DECCAN INQUIRER
Bi-Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. .. Vol.19....Issue. 92…..….19 / 11 / 2023
Why Ambedkar Didn’t Like India’s Constitution
“I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it,” Ambedkar had said.
by BHANU DHAMIJA
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:
Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But 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.
BR Ambedkar
Ambedkar was advocating that the Constitution be changed to give governors the power of oversight over state governments.
Four years earlier, in May 1949, he had argued the opposite inside the Constituent Assembly that “the coexistence of a governor elected by the people and a chief minister responsible to the legislature might lead to friction.”
But now, he was telling the Rajya Sabha:
We have inherited the idea that the governor must have no power at all, that he must be a rubber stamp. If a minister, however scoundrelly he may be… puts up a proposal before the governor, he has to approve it. That is the kind of conception about democracy which we have developed in this country.
BR Ambedkar
“But you defended it,” said a member.
Ambedkar snapped back, “We lawyers defend many things. 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.”
Members were on their feet. One asked, “Why did you serve your masters like that?”
Ambedkar replied angrily, “You want to accuse me for your blemishes? — typically, I might add.” As the House was brought to order, Ambedkar’s proposal to give governors a power of veto was denied.
The truth was Ambedkar was past his heydays, and all that bothered him about the Constitution never came out in the open.
The truth was Ambedkar was past his heydays, and all that bothered him about the Constitution never came out in the open. He had already resigned from the Cabinet over disagreements about the Hindu Code Bill, and was then defeated twice, in 1952 and 1954, in his bid to become a Lok Sabha MP. Although, outside Parliament Ambedkar persisted in his criticism.
In a 1953 interview, he told the BBC: “Democracy will not work (in India), for the simple reason we have got a social structure which is totally incompatible with parliamentary democracy.”
He passed away in 1956.
What troubled Ambedkar about the Constitution India had adopted was its inherent majoritarianism. For a permanent Hindu majority nation, he didn’t think a system of majority-only government was well suited. In fact, he had proposed to the Constituent Assembly an entirely different set up for India’s Constitution than the one it adopted based on the parliamentary system.
Ambedkar’s United States of India
Ambedkar labeled his scheme the “United States of India (USI).” It was submitted to the Assembly’s subcommittee on Fundamental Rights only seven months before he began work as chairman of the Drafting Committee.
Ambedkar’s USI proposal was similar in many ways to the US’ system of government. It was a genuine federation, giving states a much higher degree of independence. This is why Ambedkar wished governors had discretionary powers. The USI’s executive power was to be elected by the entire legislature, not just by the majority party, and for a fixed term in office. The judicial power was vested in a totally independent Supreme Court. And the list of fundamental rights was similar to America’s Bill of Rights. Even Ambedkar’s language was reminiscent of America’s Declaration of Independence: “the British type of executive will be full of menace to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the minorities,” he wrote.
The executive power — a Cabinet run by a majority party leader as prime minister or chief minister — was Ambedkar’s chief concern. Its structure was crucial, he argued, for not just safeguarding minorities but also for providing stability in governments.
“It was clear,” he noted, “that if the British system was copied it would result in permanently vesting executive power in a communal majority.” And as for stability, he feared that “in view of the clashes of castes and creeds there is bound to be a plethora of parties. If this happens it is possible, nay certain, that under the system of parliamentary executive India may suffer from instability.”
This is not the first time Ambedkar had proposed these ideas for India’s Constitution. In a 1945 speech on India’s fundamental problems, he had declared: “Majority rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice.”
He outlined the principles on which India’s government should be based: a) “Executive power assumes far greater importance than legislative power”; b) “Executive should cease to be a committee of the majority party”; and c) “Executive should be non-parliamentary in the sense that it shall not be removable.”
Dr BR Ambedkar went to the extraordinary extent of preferring British rule over Independence, if all freedom was to bring was majority-only governments.
Ambedkar even took these suggestions to the British. He went to the extraordinary extent of preferring British rule over Independence, if all freedom was to bring was majority-only governments.
In a secret meeting with the British Viceroy, Ambedkar declared categorically that “the parliamentary system would not do in India.” The Viceroy asked him whether he would say that in public, to which he replied he would be ready to do so “with the utmost emphasis.”
Given all this, the puzzling question is why inside the Constituent Assembly Ambedkar supported a parliamentary type system of majority-only governments. After all, he sat with Nehru on the most important committees of the Constitution making body, and it was his draft that was finally adopted.
It’s all conjecture, but people have alluded to three reasons why Ambedkar switched from his long-standing opposition to parliamentary governments and became its chief proponent.
One, he was admitted to the Assembly only due to the support of the Congress party. He felt duty bound to push Congress’ proposals inside the house. Two, he was offered by Nehru the Cabinet position of Law Minister. He figured this would allow him to continue to serve his nation and his causes.
And three, Ambedkar wished to keep his arch-rival Gandhi’s influence away from the Constitution. Gandhi’s ideas about keeping villages at the foundation of India’s government were half-baked and too experimental.
After 70 years of poor governance and rising caste and communal tensions, it is safe to say that Ambedkar’s criticisms of our current Constitution were valid. Now, us Indians, have to decide whether we continue to pretend to be his followers to gain votes, or do we truly follow his advice.
__________________
Why BR Ambedkar's three warnings in his last speech to the Constituent Assembly resonate even today
On November 25, 1949, he spoke of the need to give up the grammar of anarchy, to avoid hero-worship, and to work towards a social – not just a political – democracy.
Excerpts from the speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949
On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future.
What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people.
In the invasion of Sindh by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki Kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators.
Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.
On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again? This is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.
Democratic system
It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure.
A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments – for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularisation, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.
This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.
Three warnings
If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?
The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.
The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.
The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.
Social democracy
What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.
We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty.
On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which is Assembly has to laboriously built up.
The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians – of Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is, can be realised from the story related by James Bryce in his volume on American Commonwealth about the United States of America.
The story is – I propose to recount it in the words of Bryce himself:
“Some years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and an eminent New England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our nation’. Accepted one afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word nation’ as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead there were adopted the words `O Lord, bless these United States.”
There was so little solidarity in the USA at the time when this incident occurred that the people of America did not think that they were a nation. If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation?
A great delusion
I remember the days when politically minded Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the expression “the Indian nation.” I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realise the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal. The realisation of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realisation in the down-trodden classes must no be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realisation of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses on them.
I do not wish to weary the House any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.
_____________
Whatever his motives, Periyar helped the British
By Markandey Katju
The 139th birth anniversary of E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar) was celebrated in many parts of Tamil Nadu, on September 17, with great fanfare. However, some acts of vandalism on his statues were reported in Chennai and Dharapuram in Tiruppur district. Periyar (1879-1973) is regarded as a great fighter against the caste system, superstitions and empty rituals. He was considered a proponent of rationalism, women emancipation and upliftment of the downtrodden. Both the Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu—the DMK and the AIADMK—claim their ancestry through him, and no politician in Tamil Nadu can dare criticise him. He started the self-respect movement and created the Justice Party, which later became the DK (Dravida Kazhagam). DMK was an offshoot of the same. However, in my opinion, the time has come for a fresh, objective and unemotional assessment of Periyar, and I am here presenting my own view. I do not dispute that Periyar fought against injustices in the society. But, this has to be coupled with the following considerations:
1. As is well known, the British policy in India was of divide and rule. Their efforts were directed towards sparking enmity between Hindus and Muslims (see, in this connection, B.N. Pande's speech in the Rajya Sabha, ‘History in the service of Imperialism', and my article 'The truth about Pakistan'). They also strived for division along the lines of caste. Periyar constantly spouted venom against Brahmins and brahminism. "If you see a snake and a Brahmin, kill the Brahmin first": this was a statement famously attributed to him. Some have denied its authenticity, but there is no doubt that his hatred towards Brahmins was unparalleled, and it was not long before violence followed words. There were many incidents of attacks on Brahmins in Tamil Nadu—their tufts and sacred threads were cut off—leading to a partial exodus of 'Tambrahms' from the state. I submit that, by dividing society along caste lines, Periyar was helping the British, whatever his motives may have been. There can be no denial that dalits were (and still are) treated disgracefully in our society. But the remedy is not to instigate hatred against Brahmins or other upper castes, but for dalits to join hands with the enlightened sections of the upper castes and jointly wage a struggle to put an end to this infamy. As I explained in a blog post 'The Caste System in India' (see on my blog Satyam Bruyat), the caste system, whatever be its origin, had evolved into a feudal occupational division of labour in the society, and every vocation became a caste. There was a small section of the society involved in intellectual work. They were the Brahmins, and their language was Sanskrit. There was no system of universal education in the feudal system, and the educated class in India was almost exclusively the Brahmins (just as in Europe, the educated people were mostly the priests, using the Latin language).So, the Brahmins, being the educated class, had a head start over the rest. When the British came to India, the Brahmins learnt English, gaining disproportionate representation in the bureaucracy, the judiciary, academia and other professions. So, it was not because Brahmins were intellectually superior to non-Brahmins, or because Brahmins were, by nature, tyrants, that dalits and others remained oppressed, and had far less job opportunities. There were historical reasons for it.
2. Periyar claimed to be a rationalist. That is true as far as his polemics on superstitions and empty rituals go. But, in his attacks on Hindu gods like Rama, whose picture he burnt at a Marina beach procession in 1956, he betrays a lack of scientific temper. What Periyar did not understand was that religion cannot be destroyed unless the social foundation upon which it rests is destroyed (see my blog post 'Taslima Nasreen is brave but stupid').
3. Periyar wanted British rule in India to continue, and did not want India to become independent. He announced that August 15, 1947, would be observed as a day of mourning, since Dravidians would thenceforth be ruled by northerners and the Aryans who dominated the Congress party.
4. He wanted an independent Dravidistan, separate from north India, which he called Aryanstan. Had this happened, it would have been disastrous for the economy of Tamil Nadu. Presently, industries in Coimbatore, Karur and Erode sell their products in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. What would have happened to such industries and their employees if this market had been cut off?
I think the time has surely come for a fresh, unemotional and realistic assessment of Periyar.
___________________
Ambedkar: A loyal sepoy of Britishers and his anti-India face
Read :
https://neopolitico.com/opinion/ambedkar-a-loyal-sepoy-of-britishers-and-his-anti-india-face/
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a historical personality, whose mere mentioning of the name evokes strong sentiments from people across the sociopolitical spectrum in modern Indian. Ambedkar has been glorified as a messianic character to whom a variety of accomplishments have been ascribed, viz., being the father of the Indian Constitution, a supporter of Indian freedom struggle from the British colonial rule, a proponent of social justice and equality, a champion of women empowerment, an advocate of the integration of Kashmir in the Indian union, and above all as being an Indian patriot who wanted a strong and united India.
However, Ambedkar was far from being the ideal hero he has been projected to be in the present times. Historical facts from primary sources allude to a different direction, which has however been sidelined to create an artificial make-believe tale of Ambedkar, thereby painting a perverted and negative impression of the Hindu society.
This series of articles aims to put out facts from primary historical sources to clarify this imaginary picture of Ambedkar which has been pushed down the throat of the Indian masses. The intention is to shed light on the actions and statements made by Ambedkar himself, which have been brushed aside from the public sphere, and to help people know the reality for what it is, instead of how it has been made out to be by the political establishment due to their vested interests. This first part of this series will focus on the role he played during the Indian freedom movement, being a loyal minister of the British government, and his contribution in widening and aggravating the fault lines within the Hindu society.
1. A Loyal Sepoy of the British
Throughout Ambedkar’s public life we will be hard-pressed to find even a single instance where he supported the freedom movement against the British. On the contrary, at every available opportunity, he was persuading the British to stay back in India and made every attempt possible to derail the freedom movement. For instance, it was Ambedkar’s firm opinion that “If India became independent, it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen” (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Note of Meeting between Cabinet Delegation, Field Marshal Viscount Wavell and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on Friday, 5 April 1946 at 12 noon [Nicholas Mansergh (1977), The Transfer of Power, 1942-47, Vol. 7, pp. 144-147].
Ambedkar’s language was always framed in a way to be favorable to the continuation of British rule over India. While today he is considered as a nationalist unifying figure, he made every attempt possible to prove to the British that the supposed ‘Untouchables’ was the greatest allies of the British along with the other minorities (Fig. 2).
Dr. Baba Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Volume X, pp. 496].
In addition to flaming caste-based hatred in the Hindu society, Ambedkar was also a sympathizer of the Muslim League. With British refusal to make any progress regarding India’s freedom, Congress ministers resigned in protest during November 1939. While Jinnah decided to celebrate the exit of Congress as a “Day of Deliverance”, Ambedkar declared he would join in for the celebration (Fig. 3). This strategic alignment of Ambedkar with the Muslims in opposing the Congress was always useful for the British to justify their colonial subjugation of India.
Figure 3. Ambedkar’s alignment with Jinnah in celebrating the resignation of Congress leaders from the British government [Dhananjay Keer (2005), Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, p. 330].
All the positions taken by Ambedkar were in line with the interests of the British. During 1939, when the second world war was about to break out, Congress was pushing for self-governance and this was putting the British in a tight position, which intended to gain assistance from India to fight a war. In such a critical stage as well, Ambedkar stood firmly with the British. On 7 October 1939, as the crisis was reaching its peak, in a discussion with the Secretary of State, Ambedkar resolutely declared that self-governance by Indians should be completely opposed (Fig. 4).
Through his efforts of supporting the British cause, Ambedkar was garnering appreciation from high-ranking British officials, which comes up time and again in their correspondences. As a result, they wanted to reward him with a position of influence in the government. Particularly, they wanted to give Ambedkar a position in the Viceroy’s council (Fig. 5).
Figure 5. British express their appreciation for Ambedkar’s usefulness for them [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 66].
Finally, Ambedkar’s efforts paid off when Ambedkar was inducted into the Viceroy’s Executive Council on 20 July 1942. And he made the most of his opportunity to be of best use to the British. However, Ambedkar was not just introduced into the Viceroy’s Council for rewarding him. It was part of a larger scheme to wrest the SCs from the Hindu society to make it easier for the missionaries to target them and convert them from their native religion (Fig. 6).
Figure 6. Ambedkar being the instrument of choice for the British to separate the SCs from the Hindu society [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 85].
Ambedkar was a quintessential loyal minister for the British government. Soon after he joined the Viceroy’s Council, on 8 August 1942, the “Quit India” resolution was passed by the Congress which started widespread protests, demonstrations, and violence across the country. Ambedkar did everything in his hands to protect the British government from any criticism. While the brutal measures taken by the British government were raising questions in the Assembly, Ambedkar stood steadfastly behind the government. He plainly said that there could not be a better form of government for the Indians than what they had at that moment, which was the British government. Being the Labour Minister, Ambedkar was also involved in carrying out pro-government propaganda through radio broadcasting, slandering the freedom movement using pejorative words such as, “a fetish of nationalism” and “the worship of the ancient past” (Fig. 7).
Figure 7. Ambedkar defending the measures of the British government during the Quit India Movement in the Assembly as well through radio broadcasting [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 102].
To understand the extent of blatant whitewashing of facts and propagation of falsehood which Ambedkar was indulging in, we just need to look at some of the facts and figures on the brutalities and persecution which the Indians were subjected to by the British during the Quit India movement. Even going by the official statistics, around 10,000 – 25,000 people were shot dead by police or military firings (Fig. 8(a)), countless young men including college students were brutally flogged, and according to some reports in some cases whole villages were flogged to death (Fig. 8(b)).
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. (a) and (b) Brutal persecution of Indians by the British during the Quit India movement, during which Ambedkar was the labor minister in the Viceroy’s Executive Council during 1942-1946, an active collaborator, and a vocal supporter of British policies [Jawaharlal Nehru (1946), The Discovery of India, The Signet Press, pp. 500-502].
If these figures sound disturbing enough, we are yet to consider the supposedly man-made famine crisis in India during the second world war, particularly in Bengal in the year 1943-44. According to the official Famine Inquiry Commission, presided over by Sir John Woodhead (The Famine Enquiry Commission, 1945, p. 1), during the Bengal Famine of 1943, “Between one to two million people died as a result of the famine and the outbreaks of epidemic diseases associated with it” (Fig. 9). And these numbers are limited to Bengal alone. If we consider the situation throughout the country, we can very well imagine the kind of calamitous and dreadful time it was for Indians. But here was Ambedkar during such tumultuous times of suffering, emphatically stating with utter confidence that the British government was the best form of government for the Indians, and even indulging in blatantly false propaganda to whitewash their dreadful crimes from the public eyes!
Figure 9. The approximate number of deaths during the calamitous Bengal Famine in 1943-1944, during which Ambedkar was the labor minister in the Viceroy’s Executive Council during 1942-1946, who was putting all his defending the British government [Sir John Woodhead et al. (1945), The Famine Enquiry Commission – Final Report, Superintendent Government of India Press, p. 1].
2. An Aggravator of The Fault Lines Within the Hindu Society
While today’s Hindutva leaders glorify Ambedkar as an ally and sympathizer of Hindus, Ambedkar’s attempts were constantly in the direction of permanently severing the Hindu society. During the Round Table Conference in 1931, Ambedkar was adamant in insisting that Scheduled Castes (SCs) were different from Hindus, and even went on to the extent that their interests were not just different but eternally opposed to that of the Hindus. Even after opposition from Gandhi and other Congress leaders, Ambedkar held on to his position that SCs should be given separate electorates (Fig. 10).
Figure 10. Ambedkar’s obduracy in demanding separate electorates for the SCs [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 64].
During the colonial times, it was a standard practice of the Europeans to cite incidents of atrocities or evil practices among a native population, to justify their colonial rule over them. In this regard, Ambedkar proved to be a useful asset for the British to perpetuate their control over Indians with the excuse that Indians were incapable of taking care of their own people. In his attempt to paint a perverse and horrific image of the Indians, particularly the Hindu society, Ambedkar even went to the extent of equating Hinduism to Nazism! (Fig. 11). In any sensible society, spreading such dangerous falsehoods and sowing seeds of hatred and enmity between communities would amount to incitement of violence in the society. But we live in a society that has been subjected to relentless propaganda on one side which has resulted in a total inversion of the truth.
Figure 11. Excerpts of a Paper by Ambedkar on the Problem of the Untouchables of India for the Session of the Conference at Mont’ Tremblant in Quebec, Canada on December 1942 [Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings, and Speeches, Volume IX, pp. 97-98].
It would be a shock for many people today if they were told that, Ambedkar was in fact against even the formation of a Constituent Assembly. But this was the fact; in reality, Ambedkar wanted a constitutional lawyer from the UK or the USA to preside over a commission to make a constitution (Fig. 12). Moreover, according to Ambedkar the Commission’s role of this commission would be limited to suggesting modifications to the already Government of India Act of 1935, which was promulgated by the British. Essentially, Ambedkar preferred a continuation of the British system of governance instead of a constitution framed by fellow Indians.
Figure 12. Ambedkar’s opposition to the formation of a Constituent Assembly [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 19].
Ambedkar was ever ready to produce atrocity literature against the Hindu society as per the requirements of the British whenever it was needed to discredit the Congress party and stop any progress towards independence. Around the brink of the beginning of the second world war (around October 1939), when Congress was pressurizing the British to yield for self-governance of India, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League raised concerns regarding issues of rights of minorities. Here again, Ambedkar was together with the Muslim League, in projecting the Hindu society in a negative light. Ambedkar says that he is ready to place multiple times greater number of cases of oppression than the Muslims could (Fig. 12). It is worth noting that, this strategy of using atrocity literature created through one-sided documentation of the incidents and repeating well-packaged lies, is used even today to malign the Hindu society and disregard its valid concerns.
Figure 13. Alignment of Muslim League and Ambedkar in maligning the Hindu society by the means of built-up atrocity literature [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 40].
Ambedkar not only gave all his efforts towards the continuation of the British rule of India, but he also had planned to restrict the newly formed independent government to make way for a backdoor neo-colonial intervention of India. He wanted the newly formed government to make a treaty with Great Britain to allow them to intervene in our internal affairs even after independence. Not only this, but he also had an even more disruptive agenda of creating autonomous tracts of territory for SCs all over the country (Fig. 14).
Figure 14. Ambedkar’s proposals to tie down the soon-to-be-created independent Indian state under the mercy of Great Britain [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 44].
This was not a one-time proposal from Ambedkar. As late as 1946, Ambedkar continued to propagate his attempts to severe the Hindu society and the to be formed Indian state with separate electorates to SCs, separate settlements for the SCs, and so on, which would essentially mean the creation of sub-nations within a nation (Fig. 15). It would seem unbelievable today, but he had demanded “separate villages” for the SCs. Resolution No IV titled ‘Separate Settlements’, passed at the All India Scheduled Castes Conference in Nagpur in July 1942 (Writings and Speeches, Vol 9, p. 393), states: “The Constitution should provide for the transfer of the SCs from their present habitation and form separate SC villages away from and independent of Hindu villages”. It is noteworthy that the Constitution makers rejected this dangerous idea of separate electorates and saved the Hindu society from a potentially toxic and perilous idea. Also, Ambedkar’s idea is not much different from the demand for ‘Dalitstan’ or ‘Harijanistan’ by modern Ambedkarites.
Figure 15. Demand by Ambedkar’s All-India Scheduled Castes Federation for separate electorates and separate settlements for the SCs [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 49].
3. Independence on the Horizon and After: A Disgruntled and Ungrateful Man
Nevertheless, despite all his efforts to mollycoddle the British, Ambedkar never could gain acceptance from the pan-Indian SC community. This was proved conclusively in the provincial general assembly elections of 1946. In this election, Ambedkar’s Scheduled Castes Federation was dealt a devastating blow. Even in regions where his community, i.e., the Mahar community had a considerable population, his party was decisively defeated by the Congress (Fig. 16).
Figure 16. The sound defeat of Ambedkar’s party in the 1946 general assembly elections [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 50]
Since it was becoming clear that India’s freedom could not be stopped now, Ambedkar quickly started pleading with the British government to somehow give his party some positions of power in the newly formed interim government (Fig. 17). This behavior reveals Ambedkar’s tendency to go to any extent possible to curry favor with the colonialists to gain the seats of power.
Figure 17. Ambedkar pleads with the British government to ensure him some position in the interim government [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 51].
But, in the end, it was the same Hindu leaders of the Congress party, whom Ambedkar had abused and dissed throughout his public life, who ensured a seat for him in the Constituent Assembly, with their rather misplaced sense of generosity. It was based on Sardar Patel’s phrase of, “forget and forgive”, that Ambedkar got a chance to continue in the Constituent Assembly and become the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution (Fig. 18).
Figure 18. Ambedkar was given a seat in the Constituent Assembly due to the sheer large-heartedness of the Hindu leaders of the Congress party [Arun Shourie (1997), Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, p. 55].
Unfortunately, even after receiving such generosity and wholehearted acceptance from the Hindu leaders of the time, Ambedkar continued to spew venom against them. According to Ambedkar, fundamental rights were not needed during the British rule because, their administration was fair and just, and “there was a sense of security” among the people. But, with independence, it became necessary to include fundamental rights in the Constitution to allay the concerns of the minorities (Fig. 19). This small illustration itself shows his sophisticated usage of words to club the minorities and the SCs together and pitting them against the rest of the Hindu society, while carefully injecting a victim mentality in them, which continued even after the independence.
Figure 19. Ambedkar’s arguments exalting the British rule after independence, being part of the Parliament in Congress government [The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Bill, Rajya Sabha Debates, 19 March 1955, Columns 2449-50, https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/583570/1/PD_09_19031955_19_p2437_p2520_2.pdf].
Ambedkar did not limit his argument of separate electorates and separate nationhood for SCs only; extending his logic, he in fact believed that, even Sikhs, Kashmiris, North Easterners, Muslims, Christians, etc., also deserved a right to self-determination. According to him, “India is not a nation and was never a nation” (Fig. 20). It is one of the paradoxes our times that a person who had such caustic views about the very existence of this nation is today celebrated as a freedom fighter, a historical figure worth emulating, and hailed as the principal architect of the Indian constitution.
Figure 20. Ambedkar’s views of having separate electorates and a right to self-determination [Dipak Basu and Victoria Miroshnik (2017), India as an Organization: Volume One: A Strategic Risk Analysis of Ideals, Heritage and Vision, Springer, p. 185].
Overall, Ambedkar remained a disgruntled, ungrateful man for the rest of his life, attributing all the failures he faced to inequality in the society and blaming others for discriminating and oppressing him while disregarding all the goodwill, respect, and magnanimity that were shown to him even by his political and ideological adversaries.
Conclusion
Throughout his public life, before the British left India, Ambedkar took positions that were perfectly aligned with the needs of the British Empire. All his attempts were either towards stopping or subverting the Indian freedom movement. Even in dire situations such as the brutal persecution of fellow Indians during the Quit India movement and the Bengal Famines, he stood with the British without any hesitation. His venomous views on Hinduism and his relentless attempts to fracture the Hindu society by flaming inter-caste hatred make him unworthy of the title of a national hero. Further, his quick overtures and adjustments to gain political power reveal some of the possible motivations for his actions. In summary, with the facts in hand, Ambedkar’s dangerous proposals such as arrangements for the convenient neo-colonial intervention of India, and the creation of separate settlements and electorates for the scheduled caste communities which could have led to sub-national and separatist tendencies, provides ample evidence to show that Ambedkar was quite the opposite of a national hero, and could be better described as a proponent of colonial subjugation and fragmentation of the Hindu society, and thereby India.
Reference Books
Nicholas Mansergh, E. W. R. Lumby, Penderel Moon, The Transfer of power 1942-7, London: H.M.S.O., 1977.
Arun Shourie, Worshipping False Gods; Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased, Harper Collins, 1997.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar; Writings and Speeches, Volume IX, Govt. of Maharashtra.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar; Writings and Speeches, Volume X, Govt. of Maharashtra.
Dhananjay Keer, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, 2005.
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, The Signet Press, 1946.
Sir John Woodhead, S. V. Ramamurty, M. A. Afzal Hussain, R. A. Gopalaswami, M. M. Junaid, The Famine Enquiry Commission – Final Report, Superintendent Government of India Press, 1945.
Rajya Sabha Debates, https://rsdebate.nic.in/
Dipak Basu, Victoria Miroshnik, India as an Organization: Volume One: A Strategic Risk Analysis of Ideals, Heritage and Vision, Springer, 2017.
_____________________
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS, LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page : https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/
Contact : dec.inq@protonmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment