Authors –  Shogun Gaikwad, Jyoti Bania and Ashok Danavath

Note: We as SC-ST Ambedkarite students, strongly condemn the targeting of Praveen Kumar, IPS by BJP leaders and Hindu Right-wing groups. Ideological differences apart, we acknowledge and appreciate Praveen Kumar’s tireless work towards the empowerment of marginalized sections in the field of education in the state of Telangana. This article intends to make constructive criticism without making any personal attacks on any individual. 

Introduction

Following the raging controversy surrounding the event of Bhim Deeksha, organized by the Swaero network at Dhulikatta village of Peddapalli district in the state of Telangana, Praveen Kumar, IPS was subjected to criticism by the BJP state president of Telangana and other right-wing groups. As a counter to this, various sympathizers of Swaero came out in solidarity with Praveen Kumar.

Thus, the mainstream political discourse was engaged in the binary of defending BJP and Hindu right-wing groups on one side vs. defending Praveen Kumar and his organization Swaero on the other side, while completely invisibilizing and diluting the actual Ambedkarite discourse and its core tenets.

Such solidarity towards Praveen Kumar and his organization is natural given the fact that he has been involved in the work for the empowerment of Dalit-Adivasi and other marginalized communities through the means of education.

Post the attack by the Hindu right, Praveen Kumar had also released a clarificatory statement and attended a few interviews as well where he made statements that were contradictory and contentious in nature which we will discuss in the following sections of this article.

Real Hindu or Strong Ambedkarite, which is it?

Can an Ambedkarite be a Hindu or a Hindu be a true Ambedkarite? It is self-evident that the answer to both these questions is in the negative. But if we are to go by Praveen Kumar’s words, we will find that his views are inconsonant with this.

In a recent interview, Praveen Kumar identified himself as a strong follower of Dr. Ambedkar, and in the same breath asserted that he is a real Hindu. He then goes on to mention a number of Hindu rituals that he practiced on different occasions as well as his familial devotion to Hinduism to prove his “Hinduness”.

When asked by the interviewer if he’s Anti Hindu, he responded (loosely read as), 

“Absolutely not, I would say I’m a real Hindu. You can see my certificate. I performed my brother’s marriage in a Hindu way and then I performed my sister’s marriage at Jogulamba temple (also known as Dakshina Kashi) in a Hindu way as well. Even my wedding was conducted in a Hindu way. My wife is a Kattar (Staunch) Hindu. When I worked at Karimnagar as an SP, I performed the Hindu ritual of Pind Pradanam (death ritual) of police martyrs at Kalleshwara temple. When I worked at Bellampalli as ASP in 1998, I performed Yagya at Ramalayam temple.” 

In sharp contrast, Dr. Ambedkar, in 1935, publicly proclaimed, “I was born a Hindu because I had no control over this, but I shall not die a Hindu.”

Moreover, Praveen Kumar states that his organization observes a Holy month (March 15-April 14) where they conduct book readings, Bhim Deeksha and many other activities. 

But he also said that every year on the 3rd of January, they conduct Akshar Abhyasam, a ritual common among Hindus in the southern states of India and on March 15, they conduct Bhim Diksha where non-vegetarian food is prohibited for that day. Finally, he uses the term “Sewa” to describe his work, a term common among philanthropic and religious organizations. Constitutional duty cannot be called “Sewa”. Hence, all of these rituals reek of a Brahminical cultural praxis. 

At the same time in this as well as in his previous interviews, he also maintains that he’s a follower of Dr. Ambedkar, Buddha, Jotiba and Savitribai Phule as well as Kanshi Ram. He is often seen photographed along with Babasaheb, Phule, and Buddha’s portraits as well.

In his clarificatory statement, Praveen Kumar states that, “…we take the best (ideas) from all religions”, and “…we don’t teach any prejudice against any religion…”

The argument that best practices can be taken from Hinduism and Navayana Buddhism diverts from the fact that both these religions are mutually contradictory in their philosophies. One is about graded inequality while the other rejects it. Religions are a war of ideas, that are sometimes mutually exclusive, especially in this case, and to accommodate both these religions wholly or in part as an organizational practice is to reject both their opposing points of view which would be making an epistemic error.

In a nutshell, he claims to be a “real Hindu” by mentioning different instances from his life to prove his Hinduness. He also claims to be a true Ambedkarite by claiming to uphold the mission of different anti-caste personalities. Finally, he proclaims that he respects and takes the best practices from all religions. To any reader, it should be pretty clear these are inconsistent and contradictory statements seemingly for political correctness.

How can the radical Anti-Brahmanical and feminist ideology of Savitribai Phule which “rejects Brahminical scriptures” and talks of women’s liberation be equated with the patriarchal and casteist ideology which compelled people to throw cow dung and stones on her?

Dr. Ambedkar rightly said, “I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize that they are the sick men of India, and that their sickness is causing danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.”

Are Babasaheb’s 22 Vows Unconstitutional?

On October 14, 1956, when Dr. Ambedkar recited the 22 vows to renounce the Hindu religion and embraced Buddhism at Nagpur’s Deeksha Bhoomi, he said, “By discarding my ancient religion which stood for inequality and oppression, today I am reborn.” 

He continued saying, “I thereby reject my old religion, Hinduism, which is detrimental to the prosperity of humankind and which discriminates between man and man and which treats me as inferior.”

Dr. Ambedkar strongly felt that conversion was the only way to break the shackles of the discriminatory caste system. He argued that, “…so long as we remain in a religion, which teaches a man to treat another man like a leper, the sense of discrimination on account of caste, which is deeply rooted in our minds, cannot go. For annihilating caste and untouchability, change of religion is the only antidote.”

Coming to the statement released by Praveen Kumar, he explicitly mentions that: 1) He and his organization have no relation with the Buddhist family who recited the 22 vows at the Bhim Deeksha event, 3) He and his organization don’t subscribe to the 22 Vows that were recited by the family after the Buddha Vandana, 4) His organization takes the best from all religions and doesn’t teach prejudice against any religion, 5) His organization works for a just and equal society in the country only through education, health-awareness, scientific thinking and economic empowerment, not through hatred.

So firstly, when Praveen Kumar refused to recite the 22 vows, essentially, it seems that he distanced himself from Dr. Ambedkar’s instructions to reject Hindu gods and Hindu rituals as Vows 1-5 talk of rejecting and not worshipping different Hindu gods and Vow 6 talks about neither performing shraddha, nor giving pind-dan. The 22 vows along with conversion to Buddhism are the backbone of Ambedkarite philosophy. If one rejects either, how can one possibly be a “strong follower” of Dr. Ambedkar?

Moreover, the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate their religion. So, Praveen Kumar denying his support to the Buddhist family who recited the 22 vows indicates that he and his organization failed to provide them with equal and safe space to profess their religion. He distanced himself from the Buddhist family set a precedent that henceforth anyone from the Buddhist community reciting the 22 vows would be disowned by the Swaeros. While many have extended their solidarity to Praveen Kumar, similar support has been missing towards the Buddhist family that could’ve put them at risk of social boycott.

Finally in his statement, he also mentions that his organization doesn’t teach prejudice against any religion and works for a just and equal society in the country through different means but not through hatred. So does he mean that reciting Babasaheb’s 22 vows is tantamount to spreading hatred and prejudice? Perhaps these statements themselves need another round of clarification from Praveen Kumar and his organization.

Furthermore, in the interview he attended, the interviewer made a controversial statement claiming that the recitation of the 22 Vows was unconstitutional and asked him why he didn’t do anything to stop it, to which he nodded in agreement and said it wasn’t under his authority as he went there in the capacity of a Swaero and not as an administrator. 

In totality, in his interview as well as his statement, it is clear that he and his organization: 1) Dissociated from the core philosophy of Ambedkarism viz. The 22 Vows, 2) Distanced themselves from the Buddhist family that could’ve put them at risk of social boycott as well as failed to provide them a safe space in the organization, 3) Possibly equated recitation of the 22 vows with spreading hatred and prejudice, 4) And finally, failed to provide a reasonable refutation to the interviewer’s controversial claim that the recitation of the 22 Vows is unconstitutional.

With regard to this issue, Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd recently argued, “even if Praveen Kumar had taken the oath to give up his belief in Hindu gods, it could not be unconstitutional because Ambedkar, an architect of the constitution of India, had taken the same oath.” 

Why Swaeroism when there is Ambedkarism?

Dr. Ambedkar created a whole new religion viz. Navayana Buddhism/Neo-Buddhism to create a counter-culture against Hinduism AKA Brahminism. He strongly believed that his community would embrace Buddhism and sacrifice everything to take forward his mission of establishing Buddhism in India. 

On this, he said, “Not only the people treated as Untouchables but all people, irrespective of caste or religion, who believe in the teachings of the Buddha should participate in this Deeksha ceremony and embrace Buddhism.”

He continued, “I hope and believe that my people who, sacrificing their own comforts, have been faithfully following me. I hope and I trust they will continue to struggle sincerely to propagate the Buddha Dhamma in India.”

Then one may question why there is a need for a separate identity-based ideology like Swaero. By starting a separate ideology, it seems that Praveen Kumar dissociated himself from Ambedkarite Buddhism or has at least built his own ideology on the plank of Ambedkarism.

When we compare both Swaeroism and Ambedkarism, both may appear equal to a layman, but further critical examination reveals stark differences between the two. Navayana Buddhism as a philosophy necessitates oneself to give away Brahminical caste culture in order to embrace a casteless identity based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, while on the other hand, Swaeroism has no such explicit Anti-caste or Anti-Brahminical tenets like the 22 Vows within its ideology, necessary to dismantle the caste norms inherent to Hinduism.

If Praveen Kumar claims that he started Swaero as an identity for Dalit-Adivasi and other marginalised groups in order to transcend from their previous humiliatory caste-based identity to a new identity i.e. Swaero, what guarantee does he provide to ensure that these marginalized groups who would become Swaeros will not again be subjected to caste-based discrimination?

As claimed by Praveen Kumar, anyone can be a Swaero. If Oppressor caste and Oppressed caste both identify as Swaero, then it basically equates the oppressed with the oppressor while doing nothing to structurally dismantle their caste privileges and caste oppression respectively. It does nothing to change their caste realities.

With this approach of Swaeros, there may be the empowerment of marginalized sections to a certain extent, but only leading to cosmetic changes. It will do nothing to shake the hegemony of the oppressors.

Hurting Hindu Sentiments

In his statement, Praveen Kumar also claims, neither he nor Swaero intends to hurt anyone’s religious sentiments. But when he publicly renounces the Buddhist family and dissociates himself from reciting the 22 vows, does not it hurt the sentiments of Ambedkarite Buddhists across India?

In the same vein, it is important to ask: 1) Can the Anti-caste movement be achieved without hurting the caste Hindu sentiments? If Swaeroism aims to create a casteless identity, will it be able to achieve it without hurting the sentiments of caste Hindus?, 2) Could India have become independent without hurting the sentiments of the British imperialists?, 3) Could the civil rights movement be successful without hurting the sentiments of white supremacists?, 4) Can gender equality be achieved without hurting the sentiment of patriarchs?

Conclusion

It would have been much appreciated had Praveen Kumar and Swaero endorsed the 22 Vows by declaring their movement as Buddhist thereby strengthening the Ambedkarite movement in Telangana.

One should not have any problem if Praveen Kumar leads an initiative like Swaero but when he claims that he is a strong follower of Babasaheb Ambedkar and a real Hindu at the same time it reflects his contradictory stand, which may mislead his followers. 

Swaeroism may certainly bring positive reform in the domains of education, health and economy for marginalised people. But since Hindu religion is the root cause of all caste-based discrimination against Dalits and marginalized communities, Swaeroism is unlikely to bring any socio-political and cultural reform since it lacks the necessary tools to do so unlike Navayana Buddhism. Moreover, it has nothing within it that dismantles the caste system inherent to Hinduism. How then can one transcend their caste-based identity by identifying as a Swaero by staying in the Hindu fold?

On this, Dr. Ambedkar said, “…it must be recognised that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with, is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste.”

He further stated, “The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould the beliefs and opinions of the people? Not to question the authority of the Shastras, to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions and to blame them and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational and inhuman is an incongruous way of carrying on social reform…”

Finally, to ensure the success of the Ambedkarite movement and achieve Babasaheb’s dream of a Prabuddha Bharat, political and socio-cultural emancipation is equally important along with educational and economic empowerment.

Because educational empowerment may bring a certain section of Dalit-Adivasis into the mainstream. However, the mainstream would still be under the hegemony of dominant castes. To break their hegemony, we need Dalit-Adivasis to become the ruling class which can only be achieved through political means. And to achieve a political victory, we need the mobilization of marginalized masses by the creation of a counter-culture by leaving the Hindu fold through conversion to Buddhism, which can be achieved through a pan India socio-cultural movement. 

Jai Bhim! Hul Johar!

About Authors –

Shogun Gaikwad is an Ambedkarite from  Mumbai, currently pursuing his M.Sc at Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Jyoti Bania is a PhD research scholar at TISS, Hyderabad, hailing from the SC community in Assam.

Ashok Danavath is an Adivasi graduate from TISS, Hyderabad, currently working in the Development Sector.