Dr. Ambedkar’s Views on Partition and the Aftermath of Islam and Hinduism

One of the most profound thinkers in India and the world, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, had a clear and consistent opinion regarding the partition of India. His stance on partition was rooted in his deep understanding of the socio-political dynamics between Hindus and Muslims, along with his belief that partition would avert the violence and persecution that would ensue from a unified India.

Ambedkar’s Opposition to Partition and the Role of Certain Hindu Leaders

Dr. Ambedkar was vehemently against the partition of India, primarily because he believed that a unified India could accommodate both Hindus and Muslims. However, certain Hindu leaders compromising their principles to join the Muslim League and advocate for the notable figures who joined the Muslim League are Yogendra Mondal. Ambedkar warned these leaders not to forsake the Hindu cause, emphasizing that Hindus would not allow casteism in the future.

Quotations and Warnings

Ambedkar often quoted Rabindranath Tagore, a renowned poet and philosopher, in his works. Tagore questioned Muslim leaders, asking them whether they would fight against Muslim invaders. Tagore’s point was that if Muslim leaders did not have the strength to stand against invaders, they would not even fight against Islamic countries, even if they were invaders, with the help of Hindus. This analogy highlighted the absurdity of certain Hindu leaders joining the Muslim League to fight for Pakistan, given the historical and current dynamics of power and faith.

Support for Population Exchange

Ambedkar also supported the population exchange proposal advocated by Shyamaprasad Mukherjee. However, it is important to note that this proposal, stripped of its support, was at the heart of the complexities of partition and the subsequent turmoil.

The Fear of Abrahamics Religions

Ambedkar expressed a deep-seated fear of the materialism and spirit of Abrahamics religions (Islam and Christianity) and the structures these religions have created. He believed that the materialistic ideology of these religions, with their emphasis on conversion and unity, would eventually destroy Hinduism and its cultural and religious fear underpinned his opposing view of partition, as he saw it as an important step in safeguarding the religious and cultural heritage of his community.

Ambedkar’s Views in Depth

In 1940, Dr. Ambedkar wrote a treatise titled 'Pakistan or Partition of India' where he explicitly stated that 'India cannot be a motherland for Muslims.' He believed that for Muslims, religion comes first. If the country was not partitioned, Muslim soldiers would welcome an Islamic invasion from Afghanistan, something that would have catastrophic consequences for Hindus. Ambedkar, through this book, provided extensive examples and arguments for why Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations who cannot coexist in one country. His emphasis on the Islamic brotherhood among Muslims also served to illustrate his concerns about the potential for mutual support and collaboration in the face of an external threat.

Ambedkar's book also delved into detailed plans for the partition process. He discussed various aspects like the dissolution of properties (both movable and immovable), giving time for migration, providing assistance to migrants, and addressing legal remedies for migrants whose properties remained in the other part of the country. He even set timelines and outlined the rights of all migrants, including those from untouchable communities, to ensure a smooth and organized process.

The Aftermath and Government Response

Despite Ambedkar's clear and comprehensive proposal, the government ignored his advice. The subsequent partition led to massive persecution of migrants, as highlighted in the excerpt from 'The Men who Killed Gandhi' by Manohar Malgaonkar. This excerpt on page 23 provides a graphic portrayal of the violence and atrocities faced by migrants during the partition. Ambedkar knew the possible consequences of partition, warning about the violence that Muslims could inflict on Hindus. However, his warnings fell on deaf ears, as leaders were more focused on their own ideologies and delusions of unity and the belief in Sarvadharmasamabhava (equality of all religions).

Conclusion

Dr. Ambedkar's views on partition and the aftermath of the religious and political tensions between Hindus and Muslims were a reflection of his deep-seated concerns for the future of his community and the country. His comprehensive proposals and warnings should serve as a reminder for future leaders to listen to experts and consider the long-term consequences of political decisions.