BV - May 2015 Yr 2 Issue 6 E

detrimental to the growth of the rights of the
Dalits if they were not ensured in the
constitution.
I have not read the book definitely went
through Arundhati's essays published in
Caravan as well as her interview given to
outlook. They are definitely based on many
other 'left critique' of Dr Ambedkar
particularly the issue of 'village'. Yes, Dr
Ambedkar said villages in India are den of
feudalism, nepotism and casteism. They live
in ignorance and are truly a replica of Manu's
law. The biggest state in India is actually
brahmanical mindset. It is more powerful
than any other things. Arundhati has written
on numerous occasions about Bastar and
how the tribals are denied right to even
protest. Contrary to this, Hazare and his
upper caste followers like Kejriwal have been
given larger than life role by media and
protection by police and administration. Why?
They fixed in the upper caste nationalism
which only is the guarantee of right and
wrong in India according to power elite.
Hence, when we discuss 'State' in India, we
cannot talk state in a utopian Marxist sense
to hide the follies and crookedness of the
brahmanical masters of the state.
I am sure, Arundhati must have heard about
the water movement in Mahad led by Dr
Ambedkar. That apart, he fought many battles
for workers' rights with trade unionist in
Nagpur, Mumbai as well as for the land rights
of the people. He talked about
'Nationalisation' of land and stood for it even
when he could not do anything for it in the
Constitution of India because of all the
obscurantists' hell bent to stop his reforms.
He was a thorough democrat and hence did
not approve the 'communist' form of
government but he was fascinated with the
land reforms that had taken place in Soviet
Union and China. Often critique of Dr
Ambedkar brings the issue of his call for
people to migrate to cities and his
appreciation for freedom and liberation in the
United and Europe without understanding the
meaning and feeling behind these words.
Dr Ambedkar called people to migrate to
cities, to adopt new education, shun
superstition and develop rationalist attitude.
We must appreciate that this was his concern
for the community and he was speaking as an
elder who had faced untouchability in his life
time. When he went to United States, he felt
different as none asked him questions about
his caste and identity and every one shook
hands with him. And once he returned to
India with a bigger degree and experience, yet
the caste minds discriminated against him
and State of Baroda could do nothing. So, we
have to realize that, in India, state is nothing
but Brahmanism and unless you target the
brahmanical values, its system, the merely
shouting Indian state and leaving the
'builders' of these state out of your criticism
will only amount to your trying to avoid caste
discrimination.
So when Ambedkar appreciated the freedom
and liberty that he breathed in United States
of America and Europe, it does not mean that
he supported all their action. How is it
possible? When Dr. Ambedkar was speaking
for the rights of Dalits who were his main
concern, how is amounted to 'not being able
to speak' for 'aadivasis'. He defended their
right of cultural autonomy and Schedule
Areas to be demarcated for the Aadivasis. Yes,
he was not in a luxurious position like Gandhi
to speak for everyone. Even speaking on
behalf of Dalit was challenged by Gandhi who
claimed that he had more 'followers' among
the 'Harijans' than Dr. Ambedkar. Yes,
Gandhi's followers will always remain
Harijans but Ambedkar's followers will remain
those who believe in dignity and self-respect.
A call to migrate to cities was meant for his
people in the very similar way 'educate,
agitate and organise' where he advised people
to migrate to cities to save themselves from
the violence of untouchability and caste
discrimination. It does not mean that he
wanted to demolish the villages. He wanted to
demolish the caste structure in the villages
and not villages. One should appreciate a man
who embraced Buddhism cannot be a hater of
nature. Ambedkar modernism does not mean
building of 'concrete' structure. He talks of
'Prabuddha' Bharat which from his own
understanding was where caste identities are
demolished and he felt it was only possible
once India embraced the path of Buddha.
Many people may not like it as they have their
own prejudices towards Buddhism, but Dr
Ambedkar had realized that in Buddha's path
lies our salvation. So when he talks of
modernity, it means end of Khap Panchayats
and concealed hatred.
In his book, 'Pakistan or partition of India', Dr
Ambedkar clearly mentions that Hindu
Rashtra would be a calamity for India. He
says unambiguously that Hindu Rashtra
would be as dangerous as Muslim Rashtra
and then he went on to say that only a
political formation of the workers, Dalits,
aadivasis, OBCs and other secular progressive
● Year – 2 ● Issue – 6 ● May 2015 ● Buddhist Voice ● www.buddhistvoice.com ● Email: indian.buddhistvoice@gmail.com 38