BR Ambedkar versus ideological communism

Partha Pratim Mazumder

(parthapratimmazumder1988@gmail.com)

Left-wing organisations willingly mix the ideologies of B.R. Ambedkar and ideological communism, which are totally opposite. They create a hallucinatory environment about their blooding history. Mainly, they intentionally try to hijack the emotions of Adivasi, SC, ST, and Dalit communities and involve them in their culture. “Communism is like a forest fire; it goes on burning and consuming anything and everything that comes in its way” The above sentence was used by B.R. Ambedkar. He says the greatest problem in international relations, particularly before the free nations of the world, is the expansion of communism. In these countries, peace is being maintained by partitioning and dismembering countries; he also says that communist countries are not faithful to the principle of peace. According to me, communism can never be a solution to getting rid of the caste system, rather than getting rid of it will only worsen the problem. Once, B.R. Ambedkar called Russian communism a ‘fraud’!

B.R. Ambedkar categorically cast aside any idea of his joining the labour movement led by the communists. In that speech, he was reported to have declared: ‘It is absolutely impossible for me to keep relations with the communists. I am an implacable enemy of the Communists.’ “ Can communism and free democracy work together? Can they live together? Is it possible to hope that there will not be a conflict between them? The theory, at any rate, seems to me utterly absurd, for communism is like a forest fire; it goes on burning and consuming anything and everything that comes in its way. It is quite possible that countries that are far from the centre of communism may feel safe because the forest fire may be extinguished before it reaches them, or it may never reach them. But what about the countries that are living in the vicinity of this forest fire? Can you expect that human habitation and this forest fire can live together for a long time?” Dr. Ambedkar (BAWS, Vol. 15, page 878).

In modern times, the word communism has different connotations, but its characteristic meaning is mostly directed to a political praxis of violence and bloody revolution. The category refers to the ideology that believes that a society with complete social equality and the absence of private property is possible, necessary, and inevitable, and that it can be ushered in through a “dictatorship of the proletariat” installed by a revolution. This is ideological Communism. It is also termed Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, depending upon the significance attributed to the chief ideologues. All these variants are conspiratorial and insurrectionary in nature and are well-directed as political movements. His direct criticisms were mostly laconic and brief. The Russians made a great mistake by entrusting the Communist movement in India to them. Either the Russians didn’t want Communism in India—they wanted only drummer boys—or they didn’t understand. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (BAWS Vol. 17, Part 1, Page 425)

B.R. Ambedkar began by challenging the primacy in history accorded to economic or material forces by Communism. He said, “One may contend that economic motive is not the only motive by which man is actuated... That the social status of an individual by itself often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the sway that the Mahatmas have held over the common man.” He further asks, “Why do millionaires in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs? Why do millions of paupers in India sell their trifling trinkets, which constitute their only wealth, and go to Benares and Mecca? That religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India, where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such things as strikes and elections, so easily takes a religious turn and can so easily be given a religious twist.” B.R. Ambedkar said that his party would not, in any case, align with the Communist Party “for the plain reason that I do not believe in Communism” (BAWS Vol. 17, Part 1, Page 406).

Thus, for B.R. Ambedkar, Communism was a flawed product of modernism because it compromised liberty and fraternity at the cost of equality. Its dictatorship promised only equality at best, but even that promise would evaporate with the inevitable collapse of the dictatorship that sustained it. Communism was a colossus with feet of clay. Worse still, the change forced by Communist methods is necessarily impermanent and vanishes with its dictatorial power. This is because Communism does not have the means of eliminating the roots of private property, which are nourished by the delusion of self and avarice. One may infer from B.R. Ambedkar’s comments that so long as these psychological traits remain in man, the seeds of private interest and private property continue to germinate, whether within the proletariat, within the communist movement, or under the communist regime. Communism has no means of ending the delusion of self or of bringing about enduring changes in human feelings and psychology.