Executive Summary
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an Indian jurist, economist, social reformer and politician, had complex views on Muslim politics and Islam. Ambedkar believed that the political behavior of Indian Muslims was influenced by their religious identity and that their leaders used religion to gain political power. He was critical of Muslim leaders who used Islam to further their political ambitions, and believed that this approach would only lead to greater division and communalism in India.
In his book “Pakistan or The Partition of India,” Ambedkar argued that the creation of Pakistan was a mistake, and that the idea of a separate Muslim state was based on a flawed understanding of Indian history and culture. He believed that the demand for Pakistan was driven more by political considerations than by any real desire for a separate homeland for Indian Muslims.
Ambedkar also had critical views about Islam. He believed that Islam, had its own flaws and limitations, and it was important for its followers to recognize and address these issues instead of living in any notion of utopian supremacy. He was critical of certain Islamic practices that he saw as oppressive to women and lower castes. He argued that it placed them at a disadvantage and prevented them from fully participating in society.He also believed that the Quran contained many teachings that were incompatible with modern democratic values.
Although, Ambedkar recognized the importance of religion in the lives of many Indians, including Muslims, and believed that it could be a powerful force for social and political change. He advocated for a more inclusive and progressive interpretation of Islam that would be more compatible with modern ideas of social justice and equality.
A look at Ambedkar’s thoughts on Muslim politics and about Islam clearly shows that he was never in favour of scheduled castes having a political alliance with Muslims.
Ambedkar categorically stated (Chapter X, ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’), “The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not.”
Making a scathing attack on Muslim politicians, clerics and the lack of reforms within the religion, Ambedkar further adds, “With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money and is very seldom a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place—and they must because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.
The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Mussalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.”
In light of the above and many more statements and writings of Dr Ambedkar, any leader or party trying to forge a dalit-Muslim combination seems to be betraying Ambedkar’s legacy.
As far as the Congress Party is concerned, it first humiliated Dr Ambedkar and forced him to resign from the Congress and then it ensured his defeat in the 1952 General Elections from Bombay and again in the 1954 by-elections from Bhandara. Ambedkar’s resignation speech in Parliament showed how he felt about the Congress sabotaging the interests of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the country.
Ambedkar said in Parliament after tendering his resignation from the Nehru cabinet on September 27, 1951 (Ambedkar’s Writings, Vol. 14, Part Two, pages.1317-1327) , “…why is no relief granted to the Scheduled Castes? Compare the concern the Government shows over safeguarding the Muslims. The Prime Minister’s whole time and attention is devoted for the protection of the Muslims. … what I want to know is, are the Muslims the only people who need protection? Are the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Indian Christians not in need of protection? What concern has he shown for these communities? So far as I know, none and yet these are the communities which need far more care and attention than the Muslims.”
He also shared the humiliation he had to suffer while working with Nehru in his cabinet:
“…….in the old Viceroy’s Executive Council, I held two administrative portfolios, that of Labour and C.P.W.D., where a great deal of planning projects were dealt with by me and would like to have some administrative portfolio. The Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which, he said, was intending to create. Unfortunately the Planning Department came very late in the day and when it did come, I was left out.
During my time, there have been many transfers of portfolios from one Minister to another. I thought I might be considered for any one of them. But I have always been left out of consideration.
Many Ministers have been given two or three portfolios so that they have been overburdened. Others like me have been wanting more work. I have not even been considered for holding a portfolio temporarily when a Minister in charge has gone abroad for a few days. It is difficult to understand what is the principle underlying the distribution of Government work among Ministers which the Prime Minister follows.
Is it capacity? Is it trust? Is it friendship? Is it pliability? I was not even appointed to be a member of the main Committees of the Cabinet such as Foreign Affairs Committee, or the Defence Committee. When the Economics Affairs Committee was formed, I expected, in view of the fact that I was primarily a student of Economics and Finance, to be appointed to this Committee. But I was left out. I was appointed to it by the Cabinet, when the Prime Minister had gone to England. But when he returned, in one of his many essays in the reconstruction of the cabinet, he left me out. In a subsequent reconstruction my name was added to the Committee, but that was as a result of my protest.”
Reference : Ambedkar, B.R. “Pakistan or The Partition of India,”
