India and Pan-Islamism

By Bhimrao Ambedkar and Jagath Jayaprakash

It is a travesty of history that Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system are routinely cited by 'liberals' to scorn and deride Hinduism, but whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and particularly the history of Muslims in India, has received little critical scrutiny and has been swept under the carpet.

Babasaheb Ambedkar's forthrightness and unapologetic voicing of his views were two of his most enduring characteristics. He was unafraid to speak his views, frequently on complicated matters that politicians at the time ignored.

It is a travesty of history that Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system are routinely cited by 'liberals' to scorn and deride Hinduism, but whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and particularly the history of Muslims in India, has received little critical scrutiny and has been swept under the carpet.

Babasaheb Ambedkar's forthrightness and unapologetic voicing of his views were two of his most enduring characteristics. He was unafraid to speak his views, frequently on complicated matters that politicians at the time ignored.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Jagath Jayaprakash
• Release date: Feb 28, 2023
• ISBN: 9798215007051

Bhimrao Ambedkar

Bhimrao Ambedkar (1891–1956) Founding Father, modern India MA 1915, PhD 1927 LLD 1952 (hon.) Ambedkar was a leader in the struggle for Indian independence, the architect of the new nation's constitution, and the champion of civil rights for the 60 million members of the "untouchable" caste, to which he belonged. He spoke and wrote ceaselessly on behalf of "untouchables," but his passion for justice was broad: in 1950 he resigned from his position as the country's first minister of law when Nehru's cabinet refused to pass the Women's Rights Bill. Ambedkar was committed to maintaining his independence, and many of the positions he staked out in a long and complex relationship with Gandhi—on the future of Hinduism, for example—remain central to debate within Indian society.

Book preview

Bhimrao Ambedkar

India and Pan Islamism : Thoughts by Ambedkar

Copyright © 2023 by Bhimrao Ambedkar

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. It is illegal to copy this book, post it to a website, or distribute it by any other means without permission.

Bhimrao Ambedkar asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

First edition

This book was professionally typeset on Reedsy

Find out more at reedsy.com

Publisher Logo

Contents

Foreword

Can Hindus rely on Muslims to demonstrate national allegiance rather than religion?

Hindus seek Dominion status, whereas Muslims seek freedom

Muslims lack the requisite national political allegiance

Muslim leaders’ attitudes, which were formerly firmly patriotic, have become far less so over time

Pakistan’s vision is compelling and has existed implicitly for decades

About the author

Foreword

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, India’s founding father, was a lawyer, anti-caste activist, and scholar who produced several publications. One of Ambedkar’s most vehement attacks against Hinduism was his silent speech. As a result, the Left in India celebrates him today, as does his complete (and powerful) anti-Hinduism argument. However, nobody wants to discuss the book Pakistan or India’s Partition.

Ambedkar assesses the probable causes for and against partition in this book, first published in 1940. In 1945, he published a larger edition. At the same time, Ambedkar claims that he is not making a pro or con case for partition but rather is simply recording facts; it is clear from the text that he supported partition.

However, like with most of Ambedkar’s earlier work, he relies on statistics and reason rather than appeals to passion and polemics. Ambedkar breaks out the Muslim case for Pakistan, the Hindu case against Pakistan, and the likely Muslim and Hindu alternatives to Pakistan before presenting his ideas.

The following are Ambedkar’s main justifications for partition:

Gandhi’s attempts to appease the Muslim League and other Muslim organisations failed miserably because the list of Muslim demands never seemed to end.

Hinduism and Islam are two distinct nations within India, not two different castes or sects, and their ultimate fate appears incompatible.

About half of British India’s pre-partition armed forces were Muslims. They hence could not be trusted to defend a Hindu-majority India from Muslim attacks after independence.

There is no guarantee of stability, prosperity, or growth in an independent India where the British no longer exercise extensive jurisdiction over Hindus and Muslims equally a neutral third party.

There are a few more minor points to be made.

According to Ambedkar, Gandhi’s 25-year efforts to foster Hindu-Muslim harmony have failed. It has only fuelled Muslim demands for unique representation in legislatures, particular attention for Muslim-dominated communities, and so on. He also uses data from the Indian government to show that the 1920s and 1930s were the most violent decades for Hindu-Muslim sectarianism. During these decades, Gandhi made strenuous efforts to achieve Hindu-Muslim cooperation through the appeasement of Muslim organisations.

Second, and perhaps most controversially for anyone who clings to the Left’s prized image of Ambedkar, our Constitution’s founder, Islam is equated to a closed company, which is a brotherhood of Muslims only, not of all humanity. He claims that Islam is a social self-government system incompatible with local autonomy. A Muslim’s allegiance is to his faith, not to the country where he was born. In this context, Muslims are unlikely to feel the same patriotism and excitement for a united India as Hindus do. Within India, Muslims form a nation. Ambedkar’s second point is that a Muslim-majority army could not be trusted against a Muslim invasion. Ambedkar also used the examples of Czechoslovakia, Turkey, and other countries to demonstrate that multiple nations cannot coexist in a single country.

The fourth statement is self-evident and, despite division, has shown to be correct. Since the British left India in 1947, there have been numerous communal riots. There have been numerous killings motivated by religious prejudice. In many of these cases, the police and law enforcement agencies have sided with whichever community they mostly belonged to, with the community that was the majority in that state or district, or with the biases of whichever government was in control at the state and federal levels.

This brings me to a specific criticism of the book. Ambedkar believed that India would only flourish if Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan were established, as this would leave India almost entirely Hindu. Hindus made up roughly 66 per cent of India’s population in 1941, while Muslims made up 27 per cent. However, the 1951 census (the first after partition) revealed that over 10% of India’s population was Muslim (partly since not all Muslims from India’s northwest and east moved to Pakistan and partly because many Muslims lived in India’s interiors). This amounted to almost 34 million Muslims.

With 34 million Muslims in 1951 and 172 million in 2011 (the second-largest number of Muslims globally), Ambedkar’s ambition of a predominantly Hindu India has not materialised. As a result, communal rioting, anti-minority violence, and appeasement of minorities have all continued. It has also aided the rise of the Hindu Right, which claims, rather foolishly but effectively, that Hindus will soon be a minority in India. As a result, it engages in majority appeasement and promotes anti-Muslim bigotry.

Also, I believe that the bulk of military personnel’s religion will significantly impact their desire to fight for India. Nonetheless, if it were not Ambedkar’s reasoning, the Indian Left would dismiss it as prejudiced.

On the other hand, Ambedkar does not hold back regarding Hindu rights. His support for partition may appear to stem from fears of Muslim rule in India, comparable to the Hindu Right’s prior opposition to separation. This conundrum must be resolved.

While Ambedkar and the Hindu Right appear to concur on the possibility of Muslim control of India after the British leave, Ambedkar sees a partition as a solution. Ambedkar uses the Hindu Right’s notion that Hinduism is a nation and Islam is an alien (country) to argue that partition is necessary. The Hindu Right believed that Hindus would achieve power and renown by uniting India. This world-view is shown to be both stupid and evil by Ambedkar. First, in an independent India, assuaging Muslim fears would be impossible. Second, the Hindu Right’s default answer — transforming India into a Hindutva-dominated, culturally homogeneous society where Muslims are functionally (though not legally) second-class citizens — strikes an excellent-natured person as ugly and fascistic.

Ambedkar appears to have grossly underestimated the bloodshed that occurred during and after the Hindu-Muslim partition. He also misjudged the new Indian and Pakistani administrations’ abilities to secure and coordinate migration while avoiding murders and bloodshed.

It is a travesty of history that Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system are routinely cited by ‘liberals’ to scorn and deride Hinduism, but whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and particularly the history of Muslims in India, has received little critical scrutiny and has been swept under the carpet.

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s forthrightness and unapologetic voicing of his views were two of his most enduring characteristics. He was unafraid to speak his views, frequently on complicated matters that politicians at the time ignored.

Jagath Jayaprakash

10/02/2023

Can Hindus rely on Muslims to demonstrate national allegiance rather than religion?

What would an Indian say if asked the highest destiny he wishes for his country? The inquiry is critical, and the response must be edifying.

Without a doubt, a hundred per cent Indian proud of his nation would say, My idea of India’s destiny is an impeccable and independent India. It is equally correct to state that unless both Hindus and Muslims embrace this fate, the ideal can merely transmit a religious aspiration and can never acquire solid form. Is it merely a religious yearning for individuals, or is it a universal goal?

In terms of political objectives, all parties appear to agree, having announced that the goal of India’s political evolution should be independence. The Congress was the first to declare that its objective was to secure India’s political independence. In its December 1927 Madras session, the Congress established its creed