CAB: Dr Ambedkar favoured total Hindu-Muslim demographic exchange in 1947: J Nandakumar


In his recently-released book, Hindutva for the Changing Times, senior RSS pracharak and national convenor of Prajna Pravah J Nandakumar argues that Dr Ambedkar had warned of oppression of Hindus, especially Dalits, by Muslims in Pakistan if the population is not brought back to India. The book is published by Indus Scrolls Press.

According to Nandakumar, Dr Ambedkar had given shape to a clear-cut plan for demographic exchange on the lines of a similar exercise carried out between Turkey and Greece. To buttress his argument, Nandakumar quotes extensively from Dr Ambedkar’s The Partition of India.

“Islam 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.”

Nandakumar writes: “Dr Ambedkar’s argument was that since the Partition had taken place on the basis of two-nation theory, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter is settled completely on that basis.” But Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhiji threw a spanner in the works of Ambedkar. It would not have been a difficult task then, as “two-and-a-crore Hindus were left in Pakistan, while the same number of Muslims was left in the Partitioned India”, writes Nandakumar, quoting Prof Balraj Madhok. “The political leaders who came to power in India after Independence, left Hindu minority in Pakistan to fend for themselves… Hindus, a majority of them scheduled castes, were treated as second-class citizens with practically no rights. Dr Ambedkar had warned of such a situation,” states the RSS leader.

According to Dr Ambedkar, the brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man.

It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is 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. …Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.

Dr Ambedkar was not a supporter of the idea of Muslim-Dalit unity. Even during Independence struggle, the Muslim League under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah co-opted a section of Dalit leaders to advance his two-nation theory. Later, Jinnah made Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Dalit leader, a minister in his cabinet much to the chagrin of Muslim fanatics in the party. After his utility was over, the Muslim League dumped Mandal.

In the above-mentioned book, Dr Ambedkar argues that Islam can never allow ‘a true Muslim’ to adopt India as his motherland. He says the religion tells faithful to treat non-Muslims (kafirs) as enemies. A kafirs inferior and without status. ‘That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India,’ writes Dr Ambedkar.

According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes ‘incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. The fact remains that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavor a success.