New Delhi: Newly unearthed excerpts from the writings and speeches of Dr BR Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, present a stark and critical analysis of Islam, delving into its historical impact in India, its perceived anti-democratic nature, its legal framework, and its treatment of women. Ambedkar’s views, often forthright and uncompromising, paint a picture of a religion whose tenets and historical actions he believed posed significant challenges to the formation of a unified and progressive Indian nation.
Ambedkar minced no words in addressing the historical arrival of Muslim invaders in India. He asserted that these conquerors were driven by a “hate song” against Hindus, actively propagating animosity and engaging in the destruction of Hindu temples as a matter of perceived religious merit. He highlighted instances like Mohammad Ghori’s actions in Ajmer, where temples were demolished to erect mosques and Islamic institutions, and Qutubuddin Aibak’s purported destruction of over a thousand temples in Delhi, upon whose foundation’s mosques, including the Jama Masjid, were built, allegedly incorporating materials plundered from the razed structures and inscribed with Quranic verses.
Ambedkar further cited historical accounts from the reign of Shah Jahan, referencing the ‘Badshahnama,’ which documented the destruction of Hindu temples even during that era, noting instances where Hindus attempted to rebuild their places of worship only to face further demolition. He specifically mentioned the reported destruction of 76 temples in the Banaras district under Shah Jahan’s rule.
Moving beyond historical accounts, Ambedkar presented a scathing critique of what he perceived as the inherent anti-democratic tendencies within Muslim political thought. He argued that for many Muslim leaders, the primary concern was not democracy itself, but rather how a majority-rule system would affect the Muslim community’s struggle against Hindus – whether it would empower or weaken them. Ambedkar posited that if democracy was seen as detrimental to their interests, they would reject it, potentially preferring a flawed system that favored their perceived historical standing.
He attributed the political and social cohesion within the Muslim community to a belief in the necessity of a unified front against perceived Hindu dominance and a yearning to reclaim their historical position as the ruling community. In this context, Ambedkar suggested, Muslims would prioritize consolidating their power and status above any principles that might diminish their perceived prestige.
Ambedkar delved into the fundamental tenets of Islam, asserting that they fostered a sense of political aggression. He argued that a core principle within Islam dictates that in any non-Muslim ruled land, in the event of a conflict between Islamic law and the law of the land, Muslims are obligated to adhere to Islamic law over the local laws. This principle, according to Ambedkar, inherently created a potential for conflict and undermined the sovereignty of non-Muslim states.
He further warned of the potential threat this posed to Indian nationalism. Ambedkar argued that if Muslims in a unified India continued to adhere to these principles, it would constitute a significant danger to the very fabric of Indian nationhood.
Ambedkar contended that Islam operates as a “closed corporation,” characterised by a fundamental distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. He stated that the concept of brotherhood in Islam is not a universal humanistic one but is exclusive to the Muslim community. In his view, Islam would never permit a devout Muslim to truly consider India their motherland and a Hindu their close kin.
He also highlighted the concept of Jihad as another “evil” within Islam, describing it as an obligation for a Muslim ruler to wage war until the entire world comes under Islamic rule. This, he argued, inherently divides the world into “Dar-ul-Islam” (abode of Islam) and “Dar-ul-Harb” (abode of war), with a perpetual obligation on capable Muslim rulers to convert the latter into the former. Ambedkar suggested that this doctrine could make Indian Muslims susceptible to participating in Jihad rather than fully integrating into the national fabric.
Ambedkar reserved some of his strongest criticism for the status of women within Islamic law. He condemned the arbitrary power granted to husbands in matters of divorce, which he argued undermined the security and fundamental rights necessary for women to lead independent and fulfilling lives. He described the insecurity faced by Muslim women due to these laws as a recurring lament.
Furthermore, Ambedkar highlighted the allowance within Muslim law for a man to have four legal wives in addition to an unspecified number of female slaves. He pointed out the lack of regulation regarding the treatment and distribution of these slaves, often without any guarantee of marriage. Ambedkar identified polygamy and concubinage as the root of immense suffering for Muslim women, practices that he believed had become normalized within the community, providing men with a pretext to abuse and mistreat their wives.
In a particularly strong indictment, Ambedkar labeled the Quran as an “enemy of humanity” in its stance on slavery, with women being the primary victims. He also criticized the restrictive practices imposed on women, such as limiting their movement within the home and confining them to the rear quarters, often crammed together regardless of age. He noted the prohibition of male servants in their presence and the severe limitations on who a woman was permitted to see, often restricted to close male relatives. Even for prayer, Ambedkar pointed out, women were often barred from mosques or required to be veiled if allowed to attend.
These excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar’s writings offer a profound and critical perspective on Islam, shaped by his deep commitment to social justice, equality, and the formation of a unified and progressive Indian nation. His analysis, while potentially controversial, provides a valuable insight into the complex historical and social considerations that informed his vision for independent India.
