Attempts by RSS to present Ambedkar as a Hindutva supporter

 

Attempts by RSS to present Ambedkar as a Hindutva supporter 

- S R Darapuri, National President, All India People's Front

                      

According to a newspaper, this time the RSS is going to do a big program to connect the Dalits. According to this, for the first time on Ambedkar Jayanti, flowers will be offered on photographs in branches across the country. On Ambedkar Jayanti i.e., on April 14, especially those statements of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in which Hindutva is strengthened with patriotism, will be told in the branches.  Sangh will explain Ambedkar's Hindutva in 11 points.

Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the right or wrong of the views/points being propagated/disseminated by the Sangh. From this point of view, it is necessary to comment on the 11 points chosen by the Sangh to explain Ambedkar's Hindutva, which is as follows:

1. In his book “Thoughts on Pakistan”, Ambedkar criticized the Congress for being pro-Muslim regarding the partition on religious lines.

Comment:  This statement is wrong. Ambedkar, in the referenced book, instead of the Congress being pro-Muslim, has spoken of alienating the Muslim League in the first election by not giving the power share as promised before the election and forming the government alone, as a result the distance and mistrust grew in Congress and the Muslim League and it started moving strongly towards the demand for Pakistan.

2. He was a strong supporter of the Uniform Civil Code. He had clarified that I do not understand why there is so much opposition to the Uniform Civil Code.

Comment:  It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was in favour of the Uniform Civil Code but due to widespread opposition to it, he could not do anything about it. At that time there was a general opinion that instead of coercion, consensus should be made whenever possible. Will the RSS also tell how strongly they and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the bill when Dr. Ambedkar brought the Hindu Code Bill to empower Hindu women? They had called Dr. Ambedkar anti-Hindu and untouchable as a breaker of Hindu families and he was even threatened with death. In the Constituent Assembly, the President of the Assembly Dr. Rajendra Prasad and the Hindu members of the Congress did not pass it due to widespread opposition and the imminent election of 1952, on which Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the post of Law Minister. Is there any such instance in the country when a minister has resigned for women's rights? The RSS should not forget the history of its protest and talk about the opposition of Muslims only. An effort should be made to reach a broad consensus in this regard. Muslim society should also think about this with an open mind.

3. He strongly opposed Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. In the concept of nationalism, he was in favour of monolithic nationalism.

Comment:  It is true that Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, he did not draft this article in the Constitution. But Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of Hindu monolithic nationalism but was against the partition of India. He was of the firm opinion that we should try and make a serious effort to persuade the Muslim League to give up the demand for Pakistan out of fear of discrimination against Muslims in independent India. Today the policy of discrimination and oppression that RSS is adopting towards Muslims/Christians and other minorities is right for the unity and integrity of the country?

4. Always supported the concept of nationalism, he has written in section-5 of Sampoorna Vangmay that I will live and die for India.

Comment:  Dr. Ambedkar never supported the RSS brand Hindu nationalism. His nationalism was based on the concept of liberty, equality and fraternity of all citizens but the ideology of RSS is quite the opposite. He was against nationalism based on any kind of racial and religious discrimination. He had said, “Some people say that they are Hindu, Muslim or Sikh first and then Indian. But I am an Indian from beginning to end."

5. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Dr. Ambedkar strongly opposed the leftist ideology.

Comment:  This statement is absolutely false. He did not oppose the Left anywhere in his speech. In his speech, he opposed all forms of dictatorship, even if it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dr. Ambedkar was a socialist in his political thought. Dr. Ambedkar was actually a Liberal Democrat. He was a strong supporter of State Socialism. The biggest example of his favouring state socialism is found in the draft of his own constitution which is printed in the form of "State and Minorities" booklet. In this he had demanded the nationalization of all agricultural land and collective farming on it. Apart from this, he was also in favour of the nationalization of insurance and compulsory insurance for all citizens, whereas today the RSS-run BJP government is engaged in the privatization of all this.

6. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar had similar views on a secular nation as RSS.

Comment:  Dr. Ambedkar was not in favour of a sectarian but a secular nation. Dr. Ambedkar was opposed to the entry of religion into politics. He considered religion to be a private belief and was in favour of keeping it away from the affairs of the state. The RSS wants to justify its politics of Hindutva and the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra by describing Dr. Ambedkar as a supporter of a sectarian nation.

7. Strongly supporting Hindu unity, Baba Saheb has written in his biography that between me and Savarkar there is not only a consensus but also cooperation. Hindu society should be united and organized.

Comment:  This statement is absolutely false. Babasaheb has not written like this anywhere in his biography. This confusion is being created by misrepresenting the letter written by Babasaheb in reply to the invitation letter of Savarkar. Hence the letter is being presented completely so that the readers can come to know about the intellectual dishonesty of Savarkarites. It read: "Many thanks for your letter inviting me to open a temple at Ratnagiri Fort for the untouchables. I am very sorry that due to a prior engagement, I am unable to accept your invitation. I, however, would like to apprise you on this occasion to appreciate the work you are doing in the field of social reforms. When I look at the problem of untouchables, I think it is deeply related to the question of reorganization of Hindu society. If untouchables are to be a part of Hindu society, it is not enough to remove untouchability, for that you have to destroy Chaturvarnya. If they are not to be an integral part, if they are to be only an appendix of Hindu society, so as far as the temple is concerned, untouchability will remain. I am glad to see that you are among the very few who have felt it. That you still use Chaturvarnya's jargon, unfortunately however you say it lets justify on merit, However, I do hope that over time you will be able to remove this unnecessary and it is clear that in this letter, Dr. Ambedkar expresses the possibility of untouchables to be included in Hindu society only after the elimination of Chaturvarna, whereas Savarkar talks of temple entry only to end untouchability. It is clear from this that there is a vast difference in the approach and strategy of both regarding the untouchable problem.

8. On the issue of eradicating caste discrimination, the views of the Sangh and Ambedkar are completely identical.

Comments:   This statement is absolutely wrong as Sangh and Ambedkar have completely different views on the issue of eradicating caste discrimination. Babasaheb was in favour of caste annihilation whereas the Sangh is in favour of caste harmony (as the status quo) and not the destruction of castes. Sangh considers Manusmriti as the holy book of Hindus whereas Babasaheb considered it to be a very anti-Dalit book. That's why he also did a public burning of it on December 25, 1927. Sangh is wholeheartedly engaged in the establishment of Hindu Rashtra through Hindutva (Hindu political ideology) while maintaining the caste system whereas Babasaheb was staunchly opposed to the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. In fact, Dr. Ambedkar came to the conclusion in 1940 that "if Hindu Raj becomes a reality, it will undoubtedly be the greatest calamity for this country... [it] will be a threat for liberty, equality and fraternity. Accordingly, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj should be stopped at any cost."

9. Baba Saheb had full faith in Indian culture.

Comment:  There is no doubt that Babasaheb had full faith in Indian culture but that culture is totally different from the culture defined by RSS. RSS defines Indian culture as Hindu culture whereas Indian culture is a mixture of different cultures. In this, there is a set of cultures like Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, Parsi etc. RSS considers Hindu culture to be superior to other cultures.

10. Baba Saheb always considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions.

Comment:  It is true that Babasaheb considered Islam and Christianity as foreign religions but he never looked down upon these religions. It is a different matter that he criticized the evils prevalent in these religions in India like caste discrimination etc., considered it a contagion of Hinduism and also asked them to reform those religions according to their original spirit. Even in adopting Buddhism, he had kept the national interest above.

11. Babasaheb was unanimous on the Aryans being of Indian origin.

Comment:  It is true that Babasaheb has said in the book " Who were Shudras and How" that the Aryans were of Indian origin. His study was based on the information available up to that time. But after this, the study of DNA of different races has found that the DNA of the Aryan race is similar to that of Iran and other European races which definitely came from Central Asia.

It is clear from the above analysis that the intellectual program run by the RSS from April 14 is an attempt to present Dr. Ambedkar's ideas in a wrong way by showing them in their favour, while there is a world of difference between the ideology of Dr. Ambedkar and the Sangh. 

Savarkar as a Diehard Casteist

Savarkar as a Diehard Casteist

Shamsul Islam
notoinjustice@gmail.com

The Savarkar rehabilitation project is taking newer forms. The latest attempt (“How Savarkar fought for a casteless society‟, The Indian Express, 28-02-2022] by the Savarkarites is to claim that “He had imagined a nation free of malevolent social evils such as caste cruelty, Untouchability, and injustice towards women. He advocated a casteless society based on notions of social justice coupled with social cohesion. He wanted to uproot the diversity of the caste system and build a nation based on Hindu unity, where Dalits could live with dignity and happiness.” It is also claimed that “He spoke out against scriptural injunctions that advocated caste, such as the Manusmriti.
According to Savarkar, these scriptures are often the tools of those in power, used to control social structure and maintain their supremacy .”
Let us compare these claims with the writings and deeds of Savarkar as recorded in the Hindu Mahasabha archives. Savarkar as a prophet of Hindutva and author of the book with the same title in 1923 defended Casteism in Hindu society regarding it as a natural component essential for making a nation. While dealing with the subject under the title „Institutions in favour of Nationality‟, he declared that the institution of Casteism was the peculiar mark of identifying a Hindu Nation.
    “The system of four varnas which could not be wiped away even
     under the Buddhistic sway, grew in popularity to such an extent
     that kings and emperors felt it a distinction to be called one who
     established the system of four varnas...Reaction in favour of this
     institution grew so strong that our nationality was almost getting
     identified with it.”
Savarkar, while defending Casteism as an inalienable constituent of a Hindu Nation, went on to quote an authority (not identified by him) who said: “the land where the system of four Varnas does not exist should be known as the Mlechcha country: Aryawarta lies away from it.”
Savarkar’s defence of , was in fact a corollary of his racial approach to the understanding of Hindu nation. While refuting the criticism that Casteism did check the free flow of blood in the Hindu society he presented an interesting logic by making these complementary to each other. He argued that it was, in fact, due to Casteism that purity of Hindu Race was maintained. To quote him,

   “All that the caste system has done is to regulate its noble blood
    on lines believed—and on the whole rightly believed—by our
    saintly and patriotic law-givers and kings to contribute most to
    fertilize and enrich all that was barren and poor, without famishing

   and debasing all that was flourishing and nobly endowed.”
Interestingly, Savarkar who stood steadfastly in defence of Casteism, also advocated the elevation of the status of the Untouchables in the Hindu society for a short period. He conducted programmes against Untouchability and entry of Untouchables into Hindu temples. This was not due to an egalitarian outlook but mainly due to the fact that he was alarmed at the numerical loss which the Hindu community had been experiencing due to the steady conversion of the Untouchables to Islam and Christianity which guaranteed them social equality normatively. Savarkar admitted that due to treating them as outcastes, the then 7 crores [the then population of outcastes in India] strong, “Hindu people-power” did not stand in our (High caste Hindus) favour. Savarkar knew that Hindu nationalists would greatly need the physical power these Untouchables, as foot-soldiers for settling scores with Muslims and Christians. So while warning his cadres that if the Untouchables did not remain in their fold, they were going to prove a factor which would bring far more terrible crisis for high Caste Hindus, Savarkar lamented the fact that “they will not only cease to be beneficial for us but also become an easy means of dividing our house, thus proving to be responsible for our boundless loss.”
The most authentic record of Savarkar’s beliefs and actions on this issue is available in a compilation by secretary of Savarkar, A. S. Bhide titled as “Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1940 .”  It is an official guide-book for Hindu Mahasabha cadres. According to it Savarkar soon declared that he was undertaking these reformative actions in his personal capacity “without involving the Hindu Mahasabha organization into social and religions [sic] activities not guaranteed by its constitutional limits...” [Bold as in the original text] Savarkar assured Sanatani Hindus who were opposed to Untouchables’ entry into Hindu temples in 1939 that Hindu Mahasabha, “will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature [sic] regarding Temple Entry by the Untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today.”
On June 20, 1941 he once again pledged in the form of a personal assurance that he would not hurt the sentiments of Sanatani Hindus so far as the issue of entry of Untouchables in temples was concerned. This time he even promised not to touch anti- women and anti-Dalit Hindu personal laws: “I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general, the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned...”
Savarkar remained a great protagonist of Casteism and worshipper of Manusmriti throughout his life. The institutions of Casteism and Untouchability were, indeed, the outcome of Manu’s Codes which were greatly revered by Savarkar as we will see in the following statement of his: “Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable [sic] after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental”.
Sadly, Savarkarites bent upon establishing Savarkar‟s anti-
Untouchability credentials have no hesitation in playing mischief even with a letter Dr. Ambedkar wrote to Savarkar on February 18, 1933. They produce it as a testimonial to establish Savarkar as a crusader against untouchability which according to the Savarkarites reads: “I wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reform. If the Untouchables are to be part of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove untouchability; for that matter you should destroy “Chaturvarna‟. I am glad that you are one of the very few leaders who have realised this.” Unfortunately sentences have been picked up from Dr. Ambedkar’s letter deleting all critical comments on Savarkar’s agenda for Untouchables. The letter is produced in full so that the intellectual dishonesty of Savarkarites is known to readers. It read: “Many thanks for your letter inviting me to Ratnagiri to open the Temple on the fort to the Untouchables. I am extremely sorry that owing to previous engagements, I am unable to accept your invitation. I, however, wish to take this opportunity of conveying to you my appreciation of the work you are doing in the field of social reforms. As I look what is called the problem of the untouchables, I feel it is intimately bound up with the question of reorganization of Hindu society. If the untouchables are to be a part and parcel of the Hindu society, then it is not enough to remove Untouchability, for that you must destroy Chaturvarnya. If they are not to be a part and parcel, if they are only to be appendix to Hindu society then Untouchability, so far as temple is concerned, may remain. I am glad to see that you are one of the very few who have realized it. That you still use the jargon of Chaturvarnya although you qualify it by basing it  on merit is rather unfortunate. However, I hope that in course of time you will have courage enough to drop this needless and mischevious jargon.” [Emphasis added]
In fact, Dr. Ambedkar came to the conclusion in 1940 that “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country... [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost”.
It appeared in The Indian Express, Delhi titled „Truth about Savarkar and caste‟ on
23-03-2022.
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/truth-about-savarkar-and-caste-
7832134

 

Dalit Politics needs a New Radical Alternative

 

          Dalit Politics needs a New Radical Alternative

           - S. R. Darapuri, National President, All India People's Front

The recent assembly elections in five states have shown that Dalit politics has once again failed miserably. In this election, the BSP, as a symbol of Dalit politics in Uttar Pradesh, was badly defeated and got only one seat. In the recent elections, the BSP has got two seats in Uttarakhand, while in Punjab it did not get a single seat despite the alliance with the Akali Dal. Apart from this, Azad Samaj Party of Chandra Shekhar, a new player of Dalit politics, had contested elections in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand but it did not get any success. Thus, Dalit politics in North India has failed miserably. Mayawati's biggest Dalit vote bank in Uttar Pradesh has been badly shattered. A large part of it (non-Jatav/Chamar sub-castes) has already gone with the BJP and in the recent assembly elections, a section of Chamar/Jatav sub-caste also broke away from Mayawati and went to SP and BJP. Thus, the disintegration of vote bank of BSP in North India especially in Uttar Pradesh has made it clear that Dalit politics in North India has been badly scattered and today it is standing at a crossroads. In such a situation, Dalit politics needs a new radical alternative.

This is not the first time that Dalit politics has failed. Even before this, the Republican Party of India has been a victim of similar failure. As long as this party continued to follow the ideology of Dr. Ambedkar, it flourished but as soon as it fell victim to the individualism, opportunism and agendalessness of the leaders, it started to decline and now it is a fragmented segment. In the past, this party has also made great achievements in Uttar Pradesh. In 1962, this party had 4 MPs and 8 MLAs in Uttar Pradesh and in 1967 it had one MP and 10 MLAs. After that its disintegration started. During that time this party had a progressive agenda and believed in struggle and mass movement. This party itself started the countrywide land movement from 6th December in 1964. More than 3 lakh agitators were arrested in this movement and the then Congress government had to accept all its demands, in which land allotment was the main demand. After this the Congress started breaking it by taking advantage of the personal weaknesses of its leaders and giving them positions and other lures. As a result, by 1970, this party was divided into many pieces and today its leaders are maintaining their stomach by making compromises with different parties for personal interest.

Now if we look at the rise of BSP in North India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, it was in a way a result of reaction to the fall of RPI. Kanshi Ram had rebuilt the BSP on the ruins of the RPI. In fact, initially, most of the RPI activists had participated in it and it got great support from the middle class of Dalits. In 1993, it had achieved great success by forging an alliance with Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi Party and the SP-BSP government was formed. At that time a powerful alliance of Dalits, Backward and Muslims was formed and its message went all over India. But unfortunately, this alliance soon broke down due to some personal interests. The most lethal thing about this incident was that in this support was taken from the BJP a vehement Dalits opponent party. Even after this, an alliance was made with BJP twice again, which was good for Mayawati's personal interest but was fatal for Dalit interests. This led to the development of a directionlessness among the Dalits and they forgot to distinguish between friend and foe. Dalits were ordered to befriend the Brahminical ideology with which they were fighting. Later Mayawati sold Dalit politics to the same goons, miscreants, mafia and Dalit oppressors with whom they fought.

 Although the BSP came to power four times, it never declared its Dalit agenda. The consequence of this was that the so-called Dalit government was formed, but no scheme was implemented for the empowerment of Dalits. As a result of this, there was emotional appeasement of Dalits and to some extent self-respect was also awakened in them, but there has been no change in their material conditions.

From the Social and Economic Census-2011, it has emerged that the two biggest weaknesses of Dalits in rural areas are landlessness and the other is manual labour. It is a matter of great regret that although Mayawati has been the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh four times, she has neither allotted land nor got possession of the lands allotted to the Dalits except in 1995. The consequence of this has been that the rural Dalits are still dependent on the land owners for wages, to ease themselves and get fodder for the animals. Due to this weakness, they are not able to effectively counteract the atrocities on them. It seems that perhaps keeping Dalits weak and dependent has been part of Mayawati's politics too.

It has been observed that ever since the neo-liberal policies came into force in the country, Dalits have been its biggest victims. Dalits have been the worst affected by the cut in investment in agriculture and health services. The decline in the pace of employment generation in the country has also proved to be very fatal for the Dalits. Reservation in government jobs has also become ineffective due to privatization. But Mayawati has completely ignored these ill effects on Dalits. In fact, Mayawati has also been doing the same kind of politics with Dalits as the mainstream parties have been doing. Instead of making Dalits self-reliant and empowering them, they have only seen them as their vote bank by doing politics of symbols. Due to this attitude of Mayawati, Dalits have also become disillusioned with her.

The caste politics of BSP has strengthened Hindutva instead of weakening it, which BJP has taken advantage of. For this reason, it has been successful in integrating most of the sub-castes of Dalits into Hindutva. Therefore, it is natural for caste politics to have the same culmination. Same happened with BSP. On the one hand, when it was widely publicized that the BSP was primarily a party of Chamars and Jatavs, it was natural for other sub-castes of Dalits to react. This has been happening for the last several elections. In Uttar Pradesh, most of the sub-castes of Dalits have separated from BSP and moved towards BJP and SP. To a large extent, Jatav and Chamar votes have also separated from BSP.

 It is clear from the above description that the caste politics of BSP in North India has failed due to opportunism, principlelessness, neglect of Dalit interests and corruption. Therefore, in this context, Dalits now need a new radical alternative. This option should be based on class interest above caste interest so that people of all classes with similar conditions can be included in it. Along with this, the struggle for freedom from caste discrimination should also be a major part of it. For this, Dalits have to come out of the narrow caste politics and become a part of wider democratic politics.

The All India People's Front (Radical) (AIPF) has taken initiative in this direction since 2013. In the last assembly elections, we had contested from Duddhi (Tribal Reserved) Sonbhadra and Sitapur Sadar (General) seat. In this, the allocation of land under the Forest Rights Act in Duddhi and the education of girls was our main agenda. Our issues in Sitapur were Dalit respect and farmer’s rights. The main agenda of our party is to bring the issues of Dalit, Adivasi, working class and peasantry to the centre of politics and defeat the politics of corporate-funded Hindutva. AIPF is determined to embody the Begumpura concept of Sant Ravidas. For this our party is ready to join hands with all democratic, progressive, secular and democratic forces. You can read in detail about its constitution, policies and programs at www.aipfr.org . Come join us if you agree with our agenda.