Navayana’s edition of Dr Ambedkar’s book ‘Annihilation of Caste’ with an ‘introduction’ by author Arundhati Roy titled ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ had triggered several debates among Ambedkarites after it was published. These deliberations compiled in form of a book titled ‘Hatred in the Belly: Politics behind the Appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s writings’, has sold over 3,000 copies within a fortnight of its publication. One of the contributors, social activist and politician, Adv. Dr. Suresh Mane, spoke on the need to publish this book and the significance of a Gandhi-Ambedkar debate with Chitra Sawant.
Q: Why was Arundhati Roy’s introduction criticised?
A: The introduction is nothing but appropriation, distortion and misappropriation of Ambedkar.
Q: What was the reason behind publishing ‘Hatred in the Belly’?
A: Contributors in the book ‘Hatred in the Belly’ had held several panel discussions at several places after Navayana’s book was published. The compilation of these debates has come up now in a book form. Anti-Ambedkar forces have been in power for so long and are determined to defame, destabilise and destroy Ambedkar’s rising socio-political constituency by appropriation and misappropriation of his thought and struggle. Hence, there was a need to clarify on these issues raised in Roy’s introduction ‘The Doctor and the Saint’, one of which is can caste be annihilated?
Q: Roy’s introduction deals with her exploration of the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate. Some criticise her saying Gandhi does not come off well in this book?
A: Basically, the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate or comparison made by Roy in the book ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ is her separate book and not related with Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste’ (AoC).
Secondly, her comparative approach although exposes Gandhi’s hidden aspect in forming the first political NGO sponsored by the Tatas and the Birlas, yet she lacks in comprehensive understanding about both Gandhi and Ambedkar, their goals, their methods and their philosophy. Third, the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate presented by Roy is a separate book in itself titled ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ whereas ‘Annihilation of the caste’ is Ambedkar’s separate discourse to caste protagonists in India about annihilation of caste. Perhaps by annexing her book with Ambedkar’s ‘AoC’, she has grabbed an opportunity to expose hidden dimensions of Gandhi or to sell her ideas on Gandhi.
Q: While replying to criticism, Roy has said, ‘I was writing for those in India and as well as outside, who are new to the subject, for whom caste is just some exotic Hindu thing’. What would you like to say?
A: One can grant a pardon to Roy for her such noble objectives but that does not permit her to misappropriate Ambedkar or present the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate in narrower sense because the conflict is a vital aspect of India’s modern history and no one can be permitted to distort the same. In ‘AoC’ the supplementary notes are added by the publishers with footnotes to original Ambedkar’s ‘AoC’ and thereby damaging the original spirit and sense of Ambedkar’s writing. Probably here is the commercial aspect of the publisher. Therefore she makes such statement. It is unpalatable to accept as it is not conveying the same sense for which Ambedkar laboured.
Q: During an interview to a newspaper Roy has said the real Ambedkar-Gandhi debate will begun with her book…
A: The Gandhi-Ambedkar debate has a long history although both entered into the socio-political arena of India in the early part of twentieth century. Here also we must remember that on arrival from South Africa, Gandhi headed the Home Rule League dislodging leaders like Motilal Nehru, K M Munshi and Jinnah which was not possible without the sponsorship of the British whereas Ambedkar emerges from a completely different background. The conflict between the two was more sharper since Round Table Conference and there after it continued till the death of Gandhi which could be well understood through Ambedkar’s writing, ‘What Congress And Gandhi Have Done To The Untouchables?’ published in 1946. Comparing to this long journey of Gandhi and Ambedar, the synoptic summary presented by Roy is very precise and restricted to certain issues only, without going into the depth of the freedom struggles of both and their life philosophies. Even while writing on Ambedkar, she has ignorantly blamed him for his approach on liberation of tribals and termed his efforts as colonial.
Secondly on a very cheap note, she has ended her writing by saying that Ambedkar throughout his life wore suit, coat and tie but finally died as a debt-ridden man, which is completely wrong. During a personal interaction with Roy recently, when I asked about the above stated remarks, she said that since Ambedkar had no money to publish his book, therefore she came to the conclusion that Ambedkar died debt-ridden.
Q: Many have criticised her, saying why should Gandhi figure so prominently in a book about Ambedkar?
A: In a shocking revelation, she has also confessed that whatever she could write about Gandhi was possible only because of Ambedkar’s writing on ‘AoC’, so one can conclude that when you buy a book on Ambedkar, you get a free book on Gandhi written by Roy.
Q: In one of her interviews to a magazine, she has said, ‘we need Ambedkar — now, urgently’ Can you comment on it?
A: Roy’s observation is true in the sense that Ambedkar’s socio-political economic reconstructive agenda is hardly considered and implemented by the governmental mechanism in India.
Q: Why do you feel the Ambedkar-Gandhi conflict is a vital aspect of India’s modern history?
A: It becomes important because the contemporary forces at that time were in operation like Congress and the Muslim League as well as the Hindu Mahasabha. Gandhi was representing a new model in the form of Tatas and Birlas first (sponsored) NGO, whereas Ambedkar was essentially anti-establishment model with reconstructive agenda.
