BR Ambedkar on Islam and Islamic Society-An Excerpt from his Book Pakistan or Partition of India

What we don’t know, however, is what he
thought of the other great religion of the world – Islam. Because this facet of Ambedkar has been hidden
from our general discourse and textbooks, it may come as a surprise to most that Ambedkar
thought frequently of Islam and spoke frequently on it. The cold and cruel India of the young Ambedkar,
that shaped his views on Hinduism and Hindus – and of which I talked of previously – soon
became the cold and cruel India of the old Ambedkar, allowing him, through a study of
Islam and Muslims, to make sense of a nation hurtling towards a painful and bloody partition. A distillate of Ambedkar’s thoughts on Islam
and Muslims can be found in ‘Pakistan Or The Partition Of India’, a collection of
his writings and speeches, first published in 1940, with subsequent editions in 1945
and 1946. It is an astonishing book in its scope and
acuity, and reading it one realises why no one talks of it, possessing as it does the
potential to turn Ambedkar into an Islamophobic bigot for his worshippers on the Left. Here, then, is Ambedkar on Islam: “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 a 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. There is a 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 [Where it
is well with me, there is my country] 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.” This scathing indictment by Ambedkar of Islam
never finds a mention in our history books. But then this is India – a Hero must not
be perceived as a Villain even though the misperception is entirely of our making. Well, we know better; he didn’t mean to
say those things about Islam; perhaps he was misguided; let us look at the context; damn,
no, that’s not of any help here; tell you what, let us gag him; for the greater good;
for communal harmony; for the sake of IPC Section 295A and our peaceful future. Selective reading of Ambedkar, by which it
is meant reading only his damning (and entirely justified) criticism of Hinduism, has led
to a prevalent view that only Hinduism is laden with cultural and religious ills. One can see this even today, when the Left
and its ideologues point selectively to the social and religious evils pertaining to Hinduism. As a result, someone who isn’t well-versed
with India may get the impression that it is only Hinduism and Hindus who are to blame
for every ill and intolerance that plagues us. The reality, of course, is that social and
religious intolerance runs in our veins, it always has and it always will, for none other
than the holy scriptures of all religions have mainstreamed it. It is Ambedkar himself who, presciently and
fiercely, points to this hypocrisy. He writes: “The social evils which characterize
the Hindu Society, have been well known. The publication of ‘Mother India’ by Miss
Mayo gave these evils the widest publicity. But while ‘Mother India’ served the purpose
of exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their
sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus
were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in
India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That, such an impression should prevail, is
surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters.” Ambedkar then proceeds to talk in scathing
terms of child-marriage, intolerance, fanatical adherence to faith, the position of women,
polygamy, and other such practices prevalent among believers of Islam. On the subject of caste, Ambedkar goes into
great detail, and no punches are pulled. “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 stands 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. 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. “Those who rightly commend Ambedkar for leaving
the fold of Hinduism, never ask why he converted to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he viewed Islam as no better
than Hinduism. And keeping the political and cultural aspects
in mind, he had this to say: “Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the
Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of Muslims
will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real.” On Muslim politics, Ambedkar is caustic, even
scornful. “There is thus a stagnation not only in the
social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as
such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions
that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does not care to examine
the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate
is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones
at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to
repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is quite
satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and in other if he agrees
to buy votes for so much a piece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter
of money and is very seldom a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular
categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. 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 governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.” The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by
Ambedkar is unquestionably deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated
him. How they wish he had never written such things. They try their best to dismiss his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested excuse of “context”. That’s right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up its context. Bring in the grey. Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this
excuse falls flat. Ambedkar’s views on Islam – in a book with
fourteen chapters that deal almost entirely with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the Muslim
Condition – are stand-alone statements robustly supported with quotes and teachings of scholars,
Muslim leaders, and academics. To him these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context is superfluous; in fact, it is
non-existent. Read the following statements: The brotherhood
of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a 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. 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.” If you are hunting for a context to the above
statements, you have just outed yourself as a hopeless apologist. Well, you are not alone. Some of India’s most celebrated hagiographers,
commentators, writers, and columnists, that include Ramachandra Guha and Arundhati Roy
– both of whom have written copiously on Ambedkar, through stand-alone chapters or
books (The Doctor and the Saint; India after Gandhi; Democrats and Dissenters; Makers of
Modern India) – are conspicuously silent on Ambedkar’s views on Islam and the Muslim
psyche. Clearly, this is a story the apologists do
not want to tell. The one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland
[India], Ambedkar writes: “Among the tenets 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.” Quoting the following: “The only allegiance
a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a 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…” Ambedkar adds: “This must make anyone wishing
for a stable government very apprehensive. But this is nothing to the Muslim tenets which
prescribe when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is not…According
to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam),
and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam 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 Canon Law of the Muslims, India
cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but
it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the 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 becomes subject to the
authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam 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…It might also be mentioned that
Hijrat [emigration] is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a
Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon
Law called 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. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam
(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-lslam.” And just as there are instances of the Muslims
in India resorting to Hijrat, there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim
Jihad.” On a Muslim respecting authority of an elected
government, Ambedkar writes: “Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the
government is as essential for the stability of government as the unity of political parties
on the fundamentals of the state. It is impossible for any sane person to question the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the state. To believe in civil disobedience is to believe
in anarchy… How far will Muslims obey the authority of
a government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not call
for much inquiry.” This view isn’t much different from the views
of Jinnah and the Muslim League. Indeed, in the then prevailing climate, engineered
or otherwise, these views could be seen as legitimate from the point of view of an anxious
minority. However, the reason that Ambedkar gives for
this predilection is not at all political but, rather startlingly, religious. He writes: “To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country which is ruled by a
Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be
necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy,
which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted, there is no dearth
of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what
to tender and what to omit… In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when
the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that
as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.” Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the lack of reforms in the Muslim community,
he writes: “What can that special reason be? It seems to me that the reason for the absence
of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought in the peculiar position he
occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which
is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently
but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is demusalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning
away he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine
whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed
in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed, and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save
himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind
is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are
backward in the matter of social reform. “Their energies are directed to maintaining
a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed
and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the
ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining
their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political
stagnation in the Muslim community of India. “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 capital. 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 tenant feels that if he joins in
the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in
the onslaught of labour against capital, 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.” Then, Ambedkar writes something that would
surely confirm him as a certified Islamophobe and a bigot in the jaundiced eyes of those
who have appropriated him. “How Muslim politics has become perverted
is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a
great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly
opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite
simple. In all matters, the determining question with
the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help the
Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir, the ruler is a Hindu,
but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government
in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from
a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim,
but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means
the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims
support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the
other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims
is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy
with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them, or will it weaken
them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have
democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue
in the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects. The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims
must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims
to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle
the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage
everything which causes dissension in their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken
the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it
is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities,
while the latter are not.” History for us is either to be hidden or invented. We tell and retell what we like of it, and
of what we don’t, we scrunch it up and slip it under the mattress, and then perch ourselves
cross-legged over it to retell a little more. We are born storytellers. A lap and a head is all we need. As for truth? Well, it is not there; it vanished from view;
and so it never happened. But it did happen. Ambedkar did say these things on Islam and
Indian Muslims. In doing so, he gave a choice to us, for he
knew us only too well. We could either discuss his views on Islam
openly like we do his views on Hinduism, or we could scrunch them up like a plastic bag
and slip it under our mattress. He did not live long enough to witness the
option that we chose but being the seer that he was he had an inkling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *