Chapter 7: RSS admiration for Dr.Ambedkar is not new found. His ideas were closer to that of RSS, than what our communist historians think!
Our country’s eminent historians, like Ramachandra Guha, often cherry pick quotes from history which create an opinion that RSS hated Dr. Ambedkar or vice versa.
What they do not tell you is clearly the context in which those ‘quotes’ were made, and what developments followed that.
Uday Mahurkar, eminent Indian journalist, political analyst, and Deputy editor of India Today group, who is an expert in Veer ‘Sarvarkar and Hindutva’ unveils the facts and has effectively countered the arguments of left liberals. He writes,
Three things have to be borne in mind while analysing the relations between Ambedkar and the RSS.
- In the first place, the RSS has never said that it never disagreed with Ambedkar.
- Two, Ambedkar became a hero for the Sangh Parivar only after 1956 when he rejected the overtures of the followers of Semitic religions and embraced Buddhism, a religion of the Hindu pantheon, according to the definition of Hindutva as given by Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar in his book titled Hindutva.
It is important to know this because, all the articles quoted by likes of Guha and to depict how RSS opposed Ambedkar are of the pre-1956 period, which is before his conversion to Buddhism.
- And three, the Left-liberals, while defining the relationship between Ambedkar and the RSS, have always ignored the glaring fact that Ambedkar had very strong views about the Muslim community in general and the pro-Pakistan attitude of the Muslims in particular at that time.
He gave vent to these feelings in his two famous works Thoughts on Pakistan (1941) and Pakistan or Partition of India (1945). The first one was published within almost one year of the Muslim League passing the Pakistan resolution in 1940.
In his second book, Ambedkar claims that almost 90 per cent of the Indian Muslims were for Pakistan on the eve of Partition. He was proved correct soon afterwards when over 86 per cent of the total Muslims votes cast in the 1945-’46 elections to the central assembly in undivided British India went to the Muslim League and less then three per cent to the Congress.
His perception of the Muslim as expressed in these two books almost matched with that of Savarkar on whose book Hindutva the RSS philosophy is largely based. In fact, Ambedkar was more severe on the Muslims than Savarkar or the present RSS could ever have been.
Why doesn’t left liberals doesn’t speak of this fact?
Because if they actually quote Dr. Ambedkar’s views, it would become the greatest evidence of the intellectual dishonesty of the Left-liberals because that would puncture the grand plan of the pseudo-secular lobby to raise a coalition of backwards, Dalits and Muslims against the saffron forces and help depict them as brahmanical entities.
RSS and Ambedkar had same stand on many issues:
The other of the picture depicted by the Left-liberals to describe the Ambedkar-RSS story is not just surprising but shocking.
For example, Ambedkar himself attended an RSS programme in Pune in 1949 and was surprised to find that asking each other’s caste in the RSS was taboo.
Ambedkar was only expressing what Mahatma Gandhi had told RSS founder KB Hedgewar after his visit to an RSS shakha at Wardha in 1932. Gandhiji too was struck by this unique culture of not asking each other’s caste in a Hindu organisation.
Then as Union law minister, Ambedkar favoured a uniform civil code and was opposed to the imposition of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir just as the RSS was.
Moreover, there were many in India who at the time of independence opposed elections at the gram panchayat level saying these will divide the society along caste and other lines forever though the elections were being introduced in the name of true democracy. One of these individuals was Ambedkar and the other RSS sarsanghchalak MS Golwalkar. But the Left-liberals are silent on it.
Ambedkar’s view on Muslims in ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’ and ‘Pakistan or Partition of India‘ are stronger than that of today’s RSS:
In Pakistan or Partition of India Ambedkar writes: “The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus”.
Thoughts on Pakistan he writes: “The Islamic injunction to Muslims not to take the side of non-Muslims in any strife is the basis of pan-Islamism. It is this which leads Muslims in India to say that he is Muslim first and an Indian afterwards. It is this sentiment that explains why the Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has exhausted himself by taking up the cause of Muslim countries. And why Muslim countries occupy the first place and India the second place in their minds. Savarkar’s principle of one man one vote would mean a democratic, Hindu majority state. It would not be a Muslim state and hence Islam prohibits the Muslims from living in it. Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohammed Ali (once the president of Congress and Khilafat movement leader in 1920s), a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jeruslem rather than India.”
Clearly, these notes by Dr. Ambedkar is sharper than what most of today’s RSS leaders would use.
The theories of Dr. ambedkar being die-hard, anti-Manuwad/brahmanwad:
The entire argument of the Left against the RSS revolves around condemning Manuwad and brahmanwad.
This is precisely the strategy of the Muslim and Christian religious strategists while taking on the RSS.
Manu must be one of the most reviled lawgivers on earth despite the soundness and logic of his definition of things to do with Hindu religious systems.
Significantly, Manu can’t be compared with other lawgivers because he is the lawgiver of a religion that believes in karma (deeds) and karma-based birth and rebirth.
So in Hindu dharma, a king can be a sweeper in the next birth and the sweeper the king. A brahman deviating from his pious path is often called “Brahma Rakshash” (demon). where there is no such family structure.
But we need to have a deeper view of the so-called negatives of the Hindu system as depicted by the Left-liberals.
- First of all there is enough evidence to prove that perversions like untouchability crept into the Hindu system just as perversions have afflicted every society and religious system from time to time across the world. The Hindu caste system isn’t as inflexible as one would think on the basis of the evidences we have. We have many examples to quote, like,
In Gujarat the Vaishnav Bhajans of three Dalit saints of later medieval period – Bhansaheb, Trikamsaheb and Daasi Jeevan – are most popular in Pushtimargi Vaishnav temples of the Pushtimargi Bania community.
- The great revolutionary Vasudev Balwant Phadke (one who inspired Savarkar and indeed many of the founding members of the RSS), who died in Aden in 1883 after leading an unsuccessful revolution against the British in Maharashtra, was trained in wrestling and gymnastics by Lahuji Vastad, who belonged to the Mang caste of the Dalits. Vastad was almost like a guru to Phadke. Lahuji is a household name in the Pune region.
Burning of Manu Smrithi by Dr. Ambedkar and why it can not be the only example to say, Ambedkar hated RSS!
Letist historian always record two things very clearly,
- Guruji Golwalkar regarded Manu as an wisest and greatest lawgiver in the history of Mankind. And,
- Ambedkar burned Manu Smrithi and said ‘ Surely I was born a Hindu, but I will not die as a Hindu’.
We all know what sort of descrimination Dr. Ambedkar faced in his life which made him revolt aganist the certain principles of Hinduism.
It is a known fact that even within the Hindu Dharma many saints, reformers have fought aganist these social evils. Forget the pre independence time, at the time of Adi Shakara, Madhvacharya, Sri Vadiraja teertha, Sri Raghavendra Swami, Narasimha Meheta and many such reformers have made revolutionary attempts to stride off untouchability and caste system. And all the above mentioned seers were Orthodox Brahmins.
How can someone be so ignorant to say Dr. Ambedkar was a Brahmin hater. ‘Ambadawekar’ when given a surname as Ambedkar by his Devrukhe Brahmin teacher, he carried it through his life as a sign of respect for his teacher.
There is a possibility that,
At time of Ambedkar only ‘ The Calcutta Maniscript’, of Manu Smrithi was available. Which was the only available translation at the time and it was 300 year old. A well read man like Dr.Ambedkar had access only to that translation.
Later years, the Sanskrit manuscripts of Manu Smrithi we’re found at different places of India. Interestingly, all the manuscriptsatch each other except for the source of Calcutta Manuscript. The only available translation. Of that time was heavily fabricated one. And unfortunately Dr. Ambedkar never got a chance of getting hands on real Manusmrithi, who knows what effect it would have had on him?
‘Ardha Satya’ is always dangerous than ‘Asatya’ or Mithya. Let us not judge any individual on how a third party interprets them. In today’s world, when information is at our fingertips we better be well read than depend on historians who have ulterior motive to achieve by fabricating and distorting our own history.
Dr Sindhu Prashanth