Sunday, January 28, 2007

Republic day, Dr. BR Ambedkar & Tasleema Nasreen

Republic day & Dr. B R Ambedkar is fine; but how did Tasleema Nasreen come to the picture, that must be the first doubt right? I read this article by Tasleema Nasreen called “Lets burn the burqa” recently. The essence of the article can be summarized from her following statement- “women too have sexual urges. So why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, He treated them on unequal terms”. Tasleema Nasreen has been fighting sexual discrimination in Islam for decades now. She was ostracized from Bangladesh, Fatwas were issued but nothing deterred her from continuing her fight. And, she still is in the system & fighting. And that takes us to the next question, how is it vis-à-vis with Dr. Ambedkar?

Jan 26th was our Republic day; surely everyone must remember Dr. Ambedkar for his contribution in drafting our constitution. It is different question altogether that how suitable is our constitution to our country? I remember Shri Gurumurthy saying - It is a respectable document alright, but not necessarily the most suitable one. Because section by section was taken as it is from the constitution of the West. What suits the West does not necessarily suit India. Nevertheless, Dr. Ambedkar is the father of our constitution & he must be revered. But how many of us know that he was against the Independence of India? Yes, he was!! Reason – If India gets the independence, his community will suffer from caste based discrimination. India government will not do as much as English men to prevent it. To know more about this read “Worshipping False Gods” by Arun Shourie.

Its history now that Dr. Ambedkar completed the drafting of our constitution & we had our first Republic day on Jan 26th, 1950. Later in 1956 Ambedkar, in the name of fighting discrimination, got converted to Buddhism along with his 400000 followers. Now that is the difference between staying within the system & fighting, and running away from the system. Ambedkar might have suffered lot more from the society than Tasleema Nasreen. In spite of that, my respect would have gone up hundred times had he stayed within Hinduism. Even then I have reverence for him because he got converted to Buddhism & not to Christianity or Islam. Surely he knew the difference. In a country where sword is used by Islam to convert & luring is used by Christianity, conversion of Ambedkar to any one of these religions would have led to mayhem. Thousands of so called backward classes would no longer have been Hindus. This is what they must understand clearly. Why did Dr. Ambedkar chose Buddhism over Christianity or Islam? When the answer to this is understood, problems of conversion subside on its own.

And thanks to my friend Karthik, he sent some more facts & corrections. Here they are

Dear Ananda,

A quick observation: Ambedkar did not have a huge following in his own time. Even in 1946, he needed Muslim support to fight elections. He was merely a leader of the Mahar community. He did not matter to other Harijans. He considered converting to Christianity, and toured the churches in Kerala. Inexplicably, he embraced Buddhism in death bed.

Why?

The clue comes from who backs the conversions to "Buddhism" today: the Christian missionaries - to be precise, American missionaries. It was a perfect script written by the American missionaries and executed by Ambedkar. What could have been the reason?

Since Ambedkar did not enjoy much support among Harijans, his conversion to Christianity would not have brought a harvest. It would have actually eliminated a potential weapon, Dalits, from being deployed against Hinduism. But his conversion to pseudo-Buddhism would have been a long-term investment in destabilizing Hinduism.

Regards,
Karthik


After knowing this, even the little reverence that I had for Ambedkar is gone !!

8 Comments:

At 2:17 PM, Blogger Smitha said...

Ananda,

Can you first get ur facts corrected? Have u read the constitution in total before even commenting on it ... Can u tell me which part of the constitution is it; which is suited for the west and not for Indians? I know when Hindus talk about this particular statement, what they are referring to ... its the rights given to all the Indians, Right of Equality and education. This is something that wasnt digested by the so called uppercaste hindus and thats the reason why, it is said that few things that suit the west cannot suit India.

For ur kind info, irrespective of country the rights and duties of citizens shd be the same ... Our Constitution is apt and perfect for a country that wishes to prosper ... the question is have we been really following constitution strictly to prosper?

Arun Shourie is an IDIOT and when the whole world and UN wants marginalized people to prosper, he is the one to discourage it the most.

And Dr. Ambedkar kicked off Hinduism, why shouldnt he do that. Have u ever compared manusmriti to Buddhism's Eight fold path or followed Vipassana? U would also kick Hinduism urselves. Just because u r born in filth doesnt mean u shd stay in the filth all ur life long, even if u have other better opportunities, thats wld be foolishness and Dr. Ambedkar and I m not :)

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Raghava_Gunti said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9:04 PM, Blogger Raghava_Gunti said...

Hi Smitha,

Lovely stuff! What a rant that was! By the way since when did cribbing about our constitution being too European equal feudalism? What was the article about and what was your comment about? Now to your big Q: I did not know it's wise to compare religion (eight-fold path) to administration (manusmriti), thanks for the unsecular wisdom. Our grandparents' thoughts weren't as fashionable as ours, that still does not make them as evil as you want them to be.

Next time you feel like shooting off, pause for a minute. Unless if you want to entertain people like me that is.

Kowsik

 
At 5:21 AM, Blogger ananda k s said...

Though you comments are not directly on my post I would still waste my time to speak about it..

I dont belive there is equality in our Constitution.

The socio - cultural and civilizational background of different countries are different. The constitution must suit the same.

A constitution which undergoes 92 amendments in 60 odd years is not a Constitution.

Almost all amendments hav put more inequality than equality in it.

Fundamental rights & duties are one important part , but not the whole of Constitution.

Shourie is only against the means in which you are trying to prosper the marginalised. That is by costing country's growth. Read the Constitution to know more about the growth & its relation to reservation.

I have followed Vipassan in IISc. I did not kick off Hinduism. If Buddhism was so grt, it wud hav survived Mohammadens butchering. You need Kshtriyas to fight during battle. Preaching peace should not end up making you hesitate to battle.
I hope you have read Bhagawadgeetha.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger bleeeeeeeeeeeeeee said...

.. .. ...

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Dupa Jasia said...

.. .. ...

 
At 1:51 AM, Blogger Manickam said...

Atheism is the ultimate truth!!
All others keep fighting for their tutored illusions!!

 
At 7:27 PM, Blogger alex said...

http://prieslar.info/?search=Rupertem
http://prieslar.info/?search=Couture
http://prieslar.info/?search=przesylki+kurierskie
http://prieslar.info/?search=wyprzedzanie
http://prieslar.info/?search=Telewizja+informacyjna
http://prieslar.info/?search=CR+chemia

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License


Click here to join PrasthuNet
Click to join PrasthuNet