The points I think Ambedkar had made there are : 1.India was badly in need of social reform, as envisaged by people like Ranade. 2.In their hurry to immediately seize power, both the Congress and the Muslim League leadership imperiled the prospects of social reform. 3.In the Gandhian and Jinnah's scheme of things,the interests of the country and people at large were largely abandoned, they were never taken to confidence in making decisions and were considered as blind followers. 4.Formal acknowledgment of basic human rights by legislation would simply fail to deliver the goods, unless an agenda of social reform was actively pursued. 5.This important task,however, was unnecessarily derelicted and pushed to the background, to spell disaster for not only dalits, but others as well. My argument here, is that the Ambedkarian view is more realistic and incomparably honest as opposed to that of Gandhi; continuously Invoking religious (hindu majoritarian) sentiments with unabashedly espousing varnashrama on the one side and lamenting the ill treatment of 'harijans' and the minorities on the other, can not be accepted without a pinch of salt, notwithstanding Gandhi's great historical engagement in Naukhali as a person. More important question ,I believe, is how a division of Hindu-Muslim was created at all to such a level, where ordinary people spontaneously engaged in the macabre acts of killing in the eve of Independence? Why the Cong and Muslim League leadership failed to prevent this from happening,despite the towering image of Gandhi and his acceptance everywhere in India even among a section of 'nationalist' Muslim leaders like Sir Sayyed, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and many others, and among large sections of lower caste Hindus and panchamas? If not we are to believe that the riots were spontaneous and beyond the imagination of the Congress leadership then, there is no point in believing that the present day Hindu-Muslim polarization is entirely brought about by a Sangh parivar (which had remained comparatively insignificant for several decades since the independence).On the contrary, It would not have occurred outside the State's(Congress's) complicity in maintaining the legacy of communal antagonism which is also symbolized by India-Pak conflict. A section of the mainstream left and the centrist parties have yet to acknowledge the real contribution Ambedkar had made to unearth the essentials of Hinduism,which is then and till now a Brahmanical supremacist, backward,anachronistic view of lives of humans. Inflicting unspeakable atrocities on and brutalizing of fellow citizens/humans were the core of smriti's like Manusmrithi and yet, the thought of challenging installing the idol of Manu in front of the Rajastan High Court as lately as in 2006 has never occurred to a political leader here, except for few dalit organizations and human rights defenders. In retrospection, one can even suggest that Gandhi was assassinated by the Hindutwa forces not on account of his being their adversary in the pre- modernist Hindu values but precisely on account of his being the godfather of an administration headed by a comparatively progressive minded Nehru. Such development, of course had transpired as a product of realpolicking war chronically engaged by all political players against the Britishers. In the course of these exercises in realpoliticking, reforming the Hindu India with its notorious caste-gender set up was totally abandoned, though Nehru had at least shown the courtsey to invite Ambedkar to head the Constituent Assembly.
On 13 Nov, 16:01, "James Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Mr. Venu. > But I am not sure what I should glean out of these postings. > I will wait for your comments to follow. > James. > > 2008/11/13 venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Dear James Michael, > > I just now had a fresh reading of text from Ambedkar written in > > early1940s. > > I wish to share a few excerpts with you and everybody else here, my > > comments reserved for another occasion. > > Thanks,Venu. > > > "..Most people do not realize that society can practise tyranny and > > oppression against an individual in a far greater degree than a > > Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for > > oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government, > > also they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is > > comparable in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication ?" > > "Indeed he showed a high degree of courage. For let is be remembered > > that he lived in times when social and religious customs however gross > > and unmoral were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning > > their divine and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but > > as intolerable blasphemy and sacrilege...." > > > "...The Hindu philosophers had. both their philosophy and their Manu > > held apart in two hands, the right not knowing what the left had. The > > Hindu is never troubled by their inconsistency, As to their social > > system, can things be worst ? The Caste system is in itself a > > degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which is the ideal of the Hindu. > > How can anybody who is not a congenital idiot accept Chaturvarnya as > > the ideal form of society ? Individually and socially it is a folly > > and a crime. One class and one class alone to be entitled to education > > and learning! One class and one class alone to be entitled to arms! > > One class and one class alone to trade! One class and one class alone > > to serve! For the Individual the consequences are obvious. Where can > > you find a learned man who has no means of livelihood who will not > > degrade his education. ? Where can you find a soldier with no > > education and culture who will use his arms to conserve and not to > > destroy ? Where can you find a merchant with nothing but the > > acquisitive instinct to follow who will not descend to the level of > > the brute ? Where can you find the servant who is not to acquire > > education, who is not to own arms and who is not to possess other > > means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended him to be ? If > > baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not > > enough for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must > > be able to weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the > > gale and the wind of an aggression ? It is obvious that it > > cannot....." > > "...No wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a > > dangerous point. The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a > > Regulation (VII of 1819) to put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The > > preamble to the Regulation says that women were employed wholesale to > > entice and take away the wives or female children for purposes of > > prostitution, and it was common practice among husbands and fathers to > > desert their families and children. Public conscience there was none, > > and in the absence of conscience it was futile to expect moral > > indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins were > > engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived > > on them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the > > lot of the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child > > marriage and they defended enforced widowhood—the two great props of > > the Caste system. They defended the burning of widows, and they > > defended the social system of graded inequality with its rule of > > hypergamy which led the Rajputs to kill in their thousands the > > daughters that were born to them. What shames ! What wrongs! Can such > > a society show its face before civilized nations ? Can such a society > > hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade asked. He > > concluded that on only one condition it could be saved—namely, > > rigorous social reform....." > > > "...His (Ranade's) greatest opponents however came from the political > > school of the intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. > > According to that thesis political reform was to have precedence over > > social reform." > > > "..The thesis caught the imagination of the people. If there was one > > single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform movement could > > be attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis is > > unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were > > wrong and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the > > country..". > > > "..The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to every individual > > is no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make them > > effective ? 'The prevalent. view is that once rights are enacted in a > > law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted > > assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but > > by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is > > such that it is prepared to recognizes the rights which law chooses to > > enact rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental rights > > are opposed by the community, no Law no Parliament, no judiciary can > > guarantee them in the real sense of the word.." > > > "..The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed > > be a misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never > > realized that democracy was not a form of Government. It was > > essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a > > democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by > > loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does > > unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an > > attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is > > a social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is > > incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, > > resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the > > unprivileged. Unfortunately, the opponents of Ranade were never able > > to realize the truth of this fact..." > > > "..Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his > > opponents against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social > > Tones. In clear and unmistakable terms he warned them saying : > > " You canned be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics > > and conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. > > You cannot cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the > > sphere of your political rights and privileges, and at the same time > > keep your hearts closed and cramped. It is an idle dream to expect men > > to remain enchained and enshackled in their own superstition and > > social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights and > > privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will > > find their dreams lost."..." > > > "...Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be > > compared ? Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore > > be compared with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of > > India two great men, so big that they could be identified without > > being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What sort of a history they will make > > may be a matter for posterity to tell. For us it is enough that they > > do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They hold leading > > strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. They are > > the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with > > Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to make some > > observations upon their temperaments and methods with which they have > > now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for what > > they are worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be > > difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal > > egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of > > the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian > > politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for > > them ; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they > > do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they > > overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They > > choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall > > themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to > > their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, > > but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed > > a wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they are > > always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be > > supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small > > wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for > > himself. " > > "Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a > > competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. > > Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. > > Jinnah must have the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working > > Committee and the All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must > > have its Working Committee and its Council. The session of the > > Congress must be followed by a session of the League. It the Congress > > issues a statement the League must also follow suit. If the Congress > > passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's Resolution > > must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress President > > has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
