Thread by @sheshapatangi1

#AmbedkarJayanti

His Writings & Speeches Which Remains Hidden.
The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion,

which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Muslim unity.

But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Muslim unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Mappilas as the "brave God-fearing Moplahs who were fighting for

what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious ".

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches.
The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the

Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy.

The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the

Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State. – Dr.B. R. Ambedkar

In the preface to

his monumental book Who Were the Shudras? (1946) Dr Ambedkar expressed his thankfulness: “…to the writer of Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata. Whether it is Vyasa, Vaiashampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu, it is difficult to say. But whoever he was, he has

rendered great service by giving a full description of Paijavana. If he had not described Paijavana as a Shudra, the clue to the origin of the Shudra would have been completely lost.”
Further in the same book, Dr Ambedkar writes….
“That the theory of the Aryan race set up by

Western writers falls to the ground at every point goes without saying. This is somewhat surprising since Western scholarship is usually associated with thorough research and careful analysis. Why has the theory failed?…anyone who cares to scrutinize the theory will find that

it suffers from a double infection. In the first place, the theory is based on nothing but pleasing assumptions and inferences based on such assumptions. In the second place, the theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts.

On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. The theory of the Aryan race is just an assumption and no more.”

“…the assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are

aboriginal tribes of India is demonstrably false. Again, to say that the institution of Chaturvarna is a reflection of the innate colour prejudice of the Aryans is really to assert too much.”
“…the conclusions that follow from the examination of the Western theory may now be

summarised. They are:
1.The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2. there is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus,supposed to be natives of india.
3. there is no evidence to show that the

distinction between aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
4. the Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus.”

Dr Ambedkar, in his argument with MKGandhi (Annihilation of Caste), points out that the varna

system is not only different from caste system but is inherently opposed to it:
“The principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. (Chaturvarna) is

based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth to vacate that status? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a

lower status based on his birth? For this you must first break up the caste system, in order to be able to establish the varna system.”
THE AMBEDKAR-SAVARKAR DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS
Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on

the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India - one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two

nations should live. Mr Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr Savarkar, on the other hand, insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be

divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant

position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate cooperation with the Hindu nation.

“In what is construed as a ‘low caste’ — the Mahars — we have had such illustrious saints as Chokha Mela and such brilliant thinkers such as

Dr Ambedkar, whose piety and intellect far surpasses many a Brahmin’s.” – Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
There are 100s of Writings like these which Agenda Driven Distorians doesn’t want us to know, and finally 1 question
“Why is there no memorial 56 years after Dr. Ambedkar's death?

Isn't he a national leader?
Reply to this question was sought through RTI & the shocking news came
BabaSaheb was not a National Leader and hence, there was no need for a Memorial in his name, and not just Bhim Rao, but also Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel was also not a

National level leader according to parameters set by Nehru-Indira Sarkar.

#VANDEMATARAM