You have shown courage in publishing Moreshwar Sao’s article (DV Dec. 1 91 p.9): “Stop using the hated word: Dalit”. The fact that you have published the article though it calls you as being ignorant of Dr. Ambedkar’s views on untouchability, speaks of your adherence to the great ethics of publishing, ‘without fear or favour. Congratulations.
Moreshwar Sao, also, deserves praise for initiating a debate (DV Feb.16, 92 p.8) on Dr. Ambedkar’s views. He is right in saying that your views on the origin and date of Untouchability are very different than those of Dr. Ambedkar. In addition to having differing views on untouchability, many other opinions of Dalit Voice differ considerably from those of Dr. Ambedkar. There is nothing wrong in this and you are entitled to have your own views. But as many of your readers unknowingly equate your opinions with those of Babasaheb, I think, for the benefit of readers, it is essential to restate here some important issues with which Dalit Voice has conflict with Dr. Ambedkar.
On Black Untouchables: You have advanced a theory that the Untouchables of India and the Black Africans have a common origin and thus India’s Untouchables are ‘Black Untouchables. Dr. Ambedkar’s views are totally different. At the very outset, Babasaheb has dismissed the idea that color has anything to do with the origin of untouchability. Babasaheb asks (I do not remember his exact words): What difference in color is there between the Untouchable of Madras and the Brahmin of Madras? (Both are black). And what similarity is there in color between the Untouchable of Madras and the Untouchable of Kashmir? (One is black while the other has a fair complexion). He says Western social scientists were very quick in attaching the color criterion to the origin of untouchability and that they were wrong.
In the US, Black mostly means the people of African (negroid race) origin. This term is seldom used for other Black-colored people. Your popularizing the term ‘Black Untouchables’, therefore attracted a few Black Americans who think that their own lost brothers were enslaved and made Untouchables in India. But there is no historical proof that Africans were imported into India as they were here in America.
Danger of dividing Dalits: Secondly, in spite of uniting the Untouchables of entire India, this theory of “Black Untouchables” will divide them into two groups: Black Untouchables of South India and non- “Black Untouchables” of North India.
Anthropologically speaking, none of the people of India belong to the African Negro race.
N.K. Sharma: “African races in India”, (July 1, 91 p.8). Yet because of the dark color of their skin and texture of their hair, South Indian Untouchables could be mistaken to belong to a sub-negroid race. But then proving that the North Indian Untouchables also belong to the negroid race could be very difficult.
Untouchability is unique to India. As Babasaheb said, the Blacks were never subjected to the severe form of slavery as the Untouchables are, so why make it only a Black issue? Why not appeal to all – Black and white-to help India’s Untouchables?
Why support Mandal ?: Dalit Voice has been very loudly supporting Mandal Commission’s recommendations leading to 70% reservations to India’s Backward Castes along with SC/STs.
Will it not rob the country of competition needed for attracting talents to ensure effeciency in administration and business?. Encouraged by such reserved jobs and emboldened by the idea of never getting dismissed, these ‘reserved bureaucrats’ will push the nation into mediocrity and thus throw it into the same fate as we are seeing of the great Russian empire today. While, it is true that some reservation is needed to break the monopoly of the Brahmins, 70% is too high. May be a 50% reservation would be alright to which probably Dr. Ambedkar also could have agreed today, though in the 1950’s he was very much against it.
Dr. Ambedkar opposed BCs?: Dr. Ambedkar, a true believer in open competition and the upholder of the principle of ‘equality of opportunity’, had strongly objected to the idea of 70%. He wanted the reservations to be kept to a bare minimum only to SC/STs-the socially oppressed ones, from centuries. Speaking on this subject in Constitution Assembly, he said:
“Supposing for instance, reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which came to something like 70 percent of the posts under the state and only 30 percent retained as unreserved. Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 percent as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of giving effect to the first principle, namely that there shall be equality of opportunity. It cannot be, in my judgement. Therefore, the seats to be reserved, if reservation is to be consistent with the subclause (1) of the article 10 (now 16), must be confined to a minority of seats. It is only then that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and be effective in operation”.
Relations with Muslims: Dalit Voice has long been equating the Muslims with Dalits. This may be true in South India, but the Muslims of North India will never tolerate to be associated with the Dalits. They are socially accepted by the Hindus and are educationally and economically better off than the Untouchables.
You have always been justifying Muslim social customs. Your recent editorial, (DV Dec. 1 1991), “Ameena Case: Muslim Leadership is Warned…” is a climax of such a defense. You see nothing wrong in child marriages amongst the Muslims. Your justifiation of 60 year old Saudi’s marriage of 11 to 13 year-old Hyderabad-girl, Ameena, brings to my memory the shock and anger expressed by Dr. Ambedkar at the sad behaviour of the Muslims at the time of passing the famous anti-child marraige act, the Sarda Act.
Dr. Ambedkar would have been very sad to see child marriages still taking place and women’s rights in many Islamic countries still being curtailed. Islamic world like Iran and Saudi Arabia even today require women to wear veils when in public.
Driving Away Aryans: Dalit Voice has not devoted even 10% of space to Buddhists and Buddhism compared to what it has de’ oted to Islam and Sikhs. May be it should be called a ‘Muslim-Voice’.
Buddhism is not a toothless religion as some may think. Its teeth are so strong that Buddhists can eat anger and greed easily.
Dalit Voice has been successful in projecting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as ‘rebel-Ambedkar’. But the real Ambedkar is a patriot and a Buddhist. Dr. Ambedkar wanted the Dalits to join Buddhism in millions and thus create a religious fraternity to save the gains of equality and social justice. Dalit Voice should now try to project this constructive view of Dr. Ambedkar. Babasaheb never wanted to drive away the Aryans from India as Dalit Voice seems to have vowed to do. Aryans are here to stay in India. Untouchables should only quarrel with them if the Aryans deny then social justice and equality. Dalits will have to learn to interact with people of different cultures while keeping their identity alive.
It will be a great service if Dalit Voice, taking a cue from Buddhism’s “middle-path’, now starts teaching the Dalits to, ‘live (respectfully) and let live (others)
Brother Madhukar’s name is familiar to our readers. He has been our subscriber since 1985. We respect his views and throw open his critique of DV policies for a wider debate which goes to prove what a virile readership we have – EDITOR
