சாதி கொடுமைகள் இந்தியாவில் இன்று இல்லை என்று ம்றுப்பவர்களுக்கு!

Did the Nehru-Edwina affair change the course of India’s history?
by Raj K. Mitra on October 12, 2009

That Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, and Lady Edwina Mountbatten, wife of India’s last Viceroy, were in love was never really a secret. But, did they ever hold each other’s hands? Did they ever kiss each other? Did they ever tumble on each other in bed? We don’t know for sure, and probably we will never know whether the ‘emotional’ or ‘platonic’ relation ever become ‘sexual’, because both preferred to keep it private.

I belong to the school of thought that believes public figures should be allowed their privacy. But, if that private life has a bearing on public affairs, it should be rigorously scrutinised. Thus the question—was Nehru ever influenced in his policies by Edwina?—assumes monumental significance in the history of independent India, particularly in the context of the Kashmir issue. Edwina was, after all, the wife of Lord Mountbatten, the man, Jinnah or no Jinnah, who had been largely held responsible for the partition and for keeping the Kashmir issue alive for more than six decades.

Nehru wrote letters to Edwina every day, after she left India, until her death. In his letters, Nehru often sought Edwina’s advice on matters of governance and strategy, according to British author Janet Morgan who was given access to the correspondence by the Mountbatten family. Morgan was given a small box weighing more than five pounds. The box contained all the letters Nehru wrote to Edwina between 1948 and 1960. A few of them even had a rose pressed between the pages.

According to Morgan, in one of those letters, Pandit Nehru apparently wrote about the embarrassment VK Krishna Menon, India’s first high commissioner to the Court of St. James, had become. In another letter, Nehru apprised Lady Mountbatten about how difficult it had become to deal with colleagues in the Congress party. Edwina’s reply could not be known as the Nehru-Gandhi family preferred to keep those letters under wraps.

Such letters bear testimony to the fact that Edwina often had a piece of advice for Nehru on political matters. When Edwina died, Nehru’s letters were found scattered on her bed. Nehru had sent a wreath of marigolds to be dropped in the English Channel.

Pamela Mountbatten, daughter of Lord Mountbatten and Edwina, in an interview to Karan Thapar on Devil’s Advocate, said that the Edwina-Nehru relationship was also of use to her father. And that Lord Mountbatten often appealed to Panditji given the influence Edwina had; this was particularly useful while handling tricky situations like Kashmir.

“He (Lord Mountbatten) did use her (Edwina Mountbatten) in such ways. But he certainly wasn’t going to throw her, he didn’t say to her ‘go and become the Prime Minister’s (Nehru) lover, because I need you to intercede.’ It was a by-product of this deep affection.”

When asked to comment on many people’s belief in India that the decision Nehru took to refer the Kashmir issue to the UN was taken under her father’s advice. Could that have been an area where Edwina’s influence had been particularly useful?

“I think it could have been. Because Panditji, being a Kashmiri, of course, inevitably the emotional side comes in from one’s own country, doesn’t it? And my father just in dry conversation might not have been able to get his viewpoint over, but with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind that he should really behave like this. I think probably that did happen.”

Pamela added, “But what was the important outcome of it all, was really for the good of India. And I think Ms. Gandhi, when she became Prime Minister; she was a very clever politician, an amazing woman. But Panditji was a real statesman, it never occurred to him to make anything out of his position; he never made money out of it. He was the real idealist, for the good of India, always.”

Although it is quite hard to believe that Nehru had abandoned principle and patriotism in deference to Edwina’s charms, there is little doubt that he did commit a series of historic blunders. But, unfortunately, historians like Ramachandra Guha have been unnecessarily kind to Nehru while scripting India’s post-independence history. In fact, Nehru’s one of the biggest blunders was to retain Lord Mountbatten as the Governor General of independent India. Probably, he could not trust any Congress leader for that role, and preferred to rely on a person he ‘admired’ a lot.

In October 1947, infiltrators from North-West Frontier Province entered Kashmir, killed, looted and raped, and marched ahead. By October 26, the infiltrators had reached the outskirts of Srinagar and Kashmir’s ruler Hari Singh had no other choice but to sign the instrument of accession, albeit reluctantly, though he remained sceptical about his future in Kashmir under Nehru’s rule.

The next month Lord Mountbatten put himself in a strange situation, where he as the titular head of India decided to go to Karachi to negotiate a solution to the Kashmir issue with Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan under the instructions of his ‘employer’ based in London. For strategic reasons, Britain was inclined towards Pakistan and Mountbatten was reportedly given the responsibility to ensure that India do not take any steps to flush out the infiltrators from Jammu & Kashmir. By the end of 1947, Mountbatten had convinced Nehru to refer the Kashmir issue to the UN. He made Nehru believe that it was the ‘only solution’.

On 20 December 1947, Nehru reluctantly accepted the idea, amid strong opposition from a large section of the Congress leadership, including Sardar Patel. Mountbatten succeeded in implementing the designs of the then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. On one hand, he continued to highlight the dangers of military escalation to Nehru, on the other, he smuggled confidential information to Attlee. It was during those days when Edwina probably managed to make it “appealing to his heart more than his mind”. The events that followed are well known. India’s case was buried in the bureaucratic corridors of the UN; the infiltrators were allowed to remain on the Indian soil, what later came to be known as Pak Occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Maoists Being Forced Into Violence: Arundhati Roy

Hello and welcome to CNN-IBN special in the aftermath of killing of 76 CRPF jawans in Dantewada by Maoists, there has been a nationwide debate which has been polarized one.

One argument is to about to use maximum force to crush the Maoists and the other argument is about to initiate outreach program, democracy and rehabilitation. Joining us here is the author and the activist Arundhati Roy, who has written several writings on Maoists and her open sympathy and empathy for them, has created a great degree of debate and controversy. Thanks very much indeed for joining us.

Sagarika Ghose: You wrote your article ‘Walking with the comrades’ in The Outlook before Dantewada happened. In the aftermath of the Dantewada, do you still stand by the tone of sympathy that you had with the Maoists cause in that essay?

Arundhati Roy: Well, this is a odd way to frame before and after Dantewada happened because actually you know this cycle of violence has been building on and on. This is not the first time that a large number of security personnel have been killed by the Maoists. I have written about it and the other attacks that took place between the years 2005-2007. The way I look at is often you know people make it sound that oh on this side of people, who are celebrating the killing of CRPF jawans and that side of the people who are asking for the Maoists to be wiped out. This is not the case. I think that you got to look at the every death as a terrible tragedy. In a system, in a war that’s been pushed on the people and that unfortunately is becoming a war of the rich against the poor. In which rich put forward the poorest of the poor to fight the poor. CRPF are terrible victims but they are not just victims of the Maoists. They are victims of a system of structural violence that is taking place, that sort to be drowned in this empty condemnation industry that goes on which is entirely meaningless because most of the time people who condemn them have really no sympathy for them. They are just using them as pawns.

Sagarika Ghose: Who then will break the cycle of violence? The state argues that the reason why the state has to cleanse the area or sanitize the area is because whenever it initiates development works on bridges or starts school; those are blown up by the Maoists. Is it that the cycle of violence according to you can only be broken by the states and if the state pulls back is that what you believe?

Arundhati Roy: There is some simple sort of litmus test for that, is it the case that there are hospitals, schools, low malnutrition and lot of development in poor areas where there aren’t any Maoists? That’s not the case. The fact is even if you look at the studies that have been done by doctors in a place like Bilashpur. What Binayak Sen describes as nutritional aids is happening. When you go into the schools, you see that they are used as barracks. They are built as barracks so as to say that Maoists blow up schools and they are against development is a bit ridiculous.

Sagarika Ghose: But you condemn state violence and the charge against you is that you don’t condemn Naxals violence and also you don’t condemn Maoists violence. In fact you rationalise it and even romaticising violence? That is a charge made against you and in fact if I can read from your essay where you have written that, “I feel I want to say something about the futility of violence but what should I suggest they do? Go to court, a rally, and a hunger strike that sounds ridiculous; which party they should vote for, which democratic institution they should approach? You seem to be saying that non-violence is futile?

Arundhati Roy: This is a strange charge on someone who is writing about non-violence and non-violence movement fro 10 years now. But what I saw when I went into the forests was this - that non-violence resistance though it has actually not worked; not in the ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan’ and not even in many other non-violence movements and not even in the militant movements. It has worked in some parts of the movement. But inside the forests it’s a different story because non-violence and in particularly, Gandhian non-violence in some ways needs an audience. It’s a theater that needs an audience. But inside the forests there is no audience when a thousand police come and surround the forest village in the middle of the night, what are they to do? How are the hungry to go on a hunger strike? How are the people with no money to boycott taxes or foreign goods or do consumer boycotts? They have nothing. I do see the violence inside that forest as a ‘counter violence’. As a ‘violence of resistance’ and I do feel terrible about the fact that there is this increasing cycle of violence that the more weapons the government arms the police with those weapons end up with the Maoist PLGA. It’s a terrible thing to do to any society. I don’t think that there is any romance in it. However I’m not against romance. I do feel it’s incredible that these poor people are standing up against this mighty state that is sending thousands and thousands of Para-military. I mean, what they are doing in those forests against those people with AK-47 and grenades.

Sagarika Ghose: But Maoists have AK-47 too? They have pressure bombs too?

Arundhati Roy: They snatched it from cops.

Sagarika Ghose: Should people like you for not been raising their voices against the cycle of violence or should you actually been trying to find out rationalization for it because your been called as ‘apologists for Maoists’. BJP has called you the “sophisticated face of naxalism’. If you don’t raise your voice against their violence and simply say it as a morally acceptable, as a morally legitimate counter to the state then are you not actually failing as member of a civil society?

Arundhati Roy: No, I’m not. Because I think it suits the status-quo to have everybody saying…this is terrible and all. So just let’s just keep on without taking it into account the terrible structural violence that actually is creating a ‘genocidal situation’ in those tribal areas. If you look at the levels of malnutrition, if you look at the levels of absolute desperation there; any responsible person has to say that the violence will stop when you stop pushing those people. When you have a whole community of tribal; which by the way, is a population larger than the population of the most countries, is actually on the brink of survival, fighting for its own annihilation. I can’t equate their reactions, their resistance to the violence of the state. I think it’s immoral to equate the two.

Sagarika Ghose: Let’s bring you to the other point in your essay, where you are particularly harsh on Gandhi. You said party founder Charu Majumder has kept the dream of revolution real and present in India. Imagine a society without that dream, for that alone we can’t judge him too harshly. Especially not while we swaddle ourselves with Gandhi’s pious humbug about the superiority of non-violent way and its notion of trusteeship. You also say do you know what to do if we come under fire….Do you think Gandhi is a figure to be mocked?

Arundhati Roy: I think there are something about Gandhi, which do deserved to be mocked and I think there are something about him which deserve a great deal of respect. Particularly, his (Gandhi’s) ideas of consumption, minimalist and sustainable living. However, let me read what he said in his thing of trusteeship. This is a quote of his notion of trusteeship, “the rich man will be left in possession of his wealth of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal needs and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for the good of the society”. I think that is one statement which can be mocked. I have no problem mocking it.

Sagarika Ghose: In a lecture in US in March at the Left forum you said ‘India is a fake democracy’ that ties in with your justification or your quasi-justification of violence to some extent. Do you feel that because Indian democracy is ‘fake’ there is no hope that Indian democracy can holds out to the Maoists?

Arundhati Roy: No, certainly I feel that India is a oligarchy where it does work as a democracy for the middle classes and the upper classes.

Sagarika Ghose: But it’s a fake democracy?

Arundhati Roy: Yeah, because it doesn’t work for the mass of the people it’s a fake democracy. So you have institution which has been hollowed out, you have institution to which poor have no access and when you look at the institution of the democracy, look at the elections, at the court, at the media and you look at the judiciary. You have a very dangerous system building. If you increasingly excluding a vast section of the poorer people in this country and that’s why I say it fake. It works for some and it doesn’t work for others depending on where you want to place your feet; your politics is defined. If you stand in Greater Kailash; sure it’s a great and vibrant democracy but if you stand in Dantewada- it is no democracy at all. You have a Chief Minister who basically said that those who don’t come out of the forests and live in Salwa Judum camps are terrorists. So looking after your chickens and tending to your fields is a terrorist act? Is that democracy?

Sagarika Ghose: If you have to come up with a solution to this. What would your solution be? What would be your way to break the deadlock?

Arundhati Roy: Well there are two things. First on a philosophical level I would say that I don’t believe that the imagination that has brought to the planet to this crisis is going to come up with an alternative. So the least we can do is to stop and enlighten those who we think of as keepers of our past but could be people who have the wisdom for the future.

But on “Operation Green hunt”, I would like to say three things, I think government should come clean on all these MoUs, infrastructures projects; declare them and tell us what they are and freeze them for now. Insist that all the villagers that have been pushed out, we are talking of hundreds and thousands of people be rehabilitated. Guns need to be pulled back.

Sagarika Ghose: Every country uses mineral resources to grow. Growth is something our country needs. The present dispensation in Maoists, earlier they used to deal with Posco; the rate of compensation was 30 Lakh per year that they used to pay to the Maoists. Now its no deals all bets are off. Are you advocating that all projects from all those areas should wind up and go?

Arundhati Roy: You see what’s happening now with that the privatization of the mining industry that there is a very sort of false understanding that mining is going to push up growth. It will push it up in strange way which has nothing to do with the real development. But if you look at the royalties that the government gets e.g for iron ores Rs 27 for 5,000 tonnes profit for the private company. We are paying without ecology of other people’s economy. So it’s a myth of this thing called growth.

Sagarika Ghose: Are you willing to mediate between the Maoists and the government because they have put your name as well as Kabir Suman to mediate. But you declined. What are you afraid of? Why don’t you go ahead and mediate?

Arundhati Roy: I’m afraid of myself. These are not my skills. I don’t trust myself. If you are a basket ballplayer you can’t be a swimmer. So I think there are people who would do a good job but I don’t think I’m one of them. But I think one question we have to ask is whom do we mean when we say Maoist? Who does the ‘Operation Green Hunt’ want to target? Because for this there has been a discrete separation been made that here are the Maoists and here are the tribal. On the other hand some people say Maoists represent the tribal. Neither of which is true. The fact is that the about 99 per cent Maoists are tribal. But all tribal are not Maoists, still numbers turn into tens and thousands of people who would officially call themselves Maoists. Among them 90,000 women belong to women organisation. 10,000 belong to the cultural organisation. So are they all going to be wiped out?

Sagarika Ghose: What is your message to Home Minister P Chidambaram? What kind of message would you like to give him? Do you think he is fighting this war for ego?

Arundhati Roy: I think he is fighting for hue brisk and fighting with an imagination that is chained to the corporate companies that he wants served to Enron to Vedanta, to all the companies that he has represented. I’m not necessarily accusing him of being corrupt but I’m accusing him of having an imagination that is driving this country into a very serious situation and it’s going to effect all of us.

Sagarika Ghose: Are you worried about the case that has been filed against you? There has been a complaint filed against you under Chhaatisgarh Special Powers Act (CSPA) and police are investigating on that for lending your support to the Maoists after your article. Are you worried about the state prosecution?

Arundhati Roy: Obviously I would be a goon not to be worried. But I won’t be the first one they have gone after. I think what they are trying to do is to sell out a warning to the people because I feel they want to intensify this war. I think we are going to see drone attacks on the poorest people of this country. Moreover they want to cordon off the theater of war and trying to warn people who might have a different view from that of the government not to go in the air.

Sagarika Ghose: Why do you think your writings are as controversial as they are. Why does India love to hate Arundhati Roy? Why does there are so much hate mail directed at you? Why do people think you say things that people don’t agree with? Why are you the writer that India loves to hate?

Arundhati Roy: I think it is very presumptuous of you to represent India. I feel the opposite. Like somebody, who is embraced wherever I go whether it is to Orissa or Narmada; it is just the people with the voice, the people with a huge stake in the things I’m writing about where that stake is threatened – that hate me. But if I did feel that whole of India hated me; I have been doing something terribly wrong. As a political writer I be crazy to carry on what I’m doing? The fact I I feel very deeply loved, that’s the real issue.

Sagarika Ghose: But do you think there is a problem. Do you think the government, the media, the kind of dominant culture is targeting intellectuals, is targeting people like human right activists? Is this dangerous?

Arundhati Roy: Of course this is very dangerous. I read one article that says Dantewada comes to Delhi in the charge against Kobad Ghandy. People union for democratic rights….all institutions are being called front organizations. There is this manic barricade like accusation to any one who has a different view that they are Maoists. Hundreds of people who are not known have been picked up and jailed. There is whole bandwidth of people’s movement from the non-violent ones outside the forests to the arms struggle inside the forests which have actually held of this corporate assault, which I have to say has not happened in anywhere else in the world.

Sagarika Ghose: Let me just ask you what a viewer wrote to me, “ when I see a 16-year-old with a gun, I would feel scared and mourn that. Why would Arundhati Roy when look at a 16-year-old look with a gun celebrated and say she is so beautiful, she has a lovely smile”?

Arundhati Roy: Because if I saw a 16-year-old being raped by a CRPF man and watching her village being burnt and watching her parents being killed and submit to it. I would mourn that. When I see one standing up and say I ‘m going to fight this. I would feel terrible. I think it’s a terrible thing to come to that. But it’s better than having her accept her annihilation.

Sagarika Ghose: Let me read out some of the criticisms that have been made against you fellow thinkers and activists, who said “ she equates their cynical quest for power with genuine demands, rights and concern of the people who live in the forests. She give new meaning to the binary logic something which she ridiculed George W Bush for. She is at the moment a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. And another par lance is that she would be described as an embedded journalist”. How do you react to this criticism?

Arundhati Roy: I think embedded is not in itself a bad thing, it depends on who your are embedded with, whether you are embedded with the media or with the corporate? Or are you embedded with the side that sees itself in resisting this. Here I don’t refer to the Maoists. Who are the Maoists? Of course the Maoists ideologues are that it is there aim to overthrow the Indian state when people who form there fighting forces don’t know what the Indian state is? But surely there is a coincidence of aims and the moment; both are using each others. I want to say that Maoists are not the only people who are trying to overthrow the Indian state; whereas Indian state has been thrown already by the ‘Hindutva’ project and by the corporate project.

Sagarika Ghose: So you believe that Constitution has ceased to exist?

Arundhati Roy: I believe it’s been deeply weakened.

Sagarika Ghose: Do you think of ever giving up India and living up in somewhere else?

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely not. For me that’s the challenge, that’s the beauty, that’s the wonder because the people in this country are staging the India’s most difficult struggle anywhere in the world. I feel so proud. I really salute them on what’s going on here. As I belong to here even if CSPA wants to put me into jail and I’m not going to live in Switzerland.

Sagarika Ghose: Thank you Arundhati Roy.

Arundhati Roy: Thanks.

அம்பேத்கர் என்ற பெரியவர்!

“நான் தீண்டத்தகாத சமூகத்தில் பிறந்தேன். அந்தச் சமூகத்திற்காகவே சாவேன். என்னுடைய சமூகத்தின் நலனே வேறு எதைக் காட்டிலும் எனக்கு உயர்ந்ததாகும்” – பீமாராவ் அம்பேத்கர்

1. நான் தீண்டத்தகாத சமூகத்தில் பிறந்தேன். அந்தச் சமூகத்திற்காகவே சாவேன். என்னுடைய சமூகத்தின் நலனே வேறு எதைக் காட்டிலும் எனக்கு உயர்ந்ததாகும்.

2. ஜனநாயகம் அரசாங்கத்தைவிட மேலானது. அது, ஒன்றிணைந்து வாழ்வதை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டது. ஒருங்கிணைந்த வாழ்க்கையை மேற்கொள்ளும் மக்களே ஒரு சமூகத்தை உருவாக்குகின்றனர். இத்தகைய சமூக உறவு முறைகளில்தான் ஜனநாயகத்தின் வேர்கள் கண்டெடுக்கப்பட வேண்டும்.

3. ஜனநாயகம் என்பது, சமத்துவத்திற்கு மற்றொரு பெயர். நாடாளுமன்ற ஜனநாயகம் சுதந்திர தாகத்தை, விழைவைக் கிளர்த்தி விட்டு விட்டது என்பதில் சந்தேகமில்லை. ஆனால், சமத்துவத்திற்கு ஆதரவாக அது ஒரு போதும் தலையசைத்ததுகூட இல்லை. சமத்துவத்தின் முக்கியத்துவத்தை அது உணரத் தவறிவிட்டது. அதுமட்டுமல்ல, சுதந்திரத்திற்கும் சமத்துவத்திற்கும்கூட, அது எத்தகைய முயற்சியையும் எடுத்துக் கொள்ளவில்லை. இதன் விளைவு, சுதந்திரம் சமத்துவத்தை விழுங்கி விட்டது. அதுமட்டுமல்ல, பல்வேறு ஏற்றத் தாழ்வுகள் தோன்றவும் வழிவகுத்து விட்டது.

4. சமூகம்’ இயற்கையாகவே தோன்றியதாக நாம் நினைக்கிறோம். சமூக ஒற்றுமையை முன்னெடுக்கும் தன்மைகள் பெருமைபடத்தக்கவையாகும். இது, சமூக நோக்குடனும், தொண்டு மனப்பான்மையுடனும், பொது வாழ்வில் நேர்மையுடனும், ஒருவருக்கொருவர் இரக்கத்துடனும், ஒத்துழைப்புடனும் வாழும் தன்மைகளைக் கொண்டதாகும்.

5. வகுப்பு சித்தாந்தம், வகுப்பு நலன்கள், வகுப்புப் பிரச்சினைகள், வகுப்பு மோதல்கள் இவற்றை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்ட ஓர் அரசியல் இயக்கம் தனக்கு சாவுமணி அடிக்கும் என்பதை ஆதிக்க வகுப்பு நன்கு உணர்ந்துள்ளது. அடிமை வகுப்புகளை திசைதிருப்புவதற்கும், அவற்றை ஏமாற்றுவதற்கும் மிகச் சிறந்த வழி தேசிய உணர்வையும், தேச ஒற்றுமையையும் நன்கு பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்ளவேண்டும் என்பதை ஆதிக்க வகுப்பு நன்கு அறியும்.

6. இந்து சமுதாயத்தில் அடிமட்டத்திலுள்ளவர்கள் கல்வி கற்பது கடுமையான குற்றமாக கருதப்பட்டது. இதை மீறி கல்வி கற்பவர்கள் காட்டுமிராண்டித்தனமான, மனிதத் தன்மையற்ற, குரூரமான தண்டனைகளுக்கு உள்ளாக்கப்பட்டனர்: அவர்களது நாக்குகள் துண்டிக்கப்பட்டன; அவர்களது செவிகளில் காய்ச்சிய ஈயம் ஊற்றப்பட்டது

7. கல்வி சாதியை ஒழித்து விடுமா? இதற்குரிய பதில் ‘ஆம்’; அதே நேரத்தில் ‘இல்லை’! இன்று வழங்கப்படும் கல்வியால், சாதியை ஒன்றும் செய்து விட முடியாது. அது எப்போதும் போலவே நிலைப் பெற்றிருக்கும். மேல் சாதியில் இருக்கும் பெரும்பான்மையினர் மெத்தப் படித்திருக்கிறார்கள். இருப்பினும், ஒருவர்கூட, தான் சாதிக்கு எதிராக இருப்பதாகக் காட்டிக் கொள்வதில்லை. உண்மையில்,படித்த நபர், கல்வி கற்காமல் இருப்பதைவிட, அவர் கல்வி கற்ற பிறகு சாதி அமைப்பைத் தக்கவைத்துக் கொள்ளவே அதிகம் விரும்புகிறார். ஏனெனில், சாதி அமைப்பைத் தக்கவைத்துக் கொள்ள, கல்வி கூடுதல் நலனை அவருக்கு அளிக்கிறது. இதன் மூலம் அவர் பெரிய பதவிகளைப் பெறும் வாய்ப்பையும் வழங்குகிறது. இந்தக் கண்ணோட்டத்தில் இருந்து பார்க்கும் போது, கல்வி சாதியை ஒழிக்க உதவிகரமாக இல்லை.

8. தற்பொழுதுள்ள கொள்கையின் குறைபாடு என்னவெனில், கல்வி பரவலாக அளிக்கப்படுகிறது; ஆனால், இந்திய சமூகத்தில் எந்தப் பிரிவினருக்கு கல்வி அளிக்கப்பட வேண்டுமோ அவர்களுக்கு கல்வி வழங்கப்படவில்லை. சாதி அமைப்பு முறையை நிரந்தரமாக தக்கவைத்துக் கொள்ள விரும்பும் இந்திய சமூகத்தின் சுயநலவாதிகளுக்கு கல்வி அளிக்கப்பட்டால், சாதி அமைப்பு பலப்படுத்தப்படும். இதற்கு மாறாக, இந்திய சமூகத்தின் சாதி அமைப்பு முறையை நிர்மூலமாக்க நினைக்கும் அடித்தட்டு மக்களுக்கு கல்வி அளிக்கப்பட்டால், சாதி அமைப்பு கண்டிப்பாக ஒழிந்துவிடும்.

9. இந்திய மக்கள் கொண்டாட்டங்களை அதிகம் விரும்பினாலும், புத்தர் பிறந்த நாளை அவர்கள் இதே உணர்வோடு ஏன் கொண்டாடுவதில்லை. புத்தருடைய காலத்தில்,1. வேதங்கள் புனிதத் தன்மையுடையதாகவும், என்றென்றும் மாறாததாகவும் கருதப்பட்டது 2. யாகம் 3. சதுர்வர்ண தர்மம் (நான்கு வர்ணங்களை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்ட வர்ணாசிரம தர்மம்). வேதத்தில் எழுதப்பட்டுள்ள அனைத்தும் அது அறிவுக்கு ஏற்புடையதா இல்லையா என்பதெல்லாம் பொருட்டல்ல அது தவறே இல்லாதது. வேதங்கள் புனிதமானவை என்பதை புத்தர் ஏற்க மறுத்து, அதை முதல் விலங்காகக் கருதினார். வேதங்களை ஏற்பதற்குப் பதில், அதை மறுத்து, அறிவை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்ட உண்மையை ஒப்புக் கொள்வதே புத்தரின் நிலைப்பாடாக இருந்தது.

10. உழைக்கும் வர்க்கத்தைச் சேர்ந்த ஒவ்வொருவரும் தற்கால சமூக, அரசாங்க ஒழுங்கமைப்பு குறித்த அடிப்படையான செயல்முறை ஆவணங்களை அவசியம் தெரிந்து வைத்திருக்க வேண்டும்

Ambedkar Movie Part 1

Watch live streaming video from meenakam at livestream.com

Ambedkar Movie Part 2

meenakam on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Ambedkar Movie 3

Watch live streaming video from meenakam at livestream.com