Was Dr. Ambhedkar pro-Hindu?

[maruti]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Namaskara,

Contrary to what most people think, it's my firm belief that Dr. Ambhedkar was pro-hindu. He was anti-caste, perhaps, but he didn't attack hindus on account of such grievances, as Periyar and other thugs. He was a model dalit.

Dalits must look to BRA for leadership, rather than to rogues like Periyar, MK, whoever. Upper castes must also speak more of BRA, because it solves two problems at one stroke, a dalit spokesperson for hindus. BRA could unite upper and lower castes.

Most thugs like Periyar attack brahmins, but they fear muslims/christians. BRA fearlessly attacked christians/muslims, communists, even questioned AIT. How many leaders had the guts to do that, even today? Not even Gandhi/nehru and the rest.

Read more about BRA here:http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1093

Regards,
Maruti

 

[kspv]

Maruti,

We must realize one thing. The "deified" version of Ambedkar in currency amongst the present day Dalits is very different from what the person had been (and had not been) in course of history. The details / discussions in the link provided by you, and also the narration in Arun Shourie's book, "Worshipping False Gods," are evidences to this. Dalits badly needed an icon, and at that point of time, there was none other than Ambedkar available to play this role. The "deification" process has been taken to such extremes by now, that you may be inviting a Dalit "outrage" if you utter on any forum that Ambedkar was not the sole author of the Constitution, or that he had a lady British typist as a lover. Burning of buses and trains is expected to follow.

It is something similar to Dalit Christians violently protesting against the film, The Da Vinci Code, for suggesting that Mary Magdalene's relation with Jesus could have been more intimate. Simple facts and logic, such as the existence of Christian sects in southern France who worship Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, or for that matter as to what is wrong with it if a God / God Child has a wife, seem to escape them. All they could concentrate upon was the "outrage". No wonder Salman Rushdie says that this is the age of "manufactured outrages".

What did you think of thousands of Dalits visiting the Ambedkar Memorial in Mumbai on his death anniversary, and offerring Aarti, Agarbattis etc. to his statue? If you had seen the pictures on TV, in the background was a small idol of Buddha, and in the foreground was a large statue of Ambedkar being worshipped nearly obfuscating the Buddha idol. Can any parallels be drawn within Buddhism for this anywhere in the world? The next thing Ambedkarites may ask us to accept, is that Ambedkar was a "reincarnation" of Buddha. You may be aware of Prakash Ambedkar going to court for stopping the publication of the love-letters between B.R.Ambedkar and the British lady typist, and also the agitation by some Dalit leaders to ban Arun Shourie's book, "Worshipping False Gods".

I do not agree to your view-point that B.R.Ambedkar was "pro-Hindu". None of his writings indicate that, and infact some of them indicate to the contrary. If you are aware of any of his writings or deeds supportive of Hinduism, please quote the sources. I would like to go through. Even assuming that there are some, portraying B.R.Ambedkar as he was, would not be conducive to his "diety" status, and would still invite an "outrage", and not an understanding response.

When Aamir Khan's film, "Mangal Pandey - The Rising" was released, there were several articles notably by Dalit leaders of Tamilnadu, against Mangal Pandey who was a brahmin, being portrayed as a hero in the film. One of the articles was by Thiru. Rasa, the Dalit-CPI leader from Tamilnadu. The article went on harping on two points:

1.) Wherever victories were won in India for and against British, it was always because of Dalits who were great warriers, and who always successfully put down the Brahmin sabotagers (words like "ripping down" and "cutting down" the brahmins were liberally used).

2.) Whenever similar violent actions were committed against the Dalits, they were all atrocities.

No doubt some Dalit communities such as Mahars were martial races, and were picked up by the British selectively into their armies, but it is a jaundiced vision to see Indian Indepence struggle as a war between Dalits and Brahmins. Nevertheless, such nonsense appears to be having a sanction now because it is part of the "outrage".

Also, don't forget the display of Dalit Christian "outrage" in Srirangam and other places. It did not look very "pro-Hindu" to me.

 

[gurumurthyji]

Was Dr.Ambhedkar pro-Hindu?-reply thread

Namasthey Shri. Maruthi.

Dr. Ambedhedkar was a true pro-hindu. He was anti-cast and more interested in the up-liftment of the downtrodden. He did not accept any other foreign religion as superior to our Indian culture. He accepted Buddhism which is an off shoot of his own country’s religion. That is really the greatness of Dr.Ambhedkar.

Periyar did not convert himself in to any other religion. He looked advocating a new Dravidian movement to up-lift the downtrodden. He propagated Hindu Atheism. In true action it turned out to be anti Brahmanism and division of Hindus in to various sub casts. Also it helped those confused elite to question the superiority of our culture both spiritual and materialistic. Other religions made use of this for conversion. Other political aspirants of the Dravidian movement used this to achieve political power.

They attacked Brahmins and Gods and helped other forward casts join with them to achieve political power. Contrary to what most people’s belief Dalits of Tamil Nadu remained as Dalits even now. Attack on Brahmins and Gods continues. Dalits of TN must now look for BRA for leadership and Brahmins must also join with them and help a dalit to emerge as a spokesperson for Hindus. BRA together with Brahmins could unite the lower and upper cast hindus. That day will be a golden day for the people of Tamilnadu.

GURUMURTHYJI

 

[maruti]

KSPV,

I disagree with almost all of your points. Sorry!

We must realize one thing. The "deified" version of Ambedkar in currency amongst the present day Dalits is very different from what the person had been (and had not been) in course of history.

True. But I am NOT considering the dalit view at all, rather an objective view.

The details / discussions in the link provided by you, and also the narration in Arun Shourie's book, "Worshipping False Gods," are evidences to this.

The links I provided is NOT evidence to this. You obviously haven't gone through it, that's all I can say. The links provide a new perspective on BRA.
As far Shourie's book, I've read it and it's a poor piece of work. The only accusation throughout the book is that BRA disagreed with Gandhi on many issues. And Shourie contends that it makes BRA anti-national. Rather foolish argument. :juggle: Gandhi was the person who blackmailed India to pay 50 crores to Pakistan on Jan. 11, 1948. BRA, on the other hand, wanted COMPLETE POPULATION TRANSFER, so that Hindus wouldn't suffer at the hands of Muslims. So who's pro-Hindu- the much hated BRA or the so-called Mahatma? Yet, Shourie blames BRA for practically everything under the sun, even as he ignores Gandhi's numerous follies which cost hindus their lives and limbs.

Hence, why would you or any sensible person consider Shourie's biased work, and judge BRA on that basis?

I do not agree to your view-point that B.R.Ambedkar was "pro-Hindu". None of his writings indicate that, and infact some of them indicate to the contrary. If you are aware of any of his writings or deeds supportive of Hinduism, please quote the sources. I would like to go through.

Please read his book: Thoughts on Pakistan. He's more pro-Hindu than Gandhi and the rest. No leader at the time, or even now for that matter, had the courage to speak openly against Islam/Christianity. He called a spade a spade, if only to save Hindus. But Hindus chose Gandhi/Nehru and are paying the price even today.

Also, don't forget the display of Dalit Christian "outrage" in Srirangam and other places. It did not look very "pro-Hindu" to me.

What christian dalits do is NOT the point of this thread. This thread is about BRA and his policies.

 

[maruti]

Dear Gurumurthyji,

I agree with you except on one point.

Periyar did not convert himself in to any other religion. He looked advocating a new Dravidian movement to up-lift the downtrodden.

EVR's intention was NOT to uplift the downtrodden, but to USE them for his political career. Similar to what Congress does with respect to minorities. It's purely for profit, nothing more. So please don't give that man the benefit of the doubt. Uplifting the downtrodden has nothing to do with decorating Ram idols with slippers, and spewing venom on brahmins.

Look at BRA in contrast. Despite suffering in his youth, he didn't do anything as despicable as EVR, instead behaved like a gentleman and made his point through his writings. This is how you uplift people. EVR was just an opportunist who exploited the dalit masses.

 

[kspv]

How can Ambedkar's opposition to the Dalits converting to Christianity (on the grounds that the system is equally discriminatory as the Hinduism), automatically be construed as "pro-Hindu"?

If he was a "pro-Hindu", why did he encourage conversion to neo-Buddhism? Now, don't say that Buddha was one among the Dasavataras, and so Ambedkar was pro-Hindu (like one of the participants said in his posting in the link supplied by you). There is no consensus on Buddha & the Avatara thing, and the original form of Buddhism, the Theravada (Hinayana) Buddhism, was completely at loggerheads with the Hindu cosmology, ideology and worship.

(A. Seshan mentions the following in his thought provoking essay, "The Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu," :

"Perhaps the most important reason for the decline of Buddhism as a separate religion was the absorption of its founder in the Hindu pantheon of gods - indeed an irony for one who denied their existence! There are many incarnations of Vishnu of which the Dasavatar or the ten incarnations are the most well known. In the Southern tradition they are: matsya (fish), koorma (tortoise), varaha (boar), Narasimha (the man-lion), Vamana (the dwarf) Parasurama (the angry prince), Rama (the perfect human), Balarama, his younger brother Krishna (the divine statesman) and Kalki (the redeemer of righteousness in the kali yuga, who is yet to appear). In the Northern tradition Balarama is replaced by Buddha who appears as the ninth avatar after Krishna, his mission being to purify Hinduism.")

The name of the chapter-1 of "Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability," quoted in the link supplied by you, is "Away from the Hindus." That does not appear to be very "pro-Hindu" to me.

Consider the following paragraphs from that essay, giving a counter-argument to the reasoning of the Hindus, that Dalits should not move away from Hinduism:

"...No Hindu can dare to give an affirmative answer to any of these questions? On the contrary the wrongs to which the Untouchables are subjected by the Hindus are acts which are sanctioned by the Hindu religion. They are done in the name of Hinduism and are justified in the name of Hinduism. The spirit and tradition which makes lawful the lawlessness of the Hindus towards the Untouchables is founded and supported by the teachings of Hinduism...The case in favour of conversion is stronger than the strongest case..."

That does not appear to me as very "pro-Hindu" either!

Irrespective of the criticism of Hinduism Ambedkar had formulated, his open rejection of both Christianity and Islam (who assiduously courted him in the hope that he would bring the Scheduled Castes into their fold) seems to have earned him applause from SOME Hindus, but not all.

As for his anti-Islamist streak, it needs to be seen in the context of "common enemy," and not as "pro-Hindu". For slaughtering purposes, Muslim invaders did not accord any special previleges to Buddhists, or for that matter to the Dalits. I have not read B.R.Ambedkar's "Thoughts on Pakistan". I will try to do that. But I would be surprised to find any "pro-Hindu" considerations there, even though the anti-Islamist sentiment (which automatically does not translate into a "pro-Hindu" sentiment) might very well have been expressed. If a Christian expresses anti-Islamist sentiment, would you automatically reckon him as pro-Hindu?

To me, Arun Shourie's "Worshipping False Gods" appears to be a fine piece of investigative work, not withstanding the fact that he extended the courtesy of adding "Jee" to M.K.Gandhi's name (= as accused by another poster in the link supplied by you). In any case we are not discussing the relative merits and demerits of B.R.Ambedkar vis a vis M.K.Gandhi here.

 

[kspv]

In Ambedkar's Words...

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “...There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism was due to the invasions of the Muslims...”

[/FONT] Referring to the Persian word for idol, 'But ', derived from 'Buddha ', Dr. Ambedkar observes, “..Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Muslim mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of Buddha. To the Muslims they were one and the same thing. The mission to break idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhara and Chinese Turkestan (…) in all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism...”
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]
“...The Muslim invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders...”[/FONT]

In case one is interested to know the recent ramifications of the ongoing conflict between Islam & Buddhism:

1. Bangladesh, where Muslim settlers backed by the Islamic Government took over the lands of Buddhist and other non-Muslim tribes in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, effectively expelling the natives. Some of these fled to India, while others started an armed resistance movement called Shanti Bahini (“peace squad”), which agreed to dissolve itself under the terms of a peace treaty concluded with the Bangladesh Government in 1997.

2. India’s Northeast, where Buddhist and other non-Muslim tribes are confronted with Muslim illegal immigrants from Bangladesh; the picture is complicated by resentment among non-Muslim natives against the Buddhist refugees from Bangladesh, especially in Arunachal Pradesh.

3. Ladakh, where a shrinking Buddhist majority feels threatened by a growing and assertive Muslim minority, all the more so because nearby Kargil has witnessed exactly the development which Ladakhis fear: through demographics and conversions (esp. of Buddhist brides married into Muslim families); a small immigrant group of Muslims in the 19th century has by now become the majority, and the Buddhist character of the region is but a memory.

The Buddhist minority in Kargil (in Jammu & Kashmir) shares the long-standing RSS demand that an anti-conversion law be enacted. After summing up some discriminations imposed by the Muslim state and district authorities on the Buddhists of Kargil, representatives of the Ladakh Buddhist Association complain:

“As if this is not enough, there is a deliberate and organised design to convert Kargil’s Buddhists to Islam. In the last four years, about 50 girls and married women with children were allured and converted from village Wakha alone. If this continues unchecked, we fear that Buddhists will be wiped out from Kargil in the next two decades or so. Anyone objecting to such allurement and conversions is harassed."

So you can see, there is a "common enemy" theme there, and not so much of "pro-Hinduism"!

The Taliban in Afghanistan canoning the Balmiyan Buddha statues should also come to one's mind while considering Buddhism vs. Islam.