By
Vidya Bhushan Rawat
A few months back, I was
introduced an Indian settled in the United States who worked with the American
military and wrote extensively against Gandhi. One thing that I don’t like is
that writing against Gandhi does not mean some body has become an Ambedkarite.
We met in Delhi and there were lots of discussions. He was quite ‘rational’
till a certain point. Slowly, he said, that Ambedkarite are very aggressive
when one talks about Buddhism and Dr Ambedkar and that they too need to be
critiqued. I said, I would never hesitate in agreeing with you but both Buddha
and Ambedkar have been critiqued by all. Then he pointed to me that Buddha was
never born and that he is a mythological figure like Ram, Krishna, Jesus and
Mohammad which disturbed me a lot. He said that Americans have done a lot of
research about it. I told him, I have no issue with their research and it is
not necessary for me to agree with that research. The second point which was
very disturbing was his ‘’information’’ about Ambedkar having met a Christian
priest in Bombay after his embracing Buddhism and admitting to him that it was
a wrong decision on his part and he was disappointed with it. I was along with
another friend and became very upset with such a futile allegation. I
responded, Sir, Dr Ambedkar did not become a Buddhist all of a sudden. He has
known about Buddhism for long and as our friend Vijay Survade ji informed me
with document available with him that Dr Ambedkar had embraced Buddhism with
his wife Savita Ambedkar about two three years before his public conversion on
October 14th, 1956. Secondly, Dr Ambedkar participated in
International Buddhist Conference in Kathmandu, Nepal and on December 6th,
1956, he passed away, so where was the time to be with the priest. I found out
the book he referred and read the book in which the priest in Mumbai write
about Dr Ambedkar but nowhere is this written that he was dissatisfied with his
embracing Buddhism. A man of Dr Ambedkar’s character, who was actually a
rationalist and explained Buddha and Buddhism in a very different way, can’t be
victim of wrong choices. I am narrating this story here because so many people
have been trying to malign Dr Ambedkar in different ways. I have no issue if somebody
critique his policies but to doubt his integrity and put suspicion on his
choices is very disturbing. Frankly, it was the dream of Baba Saheb Ambedkar to
make India an enlightened society which was possible in Buddhism in real sense
and his appeal for conversion to Buddhism was not merely to Dalits but to all
including upper castes if they want to see India a better society.
Now, Dr Ambedkar’s Buddhism is
essentially humanism and rationalism. It is more humanist because it has a
compassion part in it and not merely a debating philosophy but an ideology or a
way of life that has compassion in it and must be philosophically liberating
for people. In many sense, Dr Ambedkar’s rationalism comes close to Marxian
philosophy too except that he never believed in ‘dictatorship of the proletariats’.
The one question which has debated largely among both Ambedkarite and left
circles is about his relationship with the left, his thoughts about Marx and so
on. Ideologies of individuals are product of their time and societies hence it
is important for us to understand that we use the best of them which is suitable
for us in the existing circumstances and leave the other. For millions of
marginalized, oppressed and victim of brahmanical hegemony in India, Dr
Ambedkar remain far more relevant and potent force than any other contemporary
of his time. It does not mean we leave them aside or look down upon them in
contempt but it means that any idea of theirs which compliment us should be taken
to strengthen the movement and that we should not become victim of
‘ideologies’. It does not mean to make one compromising on things but the fact
is Dr Ambedkar remained absolutely committed to his conviction but at the same
time was not rigid to political alliances or formations.
In an
interview to me Prof Kevin Brown from Indiana University in United States felt
that Ambedkar was one of the greatest intellectuals of the world, simply
extraordinary. As an African American, he felt sad why Martin Luther King
remained unaware of the work of Dr Ambedkar. Had he known Ambedkar that time,
the later would have been known world over and not Gandhi? Popularising Gandhi
myth internationally, to a large extent, comes from Dr Martin Luther King’s
acceptance of him as the icon of non-violence.
Prof Brown says, ‘From an African-American viewpoint, Gandhi is
connected to the non-violent protest movement of Reverend Martin Luther King
Jr. Reverend King often referred to the
fact that he adopted his non-violence philosophy from Gandhi. Thus, when African-Americans think of Gandhi,
we tend to think of him as a role model for Reverend King. As a result, Gandhi is held in high regard by
African-Americans, despite the very racist views that Gandhi expressed about
blacks while in South Africa. Unlike most of my people, I am very aware of the
Gandhi-Ambedkar conflict. At the core of
African-American culture is a struggle against racial oppression. From that standpoint, Gandhi’s stand on
separate electorate for Dalits was most unfortunate. That move substantially undercut Dalit
political power to this day. And
political power has been a huge help to the African-American struggle for
equality.’
At the same point of time Prof
Brown says that Marxism did not appeal to blacks in United States because Marx
failed to address their core issue of racism and slavery. It is not surprising
that Marx’s way of addressing all the issue is through economic view point and
he failed to understand or address, I am not sure whether it was a deliberate
failure or out of ignorance, the issue of racial discrimination, segregation
and slavery in the west as socio cultural subjugation. Many people in India
blame Marx for not addressing the caste issue but how would he do when he
failed to understand the cultural aspect of racism in the west.
It is not that Ambedkar did not
know about Marx or any other ism that time but for him the most important thing
of his life was to ensure justice to the vast communities of untouchables and
other marginalized people. He did not have the luxury of claiming to be an
‘ideologue’ and sitting in his chamber rather he was with the common persons
most of the time and used all the paths which he felt would get justice, for
his people.
It is true Ambedkar belong to the
world and he deserve a place among the high echelons of world philosophers,
thinkers and social revolutionaries but, for millions of Dalits and Bahujans in
India, he is their ‘father’ and ‘guide’. This is an unprecedented situation for
an individual. Ambedkar as an emancipator of Dalit Bahujans but at the same
point of time a philosopher, without reading him, you cannot claim to have
understood Indian society. No studies of social sciences in India would
complete without understanding Ambedkar. Scholars have written a lot about
whether he was against Marx or communism but Ambedkar was unambiguous about his
faith in Buddha because he wanted to enlighten people and never ever believed
in retribution. It is important to understand what exactly Ambedkar wanted and
why his perception and philosophy could become the ideology of human rights of
21st century.
I put Dr Ambedkar as a
freethinker, a humanist whose world vision was of Equality, Fraternity and
Liberty; a world where individual is supreme and could take decision about his
life. He stood for the rights of absolute freedom of expression to the extent
of even challenging the ‘Shastras’. Those who have seen his argument over
‘caste system’ with Gandhi will vouch how he demolished Gandhi’s‘ chaturvarna’
theory and shastras being sacrosanct, with his argumentative skills and
theoretical evidences. Ambedkar never accepted the supremacy of the authority
of Shastras while Gandhi said Shastras are written and dictated by God and
those who do not believe in them are not Sanatan Dharmis. In his Harijan,
Gandhi defended the Varnashram dharma and unsuccessfully try to differentiate
between Caste and Varna. Dr Ambedkar writes in ‘Annihilation of Castes’ :
Caste has
nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for
the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both
to spiritual and
national growth. Varna and Ashrama are
institutions which have nothing to do with castes .The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us
to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling. it defines not our rights but our duties. It necessarily
has reference to
callings that are conducive to the welfare of humanity and to no other. It also
follows that there is no calling too low and none
too high.
Ail are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of a Brahmin—
spiritual teacher—-and a scavenger are equal, and
their due performance carries equal merit before God and at one time seems to have carried identical
reward before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood
and no more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages the faint lines of
this healthy operation of the law. Living in Segaon with
its population of 600, I do not find a great disparity
between the earnings of different tradesmen including
Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins are to be found even in these
degenerate days who are living on alms freely
given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures.
It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by
its caricature in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit
a breach of its only operative rule. Arrogation of a superior status by and of the Varna over another is a denial of
the law. And there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability.
Baba Saheb Ambedkar said that
there might definitely be certain good things in Shastras but if there are
things which are against basic human dignity and common goods of the people and
which violate the principle of equality then we must either delete those text
or amend them, to which Gandhi responded with his typical contempt that
Shastras are written by Gods and human beings have no right to amend it. Gandhi’s
stand was not dissimilar to that of any other religious fanatic who considers
their ‘holybook’ as God written texts and give nobody the liberty to challenge
those verses or quotes mentions in these books. Castes are powerful bodies,
autonomous and each one of them feel superior to other. They have no
connectivity unless you do the work destined for you under the chaturvarnya
philosophy. Hinduism is nothing but a
‘collection’ of castes, said Dr Ambedkar.
‘Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a
missionary religion has been a controversial issue. Some hold the view that it
was never a missionary religion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu
religion was once a missionary religion must be admitted. It could not have
spread over the face of India, if it was not a missionary religion. That today
it is not a missionary religion is also a fact which must be accepted. The
question therefore is not whether or not the Hindu religion was a missionary
religion. The real question is why did the Hindu religion cease to be a
missionary religion ? My answer is this. Hindu religion ceased to be a
missionary religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is
inconsistent with conversion. Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only
problem that is involved in conversion. To find a place for the convert in the
social life of the community is another and a much more important problem that
arises in connection with conversion. That problem is where to place the
convert, in what caste ? It is a problem which must baffle every Hindu wishing
to make aliens converts to his religion. Unlike the club the membership of a
caste is not open to all and sundry. The law of caste confines its membership
to person born in the caste. Castes are autonomous and there is no authority
anywhere to compel a caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. Hindu
Society being a collection of castes and each caste being a close corporation
there is no place for a convert. Thus it is the caste which has prevented the
Hindus from expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. So long
as caste remains, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion
and Shudhi will be both a folly and a futility.’
In a rare but candid interview to
BBC in 1956 Dr Ambedkar said that India is still not a society as none care
about others. We are not bothered about our neighbors. We are bothered about
his caste first and hence how can we become a society when there is no man to
man relationship, where we cannot shake hands with an individual despite
knowing him just because he happen to belong to another caste. He was bitter
but he never lost reasoning and sanity. He was deeply influenced from that
thoughts of Buddha and that is why believed that we can only be a great society
if people follow human values democratically and a changing the heart happens
after positive realization.
Many votaries of Marxism feel
Ambedkar was the product of ‘liberalism’
where individual matters the most and his faith was in strengthening democracy
but not through the path of ‘revolution’ while the votaries of the ‘Right’ like
Arun Shourie felt that he opposed or should I say, questioned, Gandhi and hence
was a British ‘plant’ to subvert our ‘freedom movement’. As we have mentioned that retribution was
never what Ambedkar wanted otherwise he would have been happier with Russian
revolution but he never believed in ‘communist’ form of ‘government’, which he
felt would only perpetuate violence and injustice. His focus was social justice
and not in retributive justice. It means he believed in an equalitarian society
where human being believed in concept of equality not because of fear of law
but because of principle of their faith in equality. This is an important part
where Ambedkar differed with Communism and its whole theory of ‘dictatorship of
the proletariat” as Ambedkar felt democracy is the only way out where
untouchables would be able to get justice and politically united. For democracy
to survive, we would need philosophers like Voltaire as Dr Ambedkar said who
would question the state and society whenever and where they were wrong. So
dissent remains Dr Ambedkar’s biggest strength.
Dr Ambedkar believed that State
must owned all the land and nationalize it. It is here he had been influenced
by the Soviet module where he felt that state must distribute the land
according to needs of the farmers and those who do not till the land have no
right to control it. Ambedkar had appreciated the communist thinking on land.
He also promoted idea of cooperative farming for the better results of it in
India particularly in the drought prone regions of Vidarbha and Marathwada in
Maharastra.
If we just keen aside the differences,
Dr Ambedkar’s main emphasis was towards the emancipation and liberation of
untouchables and ensuring that they get fair representation in the new
framework of governance. So, he had enormously difficult task for him. One a
community leader who is negotiating with the government for their rights and the
other role is of a guide of the community telling them what they should do. The
role of the guide of the community is very important as it is where Baba Saheb
Ambedkar focused a lot the cultural changes in the community as he felt that
without them there would not be a change. Hence he thought of ‘Prabuddha
Bharat’ i.e. an enlightened India or enlightened world where people share
common concerns of humanity and stand for the most oppressed together.
Dr Ambedkar had realized that the
vast masses of untouchables need to be delinked with the brahmanical practices
and the religion they follow which have degraded them and put them in subhuman
conditions. And he found that he it is not merely leaving Hinduism and
following any other religion but returning to his roots. He never wanted people
to become prisoner of religion and therefore after a big thought he embraced
Buddhism which was not only native but redefined Buddhism from original Navayana
perspective which is nothing but humanism.
In his book ‘Buddha and Marx’ Dr Ambedkar
mention why and how is Buddha different than others.
‘ Religion is important fact of
life and must relate to it and not to speculation about God, soul and heaven
etc. It is wrong to make God centre of
religion or universe. The purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and
not to explain the ‘origin’ of it.’
If we analyse the above
statements carefully then it is clear that Ambedkar is a humanist as he has not
accepted the ‘supremacy’ of written texts and that he emphasizes on that the
centre of ‘religion’ should be ‘human being’. It clearly reflect his mind how
he envisaged religion. He did not want to engage with those who wanted to speak
of ‘atma’, ‘paratma’, ‘punarjanm’, ‘avatar’ etc as he felt these are
brahmanical construct to keep their monopoly over religion and continue to
misguide poor. Hinduism for him was
minus any ‘Karuna’ or humanity as it divide people on the basis of their birth.
It is essential to understand how
he looked at Buddha and his teachings.
Let us talk of the Eight Fold
Path ( Ashtang Marg)
1.
Right
view (freedom from superstition)
2.
Right
Aims (high and worthy)
3.
Right
speech (Kind, open and truthful)
4.
Right
Conduct ( Peaceful, honest and pure)
5.
Right
livelihood ( causing hurt or inury to no living human being)
6.
Right
Mindfulness ( with a watchful and active mind)
7.
Right
perseverance in all the above
8.
Right
contemplation ( earnest thought)
According to him all the above
are meant for the creation of Kingdom of righteousness. The most important
thing is how ‘means’ too are important for Buddha. He will not ‘achieve’ things
by ‘any means. It means that you have to have right ‘mean’ to achieve your
path. So, ‘dictatorship of the
proletariat will neither lead to democracy and will not be without
violence. The end of the dictatorship is
to make revolution permanent but then you have only duties in communism and no
right to criticize if you disagree. It
is the biggest point of disagreement of Ambedkar of communism or say communist
form of governance.
He says, “Buddha was against
violence but in favor of justice’ who promoted democracy at every level in his
Shakya world. There were 13 monarchies and 4 Republics among the Shakyans”.
Buddha’s commune concept was
nothing but communism where none of the Bhikkhus had personal possession. According to Dr Ambedkar, Buddha established
communism without being violent and dictatorial. So the changes, that Buddha wanted to bring
was through mind and attitude. Whatever you do, do it voluntarily. According to
Ambedkar, ‘We need religion, as we are human being, emotional and work to
satisfy our spiritual need too’ but then his meaning of religion was based on
concept of humanism and felt that it was needed to protect human values and
should have focus on wellbeing of human being rather than an illusory ‘God’.
Dr Ambedkar was impressed with
French Revolution and its ideals of Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. He respected Voltaire and wishes if we had
person like him India would have gained immensely in terms of knowledge and
democratic spirit.
He explain his respect for
Russian Revolution too as it brought equality but he was not ready for the
dictatorship of proletariat and felt that equality without fraternity is not
acceptable to him. Society should be equal but not at the cost of sacrificing
fraternity and equality, he emphasized. Any changes that the law enforces will
be cosmetic and compulsory aversion and India is witnessing that humbug politically
and administratively when the love for ‘Dalits’ is not in the heart but because
of the constitutional promulgations, which result in falsifications and
violation of their rights. Ambedkar was
absolutely clear that we need to change the heart of the people and that is why
he embraced the guiding principles of Buddha. You cannot change people through
laws but through their mindset and change of heart. We need to understand that
Ambedkar was hurt but never bitter at the end as he found right path in the
preaching’s of Buddha.
So in the context of today, we
need to see what he should have been doing.
Today, Ambedkar remain an icon
beyond boundaries. He is finding his place in the history books among the
historians and politicians as well as political philosophers who were the most
influential in 21st century. He will be scrutinized and further
critiqued. There will be people who have vilified him because he stood up
against authoritarian Gandhi and for whom the ‘freedom’ of Dalits from the
‘servitude’ of caste Hindus was more important than the ‘transfer of power’ in
India, as he felt British were far more justice loving people than the caste
Hindus.
Annihilation
of caste made a few things clear and we must understand that. That was Ambedkar
in 1930, fighting with Gandhi, trying to improve Hinduism but he was
disappointed with Gandhi’s approach and learnt his lesson. He moved away and
decided that people need an alternative vision, a better one to guide their
destiny. There is no time for ‘improvement’ but the best way is to walk out of
the system and develop your own system. That is where he revitalized Buddhism
in India, it is Navayana, a new way of life, much different than that of Dalai
Lama and his superstitious ways of life. Let us see what does Ambedkar learnt
from his entire altercation with Gandhi which has been produced in
‘Annihilations of Castes’.
1.
That Dr Ambedkar was not ready to accept the
Supremacy of ‘God’s words’ and for that he was not just ready to take on to the
high and mighty like Gandhi but also to Pope John Paul. We cannot ignore an
important publication of Times when Ambedkar was invited for hearing in Rome by
Pope. After initial introduction and the concern of Dr Ambedkar towards the
untouchables, the Pope viewed that it will take a few centuries before the
caste system is completely ‘eradicated’. Upon hearing this, Ambedkar just
walked out of the meeting saying that he did not have time to wait for this
much of centuries to liberate his people.
2.
Annihilation of caste was an attempt by
Ambedkar to radicalize the Hindu system. He felt that if the caste Hindus
change, it would be great. Till that period Ambdkar contended with claiming to
be a ‘protestant Hindu’.
3.
The whole debate on the issue of ‘caste system’
with Gandhi made one thing unambiguously clear that the Hindus were not ready
to change their attitude towards Dalit a bit. Caste system, as a Ambedkar said
was a ‘graded inequality’ and divide oppressed too on the basis of
‘hierarchies’. It has made a false sense of pride among people. Hence the
entire edifice of Hinduism is nothing but caste system and if caste system is
demolished the entire system of varna will collapse like a castle of cards. No
Hindu believing in the Varna system, would like to demolish his faith. Gandhi
knew it well and hence created myth around everything so that uncomfortable
questions are not raised and if they are then the answer should be wrapped in
mysticism.
4.
Dr Ambedkar realized that Hindus are not ready
to change. It is no point discussing with them to change when they are not
ready to accept the fundamental of the problem. Caste system and discrimination
are inherent part of Varnashram dharma and cannot be resolved by propagandist’s
statement and patronizing attitude of Gandhi, suggesting that ‘untouchables’
are ‘Harijans’, son of God. Ambedkar considered it a virtual abuse as Harijan
was a term used for the children of ‘Devdasis’ who were sexually exploited by
the temple priests. Despite objections by Ambedkarites this term continued to
be used in India portraying Gandhi as a ‘great’ emancipator of Dalits. It was
only after 1991 when BSP’s fire brand politics threatened to agitate and the
government finally ordered to remove the word from the government files. For Dr Ambedkar, saving Hinduism is nothing but
saving Brahmanism and as all efforts to change it were countered by Gandhi
under the pretext of Shastras, he decided that ‘ though I was a born Hindu, I
would not die as a Hindu’.
6.
Gandhi was always claiming that untouchability
was not part of Hinduism and a blot to it. Ambedkar on the other hand felt that
discrimination and caste segregation are inherent part of brahmanical values
defined by Manu. Hence, just speaking of untouchability yet protecting caste
system reveal the greatest double speak. How can a person ‘condemn’
untouchability and decide to work for its removal but at the same point of time
openly advocate work based on caste. Gandhi unambiguously said that caste are
based on ‘divinity’ of Shastras and cannot be changed. Those who challenge the
supremacy of the religious be text have to leave the ‘religion’ and can’t be
called Hindus, said Gandhi. Actually, Gandhi was a deeply religious person who
was ‘defining’ things according to his own concepts without challenging the
authority of religion to dictate our lives. Ambedkar on the other hand was not
ready to accept the ‘authority’ of Shastras if they violate the dignity and
human rights of the people. Ambedkar was of the belief that every religion has
good things too and bad things too but most important part of them should be to
delete those which are wrong and change according to the time and need of human
being. Prior to this, Ambedkar had led the temple entry
movement in famous Kalaram temple of Nasik and was heavily objected by caste
Hindus.
8.
On December 25th, 1927, along with
his supporters, Dr Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti and drank water from Chavdar pond
of Mahad, in Maharastra. It need to be reminded to people that Dalits were
denied right to drink water from the village ponds and wells. Ambedkar
challenged this and led the movement against such discriminatory practice.
Dr
Ambedkar realized that Caste is a big ‘political’ power for the Brahmins and
bring many privileges hence all their talk of working against it would be just
hypocrite as at the end of the day we all would not like to do away with our
‘powers’ and ‘privileges’ but he also knew that there are good people
everywhere who were ready to associate with him in this battle for Indian renaissance
and therefore he made them partner in his struggle. One should not ignore the
symbolism in how it was not Dr Ambedkar but Shahshrabuddhe, a Brahmin who burnt
the Manusmriti in Mahad.
So
for the humanists of the world, Dr Ambedkar is perfect example who challenged
the religious supremacy and never accepted the finality of religious texts. He
suggested that they should be amended as per needs of the time. However, many
friends raised objection to his ‘embracing’ Buddhism in a traditional way
ignoring the vital factor of 22 vows that he asked his followers to obey before
joining Buddhism and in my opinion these are nothing but humanism. One must
have a look at them as most of them guide people against superstition
perpetrated by the Brahmins in the name of traditions.
Dr
Ambedkar’s belief in Buddha was ultimate as he knew it is because of this
vision that India and rest of the world would be an enlightened society. He was
not taking his people to the path of darkness but to a place where people would
be enlightened and engaged with each other in reasoning (tark) with humanity (Manavta)
and it is Humanism of modern day definition where human being is the centre of
universe of philosophy.
Through
his anti-caste movement, Baba Saheb Ambedkar wanted to change the Hindu society
but he realized that it was not possible. As long as you believe in those
dogmas and beliefs, you won’t be able to do justice to other people. Baba Saheb
knew the futility of a casteless society through ‘reforming’ Hinduism or
brahman dharma and that is why he gave a clarion call to embrace the path of
Buddha. Therefore, annihilation of caste is not possible without making our way
to new path. A debate on annihilation of caste must understand that by
annihilating castes we will be demolishing Varnashram dharma or what we call
Brahman dharma. Are we ready for that? Baba Saheb knew it well that Hindus may
say that they are against untouhability but as long as they believe in basic
foundation of the same, they cannot really fight against it. That is why he
called to his followers to leave the varnashram dharma and embrace a new way of
life where your universe will be the philosophy of life and where you are
treated equally. The Hindus must continue to fight against caste system but
those who really follow Dr Ambedkar have really moved far ahead on the path
shown by him which is the way of Buddha’s enlightened world of humanism. There
is no other way. India and rest of the world cannot progress by fighting
against an ideology but the only possible way is to give people a better
alternative. Budddha gave to the world a big humanist way of life without
engaging himself in ‘critiquing’ the follies of ‘others’. He learnt the lessons
and ensures that all the evils of brahmanical value system do not come in his
way and that is why Buddha’s way is the way of life for millions of people
world over, it is the path of happiness and equality for all. It is a positive
idea and Ambedkar knew well that negativity takes a toll and does not take us
anywhere except many of us actually start following it. Therefore, it was
important to give people a way of life, which was actually Buddha’s path of
salvation, where they become decision makers of their ‘destiny’ rather than
believing in some ‘Mahatma’ to guide them to ‘liberation’.
Unfortunately
the left in India never understood that and remained more dogmatic in its
views. Dr Ambedkar remained a pragmatic person and was ready to cooperate and
coordinate with forces who were there to support the cause of untouchables. Dr Ambedkar speaking in Rajya Sabha on 19th march, 1955 on Article
31 or Right to Property, he said, ‘I
am prepared to pick and choose from everyone, socialists, Communists or other.
I do not claim infallibility and as Buddha says there is nothing infallible,
there is nothing final and everything is liable to examination’.
Even when the Congress played all the
games to stop him winning election, the record of communist party of India is
not fair in this regard whose tallest leader S A Dange contested against him.
It is not that he was not trying to create a better opposition but he found
caste arrogance of the political leaders of his too big to leave aside their
farcical egos and support him. But it is also a fact that Dr Ambedkar was in
close touch with many of the socialist leaders of his time. Dr Ram Manohar
Lohia, Mr N G Gore, S M Joshi and Acharya Atre were among few with whom he was
in touch to form a united opposition party to fight against Congress which was
the most powerful political force during those days.
It need to be understood that as a
politician both the Congress and the left could not shed their caste biases
against Dr Ambedkar which definitely disappointed him if not made him bitter
and ultimately he also realized that without a cultural revolution political
changes in India would merely be cosmetic and therefore the Dhammadeeksha on
October 14th, 1956 on Ashoka Vijayadashmi day was perhaps the most
powerful expression of his vision for making India a prabuddha Bharat. He had
more faith in common masses than ‘powerful’ politicians of his time who
actually betrayed him.
The politicians who hated him, berated
him, today acknowledge and bow before him but the threat are bigger. While a
majority of the Ambedkarite intellectuals and political activists have felt the
necessity of Buddhism as a uniting factor and breaking of caste barrier but the
situation now is serious with petty political minds playing diverse caste
games. The deras in Punjab and sub-casteism elsewhere are the biggest threat to
the cultural change that Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar has brought. The mission
Prabuddha Bharat will remain difficult as long as we continue to live in those
identities given to us by someone else. The power of Ambedkarism is in the
modern thinking and delinking from the past that segregated people and created
a false sub consciousness among people about their superiority or inferiority
of others. Definitely, those who assert their caste identities and want to
congregate on that basis at the end remain in the varnashram dharma. We know
political ambitions of people are the biggest impediment in the way to achieve
a casteless humanist society. I always felt it that political power may be
important but unless there is a cultural change, India will not grow. All our
progressive constitutional provisions of equality, liberty and fraternity are
being defeated by the regressive caste minds who have a duty to implement it
and therefore it become imperative for us to work for the cultural revolution
in India which is only possible through the liberated humanist path of Buddha
and which Baba Saheb wanted us all to follow.
