告诉你一个真实的印度
wanghx
标 题: 告诉你一个真实的印度zz
发信站: 一见如故 (Tue Jan 29 16:21:16 2008), 本站(yjrg.net)
2008-01-29 10:19:07 来源: 南方都市报 作者:
□陈思
［编者按］
最近10年来，得益于信息技术领域和离岸呼叫中心的成功，印度在世人面前树
立了全新的形象，但这不应是我们所认识的全部。中国人误读了世界，或者是世界
误读了中国，此类争论提醒我们，身处全球化时代，我们更迫切需要第一手的观察
维度，理解他国根深蒂固但又变动不断的政治文化，也借此反省我们未来的建设之
路。
中印两国，同为东方两大发展中国家，历史渊源久远，就隔了一座喜马拉雅
山，互相之间那么陌生，甚至还带有一点点历史的敌意。
中国人对印度的认识，如果仅仅是“脏、乱、差，无政府”的话，那么印度人对
中国的看法可能带有一些更复杂的东西，这有很多因素的影响。西方媒体的影响是
很主要的，印度作为一个民主的国家，在言论自由上是比较放开的，可以自由收看
世界上的国际电视频道，CNN、BBC、半岛电视台包括他们的死对头巴基斯坦电视台
的节目。当然，印度受教育的一群大概都是讲英语的，对他们影响最大的肯定是
CNN和BBC，这些媒体都直接影响印度对中国的印象。
印度的遗产
1947年印度独立建国之前，还不完全是一个有着民族性或者是民族特征的统一
国家。因此，1947年统一之初，印度感觉上非常混乱，地方各自为政。文字上也不
统一，官方语言就有十五种左右，印地语、旁遮普语等等，几乎每一个邦都有自己
的官方语言。在印度，英语称之为“黏合剂”或者是“胶水”，它把印度这个四分五裂
的版图强制性地黏合在一起。
1947年以后印度的发展为什么缓慢？先说尼赫鲁和甘地他们建国的一些理念。
按甘地的理念，他倡议在印度叫“农村合作社”，或者是“自给自足的农村互助体
制”，要求整个印度都必须从城镇回归到乡村，城市、工业都是邪恶的，西化的，
都不是我们本土的，所以也不可能给我们带来幸福和繁荣。”在甘地看来，印度的
独立就意味着回归到印度最原始、最本土的东西去。比如说要自给自足，满足了日
常生存和日常生活的物质以后，就开始注重精神上的修为，过一些比较传统的精神
文化生活。尽管甘地在精神修为上达到了很高的境界，但是在国家建设的理念上，
跟随的人确实不是很多，大多数的人还要追随尼赫鲁的理念。
而尼赫鲁的理念大致上有两个方向，第一，印度必须是民主的国家，这跟他个
人的经历，跟他父亲、跟他个人在英国的求学经历有直接的相关。他受18、19 世
纪欧洲的人文思潮影响非常深远，他一生对专制制度和集权制度的批判非常多。第
二，经济建设对于一个国家、对于一个民族的崛起非常重要。在国家建设上，他受
到苏联选择计划经济从而迅速崛起的经验影响，选择了混合经济这么一种模式。
尼赫鲁的家族是克什米尔地区非常有名的婆罗门，婆罗门一个固有的特质，就
是对于经商、利润、市场这些东西非常厌恶。因为在印度教的传统里面，你属于不
同的阶层，你所关注的、你所归属的，或者跟你相应的属性是有硬性规定的。这样
的阶层、这样的特性，导致婆罗门出身的尼赫鲁不会去关注这个国家任何产业的真
正利润和成效，他只要一些产业能够维持这个国家机器的运转，能够让他独立起
来，不需要外面的资助，或者是不需要依赖于帝国主义就可以了。
在印度到现在为止，对计划经济还非常信奉的人还会经常讲这一句话“为需要
而生产，不为贪婪而生产”。所以说这个也是印度政府从建国以来的一种理念。
说到印度的混合经济，一方面是指国有企业非常强大，同时也允许私有经济的
存在，但是对私有经济进行非常苛刻的制约和紧密的监控。比如说你可以开任何非
政府经济命脉以外的产业企业和公司，但是任何行动都必须得到印度官方的许可。
印度今天的腐败跟这一个政策几乎可以直接挂钩的，就是说你开一个公司，进口一
样东西，开一个商店，要跟人家签合同了，任何一个环节都要得到相关部门的许
可。在他们来说，他们就是尼赫鲁理念的最贴心的实行者，就是要打击私营企业，
就是要控制你的发展，就是要控制这种“邪恶的、不高尚的行为在印度国土内蔓
延。”所以这些工商部门对私营企业的打击是不遗余力的，他们也很乐意这样做。
官僚贪污的问题，直接影响了很多潜在的投资项目比如说国外投资，甚至一些
基础的设施无法达成，往往是因为要疏通的这些环节实在太多了，很多人就放弃
了。这对于印度的发展是一个非常大的制约。
制约印度发展的问题
制约印度发展的还有另外一个现实问题：1962年中印边界争端之前，尼赫鲁据
说还是一个理想主义、浪漫主义者，但是1962年的这一巴掌把他打醒了，以后他就
很认真地在军事和国防上投入更多的资金和时间。因此，印度在军费上大量投入，
加上克什米尔问题的恶化，牵扯了在经济发展方面的精力和财力。
在社会文化层面，制约印度的发展问题还有种姓问题，在中国，你单看一个人
的姓和名是不可能知道他是什么阶层；但是在印度，一看他的姓就知道他所属的种
姓，甚至信仰什么宗教。除此之外，还可以通过他的相貌、肤色和眼神，大概也能
够判断他的种姓。
1950年印度宪法颁布，其中一个主要的精神是法律面前人人平等，不能有任何
的歧视，不能在种姓上有任何的区分、有任何的区别对待。但是现实的情况，按照
我在印度这几年的一些体验，就是种姓的影响在这个国家仍然存在，并且影响了这
个国家几乎所有的方面，比较开明一点的人会觉得也许我们现在现代化了，我们对
这些古老的东西不是很在意了。在德里大学，特别是那些最开明的学院里，大家都
可以一起玩，不同种姓如吠舍、婆罗门和萨帝利的都可以一起玩，但如果是低种姓
的首陀罗或者贱民的学生就比较困难。在印度，种姓以外的，或者跨种姓、跨宗教
通婚的，历来都是非常困难的，而且酿成了不少的家庭婚姻悲剧。
尼赫鲁时期，政府在高等教育和基础教育投入的钱差不多，但是这样造成很大
的问题，高等教育的院校毕竟是少数的，基层教育的人数还是更多的，这就造成了
基础教育的落后。印度基础教育分为两种，一种是公学，还有一种是私学。公学
是，印度的孩子上学不用钱，可以保证你的教学，但书费和文具需要自己买。但是
这种情况下给老师的待遇不可能很高，不可能像私学那么高，所以师资不能保证。
因为印度在基础教育程度普及方面的欠账，这种伴随种姓问题带来的人才的浪
费是很可怕的。印度有15种官方语言，相互沟通非常困难。印度人口只有30％的人
懂英语，10％左右能够流利地使用英语。如果你教育不是很普及，基础教育不是做
得很好，英语不能像我们的普通话全国通行，那么在地域之间的沟通、人民之间的
交流还是很有限的。这样会造成一个问题，就是当地特色，地域文化会保留得很
好，但是现代化程度、地域之间的沟通肯定要弱一点。这就造成了很多资源的配
置，或者说地区之间的合作非常有限。
宗教问题也让印度消耗掉了很大一部分精力。印度各宗教之间的互相仇恨是非
常厉害的，如印度教徒对神牛奉若神明，因为牛是他们所崇拜的神的宠物。但是穆
斯林习俗是要宰牛吃，两者之间的冲突，很多情况下就是因为牛或者是其他宗教圣
物而起。印度历史上很多次宗教的大屠杀都跟这些仇恨有关，每一次类似宗教的问
题发生了，政府都要动用很大的资源，花很长的时间才能平息下来。
印度地方各邦的民主选举中，实际上也常被地方官员利用种姓和宗教的天然区
分来达到选举目的。因为婆罗门在印度的各乡镇都是天然的代表，因为占印度人口
大多数的印度教徒从出水到死亡，都需要婆罗门的祝福和祭祀活动。婆罗门在绝大
多数的印度教徒眼里，都是高贵而神圣的，在印度采取了民主模式以后，各地的婆
罗门也就很自然地成为了各地区的民意代表并且印度国会的大多数成员都是婆罗
门。
中国能从印度学习什么？
对于印度的这种混乱的状况，常常被认为是失败的民主制度，很多印度人，特
别是共产党员，甚至认为印度是不是要实行更加中央集权的专制统治模式才更有利
于这个复杂大国的发展。印度有很多很优秀的人才，对于印度的发展，有识之士提
出过很多很高明的办法，可以说世界上最好的政策都有人提到过了，甚至有学者因
此而获得诺贝尔经济学奖，但是问题就在于实施的效率上。很多人都很羡慕中国政
策的实施力度和速度，也有很多人希望能够尽快效仿建立经济特区，但是十几年过
去了，这些还是在讨论当中。但是从1947年甚至更早一点的情况来看，印度在独立
后采取一党专政和独裁体制的可能性是不大的，因为独立运动的领导者尼赫鲁和甘
地两人对于民主和自由的追求是非常强烈的，他们在英国求学期间，对英国的议会
制民主制度非常熟悉和推崇。
虽然独立前，尼赫鲁－甘地的个人政治理念特征让印度无法实行中央集权制
度，但是后来尼赫鲁－甘地家族在印度几十年的家族统治实际上还是形成了所谓的
尼赫鲁－甘地王朝，从尼赫鲁本人开始到他女儿英迪·甘地到拉吉夫·甘地，现在的
索尼娅·甘地和正在崛起中的拉胡尔·甘地，这个家族领导着国大党带领着印度从一
穷二白的基础走到了今天，这几十年中，他们有所有的建立家族式专制统治的可能
和机会，但是他们没有这样做。国大党从尼赫鲁时期的一党独大、多党竞争的局
面，到今天遍布全国几百个大小政党，此起彼落的壮观场面，尼赫鲁－甘地家族的
宽广心胸和对民主的推动作用可说是功不可没。
我经常跟印度人讲，中国的精英和印度的精英所关心的东西恰巧是相对的。已
经有了民主的印度，他们想要的是发展和经济；已经有了经济发展的中国，中国的
精英们想要的是民主和人权。这两个国家如果能够抛开一切的敌意，抛开一切的障
碍，能够互相合作和支持，互相学习的话，这将会是两国人民之福。这一次辛格总
理访华，温家宝总理引用了印度诺贝尔经济学奖得主的一句名言“中国和印度应该
互相学习、互相进步，而不是互相地比较和互相地对立。”
2003年底周济部长到印度访问，我当时是学生会长，要负责一些接待工作。他
问 “你讲一下你对印度教育的感受”。我说同级别的学校里，印度的学生大学一、
二年级的综合水平和综合素质可能要超过中国硕士毕业生。原因有几点：中国在传
统的文化重视上不如印度，中国的传统已经断裂了，印度还有很多的传统可以供他
新一代去思考，他们的宗教文化，可以系统地引领他们对人生、对社会、对世界进
行系统的思考。印度还有开放的媒体，可以让他们的新一代接受很多的各种各样的
不同的甚至是对立的观点。让他们的大脑能够持续地激荡和深入。
可以肯定地说，印度实行了民主制度以后，保证了人权，他维护了很多少数和
弱势群体的权益，保持了媒体的开放，言论的自由。实际上，印度的学术成就、艺
术成就，甚至政治理论成就都非常高，这都是直接相关的。
而在公民社会自我完善方面，印度也有值得借鉴之处。印度有很多的志愿团
队，NGO组织非常发达，各种类型的NGO都有。2005年的南亚大海啸，印度敢说不需
要其他外来的资助，原因之一就是因为印度的NGO团队太强大了，有一个团队从德
里出发要到南方去，公布一个热线电话号召大家报名，这都是需要志愿者自费参与
的，我只是迟了十几分钟打过去，可人家说已经人满了。在校的学生很多是扛着包
袱立刻下去了，反应非常神速，跟中国民间社会对待灾难的态度很不一样。即使那
些在街边流浪的住贫民窟的人，每到需要的时候，很多的志愿团队会去帮助他们，
来自政府的帮助反而是很少的。
(本文系据现场速记稿整理而成)
作者简介
陈思，独立新闻人。2004年6月至8月在伊拉克首都巴格达独立调查和采访超过
200人。在国内外发表30多篇战地文章。2003－2004年应德里大学圣史提芬学院哲
学系邀请，在系内翻译及讲授以《道德经》为主的中国哲学，为期一年。
--
天空是蓝色的
※ 来源:．一见如故 yjrg.net．[FROM: 124.16.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_277_M.1201594876.A.htm
wanghx
B.R.Ambedkar [2] <http://ambedkar.org/> 却不被印度人民理解，和 Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi (圣雄甘地 Mahatma Gandhi) 政治见解冲突，而后者获得主导
权，造成印度的长期政治经济问题。
而且我认为 M. K. Gandhi 的非暴力不合作运动，美国的 Martin Luther King,
南非的 Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela，虽然他们精神可嘉，但都是有条件的。
印度的 M. K. Gandhi 成功了，不是因为非暴力，而是因为日本暴力入侵印度削弱
了英国政府的军事存在。
美国的 M. L. King 成功了，不是因为非暴力，而首先是因为作为总统和司法部长
的 Kennedy 兄弟为代表的民权政治家在联邦政府中的巨大努力。
南非的 N. R. Mandela 成功了，不是因为非暴力，而是因为南非总统 Frederik
Willem de Klerk 对废除种族隔离制度的积极努力。
以上三者，都没有因为和平政治请愿而被他们所反对的政府当局施加酷刑，绑架家
庭成员，日以继夜地迫害。虽然 Gandhi 和 Mandela 都坐牢，King 也被刺杀。
这是因为当时的执政当局有自由和平的意愿和积极努力，而绝不是非暴力之功。非
暴力对抗暴力专制恐怖政治，无非是以身饲虎。
仔细去了解南非种族主义的历史细节，南非入侵纳米比亚，安哥拉，赞比亚的历史
细节，就会发现事情决不是你从中共宣传，世界左派舆论中所了解的那样。我支持
南非入侵这些国家。这些国家乱成一团，其背后的操纵势力，比如安哥拉，其实是
苏联和古巴。你只要看他们独立以后的状况，就清楚了。
并且我得到一个同样不为人所接受的观点：种族隔离视具体的政策而定，完全可以
是符合自由主义政治学的，也可以是不可侵犯的自由利权。隔离不是问题，迫害才
是侵犯自由利权的问题所在。我不主张种族隔离，但是认为人们有选择种族隔离的
自由利权。总体上，我提倡种族融合，增进不同种族和文化间的相互理解，信任，
共生。但在理解无法达成，价值观冲突无法调和的条件下，隔离反而是和平安宁互
不侵犯的必要。这和民族自决权，居民自决权，是同样的原理。
在 M. L. King 纪念日 D 和我争论种族隔离问题，引发我很多感想。
[1] 安哥拉内战_百度百科 baike.baidu.com/view/431885.html
[2] ambedkar.org
groundhog wrote:
> Human rights in India are terrible. India is very simillar to China.
> Also the mentality.
wanghx
He had grown increasingly critical of mainstream Indian political parties for their perceived lack of emphasis for the elimination of the caste system. Ambedkar criticized the Indian National Congress and its leader Mahatma Gandhi, whom he accused of reducing the untouchable community to a figure of pathos. [M. K. Gandhi 争取自己的独立自由的同时，坚持印度教的教义，继续歧视迫害 Dalit 贱民]
Ambedkar was also dissatisfied with the failures of British rule, and advocated a political identity for untouchables separate from both the Congress and the British.
In this speech, Ambedkar criticized the Salt Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and the Congress. Ambedkar's criticisms and political work had made him very unpopular with orthodox Hindus, as well as with many Congress politicians who had earlier condemned untouchability and worked against discrimination across India. [如今许多爱好自由的朋友，以及比如丁子霖这样的受迫害人，对待受到最深重迫害的宗教信徒的态度，和 Gandhi 对待贱民的态度如出一辙，冷漠，无耻，良知泯灭，却同时呼吁良知来拯救自己被迫害的地位。这是根本矛盾的。很少人象高律师智晟那样知耻而后勇。]
Here he sparred verbally with Gandhi on the question of awarding separate electorates to untouchables.[6] A fierce opponent of separate electorates on religious and sectarian lines, Gandhi feared that separate electorates for untouchables would divide Hindu society for future generations.
When the British agreed with Ambedkar and announced the awarding of separate electorates, Gandhi began a fast-unto-death while imprisoned in the Yeravada Central Jail of Pune in 1932. Exhorting orthodox Hindu society to eliminate discrimination and untouchability, Gandhi asked for the political and social unity of Hindus. Gandhi's fast provoked great public support across India, and orthodox Hindu leaders, Congress politicians and activists such as Madan Mohan Malaviya and Pawlankar Baloo organized joint meetings with Ambedkar and his supporters at Yeravada. Fearing a communal reprisal and killings of untouchables in the event of Gandhi's death, Ambedkar agreed under massive coercion from the supporters of Gandhi to drop the demand for separate electorates, and settled for a reservation of seats. Ambedkar was later to criticise this fast of Gandhi's as a gimmick to deny political rights to the untouchables and increase the coercion he had faced to give up the demand for separate electorates.
Ambedkar's work strongly criticized Hindu religious leaders and the caste system in general. He protested the Congress decision to call the untouchable community Harijans (Children of God), a name coined by Gandhi.
Between 1941 and 1945, he published a large number of highly controversial books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. With What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, Ambedkar intensified his attacks on Gandhi and the Congress, charging them with hypocrisy. [7] In his work Who Were the Shudras?, Ambedkar attempted to explain the formation of the Shudras i.e. the lowest caste in hierarchy of Hindu caste system. He also emphasised how Shudras are separate from Untouchables. Ambedkar oversaw the transformation of his political party into the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, although it performed poorly in the elections held in 1946 for the Constituent Assembly of India. In writing a sequel to Who Were the Shudras? in 1948, Ambedkar lambasted Hinduism in the The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origins of Untouchability
Ambedkar was also critical of Islam and its practices in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned the practice of child marriage in Muslim society, as well as the mistreatment of women.
He wrote that Muslim society is "even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is" and criticized Muslims for sugarcoating their sectarian caste system with euphemisms like "brotherhood". He also criticized the discrimination against the Arzal classes among Muslims who were regarded as "degraded", as well as the oppression of women in Muslim society through the oppressive purdah system. He alleged that while Purdah was also practiced by Hindus, only among Muslims was it sanctioned by religion. He criticized their fanaticism regarding Islam on the grounds that their literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine made their society very rigid and impermeable to change. He further wrote that Indian Muslims have failed to reform their society unlike Muslims in other countries like Turkey: 'In a "communal malaise", both groups [Hindus and Muslims] ignore the urgent claims of social justice.'
While he was extremely critical of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the communally divisive strategies of the Muslim League, he argued that Hindus and Muslims should segregate and the State of Pakistan be formed, as ethnic nationalism within the same country would only lead to more violence. He cited precedents in historical events such as the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Czechoslovakia to bolster his views regarding the Hindu-Muslim communal divide.[8]
However, he questioned whether the need for Pakistan was sufficient and suggested that it might be possible to resolve Hindu-Muslim differences in a less drastic way. He wrote that Pakistan must "justify its existence" accordingly. Since other countries such as Canada have also had communal issues with the French and English and have lived together, it might not be impossible for Hindus and Muslims to live together.[8]
He warned that the actual implementation of a two-state solution would be extremely problematic with massive population transfers and border disputes. This claim was prophetic, looking forward to the violent Partition of India after Independence.[8]
Dr. Ambedkar penned many thoughtfull books.- Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development
- Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah
- Pakistan, or, the Partition of India
- The Buddha and his Dhamma
- Annihilation of Caste
- Problem of Rupee
- Who were the Sudras
Conversion to Buddhism
Some scholars, including some from the affected castes, took the view that the British were more even-handed between castes, and that continuance of British rule would have helped to eradicate many evil practices. This political opinion was shared by quite a number of social activists including Jyotirao Phule.
Aftermath
Frequent violent clashes between Buddhist groups and orthodox Hindus have occurred over the years. When in 1994 a garland of shoes was hung around a statue of Ambedkar in Mumbai, sectarian violence and strikes paralyzed the city for over a week. When the following year similar disturbances occurred, a statue of Ambedkar was destroyed. Upper-caste groups in Tamil Nadu have also engaged in violence against Buddhist. In addition, some Buddhist who converted to Buddhism have rioted against Hindus (such as the 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra) and desecrated Hindu temples, often incited into doing so by anti-Hindu elements and replacing deities with pictures of Ambedkar[13]. The radical Ambedkarite "Buddhist Panthers Movement" has even gone so far as to attempt assassination attempts on academics who have been critical of Ambedkar's understanding of Buddhism.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambedkar
B. R. Ambedkar
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar | |
|---|---|
 B. R. Ambedkar |
|
| Alternate name(s): | Baba Saheb |
| Place of birth: | Mhow, Central Provinces, India |
| Place of death: | Delhi, India |
| Movement: | Buddhist movement |
| Major organizations: | Independent Labour Party, Scheduled Castes Federation, Republican Party of India |
| Religion: | Buddhism |
Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (April 14, 1891 — December 6, 1956) was an Indian jurist, scholar, Bahujan political leader and a Buddhist revivalist, who is the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. Born into a poor Untouchable community, Ambedkar spent his life fighting against the system of untouchability and the Indian caste system. He is also credited for having sparked the Dalit Buddhist movement. Ambedkar has been honoured with the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, given for the highest degree of national service.
Overcoming numerous social and financial obstacles, Ambedkar became one of the first "untouchables" to obtain a college education in India. He went on to pursue higher studies in Columbia University, New York, United States and England, where he earned law degrees and multiple doctorates for his study and research in law, economics and political science. Returning home a famous scholar, Ambedkar practiced law for a few years before he began publishing journals advocating political rights and social freedom for India's untouchables.
[edit] Early life
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in the British-founded town and military cantonment of Mhow in the Central Provinces (now in Madhya Pradesh).[1] He was the 14th and last child of Ramji Maloji Sakpal and Bhimabai Murbadkar.[2] His family was of Marathi background from the town of Ambavade in the Ratnagiri district of modern-day Maharashtra. They belonged to the Hindu Mahar caste, who were treated as untouchables and subjected to intense socio-economic discrimination. Ambedkar's ancestors had for long been in the employment of the army of the British East India Company, and his father served in the Indian Army at the Mhow cantonment, rising to the rank of Subedar. He had received a degree of formal education in Marathi and English, and encouraged his children to learn and work hard at school.
Belonging to the Kabir Panth, Ramji Sakpal encouraged his children to read the Hindu classics, especially the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.[2] He used his position in the army to lobby for his children to study at the government school, as they faced resistance owing to their caste. Although able to attend school, Ambedkar and other Untouchable children were segregated and given no attention or assistance from the teachers. They were not allowed to sit inside the class. Even if they needed to drink water somebody from a higher caste would have to pour that water from a height as they were not allowed to touch either the water or the vessel that contained it. This task was usually performed for the young Ambedkar by the school peon, and if he could not be found Ambedkar went without water.[2] Ramji Sakpal retired in 1894 and the family moved to Satara two years later. Shortly after their move, Ambedkar's mother died. The children were cared for by their paternal aunt, and lived in difficult circumstances. Only three sons — Balaram, Anandrao and Bhimrao — and two daughters — Manjula and Tulasa — of the Ambedkars would go on to survive them. Of his brothers and sisters, only Ambedkar succeeded in passing his examinations and graduating to a bigger school. His native village name was "Ambavade" in Ratnagiri District so he changed his name from "Sakpal" to "Ambedkar" with the recommendation and faith of a Brahmin teacher who believed in him.[1]
Ramji Sakpal remarried in 1898, and the family moved to Mumbai (then Bombay), where Ambedkar became the first untouchable student at the Government High School near Elphinstone Road.[3] Although excelling in his studies, Ambedkar was increasingly disturbed by the segregation and discrimination that he faced. In 1907, he passed his matriculation examination and entered the University of Bombay, becoming one of the first persons of untouchable origin to enter a college in India. This success provoked celebrations in his community, and after a public ceremony he was presented with a biography of the Buddha by his teacher Krishnaji Arjun Keluskar also known as Dada Keluskar, a Maratha caste scholar. Ambedkar's marriage had been arranged the previous year as per Hindu custom, to Ramabai, a nine-year old girl from Dapoli.[3] In 1908, he entered Elphinstone College and obtained a scholarship of twentyfive rupees a month from the Gayakwad ruler of Baroda, Sahyaji Rao III for higher studies in the USA. By 1912, he obtained his degree in economics and political science, and prepared to take up employment with the Baroda state government. His wife gave birth to his first son, Yashwant, in the same year. Ambedkar had just moved his young family and started work, when he dashed back to Bombay to see his ailing father, who died on February 2, 1913.
[edit] Pursuit of education
A few months later, Ambedkar was selected by the Gayakwad ruler to travel to the United States and enroll at Columbia University, with a scholarship of $11.5 per month. Arriving in New York City, Ambedkar was admitted to the graduate studies programme at the political science department. After a brief stay at the dormitory, he moved to a housing club run by Indian students and took up rooms with a Parsi friend, Naval Bhathena.[4] In 1916, he was awarded a Ph.D. for a thesis which he eventually published in book form as The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India. His first published work, however, was a paper titled Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. Winning his degree and doctorate, he travelled to London and enrolled at Gray's Inn and the London School of Economics, studying law and preparing a doctoral thesis in economics. The expiration of his scholarship the following year forced him to temporarily abandon his studies and return to India amidst World War I.[4]
Returning to work as military secretary for Baroda state, Ambedkar was distressed by the sudden reappearance of discrimination in his life, and left his job to work as a private tutor and accountant, even starting his own consultancy business that failed owing to his social status.[5] With the help of an English acquaintance, the former Bombay Governor Lord Sydenham, he won a post as professor of political economy at the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai. He was able to return to England in 1920 with the support of the Maharaja of Kolhapur, his Parsi friend and his own savings. By 1923 he completed a thesis on The Problem of the Rupee. He was awarded a D.Sc. by the University of London, and on finishing his law studies, he was simultaneously admitted to the British Bar as a barrister. On his way back to India, Ambedkar spent three months in Germany, where he conducted further studies in economics at the University of Bonn. He was formally awarded a Ph.D. by Columbia University on June 8, 1927.
[edit] Fight against untouchability
As a leading Indian scholar, Ambedkar had been invited to testify before the Southborough Committee, which was preparing the Government of India Act 1919. At this hearing, Ambedkar argued for creating separate electorates and reservations for Dalits and other religious communities. In 1920, he began the publication of the weekly Mooknayak (Leader of the Silent) in Bombay. Attaining popularity, Ambedkar used this journal to criticize orthodox Hindu politicians and a perceived reluctance of the Indian political community to fight caste discrimination. His speech at a Depressed Classes Conference in Kolhapur impressed the local state ruler Shahu IV, who shocked orthodox society by dining with Ambekdar . Ambedkar established a successful legal practise, and also organised the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha to promote education and socio-economic uplifting of the depressed classes. In 1926, he became a nominated member of the Bombay Legislative Council. By 1927 Dr. Ambedkar decided to launch active movements against untouchability. He began with public movements and marches to open up and share public drinking water resources, also he began a struggle for the right to enter Hindu temples . He led a satyagraha in Mahad to fight for the right of the untouchable community to draw water from the main water tank of the town.
On January 1, 1927 Ambedkar organised a ceremony at the Koregaon Victory Memorial near ,which commemorated the Indian soldiers who had died in the Second Anglo-Maratha War, during the Battle of Koregaon. Here he inscribed the names of the soldiers from the Mahar community on a marble tablet. . In 1927, he began his second journal, Bahiskrit Bharat (Excluded India), later rechristened Janata (The People). He was appointed to the Bombay Presidency Committee to work with the all-European Simon Commission in 1928. This commission had sparked great protests across India, and while its report was ignored by most Indians, Ambedkar himself wrote a separate set of recommendations for future constitutional reforms.
[edit] Poona Pact
By now Ambedkar had become one of the most prominent untouchable political figures of the time. He had grown increasingly critical of mainstream Indian political parties for their perceived lack of emphasis for the elimination of the caste system. Ambedkar criticized the Indian National Congress and its leader Mahatma Gandhi, whom he accused of reducing the untouchable community to a figure of pathos. Ambedkar was also dissatisfied with the failures of British rule, and advocated a political identity for untouchables separate from both the Congress and the British. At a Depressed Classes Conference on August 8, 1930 Ambedkar outlined his political vision, insisting that the safety of the Depressed Classes hinged on their being independent of the Government and the Congress both:
We must shape our course ourselves and by ourselves... Political power cannot be a panacea for the ills of the Depressed Classes. Their salvation lies in their social elevation. They must cleanse their evil habits. They must improve their bad ways of living.... They must be educated.... There is a great necessity to disturb their pathetic contentment and to instill into them that divine discontent which is the spring of all elevation.
In this speech, Ambedkar criticized the Salt Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and the Congress. Ambedkar's criticisms and political work had made him very unpopular with orthodox Hindus, as well as with many Congress politicians who had earlier condemned untouchability and worked against discrimination across India. This was largely because these 'liberal' politicians usually stopped short of advocating full equality for untouchables. Ambedkar's prominence and popular support amongst the untouchable community had increased, and he was invited to attend the Second Round Table Conference in London in 1931. Here he sparred verbally with Gandhi on the question of awarding separate electorates to untouchables.[6] A fierce opponent of separate electorates on religious and sectarian lines, Gandhi feared that separate electorates for untouchables would divide Hindu society for future generations.
When the British agreed with Ambedkar and announced the awarding of separate electorates, Gandhi began a fast-unto-death while imprisoned in the Yeravada Central Jail of Pune in 1932. Exhorting orthodox Hindu society to eliminate discrimination and untouchability, Gandhi asked for the political and social unity of Hindus. Gandhi's fast provoked great public support across India, and orthodox Hindu leaders, Congress politicians and activists such as Madan Mohan Malaviya and Pawlankar Baloo organized joint meetings with Ambedkar and his supporters at Yeravada. Fearing a communal reprisal and killings of untouchables in the event of Gandhi's death, Ambedkar agreed under massive coercion from the supporters of Gandhi to drop the demand for separate electorates, and settled for a reservation of seats. Ambedkar was later to criticise this fast of Gandhi's as a gimmick to deny political rights to the untouchables and increase the coercion he had faced to give up the demand for separate electorates.
- See also: Poona Pact
[edit] Political career
In 1935, Ambedkar was appointed principal of the Government Law College, a position he held for two years. Settling in Bombay, Ambedkar oversaw the construction of a large house, and stocked his personal library with more than 50,000 books.[6] His wife Ramabai died after a long illness in the same year. It had been her long-standing wish to go on a pilgrimage to Pandharpur, but Ambedkar had refused to let her go, telling her that he would create a new Pandharpur for her instead of Hinduism's Pandharpur which treated them as untouchables. His own views and attitudes had hardened against orthodox Hindus, despite a significant increase in momentum across India for the fight against untouchability. and he began criticizing them even as he was criticized himself by large numbers of Hindu activists. Speaking at the Yeola Conversion Conference on October 13 near Nasik, Ambedkar announced his intention to convert to a different religion and exhorted his followers to leave Hinduism.[6] He would repeat his message at numerous public meetings across India.
In 1936, Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party (India), which won 15 seats in the 1937 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly. He published his book The Annihilation of Caste in the same year, based on the thesis he had written in New York. Attaining immense popular success, Ambedkar's work strongly criticized Hindu religious leaders and the caste system in general. He protested the Congress decision to call the untouchable community Harijans (Children of God), a name coined by Gandhi.[6] Ambedkar served on the Defence Advisory Committee and the Viceroy's Executive Council as minister for labour.
Between 1941 and 1945, he published a large number of highly controversial books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. With What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, Ambedkar intensified his attacks on Gandhi and the Congress, charging them with hypocrisy. [7] In his work Who Were the Shudras?, Ambedkar attempted to explain the formation of the Shudras i.e. the lowest caste in hierarchy of Hindu caste system. He also emphasised how Shudras are separate from Untouchables. Ambedkar oversaw the transformation of his political party into the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, although it performed poorly in the elections held in 1946 for the Constituent Assembly of India. In writing a sequel to Who Were the Shudras? in 1948, Ambedkar lambasted Hinduism in the The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origins of Untouchability:
The Hindu Civilisation.... is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy. What else can be said of a civilisation which has produced a mass of people... who are treated as an entity beyond human intercourse and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?
Ambedkar was also critical of Islam and its practices in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned the practice of child marriage in Muslim society, as well as the mistreatment of women. He said,
No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. Take the caste system. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste.[While slavery existed], much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans [Muslims] has remained.[8]
He wrote that Muslim society is "even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is" and criticized Muslims for sugarcoating their sectarian caste system with euphemisms like "brotherhood". He also criticized the discrimination against the Arzal classes among Muslims who were regarded as "degraded", as well as the oppression of women in Muslim society through the oppressive purdah system. He alleged that while Purdah was also practiced by Hindus, only among Muslims was it sanctioned by religion. He criticized their fanaticism regarding Islam on the grounds that their literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine made their society very rigid and impermeable to change. He further wrote that Indian Muslims have failed to reform their society unlike Muslims in other countries like Turkey.[8]
In a "communal malaise", both groups [Hindus and Muslims] ignore the urgent claims of social justice.[8]
While he was extremely critical of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the communally divisive strategies of the Muslim League, he argued that Hindus and Muslims should segregate and the State of Pakistan be formed, as ethnic nationalism within the same country would only lead to more violence. He cited precedents in historical events such as the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Czechoslovakia to bolster his views regarding the Hindu-Muslim communal divide.[8]
However, he questioned whether the need for Pakistan was sufficient and suggested that it might be possible to resolve Hindu-Muslim differences in a less drastic way. He wrote that Pakistan must "justify its existence" accordingly. Since other countries such as Canada have also had communal issues with the French and English and have lived together, it might not be impossible for Hindus and Muslims to live together.[8]
He warned that the actual implementation of a two-state solution would be extremely problematic with massive population transfers and border disputes. This claim was prophetic, looking forward to the violent Partition of India after Independence.[8]
[edit] His Writings
Dr. Ambedkar penned many thoughtfull books.
- Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development
- Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah
- Pakistan, or, the Partition of India
- The Buddha and his Dhamma
- Annihilation of Caste
- Problem of Rupee
- Who were the Sudras
[edit] Architect of India's constitution
Despite his increasing unpopularity, controversial views, and intense criticism of Gandhi and the Congress, Ambedkar was by reputation an exemplary jurist and scholar. Upon India's independence on August 15, 1947, the new Congress-led government invited Ambedkar to serve as the nation's first law minister, which he accepted. On August 29, Ambedkar was appointed chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, charged by the Assembly to write free India's new Constitution. Ambedkar won great praise from his colleagues and contemporary observers for his drafting work. In this task Ambedkar's study of sangha practice among early Buddhists and his extensive reading in Buddhist scriptures was to come to his aid. Sangha practice incorporated voting by ballot, rules of debate and precedence and the use of agendas, committees and proposals to conduct business. Sangha practice itself was modelled on the oligarchic system of governance followed by tribal republics of ancient India such as the Shakyas and the Lichchavis. Thus, although Ambedkar used Western models to give his Constitution shape, its spirit was Indian and, indeed, tribal.
The text prepared by Ambedkar provided constitutional guarantees and protections for a wide range of civil liberties for individual citizens, including freedom of religion, the abolition of untouchability and the outlawing of all forms of discrimination.[7] Ambedkar argued for extensive economic and social rights for women, and also won the Assembly's support for introducing a system of reservations of jobs in the civil services, schools and colleges for members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, a system akin to affirmative action. India's lawmakers hoped to eradicate the socio-economic inequalities and lack of opportunities for India's depressed classes through this measure, which had been originally envisioned as temporary on a need basis. The Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949 by the Constituent Assembly. Speaking after the completion of his work, Ambedkar said:
I feel that the Constitution is workable; it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peace time and in war time. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile.
Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet in 1951 following the stalling in parliament of his draft of the Hindu Code Bill, which sought to expound gender equality in the laws of inheritance, marriage and the economy. Although supported by Prime Minister Nehru, the cabinet and many other Congress leaders, it received criticism from a large number of members of parliament. Ambedkar independently contested an election in 1952 to the lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha but was defeated. He was appointed to the upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha in March 1952 and would remain a member until his death.
[edit] Conversion to Buddhism
In the 1950s, Ambedkar turned his attention to Buddhism and travelled to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) to attend a convention of Buddhist scholars and monks. While dedicating a new Buddhist vihara near Pune, Ambedkar announced that he was writing a book on Buddhism, and that as soon as it was finished, he planned to make a formal conversion to Buddhism.[9] Ambedkar twice visited Burma in 1954; the second time in order to attend the third conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Rangoon. In 1955, he founded the Bharatiya Bauddha Mahasabha, or the Buddhist Society of India. He completed his final work, The Buddha and his Dhamma, in 1956. It was published posthumously.
Ambedkar organised a formal public ceremony for himself and his supporters in Nagpur on October 14, 1956. Accepting the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from a Buddhist monk in the traditional manner, Ambedkar completed his own conversion. He then proceeded to convert an estimated 380,000 of his supporters who were gathered around him.[9] Taking the 22 Vows, Ambedkar and his supporters explicitly condemned and rejected Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. He then travelled to Kathmandu in Nepal to attend the Fourth World Buddhist Conference. He completed his final manuscript, The Buddha or Karl Marx on December 2, 1956.
[edit] Death
Since 1948, Ambedkar had been suffering from diabetes. He was bed-ridden from June to October in 1954 owing to clinical depression and failing eyesight.[9] He had been increasingly embittered by political issues, which took a toll on his health. His health worsened as he furiously worked through 1955. Just three days after completing his final manuscript The Buddha and His Dhamma, it is said that Ambedkar died in his sleep on December 6, 1956 at his home in Delhi.
A Buddhist-style cremation was organised for him at Chowpatty beach on December 7, attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters, activists and admirers.
Ambedkar was survived by his second wife Savita Ambedkar, born as a Caste Brahmin and converted to Buddhism with him. His wife's name before marriage was Sharda Kabir. Savita Ambedkar died as a Buddhist in 2002. Ambedkar's grandson, Prakash Yaswant Ambedkar leads the Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha and has served in both houses of the Indian Parliament.
A number of unfinished typescripts and handwritten drafts were found among Ambedkar's notes and papers and gradually made available. Among these were Waiting for a Visa, which probably dates from 1935-36 and is an autobiographical work, and the Untouchables, or the Children of India's Ghetto, which refers to the census of 1951.[9]
A memorial for Ambedkar was established in his Delhi house at 26 Alipur Road. His birthdate is celebrated as a public holiday known as [[Ambedkar Jayanti]. He was posthumously awarded India's highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna in 1990. Many public institutions are named in his honour, such as the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, the other being Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport in Nagpur, which was otherwise known as Sonegaon Airport.
A large official portrait of Ambedkar is on display in the Indian Parliament building.
[edit] Ambedkar v. Gandhi on village life
Ambedkar was a fierce critic of Mahatma Gandhi (and the Indian National Congress). He was criticized by his contemporaries and modern scholars for this opposition to Gandhi, who had been one of the first Indian leaders to call for the abolition of untouchability and discrimination.
Gandhi had a more positive, arguably romanticised view of traditional village life in India and a sentimental approach to the untouchables, calling them Harijan (children of God) and saying he was "of" them. Ambedkar rejected the epithet "Harijan" as condescending. He tended to encourage his followers to leave their home villages, move to the cities, and get an education.
[edit] Criticism and legacy
 |
This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007) |
Ambedkar's legacy as a socio-political reformer, had a deep effect on modern India. In post-Independence India his socio-political thought has acquired respect across the political spectrum. His initiatives have influenced various spheres of life and transformed the way India today looks at socio-economic policies, education and affirmative action through socio-economic and legal incentives. His reputation as a scholar led to his appointment as free India's first law minister, and chairman of the committee responsible to draft a constitution. He passionately believed in the freedom of the individual and criticised equally both orthodox casteist Hindu society, as well as exclusivism and narrow doctrinaire positions in Islam. His polemical condemnation of Hinduism and attacks on Islam made him unpopular and controversial, although his conversion to Buddhism sparked a revival in interest in Buddhist philosophy in India.
Ambedkar's political philosophy has given rise to a large number of Dalit political parties, publications and workers' unions that remain active across India, especially in Maharashtra. His promotion of the Dalit Buddhist movement has rejuvenated interest in Buddhist philosophy in many parts of India. Mass conversion ceremonies have been organized by Dalit activists in modern times, emulating Ambedkar's Nagpur ceremony of 1956. He also served in the legislative councils of British India.
Some scholars, including some from the affected castes, took the view that the British were more even-handed between castes, and that continuance of British rule would have helped to eradicate many evil practices. This political opinion was shared by quite a number of social activists including Jyotirao Phule.
Narayan Rao Kajrolkar criticized Ambedkar because he believed that he was biased to spend government on his own caste, the Mahar, rather than divide the funds equally among others such as the Chambars and the Mangs.[10] Sitaram Narayan Shivtarkar criticised him on the same account at the Chambar conference held at Khond at the Ratnagiri District on 27 October, 1037. [11] At the "First Chambar Conference" at Ratnagiri on December 1937, chaired by S. G. Songaonkar, echoed this yet again.[12]
[edit] Aftermath
Frequent violent clashes between Buddhist groups and orthodox Hindus have occurred over the years. When in 1994 a garland of shoes was hung around a statue of Ambedkar in Mumbai, sectarian violence and strikes paralyzed the city for over a week. When the following year similar disturbances occurred, a statue of Ambedkar was destroyed. Upper-caste groups in Tamil Nadu have also engaged in violence against Buddhist. In addition, some Buddhist who converted to Buddhism have rioted against Hindus (such as the 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra) and desecrated Hindu temples, often incited into doing so by anti-Hindu elements and replacing deities with pictures of Ambedkar[13]. The radical Ambedkarite "Buddhist Panthers Movement" has even gone so far as to attempt assassination attempts on academics who have been critical of Ambedkar's understanding of Buddhism.[14]
[edit] Film
Jabbar Patel directed the Hindi-language movie Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar [2] about the life of Ambedkar, released in 2000, starring the Indian actor Mammootty as Ambedkar. Sponsored by India's National Film Development Corporation and the Ministry of Social Justice, the film was released after a long and controversial gestation period.
Dr. David Blundell, professor of anthropology at UCLA and Historical Ethnographer, has established [3] a long-term project; a series of films and events that are intended to stimulate interest and knowledge about the social and welfare conditions in India. Arising Light is a film on the life on Dr B. R. Ambedkar and social welfare in India.
| [show] Cinematic depictions of and references to Mahatma Gandhi |
|---|
[edit] References
 |
This article contains Indic text. Without rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes or other symbols instead of Indic characters; or irregular vowel positioning and a lack of conjuncts. |
| Find more about B. R. Ambedkar on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
|---|---|
 |
Dictionary definitions |
 |
Textbooks |
 |
Quotations |
 |
Source texts |
 |
Images and media |
 |
News stories |
 |
Learning resources |
- ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2005). Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System. New York: Columbia University Press, p2. ISBN 0-231-13602-1.
- ^ a b c Pritchett, Frances. In the 1890s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^ a b Pritchett, Frances. In the 1900s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^ a b Pritchett, Frances. In the 1910s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^ Pritchett, Frances. In the 1920s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^
Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedColumbia5 - ^ a b c d Pritchett, Frances. In the 1940s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^
Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedAmbedkar - ^ a b c d Pritchett, Frances. In the 1950s (PHP). Retrieved on 2006-08-02.
- ^ Political Mobilization and Identity in Western India, 1934-47 By Shri Krishan
- ^ Political Mobilization and Identity in Western India, 1934-47 By Shri Krishan
- ^ Political Mobilization and Identity in Western India, 1934-47 By Shri Krishan
- ^ Shalini Ramachandran,‘Poisoned Bread’: Protest in Dalit Short Stories,Race & Class, Vol. 45, No. 4, 27-44 (2004)
- ^ J. Kulkarni: Historical Truths & Untruths Exposed, Itihas Patrika Prakashan,1991, esp. Ch.1, "Ambedkar and His ‘Dhamma’", and Ch.2, "False Notions of Atrocities Committed on Harijans".
[edit] Further reading
- Mahar, Buddhist. Religious Conversion and Socio-Political Emancipation by Johannes Beltz, 2005, New Delhi, Manohar.
- Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India edited by Johannes Beltz and S. JondhaleNew Delhi: OUP.
- Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analyzing and Fighting Caste by Christophe Jaffrelot (2005) ISBN 0-231-13602-1
- Ambedkar and Buddhism by Urgyen Sangharakshita ISBN 0-904766-28-4
- Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India by Gail Omvedt ISBN 0-670-04991-3
- Life of Babasaheb Ambedkar by C. Gautam, Published by Ambedkar Memorial Trust, London, Milan House, 8 Kingsland Road, London E2 8DA Second Edition, May 2000
- Thus Spoke Ambedkar Vol-I* (Selected Speeches of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar) Compiled and edited by Bhagwan Das, published by Dalit Today Parkashan,18/455,Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)India-226016
- Revival of Buddhism in India and Role of Dr. BabaSaheb B.R. Ambedkar by Bhagwan Das, published by Dalit Today Prakashan,18/455,Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)India-226016
- Dr. Ambedkar: A Critical Study by W.N. Kuber, published by People's Publishing House, New Delhi, India.
- Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission by Dhananjay Keer published by Popular Prakashan, Bombay, India.
- Economic Philosophy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar by M.L. Kasare published by B.I. Publications Pvt. Ltd.,New Delhi, India.
- The Legacy Of Dr. Ambedkar by D.C. Ahir published by B.R.Publishing Corporation, Delhi-110007,India. (ISBN 81-7018-603-X Code No. L00522)
- Ajnat, Surendra: Ambedkar on Islam. Buddhist Publ., Jalandhar 1986.
- Fernando, W. J. Basil: Demoralisation and Hope: Creating the Social Foundation for Sustaining Democracy -- A comparative study of N. F. S. Grundtvig (1783 -1872) Denmark and B. R. Ambedkar (1881-1956) India. AHRC Publication., Hong Kong 2000. (ISBN 962-8314-08-4)
[edit] External links
- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and His People
- Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace
- Dr. Ambedkar International Mission
- Bharat Ratna Baba Saheb
- Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in Columbia University
- Ambedkar's statue at Columbia University
- University of Heidelberg
- "The Buddha and His Dhamma" with unpublished preface
- Writer Arun Shourie questions BR Ambedkar's contribution to India's independence
- Article on Ambedkar's Neo-Buddhism by Edmund Weber
- Short Movie on Life of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
- Dr. Ambedkar in Rationalism, Humanism and Atheism in Twentieth Century Indian Thought
| [show] Indian Independence Movement |
|---|
| [show] First Indian Cabinet |
|---|
Categories: Articles that may contain original research since September 2007 | First Indian Cabinet | 1891 births | 1956 deaths | Indian Buddhists | Buddhist philosophers | Converts to Buddhism | Philosophers by religion | Indian activists | Bharat Ratna recipients | Indian politicians | Indian caste system | Alumni of the London School of Economics | People from Maharashtra | People from Indore | People from Vadodara | University of Mumbai alumni | Hinduism-related controversies | Marathi people | Modern Buddhist writers
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
发信站: 一见如故 (Sat Feb 2 06:50:13 2008), 本站(yjrg.net)
: 假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义，你觉得当局
会不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
华盛顿，被枪毙了。
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊
我没有谈以暴易暴。我如果要说的话，太长了。简单说，对暴力侵犯的必要自卫，
是需要暴力的。
暴力自卫和革命，不是以暴易暴。
互相理解融合，你和希特勒能融合么？:)
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义，你觉得当局
会不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊，自从有人类的时候就有这个了。这些人之所以被认为是伟
人，就是因为他们提供了一种可能性，一种不用以暴易暴就能解决问题的可能性。
也提供了一个理想，各种因偏见而隔离的人们互相理解互相融合的理
: (以下引言省略...)
--
※ 来源:．一见如故 http://yjrg.net [FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201906213.A.htm
发信人: flareboy (全米格闘王), 信区: RGForum
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
发信站: 一见如故 (Sat Feb 2 05:07:33 2008), 本站(yjrg.net)
假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义，你觉得当局会
不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
以暴易暴谁不会啊，自从有人类的时候就有这个了。这些人之所以被认为是伟人，
就是因为他们提供了一种可能性，一种不用以暴易暴就能解决问题的可能性。也提
供了一个理想，各种因偏见而隔离的人们互相理解互相融合的理想。
其它的不说了。
【 在 lihlii (立里) 的大作中提到: 】
: 印度坏就坏在政治垄断，及其造成的经济垄断。印度的宪政先驱 Dr.
: B.R.Ambedkar [2] <http://ambedkar.org/> 却不被印度人民理解，和 Mohandas
: Karamchand Gandhi (圣雄甘地 Mahatma Gandhi) 政治见解冲突，而后者获得主导
: 权，造成印度的长期政治经济问题。
: 而且我认为 M. K. Gandhi 的非暴力不合作运动，美国的 Martin Luther King,
: ...................
--
※ 来源:．一见如故 yjrg.net．[FROM: 129.59.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201900053.A.htm
wanghx
会不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
华盛顿，被枪毙了。
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊
我没有谈以暴易暴。我如果要说的话，太长了。简单说，对暴力侵犯的必要自卫，
是需要暴力的。
暴力自卫和革命，不是以暴易暴。
互相理解融合，你和希特勒能融合么？:)
现在中共国流行反革命的谎言，悠悠然自以为得了中庸之道的真传：
叭儿狗一名哈吧狗，南方却称为西洋狗了，但是，听说倒是中国的特产，在万国赛狗会
里常常得到金奖牌，《大不列颠百科全书》的狗照相上，就很有几匹是咱们中国的叭
儿狗。
这也是一种国光。但是，狗和猫不是仇敌么？它却虽然是狗，又很像猫，折中，公
允，调和
，平正之状可掬，悠悠然摆出别个无不偏激，惟独自己得了“中庸之道”〔６〕似的
脸来。
因此也就为阔人，太监，太太，小姐们所钟爱，种子绵绵不绝。它的事业，只是以
伶俐的皮
毛获得贵人豢养，或者中外的娘儿们上街的时候，脖子上拴了细链于跟在脚后跟。[1]
对于从来不可能 fairplay 的专制暴政集团，和平只是杀人的帮凶借口。
我提醒这些反革命主义者，越反革命，越把屁股坐死在活火山口上，屁股烤得香喷
喷，很遗憾，革命发生的可能只会更大。
我的立场：不希望发生革命，但是我从来不反革命。正如，我从来不希望日常生活
中需要随身携带武器来自卫；但是遇到强盗行凶抢劫，如果无路可逃，我最紧迫的
需求就是找到称手的自卫武器。
[1] 鲁迅：论“费厄泼赖”应该缓行
http://xys.xlogit.com/xys/classics/Lu-Xun/essays/fen/fairplay.txt
wanghx
中需要随身携带武器来自卫；但是遇到强盗行凶抢劫，如果无路可逃，我最紧迫的
需求就是找到称手的自卫武器。
所有这些反革命者，其实都是怕革命者。我一样也是怕革命者。之所以这些人怕革
命，要么是可能发生的革命要推翻的暴政压迫者，要么就是和我一样，还没有被逼
迫到除了革命走投无路的地步。因为，革命不但对于被革命者的代价高昂，而对于
革命者的代价更高。这你以及所有反革命者，都是清楚地知道，因此你会说出，
“说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了”这样的话。
所以，暴力革命之发生，必然因为除了暴力革命之外，别无其它和平的自卫手段可
以采用了。
不到万不得已，有哪个人会做革命者呢？
那些悠悠然摇着羽扇的反革命者，自以为聪明，不过是屁股坐的位置不同，等着吃
自己的烤猪臀而已。:)
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊
我说，你不会。不信你做做给我看看呢？:)
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
: 假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义
1. 不义不一定需要用暴力来反抗。注意：专制暴政，本质是暴力侵犯和迫害，才
需要用暴力反抗。
2. 我提到的三个人，确实，都是用和平方式反抗不义。没错，这一点他们做得
对。所以，我对他们的评价是“虽然他们精神可嘉，但都是有条件的”。举例来说，
不因为如此犹太人就应该和平反抗希特勒。
试想，南京大屠杀发生的时候，军队的坦克行进在城市中心广场上，机枪四处扫
射，请问你该用何种和平方式反抗这种“不义”？:)
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义，你觉得当局
会不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊，自从有人类的时候就有这个了。这些人之所以被认为是伟
人，就是因为他们提供了一种可能性，一种不用以暴易暴就能解决问题的可能性。
也提供了一个理想，各种因偏见而隔离的人们互相理解互相融合的理
: (以下引言省略...)
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Feb 2 07:21:37 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201907944.A.htm
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
从历史经验的另一个角度来看：不革命，和平主义，就可以不被杀吗？
戊戌六君子，暴力吗？于是才有辛亥革命。
林昭暴力吗？遇罗克暴力吗？张志新暴力吗？
可以用会不会被抓被杀，作为区别正确与否的标准吗？
如果因为一种行为会导致被抓被杀，就回避，反对这种行为。那么你所为“反抗不
义”，意义何在？不要反抗不是更好吗？凡是反抗，必然被迫害。只有迫害程度的
差别。你怕被迫害，不去革命，没问题。你因为自己的怯懦无能，还大义凛然讽刺
挖苦起身冒最大的风险进行革命活动的人们是“以暴易暴，谁不会啊”，自己成了道
义上师，这种事情倒是我觉得我更会做，太简单了还毫无风险。:)
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 假如你所提到的这三个人都不是和平主义者，而是用暴力反抗不义，你觉得当局
会不会纵容他们？他们会不会赢得那么广大的民心？说不定早把他们抓起来枪毙了。
: 以暴易暴谁不会啊，自从有人类的时候就有这个了。这些人之所以被认为是伟
人，就是因为他们提供了一种可能性，一种不用以暴易暴就能解决问题的可能性。
也提供了一个理想，各种因偏见而隔离的人们互相理解互相融合的理
: (以下引言省略...)
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Feb 2 07:33:25 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201908550.A.htm
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
: 有人展示了更好的可能性。这是他们的伟大之处。
我对他们三个的分析还是很粗的。细节有很大不同。但是这三个人被反复作为一类
典范传送，谬误很深。尤其现在的反革命者，津津乐道。:) 我看这是迷魂汤。
我反反革命，但是我也不革命。这是比较自私怯懦的一种态度，但是我认为比反革
命更符合正义。也是因为我相信儒家的身，家，族，邦，国，天下的伦理层次关
系。这一原则除了紧急情况下的特例，我看也是世界上绝大多数文明社会的伦理原
则。
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 别人欺负我我一般都是打回去的……
: 不过应该这么说，我前面的文字用的太过了。应该说，在人们都觉得以暴制暴是
唯一出路的时候，有人展示了更好的可能性。这是他们的伟大之处。
: 【 在 lihlii (立里) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 我说，你不会。不信你做做给我看看呢？:)
: : ...................
: (以下引言省略...)
--
※ 来源:．一见如故 http://yjrg.net [FROM: 82.210.0.0]
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
: 别人欺负我我一般都是打回去的……
原来你所谓“以暴易暴”就是这样的。那么，我请问你，华盛顿，章太炎，孙文先
生，是否主张暴力革命？你认为他在街上被人欺负了，一定会和你一样“以暴易暴”
地“打回去”？:)
小德缺而讥大德，中共国当今犬儒化之蔚为大观的一个症状。:) 原来华盛顿，张
太阳，孙文先生的暴力革命，都是为了“打回去”。因此，章太炎，孙文，都是把满
族人也痛打了一顿。
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 别人欺负我我一般都是打回去的……
: 不过应该这么说，我前面的文字用的太过了。应该说，在人们都觉得以暴制暴是
唯一出路的时候，有人展示了更好的可能性。这是他们的伟大之处。
: 【 在 lihlii (立里) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 我说，你不会。不信你做做给我看看呢？:)
: : ...................
: (以下引言省略...)
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Feb 2 07:50:25 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201909674.A.htm
wanghx
: 别人欺负我我一般都是打回去的……
原来你所谓“以暴易暴”就是这样的。那么，我请问你，华盛顿，章太炎，孙文先
生，是否主张暴力革命？你认为他在街上被人欺负了，一定会和你一样“以暴易暴”
地“打回去”？:)
小德缺而讥大德，中共国当今犬儒化之蔚为大观的一个症状。:) 原来华盛顿，章
太炎，孙文先生的暴力革命，都是为了“打回去”。因此，章太炎，孙文，都是把满
族人也痛打了一顿。
另外，同样主张暴力革命，邹容先生被抓被杀了，秋瑾，徐锡麟，被杀了，后者还
被吃了心肝。
章太炎，黄兴，孙文，虽然履历险境，终于没有被杀。宋教仁，没有因为革命被
杀，而是革命后被暗算了。
请问按照你的被杀判断法，如上几位革命家的革命是非如何判断？
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 别人欺负我我一般都是打回去的……
: 不过应该这么说，我前面的文字用的太过了。应该说，在人们都觉得以暴制暴是
唯一出路的时候，有人展示了更好的可能性。这是他们的伟大之处。
: 【 在 lihlii (立里) 的大作中提到: 】
: : 我说，你不会。不信你做做给我看看呢？:)
: : ...................
: (以下引言省略...)
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Feb 2 07:54:07 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201909674.A.htm
wanghx
标 题: Re: 告诉你一个真实的印度
请告诉我，你认为“19年前的那帮人”中，哪个是“以暴易暴”的“革命家”，以至于按
照你的规定，他们应该“被抓住杀了是题中应有之义”？
我奇怪的是，看他们个个都是符合你说的“有人展示了更好的可能性。这是他们的
伟大之处”，“这些人之所以被认为是伟人，就是因为他们提供了一种可能性，一种
不用以暴易暴就能解决问题的可能性”，是你应该装腔作势肃然起敬的“伟人”。和
甘地等人的差别在于，他们失败了，然后逃跑了而已。
他们为什么失败了呢？恰恰不是“以暴易暴”，他们根本没有这个胆量，他们没有一
个是革命家，甚至连三个湖南青年的甘地式和平抗议行为，泼污干尸画像，挂对
联，都被他们出卖而身陷牢狱，被逼疯。中共国的失败的被侮辱被损害的甘地遍
地，你对他们有过什么“伟大”的“我尊敬他们”的实际行动？
他们的失败，恰恰因为遵循和平主义，甚至连甘地都不如，甘地公开反对英国政
府，要英国政府滚蛋，Quit India。而19年前那帮人，何曾公开提出过类似的政治
诉求？
而且甘地也并非完全的和平主义者。在南非为印度独立抗争的时候，他抓住英国政
府和杀了两个英国官员的祖鲁族人开战的机会，要求印度人作为大英帝国的合法公
民，也可以参战，以提高印度人民的政治地位，被拒绝了。为了政治目的甚至可以
参战，这也是和平主义？:) 当然这是甘地的早期政治活动，也许他后来转变了。[1]
他们的失败，恰恰不是以暴易暴，而是以和易暴，遭致当局的以暴易和。:)
他们就是一群你所谓“伟大”的甘地。只不过逃跑了而已。而逃跑的和平抗争者，康
有为梁启超，太多例子了。逃跑的革命家，有孙文，也有华盛顿打败仗的时候。:)
革命家也好，不革命家也好，都有在失败时逃跑的必要和利权。白白被抓或者送
死，除了称了暴君和走狗们的快意，还有什么价值？走狗们对湖南三君子，有过什
么 “尊敬”和帮助？走狗的所谓“尊敬”，我看还不如泼粪。
[1] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi
Role in Zulu War
Main article: Bambatha Rebellion
In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South
Africa killed two British officers. The British declared a war against
the Zulus, in retaliation. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to
recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts
in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British,
however, rejected to offer Indians positions of rank in their military.
The however accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians to
volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers.
On July 21, 1906, Gandhi wrote in "Indian Opinion" -"The corps had been
formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in
connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty
three Indians".[4] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to
join the war through his columns in "Indian Opinion" -“If the Government
only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of
it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual
warfare.”[5]
【 在 flareboy 的大作中提到: 】
: 革命家被抓住杀了是题中应有之义，我尊敬他们。
: 这也是我为什么极为反感19年前的那帮人，爽完了就溜国外去了，算什么玩艺。
: 我所说的我自己的以暴易暴自然是个人层面的，以小而见大。
: 我很仰慕你把我的帖子发挥成所有革命家都是“打回去”的能力……
: (以下引言省略...)
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Feb 2 22:25:38 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://yjrg.net/HT/con_373_M.1201961689.A.htm