Ambedkar's ideas on Islam and contextualizing him in the love jihad debate.

 

Introduction

Interpretation of Ambedkar as a revolutionary figure of the scheduled castes must not restrict our understanding of him as someone who only worked and presented ideas on the Scheduled Caste of this country. Ambedkar had done profound works on various other subjects like economics, women, constitution, labour naming a few. He, as a chief architect of the constitution itself, demonstrates how diverse and comprehensive his thinking was. 

Unfortunately, Ambedkar's views on caste have overshadowed his views on all other important issues concerning human life. As a result, he has become a political and religious tool whom everyone passionately wants to appropriate. He is appropriated by the right for political purposes, by the left to counter Brahmanism & for gender justice and by the Muslims to counter the Hindu right-wing. To illustrate an example Ambedkar's ideas on Islam have never been explicitly talked about. 

We have always seen the appropriation of Ambedkar by the right and the left for their own political reasons, Muslims in India also invoke Ambedkar many times when they speak of Dalit-Muslim unity. The synthetic appropriation of Ambedkar by the Hindu right and especially the upper castes(in political life) can be easily exposed by opening Twitter on Ambedkar's birthday and of Muslims can also be easily exposed by the level of debate happens on the Pashmanda Muslim. 

This text is mostly based on Ambedkar's book "Thoughts on Pakistan", “Sanskriti ke Char Adhyay” by Ramdhari Singh Dinkar and “Decoding Intolerance” by Prateep K. Lahiri. Since talking about minorities is always a sensitive matter, Ambedkar (mostly from the same book mentioned above) would be widely quoted in this text.

Islam: A brief introduction

Islam took birth in the 7th century CE which makes it one of the earliest religions in the world. Hazarat Muhammad is said to be the founder of this religion. He is believed as the messenger of Allah, among the Muslims. Just within 100 years of Islamic history, it reached the Indian subcontinent. The actual journey of Islam in India started with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Kasim in 712 AD. Since then many Muslim rulers invaded India and many stayed here and ruled this land. 

Ambedkar on Muslims

Other than the classic problem of interpretation as to how should history be interpreted (nationalist, Marxist, communal, liberal and feminist framework, etc), one of the main problems with the question of Hindu-Muslim conflict is where should the baseline be created to study these conflicts. One set of scholars create the first-ever Muslim invasion of India as the base while the other one takes 1947, the year of independence as the base. Which stand is more appropriate between the above two can be understood with respect to other issues for example where do we draw the line when it comes to women subjugation or for that matter untouchability? The answer would be anything but the year 1947. So Ambedkar starts from scratch I.e. starts from the beginning of the Muslim invasion of India. 

Caste

Hindu society is divided into 4 varnas: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra. There's another class that is not included in the varna system that is ati shudra(avarana). From their castes emerged and created a type of inequality that has never existed anywhere in the world. It is a graded inequality. Caste is a sin and the caste system must be abolished. Ambedkar has categorically and vociferously spoken against the caste system. He was not only against the caste system but also against the varna system. He took the responsibility of upliftment of the Scheduled Caste on his shoulders and fought for their social and political rights. He burnt the sacred text of the Hindus, Manusmriti because it was the symbol of the oppression of the Scheduled Caste at the hand of the Upper Caste. The good thing is that this system of birth based social hierarchy has been challenged profoundly by the scheduled caste and backward class Hindus. Obviously, the caste at the top of the ladder would never want to destroy it, still, a few of the upper-caste Hindus have also openly spoken against the caste system and its direct consequence of untouchability. Many people before Ambedkar had also rejected this social hierarchy and spoken against it. But the level of work Ambedkar did is unmatched. 

Though caste originated in Hinduism it did not remain an isolated case for Hindus only. It spread like water on a polished surface to other religions as well. Castes exist among the Muslims also. There are at least 700 castes among the Muslims. The two basic rituals or procedures which uphold the caste system among Hindus are dining and marrying but among Muslims, it is only marrying. Inter dining is not such a big problem among Muslims. Ambedkar has openly expressed his views on the caste system among Muslims. Muslims are divided into 3 classes and various castes constitute a class. 

Ashraf- better class Muslims (Saiad, Sheikh, Pathan, Moghul, etc)

Ajlaf- lower-class Muslims (Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, Bhat, Dhobi, etc)

Arzal- degraded class Muslims (Mehtar, Hijra, Kasbi, etc)

The Ajlafs and Arzal are together known as the Pashmanda Muslims. With the help of the Census report of Bengal in 1901, he tries to explain that it is not only the caste that exists among the Muslims but also the evil of untouchability. He even concluded that Muslims are even one step ahead of the Hindus when it comes to social evils and he ascribes that one step to the Purdah system(Burqa). Unfortunately, this social division is not openly accepted by the Muslims and even the institutions of the state have also often overlooked it for example Sachar Committee report. The Sachar Committee report had treated Muslims as a single unit and divided Hindus into 4 categories SC, ST, OBC and Hindu Upper Caste and compared the Muslims as a whole with the Hindu Upper Castes only.

Position of Women

Ambedkar is of the view that the social evils among the Hindus got huge publicity even on the international forum because of the publication of “Mother India” by Miss Mayo but this lead to a false belief among the international community that only the Hindus have these evils and Muslims are spared form it and the Muslim society is egalitarian. Though it is true that Islam is egalitarian in its principles, for example, Dinkar says that it is true that Islam spread at the tip of the sword but that is not the only reason for its spread. It was also the egalitarian principles, its rejection of inequality among the Muslims that captivated the lower castes Hindus because they have always been subjugated by the upper castes. The status of men in Islam is theoretically equal but the status of women is debatable. To this Ambedkar says, despite various legal rights Muslims claim that are given to the women, the fate of Muslim women is 'once married, always married'. "She can not escape the marriage tie, however irksome it may be. While she can not repudiate the marriage the husband can always do it without having to show any cause. Utter the word 'Tallak'."

It is now, that this provision of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is banned through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. 

Though this act might prove beneficial in equalizing women with respect to men, the ill of Purdah still exists against which Ambedkar has openly written. He says “as a consequence of the purdah system a segregation of the muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to visit the other rooms, varandaha or gardens; their quarters are in the backyard”. He adds that “she (muslim women) can not even go to the mosque to pray and must wear burka(veil) whenever they have to go out. These burka women walking on the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India.” He links burka to the health related problems in the muslim women. He says, “they are usually victims of anaemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and gnarly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very present in them.” Purdah is not just a ritual it has its compulsory religious sanction which makes it most pressing problem. ”Purdah deprives Muslim women of the mental and moral nourishment.” 

But the Purdah system(burqa) is yet not challenged by the Muslim women (at least in India)  rather it has been glorified (which is done to every custom and tradition which propounds injustice irrespective of the religion). This phenomenon of not challenging this system can be better understood in Marx's term as "false consciousness". They live in false consciousness and yet to challenge it. 

With this opposition to the purdah system by Ambedkar what can be established is that he wants to liberate women. Muslim women in this case. He has written on the Hindu women also in his books such as Rise and Fall of Hindu Women. He was a supporter of women's rights and the rights of scheduled castes. In general he was a supporter of the rights of the oppressed and also their liberator. 

Often it is said in the public discourse that Ambedkar is anti-hindu or anti-Muslim but from the fact that he is termed such from both the sides it can be easily established that he only speaks truth which means you can’t set him in the binary structure. 

Religiosity

It is an indisputable fact that Muslims are more religious than any other religion and there is a reason for it. Of the 5 core principles of Islam, one is namaz(prayer) which is to be offered daily(5 times a day). And that daily interaction among them at the religious place unites them more strongly and strengthens their collective identity. Because of their lack of liberal perspective towards the religion, Ambedkar puts “there are no organised movements of social reforms among the Mussalmanas of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication.” He even talks of the core differentiating elements of Hinduism and Islam and his view on the issue can be summed up by the passage below.

“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it 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. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”

Here Ambedkar comes very close to Savarkar. Savarkar in his book Hindutva talks about this. He gives two concept one "Pitrabhoomi" and the other one "Punyabhoomi". Punyabhoomi is a land where the people owe their religious allegiance which is different(not India) for Muslims and Christians because they are not born on this land (India).

These are the grounds on which Ambedkar rejects the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity because he thinks it is unachievable and even criticizes Gandhi for ignoring the acts of violence done by the Muslims on the Hindus for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is because of the same reasons he rejected the idea of India as a nation for their history is not shared; they revere different historical figures. They don't have a bond of shared consciousness which means they would never come closer to the extent that they successfully evolve as a nation. 

Contextualizing Ambedkar in the Love Jihad debate

 

No wonder that the elections in India bring to the forefront the issue of religion and caste more than the secular ones. Religion and caste play an important role in capturing electoral votes. They are at the core of electoral behaviour. The issue of love jihad had gained momentum a few months back and now has gone to the backfoot. It comes with elections and goes with election results. So it would not be wrong to assume that maybe the next election would again regenerate the issue. It would not be difficult to reject the so-called conspiracy of love jihad because of lack of evidence. There is not enough evidence to support this theory. It is not that Muslim men deliberately marry Hindu girls to convert them out of a global conspiracy. Though Islam is a missionary religion and there have been some instances but it is not a general phenomenon, especially now. The problem as it seems so is because of the lack of intermingling of Muslim women and Hindu men. In other words segregation of Hindu and Muslims in general and Muslim women and Hindu men in particular. The reason for this lack of interfaith interaction is the deeply-rooted institution of patriarchy in the Muslim society about which Ambedkar has openly talked of as we have seen above. He says there is segregation between the Hindus and Muslims. Concerning purdah, he says, “the evil consequence of purdah is not confined to the Muslim community only. It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims which is a bane of public life in India. The argument may appear far-fetched and one is inclined to attribute this segregation to the unsociability of the Hindus rather than to purdah among the Muslims. But the Hindus are right when they say that it is not possible to establish social contact between Hindus and Muslims because such a contact can only mean contact between women from one side and men from the other side.”

That was the same reason why even the Europeans did not allow Indians into their clubs. The argument Europeans used to give was that if you(Indian) bring your women to the club you will be admitted because we(European) bring our women. It must be fifty-fifty. In short, the intermingling of women from one community/side only has always been a problem. If it is from both sides then there is not any problem.

If we, for a moment, see things through the realist perspective we get to know that women are considered as property and a sense of honour is associated with them. They are considered as the honour of the family. And that is why in almost every riot women are raped because they represent the honour of their community and if you rape them you rape the whole community and able to show them inferior. The rape of women of one community by the other is a strike on the psychic of that community. That is why rape has always been used as a religious tool because women represent honour. This is a wrong concept because it rejects the existence of women as an individual and restricts her freedom and always makes her dependent on the men of their family. But this is the reality and from there this issue of so-called "love jihad" emerges. And as Ambedkar says one reason for this segregation is the burqa system which again has its roots in the deeply entrenched patriarchal system among the Muslims. When one community sees that the women of their community are marrying the other community but the opposite is not happening in the same proportion it retaliates by linking it with the religion. So it is more because of social and economic reasons. Gazla Wabab says, "Muslim women who do manage to pursue higher education mostly do so in all-women, often Muslim-run, institutions. As far as employment is concerned, except for mass media, how many Muslim men do you find in the organised sector, forget women? Not only do average non-Muslim men have little access to Muslim women, even Muslim men are not able to socially interact with many Muslim women outside the family."

Again the patriarchal structure among the Muslims in not challenged as it has been challenged among the Hindus. As a result we see this highly unequal interaction. So rather than making it a political tool the chains of Muslim women must be broken and they must be pushed more to be mainstreamed and this idea of associating women with honour must be dropped because it is a blow on her individual existence then only this segregation as Ambedkar calls it would be removed and this issue of love jihad would be burnt into ashes.

Conclusion

Ambedkar was an upfront writer and a fierce leader. He deeply believed in the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. It is from where his views on all the issues of the political and social sphere for example liberty of women, societal equality and annihilating caste come from. He believes in reason and scientific thinking. Ambedkar is not an apologist, he speaks what is true. Muslims should be inspired by these ideas and work among themselves to get rid of the social evils prevalent among themselves. Ambedkar shows the ultimate cultivation of the human mind. His ideas on Islam are not well known. These ideas must be known to everyone because they are capable of guiding many movements and motivating many people to speak against injustice of any kind. One thing which is often said when it comes to the problems related to the minorities is that these reforms must come from the community itself and especially the majority have no right to speak on their matter but Ambedkar tells us that injustice anywhere must be spoken and every individual has the right to speak on any matter irrespective of the community because it is not only harmful to that community but also pushes the country as a whole, backwards. However, one must always be sensitive while speaking on the other community because often it is done to mock or show inferior without clear intent of reforming it.