10 things Ambedkar said that Indian secularists wouldn’t bear to hear.

10 things Ambedkar said that Indian secularists wouldn’t bear to hear.

Sujoy Ghosh

Most of these quotes are from Dr Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan or the Partition of India.” A PDF copy may be found here.

http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/pakistan.pdf

Let’s hope Indian secularists can take the heat.

(1) Which society has more social evils? Hindu or Muslim?

Dr Ambedkar says:

“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.”

You hear that? All the big propaganda of the left about Ambedkar’s radical views on the evils of Hindu society and Dr Ambedkar states clearly and crisply that Muslim society is objectively worse.

(2) What is the “relieving feature” of Hindus and the “distressing” feature about Muslims?

Dr Ambedkar says:

“The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.”

Ah! What an amazing clarity of thought! Muslims have more social evils than Hindus. Hindus keep trying to reform themselves and eradicate the evils. Muslims don’t and they oppose any positive change.

(3) Which religious community adopts the “gangster’s method” in politics?

Dr Ambedkar says.

“The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics. …. So long as the Muslims were the aggressors, the Hindus were passive, and in the conflict, they suffered more than the Muslims did. But this is no longer true. The Hindus have learned to retaliate and no longer feel any compunction in knifing a Musalman. This spirit of retaliation bids fair to produce the ugly spectacle of gangsterism against gangsterism.”

Look how wonderful. Correct me if I am wrong, dear liberal friends, but it seems to me that Dr Ambedkar is explaining the “action-reaction theory”. And he is making it absolutely clear who usually starts the violence.

Don’t leave the room just yet, dear secular liberal friends. We are just starting to have fun. Let’s see how long you can bear to keep listening.

(4) Why do Muslims carry out cow slaughter in India? Is it just to hurt Hindu sentiments?

Well, let’s find out. Dr Ambedkar says:

“The second thing that is noticeable among the Muslims is the spirit of exploiting the weaknesses of the Hindus. If the Hindus object to anything, the Muslim policy seems to be to insist upon it and give it up only when the Hindus show themselves ready to offer a price for it by giving the Muslims some other concessions. Another illustration of this spirit of exploitation is furnished by the Muslim insistence upon cow-slaughter and the
stoppage of music before mosques. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman, when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India, they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal.”

Oh! So, that’s why Muslims in India insist upon carrying out cow-slaughter. So that it hurts the sentiments of Hindus. Just to repeat, Baba Saheb is saying that the purpose of cow-slaughter in India by Muslims is not a desire to innocently enjoy Tunday Kabab. The real purpose is to intimidate Hindus and extract … sorry… “exploit” … them to get concessions. Tough luck for my good friends at Scroll.in.

(5) But at least Islam teaches universal brotherhood, right?

Wrong! Dr Ambedkar has this to say:

“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.”

Short and sweet. And crisp. And cutting.

(6) But what about the “idea of India?” Is it right to question the patriotism of Indian Muslims?

Let’s find out what Baba Saheb has to say:

“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.”

Ouch! Let’s just say that if Dr Ambedkar were alive today, portals like Wire and Scroll would very likely refuse to publish his writings.

(7) How do the Muslims of India see the Hindus? Do they see Hindus as equals and treat them with respect as per Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb?

Dr Ambedkar says:

“The realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserves more to be exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the fact that while the Musalman accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as his inferior.”

Oh my god! Is Dr Ambedkar suggesting that Ms Sagarika Ghose is not a “realist”? How cruel!

(8) Has it ever surprised you that Muslims in India (and countries in the West where they are a minority) so passionate about human rights when Muslim majority countries have barely any rights for anybody?

Well, Dr Ambedkar has the answer:

“If the representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. … 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.”

(9) But don’t the vast majority of Muslims condemn all acts of violence? Isn’t Islam a religion of peace?

You could listen to NDTV. Or you could listen to Dr Ambedkar:

“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 murderers paid the penalty of law where the law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. ”

One Yakub Memon comes to mind. And the terrorists who were killed in Batla House encounter.  Anyways….

(10) Have you ever felt that the political class in India turns a blind eye to atrocities committed by Muslims against Hindus?

Turns out Dr Ambedkar felt the same way:

“But Mr Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives. This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots.”

This is not some right-wing troll on Twitter writing about Rahul Gandhi. This is Ambedkar talking about Mahatma Gandhi.

Let’s recap: Ambedkar believes that Muslim society has more ills than Hindu society, that Muslims are more resistant to positive change, that Muslims believe neither in democracy, nor in treating Hindus as equals, nor do Muslims condemn crimes against Hindus. That Muslims can never owe allegiance to India.

Suffice to say, Baba Saheb would certainly have lost the elections for the post of JNUSU President.

Source- http://www.opindia.com/2018/04/10-things-ambedkar-said-that-indian-secularists-wouldnt-bear-to-hear/