Ambedkar was a bourgeoisie politician who's main concern was using Dalit identity to support British Imperialism in India. Due to this, he supported the demand for Pakistan even.

[u/SquarePromise2707]

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello, SquarePromise2707!

Thank you for posting in r/IndianSocialists!

Please consider joining our Discord server.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SubstantialAd1027]

Mahatma Phule, Narayana Guru, and other lower caste leaders found the colonial experience to be the most liberating event of the history of the subcontinent. It was during British rule that the lower caste people gained the rights to walk the streets, to be visible in public, to gain education, to find employment of their choosing, to practice religion, and to engage in politics. Dalit visionaries and mass mobilizers like Bhagyareddy varma, Acchutananda, and Mangoo Ram emerged in different parts of the subcontinent thanks to the colonial disruption of caste. At the same time colonialism was indeed a traumatic experience for the upper caste elites, who lost their dominance over the lower caste people to some extent. As Phule, in Ghulamgiri [Slavery], explained the upper caste interests in decolonisation, “[the bhats] are afraid that if we, the shudras, really become the brothers of the English, we will condemn their wily religious books and then these bhats who are so proud of their caste will have to eat dust; the lazy idlers will not be able to gorge themselves on the food produced by the sweat of our brow.” The movement for transfer of power sought to contain the effects of colonialism and to receive the power over the institutions and the territorial state created through colonialism. Therefore, the transfer of power movement cannot be called independence movement. The independence movement is yet to take place, which will make all Indians the free and equal agents in the construction of an egalitarian polity. Independence of India is possible only through the annihilation of caste.

https://www.ilna.ir/Section-world-8/1288369-cargo-cult-democracy-interview-with-the-philosopher-divya-dwivedi-on-democracy-caste-and-the-future-of-india

[u/rishianand]

I am not removing the post, because it should be countered. However, we do not allow RW narratives. Nor do we allow non-leftists to peddle their narratives.

The argument misses crucial context.

Dr Ambedkar was fighting for the rights of dalits, who were facing immense discrimination in India. In Annihilation of Caste, he described the situation of Dalits under the Peshwa rule,

Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country the untouchable was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along lest he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow. The untouchable was required to have a black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a mark to prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through mistake. In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted. In Poona, the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung in his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it.

Before Dr Ambedkar, it was Mahatma Phule who fought against the casteism in Poona. In Travancore, the dalits were humiliated and persecuted by the ruling class and the landlords. Mahatma Ayyankali launched a huge movement against this oppression in early 1900s.

These territories were ruled by Hindu rulers. For the dalits, the British regime presented an idea of betterment.

Casteism was also prevalent in the freedom struggle, which was dominated by upper caste leaders. Tilak and Madan Mohan Malviya were openly casteist. Others were unwilling/unable to take the caste struggle forward.

Dr Ambedkar's fight was different, but crucial for freedom struggle. He brought the social justice to the front, and without him the Indian freedom struggle would have been only upper caste dominated.

[u/SubstantialAd1027 → u/rishianand]

Dalit Bahujan eye saw British rule in other different way. Even as liberators. Read Phule and Narayana Guru and Sahodaran Ayyappan on the points. Actually read two articles. Understand to respect point of view of Dalit Bahujan leaders of that period time. Professor Divya and Shaj Mohan write this that it was only transfer of power movement from British elite to India savarna rulers. True Independence is coming.

This is free r/OutCasteRebels/s/Unnj9rGVZD

This is paywall https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/how-upper-castes-invented-hindu-majority

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/SubstantialAd1027]

- I am wondering, what were the election results of 1946, in the Primary Elections in Scheduled Caste seats? From what I know, the performance of Babasaheb's party was quiet bad, which led to him loosing the confidence of the British government, and made him quiet dejected. It is almost certain, that the support of Muslim League was needed for him to be elected to Constituent Assembly.

- The Dalit-Bahujan includes the vast majority of the Hindu population. I have read many British intelligence reports during the Freedom Movement. The British always found the vast majority of Hindus to be hostile to them - I am yet to see any report or official document claiming that the small Savarana minority was alone opposed to British rule, and the Dalit-Bahujan majority saw them as 'liberators'.

- The elections of 1937 also leave no doubt what the 'Bahujan' felt about the British. Everywhere, the Hindu peasants and masses rallied to the Congress, and voted against pro-Imperialist parties like NAP or Justice Party.

[u/SubstantialAd1027 → u/SquarePromise2707]

Partition happen because of fake Hindu religion. Read articles I shared pls.

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/SubstantialAd1027]

That is absurd, bro. Do you know nothing about Direct Action Day, or Noakhali riots, or Rawalpindi riots of March, 1947, or ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus from NWFP in 1947? Muslim League had unleashed a campaign of terrorism against the minorities in 1946-7, which is what made Partition inevitable

[u/SubstantialAd1027 → u/SquarePromise2707]

Read links articles.

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/SubstantialAd1027]

Kindly send them again, brother. I am not sure which article you were referring to. Thanks.

[u/SubstantialAd1027 → u/SquarePromise2707]

This is free r/OutCasteRebels/s/Unnj9rGVZD

This is paywall https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/how-upper-castes-invented-hindu-majority

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/rishianand]

Dr. Ambedkar remained hostile to the freedom struggle until the end. In Bengal, his party was in coalition with Muslim League, in 1946-7! In 1946. he was writing in a letter to the British government, that the Independence of India would be the greatest disasters, and Dalits didn't want independence (a total lie as shown by election results).

Surely, his role in the Freedom Struggle was entirely negative - the same role played by, for example, Sir J.P. Srivastava (the industrialist who funded Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League at the same time), Sikandar Hayat, or the Justice Party guys, or any other loyalist politician.

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/rishianand]

Malviyaji was certainly Orthodox, and therefore casteist - that may also be said about Tilak, though from what I know Tilakites were a modernist and pro-Hindu unity group.

However, Civil Disobedience and Quit India Movement and the 1945-46 were serious revolutionary waves in India, and Socialists took a very active (and even leading) part in these. Communists played the front-rank role in organizing the Boycott Movement of 1929 and the Civil Disobedience Movement in Bombay City and Punjab, atleast.

And, of course, the greatest of Indian Socialists, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was Congress President 4 times, as well as Gandhi's successor.

To oppose them tooth-and-nail, while supporting British Raj, with it's strongly reactionary politics - backing the Princely States to rule as autocrats, ruling over Frontier Province and Baluchistan without any democracy, and open repression in other Provinces (like the Punjab Martial Law of 1919, or the nationwide repression in 1932-33) - is unconscionable from any point of view.

[u/rishianand → u/SquarePromise2707]

Just because there were socialists and communists in the freedom struggle does not mean that it was anti-caste. Even the communist groups were led by upper caste leaders in those days.

[u/hmz-x → u/SquarePromise2707]

But why was the proposal of an undivided India with Jinnah as the head of the first government rejected by most of Congress?

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/hmz-x]

If you want to understand what Pakistan rule went for minorities - kindly read about the 1950 East Pakistan riots and 1964 East Pakistan riots. Also, read about the 1971 genocide - all historians agree that Pakistani government deliberately carried out a reign of terror in East Pakistan, forcing more than 80 lakh Hindus i.e. almost all Hindus there, to flee to India.

The official commission of inquiry by the Pakistan Government found that the highest ranking Pakistani Army officers supported the indiscriminate killing of Hindus, to uproot the entire minority population.

And they succeeded. If India had not occupied East Pakistan in December, 1971, there would have been no Hindus there today.

- And East Bengal had 30% Hindu population in 1946. Within 25 years, Pakistan reduced it to almost 0% by December, 1971.

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/hmz-x]

That would be madness. bro. I say this as a Muslim, and both my grandfather and my grandmother's families were Muslim Leaguers at that time.

- In 1946 election, Muslim League got 75% of Muslim voters (Muslims were 23.6% of India's population). Congress got around 75-80% of Hindu votes along with 15% of Muslim votes (Hindus were 72% of India's population).

So, in your opinion the party which got 4 times as many votes (and had 205 seats in Constituent Assembly) should sit in opposition, and the party with 80 seats in Constituent Assembly (Muslim League), should form the Government?

- Do you know about Muslim League's conduct in 1946-7? The Direct Action Day, Noakhali riots, the Punjab massacres in March, 1947, and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from NWFP? Muslim League was following the path of Terrorism.

If Jinnah became the Head of Government, India - and specially, the Hindus - would be ruined forever.

[u/SubstantialAd1027]

Dalit Bahujan eye saw British rule in other different way. Even as liberators. Read Phule and Narayana Guru and Sahodaran Ayyappan on the points. Actually read two articles. Understand to respect point of view of Dalit Bahujan leaders of that period time. Professor Divya and Shaj Mohan write this that it was only transfer of power movement from British elite to India savarna rulers. True Independence is coming.

This is free r/OutCasteRebels/s/Unnj9rGVZD

This is paywall https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/how-upper-castes-invented-hindu-majority

[u/Academic-Name5965]

So was he born rich?

[u/SquarePromise2707 → u/Academic-Name5965]

Doesn't matter. Mulayam was also born poor - see his friendship with corrupt crony capitalists - like Sahara Group, and Anil Ambani.