Posted by: digirak | December 20, 2009

The pack of lies that Ambedkar managed to proffer

Shourie aptly titles his book on Ambedkar as worshipping false gods, one really is at pains to understand the true statement of the events which lead to the government conferring a bharat ratna on a man of such twisted conduct. Moreover what troubles me is the fact that such a person’s twisted writings pass off as the highest class of intellectual work. His critique on the purusha suktas makes one wonder if it is possible to twist something so abominably, it also further goes miles to say that a person of Ambedkar’s learning which he evidently seems to be scarcely seems to have the humitility to see how one can change the system rather intends to create a system of his own. Much that i have critiqued his work i also profoundly understand the power which philosophers like SankarA and nimbArkA who wove such powerful concepts around the Vedas truly carried, I commence this work bowing to such great masters and with the Swami in mind.

Let me commence by talking of the books which ambedkar refers in his work “Who were the shudras”, this blog which i write is certainly not for the object of the book as the object contained therewith scarcely cares to even understand what ambedkar ostenibly has written however the object of the blog is that huge population of this country which believes that intellectuals like ambedkar were so apt in criticising which he certainly was not.To start with let me briefly outline Ambedkar’s stand on the issue, BR claims that the key to the shudras being subjugated is the very essence of hinduism. Hinduism needs to impose on the shudras the rule of the rod purely out of economic necessity and the essence of this is the shudras having absolutely no economic rights and no social priveleges, this being such a key factor of the economic structure cannot be done away with ever by the caste hindus as this will undermine their high economic gallantary. The texts therefore are to be taken into aspect only with this in mind, now certainly this is true because the texts are so effusive in adoring the brahmins and keen to put down the sudra. It certainly seems preponderous to suggest that texts compsed ages back had this need to systematically subjugate a class of people however large or unlearned they might have been to such economic apartheid. It is also equally ridiculous to say that such systematic subjugation existed even before the texts existed and that the texts also seem to prove that such a subjugation existed. We shall see that such brilliant conceptions of twisted economy can exist only in one mind that of Ambedkars and certainly not that of the authors of the texts, however i anticipate the texts first.

The first point I intend to refute is the point about the cosmologies. For folks who are not familiar with this book it is available here http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/38B1.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudras%20PART%20I.htm. Ambedkar claims very ambivalently that the cosmology mentioned in the rig veda and the one mentioned in the purusha suktas is so diagonally opposite, ambedkar here however misses more than a point. It may be true that the comogonies mentioned in each case is diagonally opposite; however what we miss is the fact that neither the vedas nor the suktas are to be taken literally in any sense of the term, if one is looking at the karma kanda form of interpretation one fails miserably purely because these texts are meant ins the philosophical context as stated by saNkarA; we will henceforth procede only to argue on this format, ambedkar claim in a sentence The two cosmologies are fundamentally different in principle as well as in detail. The former explains creation ex nihilo ‘being was born of non-being’. The latter ascribes creation to a being which it calls Purusha. Why in one and the same book two such opposite cosmologies should have come to be propounded? Why did the author of the Purusha Sukta think it necessary to posit a Purusha and make all creation emanate from’ him?

Now the point is if ambedkar is talking very much of a physical being purusha what then is the characteristic of this purusha; is it the same as the hiranyagarbha and do the texts answer it, ambedkar does not bother to ask these questions, however sankara asks and answers these questions in his adhyAsa bhASya, the word purusha does not mean the being purusha but the supreme brahman, for that statement that this is an ex nihilio being born of non being this is absolute hogwash because such a position is untenable by the vedas, as the concept of sUkSma swarOpA is but well known so how exactly does ambedkar claim that such creation is being said? It is also to be noted that not a word is said here either of sankarA or any of the other philosophers. If ambedkar were to be assumed to be such an intellectual to be able to interpret these independently then he needs to prove that all interpretations before his were wrong, obviously such points miss his scrutiny.

The next point i would seek to refute is ambedkar’s theory that the shudras were given the lowest possible position as they were designated to originate from the feet however there are sections which go to state that certain vedas originate from certain parts of the face alone and not any other part. Fine argument until one notices the fact that person we are talking of is the purusha who in ambedkar’s terms is the absolute entity of the cosmos, how then does ambedkar assume that the leg is the least holy part of the Person of the purusha, or is it that he needs necessarily to have to achieve such pre eminent position to prove that the shudras were indeed downgraded. Now let us try to understand why this argument is untenable, it may be that the feet are the least holy, how does ambedkar prove it , simple he says The situation becomes completely intriguing when one compares the levity with which the Shudras are treated in the Purusha Sukta with the respect with which the Brahmins are treated in the Hari-varnsa in the matter of their respective origins. Is it because of malice that the Purusha Sukta did not hesitate to say that the Shudra was born from the feet of the Purusha and that his duty was to serve? If so what is the cause of this malice? Amazing if one is born from the feet one needs to serve, so by the theory brahma is born out of vishnu’s navel doesnt it become imperative that his job is to feed others. What are ambedkar’s standpoints by which he justifies his position on this?

The next and last concept i intend to refute is ambedkar’s theory that the class idea is concieved as an ideal in the purusha suktas which universally are not regarded as an ideal, but are a natural state of humanity. This i must say at first blush appears fairly accurate but again here it amazes me to think that this is not anywhere near what it seems. The point is if we are so to assume that this ideal was concieved even before it was applied as it should be the case if we say that the puranas and suktas want to assert this ideal then the concept of caste should not predate it, however at the same time one needs to understand that if it does seek to affirm it as an ideal wont it also make it uncumbent for shudras necessary to follow it at all costs however we see statements such as shudras are bereft of the caste system, an intelligent system will first strive drive it into the mindset of people it seeks to enslave.

Also we must observe that the system which prevented shudras which prevented the shudras from entering the temples cannot be the same one which subjugated them purely out of the factor that the shudras were now prevented from doing the only thing that created the system as ambedkar claimed, praying to god, so what was ambedkar trying to fight.

Lastly id like to say that such assertions as made by ambedkar in his write up need to be taken in the light of social context and what is non relevant to the present social context has to be rejected and this is what hinduism has been doing for ages

Advertisements

Responses

  1. From the verbage which is so confusing with long sentences it is not clear if you are fighting the author for his writings or fighting the scoiety which in any case is convoluted by the caste system – whether is started with the vedas or last century – it does convolute the societal fabric especially in the 21st century.

    It does not matter who was right – today we are living in a society that needs a change in our outlook – and who ever can bring about that one way or the other but democratically – that is the need of the hour. It appears that you are suffering from cluttered mind that prevent you from outlining what you want to say in a clear form. I only hope this is just a confusion in expression and not in the thoughts.

    • I really hope you are not trolling! but thanks again for your comment. I am not really confused, guess the blog turns out like that sometimes. I am not sure why you would get this confusion unless you believe that attacking ambedkar could never happen. I think my blog title makes that apt. I am not apologising for the caste system. My point is the caste system never is/was a conniving political game of domination that Ambedkar seems to be delusioned by. His interpretation of the purusha sukta was just pure convolved and filled with bitterness and not an objective one!

  2. India is a free country and NET seems to be even more free.

    But the moment some one uses it to bash others , the netizen is a highly irresponsble person. Of cour you are entitled to your view and like many philosophers in the past some may like and others may not.
    But to cast aspersion on any one – I dont think is correct.

    Afterall every human being including you share a view – and there will be thousand others who wont agree with that – but that does not mean one should cast aspersions.

    Yoru articles spills venom – unwarranted is all I feel

    If only you focus and bring about the facts without adjectives and articulation, and avoid aspersions, perhaps the meaning would be clear to the audience. Else you will be mistaken for a confused blogger !

    • Oh that is such a heartening thought is it not? Sir would this also apply to other written material? When I feel upset about a way a certain article is written about a certain issue(ambedkar and his vitriolic attack on hinduism) this is venomous, why don’t you say the same about Ambedkar maligning the purusha suktas, not because they are holy but because he has just targetted them, blindly at that


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: