Eminent People on Islam – Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956)
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956), a Hindu apostate who converted to Buddhism and has written a lot against Hinduism was the architect of India’s Constitution. He was a leader of the Dalits, the then so-called ‘lower caste’ Hindus who were former ‘untouchables’. [To make up for this discrimination, India now gives reservation in education and jobs and many other concessions for Dalits and other so-called lower caste people.] We should first look into the pre-Indian Independence [pre-1947] writings of one of the greatest Indian leaders and intellectuals of the twentieth century, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. He is revered by all sections of Indian society, perhaps only next to M K Gandhi. Whatever be his views on Hinduism, he was honest enough to study the contents and behavior of Islam and Christianity and wrote bluntly about them. In fact, when he decided to quit Hinduism along with his followers in October 1956, just before his death, in spite of several appeals and enticements by Muslim and Christian clergy and leaders, he chose to embrace Buddhism, a sister faith of Hinduism, similarly idolatrous and polytheistic in nature and not regarding Jesus or Mohammad as the only way to reach God, which is intolerable for religions like Islam.
Unlike several Hindu leaders of this period [such as M K Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and others], Dr. Ambedkar was very clear about the danger posed by Islam and Muslims to India. During 1927 – 29, Dr. Ambedkar owned a Marathi newspaper called ‘Bahishkrut Bharat’. In it he maintained that the dispute in this country [Hindu-Muslim dispute during the British rule of India] is not between two societies but two nations. He was very critical of the Nehruvian plan of separating the Sindh [currently in Pakistan] from the Bombay province in 1936 and not giving equivalent minority rights to Hindus where they were in minority. He was quite worried about the fact that in undivided India [today’s India, Pakistan and Bangladesh together] the Muslim majority provinces were on the border. He felt that due to this the borders were not safe in case of any threat to Indian security by a Muslim power as the Indian Muslims had no loyalty for India [He was proved correct when Muslims voted for Partition of India in 1947 creating Pakistan instead of being loyal to India]. He also strongly condemned the purdah [veil] system in Islam.
Dr. Ambedkar developed this thesis subsequently in his well known book, ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’ first published before Partition in 1946 under the name ‘Thoughts on Pakistan‘. We use reprint of this book Vol. 8, published by Education Dept; Govt. of Maharashtra, 1990. In Chapter Four he traced the history of Muslim invasions and the butchering, forced conversions and rape of Hindu women and the destruction of Hindu temples and monuments. He has clearly brought out the truth that the invaders were not interested merely in looting, but also in conversion of the kafirs. He is very forthright in his description of the atrocities committed by the Muslims and has extensively quoted from historical records. He has quoted scholars who state that the Hindu peasants had to part with half of their produce as Jiziya as well as pay a large tax on their cattle. (P. 62)
We give below a few excerpts from this book to show that Dr. Ambedkar was well aware of the various problems posed by Islam to the Indian society and polity.
“It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the Muslim susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shuddhi movement [Shuddhi movement was the movement of the Arya Samaj people to reconvert Muslims to Hinduism, it was between 1915 and 1926] have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans [e.g. Rajpal a Hindu publisher was killed in April 1929 by a Muslim, Swami Shraddhananda who had converted many Muslims to Hinduism was killed by treachery by a fanatic Muslim Abdul Rashid in 1926 etc] ….. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them [After Swami Shraddhananda’s murder of December 1926, Gandhi openly appealed that the killer ‘Brother’ (bhai) Rashid’s life be spared and said that Hindus and Muslims were equally responsible for Shraddhananda’s death] “(P. 156)
“But there are others who….. believe in the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity. This belief of theirs seems to rest on two grounds. Firstly they believe in the efficacy of a Central Government to mould diverse set of people into one nation. Secondly, they feel that the satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity”. (P. 187). Dr. Ambedkar subsequently shows that both presumptions are not valid.
Chapter X :
In this chapter Dr. Ambedkar has analysed the social evils amongst Muslims and comments as follows :
“One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims?”
“Take child-marriage….. Can the position among the Musalmans [i.e. Muslims] so far as child-marriage goes, be considered better than the position among the Hindus?” (P. 225) [Today the position of Muslims is worse than Hindus as regards under-age marriage, the legal age is 21 for boys and 18 for girls in Hindus]
“Take the position of women. It is insisted by Muslims that the legal rights given to Muslim women, ensure them a greater measure of independence than allowed to other Eastern women…. the Muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world…. her fate is ‘once married, always married’. She cannot escape the marriage tie, however irksome it may be. While she cannot repudiate the marriage, the husband can always do it without having to show any cause [Today it is even worse, since there is triple Talaq in India for Muslims under different Civil law, a man simply has to say ‘Talaq, Talaq, Talaq’ 3 times to get divorce immediately]….. This latitude in the marriage in the matter of divorce destroys that sense of security which is so fundamental for a full, free and happy life for a woman. This insecurity of life, to which a Muslim woman is exposed, is greatly augmented by the right of polygamy and concubinage, which the Muslim law gives to the husband [Even today, under Muslim personal law in India a Muslim man can marry 4 times while a Hindu only once]” (P. 226)
“Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stand abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries….. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained” (P. 228). Dr. Ambedkar then quotes the 1901 census report for Bengal to show that Muslims there have several castes including Arzal or untouchable castes with whom no other Mohamedan would associate and who are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground. He also quotes from the same Report about the panchayat system of each caste which extends to social as well as trade matters resulting in castes which are as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. We will see this in detail below.
“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women…. [Today the Hindus no longer have those evils, since they give reservation and concessions to lower caste people, and have abolished practices like untouchability] they are usually victims to anemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at delivery…… the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world, they engage their minds in petty family quarrels….. The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared to its effects on morals…… a social system which cuts off all contacts between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways…… It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims which is the bane of public life in India.” (P. 230)
“The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is in religion…. 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 one governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely religion.” (P. 232)
“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 reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication……[This was quite unlike Hindus, who have had many social reformers since the 19th century trying to bring social reforms, like Rajaram Mohan Roy, Jyotirao Phule, Gopal Agarkar, Narayan Guru, Ambedkar himself and many others] 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 the existing practices.” (P. 233)
Dr. Ambedkar then goes on to analyze the reasons for this attitude. He feels that it is the fundamental assumption made by all Muslims that Islam is a world religion, suitable for all people, for all times and for all conditions which causes these attitudes. Although its rigidity is being challenged elsewhere in the world, the Indian Muslim community is still clinging to it. The reason for this is due to the peculiar position he occupies in India as he is placed in a predominantly Hindu social and political environment which he feels is encroaching on his existence. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle.
Chapters XI and XII
Dr. Ambedkar discusses the causes behind the behavior and political aggression of the Muslims in these chapters. “How the Muslim mind will work and by what factors it is likely to be swayed will be clear if the fundamental tenets of Islam which dominate the Muslim politics and the views expressed by prominent Muslims bearing on Muslim attitude towards an Indian Government are taken into consideration….. Among the tenets the one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land.” (P. 292). He quotes the then Muslim leader Maulana Mahomed Ali who Gandhi befriended along with Shaukat Ali, “the only allegiance a Musalman, whether a civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…. But the unalterable rule is and has always been that as Musalmans they can obey only such laws and orders issued by their secular rulers as do not involve disobedience to the commandments of God who in the expressive language of the Holy Koran is ‘the all-ruling ruler.” (P. 293)
Dr. Ambedkar then discusses the Muslim Canon Law which divides the world into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). He quotes Dr. Titus who says that a discussion took place within the Muslim community for fifty years on whether India was Dar-ul-Islam or Dar-ul-Harb. He then points out another injunction, Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. “Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad a success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavor a success.” He then draws attention to the third tenet “that Islam does not recognise territorial affinities. Its affinities are social and religious and therefore extraterritorial….. This is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which leads every Musalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterwards……. To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of any respect. He is low-born and without status” (P. 301). Dr. Ambedkar goes on to show that this concept of Kaffir was extended even to Mahatma Gandhi by quoting his comrade-in-arm in the Khilafat movement, Mr. Mahomed Ali who said, “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view religion inferior to any Muslaman, even though he may be without character “and “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallened Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.” (P. 302)
Dr. Ambedkar also quotes prominent Hindu leaders who were alive to the problem. For example “Mrs. Annie Besant [1847-1933] says….. The world has gone beyond such so-called theocracies, in which God’s commands are given through a man. The claim now put forward by Musalman leaders that they must obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State in which they live, is subversive of civic order and the stability of the State…… Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the ‘Khilafat Raj in’ India [In Malabar in Kerala in South India, the Moplahs who were Muslims committed horrible atrocities on Hindus, thousands were forcibly converted to Islam and thousands of Hindus were killed- there were wells full of corpses. But Gandhi praised them as ‘My God-fearing brave Moplah brothers’. Annie Besant expressed severe concern at the time.]……. there is no place in a civilized land for people who believe that their religion teaches them to murder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatize from their ancestral faiths….. Such ‘Laws of God’ cannot be allowed to override the laws of a civilized country….. In fact, Muslim sects are not safe in a country ruled by orthodox Muslims” (P. 278)
He also quotes Lala Lajpatrai [1865-1928] expressing apprehensions about Hindu-Muslim unity as well as a interview with the poet Dr. Rabindra Nath Tagore [1861-1941], “another very important factor which, according to the poet, was making it impossible for Hindu-Mohamedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohaamedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country….. The poet said he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even such men as Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohamedan.” (P. 276)
Dr. Ambedkar has also written, “Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only….. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs.” (P. 330). Also “The Muslims are howling against the Hindu Maha Sabha [established in 1915, which was the only major Hindu organization with some strength in British India] and its slogan of Hindudom and Hindu Raj [Rule]. But who is responsible for this? Hindu Maha Sabha and Hindu Raj are the inescapable nemesis which the Musalmans have brought upon themselves by having a Muslim League [established in 1906, which ultimately demanded and got Pakistan by partitioning India]. It is action and counter-action. One gives rise to the other.” (P. 359)
Some more of his quotes are given below. All quotations are from ‘Pakistan or The partition of India’ by B.R. Ambedkar, 3rd edition, 1946. Reprint Vol. 8, 1990, Govt. of Maharashtra Publication; previous name of the book : “Thoughts on Pakistan”.
Hindu is a Kafir-not worthy of respect : “To the Muslims, a Hindu (and any non-Muslim) is a Kafir. A Kafir (non-believer in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the kafir (non-Muslim) is a ‘Dar ul harb’ (i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar ul Islam’ (i.e., land of Muslims alone). Given this, not further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non-Muslim) government.” (p. 301)
Brotherhood of Muslims for the Muslims only : “Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever-there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.
In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.” (ibid pp. 330-331)
Difficult to see difference between a communal and Nationalist Muslim : “It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no difference between the two and that the Nationalist Muslims inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.” (ibid., pp 408)
Muslim invaders planted the seeds of Islam in India : “The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their ‘silt’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak.” (ibid. pp. 65)
Muslim’s strategy in politics : “The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics.” (ibid p. 269)
Murderers are Religious martyrs : “But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned theses criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.” (ibid. p. 157)
Hindus and Muslims are two distinct spiritual species : From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas [2 sects in Hinduism]. They are two distinct species.” (ibid. p. 193)
Islam and Casteism : “…But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :-
The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes- Sheikh, Saiyad, Moghul and Pathan-has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous-terms, ‘Ajlab’, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless’. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’, is added. With them no other Mohamedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.
“Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus [of those days].
- Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.
(1) Saiyads, (2) Sheikhs, (3) Pathans, (4) Moghul, (5) Mallik and (6) Mirza
- Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.
(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.
(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.
(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Cluk, Chrihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nat, Panwari, Madaria, Tuntia.
- Arzal or degraded class.
Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Mougtra, Mehtar.”
“Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports and those who are curious may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability. (ibid. pp. 228-230)
Muslim canon oppose social reform : 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 Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is 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. Indeed, they [Muslims] oppose any change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the Muslims opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on the ground that it was opposed to the Muslim cannon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act.” (ibid. p. 233)
Muslim politicians oppose secular categories : “Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against the capitalist. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capitalist he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.” (ibid. p. 236)
India can not be common motherland of the Hindus and Muslims as per Muslim Laws: According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the ‘ Hindus and Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.
It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims”. (ibid., p. 294)
Jihad to transform Dar-ul-Harb India to Dar-ul-Islam : It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes “incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.
The fact remains that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans, according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad.
Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.” (ibid., pp. 295-296)
Why is Hindu-Muslim unity a failure? : “The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection.” (ibid., p. 329)
Hindu-Muslim unity is out of sight : Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity upto now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. Gandhi has given up what, he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task.” (ibid., p. 187)
Transfer of minorities is the only remedy for communal place : “The transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace, is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards, which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians” (ibid., p. 116)
The problem of majority-minority will continue : “The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan-though they are mostly congregated in towns and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous, is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.” (ibid. p. 117)
Protection of minorities a constitutional method : “So much for the problem of boundaries, I will now turn to the problem of the minorities which must remain within Pakistan even after boundaries are redrawn. There are two methods of protecting their interests.
“First is to provide safeguards in the constitution for the protection of the political and cultural rights of the minorities. To Indians this is a familiar matter and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. (Ibid., p. 379)
Exchange of Hindu-Muslim population-a possible solution : “Second is to provide for their transfer from Pakistan to Hindustan. Many people prefer this solution and would be ready and willing to consent to Pakistan if it can be shown that an exchange of population is possible. This no doubt is the sign of a panic-stricken mind. If the matter is considered in a cool and calm temper it will be found that the problem is neither staggering nor baffling.” (ibid., p. 379)
It may be mentioned again here that when Dr. Ambedkar decided to make Buddhism his religion after much deliberation, and in spite of several inducements, he refused to embrace Islam or Christianity and instead chose another Indian faith.
Dr. Ambedkar believed that the solution to this problem lay in the partition of British India with a systematic exchange of population. The first part of his proposal was ultimately hurriedly carried out in spite of vehement denials of the Congress leaders. Unfortunately no action on the second part i.e. the exchange of population was undertaken by out leaders and after a gap of a few decades this has led to the continuation and intensification of this problem in India. It is also very surprising that when Dr. Ambedkar was so clear about Islam, his present followers are bending over backwards to appease this community for its votes, instead of using their influence to educate them and bring them within the national mainstream and remove their narrow-minded fanaticism. Dr Ambedkar’s followers were of the Republican Party of India (RPI) and other parties which claim to follow his ideals like BSP in India, who are all pro-Muslim and against the Hindus. In the 1960s the RPI openly raised anti-Hindu slogans in Uttar Pradesh state in India such as “Jatavs ( a sub-caste of Dalits, lower-caste Hindus) and Muslims are brothers, from where did the Hindu religion come from?”
Nor have the nationalist leaders, even after partition of India in 1947, ever asked the Muslims to officially give up their outdated theology and concepts.