Right Word | How Ambedkar Examined Pakistan, Hindu-Muslim Unity, And Congress Politics

Dr BR Ambedkar approached these issues less as a politician and more as a rigorous thinker committed to the truth, however inconvenient

On the 135th birth anniversary of Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, it will be appropriate to pay tribute to his intellectual honesty and revisit his engagement with some of the most difficult and contentious questions of his time – particularly those concerning Muslims, Hindu-Muslim unity, and the political conduct of the Indian National Congress.

Ambedkar approached these issues less as a politician and more as a rigorous thinker committed to the truth, however inconvenient.

Ambedkar Jayanti 2026: Best Wishes, Images, Quotes, Messages, Facebook & WhatsApp Status

Global Watch | A Life In Whispers: The Quiet Fear Of Being A Minority In Pakistan

Rs 8L Worth Of Milk Poured Into Narmada: India Furious, Environmentalists Warn Of River Damage | Video

Matthew Perry Case: Jasveen Sangha Sentenced, Sparks Conversation On Wellness And Ketamine Addiction

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE

Ambedkar was highly critical of the stand that the Congress took during the Second Round Table Conference in December 1931, following which the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal Award on August 16, 1932.

According to Ambedkar: “At the Round Table Conference, the Muslims presented their list of safeguards, which were formulated in the well-known fourteen points. The Hindu representatives at the Round Table Conference would not consent to them. There was an impasse. The British Government intervened and gave what is known as ‘the Communal decision’. By that decision, the Muslims got all their fourteen points. There was much bitterness amongst the Hindus against the Communal Award. But, the Congress did not take part in the hostility that was displayed by the Hindus generally towards it, although it did retain the right to describe it as anti-national and to get it changed with the consent of the Muslims. So careful was the Congress not to wound the feelings of the Muslims that when the Resolution was moved in the Central Assembly condemning the Communal Award, the Congress, though it did not bless it, remained neutral, neither opposing nor supporting it. The Mahomedans were well justified in looking upon this Congress attitude as a friendly gesture."

On the question of Hindu-Muslim unity, Ambedkar made some pragmatic observations (Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol 8, First Edition by the Education Department, Govt of Maharashtra).

He raised a fundamental query to address this question in 1940: “Are there any common historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matters of pride or as matters of sorrow? That is the crux of the question. That is the question which the Hindus must answer, if they wish to maintain that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation."

Replying to this question, he said: “So far as this aspect of their relationship is concerned, they have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. There was no common cycle of participation for a common achievement. Their past is a past of mutual destruction – a past of mutual animosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields. As Bhai Parmanand points out in his pamphlet called ‘The Hindu National Movement’ – ‘In history the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes.’ In the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Gita. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite. In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, in relying upon common language, common race and common country, the Hindu is mistaking what is accidental and superficial for what is essential and fundamental. The political and religious antagonisms divide the Hindus and the Musalmans far more deeply than the so-called common things are able to bind them together."

CREATION OF PAKISTAN, COMMUNALISM OF HINDUSTAN

In his seminal work Pakistan or the Partition of India, Ambedkar raised the question in 1940 after the Muslim League passed a resolution in its Lahore session demanding a separate country for Muslims of India.

“How far does the creation of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan?" he asked, adding, “that is a very legitimate question and must be considered."

He was of the firm opinion that “by the creation of Pakistan, Hindustan is not freed of the communal question… 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."

CRIME AGAINST HINDUS BY MUSLIMS

Ambedkar was categorically critical of the Congress for its failure in raising the issue of crime against Hindus.

The Congress leadership “never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus," he wrote. “It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims, either by their writings or by their part in the Shudhi movement, have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans. First to suffer was Swami Shradhanand, who was shot by Abdul Rashid on 23rd December 1926 when he was lying in his sick bed. This was followed by the murder of Lala Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist of Delhi. Rajpal, the author of the Rangila Rasool, was stabbed by Ilamdin on 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop. Nathuramal Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in September 1934. It was an act of great daring, for Sharma was stabbed to death in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind, where he was seated awaiting the hearing of his appeal against his conviction under Section 195, I.P.C., for the publication of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. Khanna, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha, was severely assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans after the session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in Ahmedabad and very narrowly escaped death."

He added: “This is, of course, a very short list and could be easily expanded. 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 leading Moslems never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them."

(The writer is an author and columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed are personal and solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect News18’s views)

© News18