Conference of the Hindus at Bombay passed a resolution “that henceforth, among Hindus, no one shall be regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth and that those who have been so regarded hitherto will have the same right as other Hindus in regard to the use of public wells, public schools, public roads, and all other public institutions.
It shall be the duty of all Hindu leaders to secure, by every legitimate and peaceful means, the removal of all disabilities upon the so-called untouchable classes, including the bar in respect of admission to temples.”
This resolution was followed by feverish activity on the part of the Hindus to throw open temples to the untouchables. Ranga Iyer introduced a Bill in the Central Legislature on the subject of temple entry. Similar Bills were also introduced in the Madras and Bombay Legislatures. Baroda and Travancore States proclaimed temple entry in 1933 and 1936 respectively.
There are differing views on Poona Pact and its impact.
- To Ambedkar, the rights of the Depressed Classes were most important compared to political independence, whereas Gandhi was fighting a two-pronged battle, one for India’s independence, the other for maintaining the cohesiveness of Hindu society.
- Inspite of British Raj expressing concern for the Depressed Classes, Gandhi could read the design of the government in creating division within the Indian society by announcing the Communal Award. Ultimately, Gandhi succeeded in keeping the Hindus united for the greater cause of political emancipation and also ensured the voices of the Depressed Classes in the decision-making process.
- Ambedkar succeeded in making the problems of the Depressed Classes from a moral issue to a political right and thus ensured the voice of the Depressed Classes in making legislations.
Analysis
Under British rule, a separate electorate meant that not only were the seats reserved for a specific group (i.e. Depressed Class), but voting for the reserved constituency was allowed for only members of that specific community.
Under the system, only members from Depressed communities would be eligible to vote to elect a representative to legislative assemblies and caste Hindus would not be eligible to vote in these elections.
In Gandhi's view when a particular percentage of population is not allowed to vote to select their representative, then the selection/election can't be taken as fair. Gandhi was bitterly opposed to seperate electorate as he feared this would not only divide the Hindus but would cause hatred in the minds of caste Hindus for depressed class. This may lead to insurmountable problems even in short term. He was convinced that this was divide and rule strategy of British Raj.
“They do not realize that the separate electorate will create division among Hindus so much that it will lead to bloodshed,” he told Vallabhbhai Patel, as quoted in Zelliot’s and Vundru’s books ( "Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and The Untouchable Movement", by Eleanor Zelliot ).
On the other hand, Ambedkar felt that if only Dalits could vote for Dalit leaders than a more truly representative selection would take place. His primary problem with joint electorates was that the depressed classes would be robbed of independent leadership in a constituency numerically dominated by caste Hindus.
In his views, in case of constituency reserved for depressed class, the candidates vying for election will have to cajole cast Hindus specially where depressed class population is in minority.
(Communal Award and Poona Pact 103 104 Gandhi: The Man and His Time - https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/63833/1/Unit-9.pdf )
(https://swarajyamag.com/magazine/gandhi-and-the-dalits )
Third round table conference (November – December 1932)
The third round table conference took place on November 17, 1932. Only forty-six delegates attended since most of the main political figures of India were not present. The Labour Party from Britain and the Indian National Congress refused to attend.
Sir Samuel Hoare Secretary of State for India, had served in all the three round table conferences from September 1931 until March 1933. Under his supervision, the proposed reforms took the form reflected in the Government of India Act 1935.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_Conferences_(India ))
From the preceding discussions, one may get the impression that -
- Ambedkar was the only Indian, concerned with the upliftment of Depressed Class or Dalits (now known as Scheduled Class).
- Gandhi was indifferent towards the Dalits and their upliftment.
Both are far from truth. We shall describe very briefly about other movements aimed towards Dalit Upliftment.
Depressed Caste Movements in British India
One, of the earliest lower caste movements, which became the torch bearer for the future caste movements, was founded in Maharashtra in the 1870s by Jyotiba Phule, who with his books Gulamgiri (1872) and Sarvajanik Satyadharma Pustak and his organization Satya Shodhak Samaj, proclaimed the need “to save the lower castes from the hypocritical Brahmins and their opportunistic scriptures”.
His main work was to rouse the masses and lead them to an organized resistance against the unreasonable claims of the priestly class. He made no distinction between non-Brahmins and untouchables.
Dr. B R Ambedkar was also influenced with this movement and Jyotiba Phule.Important notes about other movements are as follows:
-Shri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDPY) Movement
-Congress and the Harijan Movement
-Depressed Classes Movement of B R Ambedkar
-Shri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDPY) Movement
The untouchable Ezhavas or Iravas of Kerala clustered around the religious leader Shri Narayana Guru (1855-1928), who formed the Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDPY) in 1902-03. It organized some temple entry rights movements.
-Adi Movements
From the 1920s there was a rise of dalit movements in various parts of the country. Their common theme was adi, or a definition of themselves as the original inhabitants of the country, a claim that their own inherent traditions were those of equality and unity, and a total rejection of castes as the imposition of the conquering Aryans who used this to subjugate and divide the natives.
Of these, the most important were the Adi Dravida movement in Tamil Nadu; the Adi Andhra movement in Andhra, Adi Karnataka movement; the organization of Purayas and Cherumans in Kerala; and the Adi Hindu movement, mainly centred around Kanpur in U.P.
In Punjab, the Adi Dharma movement claimed that untouchables formed a distinct religious community like Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs and that this had existed even before the arrival of the Hindus. Later on this movement was absorbed into Ambedkar’s Scheduled Caste Federation, which by the 1940s was providing an all-India umbrella to such dalits movements.
-Congress and the Harijan Movement
(The activities are described separately under “Gandhi and Dalits”.)
-Justice Party Movement
The birth of the Dravidian movement, the oldest and most enduring anti-British movement in the country, can be traced to November 20, 1916, when a group of leading non-Brahmin citizens of Madras such as Dr. T.M. Nair, Sir Pitti Theagaraja Chettiar and the Raja of Panagal came together to form the South Indian Liberal Federation (SILF), which was also known as Justice Party. Their joint declaration, which came to be called the Non-Brahmin Manifesto, demanded the representation of non-Brahmins in government jobs. This was the first cohesive demand for reservation raised in India.
Mylai Chinna Thambi Pillai Rajah (17 June 1883 – 23 August 1943) was an Indian politician, educationist, social and political activist from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Born in a Tamil family of Madras, he entered politics after graduation and was a leader in the Justice Party. However, he quit the party in 1923 over the party's treatment of the then Depressed Classes.
He was the first leader who organized the Scheduled Classes at the national level in India, and the most prominent Scheduled Classes leader of pre-independent India. In his heyday, Rajah was considered to be a person equal in stature to B. R. Ambedkar. He was the pioneer of mid-day meal scheme in India.
The Justice Party was responsible for many changes, including the passing of a Government Order in 1930 providing for reservations for various groups, including non-Brahmin Hindus.
-Self-Respect Movement
The anti-Brahmin crusade got a further impetus when E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker, popularly known as Periyar, joined the anti-Brahmin movement. Naicker, who actively participated in the Non-Cooperation movement, broke with the Congress in 1924 to develop an anti-Brahmin, anti-caste populist and radical alternative to Justice elitism.
After leaving the Congress, Periyar launched the Self-Respect Movement (1925) aimed at awakening non-Brahmins. His journal Kudi Arasu and his movement progressed from advocating weddings without Brahmin priests, forcible temple entry, the burning of Manusmriti to outright atheism at times. In fact he tried to provide an umbrella movement to all non-Brahmins of South India, particularly of Tamilnadu.
When the mantle of Justice Party leadership fell on Periyar , the Justice Party was renamed Dravidar Kazhagam, 1944 as a anti-Brahmin social movement. In 1949, Periyar’s marriage to Maniammai, a woman much younger to him, sparked a controversy. A group led by C.N. Annadurai walked out and formed the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). and three years later DMK decided to enter electoral politics.
(https://www.gktoday.in/depressed-caste-movements-in-british-india ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Rajah )
Gandhi and Dalits
It is significant to note that the views of Mahatma Gandhi on untouchability got modified over time. These can be viewed as two phases – Before 1935 and After 1935. Although we was against untouchability and worked for its removal from very beginning of his life.
Initially, he viewed that untouchability is a caste Hindu problem alone since it is a sin they commit. The view is true but places the onus on caste Hindus to change their mindset to wash off their sin. Thus his fight against untouchability was to propagate and promote that Harijans as he called the Dalits are equal to other varnas and must be treated like that.
To bring about a change among the caste Hindus was a critical element of his anti-untouchability programme. After all, it was the caste Hindus who were practicing untouchability. They had to change themselves. Thus, Gandhi was careful and gradual in what he demanded from the Hindu society. He understood that in his fight against untouchability, he needed to make the caste Hindus believe that his movement was not to destroy Hindu religion but to purify it.
In the early years of his initiation into the national movement, Gandhi frequently insisted on being a sanatani Hindu and even seemed to defend both caste and varna. Gandhi would repeatedly assert that he “will sacrifice this life itself to uphold the sanatana dharma.” But it is important to note that simultaneously, he defined sanatana dharma to be one that did not preach to disrespect or despise the untouchables.
In the words of Pandit Nehru: “I asked [Gandhi] repeatedly: Why don’t you hit out at the caste system directly? He said - ‘I do not believe in the caste system except in some idealized form of occupations. But the present system was thoroughly bad and must go. I am undermining it completely by my tackling untouchability. If untouchability goes, the caste system goes. So, I am concentrating on it’.
Gandhi, until 1920, tried to destroy the notion that physical contact with the untouchables polluted a Hindu from a higher caste. From 1921-27, he began to demand the entry of the untouchable children into public schools. From 1927 to 1932, he took up evidently the most contentious issue demanding from the caste Hindus that the untouchables must have the same rights of entry in all the temples as the other Hindus.
By April 1933, Gandhi progressed further in his anti-untouchability drive by asserting that varna could not be perpetuated or determined merely by birth, because, for him, a combination of natural qualities and natural aptitudes determined one’s caste, not birth or heredity.
However by 1935, Gandhi’s views on caste system got transformed and he was convinced that the caste system must be completely destroyed for meaningful upliftment of society. Gandhi gave the title Caste Has To Go to his November 16, 1935 article published in Harijan. With this, Gandhi moved from being a cautious reformer to attaining a bolder, albeit revolutionary, position on untouchability.
What did Gandhi do for the abolition of untouchability?
Untouchability was one of Gandhi’s central concerns throughout his life. In both words and actions, Gandhi attacked untouchability in ways that were radical for a caste Hindu. Despite being a caste Hindu, Gandhi identified himself with the untouchables.
Rejection of untouchability in personal life
Gandhi, in his personal life rejected untouchability from the very beginning and relentlessly made efforts to eradicate it.
- At the age of twelve, in 1881, Gandhi had disregarded his mother‟s warnings to not touch Uka, an untouchable, who used to clean latrines in their house. Gandhi had then challenged his mother that Hindu religion did not sanction untouchability.
- At age eighteen, Gandhi defied caste restrictions to go abroad. Gandhi was ostracized for this act but he refused to perform penance.
- This strength of mind remained with Gandhi even in South Africa (1893-1914) where he allowed persons of all communities, religions, races and castes, including the untouchables, to stay in his house like members of his family. He would insist on his own family circle that no one should consider work done by a scavenger as “polluting.”
- Once when Kasturba showed reluctance, and was reticent, about cleaning the urine pot of one such member of his family, Gandhi had threatened to evict her from the house. Gandhi would invariably eat with people of different faiths and castes, including the untouchables.
- After returning to India in 1915, Gandhi had an untouchable family reside in his Satyagraha Ashram (Sabarmati Ashram), Ahmedabad, Gujarat. He immediately faced the anger of the Vaishnavs of Ahmedabad who stopped all monetary help to the ashram. Following this, Gandhi decided to relocate his ashram to the untouchables quarters in Ahmedabad.
Sabarmati Ashram
- In his personal life, he allowed his son Ramdas to marry a girl from a different sub-caste. He also allowed his other son Devadas to marry a girl from another varna. Gandhi also married off his adopted daughter Lakshmi, who was an Untouchable, to a Brahmin boy. Moreover, Gandhi tried to master many activities that were prohibited for his caste. He himself worked as a scavenger, a barber, a washer man, a cobbler, a tiller and a tailor – all unclean works.
- He even forced his family to break pollution taboos by engaging them in shoe making, leather work, cleaning of toilets – works profoundly polluting to the caste Hindus. In fact, cleaning toilets persisted all his life. None of Gandhi‟s ashrams were built on the basic principle of the caste system or varnashrama dharma; and none of the caste restrictions were observed in his ashrams.
Propagation of Anti untouchability Viewpoint
- In Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi had argued that Independence, if it was not accompanied by a deep change in social priorities, would be pointless.
Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule is a book written by Mohandas K. Gandhi in 1909. In it he expresses his views on Swaraj, modern civilization, mechanization, among other matters.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj_or_Indian_Home_Rule )
- Mahatma Gandhi had popularized the term ‘Harijan’ (literally, children of God) to counter the pejorative charge carried by caste names.
He advocated positive means for the uplift of Harijans. He addressed various public meetings reposing doctrines of Harijan welfare. He led several processions of Harijans with other upper caste people and made them participate in “poojas, bhajans, kirtans and Puranas”.
- From the time of his return to India in 1915, Gandhi combined political activity with social reform. He pushed the removal of untouchability to the forefront as early as 1920 at the Nagpur session of the Congress that adopted the non-co-operation resolution. Gandhi declared that the removal of untouchability was an essential condition for his concept of Swaraj. For Gandhi, Swaraj was not only expulsion of the British from India but also the liberation of society from slavery. According to him, attainment of political freedom was inadequate without social freedom for the Untouchables.
- In 1921, Congress appealed to the Hindus to “bring about removal of untouchability and to help the improvement of the submerged classes“. In 1922, it appointed a committee “to formulate a scheme embodying practical measures to be adopted for bettering the condition of untouchables”. In 1923, it again passed a resolution requesting the All-India Hindu Mahasabha also to take up this matter and make efforts to remove this evil from the Hindu community.
- In 1928 the Indian National Social Conference also gave a call for removing this “great obstacle to unification of Hindu society”. In 1931, the Karachi Congress Session propounded a programme of fundamental rights which called for equal access for all to public employment etc., regardless of caste, and equal rights to the use of public roads, wells, schools and other facilities.
- In “Young India” [Young India was a weekly paper or journal in English founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in 1916 and later published by Mahatma Gandhi (from 1919 to 1931.). Through this work, Mahatma Gandhi sought to popularize India's demand for independence or Swaraj.], he wrote that “Temples, public wells and public schools must be open to the untouchables equally with caste Hindus”.
- Gandhi's writings in this journal inspired many. He used Young India to spread his unique ideology and thoughts regarding the use of nonviolence in organizing movements and to urge readers to consider, organize, and plan for India's eventual independence from the United Kingdom.
- In 1933 Gandhi started publishing a weekly newspaper, Harijan, (which was Gandhi's term for the untouchable caste) for improving the lot of the untouchables and for providing medical, education and technical facilities to the Harijans. Every week the Harijan published a long list of temples, wells and schools thrown open to the untouchables, and reported other humanitarian and constructive work. The newspaper lasted until 1948. During this time Gandhi also published Harijan Bandu in Gujarati, and Harijan Sevak in Hindi. All three papers focused on social and economic problems, both in India and elsewhere in the world.
Satyagraha against denial of use of public roads by dalits in Vaikom Kerala
- In 1925, Gandhi adopted Satyagraha against a denial of the use of public roads adjacent to a temple and Brahmin residences in Vaikom. He personally went to Vaikom, Kerala, to debate with the orthodox Brahmins against their interpretation of the scriptures, and, managed to get the road next to the temple opened to all.
Establishment of Harijan Sevak Sangh
- In 1932, Gandhi founded the Harijan Sevak Sangh as part of his efforts to eradicate the concept of ‘untouchability from India’s caste system.
Opening of Guruvayur temple for dalits
In 1932, he went to the extent of undertaking a “fast unto death” over the question of opening the Guruvayur Temple, Malabar, for the Untouchables.
Intensive crusade against untouchability
- Between November 1933 and August 1934, for nearly nine months, Gandhi conducted an intensive crusade against untouchability all over the country, including in the Princely States, travelling over 20,000 kilometres by train, car, bullock cart and on foot, collecting money for the recently founded Harijan Sevak Sangh, propagating the removal of untouchability in all its forms and practices, and urging social workers to go to the villages for the social, economic, cultural and political uplift of the Untouchables.
Gandhiji collecting funds for Harijans
(https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/sPanel/uploads/econtent/b6a51b0069bef08532af4a380e71315c.pdf )(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_India ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha )
Let us now briefly look in to the fascinating story of Babu Jagjivan Ram – a dalit.
Babu Jagjivan Ram – a dalit who rose to Height despite social discrimination
Jagjivan Ram was born on 05 April 1908 at Chandwa liability in Arrah in Bihar into the Chamar caste.
Young Jagjivan joined Arrah Town School in 1922. It was here that he faced caste discrimination for the first time, yet remained unfazed. An often cited incident occurred in this school; there was a tradition of having two water pots in the school, one for Hindus and another for Muslims. Jagjivan drank water from the Hindu pot, and because he was from an untouchable class, the matter was reported to the Principal, who placed a third pot for the untouchables in the school. Jagjivan broke this pot twice in protest, until the Principal decided against placing the third pot.
Jagjivan Ram passed his matriculation in the first division and joined the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in 1927, where he was awarded the Birla scholarship, and passed his Inter Science Examination. While at BHU, he organized the scheduled castes to protest against social discrimination. As a Dalit student, he was denied basic services like meals in his hostel and haircuts by local barbers. A Dalit barber would arrive occasionally to trim his hair. Eventually, Jagjivan left BHU and continued his education at Calcutta University.
He received a B. Sc. degree from the University of Calcutta in 1931, where again he organized conferences to draw attention toward issues of discrimination, and also participated in the anti-untouchability movement started by Mahatma Gandhi. In 1935, he contributed to the establishment of the All-India Depressed Classes League, an organization dedicated to attaining equality for untouchables.
He was also drawn into the Indian National Congress. In the same year he proposed a resolution in the 1935 session of the Hindu Mahasabha demanding that temples and drinking water wells be opened up to Dalits. In the early 1940s, Jagjivan Ram was imprisoned twice for his active participation in the Satyagraha and the Quit India Movements.
In the Constituent Assembly he advocated for the rights of Dalits and argued for affirmative action based on caste in elected bodies and government services. In 1946, he became the youngest minister in Jawahar Lal Nehru’s provisional government and also the subsequent First Indian Cabinet, as a Labour Minister, where he is credited for laying the foundation for several labour welfare policies in India. He served as Labour minister until 1952.
He was member of the Constituent Assembly that drafted India's constitution. He held several ministerial posts in Nehru's and Indira’s Cabinet.
As Union Minister for Food and Agriculture (1967–70), he is best remembered for having successfully led the Green Revolution during his tenure. He worked as the Minister of Defence (1970–74) and it was during his tenure as the minister of Defence that the Indo- Pakistani War of 1971 was fought, and Bangladesh gained independence. In 1977 he along with five other politicians resigned from the Cabinet and formed the Congress for Democracy party, within the Janata coalition.
His last position in government was as Deupty Prime Minister of India in the Janata Party Government of 1977–1979. He remained a member of Parliament right from the first election in 1952 till his death in 1986, after over forty years as a parliamentarian. He was elected from Sasaram parliament constituency in Bihar. His uninterrupted representation in the Parliament from 1936 to 1986 is a world record.
Personal Life
After death of his first wife in August 1933 after a brief illness, Jagjivan Ram married Indrani Devi, a daughter of Dr. Birbal, a well-known social worker of Kanpur. The couple had two children, Suresh Kumar and Meira Kumar, a five-time Member of Parliament, who won from his former seat Sasaram in both 2004 and 2009, and became the first woman Speaker of Lok Sabha in 2009.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagjivan_Ram )
Framing the Constitution of India
Ambedkar’s entry to Nehru’s Cabinet
It is intriguing to anyone as how Ambedkar was included as Law Minister in Nehru’s cabinet in 1947. The memoir of Indrani Jagjivan Ram, wife of Babu Jagjivan Ram sheds some light on this mystery. I hereby reproduce the part of the memoir concerning this.
Page 120- Book- Milestones: A memoir by Indrani Jagjivan Ram, 2011 Penguin Books, India
Ambedkar had started visiting us at home. One day he suggested that Jagjivan Ram should recommend his name to Gandhiji for inclusion in the cabinet. Before talking to Gandhiji , my husband consulted Sardar Patel who told him to decide for himself what was proper.
Jagjivan Ram became quite anxious as he thought over the issue. Ambedkar had consistently opposed the Congress and Gandhi. Recommending his name to Gandhi was not easy. But he made up his mind and with his naturally caring temperament, he requested Gandhiji to get Ambedkar included in the cabinet of Independent India.
Jagjivan Ram said that Ambedkar has given up his antagonism to Congress and Gandhiji so there should be no problem. He requested Gandhiji to recommend Ambedkar’s name to Jawahar Lal Nehru for inclusion in the first cabinet of Independent India.
Even though he was not the first choice of Nehru, Ambedkar was ultimately included as the Law Minister of India in the First Nehru Cabinet after Gandhi’s recommendation.
Oath taking by Dr. Ambedkar from President Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Pt. Nehru is looking on
Let us now introduce another personality named Sir B. N. Rau, who played very important role in framing the constitution.
Sir B. N Rau and Constitution of India
Sir Benegal Narsing Rau CIE (26 February 1887 – 30 November 1953) was an Indian Civil Servant, jurist, diplomat and statesman known for his key role in drafting the Constitution of India. He was the Constitutional Advisor to Constituent Assembly. He was also India's representative to the United Nations Security Council from 1950 to 1952. His brothers were Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Benegal Rama Rau and journalist and politician B. Shiva Rao.
.jpg)
One of the foremost Indian jurists of his time, Rau helped draft the constitutions of Burma in 1947 and India in 1950. He was the constitutional advisor of the Constituent Assembly of India tasked to prepare the Indian Constitution. He is also known as the Pioneer of the Constitution of India.
A graduate of the Universities of Madras and Cambridge, Rau entered the Indian civil service in 1910. After revising the entire Indian statutory code (1935–37), he was knighted (1938) and made judge (1939) of the Bengal High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata). His writings on Indian law include a noted study on constitutional precedents as well as articles on human rights in India. He served briefly (1944–45) as Minister of Jammu and Kashmir state.
Following this, Rau served in a temporary capacity in the Reforms Office of the Government of India. He was consequently appointed as a Secretary in the Governor-General's office, working on constitutional reforms, until he became the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly in 1946.
From February 1952 until his death, he was a judge of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Before his election to the court, he was regarded as a candidate for Secretary General of the United Nations.
Rau died of intestinal cancer at Zurich on 30 November 1953. The Prime Minister of India Jawahar Lal Nehru spoke in Parliament about his death and the house paid tribute by observing a moment of silence. In 1988, on the occasion of his birth centenary, the Govt. of India issued a postage stamp in honor of B.N. Rau.
Drafting India’s Constitution
Steps towards Self Governance
Starting from late 20th century, British were going for more and more self governance by Indians at provincial levels. In August 1917, the new Liberal Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the British aim of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."
Although the plan envisioned limited self-government at first only in the provinces with India emphatically within the British Empire – it represented the first British proposal for any form of representative government in a non-white colony. The Government of India Act 1935 was another step in this direction.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Raj )
The Government of India Act 1935
It marked the next great stride in the evolution of the Legislatures. The Federal Legislature was to consist of two Houses, the House of Assembly called the Federal Assembly and the Council of States. The Federal Assembly was to consist of 375 members, 250 to represent Provinces and 125 to represent the Indian States, nominated by the Rulers. The representatives of the Provinces in Federal Assembly were to be elected indirectly by the Provincial Assemblies. The term of the Assembly was fixed as five years. The Council of State was to be a permanent body not subject to dissolution, but one-third of the members should retire every three years. It was to consist of 260 members. 104 representatives of Indian States, six to be nominated by the Governor-General, 128 to be directly elected by territorial communal constituencies and 22 to be set apart for smaller minorities, women and depressed classes.
The two Houses had in general equal powers but demands for supply votes and financial Bills were to originate in the Assembly.
(https://www.civilsdaily.com/legislature-through-the-ages-through-the-ages/ )
Provincial Assembly Elections -1937
Provincial elections were held in British India in the winter of 1936-37 as mandated by the Government of India Act 1935. Elections were held in eleven provinces – Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, the United Provinces, the Bombay Presidency, Assam, the North – West Frontier Province, Bengal, Punjab and Sind.
The final results of the elections were declared in February 1937. The Indian National Congress emerged in power in seven of the provinces, Bombay, Madras, the Central Provinces, the United Provinces, the North-West Frontier Province, Bihar, and Orissa. The exceptions were Bengal, where the Congress was nevertheless the largest party, Punjab, Sindh, and Assam. The All India Muslim League failed to form the government in any province.
The Congress ministries resigned in October and November 1939, in protest against Viceroy Lord Linlithgow's action of declaring India to be a belligerent in the Second World War without consulting the elected representatives of the Indian peoples.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Indian_provincial_elections )
Provincial Assembly Elections -1946
On 19 September 1945, following negotiations between Indian leaders and members of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India from the United Kingdom, the Viceroy Lord Wavell announced that elections to the provincial and central legislatures would be held in December 1945 to January 1946. It was also announced that an executive council would be formed and a constitution-making body would be convened after these elections. These elections were important as the provincial assemblies thus formed were to then elect a new Constituent Assembly which would begin formulating a constitution for an independent India.
Provincial elections were held in January 1946 to elect members of the legislative councils of the Indian provinces. The Congress, in a repeat of the 1937 elections, won 90 percent of the general non-Muslim seats while the Muslim League won the majority of Muslim seats (87%) in the provinces. Nevertheless, the All India Muslim League verified its claim to be the sole representative of Muslim India. The election laid the path to Pakistan.
Formation of Constituent Assembly
a. It was in 1934 that the idea of a Constituent Assembly for India was put forward for the first time by M. N. Roy, a pioneer of the communist movement in India and an advocate of radical democratism. In 1935, the Indian National Congress (INC), for the first time, officially demanded a Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution of India.
b. In 1938, Jawaharlal Nehru, on behalf of the INC declared that ‘the Constitution of free India must be framed, without outside interference, by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of the adult franchise’.
c. The demand was finally accepted in principle by the British Government in what is known as the’ August Offer’ of 1940. In 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of the cabinet, came to India with a draft proposal of the British Government on the framing of an independent Constitution to be adopted after World War II. The Cripps Proposals were rejected by the Muslim League which wanted India to be divided into two autonomous states with two separate Constituent Assemblies.
d. Finally, a Cabinet Mission was sent to India. While it rejected the idea of two Constituent Assemblies, it put forth a scheme for the Constituent Assembly which more or less satisfied the Muslim League. It was under the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 that the Constituent Assembly was constituted to frame a Constitution for India: The Constituent Assembly, which had been elected for undivided India and held its first sitting on December 9 1946, reassembled on August 14, 1947, as the sovereign Constituent Assembly for the dominion of India.
e. The Constituent Assembly was elected by indirect election by the members of the Provincial Legislative Assembly (Lower House only), according to the scheme recommended by the Cabinet Delegation. The essentials of this scheme were as follows:
-The total membership of the Constituent Assembly was 389 of which 292 were representatives of the provinces, 93 represented the princely states and four were from the chief commissioner provinces of Delhi, Ajmer - Merwara, Coorg and British Baluchistan.
-The seats in each province were distributed among the three main committees Muslim, Sikh, and General, in proportion to their respective population. Members of each community in the Provincial Legislative Assembly elected their own representatives by the method of proportional representation with a single transferable vote, The method of selection in the case of representatives of Indian States was to be determined by consolation.
The elections for the 296 seats assigned to the British Indian provinces were completed by August 1946. Congress won 208 seats, and the Muslim League 73. Constituent Assembly.
The first sitting of the assembly, chaired by Dr. Sachidananda Sinha (the oldest member of the Assembly), was held on December 9, 1946. However, members belonging to the Muslim League boycotted the meeting, as they were adamant on the creation of Pakistan. The political situation deteriorated. Hindu-Muslim riots began, and the Muslim League demanded a separate constituent assembly for Muslims in India.
As a result of the Partition, a separate Constituent Assembly was set up for Pakistan.
Hence, the membership of the Constituent Assembly was reduced to 299. Following India’s independence from the British rule in 1947, its members served as the nation's first Parliament as the 'Provisional Parliament of India' for approximately three years.
Upon India's independence on 15 August 1947, the new prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru invited Ambedkar to serve as the Dominion of India’s Law Minister. Two weeks later on 29 August 1947, as Law Minister, he was appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution for the future Republic of India.
B. N. Rau was appointed the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly in formulating the Indian Constitution in 1946. He was responsible for the general structure of the democratic framework of the Constitution and prepared its initial draft in February 1948. As part of his research in drafting the Constitution of India, in 1946, Rau traveled to the US, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, where he had personal consultations with judges, scholars, and authorities on constitutional law.
Organization
Rajendra Prasad was elected as the president and Harendra Coomer Mookerjee , a Christian from Bengal and former vice-chancellor of Calcutta University was vice-president. Mookerjee also chaired the assembly's Minorities Committee.
Committees of the Constituent Assembly
The Constituent Assembly appointed a total of 22 committees to deal with different tasks of constitution-making. Out of these, Eight were major committees and the others were minor committees.
Major Committees
Drafting Committee – Bhimrao Ambedkar
Union Power Committee – Jawaharlal Nehru
Provincial Constitution Committee – Vallabhbhai Patel
Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas – Vallabhbhai Patel.
This committee had the 4 subcommittees: Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee – J. B. Kripalani, Minorities Sub-Committee – Harendra Coomer Mookerjee, North-East Frontier Tribal Areas and Assam Excluded & Partially Excluded Areas Sub-Committee – Gopinath Bordoloi, Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (Apart from those in Assam) Sub-Committee – A V Thakkar.
Rules of Procedure Committee – Rajendra Prasad
States Committee (Committee for negotiating with states) – Jawaharlal Nehru
Steering Committee – Rajendra Prasad
Ad hoc Committee on the National Flag – Rajendra Prasad
Committee for the function of the Constitution Assembly – G V Mavlankar
House Committee – B Pattabhi Sitaramayya.
Language Committee – Moturi Satyanarayana
Order of Business Committee – K M Munshi
The Constituent Assembly with 299 members met on 31 December 1947. The delegates included persons from different caste, region, religion, gender etc. These delegates sat over 114 days spread over 3 years (2 years 11 months and 18 days to be precise) and discussed what the constitution should contain and what laws should be included.
The assembly's work had five stages:
Committees presented reports on issues.
B. N. Rau prepared an initial draft based on the reports and his research into the constitutions of other nations. The draft was submitted in October 1947. Along with this draft, the proposals offered by the various other committees set up by the Constituent Assembly were considered.
The drafting committee, chaired by B. R. Ambedkar, presented a detailed draft constitution which was published for public discussion.
- The first draft by the Drafting Committee was published in February 1948. The people of India were given eight months to discuss the draft and propose amendments.
- In the light of the public comments, criticisms, and suggestions, the Drafting Committee prepared a second draft, which was published in October 1948.
- The final draft of the Constitution was introduced by B. R. Ambedkar on 4 November 1948 (first reading).
- The second reading was clause by clause consideration and took over a year.
Thus the draft constitution was discussed, and amendments were proposed and enacted as discussed above in different stages.
The constitution was adopted. After three drafts and three readings, the constitution was declared as passed on 26 November 1949.
The last session was held on 24 January 1950. On 26 January 1950, the constitution took effect (commemorated as Republic Day), and the Constituent Assembly became the Provisional Parliament of India (continuing until after the first elections under the new constitution in 1952).
Timeline of Formation of The Constitution of India
Overall, following were the timeline for the constitution of India to take shape-
9 December 1946: Formation of the Constituent Assembly (demanding a separate state, the Muslim League boycotted the meeting)
11 December 1946: President Appointed – Rajendra Prasad, vice-chairman Harendra Coomer Mookerjee and constitutional legal adviser B. N. Rau (initially 389 members in total, which declined to 299 after partition. Out of 389 members, 292 were from government provinces, 4 from chief commissioner provinces and 93 from princely states)
13 December 1946: An 'Objective Resolution' was presented by Jawaharlal Nehru, laying down the underlying principles of the constitution, which later became the Preamble of the constitution.
22 January 1947: Objective resolution unanimously adopted.
22 July 1947: National flag adopted.
15 August 1947: Achieved independence. India split into Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan.
29 August 1947: Drafting Committee appointed, with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar as the chairman. Other 6 members of the committee were: K.M. Munshi, Muhammed Saadulah, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, Gopala Swami Ayyangar, N. Madhav Rao (He replaced B.L. Mitter who resigned due to ill-health), T. T. Krishnamachari (He replaced D.P. Khaitan who died in 1948).
16 July 1948: Along with Harendra Coomer Mookerjee, V. T. Krishnamachari was also elected as the second vice-president of the Constituent Assembly.
26 November 1949: 'Constitution of India' passed and adopted by the assembly.
24 January 1950: Last meeting of the Constituent Assembly. 'Constitution of India' (with 395 articles, 8 schedules, 22 parts) was signed and accepted by all.
26 January 1950: The 'Constitution of India' came in to force after 2 years, 11 months and 18 Days, at a total expenditure of ₹6.4 million to finish.
Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar was the first speaker when meeting the assembly of Lok Sabha, after turning republic.
Dr B. R. Ambedkar in his concluding speech in constituent assembly on 25 November 1949 stated that:
The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the Drafting Committee.
Indian constitution provides guarantees and protections for a wide range of civil liberties for individual citizens, including freedom of religion, the abolition of untouchability, and the outlawing of all forms of discrimination.
Ambedkar was one of the ministers who argued for extensive economic and social rights for women, and won the Assembly's support for introducing a system of reservations of jobs in the civil services, schools and colleges for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class, a system akin to affirmative action.
India's lawmakers hoped to eradicate the socio-economic inequalities and lack of opportunities for India's depressed classes through these measures. The Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly.
The Preamble to the Constitution of India
The Preamble to the Constitution of India presents the principles of the Constitution and indicates the sources of its authority. It was adopted on 26 November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly and came into effect on 26 January 1950, celebrated as the Republic Day of India. It was amended during the Indian emergency by Indira Gandhi where the words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" were added.
Words
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
The
preamble is based on the Objectives Resolution, which was moved in
the Constituent Assembly by Jawaharlal
Nehru on
13 December 1946 accepted on 22 January 1947 and adopted by the
Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, coming into force on 26
January 1950.
Only three years after our Constitution was adopted, its chief architect, BR Ambedkar, publicly disowned it in Parliament. In an astonishing admission in 1953, he blurted out in the Rajya Sabha:
"People always keep on saying to me "Oh you are the maker of the constitution". My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will." Ambedkar added that, "I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody."
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_India#:~:text=The%20Constituent%20Assembly%20of%20India%2C%20consisting%20of%20indirectly%20elected%20representatives,India%20after%20independence%20in%201947.)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Constitution_of_India )(https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/modern-indian-history/framing-the-constitution-of-india-the-constituent-assembly/ ) (https://www.inc.in/brief-history-of-congress/1945-1955 )
Note – The readers may decide themselves on the contribution of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the framing of Indian Constitution.
Hindu code bills and Ambedkar’s Resignation
Background
In 1941, the colonial government had appointed a four-member Hindu Law Committee, known as the Rau Committee after its chairman B. N. Rau. The Committee reported that social progress and modernization could only be achieved by fundamental reforms, which recognized gender equality. The code was to be shaped with the aid of orthodox, conservative and reformist Hindus and by a comprehensive blending of the best of the current schools of Hindu law and the ancient texts.
In 1944, under its chairman, B. N. Rau, prepared a Draft Code dealing with Succession, Maintenance, Marriage and Divorce, Minority and Guardianship and Adoption. It was that Code that was widely circulated and discussed and given the name "Hindu Code Bill". The Rau Committee toured the country and examined witnesses. The 1947 report of the committee included and went far beyond the 1941 proposals, recommending the abolition of the joint family property system, the introduction of the daughter's simultaneous succession with the son to the father's estate, the abolition of the barrier to inter caste marriages, the assimilation of civil and sacramental marriages, and the introduction of divorce.
It was the intention of the government that this first draft should become law on 1 January 1948, but with declaration of Independence on 15 Aug. 1947, the whole project was temporarily suspended. In the mean time, a significant opposition to the code was developing both inside and outside the Legislature.
Opponents tried to undercut the perceived support by arguing that lawyers had become westernized or that the merits of the bill were for the people to decide, not lawyers. Nehru had already been forced to retreat from an original position of passing the bill. He, however, promised fellow supporters that he would campaign on the bill, with plain arguments on the merits.
Ambedkar's draft
The Ministry of Law revised the first draft in 1948 and made some small alterations to it, making it more suitable for discussion in the Constituent Assembly, where it was finally introduced. It was referred to a select committee under the chairmanship of law minister B. R. Ambedkar, and the committee made a number of important changes in the Bill.
The draft that Ambedkar submitted to the Constituent Assembly was opposed by several sections of lawmakers. The motion to begin discussion on the Hindu Code Bill was debated for over fifty hours, and discussion was postponed for over a year.
Realizing that he would have to make significant concessions to get the bill passed, Nehru suggested that the proposed law be split into several sections. He told the Constituent Assembly they would contend with only the first 55 clauses concerning marriage and divorce, while the rest would be considered by the Parliament of India after the first general election. However, the compromise was largely ineffective in convincing conservatives to support the bill.
When only 3 of the 55 clauses passed after an additional week of debating, Nehru had Ambedkar's committee distribute a new draft that complied with many of the critics' demands., including the re-institution of the joint family system, an amendment to allow for brothers to buy out daughters' share of the inheritance, and a stipulation allowing divorce only after three years of marriage. However, after these concessions also, the bills were defeated in the assembly.
Ambedkar's Resignation
At this juncture (27 Sept. 1951), Ambedkar resigned. In a letter that he released to the press, he held that his decision was largely based on the treatment that had been accorded to the Hindu Code Bill as well as the administration's inability to get it passed.
He mentioned various reasons in his resignation statement. They are -
a. He was not considered for important portfolios or not even appointed to be a member of main committees of the cabinet.
b. He was dissatisfied with the Government which it related over the neglect and the treatment accorded to Backward Classes (not appointing the commission for the Backward Classes) and the Scheduled Castes.
c. He was dissatisfied with the foreign policy of India (Kashmir Issue and East Pakistan).
d. Dropping of Hindu Code Bill.
(https://www.ambedkaritetoday.com/2019/09/resignation-of-dr-ambedkar-from-cabinet.html )
In 1951–52, India held its first general elections. Nehru made the Hindu Code Bill one of his top campaign initiatives, declaring that should the Indian National Congress win, he would succeed in getting it passed through parliament. Congress won sweeping victories, with Nehru reinstated as prime minister, and he began a comprehensive effort to devise a Bill that could be passed.
Nehru split the Code Bill into four separate bills, including the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. These were met with significantly less opposition, and between the years of 1952 and 1956, each was effectively introduced in and passed by Parliament.
Ambedkar’s Life after Resignation
Ambedkar contested in the Bombay North first Indian General Election of 1952, but lost to his former assistant and Congress Party candidate Narayan Kajrolkar. Ambedkar became a member of Rajya Sabha, probably an appointed member. He tried to enter Lok Sabha again in the by-election of 1954 from Bhandara, but he was placed third (the Congress Party won). By the time of the second general election in 1957, Ambedkar had died.
Wife’s Death
On 27 May 1935, his wife Ramabai died after a prolonged chronic illness. She had been married to Ambedkar for 29 years. It had been her long-standing wish to go on a pilgrimage to Pandharpur, but Ambedkar had refused to let her go, telling her that he would create a new Pandharpur for her instead of Hinduism's Pandharpur which treated them as untouchables.
Remarriage
After completing the draft of India's constitution in the late 1940s, he suffered from lack of sleep, had neuropathic pain in his legs, and was taking insulin and homoeopathic medicines. He went to Bombay for treatment, and there met Sharada Kabir, whom he married on 15 April 1948, at his home in New Delhi. Doctors recommended a companion who was a good cook and had medical knowledge to care for him. She adopted the name Savita Ambedkar and cared for him the rest of his life. Savita Ambedkar, who was called also 'Mai', died on May 29, 2003, aged 93 in Mumbai.
Conversion to Buddhism
On October 13, 1935, Ambedkar declared while addressing a gathering at the Yeola Conversion Conference on in Nasik-
“I had the misfortune of being born with the ‘Untouchable Hindu’ stain; that was not in my hands. Nevertheless, I can shake off this degrading status and improve my condition. I do not have the slightest doubt that I will do that. Let me make it clear: I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu!”
According to Gandhi, Ambedkar’s Yeola announcement, was an impulsive, angry response to reports of ‘atrocities’ against Untouchables. The most publicized of these incidents had taken place in Kavitha, a village in the present-day Anand district of Gujarat.
In August 1935, Untouchables had sent their children to the village school, run on government funds. The Caste Hindus of the village reacted by withdrawing their children from the school, beating up the Untouchables, breaking into their homes, damaging their belongings and enforcing a social boycott on them. Denied labour work and prevented from grazing their cattle, the Untouchables gave an undertaking that they would not send their children to school. Yet, as reported in Gandhi’s Harijan (24 August, 31 August, 5 October 1935), the boycott was not lifted immediately, and kerosene was poured into the wells used by the Untouchables.
Gandhi attributed these acts to the ‘weaknesses’ of some ‘unfaithful followers’ of the Hindu religion; their acts were not to be used to judge the religion itself.
However,
just over one year later, in early 1929, Ambedkar clearly stated that
conversion was not adequate to the true aim of their movement: It
might help individual converts to escape the heavy burden of their
own untouchability, but it would do nothing to dismantle the
overarching ideology of Brahminism. Throughout 1929, Ambedkar
reiterated that conversion was not the method he preferred, at the
same time adding that he would not stand in the way of anyone
choosing to convert. Preferable to conversion, however, would be to
bring radical change in and through the Hindu fold
itself.
(https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/the-long-saga-of-ambedkars-conversion-to-buddhism-2707950
)
After Ambedkar’s announcement of his intent to leave Hinduism and convert to another religion in 1935, he considered Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. He was also approached by various leaders of different denominations and faiths. On 22 May 1936, an "All Religious Conference" was held at Lucknow. It was attended by prominent Dalit leaders including Babu Jagjivan Ram, though Ambedkar could not attend it.
At the conference, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, and Buddhist representatives presented the tenets of their respective religions in an effort to win over Dalits. Ambedkar rejected the other religions and chose Buddhism.
However, Ambedkar remained a Hindu for the next 20 years, studied then re-interpreted Buddhism, and adopted Neo-Buddhism or Navayana few weeks before his death. The Italian Buddhist monk Lokanatha visited Ambedkar's residence at Dadar on 10 June 1936. Later in an interview to the press, Lokanatha said that Ambedkar was impressed with Buddhism.
After publishing a series of books and articles arguing that Buddhism was the only way for the Untouchables to gain equality, Ambedkar publicly converted on 14 October 1956, at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur, over 20 years after he declared his intent to convert. Around 365,000 of his followers converted to Buddhism at the same ceremony. On this occasion, many upper caste Hindus too accepted Buddhism. After Nagpur, on 16 October 1956, more than 300,000 of Ambedkar’s followers accepted Buddhism at Chandrapur. Since then, the place is also known as Deekshabhoomi. Inspired by this, 5,000 Tamils of Myanmar accepted Buddhism in Rangoon under the leadership of Chan Htoon, the justice of the Supreme Court of the Union of Burma on 28 October 1956.
Ambedkar asked Dalits not to get entangled in the existing branches of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana), and called his version Navayana or 'Neo-Buddhism'. Ambedkar would die less than two months later, just after finishing his definitive work on Buddhism.
Many Dalits employ the term "Ambedkar(ite) Buddhism" to designate the Buddhist movement, which started with Ambedkar's conversion. Many converted people call themselves "Bauddha" i.e. Buddhists.
On 15 October 1956, a day after he had embraced Buddhism, Ambedkar gave a passionate speech in Nagpur and explained reasons for his step. Apart from the incidence at Village Kavitha, Gujraat (mentioned above), he cited two other horrific incidences.
- When Ambedkar tried to take some Dalit youth to a temple in Uttarakhand, they were stoned by caste Hindus who wanted to kill because of sheer hate. Some of the high caste friends who came to see him in the hospital told him, point blank: “You did a wrong thing. You shouldn’t have gone there.” High caste news portals even published articles by high caste authors how wrong was this initiative. They tried to make Ambedkar feel apologetic for going to temple with some Dalits.
- The second incident was more horrifying. A dalit in Bageshwar was beheaded because he touched the atta (wheat flour) of a high caste person. Three persons – Ambedkar, a human rightist attorney and a dalit leader – booked tickets to reach Bageshwar and console the victim’s family. But they could never undertake the journey.
There were people though, from all castes, who readily came to help the victim’s family, but it was too late. Ramesh Singh Bhandari, the pradhan of the village said in disgust : “We all stand together with the family in this time of distress. What was done to Sohan Ram was inhuman. Customs and taboos have been there for thousands of years but killing someone in the name of such beliefs is not acceptable at any cost”.
These and numerous other incidences led Ambedkar conclude that it was futile to try to change the mindset of caste Hindus to accept Dalits as their equals. Therefore he decided that all dalits must embrace another religion where they will be accepted as equals.
Ambedkar never wanted to leave Hindu dharma but the arrogant, rich and a caste-driven Hindu segment forced him to do so. All he wanted was equality as a Hindu. He was denied that.
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/indus-calling/ambedkars-fight-was-for-honor-and-equality/ )
Reaction to Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism
Dr. Ambedkar was an unforgiving critic of Hinduism and the most prominent among formal converts out of Hinduism in the modern age. One might have, therefore, expected the Hindu movement to be equally critical of Dr. Ambedkar. However, this is not the case, quite the contrary. Except for the arch-traditionalist like Swami Karapatri, the predominant approach was to co-opt Ambedkar.
(http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch11.htm )
There may be many possible reasons for that:
- Buddha was born around 560 B.C in Lumbini (now in Nepal) as a Hindu prince named Siddhartha Gautama to royal parents of the Shakya clan. From his childhood Gautama was very compassionate. He was hurt by seeing human suffering and consequently he renounced his home life to live as a wandering ascetic (Sanskrit: śramaṇa). After leading a life of mendicancy, asceticism, and meditation, he attained enlightenment at Bodh Gaya in what is now India. The Buddha thereafter wandered through the lower Indo-Gangetic Plain, teaching and building a monastic order. He taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and severe asceticism, leading to Nirvana, that is, freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.
He died in Kushinagar, attaining parinirvana. The Buddha has since been venerated by numerous religions and communities across Asia. A couple of centuries after his death, he came to be known by the title Buddha, which means 'Awakened One' or 'Enlightened One'.
- Both Hinduism and Buddhism have many shared beliefs and practices, but also pronounced differences that have led to much debate. Both share belief in karma and rebirth (or reincarnation), they both accept the idea of spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana) from the cycle of reincarnation and they both promote similar religious practices (such as dhyana. samadhi. mantra and devotion ). Both religions also share manydeities (though their nature is understood differently), including Saraswati, Vishnu (Upulvan), Mahakala, Indra, Ganesha and Brahma.
-The Buddha was included as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu under Bhagavatism by the Gupta period between 330 and 550 CE. Between 450 CE and the sixth century, Hindus came to see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. The first account of this appears in the Vishnu Purana. The word Buddha is also mentioned in several of the Puranas, which are held by modern scholars to have been composed after the Buddha's time. By this period, the concept of Dashavatara was fully developed.
The Dashavatara (Sanskrit: दशावतार, daśāvatāra) are the ten primaryavatars of Vishnu, a principal Hindu God. Vishnu is said to descend in the form of an avatar to restore cosmic order. The word Dashavatara derives from daśa, meaning "ten", and avatāra, roughly equivalent to "incarnation".
Though no list can be uncontroversially presented as standard, the "most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is – Matsya; Kurma; Varaha; Narasimha; Vamana; Parashurama; Rama; Krishna; Buddha and Kalki.
All
avatars have appeared except one; Kalki, who will appear at the end
of the Kali Yuga.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha )
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism#:~:text=Buddhism%20does%20not%20accept%20the,found%20in%20the%20Bhagavad%20Gita
)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashavatara
)
Hindus therefore consider that Buddhism is branch of their religion.
This seems to be the reason why no one raised the voice when Ambedkar converted to Buddhism. However, it is not known whether Ambedkar chose Buddhism due to above reasons.
Death
Ambedkar, who had been suffering from diabetes since 1948 died in his sleep on 6 December 1956 at Delhi. A Buddhist cremation was organised at Dadar Chowpatty beach on 7 December, attended by half a million grieving people.
Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said -
“B R Ambedkar deserves to be remembered always by us because of his fight against social injustice. The great service that he had rendered in framing the Constitution of India”.
Politicization of Ambedkar’s Name
Politics is a funny game. There are no permanent enemy of friend. If some people say that their party follows some ideology then they are obviously lying. Political parties follow the ideology of convenience that too dynamically.
- In the past, Congress aligned with CPI when it needed the support. UPA itself was conglomerate of 20 parties who joined due to diverse considerations. The Congress party and UPA have largely followed secularism as their ideology. They have been accused of following appeasement of Muslims and Christians for the vote. It has also allied with parties like JD(United) and JMM who were accused of corruptions.
- The NDA(National Democratic Alliance) was formed in May 1998 as a coalition to contest the general elections.The main aim of the NDA was to form an anti- Indian National Congress coalition. It was led by the BJP, and included several regional parties, including the Samata Party and the AIADMK, as well as Shiv Sena. BJP openly persued Hindutva ideology. The Shiv Sena was the only member which shared the Hindutva ideology.
-Shiv Sena broke away from the alliance in 2019 to join the Maha Vikas Aghadi with Congress and the NCP. Samata Party also broke away from alliance in 2003 after formation of Janata Dal (United). Mamta Bannerjee and TMC allied with both NDA as well UPA at different times. Mamta Bannerjee also served as cabinet minister in both NDA and UPA government.
- JD(United), TDP(Telgu Desam Party), LJP (Lok Janshakti Party) have been in and out of NDA at different times. BJP also aligned with Akali Dal in Punjab in the past. Now they are not together. Presently break away group of Shiv Sena (led by Eknath Shinde) and NCP (led by Ajit Pawar) have alliance with BJP in Maharashtra.
- As of July 2023, there are 36 political parties that are members of the alliance. The Bharatiya Janata Party and the National People’s Party are the only two political parties being recognized by the Election Commission of India as national parties. Other parties in the alliance are either recognized as state level parties or unrecognized parties.
- Apart from central level there are regional level alignments as well. Therefore two parties may be friends in one state but may be opposing in another one.
In such a muddy scenario, only common factor between different parties looks to be power and nothing else.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena , https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/maharashtra-political-crisis-another-setback-for-sharad-pawar-as-all-7-ncp-nagaland-mlas-extend-support-to-ajit-pawar-11689900109182.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lok_Janshakti_Party , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Union_Muslim_League , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamata_Banerjee , https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Alliance#:~:text=It%20made%20up%20of%20center,government%20of%2018%20Indian%20states.&text=Its%20first%20chairman%20was%20Prime%20Minister%20Atal%20Bihari%20Vajpayee ., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Progressive_Alliance )
Demography and Vote Politics
Following is the demography of India based on religion as per last (2011) census:
Hindus 79.5%, Muslims 15%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.7%, other and unspecified 2% (2011 est.)
Out of these Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes constitute 16.6% and 8.6% respectively (2011 census). Normally people of Scheduled castes only are called Dalits and they form around 16.6% of India’s population. The 2011 census recorded nearly 20.14 crore people belonging to various scheduled castes in the country. At the same time many people refer both SC and ST as Dalits and they constitute 25 per cent of the Indian population
However, the Government of India refrains from using derogatory and anthropologically incorrect terms. Instead, it uses the terms Anusuchit Jati and Anusuchit Janjati, as defined by the Constitution of India, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively.
Since the independence of India, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given Reservation status, guaranteeing political representation, preference in promotion, quota in universities, free and stipended education, scholarships, banking services, various government schemes and the Constitution lays down the general principles of positive discrimination for SCs and STs
In order to get elected, political parties and individual politicians work on the strategy of projecting themselves as sole champions of the cause of public at large. The public should believe that their interests are served only by supporting a particular group. There are no rules of morality here. Politicians also still hatred or fear in the minds of people about rival groups. It may be religious or caste based love/hate emotional blackmailing, offering of soaps and may even involve intimidation and violence. As already mentioned, there are no rules of morality here.
In this connection, Dalit population which constitute 16.6% SC and 8.6% ST form important part of election strategy.
Quest for new tokens and facades
Political parties are continuously in search of new ways to lure the public. Some parties go to invoke Mandir/ Masjid issue. They also try to convince the Hindus that Muslim/ Christian population is growing at alarming rate and soon will become majority population. Anti conversion drive, Gau Rakshha (Cow Protection), anti western culture like valentine day celebration are also part of this strategy.
At the same time some parties will have secular agenda as slogan but will support caste Hindus or Muslims at the regional level to garner votes. These parties create fear in the minds of Christians and Muslims that rival parties are out to destroy them.
This is nothing but facade and tokenism. I personally know many Gau rakshhak politicians whose children have migrated to US and eat beef there. Many politicians professing secular agenda will prohibit there children from mixing with Muslims at personal levels. One example is Manipur which I visited in November 2022.
On 30 November 2022, while having dinner, I got in to conversation with another guest who was from Mumbai.
“You know people here widely consume beef”, he said.
“I don’t think so. It is BJP ruled state who are die hard Gau Rakshhak”, said I
“I also thought so but it seems that beef is staple food here and state government has allowed cow slaughtering”, said he smilingly.
I didn’t prolong the discussion but was uncomfortable. After dinner I checked the internet on beef eating in Manipur and found to my astonishment that he was correct and indeed cows are slaughtered and beef is widely consumed.
In fact, back in June 2017, Chief Minister Shri Biren Singh had declared -
BJP has no issues with Northeast's beef eating: Manipur CM Biren Singh
NEW DELHI: Beef is an integral part of people’s diet in Northeast India and the BJP, which leads the ruling coalition in Manipur, does not intend to dictate food choices to people, chief minister Biren Singh told ET on Sunday.
I kept thinking about it in the night and ultimately came to conclusion that -
AT THE END WHAT COUNTS FOR A POLITICAL PARTY IS VOTE. NOT IDEOLOGY.
If ideology comes in the way of garnering votes then it must be discarded.
IT IS TRUE FOR ALL POLITICAL PARTIES.
(Excerpt from the Blog – Travelogue Manipur)
[https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3719867301942521699/9131779820886887267 ]
Ambedkar Tokenism
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar happens to be just another token or facade. All political parties big or small, mainstream or regional want to garner votes of dalits by showing that they care and support their cause.
Its all showbiz.
Somebody asked a business man what is showbiz?
He replied – What we show is not our business and what our real business is never shown.
For years from his demise, Ambedkar remained a political untouchable for political mainstream(s). Babu Jagjivan Ram of the Congress was successfully projected as the ‘Harijan’ icon. At the same time, the Communist and Socialist parties’ remained concentrated to either upper caste, or other backward castes. After Ambedkar’s death in 1956, there was hardly any association of his name with dalit politics.
Caste Hindus had little to appreciate someone who proudly ‘did not die [as] a Hindu’, after his public conversion to Buddhism in October 1956. They chose to ignore him and Hindu mainstream political parties like Bharatiya Jana Sangh/Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) followed the suit.
This continued till early-1980s when the Kanshi Ram, and Ram Vilas Paswan started to champion the cause of Dalits (scheduled castes) and started mobilising around Ambedkar.
Kanshi Ram founded Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) on the birth anniversary of B. R. Ambedkar (14 April 1984). BSP was formed to bring "Social Transformation and Economic Emancipation" of Bahujans (literally means "community in majority"), referring to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (OBC), along with religious minorities. At the same time, the party claims not to be prejudiced against upper-caste Hindus.
The party claims to be inspired by the philosophy of Gautama Buddha, B. R. Ambedkar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Narayana Guru and Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj. B. R. Ambedkar, a proponent of Bahujan rights, is their important ideological inspiration. In 2001, Kanshi Ram named former school teacher, Mayawati, as his successor of BSP.
Ram Vilas Paswan was born in a village in eastern Bihar in a Dalit (Scheduled Caste) family. He promoted himself as a leader of Bihar’s Dalits and other low-caste Hindus as well as Muslims. He started his political career in 1969 and was member of different political parties like Samyukta Socialist Party, Lok Dal, Janata Dal (JD), Janata Party etc. In 2000, he along with other JD members formed the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). He became and remained the president of the party. He aligned with both NDA amd UPA at different times and was minister in their governments.
In 1983, he established the Dalit Sena, an organization for Dalit emancipation and welfare. Later it was renamed as Scheduled Caste sena in a vein similar to the Scheduled Caste federation established by Ambedkar.
In between, on 2 April 1967, a 3.66 metre (12 foot) tall bronze statue of Ambedkar was installed in the Parliament of India as mark of respect for his contribution to drafting of Indian Constitution. The statue was unveiled by the then President of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.
It was only in 1990 that V.P.Singh started using Ambedkar’s name as part of political strategy. He projected himself as champion of dalits on the same lines as Ambedkar. He announced the implementation of one of the Mandal Commission Report’s recommendations to reserve 27% of the seats in central services for OBCs.
- On 12 April 1990, a portrait of B.R. Ambedkar was put in the Central Hall of Parliament House. It was was unveiled by the V. P. Singh, Prime Minister of India.
- In 1990, Ambedkar was posthumously awarded India's highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna, for his contribution to dalit upliftment and deep commitment to the cause of social justice.
There is no denying the fact that Ambedkarism found a new lease of life following Singh’s tenure as Prime Minister. However, V.P.Singh’s tenure (2 December 1989 to 10 November 1990), was cut short by right-wing Hindutva forces, which invented the ideological kamandal to scuttle the momentous ‘Mandal’ moment of social justice.
It is V.P. Singh brought Ambedkar to the centre of our national imagination.
[(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/22308075231164672 ) (https://thewire.in/politics/vp-singh-new-lease-of-life-to-ambedkarism ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahujan_Samaj_Party ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Vilas_Paswan )]
Ambedkar Statue Mania
India has a history of constructing memorials and statues, as ways of recognizing and preserving political memories. These are reminders of important historical events or people, and are built to keep the past alive.
For the Dalits who have been subjugated in various forms, installation of statues of leaders like Ambedkar represents their struggles for self assertion. The struggles of these people were never recognized and memorials and statues are nothing but attempt to resurrect their struggles.
In 1997, Mayawati as Chief Minister set up the Dr Ambedkar Awards and erected over 100 statues of various sizes of Ambedkar in Lucknow, Kanpur, Allahabad and other key towns. Mayawati was herself dalit and invoked Ambedkar as dalit assertion. She may have wanted to every body to see the statue and feel that dalits matter.
After this, the popularity of Mayawati in dalit community increased many folds. Though she declared many times that BSP may be pro dalits but it is not anti upper castes. In 2007 the BSP won a majority of seats in elections for the Uttar Pradesh state assembly, and Mayawati became chief minister for a fourth time, her term lasting the full five years (2007–12). After this all politicians – Big or Small and Political parties Regional or Central competed with each other to install Ambedkar statues in their constituencies and states to capture newspaper headlines and project themselves as friends of dalits. Political parties have reaped rich electoral dividends riding on his name.
Most intriguing of this, was the Hindu nationalist party RSS/ BJP who support Sanatan dharm in all the way going for installation of Ambedkar statues and worshipping him. Ambedkar had deep dislike for practices of sanatan dharm and he converted to Buddhism because of that.
(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kumari-Mayawati ) (https://www.livemint.com/Politics/uRX8YdI9IgpvUlCnnFh9jM/Why-memorials-and-statues-are-so-important-to-Dalits.html )
At present all states except very few States and UTs ( Manipur, Nagaland, Lakshadweep, Chandigarh, Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Arunachal Pradesh have no Ambedkar statues so far.) have statues of Ambedkar.
Title of Ambedkar as Father of Constitution
Ambedkar is widely pronounced as Father of Indian Constitution or Person who gave constitution to India. This is despite the fact widely known that he himself had disowned the constitution. Only three years after our Constitution was adopted, its chief architect, B.R Ambedkar, publicly disowned it in Parliament. In an astonishing admission in 1953, he blurted out in the Rajya Sabha:
"People always keep on saying to me "Oh you are the maker of the constitution". My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will." Ambedkar added that, "I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody."
Illusory Truth Effect
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the illusion of truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. When we hear the same false information repeated again and again, we often come to believe it is true. This even happens when people know that they are being fed the misinformation.
This seems to happen with the claim that Ambedkar was Father of Constitution which is repeated multiple times by multiple people. Hence it has been accepted as truth.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect )
Don’t dare say anything against Ambedkar or else…..
Another tendency happens when public anoint some person and place him at very high pedestal. If there is any criticism however logical it may be, it will be dealt with severely. The same is happening to Ambedkar. If somebody points out anything negative about him, he will be taken as anti dalit or may even be anti Indian. A case in point is book Worshipping False Gods by celebrated author Late Arun Shourie.
Shourie has been called a "veteran journalist". He was a winner of the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982, in the Journalism, Literature and Creative Communication Arts category as "a concerned citizen employing his pen as an effective adversary of corruption, inequality and injustice." In 2000, he was named as one of the International Press Institute’s World Press Freedom Heroes. He has also been named International Editor of the Year Award and was awarded The Freedom to Publish Award.
Shourie's book has critisized the tendency of leaders who, driven by political ambitions, are engaged in rewriting the history of Indian nationalism. It takes to task those who downgrade the prominent role of Indian leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, while elevating B.R. Ambedkar.
The role of Ambedkar in dalit upliftment is undeniable. But in recent years he has been transformed from a notable historical figure into something approaching a saint, venerated by growing lower-caste movements and the parties of the Dalits and Bahajuns (as members of the Scheduled Castes now call themselves). In fact, Mayawati during her tenure as Chief Minister ordered the publication of new school and university textbooks that "properly" reflect Ambedkar's contribution to India's history.
Into this atmosphere of uncritical veneration, Shourie in his book sets out to demolish two myths that in recent years have calcified into truths:
- Ambedkar was at the forefront of the national struggle for independence from the British.
- He played a decisive role in drafting the constitution.
Shourie has established using proof that Ambedkar many a times sided with the British against the Congress Party in return for British support for the claims of India's untouchables. One should concede that Ambedkar thought that untouchables will be better in British Raj.
Shourie also provides plenty of evidence that shows the constitution to be the product of extended, collective deliberation, rather than the outcome of one man's vision--as Ambedkar's supporters are wont to claim.
Shourie himself has acknowledged that most of the facts presented in the book are well known but conveniently forgotten. With his distinctive eye for detail, Shourie delves into archival records to ask pertinent questions:
- Did Ambedkar coordinate his opposition to the freedom struggle with the British?
How does his approach to social change contrast with that of Mahatma Gandhi's?
- Did the Constitution spring from him or did it grow as a dynamic living organism?
Passionately argued and based on a mountain of facts that it presents, Worshipping False Gods compels us to go behind the myths on which discourse is built in India today.
The book was published on 30 June 1997 coinciding with 50th anniversary of Indian Independence. The book provoked violent reaction resulting in burning of the book in New Delhi and other parts of India and effigy of Arun Shourie was also set alight in Chennai within a fortnight of its publication. The incidence revealed the mood of Indian politics and how facts have been manipulated by political ambitions.
Arun Shourie in his interview with Pritish Nandy of India Today stated that though various people have criticized the book but no one has come out with any evidence refuting what I had presented and concluded.
He further said that most of his research is based on 14 volumes of Ambedkar's speeches and writings available in public domain. These are published by the Maharashtra government and sold at subsidized prices.
According to him -When people burn a book, it is basically to get publicity and 'Ambedkar is the byword for beating your breasts and showing that you are progressive!'
[(https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fp/fp_win97worship.html ), (https://m.rediff.com/news/aug/23arun.htm ),(https://m.rediff.com/news/aug/04dalit.htm )]
Reaction against Ambedkar Statue Mania
The Ambedkar statue mania has instigated the other castes and there is adverse reaction. Some of it is given below:
1. Haryana - Taraka village (Statue stolen)
Bal Jatan village Panipat (Statue Vandalised)
Hayatpur village (Statue Vandalisd)
2. Chhattisgarh - Rajnandgaon (Statue desecrated )
3. Bihar - Katarmal village, Begusarai ( Statue broken)
Chhapra (Statue Vandalised)
4. Rajasthan - Statue couldn’t be installed due to protest and fight between Dalits and Jats
5. Uttar Pradesh - Panwadi Town, Mahoba (Statue Vandalised)
Munda Pandey, Shivpuri Village (Statue Tempered with)
Ambedkar Park, Budaun district, (Statue Vandalised)
This has forced politicians to go on back foot as they can’t afford to loose the votes of upper castes while supporting / luring the dalits.
Has This Tokenism Helped?
The conditions of dalits have dramatically worsened during the last few decades. Various economic, social and political indices illustrate this downslide. As per the data of National Coalition for Strengthening SCs and STs-
“The report revealed that atrocities or crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) have increased by 1.2% in 2021 with Uttar Pradesh reporting the highest number of cases of atrocities against SCs accounting for 25.82% followed by Rajasthan with 14.7% and Madhya Pradesh with 14.1% during 2021.”
Many a times district administration and law enforcement agencies play the role of silent spectator. Sometimes they are even complicit to the crime since it is committed by majority community of caste Hindus. It will be clear from following 2 horrific incidences.
Hathras gang rape & murder, Uttar Pradesh, Hathras district
In September 2020, a dalit girl in Hathras district of Uttar Pradesh was allegedly murdered by 4 men from Thakur caste. According to victim's family, the girl was gang raped by Thakurs of the Village and in order to eliminate the evidences her backbone was broken and the tongue was cut by the perpetrators. The girl has confessed the same on a video shot inside the Hospital. The Police secretly burned her dead body at midnight without conducting any Post Mortem Test.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder )
No leader of any political party except Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadera visited the family.
Murder of Indra Meghwal, Jalore district, Rajasthan
A nine year old Dalit boy, named Indra Meghwal, was assaulted by a teacher on 20 July 2022 after touching a pot of drinking water meant only for upper castes, which led to his death after 24 days. The initial reports were contradicted by both the Rajasthan police and the Rajasthan State Commission for Protection of Child Right investigating the issue. They claimed that the beating was unlikely due to a caste-angle.
(https://www.thecitizen.in/india/the-tragic-story-of-indra-meghwal-331557
)
Following are some of the most horrific incidences of atrocities committed in 2023:
Gang rape and murder of Dalit woman, Bikaner district, Rajasthan
A 20 year old Dalit woman, was gangraped and murdered by three upper caste men and two policemen, when she was on the way to attend computer classes.
Murder of Akshay Bhalerao, Nanded district, Maharashtra
A 24 year Dalit man, Akshay Bhalerao, was beaten and stabbed to death by 7 upper caste men for celebrating Dr.Ambedkar's birth anniversary. Victim's brother Akash was also beaten up.
Brutal Murder of Manohar Lal, Chamba district, Himachal Pradesh
A 22 year Dalit man, Manohar Lal, was brutually murdered by chopping the body into eight pieces, in alleged honor killing by Sharif Mohammad for having an affair with a Muslim woman.
Murder of 10 year old Gurjeet, Budaun district, Uttar Pradesh
A 10 year old boy and a third grade student named Gurjeet was killed by group of upper caste men due to dispute over a land in the district of Budaun. When Gurjeet was found playing near the disputed area of the property, the upper caste men caught him, strangled and killed him and hung his body from a tree in a village farm.
Minor Dalit girl gangraped by three college students, Jodhpur district, Rajasthan
A minor Dalit girl was assaulted and gangraped by three college students in front of her 17 yr old boyfriend at Jai Narayan Vyas University (JNVU) campus after he was assaulted and gagged. The minor girl eloped with her boyfriend when she was approached by three college students with offer to help them in finding a place to stay, who took them to the university campus and assaulted them and gangraped the girl. All the three college students were were arrested few hours after the incident.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India )
Thus it is obvious that facades and tokens don’t provide any security to dalits when they are subjected to atrocities. The statues will not come alive and fight for dalits. Those who have installed the statues for political mileage often provide only lip sympathy and don’t come out to support dalits lest they will loose votes of caste Hindus. It is law and order problem is oft repeated comment.
It has been analyzed and reported that most often women have to bear the brunt during such conflicts. The reason why women’s body is exploited for punishment is -it's connected to her- and by extension her family, caste and community's – honour. Many cases are not reported due to fear of loss of family honour.
In other words, there has been little real change in the destiny of Dalits in many years. Though deep-rooted discrimination and ill feelings against Dalits are apparent in urban areas, it is in villages and small towns that atrocities against Dalits are a routine matter. Here organized voice to fight for Dalit rights guaranteed by the Constitution is completely missing.
Some of the stated reasons of this deafening silence of Dalit outfits and leaders are -
- Dalit leaders fear for the safety and well-being of themselves and their cadre. Dalit political parties also do not want to put individuals in danger by taking on the police or powerful elite castes. They fear that if their cadre comes out in huge protests, they might be targeted by police, beaten, jailed for months, even years.
- Most Dalit families do not have resources for long-drawn-out court battles. Where upper caste folk enjoy political and bureaucratic patronage, Dalits lack institutional support to take on the fight.
Of course due to the diligent efforts of many Dalit activists and lawyers, the police have finally started registering FIRs in which the Atrocities Act is cites. However, these cases are registered after immense public pressure, as happened in the Hathras incidence. And, even after that, prosecution rate of criminals is pathetically low.
(https://www.newsclick.in/Explaining-Silence-Dalit-Parties-Despite-Rising-Atrocities )
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67769453 )
Bhim Army – Some unified action by dalits
The Bhim Army is a Dalit rights organization in India. It was founded by Satish Kumar, Vinay Ratan Singh and Chandra Shekhar Aazad in 2015. The organization runs more than 350 free schools for Dalits and Bahujans in the districts of Saharanpur, Meerut, Shamli and Muzaffarnagar in western Uttar Pradesh. The organization is named after B. R. Ambedkar .
The stated mission is "Direct Action based on confrontation to preserve or restore the dignity of Dalit" and it has an estimated 20,000 followers in the Saharanpur region, which has a 20% Dalit population. The Bhim Army is aimed at supporting the marginalized sections of society such as Dalits and farmers, and more broadly "the Bahujan community which includes SCs, STs, OBCs and minorities who had been away from the mainstream for long"
The Bhim Army was found to protect constitutional rights and oppose caste oppression. The group protests against discrimination and caste violence against Dalit by members of the upper Thakurs caste.
A Bhim Army rally in Jantar Mantar, New Delhi in 2017 was attended by a large crowd, estimated to be 10,000 by Delhi Police.
In December 2019 it was announced that the Bhim Army would enter electoral politics and on 15 March 2020,the new political party was named Azad Samaj Party.
It is to be seen whether the Bhim Army will be really effective in bringing any change in condition of dalits. It is generally seen that when any group/ party gets in to politics it gets into the quagmire of compromises and corruptions.
The Social Agenda with which the party started becomes facade.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhim_Army )
Has Conversion Helped?
One of the questions people always ponder on is whether after conversion to another religion the life of dalits have become better. Although untouchability among Hindus is widely documented and debated, its existence among India's Muslims and Christians is rarely discussed. "But caste and untouchability is a lived reality and it is the community's worst-kept secret."
In case of Muslims, it is reported that "concepts of purity and impurity; clean and unclean castes" is prevalent. While Dalits are called asprishya (untouchable) in Hindu society, they are called arzal (inferior) among the Muslims. There are very few dalit muslims in any of the prominent Muslim organizations, which have been dominated essentially by four "upper-caste" Muslim groups.
A study was conducted to know the actual conditions of dalits after conversion to muslim religion. The results were revealing.
-A substantial proportion of the "Dalit Muslims" report that they do not receive an invitation from non-Dalits for wedding feasts, possibly because of a history of social segregation. Even when they receive invitation they are seated separately and they eat after the upper-caste people have finished. On many occasions they are served food on different plates.
- Their children are seated in separate rows in classes and also during school lunches. Even they are not allowed to bury their dead in an "upper-caste" burial ground. They do so either in some other place or in one corner of the main ground. Many upper-caste Muslims maintained a distance from them.
It It was reported that even though the discrimination is not as much as in case of Hindu Dalits but it does exist.
In case of Dalit Christians also, the group often continues to face societal discrimination both within and outside their religious community due to the pervasive influence of the caste system.
- Within churches, Dalit Christians experienced continued discrimination, such as being forced to sit at the back during services or being relegated to separate areas in cemeteries.
-
Despite a wide network of (Christian) missionary schools and
colleges, most children of Dalit Christians have not been able to
rise above the literacy level because these convent schools are busy
catering to the educational needs of upper and high caste people. The
neglect of Dalit Christian children by these institutions is
rampant.
In case with job opportunities and
entrepreneurship development, Dalit Christians are being denied the
facilities while the church leadership continues to flourish by
usurping vast foreign funding and real estate resources. Dalit
christians often accuse high-caste Christians of exploiting them.
I In this case also, even though, the discrimination is not as much as in case of Hindu Dalits but it does exist.
Caste-related prejudices are found among all religious communities -including Sikhs -in India. Parsis are possibly an exception.
The moral of the story: you can try to leave caste in India, but caste refuses to leave you.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36220329 )(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/496862.cms ) ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Christian ))
In this age, when we talk about societal equity and we have space missions, the caste system looms large as a blot of shame for India.
Reservation
Reservation is available to Dalits who follow Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but Dalit Christians and Muslims are not protected as castes under Indian Reservation policy. The Indian constitution in 1950 abolished untouchability, converting those castes to scheduled castes and tribes: in doing so it also provided a system of affirmative action (called the Reservation Policy) whereby 22.5 percent of all government and semi-government jobs including seats in Parliament and state legislatures were reserved for those in these castes; the law also set aside space for admission to schools and colleges.
In 1980 the constitutional policy was extended to cover the rest of the 3,743 backward castes in the country.
It is believed that SC (scheduled Caste) is a major element of Hindu Social Order because a system of caste is inherent solely in Hindu Society. The inclusion of Sikhs and Buddhists under the SC category in 1956 and 1990, respectively, could be due to political pressure, as these religions are seen as offshoots of Hinduism under Article 25(2) (b).
Christians and Muslims who claim to belong to no caste are not included in the quotas, meaning those Dalits who convert to Christianity or Islam are no longer part of the affirmative action program run by the government. However, even though Sikhs and Buddhists do not recognize caste hierarchies in their religious doctrines, they still receive the same benefits as Scheduled Castes under the 1950 Order.
The argument of many writers and intellectuals is that since Islam and Christinity do not have caste system and believe in equality of all, the benefits of reservation shouldn’t be extended to them. They also point out that the Quran and Bible have no such sanction for caste hierarchy.
Both Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims have to face double wrath. As Muslims and Christians, they face the brunt of communal violence and as the same time they are not able to get the benefit of reservations.
The counter argument is that societies don’t run by scriptures. Communities adapt to the prevalent social systems, and the community’s elites ensure the subordinate position of the downtrodden on one pretext or another.
Caste is an overarching reality of South Asian communities and both Christians and Muslims are no exception to that. Dalit Muslims and dalit christians are as much Dalit as others are, depriving them of reservations will be an injustice to a large section of this population. Many intellectuals and researchers believe that "Dalit Muslims" - and Christians - deserve affirmative action benefits like their Hindu outcaste counterparts.
Both Dalit Christians and Muslims have appealed to the government to extend the benefits of reservation policy to them to improve their education and employment opportunities.
In 2008, a study commissioned by the National Commission for Minorities suggested extension of reservation to Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians. According to the study, Indian Muslims and Christians should be brought under the ambit of the constitutional safeguards. It is crucial to comprehend that ‘Scheduled Caste’ is not a caste, but a legal appellation conferred upon members of communities within the caste hierarchy.
The matter is currently before the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India and it is imperative that the court considers the impact of exclusion on these communities, as well as the constitutional implications of such distinctions, to ensure a more just and equitable society.
A petition challenging the Presidential (Scheduled Castes) Order issued on August 10, 1950, which limited SC status to Hindus, later amended to include Sikhs and Buddhists, is also pending in the Supreme Court.
(https://thewire.in/caste/majoritarian-politics-and-the-plight-of-dalits ) (https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/marginalized-twice-over-the-struggle-of-dalit-christians-in-india/ ) (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/truth-lies-and-politics/extending-reservations/?source=app&frmapp=yes )
Way Out
- It must be realized by dalits as a whole that rather than politicization in terms of lip sympathy and installation of Ambedkar statues, concrete actions in the form of movement against discrimination and atrocities are required.
- Dalits must support only those politicians who come forward to help them in the hours of need. The days of sympathy must be retired.
- All dalits irrespective of religion must be treated equal by the state and must be entitled to same facilities.
- No body whether Ambedkar, Gandhi or Nehru must be accorded the status of saint.
In short -current politicization mania doesn’t help anybody.
https://kantscorner.blogspot.com/2024/02/ambedkar-facts-myths-politicization-and.html
----------
I believe that knowledge is the essence of goddess Saraswati, and those who have abundant knowledge are highly esteemed by me. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar also deserves this respect. I think the difficulties faced by most people during the Mughals and later British rule, after independent the Congress party carried the same values that discriminated, divided, and exploited the society, and did not work to educate and empower them, so that they could stand on their own feet. Before these eras, there is no solid proof of atrocities. As per literature, Lord Rama ate fruits from Sabri, and many tribals were part of his army. Sage Valmiki, who is often linked to the so-called Dalit community, had the honor of hosting Goddess Sita in his simple dwelling Hut. His holy book is very respectable to me and is in my home library. About my personal experience, I did not find discrimination against some particular castes in my village since childhood. The poor people from different backgrounds came to our houses, and we also went to the houses of Dalits. But now, there is almost 80% reservation, which is shown as evidence of discrimination against competent and knowledgeable. I think that opportunities should depend on competency and not caste, as this can help reduce gaps in society. While we accept Prime Minister Modi’s background, I vote with all heart. But I would not vote for Brahmins if they belong to a corrupt party whose main leader is also a foreigner.
ReplyDeleteMy Blog is non political. It is sad that rather than going through the Blog and commenting on the contents, you have announced your political views which are known to me from very beginning.
Delete