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.  

Left with Suicidal tendencies – Rohith’s death

There is absolutely no doubt that the ‘caste system’ is an unjust, inhuman and a ‘real’ discriminatory practice that is still being negotiated by the Dalits and other discriminated sections of the society. Nevertheless, any conclusion presuming Dalits to be necessarily anti-Hindu by default would be a blunder. In fact, Dalits are not anti-Hindu and instead they are ‘more Hindu’ than the upper castes themselves. As a matter of record, but for Dalits, Hinduism could not have survived the continuous onslaught by the invaders over the past few centuries. However they feel disappointed as they have unjustifiably been denied their due place, proper recognition and a dignified status in the society. For example, their genuine grudge against the temples is not that they exist and are built, but instead they want to enjoy dignified entry in them.

Unfortunately the Dalit movement in India has been hijacked by the left. In their frustrated quest to paint Hinduism merely as a repressive social construct, leftists relish denouncing everything that a Hindu likes to be proud of. They fail to realize that all sections of Hindu society do not have the luxury to abuse their past, condemn their history and shame their origin. The ‘upper castes’ with rulers’ background find this challenge glamorous enough as they often derive a sense of ‘greatness’ in abusing their own past. On the other hand, the discriminated castes feel hurt and devastated in doing the same. Making them to disrespect their Gods, worshipped by their own ancestors and family members, is depressing in itself but forcing them to worship their ‘Asuras’ creates an emotional disillusion for them. Snatching their Hindu-pride and at the same time demeaning their past often force them to pass through an emotional crisis similar to that of Rohith’s.

The ‘left’ rob ‘Dalits’ off their glorious past so much so that unless they are in a constant state of agitation and turbulence, which is an unnatural terrorists’ state, it becomes impossible for them to survive. And as and when they calm down, they feel miserable and culturally devastated. Dalits, who start believing in left ideology, are left with only a few options – either revolt and opt for the path of destruction and terror or stop believing in their ideology or commit suicide. Being Indian (Hindu) by heart, they rarely follow the first option. The disenchantment against ‘left’ often grows so unbearable for them that in search for pride and identity, instead of Marx, they begin looking up to their own Dr. Ambedkar. But in this process, irreversible emotional damages are caused resulting in situations similar to those that led to the unfortunate end of Rohith. The moment you start feeling yourself as empty, worthless and meaningless and realize that there is no aim worth pursuing in your life, you end yourself.

You need the luxury of having an alternate supporting mechanism at your disposal so that you are able to negotiate the ever-contradicting, self-destroying and frustration-generating arguments pursued typically by the Indian-leftists. With all their negativity, Indian leftists – are able to retain these characteristics only if they are able to get a space in academia or politics – otherwise the ‘Left’ inside them die out sooner or later. This is because the only skill they are able to develop, while living with left-ideologies, is how to find enough reasons to hate their own origin. It is therefore not surprising that although leftists vociferously sell themselves as being champions of the Dalit’s cause, they have not been able to improve the condition of Dalits even wherever they were in a position to do so.

RSS, on the contrary, without the support of the government, carries out several positive initiatives in helping the socially discriminated sections of the Indian society in achieving their aims through non-governmental organizations like Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Sewa Bharti, Samkalp and others. RSS attempts to share the common glorious past with Dalits that helps them transform into proud individuals – one of the essential characteristics required to progress. RSS initiatives have helped many Dalits in realizing their dreams of occupying policy-making positions. Compared to these the ‘left’ have used only the government-run academic institutions to spread their political influence and that too only by exploiting the discriminated class so that they can be disconnected from their roots.

Idea of Self-Regulation

The idea of regulation in the Education has been generating enough discussion for a very long period in India. CBSE, UGC, AICTE, NAAC and similar authorities have been created with similar intentions by the government of India. While these institutions have failed to deliver on several fronts one aspect that has caught the largest share of attention in this regard is their concern to regulate the quality and performance of teachers in educational institutions.

Let me not hesitate in accepting a fact that teaching has gradually been evolved as a profession from an era when it was considered primarily as a mission. It is also true that teachers now demand favorable environment to perform from an era when they looked only for an opportunity. And, it will also not be a wrong assertion that teachers earlier used to command greater respect in the society than they do in the recent age. Unfortunately, on the issue of regulation, much of the deliberation takes place on how to regulate performance of teachers while the desired stress to be given on the regulation of management of the educational institution gets entirely overlooked. But here, I am addressing the issue of regulation for the teachers.

There is no denying to the fact that in the modern age when teaching is considered more as a profession one cannot escape from getting it governed through some way of regulation. Teachers must be allowed to ask and demand but they must also be answerable at the same time. Unfortunately, attempts to put some kind of regulation for teaching have invariably been proven to be counterproductive in the final analysis. The mechanism of API scores has been the latest blunder. To force teachers to submit daily reports is another idea that is equally bizarre. The idea of installing bio-metric attendance system and similar attempts of peeping into the classrooms has similar dangers.

In fact, such practices encourage teachers to pay greater attention on responding to these mechanisms of evaluation rather than making greater efforts to improve their basic performance skills. More than offering an environment where poorly performing teachers could find reason to improve themselves these measures serve as spirit dampeners for better performing teachers and even hurt the sentiments of conscientious teachers – and that is hardly affordable. It is probably lesser true for others but, in case of teachers, one must encourage the idea of self-regulation to achieve desired results and improvement. Unfortunately, teachers have shown little interest to put a system of regulation on their own and therefore, out of all the possibilities, the next best option is to get the performance of teachers evaluated by the students themselves. One can think of putting a minimum number on the feedbacks if these are to be picked up for extracting any meaningful statistical inference. One can also put a threshold on the attendance of the students for making them eligible to submit a sensible feedback. But, I see no alternative to this if we teachers would like to have respite from the mindless implementation of continuous counterproductive mechanisms in this regard.