What is the FUZZ About Dr BR Ambedkar,Did He really make Indian Constitution?Does ambedkar's views on Hinduism have any moral Authority? Nationalism

6 points | Post submitted by suyash95 258 days ago | 2 comments | viewed 97 times

What is the FUZZ About Dr BR Ambedkar,Did He really make Indian Constitution?Does ambedkar's views on Hinduism have any moral Authority?


Add your comment

Please Login or Signup to leave a comment
  • suyash95 258 days ago | +2 points

    I respect Ambedakar but We have to look at this fact that Ambedkar is no God.He himself went to Study at Columbia University which is a major hub of Christian Evalengicals. U can imagine where he got his ideas on Hindu Caste from.Ambedakar studied Hindu Society through the lens of Marxists n Westerners.


    I have read Ambedkar works ,Ambedkar entered into the scene in 1920.We should understand the context here. We are talking of the time when British Power was Supreme and their Colonial Hold on Information flow was unchallenged.There are many facts which Ambedkar was not aware during his Lifetime.A lot of new Inform has came out from British Archives n Chronicles which Ambedkar was not aware Eg - No word for "caste" in any Indian language. Caste not same as jati.


    The Bizarre thing I have noticed in India is that almost every Big leader like Nehru n Gandhi have been criticized in severe terms.Even Rama,Buddha n Krishna have been criticized.But this Ambedkar guy has been made into some form of sacrosanct which people r afraid to criticize.The truth is He was made leader of Dalits and later Bahujans were added.Majority of Dalits never considered this guy as their leader n never voted or supported him.That is why he never won any Elections.


    the problem is No hindus ever had the guts to make videos and say look ,ambedkar was a great man n a man of his times but he is not GOD.Ambedkar was wrong on Hinduism Ambedkar ideas were basically Christian right views on Hinduism The condition of DALITS today is not entirely the uppercastes people fault but Islamic n Christian pirates rule is equally responsible and mainly responsible for their present condition.Becoz it is they who were ultimately ruling n governing country.

    Counterview: Ambedkar Was Wrong About Hinduism. The Right Can Stop Trying To Appropriate Him


    Take for eg - his book Riddles in Hinduism


    It is an example of polemics by a man who was genuinely angry with the behaviour of some Hindus of his time. Hindu scripture and philosophical thought is like a trackless forest with many contradictory things in them. It is with the help of the Acharyas (they are not infallible either) and one's personal experience and thought that Hindu Dharma yields its fruits. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for Hindu laymen to even understand Hindu teachings. It is one of the reasons for riddles. Moreover, Hinduism not being an organized religion like the Abrahamic faiths has a quality control problem. Freedom comes with a steep price.


    It appears on reading his book that these are the views of a Orientalist White Christian on a Heathen religion-like Brahmins did this,that,Compare this with How Christians viewed Classical Europe paganism was considered not just a psychological but a physical miasma. Christianity appeared on a planet that had been, for at least 70,000 years, animist. (Asking the women and men of antiquity whether they believed in spirits, nymphs, djinns would have been as odd as asking them whether they believed in the sea.) But for Christians, the food that pagans produced, the bathwater they washed in, their very breaths were thought to be infected by demons. Pollution was said to make its way into the lungs of bystanders during animal sacrifice. And once Christianity became championed by Rome, one of the most militaristic civilizations the world has known, philosophical discussions on the nature of good and evil became martial instructions for purges and pugilism.Now replace Ambedkar in place of Christians and Hinduism in place of Paganism,one will get his views after he got his education in Columbia University in America in 1915 at a time when Jews n Blacks were viewed as with abhorrent rejectedness. No one knew who influenced Ambedkar there,what were his thoughts there


    How Christians Destroyed the Ancient World


    Ironically, non of so called social justice worrier ever tried to analyse the IMPACT of British loot 45 trillion USD on our society? Do you know the value of loot done by britishers? At present, it is 17 times higher than UK annual gross domestic product.

    What if take away our 45 trillion USD from UK, how many will die? What would be their life style? What kind of diseases will spread? How many untouchable will be created?These are very fundamental Question which non of us as ever asked to our historian? Why? This is the very reason, why Ambedkar couldn't provide any single authentic evidence of exploitation of before 1830s. NOT one.


    Ambedkarites claim today that BJP and Hindu society will be run on manusmriti which is a complete propaganda and fraud .manusmriti(MS) was never admitted as a law text at any point of Time in Indian society.Eg- Chanakya wrote his own Arthashastra to govern Mauryan Kingdom . MS was legalized by the British and enforced on Hindus and the slogan by ambedkarites that Desh Manuvad se chal raha hai is wrong and farce
    Ambedkar image is not what it is being made out today.the claim that ambedkar gave education rights to people is wrong on many places.


    Many countries got independence from colonial powers in late 20 century,along with India,India was not an exception.The Modern day nation states running on democracy is a recent day creation.Universal Education to people is a modern day concept.this was not given by Ambedkar. Ambedkar never made the Indian Constitution.The Current Indian Constitution is based on Govt of India Act of 1935 passed by BRITISH.


    Indian constitution was first drafted by Benegal Narsingh Rao. Then by 300 great scholars which also included 15 women. Then it was handwritten by perm Bihari Narain Raizada. Finally it was compiled by Ambedkar in one Book form.Let the whole truth come out

    Dr.Rajendra Prasad was the founder of constituent assembly (which was proposed by M.N.Roy ) and also he was president of the assembly.The constituent assembly had 299 members and there were 22 committes ,each committee had a chairman and collectively all of them were headed by Dr.Rajendra Prasad.Dr Bhimrao Ramaji Ambedkar was chairman of one committee among 22,that's called drafting committee.he was not the only person who wrote the whole constitution ,others role cannot be neglected, specially of Dr.Rajendra Prasad who founded constituent assembly and was captain of the team ,you can call Ambedkar as Man of the match or of series,but only captain have the authority to receive the world cup . You can call Ambedkar as uncle of the constitution but father of the constitution is Dr.Rajendra Prasad.


    Additionally, Indian Constitution has taken various features from other constitutions, yet we think that our constitution was his idea:

    The concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity were taken from the French Constitution. The idea of 5 year plans was taken from the USSR and the concept of socio-economic rights was taken from Ireland. Most importantly, the law on which the Supreme Court works was taken from Japan. There are many other concepts that have been borrowed from other countries.[3]


    Father of Indian Constitution, the supposed custodian of our Right to Equality is actually a person who sowed the seeds of partiality and disparity in the name of Reservation in India. A disease which he knew that it will become endemic and incurable, and there will be no respite from it.


    To safeguard the rights of few he actually institutionalized the caste system in India, and yet we all worship this Guy.


    Ambedkar was himself responsible for Koregaon riots which happened in January 2018. He himself visited Koregaon on 1 January 1927 and fueled the hatred between Dalits and Peshwas in Maratha empire, and now thousands of his followers visit the site every-year on 1st of January.[1] I don’t know what pride he got by praising victory of one community over the other of same region. That’s too when Dalits actually supported Britisher to conquer their own land by defeating Marathas, Irony.

     

    Ambedkar’s hate for Hinduism is well known, yet his scathing indictment on Hinduism never finds a mention in our history textbooks. A religion which supported him in his pursuit of his foreign education (which was sponsored by Princely State of Baroda), a community which bestowed him a huge responsibility to draft a constitution, a religion/ community which recognized him, loved him and made him a leader, yet in the end he converted to Buddhism [4]by ridiculing the whole Hinduism.As True Indology revealed,America was formed to convert India into Christianity.Ambedkar went to study in Columbia University which was established by Christians and had preconceived notions n biases against Hinduism.In 1915,one should study this country's attitude against Blacks n Jews,than can wonder about Hinduism.This Universitywas a hub of Hinduphobia today,one can imagine its condition at 1915's. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development was a paper read by B. R. Ambedkar at an anthropological seminar of Alexander Goldenweiser in New York on 9 May 1916.In the same year, Ambedkar was awarded a PhD degree by Columbia University on this topic..In the paper, Ambedkar made a presentation a social phenomenon that emerged from the strategy of the Brahmins who adopted a strictlyendogamous matrimonial regime, leading the other groups to do the same in order to emulate this self-proclaimed elite. He said that "the superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste".But the ideas he presented in the paper were definitely inspired by ideas he got during study from his Christian Marxist Professors.These are the West Caricatures on Hinduismwhich he wrote,Ambedkar's entire approach was wrong.This entire model which he studied Hinduism was a Colonial construct of Hinduism.


    He lead the revival of classical Buddhism in India, albeit giving it somewhat of a semitic twist,which was compeltely at odd with Dharmic traditions,It was a western concept of Religion which was not applicable to neither Hinduism,Buddhism.Buddhism n Buddha is intellectual copyright property of Hindus n Hinduism .It was Hindu ashoka who spread Buddhism.Now People are afraid to admit that Ambedkar was wrong.Ambedkar was never a real Buddhist. He denied that rebirth, karma, and the Four Noble Truths are part of Buddhadharma, and he also introduced a number of bogus extra vows, that were never part of Buddhist Refuge vows.Edward Said has highlighted this in his book Orientalism


    Any anti british, anti colonialism comments from Babasaheb? What were his views on genocidal famines n droughts caused during Mughal n British rule which ravaged n destroyed many Hindu JAATIS?, What were his views on the criminal tribes bill passed by British in 1970 which destroyed numerous Hindu Jaatis?, on british army rape of Indian women?, on the British loot from India?


    Not only he distorted the history of jatis in India by inventing his own delusions, but he also invented an entirely different history and meaning of Buddhism, known as Navayana and projected Buddhism as social justice and egalitarian movement against the Brahminical order.


    In 1935, He had unequivocally announced that he was born as a Hindu but will never die as a Hindu which ultimately resulted in his conversion to his own invented Buddhism after 2 decades. During the conversion, his 22 vows had little to do with Buddhism but repudiation of Dharma.


    This separatist trend of Dalit movement which envisions to project Dalit as a separate social category, independent of Hinduism & taking away all the scheduled castes from its fold & forming a broad alliance with Christian converts was started by himself.


    Even in his writing, he didn't consider untouchables to be the part of Hinduism and their welfare was possible only if they were rescued from the clutch of evil Hinduism.The biggest joke which Ambedkar created was Navayana.It which was a radical interpretation of Buddhism having nothing to do with either Buddhism or Buddha. He rejected the integral elements of Buddhism such as belief in karma and rebirth, nirvana, meditation, 4 noble truths, etc


    Without which Buddhism isn't anything but a compendium of social injunctions developed over centuries. He rejected Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana as well because apparently these streams were fabricated by the evil Brahmins later.

    Inspired from the European history where the Protestant movement was a revolt against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, he conceptualized Buddhism as a revolt against the Brahminical social order. However, the reality was completely different.Contrary to Ambedkar's assertion that Buddhism was the only religion fit for a scientific society, the historical evidence doesn't support any such nonsense.


    In the unpublished preface of 'The Buddha and His Dhamma', Ambedkar writes that his father made him compulsorily read Ramayana and Mahabharata but he didn't like any character of these epics. In his own words, Krishna and Rama were frauds while Bhima and Drona were hypocrites.


    The alleged scholar wasn't capable of understanding the characters of itihasas then I doubt he had the capabilities to understand anything complex. This also gives an important clue for us though.


    His father, a traditional Hindu, made his children read what other Hindus usually do but what do Ambedkar and his progenies do Exactly like Ambedkar, they abhor everything related to Dharma, joins hands with the enemies of Dharma, ....belittles Dharma in the public discourse, the sacred texts of ours are reduced to the pamphlets of discrimination and inequality while paving the path for the conversion to Christianity because Navayana was nothing more than the Christianity without Jesus in its outlook.If we still keep on venerating Ambedkar, we can be sure of our children imbibing the values the same as Ambedkar and leading to the demise of Dharma ultimately.


    Undoubtedly Ambedkar was a learned man, he was highly educated, knowledgeable man, who ultimately used his knowledge and position to give Dalits special rights (and not equal rights).


    While writing this answer I came across many instances where he advocated political rights and social freedom for Dalits, however did he ever fight for the freedom of the whole India (and not just for few of his men), OR did he ever go to jail?


    The Answer is BIG NO.

    In the name of uplifting some oppressed fews, he actually divided us in the lines of caste and religion. Crores of people from several generation has paid price for his anguish against hinduism. He is the reason why we have politicians like Mayawati and Mulayam. Yet we portray him as our savior, and I highly doubt that he deserves such a praise.


    Addendum:

    Few of us are doubting that I am generalizing (hating) him because of reservation. Please note that my understanding is based on several problems which are direct results of his actions, and blame for them will go to him only.


    Creating several other problems just to erase one can’t be called a wise decision. After 7 decades of being republic we are more divided and fragmented like never before.


    Moreover, though Dr Ambedkar himself was part of drafting committee, however he believed that parliamentary democracy won’t work for India


    Additionally he even commented that:

    I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out.


    On one hand he wasn’t sure about the idea of Democracy for India, while on other hand he himself chaired the Drafting Committee. Quite confusing, isn’t it?


    MARK MY WORDS-Sooner or later,Hindus will have to face their ultimate Nemesis ,may be 10years or 20 years but they will have to face it.Without defeating this man ideology,Hindus can never become Truly independent .This is for certain,His views on Hinduism are the views of a rabid Hindu hating Christian Evalengical bigot and they will have to be encountered,


    Here is my COUNTER NO 1 -


    These kind of discriminations existed in every Society n Civilization n Culture at that times.Anybody can look this from China,Japan,Korea,Africa,America To European Societies. All these societies reformed by themselves becoz there was no Foreign entity reforming them. The main Problem is Hindus were never given the chance to correct things. by their own,Instead People who destroyed India made rules n labels for Indians ,


    Castes in a Global Perspective - Is Caste Only a Hindu Problem? (Part 6) - ChakraNews.com


    Ambedkar did not look at the Condition of Hindu society which was very poor with abject poverty among masses.he did not consider this fact. that India was under Muslim n Chrsitian rule for 1000 years.The Mobility between different Varna n Jatis was reduced after Islamic invasions .The Britishers made it officially static.Atleast some time should have been given to Hindus for Reform.Did Ambedkar not notice the Reform Movements which Hindus were running like Arya Samaj,Brahmo Samaj etc Tell me in Europe too The majority of the population were serfs and were exploited, down trodden and lived in abject poverty while the Christian clergy and nobles lived in extravagant luxury.why they did not left Christianity.The Blacks were persecuted n were forced into slavery ,But they did not leave Christianity in America n Africa.The Arabs never considered Asian Muslims as Equals.and exploited them.Why they did not left Islam. Why so partiality with Hinduism.India was suffering from abject poverty at that times .Millions of people died in Famines every year .Islamic rule had already ravaged India ,It destroyed lakhs of temples.its indigenous education centres,. .L NEHRU said this The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society -the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths. Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote in his book Discovery of India, 1946 p. 218.


    COUNTER TO AMBEDKAR CRITICISM TO VARNA VYAVASTHA-


    For a Society to function,u need different people who have different abilities,aptitudes,skills to contrribute in society..Hinduism is the oldest religion on earth that is min. 5000 years old. Origins of Varna system. Compare old world with todays modern world n u will get why at that point of time Varna system maked Sense .It was made when then there were no formal training centers for any particular profession in India,In Ancient times,There was no car,train,or any such modern equipment that we use today.I am talking about a time when there was no car,planes,trains,electricity,Internet etc


    Suppose your father was a blacksmith, so at the age of 6, the moment you were ready, you started playing around with the hammer and anvil. By the time you were 8, your father saw that you anyway wanted to hit it, so it was better to hit it with some purpose. By the time you were 12, you were on the job.By the time you were 18 or 20, you had some craft and expertise on your hand to make your own living. So if your father was a blacksmith, you became a blacksmith; if your father was a goldsmith, you became a goldsmith. Each profession developed its own training centers within the family structure because that was the only training center; all the craft, professionalism and skills in the society could only evolve like this. If you are a blacksmith, you do not try to go and do a goldsmith's job, you just do a blacksmith's job because we need a blacksmith in the society. When people multiplied and became a thousand blacksmiths, naturally they had their own way of eating, their own way of marriage and their own way of doing things, so they formed a caste. There is really nothing wrong with it if you look at it on one level. It was just a certain arrangement of convenience for the society. Between a blacksmith and a goldsmith, the kind of hammer they use, how they work, how they look what and how they eat, everything was naturally distinctly different because the type of work was very different. It is over a period of time that it became a means for exploitation. We started saying that a man who runs the temple is better than a man who runs the school. A man who runs the school is better than a man who runs the blacksmith shop. These are differences,everybody has to do something. But we established differences as discriminations over a period of time. If we had just maintained the difference, we would have been a nice, colorful culture; but we made it discriminatory. These kind of discriminations existed in every Society n Civilization n Culture at that times.Anybody can look this from China,Japan,Korea,To European Societies. http://chakranews.com/castes-in-a-global-perspective-is-caste-only-a-hindu-problem-part-6/3243/… … All these societies reformed by themselves becoz there was no Foreign entity reforming them. The main Problem is Hindus were never given the chance to correct things by their own,Instead People who destroyed India made rules n labels for Indians ,What a JOKE it is.


    SJW only judge Hinduism with modern standards dismissing that the colonial constructs like Caste-based discrimination and “untouchability” are purely social evils not accepted or recognized anywhere in the Hindu scriptural tradition. Caste is not unique to India or to Hinduism. It has been found in near all societies from china,japan,korea,,australia,Europe,north america, to Islamic world and in all religions in one form or another.


    It is like comparing The attitudes and beliefs of agriculturalists of 2000 years ago n present ones.Hinduism has undergone and is still undergoing change and reformation continually. Old beliefs and traditions have long ago been thrown out and new interpretations have been given according to time and place.Since Hinduism is not a “revealed” religion there is absolutely no reason why Hindus cannot change or modify traditions and customs according to time and place.Even the Hindu Texts advise us to abandon any social custom or tradition or practice which the people find to be offensive.


    People who ask Ambedkar lived in an era where Dalits couldn't drink water from common wells, can't enter temples etc. His thinking would have been channelled by the hurt he faced.


    My RESPONSE - At that time, each community was in worst situation. But not all of them supported British government. Congress under the leadership of Gandhi ji was gaining momentum in its course of striving for freedom, the mass of India was with them, and this heavy mass which was batting for India’s freedom was immense enough to tremble the British government. To aid British, Ambedkar thought of a creative idea. He divided the people (who were protesting against British) into ‘caste’ fragments. Ambedkar projected such an image to Britishers that the heavy mass of people demanding India’s freedom consists of only governing class (Brahmin and Baniya). He said, "In the light of what has been said, it will be found that the Fight for Freedom led by the governing class is, from the point of view of servile classes, a selfish, if not a shame,struggle. The freedom which the governing class in India is struggling for is freedom to rule the servile classes." Ambedkar used to refer “Brahmin and Baniya” class as “governing class”. For reference check: Dr. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, Vol 9, p.168.


    Ambedkar’s Conversion of Buddhism is an outstanding examples of an ideologisation of history of religion is the modern view of Buddhism. Developed by the Western colonialist Indology this ideology portrayed and still is portraying Buddhism as a rationalist-atheistic, anti-brahmanical, anti-caste and egalitarian religion – in contrast to Hinduism which is caricatured as idolatrous, casteistic and brahmanised. The aim of such an ideological interpretation is to demonstrate the alleged Western modernity of Buddhism and the alleged obscurantism of Hinduism. The target of that ideological aggression was the Hinduism. In order to exploit the wealth of India the Western colonialists needed the weakening of the Hindu self-consciousness; therefore they favoured an Indology which produced an not existing Indian Buddhism (2) as an alleged modern alternative to the alleged primitive religion of the ‘Hindoos’. Playing the Buddhism against the ‘Hindoos’ the colonialist attempt to defame the vast majority of the Indian people was very successful. Even Indian religious intellectuals and leaders (i.e. the secularists or the Neo-Buddhists1) are sharing and supporting that colonialist view still today.


    In all Buddhist countries,Caste system n Untouchability r present strongly. Worst,Buddhism has actually strengthened Untouchability in a manner never seen before. Becoz of Lord Buddha command of Ahimsa,those people who ate Meat were shunned n boycotted from Buddhist societies.


    There were three main social groups in Buddhist Tibet prior to 1959, namely ordinary laypeople (mi ser in Tibetan), lay nobility (sger pa), and monks. The ordinary layperson could be further classified as a peasant farmer (shing-pa) or nomadic pastoralist (trokpa).


    Ladakh, with significant historical presence of Buddhists, a caste system existed in a manner similar to caste structure in Tibet. The upper castes belonged to sger gzhis, and were called sgar pa. The priestly caste belonged to monastery, and was called chos-gzhis. Miser was the serf caste. Serfs, the majority of the people, farmed and paid taxes. An individual’s social status and lifelong occupation was destined by birth, closed, and depending on the family one was born into, the individual inherited a tenure document known as khral-rten. Buddhist castes had sub-castes, such as nang gzan, khral pa and dud chung. Buddhist also had castes that were shunned by their community and ostracized, such as hereditary fishermen, butchers and undertakers. The untouchables in Buddhist regions, as in Tibet, were known as Ragyappa, who lived in isolated ghettos, and their occupation was to remove corpses (human or animal) and dispose of sewage.


    In the Middle Ages Buddhism was responsible for the fact that one man was put lower than another. Buddhism prohibits the killing of sentient beings. People who killed oxen or horses and skinned them to work the leather, were looked down upon. Their life was considered as only one seventh in worth of that of ordinary mortals. They had to avoid places where others gathered, when they went to other villages they had to put out their sandals, when they met farmers they had to throw themselves in the dust.


    In a brief critique of the Ambedkarite version of Buddhism, Sita Ram Goel draws attention to the fact that Dr. Ambedkar candidly admits that his own Buddhism has little to do with the Buddhist doctrine as laid down in the Pali Canon.7 When we turn to the indicated passage in Ambedkar?s book The Buddha and his Dhamma, we do come across statements which are rather surprising under the pen of a convert to Buddhism. He writes that the Nikayas (the core literary testimony about the Buddha) are unreliable, and that the story of Siddhartha Gautama leaving the world at 29 after seeing a dead, a sick and an old person for the first time, is ?absurd?. He rejects the ?four Aryan Truths?, because they ?deny hope to man. The four Aryan Truths make the Gospel of the Buddha a gospel of pessimism. Do they form part of the original gospel or are they a later accretion by monks??


    Questioning the historicity of the founding narrative of a religion is certainly a permissible and even a commendable exercise, but it is hard to reconcile with being a propagator of that same religion. Unless, of course, one chooses to redefine that religion completely, without reference to its founder?s original intentions. While the Buddha (at least the only Buddha we know, the one attested in Buddhist Scripture) was quite unambiguous about the futility of worldly pursuits, Dr. Ambedkar would want Buddhism to focus on the pursuit of social reform:


    What was the object of the Buddha in creating the Bhikkhu? Was the object to create a perfect man? (?) if the Bhikkhu is only a perfect man he is of no use to the propagation of Buddhism because though a perfect man he is a selfish man. If, on the other hand, he is a social servant he may prove to be the hope of Buddhism. This question must be decided not so much in the interest of doctrinal consistency but in the interest of the future of Buddhism.?


    Ambedkar?s attempt to turn Buddhism into a philosophy of worldly social action necessarily implied a departure from the Buddha?s programme of non-worldly liberation.


    The Mahabodhi, a famous Buddhist journal in India, opined that The Buddha and his Dhamma is a dangerous book. Ambedkar?s interpretation of the theory of karma, the theory of ahimsa and his theory that Buddhism was merely a social system, constituted not the correct interpretation of Buddhism but a new orientation. Indeed the whole of the book, observed the reviewer, explained the hatred and aggressiveness the neo-Buddhists nourished and displayed. ?Ambedkar?s Buddhism?, added the reviewer, ?is based on hatred, the Buddha?s on compassion? (?) The title, pleaded the reviewer, should be changed from The Buddha and his Dhamma to that of Ambedkar and his Dhamma; for Ambedkar preached non-Dhamma as Dhamma for motives of political and social reform.?


    Another paper, The Light of Dhamma (Rangoon), observed that ?although this was a book by a great man, unfortunately it was not a great book?. Dhananjay Keer explains: ?The reviewer pointed out that the great Doctor tampered with the texts and whenever he found views in Buddhism inconvenient to his own, denounced them as later accretions made by monks. The author was nevertheless a great and good man; the tragedy was that it was neither a great book nor a good book, concluded the reviewer.?


    Buddhist monk Jivaka wrote: ?In India the movement started by Ambedkar was not Buddhism but a campaign for social reform under the name Buddhism, and he has promulgated the idea that bhikkhus are for the purpose of social service. But his book ?The Buddha and His Dharma? is misnamed for he preaches non-Dharma as Dharma, even sweeping away the four Aryan Truths as a later addition by scholar-monks, maintaining that the Buddha distinguished between killing for a good reason and purely want only, and saying that He did not ban the former; and to cap it all he writes that the Dharma is a social system and that a man quite alone would not need it (?) Hence the so-called New Buddhists or better named, Ambedkarists, surround bhikkhus aggressively and tell them what they should do and abuse them if they are not actively engaged in social work or preaching reform. The result is seen in the acts of violence they have committed, the rioting that has taken place in Nagpur and Jabbulpur and other places. For Ambedkar entered on his new religion with hate in his heart and his followers are still nourishing and fanning the flames of hate in the uneducated masses they lead


    Social problems are a problem in every Society,It has gor nothing to do with Hinduism. In coming 50-60 years,DALITS will get all their rights.,There is discrimination n oppression but Hindus are working to resolve them.They should look at larer picture here,They will get their rights only if India is intact.As the society progresses and people belonging to differnt JATIS prosper,differences between people will become less,people will migrate n freuently marry each other.They have to move beyond Ambedkar ..SC/ST are useful for Islamists or evangelists simply as an attack on Hindus.Seculars don't care for them at all, but only serve as sepoys for #ChristoIslamic agenda.Islamists in India like Owaisi and Shehla claim to "fight for dalits." But their only aim is to use them as fodder for their politics. Dalits will fare *much* worse in any Islamic takeover.Pak,Bang is proof.

    [reply]
    • suyash95 247 days ago | +0 points

      But did you know that the Father of the most detailed and wordy constitution wanted to burn it? ”

      I Shall be the First Person to Burn It Out

      It is by placating the sentiments of smaller communities and smaller people who are afraid that the majority may do wrong, that the British Parliament works. Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody. But whatever that may be, if our people want to carry on, they must not forget that there are majorities and there are minorities, and they simply cannot ignore the minorities by saying, “Oh, no. To recognise you is to harm democracy.” I should say that the greatest harm will come by injuring the minorities.

      Dr BR Ambedkar in the Rajya Sabha on 2 September 1953

      “B.R. Ambedkar’s role was limited, so that whatever material B.N. Rau gave him, he would correct its language. It was like RAW or IB, where footsoldiers write reports in broken English and IPS officers turn it into good English, capable of being prese­nted to the PM. So, Ambedkar did not write the Constitution. In fact, he said, if the Con­stitution is ever to be set afire, then ‘I will be the first to do so’. He said this in anger, rea­cting to being mocked for amending a constitution he himself wrote, during the RS debate on creation of Andhra Pradesh. But he also said it when he was calm.”-: Ram Bhahadur Rai

      [reply]

Welcome to HMW!


This site is for discussion about Hinduism.

You must have an account here to participate.

Register here >>>>

We do NOT offer personalized advice based on astrology.

Check the Guidelines for posting >>>>

Suggested Offline Book


Related Posts