DECCAN INQUIRER E NEWS

Ambedkar against India's Independence ???

April 13, 2024

DECCAN INQUIRER

Bi-Weekly e news paper

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. .. Vol.20..............Issue.30………..14 / 04 / 2024

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

BY RĀMA JĀMADAGNYA

Read :

https://neopolitico.com/opinion/ambedkar-a-loyal-sepoy-of-britishers-an

d-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_1903195

5_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.
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 : naag@gmx.com
 SHARE

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Failed Constitution

November 25, 2023

DECCAN INQUIRER Bi-Weekly e news paper Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. .. Vol.19....Issue.

94…..…26 / 11 / 2023 Editorial : Failed Constitution of India Out of the 763 Sitting MPs in Lok

Sabha and Rajya Sabha, a staggering 306 (40%) have declared criminal cases against themselves
such as charges of murder and crimes against women, as per the latest ADR report. More than half

of Karnataka’s newly elected legislators have declared criminal cases against themselves,

according to non-profits Karnataka Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms

(ADR). This year, 58% of the Congress’ winners, 52% of the BJP’s and 19% from the JDS have a

criminal background. In the serious crimes category, 40 candidates from the Congress , 23 from

the BJP and seven from the JDS are facing charges. One winning candidate is facing murder

charges, seven have declared cases related to crimes against women, and one is facing rape

charges. Please read the Vohra Committee Report on criminal nexus of corr

SHARE

POST A COMMENT

READ MORE
 Haram Pork & Halal Beef

August 01, 2023

DECCAN INQUIRER Bi-Weekly e news paper Editor: Nagaraja.M.R....

Vol.04.....Issue.58...........02 / 08 / 2023 ________________________ PIL – TRANSPARENT

LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS & MEDICINES Conning Muslims to eat PORK &

Hindus to eat BEEF An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India , Karnataka High Court

& National Human Rights Commission IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R editor DALIT ONLINE & DECCAN INQUIRER # LIG 2 , No 761 ,,

HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

....Petitioner Versus Honourable Union Cabinet Secretary , GOI Honourable Chief

Secretary , Government of Karnataka & Others ....Respondents PETITION UNDER

ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR

ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTI

 SHARE

POST A COMMENT

READ MORE

Reverse discrimination & dalits

March 03, 2024

DECCAN INQUIRER Bi-Weekly e news paper Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. ..

Vol.20..............Issue.18………03 / 03 / 2024 RTI request to CPIO Ministry of Home Affairs

GOI New Delhi Ref : RTI no. MHOME/R/E/24/01003 We respect every human being equally

irrespective of caste, religion , region , skin colour , gender , etc. All of us have human rights of

equality by virtue of our birth. No government, no Constitution , no ambedkar, nobody can take
 away those human rights. Those who violate our human rights are criminals. Dalits faced caste

discrimination is true. They need government support for their upliftment good , needed. But not

at the cost of others. Our Constitution, government is feeding a dalit child by snatching away

meal plate from General merit child. GM child is going hungry. Caste discrimination is bad ,

punishable. But what about reverse discrimination, punishment ? Please give us information

regarding following : Details of protests , satyagrahas , marches Dr.B.

SHARE

POST A COMMENT

READ MORE

Archive

Report Abuse

Powered by Blogger