Unlike those who appropriate him,
the one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist.
From the Aryans to Aurangzeb, from St Xavier to Shivaji, our historians
have chosen what to hide, what to invent, and what to disclose. The singular
reason for this is the craving for patronage – of an ideology, a government, an
ecosystem, or a clique. And once our historians are done with their
contortions, we the readers sit back and enjoy the inevitable fallout – the
outing of Hypocrisy.
The Left outs the hypocrisy of the Right and the Right outs the
hypocrisy of the Left and great column-yards are churned out as a result of
such skirmishes. But we forget – outing of hypocrisy is a virtue so long as it
doesn’t turn one into a hypocrite. Well, it does; every single time. Villains
are made into heroes and heroes into villains. We like it this way. Gandhi,
Nehru, Savarkar, Patel – they are to be worshipped; they are to be made into
Gods, into Atlases who carry the weight of our ideologies and our biases on the
nape of their necks.
History as myth; myth as History. It conforms to what we really are –
unsure of our present, fearful of our future. The Right wing doesn’t want to
hear anything about Savarkar or Golwalkar that might put them in bad light; the Left-wing doesn’t want to hear
anything about Nehru or Namboodiripad that might put them in bad light; and the Velcro Historians don’t want
to write anything about anyone that might put them in solitary confinement,
away from all light.
Fear and trembling, that is what this is, and the whole nation chugs
along on this dead yet simmering coal. A journey to nowhere; slow, halting,
tiring; until you realise what the grand plan always is – to appropriate. And
of all the great men and women we have had the honour to call our own, no one
has been more appropriated than Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.
Ambedkar. A hero for all, the Left and the Right – out of genuine
admiration, out of genuine fear. This is to be expected, for here was a man
like no other in modern world history, one who shone like a star with his
intellect and understanding. The most un-Indian Indian. Wisdom so frightening
and yet so rooted, that it appealed to all. Where he was allowed to, he never
put a foot wrong. His writings have that rare quality of timelessness, and his
quotes, if quoted anonymously, can be mistaken as comments on contemporary
India. Ambedkar has aged well. In this, he stands alone, afar, above. But there
is a side to Ambedkar that is not known, spoken, or written, out of fear by
those who have appropriated him.
Ambedkar's criticism of Hinduism, as a religion, as a way of life – call
it what you will, everyone is aware of. From his umpteen speeches and numerous
scholarly works, we know Ambedkar as someone who fought and exposed the
terrible ills of Hinduism, and we applaud him for it. That Ambedkar left
Hinduism and converted to Buddhism is in itself a stinging appraisal of the
former. Knowing him, nothing more needs to be said as a critique of Hinduism.
Such is the trust one can put in the man.
What we don’t know, however, is what he thought of the other great
religion of the world – Islam. Because this facet of Ambedkar has been hidden
from our general discourse and textbooks, it may come as a surprise to most
that Ambedkar thought frequently of Islam and spoke frequently on it. The cold
and cruel India of the young Ambedkar, that shaped his views on Hinduism and
Hindus – and of which this author has written previously – soon became the cold and cruel India of the old Ambedkar,
allowing him, through a study of Islam and Muslims, to make sense of a nation
hurtling towards a painful and bloody partition.
A distillate of Ambedkar's thoughts on Islam and Muslims can be found in Pakistan Or The Partition Of India,
a collection of his writings and speeches, first published in 1940, with
subsequent editions in 1945 and 1946. It is an astonishing book in its scope
and acuity, and reading it one realises why no one talks of it, possessing as
it does the potential to turn Ambedkar into an Islamophobic bigot for his
worshippers on the Left.
Here, then, is Ambedkar on Islam:
"Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to
bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as
inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that
it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very
alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal
brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a
fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For
those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and
enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system
of social self-government and is incompatible
with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does
not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which
he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me,
there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there
is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and
kin."
This scathing indictment by Ambedkar of Islam never finds a mention in
our history books. (Indeed, even in Ambedkar.org, a primary resource site for
Ambedkar, the chapter that contains this explosive passage is hyperlinked and,
unlike other preceding chapters, not easily visible as a continuation under the
sub-heading Part IV. The idea is to skip it, not click it.
But then this is India – a Hero must not be perceived as a Villain even
though the misperception is entirely of our making. Well, we know better; he
didn’t mean to say those things about Islam; perhaps he was misguided; let us
look at the context; damn, no, that's not of any help here; tell you what, let
us gag him; for the greater good; for communal harmony; for the sake of IPC
Section 295A and our peaceful future.
Selective reading of Ambedkar, by which it is meant reading only his
damning (and entirely justified) criticism of Hinduism, has led to a prevalent
view that only Hinduism is laden with cultural and religious ills. One can see
this even today, when the Left and its ideologues point selectively to the
social and religious evils pertaining to Hinduism. As a result, someone who
isn’t well-versed with India may get the impression that it is only Hinduism
and Hindus who are to blame for every ill and intolerance that plagues us. The
reality, of course, is that social and religious intolerance runs in our veins,
it always has and it always will, for none other than the holy scriptures of
all religions have mainstreamed it. It is Ambedkar himself who, presciently and
fiercely, points to this hypocrisy.
"The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been
well known. The publication of 'Mother India' by Miss Mayo gave these evils the
widest publicity. But while 'Mother India' served the purpose of exposing the
evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their
sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the
Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative,
the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a
progressive people. That, such an impression should prevail, is surprising to
those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters."
Ambedkar then proceeds to talk in scathing terms of child-marriage,
intolerance, fanatical adherence to faith, the position of women, polygamy, and
other such practices prevalent among believers of Islam. On the subject of
caste, Ambedkar goes into great detail, and no punches are pulled.
"Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody
infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery
nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed
much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. But if
slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. There can thus be no
manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same
social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the
social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the
compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women."
Those who rightly commend Ambedkar for leaving the fold of Hinduism,
never ask why he converted to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he viewed
Islam as no better than Hinduism. And keeping the political and cultural
aspects in mind, he had this to say:
"Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the
Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled
and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes
real."
"There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in
the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no
interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can
be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for
its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does
not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency
wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of
the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the
masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has
become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if
the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and in other if he agrees to buy
votes for so much a piece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money
and is very seldom a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim
politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the
differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant,
priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially
clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between
Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in
the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place—and they must
because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only
governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion."
The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar is unquestionably
deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated him. How they wish he
had never written such things. They try their best to dismiss his writings on
Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested excuse of
"context". That's right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up its
context.
Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this excuse falls flat. Ambedkar's
views on Islam – in a book with fourteen chapters that deal almost entirely
with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the Muslim Condition – are stand-alone
statements robustly supported with quotes and teachings of scholars, Muslim leaders,
and academics. To him these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context
is superfluous; in fact, it is non-existent. Read the following statements:
The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is
brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only.
There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that
corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but
contempt and enmity.
The second defect of Islam is that it is a system
of social self-government and is incompatible
with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does
not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which
he belongs.
Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other
words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and
regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.
If you are hunting for a context to the above statements, you have just
outed yourself as a hopeless apologist. Well, you are not alone. Some of
India’s most celebrated hagiographers, commentators, writers, and columnists,
that include Ramachandra Guha and Arundhati Roy – both of whom have written
copiously on Ambedkar, through stand-alone chapters or books (The Doctor and
the Saint; India after
Gandhi; Democrats and
Dissenters; Makers of
Modern India) – are conspicuously silent on Ambedkar’s views on Islam and
the Muslim psyche. Clearly, this is a story the apologists do not want to tell.
The one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. He spares no one, not
even Mahatma Gandhi, who he blasts for giving into the selective bias, of the
type one finds ubiquitous today.
"He [Gandhi] has never called the Muslims to account even when they
have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus."
Ambedkar then goes on to list a few Hindu leaders who were killed by Muslims, one among them being
Rajpal, the publisher of Rangeela
Rasool, the ‘Satanic Verses’ equivalent of pre-Independence India. We all
know what happened to Rushdie. As for Rajpal, he met a fate worse than the
celebrated Indian author. Rajpal was brutally stabbed in broad daylight. Again,
not many know the assassination of Rajpal by Ilm-ud-din was celebrated by all
prominent Muslims leaders of the day.
Ilm-ud-din was defended in the court by none other than Jinnah, and the
man who rendered a eulogy at his funeral (that was attended by tens of
thousands of mourners) was none other than the famous poet Allama Iqbal, who cried as the assassin's coffin was
lowered: "We sat idle while this carpenter's son took the lead."
Iqbal is revered in India; Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal,
recently conferred on him the title of Tarana-E-Hind. “Nation will never forget Iqbal,” she
said.
Ambedkar writes: "Mr.
Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act
of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it.
But Mr Gandhi has never protested against such murders [of Hindus]. Not only
have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages, but even Mr Gandhi has never
called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them.
Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr Gandhi was anxious
to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if
it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives...This attitude to excuse the
Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well
illustrated by what Mr Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots. The
blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus
were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread
among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain
Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of
"congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for
the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy
a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr Gandhi was so much obsessed by the
necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light
of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He
spoke of the Moplas as the "brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for
what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious
".
As usual, Mr Gandhi failed to produce any satisfactory response to
Ambedkar's serious charge. Mahatmas never do. The conduct of Gandhi during the
Mopla riots, and his views on them once the carnage had subsided, remain a blot
on the Mahatma. Again, they never form part of our history books.
On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland [India], Ambedkar
writes:
"Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam
which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is
a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail
over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and
defying the law of the land."
Quoting the following: "The
only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a
Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to
acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority
from among the Musalmans…" Ambedkar
adds: "This must
make anyone wishing for a stable government very apprehensive. But this is
nothing to the Muslim tenets which prescribe when a country is a motherland to
the Muslim and when it is not…According to Muslim Canon Law the world is
divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode
of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is
Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being
the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the
Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be
the land of the 'Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.' Further, it can be
the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment
the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to
be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes
Dar-ul-Harb.
"It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic
interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing
the conduct of the Muslims…It might also be mentioned
that Hijrat [emigration] is not the only way of escape to Muslims who
find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon
Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a
Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been
brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam
(abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one
category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is
capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam." And just
as there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there
are instances showing that they have not hesitated to
proclaim Jihad.”
On a Muslim respecting authority of an elected government, Ambedkar
writes:
"Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the government
is as essential for the stability of government as the unity of political
parties on the fundamentals of the state. It is impossible for any sane person
to question the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the state. To
believe in civil disobedience is to believe in anarchy…How far will Muslims
obey the authority of a government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The
answer to this question need not call for much inquiry."
This view isn't much different from the views of Jinnah and the Muslim
League. Indeed, in the then prevailing climate, engineered or otherwise, these
views could be seen as legitimate from the point of view of an anxious
minority. However, the reason that Ambedkar gives for this predilection is not
at all political but, rather startlingly, religious. He writes:
"To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of
respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country which is
ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence
seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu
government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose
persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if proof
is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what
to tender and what to omit…In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the
Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget
that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.”
Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the lack of reforms in the Muslim community,
he writes:
"What can that special reason be? It seems to me that the reason
for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought
in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social
environment which is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always
silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanazing
him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to insist on
preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is
helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in
a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he
will be suppressed and that political suppression will make the Muslims a
depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from
being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the
primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are
backward in the matter of social reform.
"Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle
against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought
and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is
all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal
tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus
and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same
is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of
India.
"Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as
the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the
community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the
poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu
tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join
Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why? The answer is
simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against
the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that
if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against
a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of
labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is
conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim
mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened
in its struggle against the Hindu community."
Then, Ambedkar writes something that would surely confirm him as a certified
Islamophobe and a bigot in the jaundiced eyes of those who have appropriated
him.
"How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude
of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The
Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of
representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and
their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative
governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is
quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how
it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government
can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of
Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The
Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative
government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the
Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority
of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means the
transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the
Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and
oppose it in the other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not
democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule
will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it
strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will
not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim
States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.
The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by
one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must
perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims
and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling
community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength
they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in
their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of
reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is
because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival
communities, while the latter are not."
History for us is either to be hidden or invented. We tell and retell
what we like of it, and of what we don’t, we scrunch it up and slip it under
the mattress, and then perch ourselves cross-legged over it to retell a little
more. We are born storytellers. A lap and a head is all we need. As for truth?
Well, it is not there; it vanished from view; and so it never happened.
But it did happen. Ambedkar did say these things on Islam and Indian
Muslims. In doing so, he gave a choice to us, for he knew us only too well. We
could either discuss his views on Islam openly like we do his views on
Hinduism, or we could scrunch them up like a plastic bag and slip it under our
mattress. He did not live long enough to witness the option that we chose but
being the seer that he was he had an inkling. As a preface to his book, he
wrote:
"I am not sorry for this reception given to my book. That it is
disowned by the Hindus and unowned by the Muslims is to me the best evidence
that it has the vices of neither, and that from the point of view of
independence of thought and fearless presentation of facts the book is not a
party production. Some people are sore because what I have said has hurt them.
I have not, I confess, allowed myself to be influenced by fears of wounding
either individuals or classes, or shocking opinions however respectable they
may be. I have often felt regret in pursuing this course, but remorse never.
“It might be said that in tendering advice to both sides, I have used
terms more passionate than they need have been. If I have done so it is because
I felt that the manner of the physician who tries to surprise the vital
principle in each paralyzed organ in order to goad it to action was best suited
to stir up the average Indian who is complacent if not somnolent, who is
unsuspecting if not ill-informed, to realize what is happening. I hope my
effort will have the desired effect."
What words. What beautiful, forceful, tender words. Here was Ambedkar,
trying to goad us as a physician would paralysed organs. But he misjudged us.
We remain fearful, indifferent, paralysed.
Nations that fear their past fear their future, and fearful nations
worship, never follow its great men and women. Ambedkar is no exception.
The author can be contacted at anand.icgeb@gmail.com and on Twitter @ARangarajan1972
No comments:
Post a Comment