Memoranda for Submission to the Chief Ministers of the Two Telugu States.


Dr. Ambedkar on Muslims in India (A special article in the context of the 127th Jayanti, 14 April 2018)

Dt:  6/4/18


Dr. Ambedkar on Muslims in India

(A special article in the  context of the  127th Jayanti, 14 April 2018)


Dr T.H.Chowdary*



In the common hatred of Muslims for kafir Hindus  and of the  converts to Christianity for Hinduism , some Muslim leaders and Marxist and “Ambedkarite” pre-fixed Dalit (in fact crypto Christian) organisations are  working to forge a common Front against Hindus  in general and against the BJP in particular which is supposed to be wanting to  do justice  for Hindus by ending discriminations against  them, some of them like Art- 25 and 30 flowing from our Constitution itself. If ever  there was a clear thinking  intellectual of integrity who foresaw  the danger Muslims pose to what remains as India, that is Bharat, it was Dr. Ambedkar himself. In his several writings especially in the books,  Thoughts on Pakistan”  and  “Pakistan or India  Divided” he clearly brought out the incompatibility and impossibility  of  Muslims ever living in amity and in peace with non- Muslims .  In this article  I am putting together some of  Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s observations upon Muslims, their place in India and what they have done to the  Dalits.  Also,  recalled in brief is the  fate of the of  Jogindranath Mondal , a leader  of  Dalits in what was East Bengal and  East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and the  first Minister of Law in Pakistan and his naive belief that Muslims  and Dalits could be  friends to end the misery of Dalits.


2. Dr Prakash Singh  (Department of  Political  Science, at Sri Aurobindo College, University of Delhi)  in his book, “ Dr Ambedkar on Minorities” (2005) observed, “… in the present  political scenario the politics of alliance between dalits and Muslims is going on and all the selfish leaders and religious organisations are  never tired of calling this alliance as an aspiration of Baba Saheb, whereas the  fact is that Baba Saheb always abstained himself  from being  part of  any such alliance.(P 24).  On 31st March 2018, Jamiat Ulema’s General Secretary Mahmood Madani, Jamaat-e-Islami’s President Hamid Mohammed Khan, Prof. Kancha Ilaiah Shepard (who as a convert away from Hinduism is asking BCs to give  up their mother tongue and  suffix their  caste name in English to the  names their  parents gave),  Islamic scholar Khalid Saifullah Rahman , Prof P.L. Visweswara Rao, President of   Aam Aadmi Party, Telangana, Kaki Madhava Rao former Chief Secretary of A.P, Lingayat




Community leader Basavaraja Pattadarya  and  Prakash Ambedkar ( a grandson of Dr B R Ambedkar) unmindful of  who rioted  and  voted to  divide India; who forcibly converted Dalits during the  Nizam’s rule in Telangana, who divided the Hindus saying Lingayats constitute a separate  religion, shared a common platform and vowed  to form a “pressure group” to fight “divisive forces”.


3. Here are  Dr. Ambedkar views of Muslims :


·         Writing under the backdrop of  his religious conversion to Buddhism Dr.Ambedkar wrote, “if we accept Christianity or Islam our Indainness will change. We will  start bowing  our heads towards Mecca and Madina.  Muslims can’t appreciate the concept of  democracy as  religion is supreme for them. Their politics is religion -based. They are known all over the world for their   retrogressive  approach. Their fraternity is confined to the Muslims only (Thoughts on Pakistan  Amar Publication,   Mumbai 1941, page-46)  


·         “…As per Muslim Law the world is divided into two parts -  Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Hurb. 


·         Discussing whether Muslims will accept the authority of a government run by Hindus, Dr Ambedkar wrote that a Muslim considers the  Hindus to be “a kafir”. And the  kafir does not   command any respect because he is lowly born and a dishonoured  fellow. Hence the country ruled by kafirs is  Dar-l Hurb for the  Muslims “ (p 294  Pakistan or  Partition of  India ; Thacker & Co, Mumbai 1946)


·         Dr Ambedkar presents  some more  views in this regard. “The Muslims did not forget that  Hindus were lowly born and inferior to them even during the  period of khilafat movement when Hindus  were extending extensive support to the Muslims.   


·         Dr Ambedkar opposed the Nehru Committee Report (in which separate  electorate and  weighted representation for Muslims  was conceded by Congress).  In Jan 1929 in the journal, Bahishkrut Bharat he wrote, “  The plan is against the interest of Hindus , is of no use. We oppose this report,  not because it violates the rights of the untouchables but for the  reason that this poses a threat to the Hindus at large and the future of India may fall in peril”.  He further observed:  “Constant appeasement is the  most foolish policy. Endless demand and  unfulfilled appeasement is a final outcome of this  policy  ( Communal Deadlock by Dr Ambedkar p-1)


·         Dr. Ambedkar  after a great study of Hindu- Muslim relations  in India  since the advent of the Muslim rule in the country, had concluded that  Hindus and Muslims cannot live as one nation in this  country.  He referred to Md. Ali Jinnah’s speech on the  Muslim League’s Lahore  resolution  March 1940 which loudly proclaimed that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and that they cannot live together and therefore  India  should be  partitioned to create Pakistan as a homeland for the  sub-continents  Muslims Dr Ambedkar  wrote, “I do not  think the  demand  for Pakistan is  the  result of mere  political distemper, which will pass away with the  efflux of time.  As I read the  situation, it seems to me that it is a characteristic in the  biological sense of the  term which  the  Muslim body politic has developed in the   same  manner as an  organism develops a characteristic. Whether it will survive or not, in the  process of natural  selection, must  depend upon the  forces that may become  operative in the  struggle for  existence  between Hindus and Musalmans (In the  book, “Pakistan or  the Partition of India)”.


Dr. Ambedkar  was also aware that this  two -nation  theory was not a new one propounded by Md. Ali Jinanh but that  it had a long history. It was first propounded by  Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan in his 1885 Meerut speech Dr. Ambedkar  .


·         In the book,  Pakistan or the Partition of India”.  Dr. Ambedkar  advised Hindus; he appealed to their intelligence to concede Pakistan peacefully and as a permanent solution  to the Muslim problem, he advocated  peaceful organised  exchange of the minorities; that is, all Muslims from Hindustan should go to Pakistan and all Hindus and Buddhists and even Christians from what would be Pakistan,  should come to India.


·         In apparent agony Dr Ambedkar admonished the Hindus thus, “I feel that the  Hindu leaders (Congress  as well as Hindu  Maha Sabha and Gandhi in particular) who are guiding their (Hindus ) future have lost competent  vision. And they are  under some hollow illusions  and its outcome, I apprehend would be  fatal for Hindus . ….It is a proven fact that  Hindus and Muslims vary from one another  in nature , spirituality and  will  for political  unity and even the short period  (during khilafat) for which both remained in harmony was also marked by tense  relationship.


…Hindus are under the illusion that Pakistan  is the  whims and fancies of Jinnah only and majority of  ordinary Muslims and the  other Muslims leaders don’t support it. ….it is very astonishing how their  wisdom has become so slow and  retarded ……. Hindus   are imprisoned within the  thick walls of  imaginary  emotions and  predictions.  If Hindus failed to carry on their duties  ( that is, realise that all Muslims think they are a separate  nation . India should be divided ) .  India  will be destroyed  how Europe was once  destroyed”. 


·         Of  Muslims  he said, “religion is their  political inspiration.  Muslims tend to oppose vehemently  any kind of  social reforms . They have shown everywhere in the  wold that they  are not  of progressive  mind. For them Islam is the only religion which is competent  enough to deal with any situation all the  time and anywhere in space.  The fraternity enshrined in Islam is confined only to the Muslims  of the  world, it is not for others.  ..Islam does not  give a  chance to a true  Muslim to consider  India as his  mother land and the  Hindus as his  brethren. …invading mentality is lying in  the nature of Muslims . (quote from  Dhananjay Keer’s, Dr. Ambedkar ki Jeevani p-334)


·         Dr. Ambedkar even doubted as to whether  Muslim regiments in the Indian Army will fight under   Hindus officers.  His doubt arose because some  Muslim leaders  of khilafat movement ( 1992-’21) invited  the  Emir of  Afghanistan to invade India  ( and  establish Dar-ul-Islam).


·         When news of  Hindus, especially Dalits being  forcibly converted to Islam in the  Nizam’s territory  Dr. Ambedkar iIssued a statement “advising the Hindus left in Pakistan to come to India  in  every possible manner to save  themselves  from forced conversions to Islam.   They should not believe Muslims for the simple reason   that they  were  angry with the  upper caste Hindus only. It would be  a blunder for them”.


·         Dr. Ambedkar termed Nizam of  Hyderabad   an enemy of India  and directed the dalits not to favour him. He asked the Prime Minister,  Jawaharlal Nehru to take immediate action to bring out  Hindus from different   parts of Pakistan . ( p 39 Dr. Ambedkar;  On Minorities by Prashant Singh)


·         To demonstrate how  even the  so called nationalist Muslims view Hindus, Dr. Ambedkar  narrated the following instance: “Maulana Md Ali called Mahatma Gandhi a brother  during the khilafat movement. Gandhi committed  the overwhelmingly  nationalist Congress  to the  khilafat moment of India’s Muslims  demanding that the British government should  restore  the  Turkish sultan’s authority over Macca and Madina . Nowhere else in the world did Muslims   make this demand.  The Turks themselves  deposed the Sultan and   packed him off in a sealed train to Paris .  The khilafat movement was in  vain. At the end of it  Maulana  Md Ali made the most shocking observation. Speaking at Aligarh and Ajmere (1924)  he said: However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion inferior to any Musalaman, even though he be without character”. The Statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mohamed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptuous sentiments about him.  When Mr. Mohamed Ali was speaking in a meeting held at Amina Baug  Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true.  Mr. Mohamed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied. “Yes! According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be  better than Mr. Gandhi”. And this was just after the  Khilafat movement Of  India’s Moslems into which Gandhiji involved the  national, secular Congress! Gandhiji called Mohammed Ali, his brother!   In the  1946 general elections  to the  central and Provincial Legislature, 98.6% of the  Muslim electorate rejected  secular  Gandhi, socialist Nehru and  nationalist  Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and voted for Moslem League  and its demand for  partition of India and  creation of the  Islamic  state of Pakistan. 


·         Moulana Mohammad Ali of the Khilaft fame while  presiding at the annual Congress session in Kakinada in 1923 advised the Congress that the SCs  should be shared  50-50 between Hindus and  Muslims . That is, he wanted to swell the numbers of Muslims  in India by converting half the SCs with the consent and connivance of the  Congress, to Islam.


·         During the  khilafat movement (1919-21)  the  Moplah Muslims of Kerala  declared a Caliphate and    anointed one Md Musliar as the caliph of   India .  The Moplhas  rose in revolt against the    British  and in the  caliphate  of  Kerala, they raped   Hindu women,  forcibly converted  Hindus and destroyed their temples. IT took four months for the  British Indian army to  quell this  revolt. Gandhiji did not  condemn this. The   whole  county was aghast,  when he  said  that “Moplahs  were god -fearing people  and they  did  what they thought was their  god’s commands to them”.  Dr. Ambedkar  wrote  “ the resolution passed by the  Working Committee of the  Congress on the Moplah  atrocities in 1921 shows   how  careful the Congress was not to hurt the feelings of  the Musalmans.


·         In his book, “Pakistan or  India  Divided  Dr. Ambedkar   quoted Md. Ali Jinnah speech while passing the   Lahore  resolution for  division of India.   “……………………It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism.  They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature.  They neither intermarry, (only Hindu girls marry Moslems, but they have to convert to Islam ) nor interdine together and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.  Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history.  They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes.  Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the Government of such a state…….”  Even after partition India has the  same minority ( i.e Muslim) problem, price the  country pays for not  accepting  the statesman, Dr.  Ambedkar’s advice for peaceful exchange of minorities.


·         Dr. Ambedkar   had scant respect for  Gandhiji . He always refered to him as Mr. Gandhi and never as Mahatma  Gandhi because  Gandhiji had a total misunderstanding of Islam and  of Dalit problems too. On Gandhiji death Dr B.R. Ambedkar wrote to Sharada alias Laxmi Kabir who later became his wife, following Gandhiji’s assassination. In that letter, dated 8 February 1948, Dr B R Ambedkar said that Gandhiji should have not met his death at the  hand of a Maharashtrian.  Then he went  on: "Mr. Gandhi had become a positive danger to his country.  He had choked all the thoughts.  He was holding together the Congress which is a combination of all the bad and self-seeking elements in society who agreed on no social or moral principle governing the life of society except the one of praising and  flattering Mr Gandhi.  Such a body is unfit to govern the country". And the Bible says that something good comes  out of evil, so also I think that good will come out of the  death of Mr. Gandhi.  He will release  people from bondage to superman, It will make them think for themselves and it will compel them to stand on their own merits.And to that, he added: “My real enemy has gone, thank goodness, the eclipse is over” (Source: A Reporter At Large ( page 238/239) by M V Kamat)


·         That Islam and Muslims have scant  respect for Dalits that is Shedule Castes was made evident by the fate of  Sri Jogindranath Mondal. He was the leader of  Sheduled Caste Federation in Bengal and was a Minister in the  Muslim League government headed by H S Suhravardy in the undivided  province of Bengal. After partition,  he was the  Law Minister in Pakistan  (just as Dr Ambedkar was the Law Minister in independent  India).   While in the Ministry of  Prime Minister  Liaqat Ali Khan, Jogindranath Mondal repeatedly  submitted reports on atrocities committed on Hindus,  especially the SCs in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh ). They were being subjected to rape and forced conversion . The small properties  they were having were being snatched away from them. Thousands of them were  fleeing to West Bengal  as there was no protection from the East Pakistan  government.  All his reports were getting dismissed by Liaqat Ali Khan with the  remark that Islam does not preach such things.  Mandal was shown little  respect even by his own officers and colleagues, Muslims ministers. He was so humiliated that he fled from Pakistan,  came to Calcutta and died unsung and unrecognised.  His parting letter to Liaqat Ali Khan is a stinging charge sheet  of what Islamist Pakistan was doing to non-Muslims, especially Dalits.  Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years converting many  hapless SCs  by every possible means to Islam. The Muslim rulers including the Nizam had done very little to uplift Dalits . The  current solicitude for SCs by various Muslim organisations  is only to inveigle them  to support the Muslim demands. 


·         It is not only Dr. Ambedkar  who had   the correct appraisal of Muslims  and their  rule in India.   Here is what  will Durant  the famous historian wrote, "The Mohamedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.  It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within" (Source: Story of Civilization ).


·         And here is what the  famous  historian, philosopher Arnold Toynbee observed,  Aurangazeb’s purpose in building these mosques ( Kashi and Mathura) was the same  intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build  their  Cathedral in the city center at Warsaw. I must say that Aurangazeb was a veritable genius for picking out provocative  sites.  Aurangez and Phillip –II  of Spain are a pair.  They are incarnations  of the gloomy fanatical vein in Christian, Muslim and Jewish family of religions………Perhaps  the Poles  were really  kinder in destroying the Russians’ self discrediting monuments in Warsaw than you (Indians) have been   in sparing Aurangazebs’s  mosques. (Source: Azad Memorial Lecture at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai -1963) 

Dr B R Ambedkar’S some definitive opinions:  


·         Muslims invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest- there is no doubt that striking  a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hinduism and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims.

·         The Muslim invaders were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith. Slavery was the  fate of those  Hindus captured in the  holy war .

·         Islam  is a closed corporation and the  distinction  that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real , very positive and very alienating  distinction .

·         The resolution passed by the  Working Committee of the Congress on the   Moplha atrocities in 1921 shows  how careful the Congress was not to hurt the feelings of the   Musalmans.



(3,127 words)                                      END