Dr. Ambedkar preferred living as a HINDU

Some facts are often overlooked by those who are in a habit of over-exploiting the statement - “Though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as Hindu” - of Dr. Ambedkar. This statement showing an unwavering determination for conversion was given by Dr. Ambedkar in 1939. Isn’t that intriguing to notice that he formally adopted Buddhism only in 1956 - after more than 20 years of his explicitly expressing this intention? Unfortunately he left us only after a few months of his converting to Buddhism, without explaining the real reason behind this inordinate delay. If allowed to extrapolate, how wrong will it be to assert that he only tried to keep his words that apparently he was not very keen to? Otherwise, what kept him postponing the implementation of his plans and made him wait for 20 long years? 

To say that he was not being allowed to take a call, will be an exhibition of dishonesty. Those days, Hinduism was not known for offering any ‘external’ pressure on those who intended to convert and people kept themselves away from pressures of conversion following entirely their own convictions. Instead, Hinduism was known to offer resistances through a strategy of non-acceptance to those who wanted to convert back. Isn’t the choice of ‘Buddhism’ also baffling? Wasn’t that one of the most ‘friendliest’ to Hinduism - available to him at that time? Wasn’t Dr. Ambedkar aware of the fact that outside this country, people were used to identifying all non-Muslims - primarily as Hindus? Didn’t his nationalist urge encourage him to choose Buddhism as compared to Islam and Christianity? In this analysis however, I find communists in a contradicting self-defeating cameo role. They have intended to exploit the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar in a rather dishonest manner. Like Ambedkar even communists are also known for expressing their extreme dislike for Hinduism but they are known to showcase ‘Islam’ as a better option. Their dishonesty however becomes evident as, only when they get cornered, they argue that they are against all religions but unlike Ambedkar their selectively use of ‘Islam’ against Hinduism to prove a point is the obvious contradiction between the two approaches. Ambedkar's approach was positive - to find solutions within us whereas Communists' approach is entirely negative - to ensure destruction.

To conclude, Dr. Ambedkar was born a Hindu and yes, he died not as a Hindu, but it would be difficult to challenge an assertion that he actually preferred living as a Hindu. Ambedkar’s approach was that of a reformer’s whereas Communists’ approach has been of a destructor’s. 

An open discussion on communal behavior

Please forgive me for deciding not to quote from the holy books of any of the religious texts for such a discussion as I firmly believe that all such books propagate the message of peace in their primary narration and therefore the discussion most often ends up inconclusive. On the other hand, behavior of communities have always remained marked different for reasons that often extend beyond their religious preaching. Probably the instinctive behavior that a community develops is primarily a function of its past tradition, ancestral practices and by witnessing its own surroundings.

                It is an open fact that residents of this land never required words like ‘communal riots’ or ‘communal harmony’ till the medieval period when Muslim rulers arrived over here. Not that this land was then a land of singular belief as more than many kinds of religious practices and beliefs existed in this part of the earth even before Islam arrived here. But yes, it is also true that the harmony that existed traditionally always over here, have remained on a real test only since then. It would be however, dishonest not to admit that medieval period Muslims rulers of India were probably different from their fellow-counterparts in other countries. There are enough evidences to show that even they did/could not implement their instinctive communal style of governance which they followed almost everywhere else in other neighboring countries. That they practiced ‘communal harmony’ over here therefore only proves the huge influence of the traditional non-Muslim population (loosely identified as ‘Hindus’ since then) on them. Can anyone deny that we started using the word ‘communal harmony’ probably to express a peculiar human-behavior that sprung up here only after the arrival of Muslim rulers? And isn’t that true that the word ‘communal riots’ itself, discovers its meaning only at a place where Muslims are present?

As a matter of fact, while ‘communal harmony’ was a routine behavior expected from the non-Muslims, the ‘unlike Muslim-behavior’ of the Muslim rulers of India caught more attention of some ‘narrator’ since such deviations in their style of governance in favor of ‘communal harmony’ were completely unexpected and entirely unheard of. As per our ancient traditions, before the arrival of Islam, fights over differences in religious practices of different religious communities were always a temporary issue and traditionally all such differences were ultimately settled without leaving any deep divide among different communities. However, it cannot be denied that unlike all other ‘benign’ religious differences within the non-Muslims, unfortunately the Muslim & non-Muslim divide has always remained potentially explosive and exploitable.

Strangely, the communists’ narrative of India paints an entirely opposite picture of this issue. They have always shied away from giving the non-Muslims their due credit to have established a tradition of practicing religious harmony on this land. And instead, they have never hesitated from exaggerating the indicative/token practices of religious harmony by Muslims. In the process they (un)intentionally hurt the sentiments of the real reason behind this influence on the Muslims. Extinction of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh provides enough evidences to prove this point beyond all doubts. To conclude, we must accept that while the practice of communal harmony comes natural to the non-Muslims, Muslims are used to showing such behavior only in the presence of non-Muslims.