Islam: the epitome of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

Ambedkar’s advice: conversion vital for emancipation

By: Khan Yasir

The personality of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar needs no introduction. He was an intellectual par

excellence with a law degree and multiple doctorates for his research in Law, Economics and Political

Science from Columbia University and the London School of Economics. He is also regarded as the chief

architect of the Indian constitution; though the plight of the ‘architect’ was indeed exposed when he

resigned from the cabinet in 1951 following the stalling in parliament of his draft of the Hindu Code Bill,

which sought to expound gender equality in the laws of inheritance, marriage and the economy. In the

annals of Indian freedom movement he is also regarded as a villain always at odds with the hero number

one – the father of the nation – Mahatma i.e. Mohan Das Kramchand Gandhi, on the issues like separate

electorates and reservations for Dalits. He organised a Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha. His endeavours for

the development & emancipation of Dalit society needs no mention and that’s why even today, if a

political party has to play the Dalit-card or a politician has to make himself popular as a Dalit-leader, he

has to do so by singing the songs in praise of the Dalit messiah – Ambedkar. At a Depressed Classes

Conference on August 8, 1930 Ambedkar outlined his political vision, insisting that the safety of the

Depressed Classes hinged on their being independent of the Government and the Congress both: We

must shape our course ourselves and by ourselves... Political power cannot be a panacea for the ills of

the Depressed Classes. Their salvation lies in their social elevation. And one of the biggest strategy for

this social elevation in this regard is conversion. He is also characterised by always thinking and

rethinking the strategies of the development of the Dalits. In writing a sequel to Who Were the Shudras?

In 1948, Ambedkar derided Hinduism in the The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origins of Untouchability:

“The Hindu Civilisation.... is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name

would be infamy. What else can be said of a civilisation which has produced a mass of people... who are

treated as an entity beyond human intercourse and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?”

One can safely argue that Ambedkar dedicated his life for the Annihilation of Castes. He argued

eloquently, “I do not accept a religion in which one class alone has a right to gain knowledge, another

has only a right to use arms, the third one to trade and the fourth only to serve. Everyone needs

knowledge. Everybody needs arms. Everyone wants money. The religion, which forgets this, and with an

intention to educate a few, keeps the rest in darkness, is not a religion but a conspiracy to keep the

people in mental slavery”.

“I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu”. This unequivocal declaration of Ambedkar made at

Yeola, Nasik on 13 October 1935 was not an inebriated caveat but a staid frustration – a fierce war-cry.

Addressing a gathering at Dadar on 31 May 1936, he argues that Hindu religion has no sympathy, no

equality and no freedom for the Dalits. Some abstracts are as follows;

• So far as sympathy is concerned, it does not exist. Wherever you go, no body looks at you

sympathetically.... though people feel nauseated by thinking of a leper; they have at least sympathy

for him. But people have nausea as well as hatred against you.

• They say, “Get educated yourselves, be clean, and then we will touch you, we will treat you on par”.

In fact, we all know by experience that the condition of an educated, moneyed, and clean Mahar

[the caste to which Ambedkar belonged and was addressing] is as bad as that of an uneducated,

poor, and dirty one [treatment meted out to Ambedkar himself at different stages of his life are

vocal enough of this reality – as is mentioned later].

• To tell a person, who is treated as unfit for entry into any service due to the defilement attached to

him by birth, and under whom working is most contemptuous for others, that he has a right to

serve, is to make a mockery of him. The law may guarantee various rights, but only those can be

called real rights which you are permitted by the society to exercise.

In short the declaration that he made at Yeola was not a decision in haste or a ploy to bargain (as many

would pretend) but a conclusion that he reached after a life’s experience. Even after this declaration he

continued to compare different religions, pursued his intellectual pursuit of contrasting different ways of

lives. After this torturous pursuit he became a bodh on 14th

November 1956 – here we are going to

analyse his decision under the pretext of following questions;

• Did he really want to convert to Buddhism?

• Do dalits got what Ambedkar anticipated them to get by conversion to Buddhism even after 53

years of his conversion today?

Let us admit at the very outset that Ambedkar’s conversion was negative. A positive conversion – in my

view – is one in which a person hunt for the truth of life, explanations for the intricate questions about

universe, morbid and metaphysical realities and then compare and contrasts different religions and at

last the one that satisfies his mind and soul finds him. On the other hand negative conversion implies

severe dissatisfaction (not intellectual but material), for e.g. to avoid degrading treatment meted out or

for some gain like jobs and reservations etc. Ambedkar himself declared in his Dadar speech, “The

matter of conversion should be viewed through two aspects – social as well as religious and material as

well as spiritual”. (Note social before religious and material before spiritual) he also said, “...one must

think of what is permanently beneficial. In my opinion, conversion is the only way to eternal bliss”. If it is

so then let us examine through Ambedkar’s own writings and speeches that what were aims and

objectives behind his conversion?

Let us turn to one of his speech made at Kalyan on 17th

May 1936, in which he begun from recalling

three incidents of his life – incidents through which he learnt the harsh realities of the caste-

discrimination within Hindu society.

1. [As a child of five years Ambedkar didn’t understand], “why in spite of the presence of so many

barbers, no barber was prepared to cut our hair”.

2. “...but owing to our being members of Mahar caste, no bullock-cart driver was willing to drive

us”.

3. [When he arrived in Baroda state to serve in the durbar of Baroda], “neither a Hindu nor any

Muslim was prepared to rent a house to me in the city of Baroda”. [He lived in a Parsi

dharmasala under a fake name barely for a day when his secret was divulged and he had to

leave], “seeing no hope of getting a house, and no alternative but to quit, I tendered my

resignation and left...”.

After narrating these three incidents which naturally have cropped-up thousands of similar instances in

the minds of the audience. He pinched these remarks with this incendiary question, “what is the sense

in living in a society which is devoid of humanity, which does not respect you, protect you or treat you as

a human being? Instead, it insults you, humiliates you and never misses an opportunity to hurt you. Any

person with an iota of self respect and decency will not like to remain in this satanic religion. Only those

who love to be slaves can remain in this religion”. He then threw a hair-raising question at the audience,

“in view of the fact that the Hindu religion which forced your forefathers to lead a life of degradation,

and heaped all sorts of indigents on them, kept them poor and ignorant, why should you remain within

the fold of such a diabolical creed?”. “If you continue to remain within the fold of Hinduism” Ambedkar

roared, “you cannot attain a status higher than that of a slave”.

In Dadar speech he dealt with the topic of conversion at length. He lamented that Dalits are powerless,

they have less manpower (sic) and that too is fragmented and disorganised. They have no wealth. Their

mental strength has also been paralysed by the centuries of domination and suppression. Self

confidence and self respect are the traits that could hardly be found in them. If a creamy layer is

excluded; these are also truths of our age. If this is a fact then it leads to only this conclusion in his

words, “if you depend only upon your own strength, you will never be able to face the oppression”. He

reiterates emphatically, “conversion is the only right path of freedom which ultimately leads to equality.

Conversion is not the path of escapism. It is not the path of cowardice; it is the path of wisdom”. Why

conversion? Why not reforms within the Hinduism? One can think! – Ambedkar is a severe critique of

this mentality. It is diversion most charitably. In his views, “to talk of annihilating castes while living in

Hinduism is like talking of changing poison into nectar”. He openly ridiculed those reformers who

enjoyed the cause of reforming Hinduism to soothe the Dalits. He said once, “The greatest of the Hindus

who claims to fight for the cause of the untouchables is Mahatma Gandhi. To what extent can he go?

Mahatma Gandhi who pilots non-violent agitation against the British government is not prepared even

to hurt the feelings of Hindus, the oppressors of the untouchables. He is not willing to launch a

satyagraha against them. He is not even prepared to take legal action against the Hindus. I do not see

any good of such reformers”. Ambedkar also thwarted Gandhi in these words, “Don’t fall under Gandhi’s

spell, he’s not God... Mahatmas have come and Mahatmas have gone but untouchables have remained

untouchables”. Ambedkar is much focused in his approach and against any thought of diversion, “to

reform the Hindu society is not our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom for us”. He was also fed up

by the allegation that Hindus lay on him of dividing the Hindu society by talking of emancipation of

Dalits. The solution of this headache was only conversion. As he said, “by conversion, nobody can say or

feel that a single society has been split up”. And thus, “conversion is as important to the untouchables

as is self-government to India”.

HAS BUDHDHISM SOLVED THESE PROBLEMS?

Note the following instances,

• Hindus denied the cremation of Ambedkar at Dadar crematorium, A Buddhist-style cremation was

organised for him at Chowpatty beach on December 7, attended by hundreds of thousands of

supporters, activists and admirers.

• Jagjivan Ram, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India was humiliated in Benares when he went for

an inauguration ceremony of Shri Sampurnanand (an idol). The goddess so inaugurated by Jagjivan

Ram was ‘purified’ or ‘decontaminated’ through a wash by Ganga-jal.

• Frequent violent clashes between Buddhist groups and orthodox Hindus have occurred over the

years. When in 1994 a garland of shoes was hung around a statue of Ambedkar in Mumbai,

sectarian violence and strikes paralysed the city for over a week. When the following year similar

disturbances occurred, a statue of Ambedkar was destroyed.

• On the top of all this some Dalits who had converted to Buddhism have rioted against Hindus (such

as the 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra) and desecrated Hindu temples, often incited into doing

so by anti-Hindu elements and replacing deities with pictures of Ambedkar. The radical

Ambedkarite “Dalit Panthers Movement” has even gone so far as to attempt to assassinate

academics who have been critical of Ambedkar's understanding of Buddhism.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when Deputy Prime Minister is not exempted and what about the

common Dalits. It is the clear that the objective with which Ambedkar embraced Buddhism has not

proved viable.

ISLAM:

The essence of Islam is equality. As Dalits are to India; slaves, black and Negroes were to Arabia. They

were looked down upon, beaten black and blue at smallest of provocation, forced to work for longer

durations, were given less and insufficient to eat, sometimes mother or wife or father or husband or

infant child was separately sold leading to separation of close relatives. These and other cruelties were

there. Following Aristotelian dictum they considered the slave, “a tool with a soul”. Who can forget the

treatment meted out to slaves in Europe and America until the last century. The status that Islam

accorded to slaves that led to virtual abolition of slavery from Arabia are hard to enumerate in a single

article. The names of Bilal, Suhaib and Zaid – the companions of prophet; and Muhammad bin Seerin,

Naafi’e, Abdullah bin Mubarak, Ikrama, Muhammad bin Ishaaq, Ataa bin Rabbah, Taawus bin Kesaan,

Yazeed bin Habeeb, Imam Makhool, Memoon bin Mehraan, Imam Zahhaak, and Ibrahim Nakhi’e are still

referred to as gems of Islamic history, jurisprudence and theology – these all were earlier slaves who

attained such glorious status because in Islam there was no provision of the sort, limiting the access to

education on the basis of the accident of birth as there in the Manusmriti which clearly states, “If the

Shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with

(molten) lead; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue should be cut off”. In a nutshell the basis of Islamic

equality is the Quranic verse, {Human beibgs, We created you all from a male and a female, and made

you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the noblest of you in the sight of

Allah is the most God-fearing of you. (Hujraat-13)}. This implies the common origin (confuting any birth

based distinction including the theory of ‘superior’ people being born from Brahma’s mouth, shoulders,

thighs and inferiors from feet) and clearly asserts that birth distinctions are for mere introduction and

identity’s sake, they are no criteria for high or low status of a being. The criterion of high and low status

is piety and God-fearing. A slave dynasty in Muslim history is also a proof that Islam has treated slaves

at par. Even Ambedkar was appreciative of these facts and so earlier there was never Buddhism in his

consideration for conversion instead he said that there are three religions from amongst which Dalits

have to choose 1) Islam, 2) Christianity, and 3) Sikhism. [Thus Spoke Ambedkar: Vol-IV by Bhagwan Das

pg: 296-7 (cited in Dr. Ambedkar aur Islam by R.S Adil)]. He is also very appreciative of Islam he said,

after a comparative analysis of all three Islam seems to give Dalits whatever they desire [op.cit]. Even his

enemies and friend have identified that Ambedkar is going to embrace Islam for e.g. G.K Gawai (a

prominent Dalit leader) said once that Ambedkar is going to accept Islam. Hindu Mahasabha and other

right wing leaders also had opined that Ambedkar is going to accept Islam and they pressurised him not

to do so – in which they unfortunately achieved success.

If Islam was and is the ultimate solution to all the grievances of Dalits and untouchables, even in respect

of their material interests and Ambedkar too is appreciative of the fact, then why he didn’t accepted the

truth? The answer to this most important question lies in historical circumstances. The main aim of

Dalits behind conversion in Ambedkar’s terms was to achieve power from outside. Muslims in India had

such powers as Ambedkar had earlier remarked, “... Muslims are equally small in number. Like Mahar-

mangs, they too have few houses in the village. But no one dares to trouble the Muslims while you are

always a victim of tyranny”. Why? Because, “Hindus realise that the strength of the whole of the Muslim

population in India stands behind those two houses of Muslims... if any Hindu commits aggression

against them, the whole Muslim community from Punjab to Madras will rush to their protection at any

cost”. They also command respect in everybody’s eyes as he recognised, “the Hindus and Muslims are

helpful to each other in legal boards, legislative councils and in business. But is there a single instance of

such sympathetic consideration being shown towards you [untouchables] by caste-Hindus?” He also

unequivocally marked that, “those of you who have become Muslims are treated by the Hindus neither

as untouchables nor as unequals”. Ambedkar rightly realised that in extant circumstances, exploitation

of untouchables is the internal matter of Hinduism and others could not interfere even on humanitarian

grounds. After conversion any such discrimination could never remain the internal matter of Hinduism...

and its implications need not be elaborated.

R.S Adil a Buddhist from 1961-81 has converted to Islam on 6 December 1981, has written on the hidden

aspects of the conversion of Ambedkar. He writes that: In 1956 after formation of Pakistan the course of

history was altered. At that hour there was no power in Muslims of India. They were aimless, hopeless

and directionless with their cream-population (especially in political and economic leadership) migrating

to the newly born Pakistan. Hindus hated Muslims from the deepest of their heart and regarded them

responsible for the partition of the nation. The woes were afresh. At that hour if we would have

accepted Islam the wildfire of riots would have pursued the country to a civil war. The wise step taken to

annihilate caste would have nevertheless been ‘successful’ as it have had resulted in the annihilation of

untouchables themselves. And so Ambedkar relied on the second best option and opted for Buddhism –

through which they could enjoy the moral support of China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. Alas!

Ambedkar died within one month and twenty two days after declaring his conversion and thus could not

see the repercussions of his prescription on his community. After half a century now we are in a position

to do so, it is clear that the strategy has proved to be flawed. Situation is further aggravated by the wars

between chamars and bodh. This led to the further division within the already divided community.

Can a change in strategy now is against the principles of Ambedkar? I can say YES to the staunchest of

the Ambedkarite looking straight in his eyes. Ambedkar was resisted the blind following of a path only

because it was followed by forefathers. In his words, “a fool alone will say that one has to adhere to

one’s religion because it is that of his ancestors”. He adds, “it cannot be denied that our ancestors lived

in the ancient religion, but I cannot say that they remained there voluntarily [it is the same argument

Ambedkar is making regarding Dalit ancestors that I want to make regarding Ambedkar himself, that he

did not converted to Buddhism voluntarily but circumstances forced him to do so].

Now Dalits are required not to tread on the beaten path but follow their master’s wisdom. In his word

they must, “be illuminating like sun” and should not be “dependent for light like earth”. Enough have

been they exploited by every political party including parties made and formed on the very rhetoric of

securing the interests of Dalits – parties that have not hesitated in forging alliances with communal –

exploiter and upper caste right wing anti national parties like BJP – core behind the exploitation of the

untouchables and biggest proponent of the Hindu Rashtra based on the Manusmriti.

Sixty years even after independence and fifty three years after Ambedkar’s conversion – now it is clear

that Dalit problem requires not any haphazard but some permanent solution and Islam provides with

that solution. Sympathy of Muslims for the untouchables or any downtrodden wing of society is not

new; Muslims supported the cause of Ambedkar in second round table congress even at the cost of

enraging the father of the nation. Dalits have got asylum during mahad agitation only in houses of

Muslims when Hindus have unleashed a violent movement to suppress their movement for the

attainment of equal rights. Some mischievous elements would blur things by arguing that in Islam there

are also castes especially in India. Ambedkar dealt with this allegation in a pure academic manner, “the

caste of the Muslim and Christian religions has no sanction in their religion. If the Hindus proclaim to

disband the caste system, their religion will come in their way... Hindus cannot destroy caste system

without destroying their religion. Muslims and Christian need not destroy their religions for eradication

of the castes. Rather their religion will support such movements to a great extent”.

An untouchable embracing Islam could rise to the throne of Delhi as Sultan Khusru Shah – such is the

wisdom, freedom, equality and fraternity within Islam. No amount of reservation, preferential

treatment could give Dalits the dignity that mere citation of a single kalima: {there is no god but Allah

and Muhammad (saw) is his slave and messenger} give him in an instant. Open your eyes Oh Dalit

brothers! Come out of the shackles of slumber, shackles of oppression of thousands of years, instead of

running behind some temporary gains choose the “eternal bliss” and pay the rightful tribute to your

master – Ambedkar.