PRESENTING AN AMBEDKAR, THE CONGRESS PARTY CANNOT AGREE WITH

Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar! This has become the new mantra today in the Lok Sabha, where INC alleges that somehow Mr. Amit Shah has insulted Baba Saheb. At the same time, BJP raises the issue that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was not awarded Bharat Ratna during successive Congress regimes, especially when PMs then were busy awarding the highest civilian award to their kin.

Amid protests from both sides, INC has taken up a blue avatar, with Mr. Rahul Gandhi wearing a blue T-shirt in Delhi’s harsh winters as his party members chanted “Jai Bhim” in a loop. Since this event, everything, including press conferences, are being organized by INC with big posters of Baba Saheb and his quotes. While INC is seen cherry-picking Babasaheb, there exist versions of him that directly hit at the INC narratives, which the INC will not be able to agree with, even on its deathbed.

Baba Saheb hated and abhorred many things, and when he expressed his discomfort, he often refused to maintain any courtesy in his words. Islam and Communism, for example, were his prime enemies apart from casteism, about which he has extensively spoken and written.

Baba Saheb begins by contending that Muslims cannot be loyal to India, and a Muslim can never truly accept a Hindu as his brother when he says:

“…the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”

Ambedkar viewed that Muslims can never have true allegiance to the law of the land over the law of Islam and says that the true allegiance of a Muslim can only be with the Quran. He can be quoted as:

“…wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land…The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to His Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…”

Ambedkar in his writings has rejected the idea of a united India where Hindus and Muslims could live side by side when he had said:

“…India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’…”

Babasaheb claims that Muslims do not view Hindus as equals, and since it is so, he further contends that Muslims will not be loyal to a Hindu-led government. He speaks: “To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist.”

And while INC takes on Baba Saheb’s comments on casteism among Hindus as a weapon against BJP, they will probably not like his idea that caste is also an issue among Muslims of India. Babasaheb says:

“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more.”

It was not long ago when the issue of Hijab was raised in Karnataka, and INC was at the forefront of defending it. When Madam Priyanka Vadra had tweeted, “Whether it is a bikini, a ghoonghat, a pair of jeans or a hijab, it is a woman’s right to decide what she wants to wear. This right is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Stop harassing women,” a certain quote was mentioned by the Karnataka High Court while determining the right to wear the Hijab inside the campus.

It was a quote of B.R. Ambedkar where his hate for Burkha was reflected in his words (partly mentioned here) :

“These burka woman walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India…The Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women…”

Last week, at a press conference, Mr. Rahul was seen sitting in front of a quote by Dr. Ambedkar celebrating the bonfire of Manusmriti. It is very clear that Dr. Ambedkar’s criticism of Manusmriti is valid owing to its allegedly discriminatory nature. However, if INC and Mr. Rahul Gandhi are tasked with even attempting to say a word on Islam, which has been elaborately criticized and commented on by Dr. Ambedkar, the subject will be seen as the biggest untouchable for Mr. Gandhi.

The words of Dr. Ambedkar in this regard are like a stone stuck in the throat, one which can neither be swallowed nor thrown away. If they speak against Ambedkar, their SC vote bank will collapse, and if they accept Babasaheb’s words, their appeasement will collapse.

It is notable that the same Congress, which today celebrates the Manusmriti bonfires, was criticizing BJP member Nupur Sharma earlier, over her comments on Islam, where Mr. Rahul Gandhi had said: “The creation of this environment in the country is an anti-national act. This is against the interest of the people of India and is completely wrong. It is going to lead to tragedy.”

Mr. Rahul should be asked today: what can lead to tragedy? To single out scriptures based on religious tolerance and to talk of selective reforms for Hinduism? If Rahul and INC cannot be courageous enough to question Bible and Quran, then Hindus do not need their selective activism and attempts at reform.

If respect is the defense for the Quran and Bible, then such respect must apply to texts, even including Manusmriti. If reform and criticism have to be selective, then the Congress leaders can better keep mum on the subject altogether.

Article by

Shreeacharya Mishra

Younginker

Law Student, Raipur