Bharat, Pakistan and Ambedkar

India that is Bharat

When the Hindus think of India, it stretches from Afghanistan to Cambodia in the east, and it has history, culture and identity in mind. Chandragupta Maurya in 321BCE ruled from Eastern Afghanistan, Kashmir till the deccan plateau as in Tamil Sangam literature corpus by Mamulanar and 5 other poets in poems 69,281,375 mention of the Mauryan Army. It is also known Chandra Gupta renounced his kingdom and lived in Chandragiri Hills as an Ascetic which proves his Deccan influence and partnerships with the early Cholas. Sangam literature mentions of Chera Monarch feeding the army during Mahabharata and also talks of Ramayana, thus proving passing the allusions of incidents of the Sanskrit epics would command general appreciation. Agasthya Muni is known to be a Pandya kingdom Purohit, one of the three great kingdoms of south. The later Chola empire went to conquer till Vietnam and Cambodia. We still see the influence of Ramayana in Indonesia .Huen Sang in his travelogue during 6^th century mentions of 80 kingdoms in India divided into 5 regions with many religions like Vedism, Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrians  at a confluence of culture. Unity in Diversity comes from this notion.

Sailendra Nath Sen in Ancient Indian history and civilization talks of the society, organized by occupational groups living apart from each other or the Varna system of Vedic texts. So India that is Bharat has always been a cultural nation unified by a common yearning of seeking truth through many paths and debates and it became an integral part of the civilization expressing itself intellectually.

“The country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata. This is found in Vishnu Puran, like all major Puranas, attributes its author to be sage Veda Vyasa. The actual author(s) and date of its composition are unknown and contested. Estimates of its composition range from 400 BCE to 900 CE.

In Sanskrit Bharat comes with three words, Bha- to sensations, out of which emotions arise, Ra means tune or the song of existence and Ta- Beats or the rhythm of life … so we become son of this soil only if we have fulfilled these pledges.

Rabindranath Tagore the first Nobel Prize winner from Asia in literature in 1913 wrote in his book Nationalism “In my country we have been seeking to find out something common to all races, which will prove their real unity. No nation looked for a mere political or commercial basis of unity will find such a solution sufficient. Men of thought and power will discover spiritual unity, will realize it, and preach it.” He goes on to write “Her cast system is the outcome of this spirit of toleration.For India has all along been trying experiments in evolving a social unity within which all the different peoples could be held together, while fully enjoying the freedom of maintaining their own differences. The tie has been as loose as possible yet as close as the circumstances permitted.”

How Ambedkar viewed the idea of Nation

In his book Pakistan or formation of Pakistan, he talks extensively of the concept of Nation and takes many examples of formation of Switzerland, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and some others to help us interpret a modern idea of how a nation is formed, by a homogeneous group of people with a strong sense of identity. But if India is to be described according to Huen sang and Greek texts, India was already a Nation, A civilization.

What Ambedkar also talks of extensively is the Muslim Nation inside India during the British rule which was a direct result of the inferiority complex of the now lost Muslim rule, to be considered as common citizens with Hindus and the distinct identity they always harbored as anyone outside their religion to be ‘kuffairs or Kafir’ . He concluded that with the 1939 resolution of Muslim league, the Muslim nation was born.

Ambedkar talks of evils of the caste system and it being a hindrance to the idea of Nation, has been categorically refuted by philosopher Dr.Himmat Singh Singha of Kurukshetra University when he talks of how Ambedkar accepted he didn’t know Sanskrit and learned of the Manu Smriti, purportedly the oldest law book in the world from the translations done by Max Muller and George Buhler which was perceptibly morphed to suit the agenda of Christianity and British for communal division. They tried inculcating a hating of the innate tradition of Hinduism for better rule and division of society after they realized of the threat by the first independence movement in 1857.

Ambedkar states “Whether India is a nation or not, has been the subject-matter of controversy between the Anglo-Indians and the Hindu politicians ever since the Indian National Congress was founded.”The Hindu for these reasons never stopped to examine whether India was or was not a nation in fact. He never cared to reason whether nationality was merely a question of calling a people a nation or was a question of the people being a nation. He knew one thing, namely, that if he was to succeed in his demand for self-government for India, he must maintain, even if he could not prove it, that India was a nation.”

Thus when Ambedkar talks of India not as nation because of the societal divisions, we understand Ambedkar was thoroughly misguided from the beginning because he only read English translations. The  culturally morphed Jati system and the British census of 1891 on caste lines which was never stated by manu in his smriti ideally espoused a varna system on occupation and duty. 

Thus when we read the article by S.N. Sahu in the wire about how BJP is wrong in misplacing Ambedkar and Gandhi he is grossly wrong in thinking that greats can’t be refuted. The history of this country needs to be read with a new perspective forgetting imperial hangover and discussing the tormenting Muslim invasive rule in India.

Ambedkar mis-representing Hinduism

Ambedkar had a sweeping generalization and couldn’t specify since when caste system became predominant…. What if he ignored the understanding it was a British ploy to divide the nation, or for that matter caste was a direct result of the invasion of the Muslims to safeguard a community from disintegrating? Hinduism was never a monolith to be called a religion so his idea of missionary was false and questionable. On the other hand it was the ancient sages who inculcated the idea of seeking the life of truth and duty that everyone in this sub-continent accepted the many forms of it. Shaivism, Buddhism,Jainism.

 He wrote on his disbelief about Hinduism “It is not that the Hindu religion was never a missionary religion. On the contrary, it was once a missionary religion—indeed could not but have been a missionary religion, otherwise it is difficult to explain how, it could have spread over an area so vast as the Indian continent. But once a missionary religion, Hinduism perforce ceased to be a missionary religion after the time when the Hindu society developed its system of castes. For, caste is incompatible with conversion. To be able to convert a stranger to its religion, it is not enough for a community to offer its creed. It must be in a position to admit the convert to its social life and to absorb and assimilate him among its kindred.”

Conversion is legit in Hinduism and it’s a fact one need not have a caste to be a hindu. No where in its scriptures has cast being mandated .When Mohan Bhagwat says everyone born in India is a Hindu because of the path he will be choosing as a seeker of knowledge. So Ambedkar made oversimplification when it came to Hinduism and converted to Buddhism though it is commendable thinking about his patriotism and love for the unity of this motherland and having faith in the knowledge systems of India.

Veer savarkar gave a very beautiful  definition of Bharat ” In expounding the ideology of the Hindu movement, it is absolutely necessary to have a correct grasp of the meaning attached to these three terms. From the word ” Hindu” has been coined the word “Hinduism ” in English. It means the schools or system of Religion the Hindus follow. The second word ” Hindutva ” is far more comprehensive and refers not only to the religious aspects of the Hindu people as the word ” Hinduism ” does but comprehend even their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects as well. It is more or less akin to ” Hindu Polity ” and its nearly exact translation would be ” Hinduness “. The third word ” Hindudom” means the Hindu people spoken of collectively. It is a collective name for the Hindu World, just as Islam denotes the Moslem World.”

Ambedkar on Gandhi

Gandhi Introduced the congress bill of linguistic province. Ambedkar remarked “The determining factor was language. No thought was given to the possibility that it might introduce a disruptive force in the already loose structure of the Indian social life.Be. that as it may, the fact remains that separation on linguistic basis is now an accepted principle with the Congress.It is no use saying that the separation of Karnatak and Andhra is based on a linguistic difference and that the claim to separation of Pakistan is based on a cultural difference. This is a distinction without difference. Linguistic differenceis simply another name for cultural difference.”

Ambedkar again misrepresented the language difference in India as a cultural difference. Mohan bhagwat in his recent speech said how hindus worship anything that’s new, from first time harvest of crops to current day cars. We see the unity in Pongal to Bihu to Makar Sankranti… Diwali to deepawali and Navaratri to Garbha, celebrated at the same time over the country every year. So as we see, language makes no difference to the cultural unity of the civilization. Moreover even before 1947 the yearly pilgrimages like Vaihno Devi Yatra in North, Kumbha Mela in the central part, Gangasagar Mela in the east, Brahmhovasthan festival in Tirupati of south and other like Ambu Bachi festival in the northeast has been around for thousands of years without caring for language difference; people from all over the country visit them. If this doesn’t already define a cultural nation, nothing can convince otherwise.

Ambedkar talks extensively disregarding how Gandhi miscalculated when he sided with the Khilafat movement which was no way linked to the Muslims in India unifying with the Hindus in driving the British out. Ambedkar argues after Khilafat never did Muslims participate wholeheartedly in the congress movement but segregated themselves as a separate nation in regards to a homogeneous identity.

Ambedkar said “Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives. This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots.”

Ambedkar also talks of Gandhi’s position on the partition as something similar to a senile statement.“The Hindus are in the grip of the Congress and the Congress is in the grip of Mr. Gandhi. It cannot be said that Mr. Gandhi has given the Congress the right lead. Mr. Gandhi first sought to avoid facing the issue by taking refuge in two things. He started by saying that to partition India is a moral wrong and a sin to which he will never be a party. This is a strange argument. India is not the only country faced with the issue of partition or shifting of frontiers based on natural and historical factors to those based on thenational factors. Poland has been partitioned three times and no one can be sure that there will be no more partition of Poland. There are very few countries in Europe which have not undergone partition during the last 150 years. This shows that the partition of a country is neither moral nor immoral. It is unmoral. It is a social, political or military question. Sin has no place in it.”

Ambedkar on Muslims

Ambedkar in his book Pakistan or Partition of India, accepts the barbarity of the Moslem invasion where he categorically talks of thousands of temples destroyed, rape, loot and religious domination from 11^th century onwards and the ruthless Jazia imposed thereafter. He writes “These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest. There was another object behind them. The expedition against Sind by Mahommad bin Qasim was of a punitive character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir of Sind who had refused to make restitution for the seizure of an Arab ship at Debul, one of the sea-port towns of Sind. But, there is no doubt that striking a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims of this expedition. In one of his dispatches to Hajjaj, Mahommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said :

” The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of worship have been created, the Kulbah it read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at staled hours. The Takbir and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening. ”  “.
He quotes lbid.,p.11.“Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al’ Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes :” He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured …… cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ‘ He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam. ……. and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind .”Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms :” He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigor and intrepidity left not one temple standing .

 He took great pain in the Muslims disregard for knowledge by citing the destruction of Nalanda.”Not infrequently, the slaughter of the Hindus gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad BakhtyarKhilji. When he took Nuddea (Bihar) the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that:” great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found……… but none could explain their contents as all the men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study. ” Summing up the evidence on the point. Dr. Titus concludes :” Of the destruction of temples and the desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Mahommad bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, we have seen, but he made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for purposes of revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while he thus satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity by having a piece of cow’s flesh tied around the neck of the idol.”

Ambedkar goes on to write” My position in this behalf is definite, if not singular. I do not think the demand for Pakistan is the result of mere political distemper, which will pass away with the efflux of time. As I read the situation, it seems to me that it is a characteristic in the biological sense of the term, which the Muslim body politic has developed in the same manner as an organism develops a characteristic.”

Ambedkar writes how not only the Hindus but Muslims also segregated in class and is endogamous to the Hindu caste system. Ambedkar writes in his Book “Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal:—” The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes— Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan—has very littleapplication to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf orSharaf and (2) Ajlaf Ashraf means ‘ noble ‘ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts fromhigh caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, areknown by the contemptuous terms, ‘ Ajlaf , ‘ wretches ‘ or ‘ mean people ‘: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘ base ‘or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘ worthless ‘. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘ lowest of all ‘, is added. Withthem no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burialground.

Ambedkar states for a fact that a two nation theory was not supposedly started by Hindus but muslims. He saysabout the 1939 Muslim league Resolution  “ The Resolution is so worded as to give the idea that the scheme adumbrated in it is a new one. But, there can be no doubt that the Resolution merely resuscitates a scheme which was put forth by Sir MahomedIqbal in his Presidential address to the Muslim League at its Annual Session held at Lucknow in December 1930. The scheme was not then adopted by the League. It was, however, taken up by one Mr. Rehmat Ali who gave it the name, Pakistan, by which it is known. Mr. Rehmat Ali, M. A., LL.B., founded the Pakistan Movement in 1933. He divided India into two,namely, Pakistan and Hindustan.”

“It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no different between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims. This view does not seem to be quite devoid of truth when one recalls that the late Dr. Ansari, the leader of the Nationalist Musalmans, refused to oppose the Communal Award although it gave the Muslims separate electorates in teeth of the resolution passed by the Congress and the Nationalist Musalmans.

Ambedkar was distinctly clear with his perception that Muslims would never give their brotherhood a back seat and take up the cause of a Nation. Unity for Muslims is only the religion, it seems to be devoid of the love for humanity, unity of a nation and has always being proactive in keeping a separate identity.

Formation of Pakistan

Ambedkar notes in his book that since the Khilafat movement where the Muslim Moplas killed Hindus, there were three books written by Muslims which were vile and objectionable to the Hindus like Sita ki Chinaala,Krishan Teri Gita Jalani Padhegi and Unnisvi sadi ki Lampat Maharrishi and sold like solid for 3 years in mosques. 1923, in retaliation, Rangeela Rasool was published in Lahore by Mahashay ‘Rajpal Publishers’.  Gandhi didn’t write against the books by Muslims, but strongly condemned the book by Hindus in Young India asking Muslims to wto punish the publisher which shows his bias. Later Mahashay Rajpal was killed by a Mohammed Ilm Din after multiple attempts. Ilm Din’s death petitions was fought by none other than Mohammed Ali Jinna, Gandhi even appealed to the British Viceroy for acquitting his case saying he was an innocent, young, immature, poor carpenter who was incensed by  the book and committed the act of murder. Later Ilm Din was given the name of Hazrat Gazi (the slayer of Infidels) and his funeral was attended the Darling of Left wing Iqbal poet and 60,000 infuriated extremist Muslims. If we pay close attention to this event, it has been repeating year after year and even today we hear Congress and left wing leaders apologizing for Muslim fanatics but condemning Hindus. From 1920 till the time of partition there were more than 3000 of riots between Muslims and Hindus. It is interesting to learn Ambedkar was in absolute favor of complete transfer of Muslim population if partition was to happen, to Pakistan as he knew Hindus and Muslims would never be happy together and considered they are two different sub-species.

As a matter of reality he states “But, as it always happens in India, the political disturbances took a communal twist. This was due to the fact that the Muslims refused to submit to the coercive methods used by Congress volunteers to compel them to join in Civil Disobedience. The result was that although the year began with political riots it ended in numerous and quite serious communal riots.”Ambedkar writes “These acts of barbarism against women, committed without remorse, without shame and without condemnation by their fellow brethren show the depth of the antagonism which divided the two communities. The tempers on each side were the tempers of two warring nations. There was carnage, pillage, sacrilege and outrage of every species, perpetrated by Hindus against Musalmans and by Musalmans against Hindus—more perhaps by Musalmans against Hindus than by Hindus against Musalmans. Cases of arson have occurred in which Musalmans have set fire to the houses of Hindus, in which whole families of Hindus, men, women and children were roasted alive and consumed in the fire, to the great satisfaction of the Muslim spectators. What is astonishing is that these cold and deliberate acts of rank cruelty were not regarded as atrocities to be condemned but were treated as legitimate acts of warfare for which no apology was necessary. Enraged by these hostilities, the editor of the Hindustan—a Congress paper—writing in 1926 used resentment as a language to express the painful truth of the utter failure of Mr. Gandhi’s efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity.”

Ambedkar points out “Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity upto now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. Gandhi has given up what, he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task. But there are others who notwithstanding the history of the past twenty years, believe in the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity. This belief of theirs seems to rest on two grounds. Firstly/they believe in the efficacy of a Central Government to mould diverse set of people into one nation.Secondly, they feel that the satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity.”

Till the country got independence and even in a free country there were thousands of riots in every section of the country. These gruesome acts of thousands of riots let to the partition of India and the occurrence of the great Calcutta killings which more or less fixed the fate of a separate nation. The Muslim league captured 429 of the total 492 seats reserved for Muslims. Thus, the 1946 election was effectively a plebiscite where the Indian Muslims were to vote on the creation of Pakistan; a plebiscite which the Muslim League won. But interestingly there was only population exchange in Punjab, rest all of the Muslims stayed back in India even though they inherently wanted Pakistan. The current generation of Muslims need not be cursed for the ill-doings of their forefathers, but they should come forward and discard things in their religion which creates a separation from the rest of the nation.as recent as 2015 there has been arsoning and riots by lacs of Muslims in Bengal and had even burned down police stations stems from a hardliner extremist behavior. The nation with all its children should forget differences and shun extremism to create a truly united country.

Nation as India and the illicit relationship of China and Pakistan

China and Pakistan has been the only aggressors in the Asia since 1960’s and thus came closer for a parasitic relationship where Pakistan is now feeding of China…

 We saw recently in the parliament Rahul Gandhi talked of how BJP brought Pakistan and china close together and within few days the premiers of the country put out a joint statement in winter Olympics talking about Kashmir. Kashmir has been illegally occupied by both China and Kashmir to build the cpec with is a direct assault on India’s sovereignty. But Rahul cannot move up against ideological differences and in the end, talk of weakening the nation as a whole, he seems to be a mouth piece for the enemy of the Nation and thus the Prime Minister of our country has rightly termed Congress of being the leader of Tukre Tukre Gang.

When Kashmir was removed from article 370, Rahul Gandhi stirred up anti India statements about thousands of kids going missing and Army assaults (which didn’t happen by the way) was immediately latched up by Imran Khan in Geneva conventions. There has been continuous attempts being made by communists and Pakistanis to buy out Anti-India forces inside the country and harp about the disunity, enmity in the country within religions which can sparsely be proved.

Communists of India doesn’t believe India as a nation so far as they show their allegiance to the only Communist rule in China, the Muslims show their allegiance to the Islamic federation and the Tamils call for separate identity,  inspite of all these divisions, India as a Nation has managed to stay strong ,given place to stay to people of the world from zorastrians, to Christianity, to Parsis to Jews and to Armenians and become the true identity of Unity in diversity with the only dictum of being proud of the cultural heritage this land has provided to the world.