Debunking Constitutional Mythmaking by Ambedkar Topics in Hinduism

1 points | Post submitted by suyash95 38 days ago | 2 comments | viewed 58 times

Did Ambedkar really make Indian Constitution ?

  • suyash95 38 days ago | +0 points

    it is all Communist propaganda after 1980 when Dr BR Ambedkar was projected as Architect of Indian Constitution.

    Dr BR Ambedkar was a great man,With all due respect to him The Original Constitution writer was Sir B N Rau


    BNRau was responsible for the general structure of its democratic framework of the #Constitution and prepared its initial draft in February 1948. This draft was debated, revised and finally adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India on 26 November 1949. As part of research in drafting Constitution of India in 1946, BN Rau traveled to USA, Canada, Ireland and UK. He met judges, scholars and authorities on constitutional law. Rau's draft was already in place, when Drafting Committee under chairmanship of Dr. BR Ambedkar was setup.

    BN Rau not only drafted Indian constitution, but also assisted in drafting the Constitution of Myanmar or Burma! So like Rabindranath Tagore helping 2 nations with national anthems, this great man had contribution to 2 countries with their most important book - the constitution!

    It shows the sad stage of affairs of Indian Politics. It is only becoz of Politics that Ambedkar’s name is taken in Constitution making.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.


    Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, a civil servant who became the first Indian judge in the International Court of Justice and was president of the United Nations Security Council, was appointed as the assembly's constitutional adviser in 1946. Responsible for the constitution's general structure, Rau prepared its initial draft in February 1948. The draft of B.N. Rau consisted of 243 articles and 13 schedules which came to 395 articles and 8 schedules after discussions, debates and amendments. At 14 August 1947 meeting of the assembly, committees were proposed. Rau's draft was considered, debated and amended by the eight-person drafting committee, which was appointed on 29 August 1947 with B. R. Ambedkar as chair. A revised draft constitution was prepared by the committee and submitted to the assembly on 4 November 1947.

    Dr B. R. Ambedkar in his concluding speech in constituent assembly on 25 November 1949 stated that:- The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B.N. Rau the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly who prepared a rough draft of the Constitution for the consideration of Drafting Committee.

    Even Reservation was not given by Ambedkar . It was a collective decision of all members of Constituent Assembly. I noticed an interesting thing- Ambedkar proposed idea of Reservation in 1948 but He publicaly left Hinduism in 1956 when most prominent members of Constituent Assembly were dead.

    So reservation was given to sc by a total of 389 people, SC/ST got reservation only with their consent and signature, among those 389 people were Pandit, Baniya, Thakur, Jat, Kurmi, Maratha, Yadav, Muslim and Ambedkar among them. So, if these 389 people were not ready for reservation, would Ambedkar alone could get the reservation. Reservation is joint Venture of a total of 389 people. But Amebdkar played Treachery here. If Ambedkar was honest,he would have left Hinduism in that year only but he waited for 8 years and just at last moment of his life ,He left Hinduism fooling People who trusted him.

    Now why this is imp .- The 389 members of Constituent Assembley signed on his Reservation bill Idea but they didnot sign of his Anti-Hindu Philosophy ,which they were not aware about,I guess ,That is why he did not left Hinduism in 1948 becoz that would have jeopardized his plans . One Eg- Ambedkar also proposed Idea of Hindu Code bill in 1948 but this was turned down in constituent Assembly by Sardar Patel n Dr Rajendra Prasad becoz they deemed it to be Anti-Hindu. I also realize His Books also were published after 1960 and Neither the Upper Caste were aware about Ambedkar Future plans, So they did not oppose his idea of introducing Reservation. Amebdkar played his moves cleverly.

    The curent Attacks by BHIM army are showing desperation. They are on their end phase .Becoz by the principles of Natural Justice ,no crime can be extended after 3 generations are passed. We have already covered 74 years, 26 more and than even Reservation will have to be removed

    The New and current generation of SC should realize this Fact and Shun ,boycott and discard Ambedkar , burn his photo and got freedom n mental peace. Lakhs of Muslims and Christians have left their religion.Now is turn for Current generation of Dalits

    Imagine Hindus invading Europe where they got hold of an Untouchable christian,they brainwash him,turning him against his own religion, This thing happened in India .Think and ponder.

    Ambedkar promoted caste hatred and turned against Hinduism after being helped and promoted by Upper Caste Hindus. HH Sayaji rao Gaikwad of erstwhile state of Baroda financed Ambedkar's education in India, England and even in America. His Brahmin Teacher gave his surname to him in Charity and he appropriated Brahman Surname. Now is time for Current generations of Dalits to do same with him.

    I remember a famous line which Ambedkar said about Gandhi - Ambedkar said Gandhi was just an episode in History of India ,not an epochmaker. I agree with him but this also applies to him.

    One does not need to say anything more about the significant role played by Dr. B.N. Rau, the unsung hero of the Indian constitution.

    Dr.B.N.Rau was an ICS beauracrat of British India serving in the judicial branch of ICS. He was assigned the task of preparing a "draft constitution" in 1946 itself.

    It was this draft that was discussed, changed and voted upon by the 299 eminent members of the constituent assembly. The constituent assembly took over 165 days, stretching over a period 3 years, considered some 7635 amendments to Mr.B.N.Rau's draft and finalized the text of the Constitution in English after accepting 2473 amendments.

    The 299 members divided themselves into 18 sub committees, of which the drafting committee of 7 eminent lawyers was one. One or two other committees were entrusted with framing the working rules and overseeing the conduct of the proceedings of the constituent assembly. The remaining 15 or so committees were allotted segments of the draft for detailed scrutiny and to recommend amendments thereto, to be considered by the assembly.

    The role of the "drafting committee" was restricted to scrutinizing the minutes of the meetings of sub committes and and prepare drafts of the amendments to be voted upon by the assembly. Once an amendment was passed the drafting committee incorporated the changes into Mr.Rau's draft.

    The terms of appointment of the drafting committee (by the constituent Assembly) were as under.

    "..scrutinise the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by Constitutional Adviser (Mr.B.N.Rau), giving effect to the decisions already taken in the Assembly and including all matters which are ancillary thereto or which have to be provided in such a Constitution, and to submit to the Assembly for consideration the text of the draft constitution as revised by the committee”

    We dont wish to remeber Mr BN Rau just because he does not vote mobilizing capability.

    Dr Adambekar is not founding father of Indian constitution. This is a White Lie. He was chairman of only drafting commitee, and the role of drafting commitee was find the spelling mistakes in original constitution written by IAS BN Rau.

    Indian Constitution has taken various features from other constitutions,: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.

    Features of Indian Constitution taken from other countries:

    1. Parliamentary privileges: UK

    2. Bicameralism: UK

    3. Prerogative writs: UK

    4. Legislative Procedure: UK

    5. Directive Principles of State Policy: Ireland

    6. Method of Election of President: Ireland

    7. Functions of President and Vice-President: US

    8. Procedure for removal of Supreme Court and High court judges: US

    9. Fundamental Rights: US

    10. Judicial review: US

    11. Preamble: US

    12. Appointment of Governors of states: Canada

    13. Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court: Canada

    14. Residuary powers vest with the Centre: Canada

    15. Concurrent List: Australia

    16. Joint sitting of the two houses of Parliament: Australia

    17. Fundamental Duties: USSR

    18. Concept of Republic: France

    19. Ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity: France

    20. Suspension of Fundamental Rights during Emergency: Germany

    21. Election of members of the Rajya Sabha: South Africa

    22. Procedure to amend the Constitution: South Africa

    23. Concept of Procedure established by Law: Japan

    The Original draft of Sir B.N. Rau consisted of 243 articles and 13 schedules which came to 395 articles and 8 schedules after discussions, debates and amendments in Constituent assembly.

    and Dr Rajendra Prasad was Head of Constituent Assembly along with Sardar Patel who played a major role ,they effectively ensured what would pass and what would not .

    Finally ,Shri Prem Behari Narayan Raizada (Sexana) of Delhi (literally) wrote the original copy of The Constitution of India, He hand-wrote the original copy of English in 6 months using 254 pen-holder nibs of No. 303 in flowing italic style calligraphy. The manuscript is 251 pages and weighs 3.75 kg.

    So These things make it crystal clear Ambedkar did not make Constitution.

    The Title of Maker of Constitution will jointly go to - Sir BN Rau ,Dr. Rajendra Prasad,Sardar Patel , BR Ambedkar and Prem Bihari Raizada. Present these points

    Timeline of Constitutions of Different Countries

    Timeline of Constitutions - Comparative Constitutions Project

    Different Constitution Rankings - India's Constitution is worst and it is the largest.The 2 largest is one-third of Indian Constitution . In Law, Less the words, more good it is

    Constitution Rankings - Comparative Constitutions Project

    Pak,Afg,Bang,Nepal,Bhutan,Myanmar ,Sri Lanka , Maldives also made their own Constitution without any help from Ambedkar Many countries became independent after India,also made their own Constitution



    The Gambia





    So what special thing did Ambedkar did that we are worshipping him. the British killed more than 15-20 crore people in India by Engineering Droughts n Famines and more than 10 crore by introducing Epidemics n Deadly Plagues Ambedkar was working with British n justifying that on basis of fighting Imaginary BRahminism. India was bankrupted by British rule,depleted of all resources,money.The deification of Ambedkar and the refusal to countenance any criticism of him is dangerous. The disharmony it breeds works against his cause.this intolerance was a creation of Indira Gandhi in her attempt to break Jagjivan Ram that became a national policy in India. These Ambedkarites were fed, fattened and made intolerant by every single government beginning with Indira Gandhi

    Just like Mughals made us rich

    British civilized us

    Gandhi got us freedom

    Ambedkar made Constitution

    these narrativs were made

    Original document of the Constitution of India has a beautiful sketch of Lord Ram, Mata Sita and Laxman returning to Ayodhya after defeating Ravan. This is available at the beginning of the chapter related to Fundamental Rights. If Ambedkar had made the constitution,these would not have been that since he hated Hinduism

    संविधान की मुल प्रती जो हस्तलिखित है उसे "प्रेम बिहारी नारायण रायजादा" ने लिखा 254 पेन होल्डर निब का इस्तेमाल करके और संविधान का प्रारुप तैयार करने मे 299 लोग शमील थे अकेले "भीमराव रामजी अंबेडकर" नही इन्का नाम केवल आरक्षण की वजह से लीया जाता है

    Let us take a glance on Constitutions of Different Countries.Many countries got independence from colonial rule in 20 century. All these countries made their own constitution.


    As Prime Minister, Bandaranaike convened a number of committees to draft a new constitution, including a drafting committee chaired by the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Colvin R. de Silva. The resulting document was tabled in parliament, voted on and adopted on 22 May 1972 by a vote of 119 to 16 against.


    This constitution was declared on 26 January 1948 by PM Padma Shumsher. The constitution was formed under the chairmanship of Padma Shumsher and three Indian Scholars had helped him to prepare this document. The three Indian Scholars who contributed during its writing were Prakash Gupta, Raghunath Singh and Ram Ugra Singh. It consisted of 6 parts, 68 articles and 1 schedules.


    The Constitution of Bhutan (Dzongkha: འབྲུག་གི་རྩ་ཁྲིམས་ཆེན་མོ་; Wylie: 'Druk-gi cha-thrims-chen-mo) was enacted 18 July 2008 by the Royal Government of Bhutan. The Constitution was thoroughly planned by several government officers and agencies over a period of almost seven years amid increasing democratic reforms in Bhutan.


    The 1947 constitution was drafted by Chan Htoon which was originally proposed by Sir B.N RAU and was used from the country's independence in 1948 to 1962, when the constitution was suspended by the socialist Union Revolutionary Council, led by military general Ne Win. The national government consisted of three branches: judicial, legislative and executive.

    PAKISTAN ,BANGLADESH,AFGHANISTAN , MALDIVES also made their own Constitution without any Ambedkar

    Constitution of Bangladesh-

    The Provisional Government of Bangladesh issued the Proclamation of Independence on 10 April 1971, which served as the interim first constitution of Bangladesh. It declared “equality, human dignity and social justice” as the fundamental principles of the republic. East Pakistani members of Pakistan's federal and provincial assemblies were transformed into members of the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh. The constituent assembly had 404 members. After the war, the Constitution Drafting Committee was formed in 1972. The committee included 34 members with Dr. Kamal Hossain as its chairman and they together drafted the constitution of Bangladesh

    Constitution of Pakistan-

    After assuming charge as Prime Minister, Chaudhary Muhammad Ali and his team worked hard to formulate a constitution. The committee, which was assigned the task to frame the Constitution, presented the draft Bill in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on January 9, 1956.the Constitution was adopted and was enforced on March 23, 1956.the Constitution consisted of 234 articles, divided into 13 parts and 6 schedules.

    Constitution of Afghanistan

    Afghanistan Constitution was the constitution of Afghanistan . It was drafted by a committee of foreign-educated Afghans, including Sardar Abdul Hakim Ziai and Sardar Abdul Rahim Ziai, appointed for the task by King Mohammed Zahir Shah

    Constitution of Maldives-

    The first written Constitution of the Maldives was codified in the early twentieth century, on 22 December 1932 during the thirtieth year of the reign of Sultan Mohamed Shamsudeen Iskandar III. A thirteen-member committee began work on drafting the constitution on 22 March 1931. The acting Governor of Ceylon Bernard H. Bourdill provided technical expertise in its composition. A first draft was completed on 16 June 1931.After the second republic was declared, new president Ibrahim Nasir ratified a new constitution on 11 November 1968. This constitution was amended thrice, in 1970, 1972 and 1975 respectively.Under the rule of president Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom, a 5th constitution was introduced in 1998.

    Additionally ,many countries also got independence after India and made their own Constitution without help from any Ambedkar .SOME EXAMPLES



    The Gambia





    Role of Sir BN Rau


    Role of Sardar Patel


    One can clearly see the case in point-the impression created by Nehruvian Cabal in India is - without Ambedkar,there would have been no Constitution n through this ,BR Ambedkar has been turned into a Demi-God and Indian Constitution has been made as some form of holy Bible, which is non-sense as i have showed through my answer.

    While Researching- I came to a startling conclusion that Almost every country has made its constitution but nowhere I found such Glorification of Constitution as in India as some sort of divine book ,Such a distorted narrative has been made in India by Nehruvian Cabal.

    One Eg- the Common Communist Propaganda in India is that The Constitution defines legality. Well ,It doesn’t define morality.
    #ConstitutionalMorality is another bogus invented term. It comes from the Abrahamic structure of thought which turns book-based legalism intro morality: Because their “god” said so.There is nothing “sacred” about the Constitution. France went through several Constittions . Many countries similarly revised,updated,changed theirs.The Indian Constitution was framed when people’s mind were still deeply colonized and it essentially copied the British India Act of 1935.
    the Constitution is for People not the People are for Constitution.Constitution was made for the people, people were not made for the Constitution.

    No country can be built on constitutions alone. UK has none. French constitution changed several times. Germany and Japan have imposed ones. We have amended ours many times. Civilisational roots define a country more than a constitution. Waving it for divisive agendas is wrong.Putting constitution above everything else is just an attempt to make Hindus people of book too! A kind of book that can be conveniently changed behind closed doors by marxists/xtians/libs/islamists and other sundry religionists.

    The Nehruvian Communist Cabal complained about #CAB being passed by a majority in parliament with full opposition present.they called it Fascism. But do anyone remember -Indira Gandhi changing the Constitution during the EMERGENCY, when she had put the entire opposition in jail, was because she "had the power." the CABAL will not even talk abt it becoz that was Secular

    ."Secularism" clearly kills brain cells.

    to understand it deeply.One would have to reflect why this Holy Constitution myth has been propped up in India

    The Constitution is the biggest force for communalism. India is a religious apartheid state where the state runs schemes based on religion, forcing citizens into a religious identity. Without that no "minority affairs ministry" would be possible.

    Volataire n European Philosophers who propounded Secularism would have heart attack after seeing Indian version of Secularism.

    India’s Constitution is obsessed with majority-minority, creating discriminatory rules and special rights based on religious identity. It is stuck in the partition era. What if the Indian state never asked or cared about the religious identity of a citizen? think abt this .

    this is most dangerous form of mental slavery it is like stranguling you with your own system using false narratives

    As Ambedkar himself said-Hero worship is a sure road to eventual dictatorship. It is time the leading Indian RW must come at forefront n criticize Ambedkar in open in fair n square terms.

    The Constitution is not a holy book, its just a book which is followed because majority thinks that it is good. It keeps on changing as the whims of the one holding power. It can be used to help our cause or destroy our cause. Stop worshipping it & forming your ideology on it. The Indian State is just formalizing of an existing civilization & the constitution is a rule book for this formalization.

    Certain objectives/ideals of the constitution are not aligned to the civilisational values & are inserted by colonial influence. its set of rules and regulations for managing India, Some rules are absolute and not equal to everyone so they can be reviewed and revised as per present needs, It is important till it does justice to all with equality Other parts needs reforms. Holding the constitution with the same regard as the Bible or Quran has resulted in making Secularism an Abrahamic State religion of India. what is constitutional patriotism, and we are on to constitutional morality.The constitution discriminates against kaffirs, idolators, polytheists just like the Quran but can't call it out because it'll be blasphemy.

    This is what most Hindus need to realise .they are making Constitution as some sort of Divine Book only till their(Mullah-Missionary-MArxist Secular Liberal CABAL) purpose is not served .Once it is served ,they will modify it acc to their needs. Which is why when Hindus go Dietification of Constitution I would request them to pause a little and think. Your frame of reference, your assumptions, your feelings have got absolutely nothing in common with the folks who r doing this the day,they get the power ,they will modify it. Constitution is just a guiding document. All countries have had several constitutions. Only in India the constitution is held sacred as if it is the Bible or the Quran.

    Indian Constitution has been turned into a farce, Socialist word has changed it to Communist Propaganda .A secular country cannot have a Minority Commission. It is just the reverse of Secularism .It cannot dole out schemes on basis of Minority.becoz in a secular country,there are citizens not minority-majority

    Indian Govt controls Hindu temples.Hindus cannot teach their texts in their own way in their Educational Institutions.this is Pure Fraud ,the very constitution is used to destroy Indian Civilization . It is like 2+2=4 hota hai lekin Bharat mein 5 padhaya jaa raha hai.

    with or without Ambedkar ,India would have progressed and is still progressing though Ambedkar was right on some occassions,but an entire Civilization cannot be sacrificed due to ego of one man. Amebdkar was responsible for partition of India He was against India's freedom.He himself said - "If India became independent, it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen" India should not become Independent ,no matter what Hindus say - Dr Br Ambedkar

    this is the effect which MArxism can have. one can imagine its power in making people Heroes. In any other country if a person would have said above words,he would have been branded as traitor but in India,it is completely reversed. It tells abt the power of Communists in distorting history n making narratives

    time to bell the cat.

    If u believe the swiggy chap delivering the food actually cooked it as well then ur not wrong in believing by chairing the draft committe Ambedkar gave u the constitution . Jai Bhim

    When I say Dr.Ambedkar is not the father of the constitution ,I'm merely stating the facts , it's not to demean him. Glorifying somebody for an achievement of many is a serious disservice to history and the nation .

    I see people telling me that Veer Savarkar was receiving pension from the British , well Ambedkar was receiving salary from the British till 1947 , so ? Which bahujan did Ambedkar help? In fact he was trounced by his own people the mahars in all the elections he contested .He was begging Clement Atlee for nomination to the constituent assembly ,he gave an assurance that he won't be part of the govt . So who was the bootlicker ?

    The Maharashtra govt published 14 volumes of speeches and writings of Ambedkar. 9996 pages of which 7371 are until 1946. Not a single word /passage / speech can be seen arguing for independence . And yet he is awarded Bharat Ratna Jai Bhim .

    Shri M C Rajah was a taller leader in all statures than B R Ambedkar. But just because he was born in Madras , he is not spoken about . In fact I would celebrate him than glorifying overrated icons such as M K Gandhi or B R Ambedkar .

    Dr Ambedkar is not the founding father of Indian constitution. This is a White Lie. He was chairman of only drafting commitee, and the role of drafting commitee was find the spelling mistakes in original constitution written by IAS BN Rau.

    Whether u like it or not , facts remain , Ambedkar was a British stooge , he had nothing to do with the freedom movement and I have no political compulsions in acknowledging it First of all the word dalit must be abolished , paraiyar ,devendhirar or arundhathiyar are not inferior titles. They are native to this soil . Ambedkar was a hypocrite who came about with the term untouchables ,Gandhi was his counterpart in hypocrisy in coining the term harijan

    When I say B R Ambedkar was &is overrated ,it has nothing to do with caste , my arguments are purely on the basis of merit .Ambedkar heading the final draft committee of the Constitution was mere tokenism .He was neither the architect nor the author of the Constitution of India .

    Ambedkar's opinion on manusmriti was plain stupid . He depended on mischievous translations , he was either ignorant or venomo I was watching the Babasaheb Ambedkar movie via youtube , what a bunch of lies being propogated to glorify a personality ? It portrays Ambedkar was against the formation of Pakistan , which is not true at all . He supported the partition , he hailed and encouraged Jinnah.

    Claim - Ambedkar never lifted even a finger for indian independence becoz He was interested solely on SC/ST politics

    Response - he was only attempting to enjoy privileges by positioning himself and his coterie as the sole representatives of the oppressed , which they clearly were not .

    He played no role in framing . He merely headed the team that edited and collaborated the reports of various committees and sub committees. my gut feeling then why is he being overrated excessive celebration all agreed from Rags to riches he came up his name being used in videos or party are all just to appease someone else. he is not a low caste person at all.

    Mahars were the warrior clan of Shivaji Maharaj's army, but were termed as lower caste by the Britishers who got some cryptos to rule Maratha kingdom for a while.

    why most of the movies or books shows as some untouchablity

    Response - It is called as iconography building. When a fake halo of iconography is painstakingly built around a person, not many people will question that icon. And when anyone from the crowd gathers courage to question the icon, the crowd becomes a mob and subdues that person.

    He played no role in framing . He merely headed the team that edited and collaborated the reports of various committees and sub committees. my gut feeling then why is he being overrated excessive celebration all agreed from Rags to riches he came up his name being used in videos or party are all just to appease someone else. he is not a low caste person at all. Mahars were the warrior clan of Shivaji Maharaj's army, but were termed as lower caste by the Britishers who got some cryptos to rule Maratha kingdom for a while. why most of the movies or books shows as some untouchablity Response - It is called as iconography building. When a fake halo of iconography is painstakingly built around a person, not many people will question that icon. And when anyone from the crowd gathers courage to question the icon, the crowd becomes a mob and subdues that person.

    Ambedkar was Educated in England, did everything to keep India backward, was Ambedkar a British agent? My answer will be yes,On what basis do people of India consider Ambǝdkar a "National" leader, After independence he lost several elections in his home state itself, his glorification started from Mandal agitation days of 1980's-90's only.

    Dr Ambedkar always had a contempt for indian society. Ambedkar was a religiously dumb person with ordinary understanding of social and religious structure of this country. Politics made him great since 2 decades else he was another Markandeya Katju.

    Ambedkar’s portrait was missing in the Central Hall of Parliament for over 40 years after Independence..before he was promoted-Christian think tanks n Communists

    Anyone who achieved any level of fame or positive "feedback" by a large section of the society between 1800 to 1947, and has been portrayed positively in history books even today, is in some way, a Colonial Stooge. Gandhi - Ambedkar - RRMR..........endless list.

    Was Ambedkar an original thinker or did he just utter what the Brits wanted to hear?

    1. Did Dalits not die in Artificial Famines created by the British?

    2. Were Dalits not barred from Clubs too, where there were signs of Dogs and Indians not allowed?

    3. What did Ambedkar do when Bhagat Singh was hanged or Chauri Chaura accused were prosecuted?

    4. What did Ambedkar do regarding the deeply divisive and discriminatory Criminal Tribes Act, passed by the very British that he so actively supported?

    5. How did any aspect of Brahmanism even remotely compare to British Colonialism, assuming the latter was less evil?

    6. Why did Ambedkar believe Caste system to be more evil than American Slavery, as he mentioned in AOC? Was Ambedkar ever transported across oceans in chains only to have his language beaten out of him (assuming he'd survive) and forced to work on plantations for generations?

    How many Dalits were affected by the nearly cyclic relationship between "Deindustrialization" and "Drain of Wealth"?

    Prestigious Prizes, "background stories" and good PR are ways to create synthetic celebrities, meant to be placed within a society by an invisible elite. Arundhati Roy, Gandhi, Ambedkar, Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thurnberg, Periyar the pedophile....all fit this pattern.

    Ambedkar didnt reveal anything extraordinary about Islam. He just spoke what anybody with common sense would just casually notice without overthinking.

    Ambedkar neither understood Buddhism, nor the sheer harshness of trans atlantic slavery, and certainly not Manusmriti.

    Speaking common sense isnt the same as giving profound path breaking ideas. It's not intellect.

    What did he do regarding "Dogs and Indians not allowed" signs outside British clubs, or when Bhagat Singh was hanged, when Jallianwala happened, when British starved people using (preventable) Artificial famines or when British declared certain tribes as criminal tribes?

    Low IQ Dindu from Bajrang Dal: "Islam is incompatible with India."

    Rayta: "....Meh..."

    Ambedkar: "Islam is incompatible with India."

    Rayta: "...Oh! What a profound revelation! Ambedkar's intellect is unmatched...."

    SN Balagandhara

    After 1985, Kanshi Ram-led Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) emerged as a powerful political force, especially in north India.(prmoted by Christian think tanks n Indian Communists) This new wave Bahujan assertion manifested in Ambedkar’s statues being erected in every nook and corner of cities and towns, though BSP did not formally come to power until 1995. Kanshi Ram was part of the Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti (DS4) and the Backward and Minority Community Employees Federation (BAMCEF) — an association of SC, ST, and OBC minority employees — all of which followed the practice of mounting Ambedkar portraits on their office walls, inside government buildings. As the BSP wave grew, Ambedkar slowly found resonance this was how Ambedkar was made famous in INDIA.

    this sudden promotion after 1980 has been made popular in recent times because his writing is useful for the huge funded evangelical conversion war. He was highly influenced by missionary education, a thoroughly colonized mind.aids in the $ billions conversion war while promoting hate in Indian society. After the 70s, the Marxists first discovered him, then the Christian proselytizers. The vitriol he had poured on Hinduism was the perfect weapon to aid in destructions of Hindu society. Ambedkar had set off a time bomb and departed. Which is exploding now.

    Commies started Dalit Panther Movement in 1972, based on Black Panther Movement of US., commies have copied all movements from US, which they are now trying with Dalit lives Matter So this movement was based on Marxist-Buddhist ideology whr Dalits were radicalised against Hindus

    most of today's Ambedkarites are absolute Anti-nationals n hand in glove with Breaking India forces. u can see this very clearly all Breaking India forces whether Marxists,Islamists,Evalengelists will always praise n promote Ambedkar. this year we have seen twitter launched an emoji on Ambedkar n congress n left plan to promote his ideology

    Christian think tanks in West through help of Indian Left have propagated Ambedkar as Messiah of SC/ST/OBC who gave these people Education rights.I found out intersting information . Dr BR Ambedkar's father was Matric pass,,was Subedar in British army n was principal in a School where evn upper caste Hindus studied. so,i reflected-did Amebdkar gave Education rights to his father .On can reflect - How Sinister is Marxism Propaganda in India

    Dr Ambedkar was against India's freedom.people forgot to mention. It is mentioned in his works clearly. We respect Ambedkar.He was a great man but he was not God,a very imp thing to remembr.If people treat him like that than there r uncomfortable issues too whch will come at front.

    The "right wing" typically praise him for 'converting' to Indic religion of Buddhism instead of Islam or Christianity. But his Neo-Buddhism is a very Abrahamized Buddhism and practicing Neo-Buddhists are practically crypto-Christians.

    The first 11 vows of Amebedkarite Neo-Buddhism would be laughable for a Tibetan or E.Asian Buddhist. These vows very much are like monotheism where connection to all prior 'paganism' needs to be cut off. Buddhism didn't spread by annihilation but assimilation. Eg: Bön, Shintoism

    Ek School kholne par Ambedkar sahab ka itna Mahimamandan, Bharat ke sabhi freedom fighters ne schools,Colleges khole hai to ek school kholne par Periyar,Phule,Savitribai, Ambedkar ne kaun sa teer maar diya

    It was Congress who gave Communists the chance of altering our history books .It was Congress who promoted Ambedkar after 1980 to deal with Hindus but Congress lost its control over them.

    Hindus r being harrassed outside .How can we long remain silent .Any day ,Sardar patel n Subhash chandra bose were greater in stature than Ambedkar. the MMM Secular Liberal Cabal has promoted him to take n Hindus in future .time to attackk him from front.the Breaking India Forces who have clear cut intentions of Breaking South India ,KAshmir ,north-east use Ambedkar as their Shield, One cannot be silent always-Entire north east is gone ,tamil nadu n KErala have been converted .One would be fool to reamin silent Countless no of people have given their Blood for freedom of this nation .We must not waste that

    From Muslims to Indian Communists who dreamt of breaking India into many nations , to Indian Christians who were loudest backers of partition and Ambedkarite Dalits whose key vote decided partition of India ,all have combined to make Ambedkar as some sort of father of India n making Constitution as some sort of Divine book while at the same time subverting it

    RW should stop being insecure about being critique of Ambedkar. No one is god, not even Mahatma, Budhha or Christ etc. There would be flaws revealed in the future of everyone. We as human beings are evolving. DAlit Icon Babu jagjivan Ram participated in India's Freedom struggle and got elected till his death from Sasaram in Bihar.where as our Icon Ambedkar opposed India's freedom

    Dr Jaipal Singh Munda did his PhD from Oxford University. Dr Munda was unsung hero of Tribal who got tribal rights He participated in India's Freedom struggle from kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Ran Kutch to Twang and was a staunch Hindu.where as AMbedkar was in strong opposition to Adivasi rights and of course he opposed India’s freedom.

    A lesson for all the "constitutionalists": when the constitution was drafted, only 12%of pop was literate. The Constituent Assembly was elected by an electorate of properties classes who made abt 15%of total pop.Foolish to imagine that a set of laws drafted by a bunch of++colonised lawyers who couldn't see anything beyond Locke and Rousseau, would be accepted as gospel by the Hindu civilization for eternity. A lot of time has passed, ppl today have different vision of themselves and their future.Before someone says article 368 and const amendments, remember there's a limit to the govts powers. The '67-80 conflict bw parliament and SC has already established the limits of parliamentary supremacy.

    Taking Ambekar Head on is imp now .Ambedkar has well lived its date.

    time to deal with this.the question -we would be asking when did Ambedkar became greater than Sardar Patel and Subhash Chandra Bose .Sure,he was greater than Gandhi,Nehru that i fully agree but he can never be father of nation,never can he be greater than Patel,Bose.

    Remembering when they accuse of Manuvaad-this is classical tactic of Smear the opponent first and rest of the time will be spent by him to prove he is not that and then you win.a method of debate of the Frankfurt School which global LEFT uses from which SJW-ism comes. Ask them to give proof- what is wrong in Manusmriti and in which part of India was Manusmriti applied.attack is the best form of defense


    His fore-fathers had left their hereditary occupation for service in the Army of the Company, from the very commencement of the rule of the East India Company, his father also followed the family tradition and sought service in the Army. He rose to the rank of an officer, and was a Subhedar when he retired.When millions of Indians were dying of starvation, his family was busy in making great preparations to visit to a new place. New shirts of English make [=style], bright bejewelled caps, new shoes, new silk-bordered dhoties [=wrapped lower garments], were ordered for the journey. His father had given them all the particulars regarding their journey, and had told them to inform him on which day they were starting,so that he could send his peon [=errand-runner] to the Railway Station to meet us and to take us to Koregaon.

    Ambedkar was just a mediokar person and a british stooge. In todays world he would have been more recognized some one belonging to breaking India forces. He was a known Separatist Figure at that point of time.

    Ambedkar was a scam artist himself. His story about him having to use a different cup for water or being denied water was completely made up. And he took money from 'upper caste' raja to go to the US to get a degree. If ppl were so castist why would they finance his education.

    ambedkar native Caste Mahar claimed they belonged to a rajput caste to british

    Śrīvatsa's answer to What are some lesser-known facts about Dr. BR Ambedkar?

    I read someone say that his extremely Hindu hating stance happened after his education in Columbia University in the US. Unfortunately we don't have much records of his time in Columba. Supposedly his notes and diary of that time were lost when a storm hit his ship back to India. But we know today-.German Indology created “Brahmanism”

    Read Vishwa Adluri book-Nay Science

    Columbia University is Hub of Hinduuphobia today,One can imagine its condition back in 1920 when even Jews n Blacks were heavily discriminated in USA

    Ambedkar created Ambedkarism which is a prophetic monotheistic cult. Their violent behavior has roots in the words and deeds of their prophet himself. Just because the prophet was right in a couple of instances, doesn't warrant "RW" to praise him and erect huge statues for him. It is Ambedkarism actually. A prophetic monotheistic religion with Ambedkar as the prophet. Like how Christianity is based on Judaism, just that Ambedkarism is loosely based on Buddhism.

    India became a puppet of USSR during the Cold War. Congress,CPI & A Large Section of Indian media were found to be working on payrolls of KGB..Not only was bureaucracy and social sectors compromised, India was being hollowed out by foreign forces injecting money through babus, NGOs. Key projects were sabotaged at will, unelected NAC had more power than even Cabinet or PMO.So where do all these India haters hide behind -u guess right AMBEDKAR

    they will use Ambedkar’s name to shield their activities.Surely ,we can make a another new Constittion and grant representation to Dalits in all sectors.Islamists,Evalengelists ,Communists are exploiting liberal, democratic processes to advance illiberal, undemocratic ideas.As long as we are playing on their ground on their rules ,U can try as much but u wont win.Change the rules,change the ground and suddenly u are in advantage

    Let us debunk some popular claims to defend him

    CLAIM - Ambedkar gave rights.,eg-Constitution , Hindu code bill etc

    TRUTH -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.Check for urself .Sir BN Rau was responsible for original Constitution.Universal Education to people is a modern day concept.this was not given by Ambedkar. Ambedkar never made the Indian Constitution Pak,Afg,Bang,Nepal,Bhutan,Myanmar ,Sri Lanka , Maldives also made their own Constitution without any help from Ambedkar Many countries became independent after India,also made their own Constitution - Guyana, Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada ,Bahrain, Cameroon ,

    So what special thing did Ambedkar did that we are worshipping him.

    Claim -Ambedkar gave Education rights to people,

    TRUTH - How? In which country , was there a Universal Education system,-AFRICA Europe ,Middle East ,North America ,South America ,Australia ,China ,Russia . where please check and tell me ?Most of Religious books got translated in only late 19 century?Before that they were only in hands of few.

    CLAIM - If Ambedkar was not there ,India would have been running on Manusmriti

    TRUTH - Manuvaad-this is classical tactic of Smear the opponent first and rest of the time will be spent by him to prove he is not that and then you win.a method of debate of the Frankfurt School which global LEFT uses from which SJW-ism comes. Ask them to give proof- what is wrong in Manusmriti and in which part of India was Manusmriti applied.Manusmriti was never adminisetered as law book ever in Indian society.Most Indians were unaaware abt this until British resurrected it.Laws in India were always local made.

    CLAIM -Lower Castes were denied Education for thousands of years.Ambedkar was fighting for that

    TRUTH -In which country,society ,was there a Universal Education system before 19 century before invention of printing press,AFRICA Europe ,Middle East ,North America ,South America ,Australia ,China ,Russia-Please check n tell me.were Physics ,Chemistry ,Maths existed before 1500 AD. People were denied Access to VEdas learning .
    Response is No one was intersted in LEarning Vedas.the knowledge contained in Vedas was passed in form of Puranas. EVen today when Vedas are available in print, no one is interested in learning them.
    In British India, Hindus who were labelled as upper castes by british were made to held most of the jobs in the lower branches of civil administration, and in education, they were, made to be comparatively, streets ahead.

    point to be noted-british barred any lower caste hindu to either study or apply for any govt job.this was than used by British for dividing Hindus.

    CLAIM - Ambedkar opened Schools ,Colleges.

    TRUTH - every freedom fighter did the same thing . So ,what special thing had Ambedkar done

    CLAIM - Ambedkar knew that barbaric oppressor castes will commit more heinous atrocities if power is transferred to them frm benevolent British.he didn't participate in freedom struggle for a few upper caste & so called nationalists but he stood for the actual freedom of thousands of untouchables (from India itself, mind you) who didn't even know what 'freedom' was. Ambedkar was fighting social problems

    TRUTH - Why it is that Apart from Ambedkar , no other Freedom fighter thought about this. there were many Dalit leaders apart from Ambedkar like Babu Jagjivan Ram ,Pramatha Ranjan Thakur who were staunch Hindus who fought for India's freedom unlike Amebdkar whereas Ambedkar was fighting opposing India’s freedom.,they also never thought about this.
    Remembering It were the BRITS who were ruling India at that point.Why is it that Ambedkar wanted separate DALITISTAN n wanted to be its leader. Why is it that He creaetd a new Religion -Ambedkarism.
    think about it -this man opposed India’s freedom,was working with British,wanted a separate DALITISTAN,created a new Religion. Example -

    Those social problems could be dealt later on but he was hell bent on spoiling the effort of others. First priority should be nation but he was falsely accusing religion which he was unable to understand or just his propaganda. But I dare to say he was wrong on some points.

    Here’s Ambedkar fantasising about an imaginary shepherd in the Middle East, while clearly drawing inspiration from Christian Europe for our constitution (copied) but looking for social justice in a tradition that affirms the Vedic view which he wanted to escape !

    Source - Ambedkar: life and mission by Dhananjay Keer.

    when British were running prostitution centers throughout India by kidnapping SC/ST Women ,Amebdkar was fighting imaginary Brahminism

    Venereal Disease and the Prostitution Policy of the British Raj

    Venereal Disease and the Prostitution Policy of the British Raj

    When Brits killed crores of people by engineering Famines n droughts ,he was fighting imaginary BRahminism

    31 famines in 120 years of British Raj when compared to 17 in the 2000 years of India's history

    When Brits introduced 6 waves of Cholera ,Malaria ,typhoid and massive flu ,which killed around 2 crore people in India ,he was fighting imaginary Brahminism.

    how the 1918 Influenza flu Pandemic spread in India and how the great Hindi poet, Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala' described the grim situation in his account.Creation of massive untouchability throughout INDIA https://poemsandchronicles.blogspot.com/2020/06/nirala-1918-influenza-flu-india.html?m=1

    When Brits snatched Lands of common people through Zamindari system,he was fighting BRahminism .

    When British destroyed villages,cities,water resources throughout India, he was fighting Brahminism.

    India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'

    Consider -In 1918,The British introduced deadly Spanish Flu which created massive untouchability and killed around 3-4 crore People in India In 1942-46 period,the Brits engineered massive droughts and famines n rampant Cholera,Malaria spread due to their Ill-practices which again killed more than 4 crore People in India. In Both the times,Ambedkar was working with British ,serving in their Govt, ,He never said a single word to them but was opposing India's freedom.

    There is not one instance, not one single, solitary instance in which Ambedkar participated in any activity connected with that struggle to free the country'.Dr BR Ambedkar complete and collected Works comprise around more than 15000 pages.You will not find a single reference where he opposed British rule.

    to summarize

    Mughal n British Rule were characterised by

    -Epidemics n Deadly Plagues
    Massive Droughts n Famines
    MAssive Looting of Wealth,Money,Gold
    Destruction of all Traditional Instituions
    Santching of Lands from many Hindu JAATIS which today come under SC like JAATAVS,MAHARS,MANGS,PASIS,CHARMKARS through Mansabdari n Zamindari system by Muslims n British resp.
    massive Genocide of Hindus incl. Destruction of Towns,villages,cities
    Destruction of Lakes,Ponds,water reservoirs
    Destruction of LAKHS of Temples and Pushing of Hindu JAATIS into leather work during Muslim Rule

    Internalization of Beating n Discrimination by Hindus which they suffered at hands of both Muslims n British,such that Hindus started treating their own fellow Hindus(SC) like that

    But this- If India became independent ,it would be one of greatest disasters that could happen cannot be forgiven.this is straightaway traitorship.AMbedkar was against India's freedom .All the perfumes of Arabia will not be able to wash this Sin.Ambedkar’s was a political opportunist of the worst kind.

    Ambedkarites abused our army ,advocated for BReaking up of South India .North East India ,constantly hurl abuses towards Hinduism .they r planning for Civil wars Only way to deal with them-attack their master.We know what happened in northeast, how things changed there in last 50 yrs & a particular religion rose. There's govt & intelligence report that how insurgency increased there with money under FCRA.India became a puppet of USSR during the Cold War. Congress,CPI & A Large Section of Indian media were found to be working on payrolls of KGB..

    We can always give Reservation on basis of affirmative action .this fearmongering has to go.

    I would like to quote Swami Vivekananda’s comment on Prophet Muhammad which is quite relatable to Dr BR Ambedkar’s works n views in present context

    “Though Muhammad was inspired, "he was not a trained Yogi, nor did he know the reason of what he was doing." Vivekananda wrote that He had brought wonderful things for Humanity but also great evil has been done through Muhammad's fanaticism with "whole countries destroyed" and "millions upon millions of people killed”

    I can relate it with BR Ambedkar . In the name of uplifting some oppressed fews, he divided us in the lines of caste and religion forever by institutionalizing it in Constitution which has the potential to incite Civil Wars in future.Crores of people from several generations have paid price for his anguish against Hinduism. Ambedkar’s help was Sweet Poison . In short term,it benefitted but in the longer run, it has caused unrest in society.

    Lack of Patience among Indian People like BR Ambedkar towards their own kith has cost us dearly..Their immediate hunger for power has damaged National Integration project.

    Consider this

    1) Dalits were told the forward castes are oppressing you by making you produce footwear.Rise up, leave the profession. India produces over 22 bn pairs annually, exported around $2.7 billion footwear products in 2016. Muslims are the major players in the footwear space now.

    2) Dalits were told, being a fisherman out of birth you can't rise up much with that status. He either left the profession or got converted & paid tax to the church. Indian seafood exports touched around $7.8 billion in 2018. Christians are the major players in that space.

    3) Had a family stuck around in any of these two professions for generations, wouldn't we be seeing a successful community driven ecosystem that made them all millionaires atleast? Did the SJWs fail to see entrepreneurship as social capital?

    4) The SJWs didn't see the family profession as a business but saw it as a baggage that the person could have. Had a capitalist guided the person, he would helped him scale up his family profession and made it into an MNC. Nothing spreads equality in the society like prosperity!

    5) These were potential game changers for the Dalit community, a profession which they knew in & out & had expertise in! But, they were fed with victim propaganda by the Commie/Left narrative & got them uprooted from a gold mine, which other community capitalized on. But it required Patience.

    No one is denying the oppression here. But, the point was about how a narrative was built and they were made to believe that deserting their occupation would elevate them. See who has walked into their shoes now, and doing the same work with greater returns.


  • suyash95 38 days ago | +0 points

    FROM ARUN SHORIE BOOK-Worshipping False Gods

    There is not one instance, not one single, solitary instance in which Ambedkar participated in any activity connected with that struggle to free the country'

    Arun Shourie's book 'Woshipping False Gods' The recent furore following the desecration of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar's statue in Bombay has largely been interpreted as the resurgence of the dalit movement in India. A phenomenon which first saw its genesis in the philosophy and personality of Dr B R Ambedkar 50 years ago.

    In his latest book, Worshipping False Gods, Arun Shourie challenges Dr Ambedkar's contribution to Indian Independence. The book has already run into controversy and several dalit organisations in Maharashtra want it banned.

    Ambedkar's public life begins in a sense from a public meeting held at the Damodar Hall in Bombay on March 9, 1924. The struggle for freeing the country from the British was by then in full swing. Swami Vivekananda's work, Sri Aurobindo's work, the Lokmanya's work had already stirred the country. Lokmanya Tilak had passed away in 1920. The leadership of the National Movement had fallen on Gandhiji. He had already led the country in the Champaran satyagraha, the Khilafat movement, in the satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act, against the killings in Jallianwala Bagh and the merciless repression in Punjab. This National Movement culminated in the country's Independence in 1947.

    In a word, a quarter century of Ambedkar's public career overlapped with this struggle of the country to free itself from British rule. There is not one instance, not one single, solitary instance in which Ambedkar participated in any activity connected with that struggle to free the country. Quite the contrary--at every possible turn he opposed the campaigns of the National Movement, at every setback to the Movement he was among those cheering the failure.

    Thus, while the years culminated in the country's Independence, in Ambedkar's case they culminated in his becoming a member of the Viceroy's Council, that is -- to use the current terms -- a Minister in the British Cabinet in India.

    The writings of Ambedkar following the same pattern. The Maharashtra government has by now published 14 volumes of the speeches and writings of Ambedkar. These cover 9,996 pages. Volumes up to the 12th contain his speeches and writing up to 1946. These extend to 7,371 pages. You would be hard put to find one article, one speech, one passage in which Ambedkar can be seen even by inference to be arguing for India's Independence. Quite the contrary.

    Pause for a minute and read the following:

    All me to say that the British have a moral responsibility towards the scheduled castes. They may have moral responsibilities towards all minorities. But it can never transcend the moral responsibility which rests on them in respect of the untouchables. It is a pity how few Britishers are aware of it and how fewer are prepared to discharge it. British rule in India owes its very existence to the help rendered by the untouchables. Many Britishers think that India was conquered by the Clives, Hastings, Coots and so on. Nothing can be a greater mistake. India was conquered by an army of Indians and the Indians who formed the army were all untouchables. British rule in India would have been impossible if the untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India. Take the Battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India. In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all untouchables...

    Who is pleading thus to whom? It is B R Ambedkar writing on 14 May 1946 to a member of the (British) Cabinet Mission, A V Alexander.

    Nor was this a one-of slip, an arrangement crafted just for the occasion. Indeed, so long as the British were ruling over India, far from trying to hide such views, Ambedkar would lose no opportunity to advertise them, and to advertise what he had been doing to ensure that they came to prevail in practice. Among the faithful his book What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables is among the most admired and emulated of his writings. It was published in 1945, that is just two years or so before India became Independent.

    As we shall see when we turn to Ambedkar's views on how harijans may be raised, it is an out and out regurgitation of the things that the British rulers and the missionaries wanted to be said, of the allegations and worse that they had been hurling at our civilisation and people. The book has been published officially by the education department of the government of Maharashtra, and is sold at a subsidised price! It constitutes Volume IX of the set Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches. It reproduces the speech Ambedkar made at the Round Table Conference -- a speech which served the designs of the British rulers to the dot, and for which, as we shall soon see, they were ever so grateful to Ambedkar for it became one of the principal devices for thwarting Gandhiji.

    In the speech Ambedkar addresses the prime minister and says, "Prime minister, permit me to make one thing clear. The depressed classes are not anxious, they are not clamorous, they have not started any movement for claiming that there shall be an immediate transfer of power from the British to the Indian people.... Their position, to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of power from the British to the Indian people.... Their position, to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of political power...." But if the British were no longer strong enough to resist the forces which were clamouring for such transfer, Ambedkar declared, then his demand was that they make certain arrangements-- arrangements which we shall encounter repeatedly in his speeches and writings, the essential point about which was to tie down the new government of Independent India.

    'Nationalist leaders were neither surprised that Ambedkar was on the platforms with Jinnah, nor had they any doubts about the inspiration behind these celebrations'

    Ambedkar and his patrons were dealt a humiliating blow by the elections of 1937. There were a total of 1,585 seats in the 11 assemblies in 'British India'. Of these 777 were 'tied'-- in the sense that they were to be filled by communal or special representation from Chambers of Commerce, plantations, labour etc. Of the 808 'general' seats, the Congress, which Ambedkar, Jinnah and others denounced from the house tops, won 456. It secured absolute majorities in 5 assemblies -- those of Madras, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar and Orissa. And was the largest single party in 4 others-- Bombay, Bengal, Assam and the NWFP.

    From the point of view of Ambedkar and the British -- who had been holding him up to counter the Congress claim that it represented the harijans as much as any other section of Indian society -- worse was the fact that the Congress did extremely well in the seats which had been reserved for harijans. Thirty seats were reserved for harijans in Madras Presidency, the Congress contested 26 and won 26. In Bihar there were 24 reserved seats -- in 9 of these Congress candidates were returned unopposed; of the remaining 15 reserved seats, it contested 14, and won 14.

    In Bombay of the 15 reserved seats, it secured 1 unopposed, contested 8 and won 5. In the United Provinces there were 20 reserved seats; two of its candidates were returned unopposed; it contested 17 seats and won 16. In Bengal of the 30 reserved seats, it contested 17 and won 6. In the Central Provinces of the 19 reserved seats, it contested 9 and won 5.

    The lesson was there for all to see. Reporting to the Viceroy on the result in the Bombay Presidency, the Governor, Lord Brabourne wrote, "Dr Ambedkar's boast of winning, not only 15 seats which are reserved for the harijans, but also a good many more -- looks like being completely falsified, as I feared it would be."

    The electorate, including the harijans, may have punctured his claims but there was always the possibility of reviving one's fortunes through politicking and maneuvers. Efforts of all these elements were focused on the objective of installing non-Congress ministries in Bombay and wherever else this was a possibility. Brabourne reported to the viceroy that Jamnadas Mehta, the finance minister "who is chief minister in all but name", was telling him that the ministry in Bombay would survive motions on the budget and may even get through the motion of no-confidence:

    "His calculations are based on the fact that he expects to get the support of the bulk of the Muhammadans, the whole of Ambedkar's Scheduled Castes Party, and of half a dozen or so of those individuals who stood as Congressmen merely to get elected," he reported. But added, "I gather that he is in touch with Ambedkar, who is carrying on negotiations for him, but, as you will find from the next succeeding paragraph, it rather looks to me as if Ambedkar is playing a thoroughly double game, in which case Jamnadas Mehta's hopes are likely to be rudely shattered."

    The governor went on to report that he had also had a long conversation with Jinnah, and that Jinnah had told him that, in the event of the ministry being defeated, the Muslim League would be prepared to form a ministry provided they could secure a majority of even two or three in the assembly. "He (that is, Jinnah) went on to say that Ambedkar and his party were prepared to back him in this," Brabourne reported, "and that he expected to get the support of ten or a dozen of the so-called Congress MLAs mentioned above.

    He made it quite clear to me that they would not support the present ministry. The governor was sceptical about the claims and assurances of all of them. He wrote, "It is, of course, quite impossible to rely on anything that Jinnah tells me, and the only thing for me to do is to listen and keep silent. I obviously cannot tell Jamnadas Mehta what Jinnah told me, or vice versa, as both of them are hopelessly indiscreet. The only thing that is clear is that a vast amount of intrigue is going on behind the scenes, but, in the long run, I cannot see anything coming out of it at all, as none of these people trust each other round the corner. Were to hazard a guess, it would still be that the present ministry will be defeated on the budget proposals and the alternative will then lie between Congress or Section 93"-- the equivalent of our present-day governor's rule.

    Congress ministries were formed. And in 1939 they resigned in view of the British government's refusal to state what it intended to do about Indian Independence after the War. Jinnah announced that the Muslim League would celebrate the resignations as 'Deliverance Day.' Guess who was at his side in these 'celebrations' addressing meetings from the same platforms? Ambedkar, of course.

    Nationalist leaders were neither surprised that Ambedkar was on the platforms with Jinnah, nor had they any doubts about the inspiration behind these celebrations. Addressing the Congress Legislature Party in Bombay on 27 December, 1937, Sardar Patel noted, "We cannot forget how Sir Samuel Hoare set the Muslims against the Hindus when the unity conference was held at Allahabad. The British statesmen in order to win the sympathy of the world, now go on repeating that they are willing to give freedom to India, were India united.

    The 'Day of Deliverance' was evidently calculated to make the world and particularly the British public believe that India was not united and that Hindus and Muslims were against each other. But when several sections of Muslims were found to oppose the 'Day of Deliverance', the proposed anti-Hindu demonstrations were converted into a Jinnah-Ambedkar-Byramji protest against the Congress ministries and the Congress high command..."

    That rout in the election remained a thorn in the heart of Ambedkar for long. A large part of What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables which Ambedkar published in 1945 is a tortuous effort to explain that actually the Congress had not done well in the election, that in fact, while groups such as his which had opposed Congress had been mauled even in reserved constituencies, they had triumphed, and the Congress, in spite of the seats having gone to it, had actually been dealt a drubbing!

    Though this is his central thesis, Ambedkar gives reasons upon reasons to explain why he and his kind have lost and why the Congress has won! One of the reasons he says is that the people in general believe that the Congress is fighting for the freedom of the country. This fight for freedom, Ambedkar says, "has been carried on mostly by Hindus." It is only once that the Mussalmans took part in it and that was during the short-lived Khilafat agitation. They soon got out of it, he says. The other communities, particularly the untouchables, never took part in it.

    A few stray individuals may have joined it -- and they did so, Ambedkar declares, for personal gain. But the community as such has stood out. This is particularly noticeable in the last campaign of the "Fight For Freedom", which followed the 'Quit India Resolution' passed by the Congress in August 1942, Ambedkar says. And this too has not been just an oversight, in Ambedkar's reckoning it was a considered boycott. The Untouchables have stayed out of the Freedom Movement for good and strong reasons, he says again and again.

    'Even though he had been heaping scorn at them for a quarter of a century, the Congress leaders put all that aside and invited him to join the government'

    Independence came. For all the venom he had poured at Gandhiji and the Congress, Ambedkar was back in the Cabinet, this time Pandit Nehru's Cabinet of Independent India. How did he get there?

    Ambedkar's own explanation was typical of the man: he had done nothing to seek a position in the new government, Ambedkar told Parliament later, it was the new prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who had urged him to join the new government; the offer had come to him as a surprise, he said, he had been full of doubts, but in the end he had yielded to the call of duty and to the plea that he make his talents available to the new government -- that is how things had gone according to Ambedkar. Recall the pleas to Atlee, and set them against Ambedkar's reconstruction of the sequence in the speech he made in the Lok Sabha. It was 10 October 1951 and Ambedkar was explaining his resignation from the Cabinet of Panditji:

    It is now 4 years, 1 month and 26 days since I was called by the prime minister to accept the office of the law minister in the Cabinet. The offer came as a great surprise to me. I was in the opposite camp and had already been condemned as unworthy of association when the interim government was formed in August 1946. I was left to speculate as to what could have happened to bring about this change in the attitude of the prime minister. I had my doubts. I did not know how I could carry on with those who had never been my friends. I had doubts as to whether I could, as a law member, maintain the standard of legal knowledge and acumen which had been maintained by those who had preceded me as law ministers of the government of India. But I kept my doubts at rest and accepted the offer of the prime minister on the ground that I should not deny my co-operation when it was asked for in the building up of our nation...

    In a word, the reluctant expert who eventually yields to the implorings of others so as to help the poor country that needs his talents. Far from a word of gratitude for the fact that, even though he had been heaping scorn at them for a quarter of a century, even though he had been a most ardent member of the British government which had thrown them and kept them in jails for years, the Congress leaders had put all that aside and invited him to join the government, far from there being any word of gratitude, there was not a word even of appreciation, even of a mere acknowledgment at least for their sagacity, if not their magnanimity, in putting so much of the past -- of the past that was so recent, of the past that had been so bitter -- behind them. The new leaders had implored him to join the government as they had no alternative, so indispensable were the man's talents -- that was the implicit refrain.

    The diary of Indrani Devi, the widow of Jagjivan Ram, records the exact opposite. In the entry entitled, Ambedkar ki sifaarish, she records,

    And on this side Ambedkar had started coming over to our house. One day he (Ambedkar) told him to put in a word with Gandhiji to have him (Ambedkar) included in the Cabinet. Before talking to Gandhiji he (Jagjivan Ram) talked to Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel said, do what you think is appropriate. He (Jagjivan Ram) got into quite a quandary -- that Ambedkar had always opposed Gandhiji and the Congress, how could he now recommend his case to Gandhiji? Even so, given his large-heartedness, he pleaded with Gandhiji on behalf of Ambedkar, and told him that as he has surrendered in front of you please request Nehruji so that he may be taken into the first Cabinet.

    In any event, either as a result of his lobbying or because Pandit Nehru requested him, Ambedkar joined the government. He broke with Nehru four years later and denounced the Congress and Nehru. He entered into an electoral alliance with the Socialists to oppose the Congress in the 1952 elections. His party was wiped out. There were a total of 489 seats in the Lok Sabha. Of these the Congress secured 364, that is almost three-quarters. Ambedkar's party got no seat in the Parliament, only one set in the Bombay assembly, and one in that of Hyderabad.

    But presumably the inference to be drawn from this defeat too is the same. "It was a colossal failure, and Ambedkar fell like a rocket," writes his admiring biographer, Dhananjay Keer, about the election result. "It proved once again that there is no gratitude in politics. The nation which had conferred so much glory on him seemed now unwilling to show him gratitude..."

    But I anticipate. For the moment we need bear in mind just a few facts.

    'Ambedkar was one of the few politicians who supported the Muslim League demand for Pakistan'

    Throughout the twenty-five years of his public life before the British left India, Ambedkar took positions which were ever so convenient for the British, throughout these twenty-five years he hurled pejoratives at the Congress, in particular Gandhiji. At every turn he put forward formulae and demands which enabled the British to counter the national movement for freedom. The British were fully aware of the use he was to them, and they were anxious to give him a hand so that he could become even more the exclusive leader of the scheduled castes.

    We shall have occasion soon to see what happened at the Round Table Conference in 1931, and what happened in its wake: Gandhiji had to stake his very life to thwart the maneuver the British made -- in consultation with Ambedkar, and to his great acclaim -- to split Hindu society asunder. Gandhiji survived, but he was kept in jail, as were the other Congress leaders. Ambedkar, of course, was again on his way to England to attend yet another Round Table Conference. And as on the previous occasion, what he said and did was to the full satisfaction of the British rulers.

    On 28 December 1932, the Secretary of State, Sir Samuel Hoare, was recounting the proceedings for the Viceroy. He wrote, "Ambedkar had behaved very well at the (Round Table) Conference, and I am most anxious to strengthen his hands in every possible way. Coming from a family whose members have almost always been in the (British) Army, he feels intensely that there are no Depressed Class units left. Could you not induce the Commander-in-Chief to give them at least a Company? Ambedkar tells me that the Depressed Class battalion did much better in the Afghan War than most of the other Indian battalions. In any case, I feel sure that at this juncture it would be a really valuable political act to make a move of this kind."

    Next, Ambedkar argued long and vehemently that India must not be given Independence in the foreseeable future. We have already seen some of his urgings in this regard. Consider an example from another sphere. As is well known, apart from the Communists, Ambedkar was one of the few politicians who supported the Muslim League demand for Pakistan. One side of his argument was that Muslims cannot stay in a multi-religious society; the other side of his argument was that no one can stay with the Hindus either, by which he always meant "upper-caste exploiters".

    That in brief was the thesis of his book, Thoughts on Pakistan. In private he was telling the British something quite different. He had been yearning to be included in the Viceroy's administration, and in mid-1940 it was presumed that, in view of what he had been saying and doing, his induction was just a matter of days.

    But those were uncertain times and the calculations of the British were changing from day to day: they were at war with Hitler; they knew that opinion within the Congress was divided, some important elements were of the view that Britain should be supported even though they were not prepared to spell out what they would do about India after the war; so they had to keep in mind the possibility of strengthening this section within the Congress. They also knew that inducting a person like Ambedkar would offend the Congress as a whole no end.

    At the last minute, therefore, the Viceroy had called Ambedkar and the other aspirant, M S Aney, and told them that he would have to put off the expansion of his Council for the time being. Not only that, in view of what he might have to do to win co-operation of the Congress, the Viceroy had had to tell Ambedkar that he could not bind himself or his successor about the future. Recounting his meeting with Ambedkar the Viceroy told the Secretary of State on 19 November 1940, in a communication marked "Private and Personal," "I was at pains to protect my successor and myself so far as he was concerned by making it clear that while if circumstances led me to invite him to work with me again, it would give me personal pleasure to have him as a colleague, I or my successor must be regarded as wholly uncommitted in the matter, and under no obligation of any sort."

    The conversation had then turned to the demand for Pakistan. The Viceroy noted, "He (Ambedkar) was quite clear that Muslims proposed to hold to their demands for 50:50 and so gradually lay the foundation of Pakistan, and he was perfectly content himself, he said, with that state of things, and in favour of the Pakistan idea quite frankly because it meant the British would have to stay in India. He saw not the least prospect of our overcoming difficulties here by guarantees of any sort and (like most minorities) he has, I suspect, little interest in constitutional progress...."

    Eventually, of course, the British had decided that they would just have to leave. Ambedkar then pleaded with them that they tie the new government by a Treaty. Then that they get his organisation a place in the new set up. Then he went and pleaded with Jagjivan Ram, the sort of man on whom he had poured scorn for decades.

    But today that very Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna!

    'Ambedkar collaborated with the British to undermine Gandhiji'

    All the facts which have been recounted above were well known fifty years ago. With the passing of the generation that fought for Independence, with the total abandonment of looking up the record, most of all with the rise of casteist politics, they have been erased from public awareness. And that erasure has led to the predictable result: schizophrenia.

    To start with, those trading in Ambedkar's name and their apologists have sought to downplay the struggle for Independence: the freedom it brought is not "real", they insist. Exactly as that other group did which teamed up with the British at that crucial hour, 1942 -- the Communists. Indeed, as we shall see in the concluding part of the book, to justify Ambedkar's conduct his followers insist that British Rule was better.

    Next, they have sought to exaggerate the hardship that Ambedkar had to put up with, to almost rub out the fact, for instance, that at every step -- for instance in his education -- he received fulsome help from persons belonging to the higher castes; by exaggerating the hardships the apologists seek to explain away Ambedkar's collaborating with the British, his hankering for office: these hardships were the sort that are commonplace in India -- one has only to recall the circumstances in which Swami Vivekananda matured, one has only to recall the starvation which stared him in the face, the calumny and humiliations he had to fight back; but in the case of one and each of our leaders the hardships became the crucible which steeled their resolve to rid our country of British rule; it is only in Ambedkar's case that his followers and apologists think that those hardships justify his collaborating with the British against the national movement.

    And, of course, these persons have made a practice of denouncing and calumnising Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhiji was the great leader, even more so he was the great symbol of that struggle for Freedom; as Ambedkar collaborated with the British to undermine him, as for 25 years he heaped on the Mahatma calumnies which the British found so valuable, his apologists abuse and denigrate and belittle the Mahatma. In doing this they work out their own poisons -- poisons which, as we shall see, are the inescapable legacy of leaders who have not cast out the thorn of hatred before they come to wield influence.

    Today the abuse he hurled at Gandhiji provides the precedent: the apologist's case, as Kanshi Ram said recently while explaining the venom his associate Mayawati had spewed at the Mahatma, is, "We are followers of Babasaheb, we only keep repeating what he used to say." They are at the same time serving their convenience: they have made Ambedkar's style, so to say, as also the facility with which he allied with those who were out to keep the country subjugated, the rationalisation for their own politics.

    But the facts lurk in the closet. Lest they spill out and tarnish the icon they need for their politics, lest their politics be shown up for what it is -- a trade in the name of the dispossessed -- these followers of Ambedkar enforce their brand of history through verbal terrorism, and actual assault.

    And intimidation works. Editors and others conclude, "Better leave bad enough alone."


Please Login or Signup to leave Answer