Dr Babasaheb B R Ambedkar is one of the greatest sons of modern Bharat who was not just an astute social reformer but also an eminent economist, ardent constitutionalist, distinguished educationist, objective historian and above all, a statesman par excellence. Through his original writings and speeches, Dr T H Chowdhary celebrates his birth anniversary as the International Day for Equality
Dr T H Chowdary
Normally, politicians have a vision and an agenda limited to their idea of winning the next election. A statesman thinks of the next generation, of the nation and the people. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar stands as the tallest among the Indian statesmen in that perspective.
While India’s politicians, in the first 50 years of the last century, talked of freedom of Bharat, Dr Ambedkar posed the question, “what would we do with this freedom. Shall we put up with an unequal and iniquitous society? How would we build a strong nation and an indivisible, undefeatable and a just and equal society”? In this regard, three of his speeches ought to be recalled and sincerely deliberated upon.
The first is the speech he delivered at the concluding session of the Constituent Assembly in Nov 1949. He made the following observations:
“….my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give
expression to some of my reflections thereon. On January 26, 1950, India will be an Independent country. What would
happen to her Independence? Will she maintain her Independence or will she lose it again? …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 Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mohammed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori 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 Mogul 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 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 forever…….” (The Makers of Indian Constitution – Myth and Reality by Sri Seshrao Chavan)
The way Congress and most of the regional parties are competitively indulging in appeasement of ”minorities” and castes leading to mutual antagonism for share in welfare
payments, jobs, loans and the right to academic degrees, including PhDs and funds for studies abroad, Dr Ambedkar’s fear seems to be coming true. There are some reversals and questions are being asked about divisive politics which give some hope to prevent the disaster foreseen by Dr Ambedkar.
The second memorable one is when the Uniform Civil Code for India was being
discussed in the Constituent Assembly.
As per the Art-44 of our Constitution, the state is expected to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout Bharat. Muslims opposed it then and continue to oppose this even now. When the corresponding draft Article-35 came up for consideration before the Constituent Assembly, Md Ismael Sahib of the Muslim League moved an
amendment to the effect that no community shall be obliged to give up its own personal law. Another Muslim League member, Hussain Imam also spoke in support of Md Ismael Sahib’s amendment. He later asked, “whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform code of law for the country so vast as this is?” Even today the residues of the Muslims
committed to the two-nation theory and their supporters Secularists-Marxists and all varieties of communists and their fellow–travelling left, “progressive”, intellectuals and
“eminent” historians of JNU harp on the variety in our
country and not on any unifying history or culture or
aspiration.
Dr Ambedkar demolished the arguments of Md Ismael Sahib and Hussein Imam though a point by point reubttle. He said, “My friend, Mr Hussain Imam, in rising to support the amendments, asked whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform Code of laws for a country so vast as this is. Now I must confess that I was very much surprised at that statement, for the simple reason that we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete Criminal Code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the Law of Transfer of Property, which deals with property relations and which is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable Instruments Acts: and I can cite innumerable enactments which would prove that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its
content and applicable to the whole of the country. The only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far is Marriage and Succession….Therefore, the argument whether we should attempt such a thing seems to me somewhat
misplaced for the simple reason that we have, as a matter of fact, covered the whole lot of the field which is covered by a uniform Civil Code in this country.
Coming to the amendments, there are only two
observations which I would like to make…..I think most of my friends who have spoken on this amendment have quite
forgotten that up to 1935 the North-West Frontier Province was not subject to the Shariat Law. It followed the Hindu Law in the matter of succession and in other matters…. That is not all. My honourable friends have forgotten, that, apart from the North-West Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession. I am also informed by my friend, Shri Karunakara Menon, that in North Malabar the Marumakkathayam Law applied to all-not only to Hindus but also to Muslims…It is therefore no use making a categorical statement that the Muslim law has been an immutable law which they have been following from ancient times. .. Therefore if it was found necessary that for the purpose of evolving as single civil code applicable to all citizens
irrespective of their religion, certain portions of the Hindus law, not because they were contained in Hindu law but because they were found to be the most suitable, were
incorporated into the new civil code projected by article 35, (now Art-44), I am quite certain that it would not be open to any Muslim to say that the framers of the civil code had done great violence to the sentiments of the Muslim community”.
Those Islamic Fundamentalists, Communists and Nehruvian secularists who try their best to appropriate Babasaheb on every count conveniently forget this clear and categorical position of his on the crucial issue of Uniform Civil Code.
Another most important statesman-like advice to his
followers, especially from the SC community, came from him when he addressed the huge gathering at Nagpur on the
occassion of celebrating the 2500th Maha Parinirvana of Gautam Buddha in October 1956. He rationalised his choice for the path of Buddha. While doing so he rejected Islam although there was a great inducement to him from the Nizam of Hyderabad with a huge sum of Rs 75 million. Dr Ambedkar found Islam’s brotherhood to be very narrow, confined to the believers and followers of Prophet Mohammed (his view is vindicated by the 58 Muslim states in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) adopting the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights in contrast to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicating to the world that Muslim are a different species of humans, different from
non-Muslim humans). He also rejected conversion to Christianity observing that those Dalits who had already converted to Christianity are suffering the same
discrimination within the Christian fold. (Although at the time of conversation they were told that there are no castes in Christianity, the fact is in practice there is a new category called ‘Dalit Christians’.).
On an earlier occasion he observed: “If the depressed classes (S.Cs) cannot be persuaded to stay, the Hindus must help them, if they cannot lead them to embrace a faith which will be least harmful to the Hindus and the country… If the SCs join Islam or Christianity, they not only go out of the Hindu religion but they also go out of Hindu culture…If they go to Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination will also become real… If they go to Christianity it will help strengthen the hold of the British on this country…” (Pages 239, 240 & 241 of Writings and Speeches, published by Government of Maharashtra).
Dr Ambedkar, eventually decided to convert to Buddhism, one of the Bharatiya (not foreign) sects. Dr Ambedkar studied various sects like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Vaishnavism etc., in the Bharatiya pantheon of seeking the Truth and held that Buddhism appealed to him to be the best as it transcends nations. It is unfortunate that the persistent efforts are being made by some intellectuals to take his followers away from his message by imposing non-Bharatiya thinking on them.
Dr Ambedkar was a true visionary statesman with
nationalist thinking at the core. His scholarship in and
knowledge of the Vedas, the Upanishads and our history is unparallel. Indeed, he even opined that Sanskrit should be the common and official language of India. Unfortunately, the intolerance of Nehruvian legacy towards all that is Bharatiya subverted this proposition.
Nehru’s obsession with Kashmir and disregard to the plight of Hindus in Pakistan pained Dr Ambedkar on October 10, 1951, when he made a statement in the Parliament explaining why he has resigned from the Nehru Cabinet a fortnight earlier. He said, “Our quarrel with Pakistan is a part of our foreign policy about which I feel deeply dissatisfied. There are two grounds which have disturbed our relations with Pakistan—one is Kashmir and the other is the condition of our people in East Bengal. I felt that we should be more deeply concerned with East Bengal where the condition of our people seems intolerable than with Kashmir. Not
withstanding this, we have been staking our all on the Kashmir issue”.
Dr Ambedkar also made pertinent suggestions based on in depth analysis on the issues such as economics, agriculture and population policy that are relevant even today.
Dr Ambedkar was the first and the last great Indian patriot, a statesman and a defender of India’s tradition, culture and civilisation. He even eloquently defended the idol worship of Hindus. He said, “The Hindus are accused of idolatry. But there is nothing wrong in idolatry. Defending polytheism he said, “Hindus worship many Gods…. Hindus are not the only people who practise polytheism. The Romans and the Greeks were essentially Polytheists.
Years ago I mentioned that in the 21st century,
Dr Ambedkar would be the most venerated person not only in India but elsewhere too. The proof of it comes about by the United Nations observing in 2016 his birthday (April 14) for the first time. Like the yoga being celebrated all over the world with an international day, it may not be far that in
tribute to Dr Ambedkar the UN will declare April 14 as Samata (equality) Day.
(The writer is conferred with Padma Shri for his contribution to the Tlecom sector and convenor of Bharatiya Dharma Rakshana Samakhya)
Comments