Hindu Media Wiki

Any claim that Ambedkar was against Islam or Partition is baseless. Read Pakistan or Partition of India written by Ambedkar himself to know why he wrote "about" Islamic invasions. He was trying to make a case FOR Pakistan. A case suggesting Hindus should give away their+

sacred land, divide it because others can't behave simply makes a case against Hindus and FOR Islam not against it. It's like suggesting that since a thief keeps attacking your house for theft you should give away your belongings on your own. Instead of teaching him a lesson.

Ambedkar was an ally of Jinnah and EVR. They wanted Bharatbhumi to be divided in three parts: Pakistan- JinnahDravidnad- EVRDalitstan- Ambedkar. Ambedkar was the one who was dividing Hindu society by asking for separate electorate.

He had all the support of Christian colonisers who planted him and backed him in his claims of representing "masses". His followers then were limited among Mahars.

He hated Gandhi not because he loved Hindus but because Gandhi ruined his plans of separate electorates and made him sign Poona Pact. His popularity was limited.Other Hindu communities didn't vote him and he lost elections miserably. Yet it was Gandhi and Patel who got him

on Drafting committee. The same accept him nonsense which resulted in blunders later and legitimised him. Please read Arun Shourie's Worshipping False Gods for a complete analysis and then read Ambedkar's own works.

@veird22 Objective analysis would produce only one result that Islam has derided Hindus of a large part of their Matrubhumi already, even then Ms are being given undue concessions in Bharat which is never going to help. Hence, they need to be DeIslamised. (China is doing that-Uyghur Ms)

The coalition between Jinnah, EV Ramaswamy Naicker & (Ambedkar) was to splinter India into units like Pakistan & Dravidistan and Mahar Land. The three of them had a 'historic' meeting on January 8, 1940. The particulars of the meeting are mentioned in this thread with reference:

Reference: The Historic Meeting of Ambedkar, Jinnah and Periyar- K.V. Ramkrishna Rao. Particulars:

They discussed about the following issues:Note:7. Demand of separate states for Mahars, Muslims and Dravidians.Hate for Brahmins can be clearly noticed.

They agreed on the following items:1. Jinnah and Ambedkar would tour Tamil districts for a month in April or May 1940 and support the demand for Dravidanded (as announced by A. Ponnambalam). (Kindly read the excerpt for more.)

Looks like both Ambedkar and E.V. Ramasamy were discarded by Jinnah afterwards. Though, it doesn't change the fact that Ambedkar didn't oppose the demand for Pakistan or partition. He only suggested a different method which according to him was best suited to go about the same.

May be Vikram Sampath missed taking note of this historic meeting which gives us a good insight as to what was Dr. Ambedkar's position on the non-Brahmin movement, Dravidanded, Pakistan and splintering of the ancient land of Bharat into different units.

This meeting doesn't find mention in the page you have shared. Only a cursory mention compared to the other two parties. In the caption tweet also Ambedkar, the political deity is missing. Though, his stand was not different from others. He deserves a mention suiting his position

This unholy trinity needs to be given due acknowledgement. Its position, shared goals and aspirations, plan of action discussed so people know that worship of these false heroes can be put an end to for the greater good of Hindus and Bharat Bhoomi.

"I am not staggered by Pakistan; I am not indignant about it; nor do I believe that it can be smashed by shooting into it similes and metaphors."Pg. 7-8PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA- BR Ambedkar 

"There is no use blaming the British for insisting upon such a settlement as a condition precedent to the transfer of power. The British cannot consent to settle power upon an aggressive Hindu majority and make it its heir, leaving it to deal with the minorities ...+

...minorities at its sweet pleasure. That would not be ending imperialism. It would be creating another imperialism."- Page 9 Ibid.

"...the Muslims cannot be deprived of the benefit of the principle of self-determination. The Hindu Nationalists who rely on self-determination and ask how Britain can refuse India what the conscience of the world has conceded to the smallest of the European nations...+

...cannot in the same breath ask the British to deny it to other minorities."- Page 10-11 Ibid.

"The Hindu Nationalist who hopes that Britain will coerce the Muslims into abandoning Pakistan, forgets that the right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign imperialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive majority’s...+

...nationalism are not two different things; nor does the former stand on a more sacred footing than the latter. They are merely two aspects of the struggle for freedom and as such equal in their moral import."- Page 10-11 Ibid.

"Nationalists, fighting for freedom from aggressive imperialism, cannot well ask the help of the British imperialists to thwart the right of a minority to freedom from the nationalism of an aggressive majority. "- Page 10-11 Ibid.

"As to the Mahratta, who does not recall that the Mahrattas, who set out to destroy the Muslim Empire in India, became a menace to the rest of the Hindus whom they harassed and kept under their yoke for nearly a century."Page 12-13 ibid

"...if grievances must be cited in support of their claim, the Muslims say that they have them in plenty. They may be summed up in one sentence, that constitutional safeguards have failed to save them from the tyranny of the Hindu majority." Page 42 ibid

"Hindus who will not yield to the demand of the Muslims for the division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan and would insist upon maintaining the geographical unity of India without counting the cost, will do well to study the fate that has befallen other...+

...countries which, like India, harboured many nations and sought to harmonise them." Page 205 ibid

If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement to the...+

insecurity due to the growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus."Page 270 ibid. (We all know how much peace the settlement that Pakistan was brought Hindus.)

"There seems to be an inherent antagonism between the two which centuries have not been able to dissolve. Notwithstanding the efforts made to bring the creeds together by reformers like Akbar and Kabir, the ethical realities behind each have still remained..."Page 329-330

(The great scholar thinks of Ambedkar as a reformer. What can be more accurate parameter to ascertain his scholarship, his understanding of History and even Islam. In taking Akbar as a reformer he seems at part with professors like Romila Thapar, Ramchandra Guha, etc.)

Many Hindus seem to hold that Pakistan has no justification. If we confine ourselves to the theory of Pakistan there can be no doubt that this is a greatly mistaken view."Page- 325 ibid.

All these quotations, excerpts and paragraphs have been directly cited from Dr. BR Ambedkar's book:PAKISTAN ORTHE PARTITION OF INDIAThe book is published as Vol. 8 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches

Publisher is none other than:Dr. Ambedkar FoundationMinistry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of IndiaThese writings are is sold at subsidised rates, Price : One Set of 1 to 17 Volumes (20 Books) : ` 3000. (As stated in reprint edition 2014)