Mar 05 2016 : The Times of India (Chennai)
talking terms - Double Speak
Dileep Padgaonkar
|
The accolades heaped on B R Ambedkar ignore his strident critique of Hinduism
Among B R Ambedkar's lesser known qualities was his height ened sense of irony and humour. The way political parties have been competing to claim his legacy on the occasion of his 125th birth anniversary would surely have left him more bemused than bewildered. He was far too shrewd a man not to realise what lies behind the accolades heaped on him: self-serving double-speak.Double-speak is evident, first and foremost, from the selective amnesia about the struggles he waged, the values he cherished, the ideals that inspired him. Congress, for instance, ignores Ambedkar's acrimonious relationship with Gandhi. It reached breaking point when he felt that the Mahatma had short-changed him during the talks that led to the 1932 Poona Pact on separate electorates for Dalits. Gandhi wanted to reform Hinduism from within.Ambedkar held that this was a pipe-dream.
Ambedkar had differences with Jawaharlal Nehru too. These came to the fore on the issue of passing the Hindu Code Bill. Their discord related not to its content but to the modalities to get it adopted. Yet successive Congress governments failed to acknowledge that the goals Ambedkar pursued were substantially the same goals that inspired the Congress-led freedom struggle. This was amply clear during the period Ambedkar shepherded the drafting of the Constitution. All three Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar were by and large on the same page when it came to defining the idea of a free India.
The double-speak of RSS and of its political wing, BJP, is of a different order altogether. RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, has claimed that Ambedkar believed in the Sangh's ideology since he, like Hedgewar, the founder of the organisation, placed the nation before self. Bhagwat chose to disregard Ambedkar's strident critique of Hinduism. Indeed the architect of the Constitution once went so far as to state: “Though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu.“ True to his word, he converted to Buddhism shortly before his death.
The saffron fraternity makes much of the fact that he did not embrace Islam or Christianity But that flies in the face of the reasons that .
Ambedkar advanced to justify his choice of Buddhism. At any rate, he would have been hurt, even enraged, by the Parivar's contention that Buddhism is but Hinduism in another name.Neither is Jainism or Sikhism.
The RSS chief would have been a little more circumspect had he considered Ambedkar's opinion on the concept of Hindu Raj: “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country . No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty , equality and fraternity. On that count it is incompatible with democracy . Hindu Raj must be prevented at all costs.“
Something is equally amiss in Prime Minister Modi's high praise of Ambedkar. After extolling his sterling contribution to India he remarked: “Where would Narendra Modi have been without Babasaheb Ambedkar?“ Someone needed to inform Modi that RSS, his ideological mentor, led a raucous campaign against the Hindu Code Bill on the eve of the first general elections. It organised more than 90 demonstrations in Delhi alone when its volunteers burnt the effigies of two leaders who had spearheaded the bill: Nehru and Ambedkar.
To be fair, the prime minister's admiration for Ambedkar is not of recent vintage. In a blog he posted on December 6, 2013, he lauded Babasaheb for ensuring constitutional guarantees to every citizen to exercise freedom of speech and expression. He went on to add: “Yet those in power are not only insensitive to public opinion but also have brazenly attempted to silence negative opinions while doing precious little to encourage diversity of opinion ... Any shade of opinion that speaks against the rulers of Delhi is methodically silenced.“
After what happened to Rohith Vemula and Kanhaiya Kumar and what has not happened to the hate-spewing members of the Sangh Parivar would the conduct of the Modi government have met with Ambedkar's approval?
Banish the thought. He would have seen through the double-speak: an attempt to woo the Dalit electorate. His response to this partial vindication of his struggles against casteist and communal forces would have been an enigmatic, Buddha-like smile.
Ambedkar had differences with Jawaharlal Nehru too. These came to the fore on the issue of passing the Hindu Code Bill. Their discord related not to its content but to the modalities to get it adopted. Yet successive Congress governments failed to acknowledge that the goals Ambedkar pursued were substantially the same goals that inspired the Congress-led freedom struggle. This was amply clear during the period Ambedkar shepherded the drafting of the Constitution. All three Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar were by and large on the same page when it came to defining the idea of a free India.
The double-speak of RSS and of its political wing, BJP, is of a different order altogether. RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, has claimed that Ambedkar believed in the Sangh's ideology since he, like Hedgewar, the founder of the organisation, placed the nation before self. Bhagwat chose to disregard Ambedkar's strident critique of Hinduism. Indeed the architect of the Constitution once went so far as to state: “Though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu.“ True to his word, he converted to Buddhism shortly before his death.
The saffron fraternity makes much of the fact that he did not embrace Islam or Christianity But that flies in the face of the reasons that .
Ambedkar advanced to justify his choice of Buddhism. At any rate, he would have been hurt, even enraged, by the Parivar's contention that Buddhism is but Hinduism in another name.Neither is Jainism or Sikhism.
The RSS chief would have been a little more circumspect had he considered Ambedkar's opinion on the concept of Hindu Raj: “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country . No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty , equality and fraternity. On that count it is incompatible with democracy . Hindu Raj must be prevented at all costs.“
Something is equally amiss in Prime Minister Modi's high praise of Ambedkar. After extolling his sterling contribution to India he remarked: “Where would Narendra Modi have been without Babasaheb Ambedkar?“ Someone needed to inform Modi that RSS, his ideological mentor, led a raucous campaign against the Hindu Code Bill on the eve of the first general elections. It organised more than 90 demonstrations in Delhi alone when its volunteers burnt the effigies of two leaders who had spearheaded the bill: Nehru and Ambedkar.
To be fair, the prime minister's admiration for Ambedkar is not of recent vintage. In a blog he posted on December 6, 2013, he lauded Babasaheb for ensuring constitutional guarantees to every citizen to exercise freedom of speech and expression. He went on to add: “Yet those in power are not only insensitive to public opinion but also have brazenly attempted to silence negative opinions while doing precious little to encourage diversity of opinion ... Any shade of opinion that speaks against the rulers of Delhi is methodically silenced.“
After what happened to Rohith Vemula and Kanhaiya Kumar and what has not happened to the hate-spewing members of the Sangh Parivar would the conduct of the Modi government have met with Ambedkar's approval?
Banish the thought. He would have seen through the double-speak: an attempt to woo the Dalit electorate. His response to this partial vindication of his struggles against casteist and communal forces would have been an enigmatic, Buddha-like smile.
No comments:
Post a Comment