Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s vision of liberation in Buddhism

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 14^th, 1956. Secondly, Dr Ambedkar participated in International Buddhist Conference in Kathmandu, Nepal and on December 6^th, 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 21^st 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 21^st 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 25^th, 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 14^th, 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.

BSP is the only alternative at the moment to defeat the forces of Hindutva in Uttar Pradesh : Bhanwar Meghwanshi.

In Conversation with Bhanwar Meghwanshi

Bhanwar Meghwanshi is an incisive and forthright contemporary voice of the progressive Dalit movement in Rajasthan.  He has untiringly participated in campaigns and movements across the country, creating awareness on communalism, casteism, gender violence, globalisation, displacement and so on. Born on February 25, 1975 in village Siridiyas in Bhilwara district into a Dalit weaver family, Meghwanshi was indoctrinated at the fragile age of 13, by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), with whom he spent five active years. He was made the head teacher (mukhya shikshak) of his village’s ‘shakha’ (camp) of the Sangh, and later on, its district office head. He was part of the first ‘kar seva’ that set out to demolish the Babri Masjid, but was arrested before reaching Ayodhya and spent 10 days in the Agra jail. Thereafter, a certain incident completely shattered his faith in the RSS, making him realise their extreme, anti-Dalit stance. He severed ties with them, openly taking a stance against them.

After leaving the RSS, Meghwanshi worked full-time on communal harmony, brotherhood and peace, which he continues to, till date. He was vociferous in his writings against the Gujarat carnage of 2002, and took part in the documentation and report writing with members of the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal formed for the Gujarat victims. He also published the magazine Diamond India between 2002 and 2012, which lent voice to struggles against communalism and casteism. He broke many stereotypes and myths regarding minority communities, uncovering truths. 

Bhanwar Meghawanshi speaks out his heart in this candid conversation with  Vidya Bhushan Rawat.

VB: What is the biggest challenge before the Dalit movement at the moment?

BM: There are many; both external and within. It is really worrisome the way communal forces have coopted the movement. Today, a large section of Dalit leadership is getting trapped by Sangh Parivar with their lips sealed due to lure of power.  Dalit representatives no longer speak about Dalits. Bureaucracy and those occupying seats of power are busy repressing Dalit voices. And the Sangh agenda is that to either take them together but if they don’t join hand then trap them false cases.

Hence we are witnessing the repression of Dalits more vigorously. The Dalit movement is also losing some of its innate fervor. It appears befuddled, and many a time, seems to lack clarity about whom it is standing with. It is unable to discern between friends and foes. Dalals who have sprung within the community have distorted the fundamental spirit of the movement. Most of the Dalit leaders are in the twilight of their careers. The challenges are new but their methods are old. The new generation Dalits want something different, but a direction seems to elude them.

And then, there are internal conflicts. The caste ‘layers’ amongst Dalits themselves threaten to be tainted with the same brush of casteism. Many Dalit castes are so busy buttressing their own identities; they have completely turned away from the work of annihilating caste. The firming up of caste identities within Dalits is the biggest hurdle in the fight against casteism, and our weakest point. Such a situation is ripe ground for the Sangh, to further its disruptive work, even as they constantly attempt to turn small differences between Dalits into permanent enmities.

VB: What would you speak on the close ranking of Ambedkar and Left forces post-Rohith Vemula’s institutional murder was short-lived, and the distance, in fact, widened in the recent JNU elections.

BM: Yes, the two forces did converge and there was hope that the ‘Jai Bhim’-‘Laal Salam’ jugalbandhi would resonate further, stronger. That was the need for the hour. It was heartening that the country’s Left had started accepting questions of caste, and appeared standing by the Ambedkarite movement. But the confrontation between the Left Unity and Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA) in the recent JNU elections appears to signal the end of the unity seen in the aftermath of Rohith Vemula. This was also cited as a cause for concern by many, but I would like to see this whole sequence a bit differently.

We need to understand that India’s Left and Ambedkar groups were never natural allies, they’ve always remained two distinctive streams. Yes, they did converge on the streets over Rohith, but that does not mean a convergence of ideologies. In my opinion, it was a spontaneous solidarity, over a particular issue, which had to end sooner or later. If another issue comes along, they will meet yet again, part yet again.

But to conclude, on the other hand, that the JNU elections represent an ideological tussle may also be hasty. The Left has a chance to self-reflect. BAPSA and Left Unity have to arrive at a consensus. Merely election based rivalry cannot become the dividing line between friendship and enmity.

VB: The Left has committed many mistakes. Not only in non-acceptance of caste, but also in their class character. Their leadership has never really been in the hands of the poor. When we forge a political movement, every campaign, including that of Ambedkarites and Dalits, needs to be healthily analysed, because if none of us had faults, brahmanism could never be so strong?

BM: I agree that this is not the time only to criticise the Left. But who will provide an answer to the fact that the Left, till date, has swept questions of caste under the carpet? Why are there no Dalits or Adivasis who have been able to come forward in their leadership? You (the Left) will talk of class, but not caste; this cannot be. You will cry hoarse about poverty but not look at caste in the face, this cannot be. The Left in India needs to fight brahmanism as honestly and responsibly as they talk against capitalism and imperialism.

At the same time, the Dalit-Bahujan movement needs to take a peek into itself; a healthy introspection, that is best for its rights. The Ambedkarite movement has to free itself from its casteist character, and at the same time, save itself from brahmanism.

VB: There is much talk of the Dalit-Bahujan unity but the only common point of the alliance amongst its constituents is anti-brahminism.  Don’t you think a need for some positive programme to bring the Dalits and Bahujan together? As Babasaheb said, graded inequalities exist, and it would also be a mistake to think that within the Bahujan polarisation, all forces are equal? How can there be any unity unless there is a talk of equality?  

BM: The forces within the Dalit Bahujan are certainly not uniform. The ‘unity’ we see is a show on stage. The forces appear to come together in public only to condemn brahminism.  But in reality, what expectation can we have of this alliance, when the ‘backward’ sections amongst the Bahujan stream of thought are the biggest practitioners of casteism today? They are steeped in hypocrisy, rituals and religious humbug. It would be naïve to expect those very sections who are vanguards of brahminism today, to fight against it. Take a look at the cases of Dalit atrocities. In many places, the main accused in 90% of cases is from OBCs. How do we align with those who are perpetrating violence on us every day? This is a grave situation, and our deluded leaders are far removed from both scientific and ground realities, when they insist on singing the tune of ‘Dalit-backward’ unity, and of ‘indigenous communities’ (moolniwasi) unity.

Dalit-Bahujan unity is a mere figment of our imagination. Today, some of the so-called Bahujan organisations are often led by brahman leaders. As long as the backwards stand at the forefront of casteism and continue perpetrating atrocities on Dalits, they will remain as much our opponents, just as the so-called upper castes.

VB: The media highlighted Rohith Vemula’s murder quite a bit. Many felt perhaps, it has now become more sensitive to Dalit questions. But it almost completely bypassed Delta Meghwal’s case. So many cruel incidents take place in villages, and the media just forgets. Neither Dalit nor communist organsation now approach the people of Bhagana, who are still fighting for the last four years. The media’s nowhere to be seen. Why is this so?

BM: I don’t agree the mainstream media gave any special attention to Rohith Vemula’s death. It is only when social media started making it a big issue that the print and electronic media, true to its casteist character, started negative reporting. They created myths around Rohith’s caste, made him out to be a beef-eating seditious. Every effort was made to cast a slur on him. In Delta Meghwal’s case too, the media’s response was negative. First, they tried character assassination, and then the whole issue was simply buried quietly. In Rohith’s case, the accused were the government representatives, but in Delta’s they were of the business class; those who actually run the show of media houses and TV channels. When people from their own clan turned out to be the accused, the media naturally started wagging its tail. Dalit atrocities are not sexy stories. The rape of Dalit women do not awaken the sensitivity of the casteist media. Whether Bhagana or Dangawaas, Delta or Una, only the social media is taking it forward. The fact is that media is more worried about its advertisers than giving news about our memorandums.

VB: You have been associated with many movements like the MKSS, Right to Food, PUCL etc. Do Dalits have any place in these movements?

BM: There has never been space for Dalits in anything that’s ‘mainstream’, nor is it there at present. Everywhere, Dalits are simply showpieces. There is no difference in the character of social movements. Nowhere is independent Dalit leadership accepted. Everyone loves the backward Dalit, but no one likes the outspoken, assertive Dalit. Civil society should also become democratic, inclusive, and stop using Dalits as labels.

VB: What is the state of Ambedkarite/Dalit movements in Rajasthan?

BM: Rajasthan has traditionally been a feudal state. We have never had a social/political/cultural stream of protest. So much so that even during the bhakti movement, no one like Kabir or Raidas was born here. A shroud of subservience has always dominated. Mental subservience has been rampant for ages. During the Dalit liberation struggles too, Rajasthan’s participation has been negligible. During the Poona pact, the so-called leaders of Dalits of the state were distributing pamphlets against Babasaheb. Here, rather than Kabir-Phule-Ambedkar followers, Gandhi’s ‘harijans’ and weak Dalit leaders subservient to parties have been prevalent. After independence, the reins of the Dalit movement went into the hands of the Dalit followers of Hedgewar-Golwalkar, and fans of Gandhi-Nehru. Then, the socialist type political Dalit movement was born, which raised slogans of social justice, but whose leaders were from the same exploiting castes.

Consequent to the 1992 Kumher, Bharatpur Dalit massacre, a Dalit movement outside of politics started to emerge, which later became the victim of NGOisation. Project-based Dalit movements have also worsened the situation. Today, the Dalit movement in Rajasthan is under the threat of fragmentation.  From individual based, routine struggles, sprung small groups. Some have opened their own family/caste based ‘shops’ in the name of Dalits, while as we talk, Rajasthan ranks the highest in Dalit atrocities, untouchability and discrimination.  But it is heartening to note, after the Dangawaas episode, the Dalit youth have spontaneously come together in protest, and met with some success too. The dalit youth movement have the declared our silent dalit leadership as ‘the weeds of the Poona pact’ and also sidelined caste-based groups.

Those social organisations who have been running shops for years have also had to face many uncomfortable questions.  From Dangaawas to Delta, the emergence of an independent, self-reliant Ambedkarite movement can be considered as a happy sign.

VB: Do you think Dalit groups should work separately? What is the alternative when the Left doesn’t support? Shouldn’t the Dalit- Bahujan-Minorities take new initiatives to fundamentally strengthen ourselves?

BM: There is no need for Dalits to work in complete isolation. The need is to work with independence and self-confidence. The need is to take one’s own decisions. No matter whether there is support from the Left or other progressive streams or not, Dalit groups should be able to stand on their own. Dalit, Adivasis, Nomadic and Minority communities need to close rank, and we have to forget about taking along the BCs for now. If we can do this, we can indeed emerge as a strong political force.

VB: Do we need politics of identity or of ideology? Although it could also be said that identity contains ideology; this is contentious…the Sangh has been cleverest in using identity. How do people understand the person in front is ‘mine’? Or that he could be from the same caste, but also a dalal of the community selling its interest to the exploiters.

BM: I feel the days of identity in Dalit struggle are over. The Sangh’s people have played the politics of identity to the hilt, and benefitted most from it. They know how to play the identity card better than us. We need to focus on ideology. If we are talking of bringing long term change, then it is important we establish the ideology of humanity and equality that Buddha, Phule, Shahu, Kabir, Raidas and Ambedkar have left us with.

VB: Your autobiography is a fine document which urges us to understand the construct of ‘our own’. I feel every ideology has its own interpretation of nationalism, which is finally used only by the dominant people within each group through which we want to control our own communities, for which we create certain principles, and where the villain is always ‘the other’ – the other caste, community or country. The villain keeps changing according to the need, but most of the times, we are the villain ourselves?

BM: Its too early and prematurely written, as so much yet remains to be done. But these stories also need to be told. No publisher was willing to publish it. It is the new media which has reached it to the people. I have raised questions about ‘us’, or ‘our people’ and about myself too, in the Hindu Taliban. You’re right in saying we change our villains according to the need of the moment. The politics of control or domination converts into doctrines even the wrong decisions taken by us, to cover up our own weaknesses and ambitions. Dalit leadership and organisations need to respect our critiques as there should be someone who can question the villain within. Since the very idea of nation is linked to the misuse of power and authority,  every group in every era will have a different delineation of nationalism, which will be used as per each one’s convenience.

At the end, the entire debate on nation, nationality and nationalism is bogus.

VB: How do you view the new wave of Dalit writings?

BM: It is heartening that so many Dalit writings are coming up. They are still laden with the feeling of victimhood and anguish. But the literature of resistance is flourishing too. It is coming out in different languages. Yet, they are not able to make a mark on the so-called mainstream literature. We need to make Dalit literature the literature of humanity. It should not be made out to be literature of, for and by Dalits. Everyone should feel the urge to read it, and to read it with fervour. We need to make our literature of resistance more popular, cast its net wider. The Dalit writers of the Hindi belt need to improvise. Read Anand Nilakantan’s Puranic based fiction Asura and Ajaya, and you will feel like you’re sitting inside a bahujan organisation’s cadre camp and listening. Nilakantan has planted a slap on brahminism through characters such as Raavana, Duryodhana and Karna. This is just an example. Dalit literature is, in fact, literature of equality. Its voice need to be transformed into mainstream.

VB: Have we not become too ‘intellectual’ because landlessness, labour problems, manual scavenging, child labour, privatisation etc. are slowly disappearing from our list of issues? Shouldn’t all this be on the agenda of Ambedkarites?

BM: We can be thinkers if we are of use to society. Instead of thinkers, we’ve become neurotic.  We’re perpetually worried always crying. On the other hand, our intellectuals have become so vain, they live in their own world. If we cannot keep the interests of what is happening in reality today in focus, what sort of intellectuals are we? Even today, thousands of our co-brothers and sisters are forced into begging, lakhs are cleaning shit. So many children are still sifting through garbage, so many spend their lives living on the streets. We have to think - what has all this privatisation and globalisation given us? If these people’s agendas have disappeared from our thinking and campaigns, then we are indeed living in some other world. We have to bring them into the Ambedkarite struggle, only then we can call ourselves a people’s movement.

VB: For those who regard Babasaheb rightly, casteism and capitalism are both the biggest enemies. Today, Dalit youth are standing up. But a movement is also a reaction. Gujarat, Hyderabad, etc. have proved that Dalits wont keep quiet now. But the current of Ambedkarism has to keep flowing continually to build an enlightened India as envisaged by Baba Saheb. What do you feel is important for this?

BM: Reaction is important, just as speaking out instantaneously is. I wholeheartedly support the reactions that rose in Una and Hyderabad. It is a sign that Dalit youth have zero tolerance. But we also need to understand the conspiracy behind this. Are they trying to get us lost into a maze of atrocities, trapping us so we spend all our energy in fighting these incidents, and they live on happily?

Both Casteism and capitalism are our enemies. If we fight against one and support the other; our struggle becomes feeble. The bazaar and brahminism are closely linked, to support one is to lend breath to the other. We don’t need just economic growth. We have to build an enlightened and strong India which is not merely possible with economic empowerment. We need an independent, progressive and scientific awakening which will free India of slaves of Manu and capital. For this, we have to focus on participating in cultural and economic fora. For now, all our efforts are focused on political and social equality but we seem to be unsuccessful in the direction of fighting the Vedic sanctioned slavery and economic inequality. We need to put our focus on these two issues importantly.

VB: How did you join the RSS? Did they search you out or you went voluntarily?

BM: When I was in the 7^th standard, my geography teacher rounded us up and started teaching us some games, and then some songs. Then followed some conversation. Then they gave us khakhi shorts and black caps. One day, we were told that we had been chosen by God’s will for the Sangh’s shakha, and that we were lucky to be chosen. Sure, I went on my own out of enticement of play and games. But later, recognising my capabilities, they made me the head teacher, and later, the district office head.

It is only in retrospect I realised that their talk of patriotism, ‘dharmo rakshati rakshataha’, etc., is a foil. In reality, they create fear by pointing towards Muslims, and hatred towards Christians. That is how they mobilise.

VB: I still remember two days before the Babri Masjid demolition, I was with someone in Haryana, and the words he said to me were – “this time, the kar seva will go well.” Did you know then that the Masjid would fall?

BM: Of course I knew. It was pre-planned. Bringing down the Masjid - that was the real objective of the kar seva.

VB: Even today, the Sangh is going towards Dalit and Adivasi villages, in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh. What attracts people to their programmes? Do Ambedkarism, Bahujan, Socialism, Left, or any other stream not have any programme to do with cultural aspirations, or have we stopped going to the people? It is true that the Sangh doesn’t lack resources, but they also have diligent, faithful workers who come from distant places work and with strong ideological commitment….

BM: The Sangh today works on the model of missionaries, in far-flung places. They are found amongst the Valmiki families in cities, and they are found in distant jungles among Adivasis. They establish their ideology through social work. They are visible with the people in good times and bad. They understand people’s wants, and fulfill them, while we just talk, philosophically.

We are just not there (for people) at times of need, while the Sangh’s pracharaks are ever-present. 

The Left, Ambedkarites, socialites, bahujanites, and other non-Sangh forces, have truly stopped going amidst people. They’re visible only in political debates or hollow intellectual discussions.

It is not only a matter of money, but commitment. RSS has the resources, it is true, but they also have dedicated cadres. They are willing to go anywhere.

VB: How strong is the current of cultural change in Ambedkarism in MP, Gujarat and Rajasthan?

BM: Gujarat has become a hotbed of change. In Rajasthan and MP, it is simmering within. We need responsible leadership with the right initiative to turn it into a wave.

VB: How does one face the Sangh’s propaganda? Sometimes cow, sometimes beef, Bharat Mata, Ganga, Pakistan and Muslim preoccupy them 24 hours. They are mostly questions on which people easily get manipulated, because they think it is a matter of nation and culture. How do Dalits, Adivasis, and backward castes respond to this?

BM: We can counter propaganda only with facts and truth. The Sangh is the world’s largest factory for packaging lies in the form of truth. Gaay (cow), Ganga, Gayatri, Gomaata, Bharat Maata, Beef, Nationalism,Patriotism, Vande Mataram are merely their tools. The underlying aim is to oppress the country’s toiling masses. They have made the Sangh and the State complementary to each other. Voting for the BJP has become synonymous with patriotism. Protection of an animal such as cow has become a symbol of culture. We have to reach the truth to people. We have to give a non-communal interpretation to the constructs of ‘country’, ‘society’ and ‘culture’. We need to talk directly with people. I am convinced only Dalits can check this harmful political virus of Hindutva.

VB: You said that the Left never understood casteism and hence, the gap between them and the Dalits will always remain. One has to form an understanding to defeat brahmanism and fascism. In many places Dalits and Muslims have substantial presence in terms of numbers, but in many, there aren’t. We have to make alliances on common ideology. What kind of people would you like to take along in the struggle of Dalits and Adivasis?

BM: There is a need to make many kinds of alliances to counter brahmanism and fascism. Where we can work with the Left, we should associate with them, unhesitatingly on certain Common Minimum Programmes. Where we have the Bahujan alternative, no harm in going with them too and If we feel comfortable going with any religious minority, we could think of that too. The enemy is widespread, and huge. They need to be fought at different forums and with many groups.

VB: You have said the OBCs are leading in atrocities against Dalits. Isn’t that a simple statement, because if one looks at categories amongst them, the landless (among OBCs) are natural allies of the Dalits.

BM: No, it is not a naïve statement. It is the grassroot truth. Analyse the cases lodged under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, and you’ll find my position correct. Even if the landless among the OBCs are close to Dalits in an economic sense, they are afflicted with the same ‘upper-lower’ mentality as brahmanism. The day OBCs will accept Dalit leadership, stop injustice and atrocities on Dalits, only then we can hope for change.

VB:  Political struggles can never be fought with negative agenda. Buddha showed his way to change and the ‘dhamma’ spread across the globe. He didn’t take the name of the enemy even once. Babsaheb fought on political ground, he gave us rights, and he too understood at the end that we cannot have political struggle without cultural transformation. Do you feel our fight is incomplete without going towards the Buddha’s path, and only political change is insufficient for an enlightened India?

BM: Like every religion, there appears to be a gap between thought and practice in Buddhism too. Some are brahmanising the religion. Communal elements have tried to project Buddha as Vishnu’s tenth avataar. Buddha’s statues are worshipped nearly the same way gods and goddesses are, according to the Vedic tradition. Some neo-Buddhists have brought their caste along into the religion, building ghettos into it. Even marriages are sometimes conceived of between the ‘same caste’ among the Buddhists. We need to avoid this. Another matter of concern is, those sincere workers who would fight for change in society are now neglecting taking on such struggles and have immersed themselves in meditation. Their natural militancy and dreams of social change have been stripped. 

We need to understand that merely and technically converting to a religious Buddhist is not going to solve all our problems. Anyway, no religion can free Dalits, because religion itself is bondage. How can bondage give freedom? Dalits need to seek not freedom in religion but freedom from all religion. For now, Buddhism is being seen as a way out of Brahmanism – which is okay as long as it truly accepts Buddha’s scientific consciousness and rationality. It is better for the Dalits to embrace the path of Buddha.

VB : What would you say on the issue of very important elections of Uttar Pradesh.

BM : UP elections can bring a new light in these times of darkness if Manuwadi as well as market forces are defeated. It could be termed as a referendum against the loudmouth prime minister who has completed more than half of his tenure. All the political parties are fighting this with all their might and they must make it a direct fight between ideologies. I feel that politics of hatred must get defeated.

VB: You are taking UP elections as a referendum on Narendra Modi government. Both Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party are contesting against each other. How would you call people to vote as people like me feel that saying, ‘People must vote to a party able to defeat BJP’ mean confusing them further? How could people decide who is in a winning position hence it is important to make an ambiguous appeal to them who to vote in the greater interest of the country.

BM: There is no difficulty in this. First aim should be to defeat BJP, second should be to vote the party in a position to defeat BJP. Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party are the main rivals though the media is trying to underplay BSP as for them it seems that SP, BJP and Congress are the main force in Uttar Pradesh. Is it a correct understanding of the situation there? In my opinion, despite numerous contradictions and disagreement, I would like to appeal to the people of Uttar Pradesh to vote for Bahin Mayawati to bring the government of Bahujan Samaj Party. I am saying this because I feel SP is losing because of its own issues while Congress may not gain much despite Rahul Gandhi’s hard work. We must not allow BJP to win hence BSP is the only alternative at the moment.

·       * The original conversation was in Hindi. English translation done by Ms Sowmya Sivakumar.

Rising Ambedkarite assertion is the biggest challenge to brahmanical hegemony in India

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Hyderabad Central University scholar Rohit Vemula’s tragic death has created a sense of grief and outrage all over the country. Students are at unease and the nation perhaps for the first time after years reflecting the somber mood that something terribly wrong has happened. Rohith’s extraordinary letter in death has become a classic perhaps for every one of us to keep us, read and reread it and ponder over as who is responsible for Rohith’s untimely death.

There are a number of people right from the right-winger to left thinkers to Ambedkarites who are decrying Rohith’s suicide while many making this act as a heroic. I want to make it very clear that Rohith was not a coward even when his last act showed that he had lost hope from all corners perhaps including his own people who he might have thought would help him. We are happy that teachers are not taking classes and seeking revocation of the suspension of these students but why has it taken so long since August. Can’t we understand and read a young sensitive mind who come under tremendous pressure with loads of hope from families that their children will study and will get a job. Definitely many become vocal in politics and social movements which is important but none can deny that the hope and aspirations of their parents is that they will study and find a stable honorable lives for them. Hence, Rohith did not get justice from the University, which remain absolute brahmanical in nature with Dronacharayas sitting and wanting every one to become an Eklavya. Today’s Ambedkarite students are not ready to become Eklavya and that is the root cause of brahmanical games of ‘saam daam dand bhed’ to crush the revolutionary spirit of Ambedkarism which has become the main challenging ground to brahmanical hegemony.  Therefore, it is important to understand that while the parochial brahmanical forces were doing their work what did we do or plan to do in future to stop such desperation of our bright young children. We can’t allow this to happen but for that we need lot of introspection, which people ignore deliberately in their blame game, which of course is well known to all of us. My only point is that it is time we create a strong support and solidarity group of people in every city which not only support them in their future endeavors but most importantly act on time to suggest the right guidance which does not destroy their life due to our rhetoric and jargons.

After May 2014 elections, the Hindutva forces have been active in the University campuses all over the country as education is the most important sector for the Sangh Parivar. ABVP is hyper active and they are after all those who differ with them. Ambedkarite students have become the ‘biggest’ ‘threat’ for them apart from the left. The Hindutva was quite comfortable with Congress’s upper caste seculars who did not change radically. The left associations and student Unions in the past had been anti reservationists and therefore there was a huge credibility crisis particularly whenever question of their relationship with the Dalit Bahujan organisations came into focus but off late organisations like AISA have been raising this issue and worked more on the Dalit issues which is a positive side. Dalit groups too have understood that if there is a possibility of alliance it could only be with the left progressive elements who have to focus not just on imperialism and capitalism of international variety but Brahmin bania imperialism in India too. Unless we speak unambiguously on the brahmanical imperialism in India and the way it enslaved people and tried to crush their spirit, we can’t really eliminate it. The Ambedkarite-Periyarist—Phule-ite Bahujan philosophy and social action has revitalized the entire movements and they become the real challenge for the brahmanical elite class who are ready to discuss ‘pros and cons’ of ‘international terrorism’, American imperialism and capitalism but glorify ‘Indian’ culture as the ‘most’ ‘tolerant’. So the Hindutva is comfortable in countering every one on international ground or when you start speaking on Islam as they want to look more ‘liberal’ in all terms than the theocratic Saudi regime. Dalit Bahujan discourse is a nightmare for Hindutva intellectuals as well as those who claim to be ‘liberal’. I can vouch many of the so-called intellectuals, sarkari babus in our secretariat; professors in our universities have filled with filth regarding Ambedkar. Once you speak to them their faces turn pale. Dalit Bahujan discourse actually exposes the brahmanical myth of tolerance and multiculturalism and therefore there are attempt to crush this spirit through various means. When you fail through a counter arguments then bring the ‘power’ of administration to suppress these voices. Yes, the biggest power to crush rising Dalit Bahujan assertion in India is actually brahmanical manipulation in power circles whether it is administration, judiciary and finally horizon of media which is totally in the control of corporate misinterpreting everything.

I would just narrate one incident on January 18^th at the Shastri Bhavan in Delhi when the students of various Universities in Delhi protested. The media was making a mockery of the students. Some of the photographers were aiming to take photographs of some of the girl students who were standing at one corner talking among them, perhaps smoking. The photographers wanted to take a photograph perhaps for a negative comment. There was verbal altercation when a girl stopped them to take photograph or video of a private affair. The reporter including the Times Now was angry and was shouting,’ if we put our cemara down, the police will beat them up and none would care for them.. aukat samajh aa jayegi’ he said. Many of the reporters wanted to walk out from the place but perhaps the incident was so powerful that they could not do so. At four when all the students came from JNU, the police did not give them time and started using water cannon. I was taking photographs but became very upset and in exasperation I shouted this is unethical. A media photographer who was taking photographs asked why you think police is wrong? How will they handle these students who are hooligans. Does the media feel that the protesters have no right to protest against something wrong has happened? We can understand police’s duty but when there is section 144 then why police allow the protest? When the protest is there why cant the Ministers or bureaucrats come and speak to students? Why they allowed the students to be handled by the police who misbehaved with them.

Today, HRD Minister Smriti Irani said this is not a caste issue. BJP is trying to convey that Bandaru Dattratreya is a backward caste person. A TRS MP said on TV that the Rohith was not a Dalit. What do they want to convey. They say that Rohith has not charged any one in his letter written before suicide and that he was suffering from depression. We want to ask who called Rohith anti national? Why is the Sangh Parivar not allowing students to organize seminars, conferences of their choices including film, Mujaffarnagar abhi baki hai when they can bring a Subrahmanyan Swamy to Delhi University and organize a seminar on Ayodhya. The entire government machinery is clearly visible here in the service of brahmanical forces and the real threat for them come from the Ambedkar-Periyar-Phule discourse and therefore attempt to deify Ambedkar and deny his literature to people and crush the spirit of those who swear by his idealism. Many of our friends were upset with political leaders visiting Hyderabad University but why are two chief minister M/s KCR and Chandra Babu Naidu silent on the issue? The PM who tweet every day has kept quiet so far though he speak through his arrogant spokesperson appearing on various corporate channels.

Rohith’s letter to Vice Chancellor on December 18th is widely been ignored where he calls him worst than Donald Trump and asked him to give suicide pills and a rope to all the Dalit students so that the University can live in peace. This is a castigation of the entire structure of Hyderabad University, which has seen shameless caste discrimination over the year. There are reports that around reports that in the past 15 years over 10 Dalit students have committed suicide inside the Hyderabad University Campus, which indicate how the University has become a slaughterhouse for the Ambedkarite Dalit students.  We don’t know whether the University ever felt necessity to look into these affairs as why one community of students feeling suffocated and isolated. Unfortunately, in the caste ridden Indian academia the answer to these questions would be that they don’t have ‘merit’ or the people suffering from depression or other psychological disorder as the Sangh Parivar elements are now claiming about Rohith.

Sangh Parivar’s lie machine is at work. Having been exposed on the issue of their anti-Dalit stand, they are now trying to save face and charging Rohith and other students with various charges including being arrogant and terming every one  as ‘brahmanical’ who disagree with them. The fact is that Rohith’s letter to vice chancellor is an eye opener and it is surprising why the VC did not even bother to speak to him and other boys. Was it because they were Dalits and particularly Ambedkarites ?  It is now coming to light now that the action taken against Rohith and his friends were on the basis of order from Union HRD Minister Ms Smriti Irani who claimed that her Ministry does not interfere in the ‘University’ administration’.  Ms Irani has become the hallmark of what is ailing our educational system. She has lost the plot as she continue to play in the hands of Sangh Pracharaks who are determined to destroy our education system and corrupt it with their brahmanical thoughts. It is not without doubt that people like Deenanath Batra are welcome in the HRD while a sinister campaign is launched against the respected historians terming them as ‘left wing’. It looks as if the Ministry is on the fast mode to change everything, which has rightly been defined by Sitaram Yechury as Hindutva Revival Department (HRD). The letter written by Smriti Irani on the instance of another Minister from the state Mr Bandaru Datratreya clearly violate the autonomy of an institution which Ms Irani is claiming so proudly to show her innocence.

The worst part is the Hindutva machinery outside is terming now that Rohith was suffering from some mental disorder or depression because his friends had not supported him. Whether Rohith’s friend supported him or not is another matter but in this case the Hindutva’s monsters can not shy away from the fact that they are prima facie the people who were responsible for his death. The Vice Chancellor of the University was simply an administrator who did not stand in front of the pressure being put by the political leaders and a letter from HRD minister was treated like an order.

Today, many in the media are crying how a Dalit student has faced the wrath. Some are suggesting that this is not caste violence but a case of two groups fighting with each other and political leaders jumping in to support their group. This is a clear attempt to deflate the whole issue of caste prejudices prevalent in our institutions. Sangh’s open agenda is to kill the rebellion spirit among students particularly those with Ambedkarite stream hence it is working on multiple agenda. One side, it is pushing Ambedkar to a demi god status by erecting memorials many of which were being demanded by Dalits for years but at the same point of time it need to be know whether the government is sincerely created these monuments or spending money from Special Component Plans for Dalits. At the time when Dalit scholars are not getting scholarship, when the government has stopped all the welfare measures in our villages, when the land and livelihood of our people are being snatched to make way for big corporations to loot them, it is Hippocratic to think that this government respect Ambedkar and his socialist vision. Ambedkar might have issues with various political leaders of his time but it does not mean he was pro Sangh or pro capitalist both of whom he despised terming the Hindu Raj as calamity for the nation. The government has clearly do not believe in Ambedkar’s socialist agenda and hence the students and all the followers of Dr Ambedkar who are alive because of his writings and life for the cause have become a threat for the Hindutva status quoists. As Ambedkar said, he would love if there were Voltaire’s here who could dissent against the brahmanical hegemony, which that was complete. Today, this hegemony is being challenged by none other than young revolutionary Ambedkarites who did not pick up guns but who with their thoughts and ideas have become the biggest dissenters of our time against Brahmanism which is being claimed by Bandaru Datratreya and others like him as being ‘anti national’. Yes, speaking against brahmanical crookedness in India is next to being anti-national in the eyes of those who did nothing except selling this nation to foreign multinationals and were absolutely absent during our freedom struggle.

Institutions feel offended if you suggest you want to speak to student on Ambedkar’s vision of India. We have faced this many times. At one premier institution in Delhi where I was a guest speaker two years back, I was not allowed to speak by a senior faculty when I raised caste question. Can you imagine this happen in a prestigious medical college of Delhi and student and faculty remain helpless as none wanted to disturb. The brahmanical status-quoists under this government have been blowing their trumpet very high. They have become extra powerful thinking they can do anything at their whims and fancies because they think nothing would happen to them.

The education system suffers from the Dronacharya syndrome. The teachers don’t want Dalit students. If they are there, they want to make them ‘mainstream’ which means you don’t ask any uncomfortable question but most of the time complains about you. Most of them are patronizing and at many central Universities, which I call, have been converted to merely primary schools where master scholars are suppose to just listen. Many of the students who wanted to speak to me about their subjects stop because they suggest that if they write of what I tell them will not fetch them good marks. So even if you don’t like Lord Rama or can expose the entire Ramayana or Gandhi, you have to love them in your answer-sheets otherwise you may lose good marks. What kind of institutions are we making? What kind of students will we create where you have to just appreciate the brahmanical dharma as the best culture of the world, the most tolerant, vibrant and in this context the Dalit Bahujan thought is a direct challenge. None other apologetic of tolerance brand will challenge it as the brahmanical supremacy has to be exposed through their own mythological crookedness and when you force students to write about their greatness then one can understand what kind of scholar will we create from the corrupted institutions.

Go to any university and seek the books of social sciences. How many of our students in the schools and colleges know about Savitri Bai Phule, Joti Rao Phule, EVR Periyar, Sahu Ji Maharaj or even Bhagat Singh. All the students have known to these icons through their socializing and external efforts and not through our regular curriculum where you find Gandhi, Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati and many more. Ambedkar is reduced to the constitutional drafter and Bhagat Singh, a hotheaded person who disagreed with Gandhi. Now we are getting new icons in history who are Deen dayal Upadhyaya and his integral humanism, Veer Savarkar who sought relief from the British and apologized, Shayama Prashad Mukherjee and many others who mostly sided with the British.

Definitely our educational institutions are under the brahmanical assault which got emboldened under the new power elite took over India but Rohith’s death has a lot to be answered by all others who were he close associate. Many friends suggest he should have fought but we must realize he was fighting since August so what has happened? Why did he commit suicide? Why did he write that he is still alone and felt unwanted since childhood? A person who is with the social movements and yet feeling lonely is a big answer to many things. We must understand that as a student his first aim was to complete his education as he was carrying a lot of hope from the family and friends who were supporting that time.  Since August, he had not got his scholarship money from the university and for the past 12 days he was out in open. People came and joined hand but it too delayed response when the things were lying since August. Why is that we could not resolve this issue? Why is that friends in and around Hyderabad who might be in the faculty, teachers, academics, administrators ever tried to resolve this issue which should not have been a big deal even if the Sangh was asking for their rustication. Was Rohith frustrated that there was no solution in the sight and that merely sitting on hunger strike or dharna is not going to take him anywhere? It happens. We have seen when we fight for a cause. Many times the cause is left deep aside and the leaders carry one with the issue. Their interest is not in solving the issue but carrying it forward, making noise. These are dark realities of our time. You might be looking the issue from your ‘big’ angle but for those for whom every single minute remaining outside and losing their time is painful, agonizing is a terrible wait. People don’t wait when justice is delayed whether by the delaying tactics of people or legalities of judiciary. For a young fresh sensitive mind, these are hard to bear. He fell to it. Definitely that is not a crime. It is our abject helplessness. When one sees no solution in sight he become a loner or at the end lose hope in everything including himself. When one sees becoming a tamasha himself a sensitive soul will walk out. That is the reality of our time. I can vouch for it as I have passed through this phases in my life feeling utterly lonely from childhood and it remain till today even when I am very active with people. It is terrible. We can fight with our enemies but we become helpless when those we expect to support and stand with us are not there or just using it. Dalit Students need peer support groups who are in effective positions around them, who can guide them and resolve the issue through negotiations or even by approaching to right authorities or courts. Young minds cannot sit on indefinite dharnas in front of those where none listen to you, this deaf and dumb government but from our side, we cannot afford to lose them and hence it is the duty of those who can influence administration and staff locally. Universities must be given clear guidelines, as they have no right to destroy the career of students and must be given everything in writing. The government departments whether educational institutions or secretariat never give anything in writing or never even acknowledge a letter. This must be made mandatory as what efforts the institution did to bring the students back to his studies. Universities or law cannot be for retribution otherwise there is no difference between us and IS.

The University Vice Chancellor need to own the responsibility apart from the Union HRD Minister and the other minister Bandaru Datratreya. As I said Dalit students face deep rooted prejudices in our campuses and isolation is not the issue. Will the government ask the universities to form special committees so when such cases come they are handed sensitively? Can we ask the government to make stricter law so that students do not face harassment because of their caste, identities and ideologies? Let universities and colleges become space for diverse opinion, dissent and sensitive to the cause of society, which will help India in creating an enlightened society. We must remember that youth will revolt against parochial and vicious ‘moral policing’ of all kind if allowed in the campus. Ambedkarites youths want a modern democratic republic of Dr Ambedkar’s dream and perhaps that is the biggest challenge for those whose dream a Manuwadi India. Rohith’s death has clearly shown the line that it is fight between Manuwad and Manavvad and you have to decide which side of ideology do you wish to associate as your decision will make or break India.