Thank you dear Kushan Vyas, I welcome every constructive suggestion and will try to do it. And like to add, this is the thread oriented to Babasaheb Ambedkar so we should respect it and more talk in emails. I thinks you will try to understand. If you have some net links for it, your welcome. Let it become a good thread on Babasaheb and his work.
Here is the link of original speeches of Babasaheb Ambedkar;
https://bookvistas.com/bookdetails.aspx?bookId=1534
https://www.easternbookcorporation.com/moreinfo.php?txt_searchstring=14138
https://www.flipkart.com/babasaheb-ambedkar-writings-speeches-ahir-book-8176465631
https://caravanmagazine.in/Story/52/EditorsNotebook.aspx
Contents :
Preface
Vol 1
Castes in India, Annihilation of Caste, and ten other essays
Vol 2
Dr. Ambedkar in the Bombay Legislature, 1927-1939
Vol 3
Philosphy of Hinduism
Vol. 4
Riddles in Hinduism: An Exposition to Enlighten The Masses
Vol. 5
Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability
Vol. 6
Prefatory
Vol. 7
Froreword-
Kamalkishor Kadam-Minister for Education
Vol 8
Sharad Pawar- Chief Minister of Maharastra
Vol 9
Kamalkishor Kadam- Minister for Education
Vol 10
Dr. Ambedkar As Member of the Governor-General's Executive Council 1942-46
Vol 11
The Buddha and his Dhamma, 1957
Vol 12
Ancient Indian Commerce
Vo l13
Dr. Ambedkar The Principal Archiect of the Constitution of India
Vol 14
Dr. Ambedkar and the Hindu Code Bill Parts I & II
Vol 15
Dr. Ambedkar As Free India's First Law Minister And Member of Opposition in Indian Parliament, 1947-1956
Vol 16
Grammer and Dictionary of the Pali Language
Vol 17
Dr. Ambedkar and his Eglitarian Revolution
The problem is that everyone can’t afford to purchase the book Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings And Speeches.
If this book available in pdf then it will be helpful to all. I think this book may be available in library
Finally I found a link that is an e-compilation of writings of Dr. Ambedkar and documentation of hisdebates/interviews etc. meant for students and researchers of Dr.Ambedkar-thought and activists in the movement of oppressed people allover the world. (460 MB)
You all download it from that link search it in torrentz site .I cannot say in details if you have problems then I sent direct link through PM.
Do Depressed Classes desire Temple Entry ?
Info: https://ambedkarquotes.wordpress.com/
N. B. :- Gandhi requested Dr. Ambedkar to lend his support to Dr. Subbarayan’s Temple entry Bill and that of Ranga Iyer-when both met on 4th Feb. 1934 at Yeravada Prison. Dr. Ambedkar declined in person, and later issued a statement on 14th Feb, 1933. He outlined the impracticability of the bill, crticised it for not making Untouchability illegal and outlined why he would not prefer just temple entry-this part is reproduced here.
The main question is : Do the Depressed Classes desire Temple Entry or do they not ? This main question is viewed by the Depressed Classes by two points of view. One is the materialistic point of view. Starting from it, the Depressed Classes think that the surest way of elevation lies in education, higher employment and better ways of earning a living. Once they become well placed in the scale of social life, they would become respectable the religious outlook of the orthodox towards them is sure to undergo change, and even if it didn’t happen, it can do no injury to their material interest. Proceeding on these lines the Depressed Classes say that they will not spend their resources on such an empty things as Temple Entry. There is another reason why they do not care to fight for it. Their argument is the argument of self-respect.
Not very long ago there used to be boards on club doors and other social resorts maintained by Europeans in India, which said “Dogs and Indians” are not allowed. The temples of Hindus carry similar boards today, the only difference is that the boards on the Hindu temples practically say : “All Hindus and all animals including gods are admitted, only Untouchables are not admitted”. The situation in both cases is of parity. But Hindus never begged for admission in those places form which the Europeans in their arrogance had excluded them. Why should an Untouchable beg for admission in a place from which he has been excluded by the the arrogance of the Hindus? This is the reason of the Depressed Class man who is interested in material welfare. He is prepared to say the Hindus, “to open or not to open your temples is a question for you to consider and not for me to agitate. If you think, it is bad manners not to respect the sacredness of human personality, open your temple and be a gentleman. If you rather be a Hindu than a gentleman, then shut the doors and damn yourself for I don’t care to come.”
I found it necessary to put the argument in this form, because I want to disabuse the minds of men like Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya of their belief that the Depressed Classes are looking forward for their patronage.
The second point of view is the spiritual one. As religiously minded people, do the Depressed Classes desire temple entry or do they not ? That is the question. From the spiritual point of view, they are not indifferent to temple entry as they would be, if the material point of view alone were to prevail. But their final answer must depend upon the reply which Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus give to the questions namely : What is the drive behind this offer of temple entry ? Is temple entry to be the final goal of the advancement in the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold ? Or is it only the first step and if it is the first step, what is the ultimate goal ? Temple entry as a final goal, the Depressed Classes can never support. Indeed they will not only reject it, but they would then regard themselves rejected by Hindu Society and free to find their own destiny elsewhere. On the other hand, if is only to be a first step they may be inclined to support it. The position would then be analogous to what is happening in India today. All Indians have claimed dominion status for India. The actual constitution will fall short of Dominion status and many Indians will accept it. Why ? The answer is that as the goal is defined, it does not matter much if it is to be reached by steps and not in one jump. But if the British had not accepted the goal of Dominion status, no one would have accepted the partial reforms which many are now willing to accept. In the same way, if Mahatma Gandhi and the reformers were to proclaim what the goal which they have set before themselves is for the advancement of the social status of the Depressed Classes in the Hindu fold, it would be easier for the Depressed Classes to define their attitude towards Temple entry. The goal of the Depressed Classes might as well be stated here for the information and consideration of all concerned. What the Depressed Classes want is a religion,, which will give them equality of social status. To prevent any misunderstanding,I would like to elaborate the point by drawing a distinction between social evils are which are the result of secular causes and social evils which are founded upon doctrine of religion. Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the ground of religion. The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequalities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequalities.
If the Hindu religion is to be their religion, then it must become a religion of Social Equality. The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of equality of social status. All that it can do is to recognize as nationals not aliens, if I may use the common terms which have become so familiar in politics. But that cannot mean that they would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal. , without being above and below any one else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the principle of equality of social status : on the other hand it fosters inequality by insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatrias, Vaishyas and Shudras, which now stand toward one another in an ascending scale of hatred and descending scale of contempt. If the Hindu Religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of chaturvarna. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the Caste system and Untouchability, which are merely forms of inequality. Unless it is done not only will the Depressed Classes reject the temple entry, they will also reject the Hindu faith. Chaturvarna and the Caste system are incompatible with the self-respect of the Depressed Classes. So long as they stand to be its cardinal doctrine, the depressed classes must continue to be looked upon as low. The Depressed Classes can say that they are Hindus only the theory of Chaturvarna and Caste system is abandoned and expunged from the Hindu shastras. Do the Mahatma and the Hindu reformers accept this as their goal and will they show the courage to work for it ? I shall look forward to their pronouncements on this issue, before I decide upon my final attitude. But whether Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindus are prepared for this or not, let it be known once and for all that nothing short of this will satisfy the Depressed Classes and make them accept temple entry. To accept temple entry and be content with it, is to temporise with evil and barter away the sacredness of human personality that dwells in them.
There is, however, one more argument which Mahatma Gandhi and the reforming Hindu may advance against the position I have taken. They may say : “acceptance by the Depressed Classes of Temple entry now, will not prevent them from agitating hereafter for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste. If that is the view, I like to meet the argument right at this stage so as to clinch the issue and clear the road for future developments. My reply is that it is true that the my right to agitate for the abolition of Chaturvarna and Caste system will not be lost, if I accept Temple entry now. But the question is on what side will Mahatma Gandhi be when the question is put. If he will be in the camp of my opponents, I must tell him I cant be in in camp now. If he will be in my camp he ought to be in it now.
Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher ) 09 December 2010
Good link, Kushan. There are other links too which I will be posting shortly or if anyone come across, please do it.
Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher ) 11 December 2010
Dr. Ambedkar On Women Liberation
By Ratnesh Katulkar
31 August, 2008
Countercurrents.org
"We shall see better days soon and our progress will be greatly accelerated if male education is persuaded side by side with female education…" are the words of Young Ambedkar, during his studies at New York which came out while writing a letter to his father's friend. Interestingly Dr. Ambedkar's first academic paper "Caste in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" also begins with his concern towards women, where he located the linkages between caste and gender by observing that "Superimposition of endogamy on exogamy means creation of caste" and concluded that there is no divine or natural cause of origin of caste but Brahmins of ancient India craftily designed it by enclosing their class through means of controlling and subjugating their woman.
He further pointed attention to the fact that in order to maintain endogamy, the only ideal situation is constant s*x ratio with in a class, i.e., one man for one woman. As he observed, " The problem of caste then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity between marriageable units of two s*xes with in it. Left to nature, the much-needed parity between the units can be realized only when a couple dies simultaneously. But this is rare contingency. The Husband may die before the Wife and create a Surplus woman, who must be disposed of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of man, whom the group, while it may sympathies with him for sad break the endogamy. Thus, both the surplus man and surplus woman constitute a menace to the Caste, if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners inside their prescribed circle (and left to themselves they cannot find, any for it matter be not regulated there can only be just enough pairs to go round) very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and import offspring that is foreign to caste".
Therefore he observed that in the maintenance of strict endogamy surplus men and surplus women were the main challenge, here he also noted that man being powerful and upper hand in society can not be forcibly controlled thus the society let him untouched but the women being inferior to man were easy pray of its victimization. So as a 'protective' measure Sati system was introduced, where by a surplus woman (= widow) was forced to burn along with her deceased husband. But in some cases it was difficult to operate so the second remedy was to compulsory enforce widowhood on her for rest of her life, and in order to guard the her morals and also morals of group, the widows were obliged to follow much restrictions such as shaven head, restriction on diets, wearing of colorless Sari and no intermixing with any one and in this way she is no longer source of allurement.
As said above, both these treatments-Sati and Enforced Widowhood were not possible in the case of Surplus Man. Therefore, Surplus man was allowed to re-marry to recruit another bride, but here there is every possibility of increase in competition in consumption of woman in Caste, therefore as a corrective measure, man was allowed to recruit his wife from lower marriageable rank, this resulted in the beginning of Girl Marriage. In this way, the inhuman practices of i) Sati system ii) Enforced Widowhood and iii) Child marriage came into existence. Thus much before the Indian feminist school, Dr. Ambedkar pointed out the direct relationship between caste and gender and observed that gender could not be seen in isolation from caste.
Apart from his academic writings when Dr. Ambedkar headed in public life, women were the major force in all his struggles. Women's issue was also main plank in his fortnightly Mooknayak and Bahiskrit Bharat. In historic Mahad Satyagraha there were about 500 women took active part in this procession. On 18th July 1927, Dr. Ambedkar addressed a meeting of about three thousand women of Depressed classes, where he said that 'I measure the progress of community by the degree of progress which women had achieved' and said to the Women, "Never regard yourself as Untouchables, live a clean life. Dress yourselves as touchable ladies. Never mind, if your dress if full of patches, but see that it is clean. None can restrict your freedom in the choice of your garments. Attend more to the cultivation of the mind and spirit of self-Help." Then with a little fall in voice he said, "But do not feed in any case your spouse and sons if they are drunkards. Send your children to schools. Education is as necessary for Females as it is for males. If you know how to read and write, there would be much progress. As you are, so your Children will be." Dalit Women too responded very positively to Dr. Ambedkar's advice and to the surprise of all the women left early in the morning with wonderful change in the fashion of their Sarees as ordained by Babasaheb.
Further Dr. Ambedkar said to Women "Learn to be clean. Keep from vices. Give education to your children. Instill ambition into them. Inculcate in their minds that they are destined to be great. Remove from them all inferiority complexes." On marriage he remarked, "Do not be in hurry to marry. Marriage is liability .You should not impose it upon your children unless they are financially able to meet the liabilities arising from marriage. Those who will marry will have to keep in mind that to have too many children is a crime. The paternal duty lies in giving each child a better start than its parents had. Above all, let every girl who marries stand by her husband, claim to be her husband's friend and equal, and refuse to his slave. I am sure if you follow this advice, you will bring honour and glory to yourselves."
Dr. Ambedkar also raised the Women's issue as Member of Legislative Council during his debate in Bombay Legislative Assembly on 10th Nov. 1938; he strongly advocated family planning measures and said that besides many other problems giving birth to many children negatively affects Mother's health. Later in the year 1942 Dr. Ambedkar also introduced Maternity Benefit Bill during his tenure as Labour Minister in Governor General's Executive Council.
While drafting the constitution of India, Dr. Ambedkar was the prime movers of the provisions related to the welfare of women. On the question of civil rights, Dr. Ambedkar made provisions in articles 14-16 in the Indian Constitution, which provide equal status to Woman and also banned the of sale and purchase of woman prevailing Hindu India. Further to ensure women's status Dr. Ambedkar also introduced an emancipatory bill (the Hindu code Bill) in Parliament which intended mainly 1) to abolish different marriage systems prevalent among Hindus and to establish monogamy as the only legal system; 2) Conferment of right to property and adoption on women; 3) restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation; attempts to unify the Hindu Code in tune with progressive and modern thought.( ( We should be happy to note that what he had advocated, at least two of them have been realised( in Green) excepting point number 1( in yellow)
But the Caste Hindus who considered this move as an attempt to attack the sanctity of Hinduism opposed this revolutionary bill. It was opposed both inside as well outside the House, where not only leading members of Hindu Mahasabha but also large number of caste-Hindu women protested against this. In his vigorous defense to this Bill, Dr. Ambedkar alleged that the ideals enshrined in this bill are derived from the constitution of India, which is based on liberty, equality and fraternity. He observed that 'the sacramental marriage does not satisfy the ideal of liberty or equality'. And described 'sacramental marriages as polygamy for the men and perpetual slavery for the women because under no circumstances with in that system woman got liberty from her husband however bad he may be, however undesirable he may be'. But unfortunately this revolutionary bill couldn't see day of light as in face of growing opposition Pt. Nehru, then Prime Minister decided to drop this bill.
Dr. Ambedkar was so disgusted with this that he resigned from Nehru's cabinet. He said, 'it (The Hindu Code Bill) was killed and buried, unwept and unsung'.
Thus Dr. Ambedkar practiced what he preached. Dr. Ambedkar's influence on Women is still visible especially in the Maharashtrian Buddhist Women, who are not only empowered but often criticize mainstream Feminist movement as the Brahmin Women Movement.
Ratnesh Katulkar is an Ambedkarite activist from Madhy Pradesh and Research Scholar in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social sciences, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar MHOW Distt. Indore MP 453 441
Email: ratnesh.katulkar@gmail.com
Babasaheb Ambedkar achieved equal rights to woman and it is the constitution now and anything which goes against this equality is not only anti constitutional but a crime against in the law of the land but also a crime against humanity. It is the first time in the history of India.
Please post more about constitutional provisions for woman empowerment including law provisions and Government's policy etc.
I would also like my this thread should also be observed with this thread;
Clubbing this thread for perusal;
R.K.SUNDERRAJ (LAWYER HUBLI,KARNATAKA) 12 December 2010
Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher ) 13 December 2010
by Jules Naudet [05-11-2010]
Field(s) : International
Tags : inequalities | postcolonial studies | hinduism | castes | India
All the versions of this article:
Translated with the support of the 
Although less well known than Gandhi and Nehru, Ambedkar occupies a unique position in India’s collective imagination. Father of the Constitution and virulent critic of the caste system, he remains today a key figure for the Dalits, who have a hard time finding theirway into the official narratives of the struggle for independence.
In France, there are generally only two figures who are remembered in connection with thestruggle for Indian independence: Gandhi and Nehru. Our fascination with these two personalities surely reflects our tendency to obscure the complexity of Indian society in order to recall only certain picture postcard images, such as those reflecting Gandhi’s ideology of non-violence. This narrative of India’s national independence also conceals the persistence of strong social, cultural, linguistic and geographical cleavages. In particular, India’s caste society did not vanish with independence; far from it. Focusing on Ambedkar, a figure often neglected in spite of being crucial in the eyes of a large part of India’s population, allows us to understand better one part of the complexity of the stakes in the struggle for independence.
A lawyer and a politician, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar left a deep impression on Indian society for at least three main reasons: he had a major influence on drawing up the Constitution of India; he introduced persons regarded as ’’untouchables’’ into the centre of Indian political life; and, finally, he initiated a renewal of Buddhism in India. He was also the author of a very fine body of writings, the impact of which on Indian society is surely as great as that enjoyed by the writings of Gandhi or Nehru, even though the sociological profile of his readers tends to be very different. Indeed, dependence on Ambedkar’s work is most influential on thecontemporary Dalit movement [1], affecting its political, social and artistic dimensions. However, although he continues to be an essential figure in India, the ’’Father of the Indian Constitution’’ is often relegated to a subordinate level in narratives of the period of thestruggle for independence, which, written from a western point of view, are almost exclusively centred on the issue of emancipation from the colonial yoke. Revisiting the role played by Ambedkar allows us to see the complex, non-linear relations among the national consciousness, social structures and religious beliefs that infuse Indian society. Ambedkarrepresents another vision of independence, partly defeated but still enduring, based on radically questioning the Hindu and hierarchic character of Indian society.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (often known as ’’Babasaheb’’) [2] was born April 14th, 1891, in Mhow, in Madhya Pradesh, a state in the centre of India. He was the fourteenth child of a family of the Mahar caste, a caste originating in Maharashtra, whose traditional functions included in particular cleaning up the carcasses of dead animals, and who were regarded by most Hindus as ’’untouchables.’’ Because his father served in the British army and lived in a garrison town, Ambedkar was able to benefit from easier access to education. [3] His intellectual qualities were quickly spotted by his teachers, one of whom brought him to theattention of the Maharaja of Baroda, who financed his studies at the prestigious Elphinstone College in Bombay, then at Columbia University in New York. He eventually obtained a doctoral degree in economics from the London School of Economics in 1922. On returning to India he became a member of the bar in Bombay, and there set himself up as a barrister.
His law practice in Bombay quickly flopped: a victim of caste discrimination, he could not find any clients to defend, so he started down the path of militant action. In 1924 he launchedthe Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha (Association for the Victims of Ostracism), the primary purpose of which was to abolish the exploitative system of baluta that determined the Mahars’ recompense in kind, and to help Mahars get their rights respected. In fact this association took on the task of helping all of the ’’untouchables,’’ so it also represented other castes (in particular, Dhors et Chambhars). Its motto, still famous, was ’’Educate, Agitate, Organize.’’
In this period, Ambedkar engaged in more non-violent action, to assert the rights of ’’untouchables’’ to enter temples and to draw water from wells traditionally reserved for so-called ’’superior’’ castes. In 1927, accompanied by several thousand people, he drank water from a reservoir (Chowdar Tank) theoretically open to “untouchables” but access to which was denied to them in practice. During the second conference of Mahad, December 25th, 1927, this symbolic transgression was followed up by a powerful speech calling for the total abolition of the caste system. However, not before 1937 did the courts hand down a judgement declaring free the access to the Mahad reservoir.
Along with his militant activity, Ambedkar continued very regularly to produce theoretical and political texts on the issue of caste. As early as 1917 he published a report on that issue first presented during a seminar at the University of Columbia, and he pursued this kind of activity to the end of his life. His writings very quickly showed he had distanced himself from thestrategy of sanskritization (that is, imitation of the practices of the Brahmin castes, in particular vegetarianism), which up to then had constituted the only means available to thelower castes to climb the ladder of ritual caste purity; and had embraced a radical rejection of Hinduism, in favour of the egalitarian individualism that characterizes western democracies.
From 1919, when Ambedkar gave evidence to the Southborough Committee (responsible for redefining the electoral franchise in the framework of the constitutional reforms of theGovernment of India Act of 1919), up to 1927, when the British authorities appointed him tothe Bombay Legislative Council, Ambedkar steadily developed a case for separate electoral systems, in which only the members of the ’’depressed classes’’ (the term used at this time to designate the people called ’’untouchables’’) would vote for candidates who themselveswould come only from the same ’’depressed classes’’. In 1930 and 1931, Ambedkar restated this case during two ’’Roundtable Conferences’’ that he participated in. The British Prime Minister, J. Ramsay MacDonald, responded favourably to this demand in August 1932 in theCommunal Award, to be followed by the Poona Pact in September.
But this decision immediately led to a strong reaction from Gandhi, who, fearing that it would endanger Hindu unity, began a fast that he threatened to maintain to the death. Gandhi remained attached to the idea that the integration of Indian society should be realized through affiliation – necessarily hierarchic – to a system of castes which alone are in a position to guarantee the social, economic and ritual interdependence of their members. Theposition of Gandhi, for whom untouchability was ’’the cancer of Hinduism,’’ is distinct from that of Ambedkar, in that Gandhi thought that neither the caste system nor, obviously, Hinduism was intrinsically bad. In a conversation with Patel, one of the main leaders of theCongress party, two days after he began his fast, Gandhi, in a way that remains singular, went so far as to make an argument that reveals high-caste prejudices and a strong mistrust of Muslims and ’’untouchables’’: ’’[The untouchables] do not see that a separate electorate will create the kind of divisions among the Hindus that will lead to a bloodbath. Untouchable thugs will join with Muslim thugs to kill Hindus of caste. Have the British not thought of all that? I think they certainly have.’’ [4]
The showdown lasted several days. Ambedkar was finally forced to give in and to accept Gandhi’s alternative proposal of a system of reserved seats in which only members of the’’depressed classes’’ would be elected, but by an electoral college open to all electors in theconstituency. Yet in no constituency did the ’’depressed classes’’ amount to a majority.
In 1936, Ambedkar created his first political party, the Independent Labour Party (ILP), meant to be a party going beyond simple class affiliations, and defending the interests of all Indian workers. Conscious of the need to broaden his social base, Ambedkar tried to set himself up as leader of the ’’working masses’’. During the elections of 1937, his party managed to win twelve of the fifteen seats it contested. However, the contradictions of this party, which claimed to represent all workers but whose majority consisted of militants from ’’untouchable’’ castes, quickly became apparent, and Ambedkar was forced to replace it withthe Scheduled Castes Federation. As indicated by the organization’s change of name, this also signalled a change in the political strategy of Ambedkar, who intended to refocus on theissue of caste. Distancing himself from Marxist rhetoric and from the denunciation of capitalism, Ambedkar chose to retreat to the hard core of his electoral base. However, theelections of 1946 were a bitter defeat for the new party, Ambedkar being unable even to keep his own seat.
During the Second World War, Ambedkar maintained strong support for the British, while theCongress party preferred to withdraw from political institutions in order to denounce theinvolvement of India in a conflict that did directly concern it. Hoping much from his support ofthe British, he thought that they had done more than any Indian party towards theemancipation of the ’’depressed classes’’. [5] This cooperation had the consequence of reinforcing his hostility to the Congress party, and for a long time exposed him to theaccusation that he was a traitor to the nation, an anti-national or a pro-colonial.
Despite Ambedkar’s defeat in the elections of 1946, the Congress party, which wanted to present itself as the nation’s unifier, turned to him, and Nehru, following Gandhi’s request, named him Minister of Justice. Even more importantly, Ambedkar returned to the Constituent Assembly and, having impressed many of the Congress party by his mastery of the law and by the compromise solutions that he proposed, was named head of the committee responsible for drafting the Constitution. Thus Ambedkar could defend in the Constituent Assembly the political principles that he had absorbed during his studies in the United States and England. In particular he proposed putting into place a British-style judicial system, thus opposing a centralizing dynamic to the option supported by Gandhi, who was in favour of a decentralization of power down to the village level. He had great influence throughout thedrafting of the text, and with a considerable amount of diplomacy and political skill he managed to marginalize the influence of Gandhi’s positions. As a result, the Constitution, promulgated on January 26th, 1950, carries a strong imprint of Ambedkar, who ensured thecodification of fundamental rights and the guarantee of state involvement in social reform: untouchability was abolished, and every form of discrimination prohibited.
However, Ambedkar did not manage to impose his wish for the adoption of a western-style civil code. His plan for a civil code for the Hindus (the Hindu Code Bill) raised questions about many customs directing Hindus’ private life (particularly in marriage, divorce, equality of thes*xes, inheritance and property law) and sparked off numerous criticisms in the Assembly. Nehru, who thought that this law was necessary for the modernization of Indian society and who had assured Ambedkar of his unwavering support on this point, in the end gave in to pressure both from the more traditional fringes of the Congress party (and in particular from Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, who had become President of theIndian Republic), and from the very powerful mobilization of numerous Hindu associations. In fact, this project provoked deep disquiet among those who feared that the law would too radically upset the Hindu social order. Having been repudiated, Ambedkar sent his letter of resignation on September 27th, 1951.
After this reversal, Ambedkar declared himself disgusted with politics, even though he did not completely retire from public life. He took part in the first general elections of independent India in 1952, but did not manage to get elected to Parliament. The following year, he lostanother by-election. In 1956, just before his death, he laid the foundation for a new party,the Republican Party of India (RPI).
But above all Ambedkar dedicated most of his energy to another project. In 1935, he had publicly vowed that he would not die a Hindu: for him, Hinduism, though the religion he was born into, meant the domination of caste. After having explored different possibilities, his choice was for Buddhism, because of its egalitarian dimension, as he asserted on October 3rd, 1954, in a radio interview:
My social philosophy can be clearly summed up in three words: liberty, equality, fraternity. But don’t go saying that I have taken my philosophy from the French Revolution. That’s notthe case. My philosophy is rooted in religion, not in political science. I took it from theteachings of my master, the Buddha.... My philosophy comes out of a mission. I must work on behalf of conversion. [6]
So Ambedkar converted to Buddhism at Nagpur, on October 14th, 1956, the day of the Hindu feast of Dasahra. Several hundreds of thousands of people from ’’untouchable’’ castes journeyed in order to convert at the same time as Ambedkar. Ambedkar died soon afterwards, on December 6th, 1956. His cremation was the occasion for another mass conversion.
Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism, however limited in terms of political effectiveness, was certainly the act of his life that best reflected the imprint that he left on Indian society. By this choice that symbolized a complete break from Hinduism, Ambedkar entered into a process of struggle and resistance to the power constituted by Hinduism and the caste system. He knew how to demonstrate and to disseminate the idea that resistance to Hinduism must occur at all levels of existence: on the level of political institutions, naturally, but also on thelevel of religion. Ambedkar was certainly aware that breaking with Hinduism meant comprehensively upsetting things: this act modified social interactions, the relation of one’s body with those of others, the relation to ideology, the relation to work – in short, therelation to power in all its most intimate dimensions. [7] No ’’untouchable’’ who decided to break with Hinduism could escape the practical, daily constraints of that choice, and to manage this leap into the unknown, the figure of Ambedkar established itself as thebenchmark model par excellence. His portrait occupies a place of honour on the walls of many Dalit homes and Ambedkar remains the major exemplary figure for a great many Dalit families.
Guy Poitevin is undoubtedly the author who has best objectivized the importance of this absorption of the figure of Ambedkar into the Dalit system of representations. By his work onthe songs of the peasants of the Mahar caste grinding flour (what he calls ’’the millstone songs’’), he has managed to make clear the way in which the figure of Ambedkar has inserted itself into a language – Marathi – and into a daily cultural practice – millstone singing. The interesting thing about Poitevin’s work is that it shows that this representation of Ambedkar ’’does not have as its ultimate referent Ambedkar and his work as a social and political phenomenon in itself, for the singers to make into an object of reflection and knowledge, or the material of a plea for social transformation, namely a rewriting of history so it will be an ’authentic’ narrative by subservients’’ (p. 340). Quite the contrary; for Poitevinthese efforts at representing Ambedkar consist in the embodiment of a quest for self-knowledge by the Dalit consciousness: ’’The representation of Ambedkar replaces thefunction of a mirror. By displaying and objectifying in the imagination the portrait of Ambedkarthat it had drawn to keep the memory like a deposit of happiness in the bank (as one of thesongs puts it), consciousness reaches out to recognize itself as it would like to be.’’
Through using the figure of Ambedkar, the Dalits thus initiate an imaginary recapturing oftheir own identity. So one better understands the constant concern accorded by Mayawati – prime minister of Uttar Pradesh and director of the Bahujan Samaj party, the most important Dalit party in India – to build (especially during her fourth term starting in 2007) multiple statues of Ambedkar. [8] Today, the struggle against the domination of caste, whatever form it takes, still cannot be carried on without bringing in the figure of Ambedkar.
The influence of the figure of Ambedkar on India’s collective imagination is similar in many ways to that of the figure of Gandhi, and it is not surprising that the clash betweenAmbedkar and Gandhi also continues to leave its mark on Indian society. The imprint of theirclash comes out in a particularly bitter way when one makes an effort to combine thequestion of caste with reflection on postcolonialism in India. Indeed, the question of caste almost automatically requires taking some distance from binary concepts such as the one that opposes the culture of the colonized to the culture of the colonizer, a mode of representation that is found in certain postcolonial analyses. Indeed, the Dalit movement, like Ambedkar himself, maintains an ambiguous relation with the memory of the British presence in India. The symptoms of this ambivalence of memory are numerous and can sometimes take extreme and unexpected forms. Thus the Dalit essayist Chandra Bhan Prasad has now defended Macaulay’s ’’Minute on Education’’, a recurring target of the most traditional postcolonial critique. [9] In this ’’Minute on Education’’, Macaulay, a member of theGovernor-General’s Council, declared the wish ’’to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect’’, and in consequence he proposed promoting the spread of a quality education in English to Indian economic and cultural elites.
However, this position, at once nostalgic and polemic, is not restricted to a few essayists and polemicists; other authors occupying less marginal positions in the academic world also highlight the Dalits’ difficulty in finding their place in the Gandhian – or even in the Nehruvian – narrative framework of the struggle for independence. The work of the sociologist Hugo Gorringe shows in particular how the most underprivileged Dalits sometimes construct theirsocial identity and their emotional attachment to the nation around a position that is very critical of the Indian nation-state, even though that nation-state embraces the purpose of transcending identities that are ’’narrowly segmental’’, such as caste. [10] In a very similar perspective, though with decidedly stronger words, M.S.S. Pandian defends the idea that all discourses about the ’’modernity’’ of postcolonial Indian society lead to chasing the question of caste out of the public sphere. [11] Discourses about postcolonial India, as products of a ’’superior caste’’ habitus, will thus display a tendency to make caste invisible.
Such criticisms thus make it necessary to link the issues of caste and of the Dalits’ social identity to the production of a postcolonial way of thinking in an independent India. [12] Butthey also compel us to raise questions about the origins of that critical perspective. Numerous answers to these questions can be found in the life and work of Ambedkar
Translated from French by John Zvesper with the support of the Foundation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
by Jules Naudet [05-11-2010]
There, in Mahaad, are Caves Made by Bouddha Bhikchhoos at the time of Buddha in the hights of a Hill. All age people, including little children with parents and old aged people, were moving to see that holy places and feel the touch.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
