"By 40s Ambedkar was one of the most trenchant critics of Islam"
This narrative is often peddled based on his book "Pakistan & partition" where Ambedkar criticized Muslims. But did he really stop supporting Muslims after that?
Let's debunk this myth: Thread 🧵
•1945: Ambedkar wrote Pakistan or Partition
•1946: But He supported Jogen Mandal when Suhrawardy the butcher of Hindus offered him, seat in the interim Govt right after Direct action day & Noakhali
•1946: Amby himself was elected to constituent assembly with the help of the Muslim League.
•1948: He advocated for Muslim reservation in the constitution.
•1951: Amby was provoking Muslims to get their rights & reservation in his speeches.
Is that what we call "trenchant critics of Islam"? After writing the book was he really ignorant about Islam enough to support their reservation?
This narrative is often peddled based on his book "Pakistan & partition" where Ambedkar criticized Muslims. But did he really stop supporting Muslims after that?
Let's debunk this myth: Thread 🧵
•1945: Ambedkar wrote Pakistan or Partition
•1946: But He supported Jogen Mandal when Suhrawardy the butcher of Hindus offered him, seat in the interim Govt right after Direct action day & Noakhali
•1946: Amby himself was elected to constituent assembly with the help of the Muslim League.
•1948: He advocated for Muslim reservation in the constitution.
•1951: Amby was provoking Muslims to get their rights & reservation in his speeches.
Is that what we call "trenchant critics of Islam"? After writing the book was he really ignorant about Islam enough to support their reservation?
Let's elaborate.
1. The Calcutta Carnage was followed by Noakhali riots where not only upper caste Hindus but Hindus from Scheduled castes were also brutally killed, 100s were converted to Islam & Women were raped.
Members of Jogendranath Mandal's caste too suffered huge loss of life & property. Mandal saw this with his own eyes. But still supported Muslim league.
1. The Calcutta Carnage was followed by Noakhali riots where not only upper caste Hindus but Hindus from Scheduled castes were also brutally killed, 100s were converted to Islam & Women were raped.
Members of Jogendranath Mandal's caste too suffered huge loss of life & property. Mandal saw this with his own eyes. But still supported Muslim league.
Right after, Suhrawardy, responsible for massacre of Hindus offered Jogen Mandal, seat in the Government. He was hesitating & asked Ambedkar's permission.
Ambedkar who was fully aware of the massacre of Hindus including people of their caste, gave his support to join Suhrawardy. x.com
Ambedkar who was fully aware of the massacre of Hindus including people of their caste, gave his support to join Suhrawardy. x.com
Dont tell me after the massacre of Hindus (including that of Dalits), rape of women, loss of property by Islamists & Suhrawardy's involvement in it, Ambedkar was ignorant enough about Islam, to allow Jogen Mandal to support them.
2. In 1946 a year after writing the Book exposing & criticizing Muslims so staunchly, Ambedkar was elected to the constituent assembly with the help of Muslim league.
This is confirmed by his wife Savita Ambedkar herself. x.com
This is confirmed by his wife Savita Ambedkar herself. x.com
So if Ambedkar was such a critic of Muslims by 40's (at least by 1945) why did he take support of Muslim league to gain his own power?
Isnt it opportunism? What else would u call this?
Isnt it opportunism? What else would u call this?
3. After this in 1948 Ambedkar advocated for Muslim reservation.
Here is the draft constitution which he submitted where he advocated for reservation of Muslims.
Tell me again he was the strongest critic of Muslims & didn't support them? x.com
Here is the draft constitution which he submitted where he advocated for reservation of Muslims.
Tell me again he was the strongest critic of Muslims & didn't support them? x.com
In 1951 he was literally provoking Muslims in his speech
"Regarding the issues of Muslim brothers and other minorities, no one else spoke apart from me. Everyone remained silent; and Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the issue of giving reservations to Muslims. This is why you did not receive political rights"
-Ambedkar
"Regarding the issues of Muslim brothers and other minorities, no one else spoke apart from me. Everyone remained silent; and Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the issue of giving reservations to Muslims. This is why you did not receive political rights"
-Ambedkar
4. In 1951 he was literally provoking Muslims in his speech
"Regarding the issues of Muslim brothers and other minorities, no one else spoke apart from me. Everyone remained silent;and Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the issue of giving reservations to Muslims. This is why you did not receive political rights"
-Ambedkar
"Regarding the issues of Muslim brothers and other minorities, no one else spoke apart from me. Everyone remained silent;and Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the issue of giving reservations to Muslims. This is why you did not receive political rights"
-Ambedkar
So why did Ambedkar write the book "Pakistan or partition of India" criticizing Muslims and partition of India?
Let's looks at the events as documented by Ishtiyak Ahmed in his book named "Jinnah" x.com
Let's looks at the events as documented by Ishtiyak Ahmed in his book named "Jinnah" x.com
In January 1940, Ambedkar, EVR & Jinnah met to discuss joining hands to form a party against Congress. x.com
Jinnah encouraged Dravidian leaders to ask for a separate state & issued statement supporting their demands.
To Ambedkar he offered only sympathy & nothing else.
With time Jinnah only focused on Muslims and ditched Ambedkar & EVR as they weren't of any use to him to build a complete Muslim state based on Islamc laws.
To Ambedkar he offered only sympathy & nothing else.
With time Jinnah only focused on Muslims and ditched Ambedkar & EVR as they weren't of any use to him to build a complete Muslim state based on Islamc laws.
So then Ambedkar, who earlier wrote in his book "Thoughts on Pakistan" :
"Muslims feared domination and degradation in a united India, and their claim of being a nation was reasonable"
changed his stand by revising the same book with a new title "Pakistan or Partition of India" x.com
"Muslims feared domination and degradation in a united India, and their claim of being a nation was reasonable"
changed his stand by revising the same book with a new title "Pakistan or Partition of India" x.com
In the 1st edition of the book Ambedkar supported Partition saying it was in the best interest of Hindus to agree to partition and get rid of Muslim problem
In the 2nd edition in 1945, getting his political goals unfulfilled, he started writing how Partition is unnecessary. x.com
In the 2nd edition in 1945, getting his political goals unfulfilled, he started writing how Partition is unnecessary. x.com
Throughout his life Ambedkar kept changing his position multiple times based on the benefit he was personally getting.
This is why Savarkar rightly said that the only reason Ambedkar didnt convert to Islam and chose Buddhism instead was for his personal ambition. x.com
This is why Savarkar rightly said that the only reason Ambedkar didnt convert to Islam and chose Buddhism instead was for his personal ambition. x.com
I highly recommend reading this Thread quoting M.C Chagla on Ambedkar's zeal of conversion to Islam.
M.C chagla was the chief guest at inaugural conference of BJP as well
x.com
M.C chagla was the chief guest at inaugural conference of BJP as well
x.com
-End of thread-
Request everyone to read till the end and share the information with Hindus who still believe Ambedkar deserves any kind of respect and he was anything but an opportunist.
Request everyone to read till the end and share the information with Hindus who still believe Ambedkar deserves any kind of respect and he was anything but an opportunist.
Loading suggestions...