Why Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti?

 

Why Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti?

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

“Dr. B.R. Ambedkar publicly burnt a copy of the Manusmriti on 25 December 1927 in Mahad, Maharashtra, as a symbolic act of protest against the caste system and the religious justification of social inequality.”

 Historical Context

This took place during the “Mahad Satyagraha” (also known as the Chavdar Tal Satyagraha). Earlier in March 1927, Ambedkar had led a movement asserting the right of Dalits (then called Untouchables) to use water from the public Chavdar Tank, which upper-caste Hindus had traditionally denied them. Upper-caste opposition, violence, “purification” rituals of the tank, and a court case halted further direct action on the water issue. The December conference therefore shifted focus to a deeper challenge.

Ambedkar’s Reasons

Ambedkar regarded the ‘Manusmriti’ as the foundational text that gave religious and ideological sanction to the ‘Chaturvarna’ system, untouchability, graded inequality, and the subordination of lower castes and women.

In his own words (explained later in his newspaper ‘Bahishkrit Bharat’ on 3 February 1928), his reading of the text convinced him that it “did not even remotely support the idea of social equality.” Burning it was a deliberate way to register protest against the oppressive ideas it represented. He compared the act to Mahatma Gandhi’s burning of foreign cloth — a recognised form of symbolic protest.

Key points he and the conference resolution emphasised:

- The laws in the ‘Manusmriti’ were insulting to persons of low caste, deprived them of human rights, and crushed their personality.

- It was undeserving of respect as a sacred book.

- As long as Hindus revered such texts, genuine reform or welfare of the Untouchables was impossible.

- The root of untouchability lay in the prohibition of inter-caste marriages and the broader ‘varna’ hierarchy that the text upheld.

The burning was carried out on a specially prepared pyre with banners declaring “Destroy Untouchability” and “Bury Brahminism.” Ambedkar, along with associates (including Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe), tore and burnt the pages.

 Broader Significance

For Ambedkar, the act went beyond demanding access to water or temples. It was aimed at attacking the ideological and scriptural foundations of caste hierarchy itself. He later warned that if burning the ‘Manusmriti’ did not end Brahmanism, more radical steps — including leaving Hinduism — might become necessary. This event is now commemorated by many as “Manusmriti Dahan Diwas” or Equality Day and is seen as a major turning point in the anti-caste movement.

Navi Pillay’s Observations on Caste Based Discrimination at the United Nations Human Rights Council and their implication for India

 

Navi Pillay’s Observations on Caste Based Discrimination at the United Nations Human Rights Council and their implication for India

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

(Note: Navi Pillay has been awarded Nobel Peace Prize- 2026 t0day. She has been very sympathetic to Dalits of India.) 

 

Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008–2014), was the first holder of the office to systematically and publicly treat caste-based discrimination as a major global human-rights issue requiring international attention and action. Her statements at and around the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), in official speeches, side events, and interviews framed it as a form of discrimination based on work and descent that violates core principles of equality and non-discrimination.

 Key observations

Pillay repeatedly described caste-based discrimination (including “untouchability”) as affecting roughly 250–260 million people worldwide, the large majority in South Asia (especially India). She characterised it as:

- A system rooted in notions of ritual purity and pollution that produces lifelong humiliation, exclusion, poverty, segregation, and violence.

- Not limited to one country, religion, or region; it appears in various forms in South Asia, Japan, Africa, the Middle East, and diaspora communities.

- Destructive of the human-rights principles her office was mandated to uphold. She drew explicit parallels with her own experience of racial and gender discrimination under apartheid in South Africa.

Specific points she emphasised included:

 Manual scavenging: (cleaning toilets/sewers by hand), largely forced on Dalit women, as a particularly degrading manifestation that reinforces stigma. She welcomed campaigns against it in India and stressed the need for enforcement and rehabilitation.

 Intersection with gender: Dalit women face “double assault” of caste and gender discrimination, limited access to land/inheritance/resources, higher illiteracy, and high levels of sexual violence often committed with impunity.

 Failure of implementation: Even where strong constitutional bans, affirmative-action programmes, and anti-atrocity laws exist (as in India), enforcement is weak, accountability is lacking, and a climate of impunity persists.

The need for international standards: She strongly supported the 2009 Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent and called for their endorsement by the HRC and governments. She suggested that a dedicated international convention might eventually be required because existing instruments had been insufficiently applied.

Notable moments at or linked to the HRC include her 2009 opinion piece “Tearing down the wall of caste,” references in opening statements (e.g., 26th session, June 2014), side-event interventions on Dalit women and caste-based violence, and public meetings such as the 2013 House of Lords event organised by the Anti-Caste Discrimination Alliance. Unfortunately, India has not yet ratified 2009 Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent

She also praised national steps (e.g., Nepal’s 2011 Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Act) while insisting that laws alone are insufficient without changes in mindset, community attitudes, and accountability.

 Implications for India

India is home to the largest population of people affected by caste discrimination (estimated at around 200 million Dalits at the time). Pillay’s observations carried several direct and ongoing implications:

1. Challenge to the “domestic matter / not race” position 

   India has long argued at UN forums (including CERD and the Durban process) that caste is a social/internal issue distinct from racial discrimination under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Pillay, like CERD’s General Recommendation 29 (2002), treated discrimination based on descent as covering caste. Her public stance increased pressure on India to engage rather than block discussion of caste in international human-rights bodies.

2. Scrutiny of implementation gaps 

   She acknowledged India’s progressive laws and institutions but repeatedly asked why enforcement remained weak. This framed the problem not as absence of legal tools but as political will, institutional capacity, and social attitudes—points still raised in later UN reviews (including the long-delayed CERD examination of India).

3. Heightened international visibility and advocacy space 

   Pillay’s interventions gave legitimacy and visibility to Dalit organisations and international networks (e.g., International Dalit Solidarity Network). They encouraged side events, special-procedure statements, and civil-society engagement at the HRC. Subsequent High Commissioners and treaty bodies continued to reference caste, even if formal HRC resolutions specifically on “caste” remain limited due to state resistance.

4. Calls for leadership

   In early visits and statements (including in India and Nepal in 2009), she urged India to address the issue domestically and to show leadership globally, noting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had himself compared untouchability to apartheid. Failure to do so, in her view, left a gap that international mechanisms needed to fill.

5. Continuing relevance

   Although Pillay left office in 2014, the framework she promoted (descent-based discrimination, Draft Principles and Guidelines, focus on intersectional violence against Dalit women, enforcement of existing laws) remains part of UN discourse. Later CERD observations on India have reiterated concerns about segregation, violence, manual scavenging, and inadequate prosecution under anti-atrocity laws—echoing themes she highlighted.

In short, Pillay’s observations shifted caste-based discrimination from a largely peripheral or contested topic at the UN into a recognised human-rights priority. For India this meant sustained external scrutiny of the gap between constitutional ideals and lived reality, greater space for domestic and diaspora advocacy, and recurring pressure to treat caste discrimination as a matter of international human-rights law rather than solely internal social policy.

If Bhagat Singh Were Alive Today: How Might He Respond to India’s Social, Economic, Political, Religious and Communal Scenario?

 

If Bhagat Singh Were Alive Today: How Might He Respond to India’s Social, Economic, Political, Religious and Communal Scenario?

SR Darapuri National President, All India Peoples Front

(A special feature on the birth anniversary of Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh today)

“Bhagat Singh would likely respond as a consistent rationalist socialist and internationalist: fiercely critical of inequality, communal polarization, and the mixing of religion with politics, while demanding systemic transformation toward a classless society rather than mere political independence or majoritarian nationalism.”

His actual writings and organizational practice provide the grounding. By the late 1920s he had moved from romantic nationalism and anarchism toward Marxism (influenced by Marx, Lenin, and others). In ‘To Young Political Workers’ (1931) he defined revolution as “the complete overthrow of the existing social order and its replacement with the socialist order,” with the state as a weapon of the ruling class to be seized for reconstruction on a Marxist basis. He was an explicit atheist (‘Why I Am an Atheist’), viewed organized religion as a “mountain” obstructing progress and unity, and insisted religion remain a private matter kept out of politics. Through the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and HSRA he prioritized secularism, class consciousness, opposition to communal bodies, and struggle against untouchability and exploitation.

 Political

He would treat formal democracy and independence as incomplete. Political power still largely serving capital, landlords, or elite interests would be seen as continuity of the old order under new managers—echoing his critique that independence alone would not end exploitation by “British capitalists or mixed British and Indian, or even purely Indian.” He would support mass organization of workers and peasants, free speech, and critical thinking, while rejecting personality cults, blind faith in leaders, or authoritarian suppression of dissent. Narrow, slogan-driven nationalism that elevates religious or cultural majoritarianism over class and human equality would clash with his insistence that people first see themselves as human beings and then as Indians, not primarily as Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs.

 Economic

Inequality, unemployment, agrarian distress, and concentration of wealth would be central targets. His program included abolition of landlordism, nationalization of land and key industries, collective farming, security of housing, and ending peasant indebtedness. Rising private monopolies, privatization that intensifies exploitation, or growth that leaves large sections in precarity would be condemned as the “exploitation of man by man” he sought to end. He would urge class-based organizing of workers and peasants rather than reliance on charity, reformist palliatives, or identity politics.

 Social

Caste discrimination and untouchability drew sharp criticism in essays such as “Achoot ka Sawaal.” He rejected the idea that birth or occupation justified hierarchy, called for upper castes to treat Dalits as equals (including sharing food and water without conversion rituals), and saw the oppressed as a potential revolutionary force. Persistent caste violence, exclusion, and hierarchical attitudes would be denounced as incompatible with any genuine freedom. He would also push scientific temper, education free of superstition, and rational inquiry against fatalism or inherited privilege.

 Religious and Communal

This is where his response would be most uncompromising. Religion as a public or political force was, for him, a barrier: it fosters fatalism, divides the oppressed, and is exploited by elites. In “Religion and Our Freedom Struggle” and pieces on communal riots he argued that class consciousness is the real antidote—poor workers and peasants of every faith share the same enemies (capitalists and exploiters) and the same interest in unity. He praised the Ghadar martyrs for separating religion from politics and hoped youth would reject mutual hatred in the name of faith.

Contemporary religious polarization, majoritarian mobilization, communal riots or lynchings, and the instrumental use of faith by politicians would be met with the same diagnosis he offered in the 1920s: these are tools that keep the masses divided and distracted from economic exploitation. He would reject both Hindu majoritarianism and competing communalisms equally, insist on strict separation of religion from state and politics, and promote rationalism and atheism (or at least private belief) as liberating. Appropriation of his image by religious nationalists would be rejected as a distortion of his explicit atheism and anti-communal practice.

 Overall Stance and Limitations of the Hypothetical

Bhagat Singh was not a parliamentary gradualist; he believed in revolutionary transformation. In today’s parliamentary democracy he might still prioritize building independent working-class and peasant organization, using agitation, education, and struggle rather than electoral opportunism alone. He would celebrate genuine advances in literacy, science, or reduced formal colonial rule, yet judge the system by whether exploitation, caste hierarchy, and communal division had been uprooted.

Any claim that he would simply endorse one contemporary party or ideology is anachronistic projection. His record is clear on the axes that still matter: socialism over capitalism, reason and class unity over faith and communal identity, and thorough social reconstruction over symbolic or majoritarian nationalism. Reading his prison writings and ‘Kirti’ articles remains the best guide; the questions he posed about power, inequality, and the role of religion have not become obsolete.