Ambedkar and RSS close friends

[Pitta]

2 minutes ago, Mirage said:

kaani pulka cheyali ante oil lekunda kalchaali

in other words danini dieting antaru 

[Ellen]

Just now, Pitta said:

sarasam adi sarcasm kaadu 

 internet lo ee madhya adi ekva ayyi automatic ga ala chadiva

[Pitta]

7 minutes ago, Ellen said:

,

[Silverado]

2 minutes ago, TrollBait said:

lol. keep going.

How Nehru and Congress prevented Dr B R Ambedkar from giving his best for the country

Jawaharlal Nehru had a deep contempt for intellectual superiority and those who had a different ‘Idea of India’ than his. Nehru tried hard to push Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar into twilight of history, but Ambedkar bounced back because Bharat needed him more, and not Nehru. We contextualise five reasons, which are five points about different ‘idea of India’ which made Nehru loathe Babasaheb.
 
1. Nehru was a Casteist
 
For Nehru, Ambedkar was not at all a key player in the contemporary politics of the freedom struggle. As late as 1942-45, when Nehru completed him The Discovery of India, he didn’t find it crucial to mention Ambedkar even once. Flip through the pages of the index in the book, and one doesn’t find a single entry for Ambedkar. If a key leader like Nehru doesn’t engage with Ambedkar during the freedom struggle, it simply means that for Nehru, caste and social dimensions was not an issue at all.
 
It is strange that how someone like Nehru who presented himself as a true democrat never found it important to have a single dialogue with Ambedkar, who was the most accepted leader of SCs, and more people. Why do we only read about the dialogues and disagreements between Ambedkar and Gandhi, and not of Ambedkar and Nehru? The simple reason which can be placed into historical complexities is this. Nehru was afraid of intellectual superiority, and therefore, he never engaged those, who he felt could belittle his presence. Ambedkar was intellectually superior to Nehru, he had a better understanding of the Indian society and scenario, and thus he was always neglected by Nehru.
 
2. On Muslim Question
 
Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Congress leaders like Nehru had serious differences over the modalities of the partition of the country. In his book, “Pakistan or the partition of India”, Dr Ambedkar wrote that the partition without exchange of population would not solve the Hindu-Muslim problem in the country.
 
He also doubted whether Muslims could make suitable compatriots in democratic governance. He stated that “Islam 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.” (Ibid. p.330) Remarkably, this observation also explains the tendency of Muslims to vote as a block. They cannot think outside their religious bracket, and therefore, they have failed to represent themselves democratically in the contemporary history of Bharat.
 
Dr Ambedkar, in his lifetime, could see that Muslims could only be represented through the Mullah and those parties like, Congress which provide patronage to the inward-looking medievalist clerics. He has categorically stated that “The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is in religion ... Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognises only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life has 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 one governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.” (Ibid. p. 232)
 
3. Negligence of Merit
 
Babasaheb realised that Nehru was only interested in nepotism and not promoting and utilising the merit of men. Even though Babasaheb was considerate in joining the Nehru’s cabinet on Gandhiji’s request, he couldn’t stay there for long. In his resignation letter dated September 27, 1951, Ambedkar revealed two other issues with Nehru.

Dr Ambedkar being sworn in as the Minister of Law in Nehru's cabinet

First was of personal nature 

[Ellen]

1 minute ago, Pitta said:

[Pitta]

3 minutes ago, Silverado said:

I feel jaglaqq is having. Peanut. Brain😀

[Pitta]

1 minute ago, Silverado said:

How Nehru and Congress prevented Dr B R Ambedkar from giving his best for the country

Jawaharlal Nehru had a deep contempt for intellectual superiority and those who had a different ‘Idea of India’ than his. Nehru tried hard to push Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar into twilight of history, but Ambedkar bounced back because Bharat needed him more, and not Nehru. We contextualise five reasons, which are five points about different ‘idea of India’ which made Nehru loathe Babasaheb.
 
1. Nehru was a Casteist
 
For Nehru, Ambedkar was not at all a key player in the contemporary politics of the freedom struggle. As late as 1942-45, when Nehru completed him The Discovery of India, he didn’t find it crucial to mention Ambedkar even once. Flip through the pages of the index in the book, and one doesn’t find a single entry for Ambedkar. If a key leader like Nehru doesn’t engage with Ambedkar during the freedom struggle, it simply means that for Nehru, caste and social dimensions was not an issue at all.
 
It is strange that how someone like Nehru who presented himself as a true democrat never found it important to have a single dialogue with Ambedkar, who was the most accepted leader of SCs, and more people. Why do we only read about the dialogues and disagreements between Ambedkar and Gandhi, and not of Ambedkar and Nehru? The simple reason which can be placed into historical complexities is this. Nehru was afraid of intellectual superiority, and therefore, he never engaged those, who he felt could belittle his presence. Ambedkar was intellectually superior to Nehru, he had a better understanding of the Indian society and scenario, and thus he was always neglected by Nehru.
 
2. On Muslim Question
 
Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Congress leaders like Nehru had serious differences over the modalities of the partition of the country. In his book, “Pakistan or the partition of India”, Dr Ambedkar wrote that the partition without exchange of population would not solve the Hindu-Muslim problem in the country.
 
He also doubted whether Muslims could make suitable compatriots in democratic governance. He stated that “Islam 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.” (Ibid. p.330) Remarkably, this observation also explains the tendency of Muslims to vote as a block. They cannot think outside their religious bracket, and therefore, they have failed to represent themselves democratically in the contemporary history of Bharat.
 
Dr Ambedkar, in his lifetime, could see that Muslims could only be represented through the Mullah and those parties like, Congress which provide patronage to the inward-looking medievalist clerics. He has categorically stated that “The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is in religion ... Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognises only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life has 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 one governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.” (Ibid. p. 232)
 
3. Negligence of Merit
 
Babasaheb realised that Nehru was only interested in nepotism and not promoting and utilising the merit of men. Even though Babasaheb was considerate in joining the Nehru’s cabinet on Gandhiji’s request, he couldn’t stay there for long. In his resignation letter dated September 27, 1951, Ambedkar revealed two other issues with Nehru.

Dr Ambedkar being sworn in as the Minister of Law in Nehru's cabinet

First was of personal nature 

kastapadi intha type chesava 

[Pitta]

1 minute ago, Ellen said:

[Silverado]

Just now, Pitta said:

kastapadi intha type chesava 

Kadu dudde. Copy chesi paste chesa😂😀😀😀😀😀😀

[Ellen]

2 minutes ago, Silverado said:

How Nehru and Congress prevented Dr B R Ambedkar from giving his best for the country

Jawaharlal Nehru had a deep contempt for intellectual superiority and those who had a different ‘Idea of India’ than his. Nehru tried hard to push Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar into twilight of history, but Ambedkar bounced back because Bharat needed him more, and not Nehru. We contextualise five reasons, which are five points about different ‘idea of India’ which made Nehru loathe Babasaheb.
 
1. Nehru was a Casteist
 
For Nehru, Ambedkar was not at all a key player in the contemporary politics of the freedom struggle. As late as 1942-45, when Nehru completed him The Discovery of India, he didn’t find it crucial to mention Ambedkar even once. Flip through the pages of the index in the book, and one doesn’t find a single entry for Ambedkar. If a key leader like Nehru doesn’t engage with Ambedkar during the freedom struggle, it simply means that for Nehru, caste and social dimensions was not an issue at all.
 
It is strange that how someone like Nehru who presented himself as a true democrat never found it important to have a single dialogue with Ambedkar, who was the most accepted leader of SCs, and more people. Why do we only read about the dialogues and disagreements between Ambedkar and Gandhi, and not of Ambedkar and Nehru? The simple reason which can be placed into historical complexities is this. Nehru was afraid of intellectual superiority, and therefore, he never engaged those, who he felt could belittle his presence. Ambedkar was intellectually superior to Nehru, he had a better understanding of the Indian society and scenario, and thus he was always neglected by Nehru.
 
2. On Muslim Question
 
Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Congress leaders like Nehru had serious differences over the modalities of the partition of the country. In his book, “Pakistan or the partition of India”, Dr Ambedkar wrote that the partition without exchange of population would not solve the Hindu-Muslim problem in the country.
 
He also doubted whether Muslims could make suitable compatriots in democratic governance. He stated that “Islam 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.” (Ibid. p.330) Remarkably, this observation also explains the tendency of Muslims to vote as a block. They cannot think outside their religious bracket, and therefore, they have failed to represent themselves democratically in the contemporary history of Bharat.
 
Dr Ambedkar, in his lifetime, could see that Muslims could only be represented through the Mullah and those parties like, Congress which provide patronage to the inward-looking medievalist clerics. He has categorically stated that “The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is in religion ... Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognises only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life has 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 one governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.” (Ibid. p. 232)
 
3. Negligence of Merit
 
Babasaheb realised that Nehru was only interested in nepotism and not promoting and utilising the merit of men. Even though Babasaheb was considerate in joining the Nehru’s cabinet on Gandhiji’s request, he couldn’t stay there for long. In his resignation letter dated September 27, 1951, Ambedkar revealed two other issues with Nehru.

Dr Ambedkar being sworn in as the Minister of Law in Nehru's cabinet

First was of personal nature 

Interesting post.

[Mirage]

4 minutes ago, Pitta said:

in other words danini dieting antaru 

 

1 minute ago, Pitta said:

 

[TrollBait]

ambedkar was wrong on a lot of things.

his excessive belief in centralized governance of India. his stupid belief that partition should mean exchange of population to be successful, and his insistence that sanskrit should be national language.

also he was not a popular leader, who could win elections on his own.

so lets not get carried away. ambedkar is a brilliant and influential man in Indian politics. but he's flawed too.

 

[Silverado]

1 minute ago, Silverado said:

Kadu dudde. Copy chesi paste chesa😂😀😀😀😀😀😀

For concern

[Pitta]

2 minutes ago, Silverado said:

Kadu dudde. Copy chesi paste chesa😂😀😀😀😀😀😀

[TrollBait]

ambedkar's views of Islam are as stupid as his views on Hinduism beyond the caste system.

wondering if muslims would be good compatriots in a democratic setup anta. He would be challenged if he said such stupid things now.