Revenge Overdone

Arun Shourie has undertaken project revenge a Dalit youth in Pune blackened his face for writing something against Dr Ambedkar, and he deployed his entire intellectual energy to marshal facts to prove a pre-determined point that Ambedkar was a self-seeking British toady and a careerist.

Before an overall evaluation of his interpretation is done, it must be said that in recent times there has been some display of arrogance of power by the Dalits. Kanshi Ram, the modern-day Ambedkar, has been blackmailing the guilt conscience of caste Hindus about the Dalits, and Ambedkar is sought to be raised as a superhuman, beyond analytical assessment. It has become fashionable among lumpenised radicals to even decry Gandhi in the name of Ambedkar, particularly after the Mandalisation of politics.

 

A commemorative volume on Ambedkar, brought out by the ministry of welfare when it was presided over by Sitaram Kesri, says: Gandhi stood by the haves and the caste Hindus, whereas Ambedkar stood by the have- nots, the untouchables and the exploited masses. The volume also refers to Gandhi as a caste Hindu lawyer.

Certainly, there is need to restore balance and make an objective assessment of Amb-edkar. But Arun Shourie should be last person doing that. In fact, he has gone to the other extreme. If he is to be believed, Ambedkar was a traitor, who not only placed the interests of his community above that of the nation, but also promoted his personal interests. Shourie has almost called Ambedkar a purchasable commodity. To prove his point, he has quoted a British official:

I feel pretty sure that this disgruntlement (of Ambedkar) is largely a personal matter. His own financial position has been worrying him... he is no longer really interested in the work he is doing for his own followers, and is anxious to reach a different sphere. Shourie has used this quotation for character assassination: It is this anxiety which drove Ambedkar.

Yes, it is true that Ambedkar didnt join the boycott of the Simon Commission. But broadly he took a nationalistic position before the Commission. It is also true that he didnt join the civil disobedience movement in the 30s. Yet, he brilliantly defended four Satyagrahis in the court. He did oppose the Quit India movement. But he gave shelter to some underground workers. More so, he served infant independent India most ably, more as a call of duty than as a time-server careerist. Gandhi saw leadership qualities in him when in 1936 he said: Whatever label he wears in future, Dr Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.

Before Independence there were mainly three political strands. One was represented by Tilak, who gave priority to political independence and underplayed the issue of social justice. The other was represented by Ambedkar and other social refo-rmers, who gave priority to issues of social justice and underplayed the question of political independence. The third was symbolised by Gandhi, who combined the task of political independence with social justice. Even he once said that: Indias independence could wait but not the eradication of the curse of untouchability.

Ambedkar had no pretensions about representing the entire nation. He was a Dalit first, and a Dalit last. When one is not treated like a human being, the fight to be treated like one is understandable. Shourie is free not to appreciate it. But it has been a trend among socially oppressed minorities in colonies to seek protection from colonial rulers. It is known that the Blacks in America had been appealing to the British rulers not to leave them at the mercy of white slave-owners.

The great leaders of the national movement showed great understanding of the sentiments of Dalits. Ambedkar abused Gandhi, but Gandhi said: He (Ambedkar) has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our heads is an act of self-restraint on his part. Nehru felt that his (Ambedkars virulent opposition to the oppressive features in the Hindu society had kept people's mind awake.

Those who struggled for social justice have also served the nations cause. That is why, despite Ambedkars opposition to the national movement, Gandhi and Nehru made an offer to him to join free Indias first cabinet with a key portfolio law. If one is to believe Shourie, Ambedkar only played the role of a glorified clerk in framing the Constitution. Then how is it that when the Constitution was finally passed, he received ovation from all quarters? Ambedkar represented a complex phenomenon, reflecting the complexity of Indias sociology. But Shourie, with his abrasiveness and single-mindedness, has failed to serve the cause of social cohesion.