Saturday, 21 May 2022

Bahujan politics needs a New Radical Alternative


Bahujan politics needs a New Radical Alternative

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

Dr. Ambedkar is considered the father of Dalit politics. He raised the demand for political rights to the Dalits in the Round Table Conferences and despite Gandhiji's strong opposition, the Dalits got the status of a minority class and political rights apart from the Hindus, which were announced in the form of Communal Award. In this, Dalits got the right of separate electorates to choose their own representatives like other minorities like Sikhs and Muslims. Gandhiji opposed it by fasting till death by calling it a conspiracy to divide Hindu society and in the end Dr. Ambedkar had to sign Poona to save Gandhiji's life. Due to this, instead of separate electorates, the Dalits got the facility of reserved seats in the legislature, reservation in government jobs and local bodies and special incentive for education, but the right of independent politics of the Dalits was snatched away.

Dr. Ambedkar formed the Independent Labour Party (Swatantra Mazdoor Party) and participated in the Bombay Presidency in the first election of 1937. His main emphasis in this election was on the issues of the working class. In this they won 15 seats including 3 general seats. After this he formed the All India Scheduled Castes Federation  (SCF) in 1942, whose membership was limited to Dalits only. With this, he contested elections in 1946 and 1952 but he did not get any special success. Finally, on October 14, 1956, he dissolved the Federation and founded the Republican Party of India (RPI). He also framed its constitution.

Now it remains to be seen what was the main vision of Babasaheb behind forming these parties. Let us first look at Babasaheb's Swatantra Mazdoor Party. Dr. Ambedkar, in his statement, while explaining the reasons for the formation of the party and its work, had said- “Keeping in view that today is not the time to organize parties on the basis of sectarianism. Agreeing with the wishes of my friends, the name of the party and its program have been made huge so that political cooperation with other sections of the people can be possible. The main focus of the party will remain only 15 members of the Dalit castes, but people from other classes will also be able to join the party. The politics of this party was not casteist but class and issue based and mainly Dalits were at its centre.

If we look at the purpose and agenda of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation established by Babasaheb in 1942, it is found that Dr. Ambedkar had talked about establishing it as a third party to strike a balance between the ruling Congress and the socialist parties. Its membership was limited to the Depressed Classes only as it was necessary at that time to project the interests of the Depressed Classes.

Babasaheb formed the Republican Party of India (RPI) on October 14, 1956, whose main objective was to create a party that would be according to the promises made in the constitution and its objective was to fulfill them. He did not want to make it a party of untouchables only because a party formed in the name of one caste or class cannot get power. It can only become a pressure group. The main objectives behind the establishment of the RPI were: (1) To remove inequalities from the social system so that no privileged and deprived sections remain, (2) There should be a two-party system: one is the opposite party in power, (3) Equality before the law and there should be same law for all, (4) establishment of moral values ​​in the society, (5) equal treatment to minority people, (6) sense of humanity which has been lacking in Indian society.

The main goal and objective of the party in the preamble of the party's constitution was to achieve "Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". The program of the party was very wide. Babasaheb's objective behind the establishment of the party was that minority people, poor Muslims, poor Christians, poor and lower caste Sikhs and untouchables of weaker sections, people of backward castes, people of primitive castes, end of exploitation, seeking justice and progress. May all the people of India unite under one flag and stand against the capitalists and defend the Constitution and their rights.” - (Dalit Politics and Organization - Bhagwan Das)

It is clear from the above description that the objective of the political parties founded by Babasaheb was to create a multi-class party which could include Dalits, Backward, Muslims, Workers and Peasants. The agenda of the party was also made on the issues of these sections. The agenda of his parties was not casteist at all.

Now if we look at the current Dalit politics, then politics in the name of Bahujan comes to the fore. Its main father is Kanshi Ram. Kanshi Ram's concept of Bahujan was from an alliance of Dalit, Muslim and other backward castes whom he considered to be 85% of the total population of India and the remaining 15% as upper castes. Hence his Bahujan politics is also known as 15 vs 85. His main agenda was to snatch political power from 15% of the upper castes. This formula sounds great but in practice it is not. The leadership in Kanshi Ram's Bahujan politics was in the hands of the elite people of Dalits, Backward and Muslims. They used to get tickets on the basis of access/money and by winning they became ministers, MLAs and MPs. When the government was formed, it was they who used to take maximum advantage of it. Common Dalits, OBCs and Muslims were only the voters who voted vigorously in the hope that their problems would be resolved if the government was formed. But even after the formation of the BSP government four times, there was no improvement in their material conditions.

The main objective of Bahujan politics was to either capture or share political power. Its policies or agenda were not to replace the policies or agenda of the politics of the present exploiting class. Although Kanshi Ram had given the slogan of change of system, but when he came to power, he did not do anything for it. In fact, he had no alternative policies or agenda of his own which would uplift the common man (Dalit, Backward or Minority or others). The pivot of Bahujan politics was the section of the Depressed Classes who entered government jobs, whose biggest issue was reservation. Therefore, the main agenda of Bahujan politics was also reservation, promotion and good posting etc. Land allotment, employment, education, health and freedom from oppression were not in his agenda for the common Dalit. With Mayawati becoming the Chief Minister four times, they were emotionally appeased and there was some reduction in harassment too, but there was no major change in their condition. In fact, Bahujan politics had no capacity to fight Hindutva and pro-corporate politics and it was bound to decline.

In comparison to Kanshi Ram's Bahujan politics, if Dr. Ambedkar's politics is seen, then at its centre were poor Dalits, poor backward, poor Muslims, labourers and poor farmers. Babasaheb in his Agra speech had expressed deep concern over the landlessness of the Dalits and talked about fighting for getting them land. His aim was to unite these people under the banner of one party and fight for their constitutional rights by raising them against the capitalists and Brahmanism. The main goal of Kanshi Ram was to get power by any means, for which he also took three-time support from the staunch anti-Dalit BJP, due to which Bahujan politics got confused and headed towards its downfall.

Babasaheb had created the Republican Party of India as a big platform in which apart from the Dalits, people from other sections could also participate. Through this, Babasaheb was creating an alternative politics in which the common man was at the centre. The main objective of the party was to create a party which is according to the promises made in the constitution and its objective is to fulfil them. Initially, when the party worked towards these objectives and agenda, it also got very good success in the elections of 1962 and 1967. It also led a huge land movement in 1964-65, which led to the allotment of land to the Dalits. Later this party got divided due to personal interest of some leaders, behind which Congress had a big hand. Congress broke its leaders with the lure of post and now it is divided into many pieces and is ineffective. Nowadays the leaders of Dalit parties also keep changing parties like this for personal gains.

At present, the main representative of Bahujan politics is considered to be the Bahujan Samaj Party. Apart from this, there is Ramdas Athawale's RPI (A) in Maharashtra and Ram Vilas Paswan's Lok  Janshakti Party in Bihar which has alliance with BJP. The agenda of all these parties is only to get power or share in power. They have no policy or agenda different from the ruling party BJP or Congress. That is why they cannot compete with BJP's Hindutva and pro-corporate politics. In these parties, democracy is replaced by authoritarianism and the leadership is in the hands of one person. There is no interference of common man in this. That is why their leaders make alliances with anyone for personal gain, which does not benefit the common man. Dr. Ambedkar had said that political power is the key to all problems. He had further said that political power should be used for the development of the society but the conduct of leaders of Bahujan politics is completely opposite.

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, in place of the present Bahujan politics, there is a need to develop a new politics of Dalits, backwards and minorities, whose policies and agenda are against the Hindutva and corporate politics of BJP and the attack of global capital. For this, alternative policies like making employment a fundamental right, making education universal, improving health services, stopping privatization, making agriculture profitable, allotting land to the landless, ending corporate monopoly, restoration of democracy, ending black laws and the need for secularism etc. Along with this, democratization of society in which the destruction of caste is prominent also needs to be implemented. The present politics of caste is the promoter of Hindutva itself. Therefore, instead of this, the politics of public issues should be adopted.

Keeping this need of Bahujan politics in view, we formed the All India People's Front in 2013. In the leadership of this party, prominence has been given to Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, most backward and women. Its main goal is to give an embodiment of the concept of Begumpura of Sant Ravidas. This party is in favour of secularism and democracy. Our effort is to create a multi-class party so that intellectuals, social workers and parties of different ideologies can be included in it and with their help the attack of  Hindutva and corporate backed  BJP/RSS and the totalitarianism of financial capital can be stopped. It should be remembered that in the absence of alternative policies and agenda, the present Bahujan politics has failed miserably in this. Therefore, now Bahujan politics needs a new radical alternative.

Let us together honestly build a multi-class politics that can withstand the onslaught of BJP's Hindutva, pro-corporate politics and global finance capital and can fulfill Dr. Ambedkar's dream of establishing a casteless and classless society.





Sunday, 8 May 2022

How Dr. Ambedkar became a maker of the Indian Constitution?


How Dr. Ambedkar became a maker of the Indian Constitution?
SR Darapuri IPS (Retd) 
 . There was a British Constitution expert Sir Ivor Jennings. Nehru wanted to invite him to frame the constitution of independent India. For this he contacted him through his sister Dr. Vijaya Laxmi Pandit. Accordingly, she approached Mr. Ivor Jennings. But he said to her, "Madam, there is one person available in India to whom I consult from time to time during crisis/ambiguity and his name is "Dr. B.R. Ambedkar." He is from your own soil and I am confident that he would write the Constitution better than I. Hence better contact him for this task ignoring differences for sake of building a strong nation (India)". When this news came to Mr. Nehru... from his sister, Mr. Nehru realized that Dr. Ambedkar is just like UNIQUE PERSONALITY without him future of India would be bleak/uncertain, because Mr. Nehru realized the bitter fact that FREEDOM can be given easily, but not TOWERING WISDOM, which Dr. Ambedkar had possessed that time. Having been so, Nehru and his Congress members had personally approached Dr. Ambedkar's office, for Dr. Ambedkar had been literally amazed. Thereafter the process of getting Dr. Ambedkar for framing the constitution was begun i.e. Electing Dr. Ambedkar from Bombay Province, etc. till all statutory formalities were completed and till Dr. Ambedkar became the first Law Minister of India to father the Constitution of India.

Monday, 11 April 2022

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. 

Monday, 4 April 2022

Savarkar as a Diehard Casteist

Savarkar as a Diehard Casteist

Shamsul Islam

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


Bahujan politics needs a New Radical Alternative

  Bahujan politics needs a New Radical Alternative               - S R Darapuri, National President, All India People's Front Dr. ...