Mr Surinder Singh is the CEO of Satluj Network TV, based in Phoenix, Arizona. He also claims to be a filmmaker and a Journalist.
He has posted a video from the USA alleging
that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar identified himself as a Rajput in Volume 17, Part 2 of
his collected writings and speeches. According to Surinder Singh, this
assertion was an attempt by Dr Babasaheb to distance himself from the
Untouchables, thereby betraying them.
Furthermore, Surinder Singh makes a
startling claim that Dr Babasaheb’s four sisters are married to Brahmins due to
their Rajput status. However, he remains silent about his brother Anand Rao
Ambedkar's marriage.
Surinder Singh presents these claims as
groundbreaking revelations, seemingly reliant solely on a 13-page essay on page
137 of Volume 17, Part 2.
However, Dr Babasaheb's speeches and
writings are widely accessible, allowing anyone to verify Surinder Singh’s
allegations.
Initially, it seemed best to dismiss Surinder
Singh’s claims as baseless. However, given his public stature as an intelligent
and articulate individual, it is necessary to address his misinterpretations.
His understanding of Dr Babasaheb’s work lacks the depth expected from a
genuine intellectual, raising questions about his motives
The 13-page essay is about the Mahars: Who
were they, and how did they become the Untouchables? Based on this, Surinder
Singh has seized the opportunity with much forceful conviction and vigour to
frame Dr Babasaheb as a Rajput.
Since Singh’s assertions concern Dr Babasaheb
and my family, this response aims to clarify the matter.
Had Dr Babasaheb determined to establish
his Rajput or Khatri identity, he would have written an extensive book on the
subject rather than leaving behind only the 13-page document found and
published by the Indian government from his archived papers.
Surinder Singh seems to rely upon a missing
table on page 139, describing the mapping of ‘Kul’ (Gotra) amongst the
Mahars(Untouchables) and Marathas(Kshatriyas). He uses Dr Babasaheb's incisive research
and reasoning about the existence of 96 ‘Kuls’.
However, using Dr Babasaheb’s scholarly
research, Surinder Singh applies reverse engineering to accuse Dr Babasaheb of being
a Rajput. Not only that, but Surinder Singh also takes a further step to frame
Dr Babasaheb as anti-Untouchable, going to the extent of saying Dr Babasaheb
himself claims to be Rajput and who is actively distancing himself from
Untouchables by claiming higher Rajput status, thus accusing him of being the betrayer
of the Untouchables.
Surinder Singh may have his own sources regarding
the list of the 96 ‘kuls’. However, irrelevant to the present discussion, he
commits a heinous act and is guilty of distortion of truth by framing Dr
Babasaheb as a Rajput.
Dr Babasaheb admits there is no ‘Kul’ among
the Marathas, which is not to be found among the Mahars. But he also elucidates
that in a later period, the Mahars were made to live on the outskirts of Indian
villages, degraded and deemed Untouchable.
Surinder Singh apparently does not know who
the Mahars were at a point in ancient and medieval history or what they became
over time, so he deliberately ignores this aspect of Dr Babasaheb’s
explanation.
Claiming ancestral royal lineage does not
mean one retains that status indefinitely. Societal structures evolve, and Dr Babasaheb,
a pragmatic man, had to contend with the social reality of being born an
Untouchable. He never denied his Mahar identity but instead devoted his life to
dismantling caste oppression and Untouchability.
Dr Babasaheb’s 13-page essay discusses the
origins of untouchability concerning the Mahars, who once shared social
standing with the Marathas but later became Untouchable. Nowhere in this
discussion does he claim to be a Rajput in a contemporary context; instead, he
references ancient and medieval history in response to colonial-era historians.
In his book Who Were the Shudras, Dr
Babasaheb posits that Shudras were also Kshatriya at one time. Due to conflict
with the Brahmins, a section of the Shudras became socially degraded and formed
the 4th class of Chaturvarna.
In his book The Untouchables, he explores how
modern-day untouchables formed part of a homogenous whole in ancient society
before the advent of untouchability. Due to the conflict between Brahminism and
Buddhism, Buddhists living on the outskirts of Indian villages were relegated
to the status of Untouchables.
Dr Babasaheb does not claim in the essay
that he is a Rajput, but his broader analysis of ancient history shows that
Indian Society was once Homogenous.
Dr Babasaheb’s study investigated the racial
theory propounded by Colonial-era historians.
Seeing the diversity of people in India,
these historians constructed a racial theory to describe the diversity of the
Indian people, which Dr Babasaheb debunked.
Surinder Singh bypasses the status of
Untouchables in the modern setting that is in their ostracised and socially degraded
state.
Dr Babasaheb conjectures that Aboriginals,
modern-day Scheduled Tribes, may be Indigenous, but he was not sure. In Volume
2, Page 464, whilst giving evidence before the Indian Statutory
Commission on 23rd October 1928, Dr Babasaheb was asked a
question relating to the status of the Chamar, followed by the status of the
Mahar, to which Dr Babasaheb replied that both are Untouchable.
On page 465, a question relating to
Aboriginals was asked if they were pre-Aryan, to which Dr Babasaheb replied: Well, I do not know.
This shows that Dr Babasaheb was clear that
he belonged to the Mahar Untouchable caste and that he was an Untouchable.
Surinder Singh does not furnish any specific
reference in Dr Babasaheb’s writings to his alleged claim that Dr Babasaheb
wrote or said, ‘I am not B R Ambedkar, but I am B R Sakpal’.
None of the 20 online volumes of Writings
and Speeches published by the Government of Maharashtra mentions Sakpal.
Dr Babasaheb was born into the Mahar caste,
a historically oppressed Maharashtra community considered "Untouchable."
He never identified as a Rajput, and the claim that he wrote about being a
Rajput in Volume 17, Part 2 of his collected works is misleading. Dr Babasaheb
analysed various caste groups' origins but never denied his Untouchable
identity.
His entire life was dedicated to fighting
caste discrimination and untouchability, advocating for the rights of the Untouchables
as an Untouchable Mahar. If he had been from an upper-caste Rajput background,
there would have been no reason for him to experience the severe discrimination
he faced, such as being denied water in school or being forced to sit outside
the classroom.
In Volume 12, page 666, In a biographical
essay entitled Waiting for Visa, he writes
As children on a journey to meet their
father at Goregaon, the stationmaster asked who we were. Without a moment’s
thought, I blurted out that we were Mahars. (Mahar is one of the communities
treated as untouchables in the Bombay Presidency.)
On Page 673, when he returned to India in 1918 from his study in USA and London,
he writes that
My five-year stay in Europe and America
had completely wiped out of my mind any consciousness that I was an
Untouchable.
However, he was reminded of his Untouchable
status when he discovered he could not get accommodation anywhere in Baroda. Desperate,
he disguised himself as a Parsi to get accommodation at a Parsi Inn. When the
innkeeper later discovered he was not a Parsi but an Untouchable, he was
threatened with violence and thrown out of the Parsi Inn.
In Volume 7, Page 279, of his book, The Untouchables, published in
1948, he writes that
The Mahar community is a principal
Untouchable community in Maharashtra. It is the single largest Untouchable
community found in Maharashtra.
The idea that Mahars are Rajputs is based
on colonial-era theories and local legends rather than historical facts. While
some Mahars may have sought Kshatriya status to escape caste oppression, Dr Babasaheb
rejected caste hierarchies altogether. His writings consistently opposed the
caste system rather than seeking to place Mahars within the Rajput framework in
modern times.
The essay by Dr Babasaheb, referred to by
Surinder Singh in the video Volume17, Part 2, page 137, proceeds with the
anthropological approach by examining the ’kul’ or Gotra of the various clans
amongst the Marathas (Rajputs) and Mahars (Untouchables) and finds that ’Kuls’ overlap.
But this finding of overlapping ‘Kuls’ is
not confined to Mahars and Rajputs alone but is found amongst numerous clans
across India, including the Brahmins.
In Volume 7, Page 259, Dr Babasaheb writes
that Mahars are also to be found in Bengal.
Dr Babasaheb concluded that all races
co-mingled once in ancient history, and society was predominantly homogenous.
Later, conflict amongst the various clans led to some groups breaking off from
settled communities, leading to the emergence of untouchability.
This thesis is elaborated in his book The Untouchables,
published in 1948. In it, he refutes the racial origin of the Untouchables and
posits that they were originally Buddhist.
In volume 7, Pages 322-307, Dr Ambedkar
writes that
by the application of anthropometry to
the various strata of Hindu society disprove that the Untouchables belong to a
race different from the Aryans and the Dravidians. The measurements establish
that the Brahmin and the Untouchables belong to the same race.
In volume 17, part 2, page 142, he writes
that
the Mahars [sometime later] had become
fallen in status and were classed as Untouchables
Dr Babasaheb was born in 1891 and was
deemed an Untouchable at birth. So, he revolted against the system of
Untouchability in his capacity as an Untouchable, not as a Rajput. He did not
shun the Untouchables but fought throughout his life to champion their cause in
his capacity as an Untouchable.
It is worth recalling that the study of
‘Kul’ or Gotra in the context of social anthropology as the object of Dr Babasaheb’s
study is not new and thus not confined only to the 13 pages that Surinder Singh
references. Social anthropology is a running theme across many of Dr
Babasaheb’s speeches and writings.
As a student, Dr Babasaheb read a paper
entitled Castes In India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development before the
Anthropology seminar at Columbia University, New York, USA on 9th
May 1916.
In Volume 1, page 6, Dr Babasaheb writes
that in ancient India, society was homogeneous, and that Caste is a
parcelling of an already homogeneous unit. The genesis of Caste explains this
process of parcelling.
On page 9, Dr Babasaheb writes that
The various Gotras of India are and have
been exogamous(married outside Gotras), and so are the other groups with
totemic organization. It is no exaggeration to say that with the people of
India, exogamy (marrying outside the Gotra) is a creed, and none dare infringe
it, so much so that, despite the endogamy(marrying within) of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly
observed and that there are more rigorous penalties for violating exogamy than
there are for violating endogamy. You will, therefore, readily see that with
exogamy as the rule, there could be no Caste, for exogamy means fusion. But we
have castes; consequently, in the final analysis, the creation of Castes, so
far as India is concerned, means the superposition of endogamy (marriage within
caste) on exogamy (marriage outside Gotras)
Surinder Singh presents no credible
evidence to show that Dr Babasaheb’s sisters married Brahmins or Rajputs. Surnames across different castes overlap,
which cannot be used as the criteria.
The subject of The Poona Pact (1932) was
not a betrayal but a compromise forced upon Dr Babasaheb due to Gandhi’s fast
to death. Dr Babasaheb initially demanded separate electorates for the Untouchables
to ensure their independent political representation. However, under immense
pressure, he agreed to reserve seats instead to prevent Gandhi’s death. Despite
this, Dr Babasaheb later expressed dissatisfaction with the agreement, recognising
its limitations, but he remained committed to Untouchable’s rights through
constitutional means. Indeed, he continued to demand Separate Electorates for
the Untouchables well into the 1940s.
Dr Babasaheb never attempted to escape
caste discrimination by claiming to be part of Rajput, as alleged by Surinder
Singh.
Instead, Dr Babasaheb strongly opposed
caste-based oppression and worked to annihilate the caste system. His
conversion to Buddhism in 1956 directly rejected Hindu caste structures. If he
had sought to assimilate into an upper-caste identity, he would not have led
the mass conversion of Untouchables to Buddhism.
Nowhere did Dr Babasaheb say: ‘I do not
belong to those Untouchables or scheduled castes. I have not attached to those
castes that do not fall under Rajputs’.
Conclusion
Surinder Singh’s video deliberately distorts
historical facts and misrepresents Dr Babasaheb’s legacy. His claims are
unfounded and attempt to delegitimize Dr Babasaheb’s contributions to social
justice.
Surinder Singh conflates anthropology,
history, and caste politics while ignoring the lived realities of the Untouchables
in the 20th century. His video is a deliberate act of misinformation aimed at
misleading the public.
Surinder Singh is guilty of distortion of
truth by publishing the video, a deliberate effort to malign, misrepresent, and
misinform the public.
Dr Babasaheb was the undisputed leader of
the Untouchables, dedicating his life to their emancipation. Attempts to frame
him as Khatri Rajput seeking to escape his identity are not only misleading but
an insult to his lifelong struggle.
Surinder Singh is reminded that today’s
so-called former Untouchables are better educated and informed to confront diabolical
contrivances, as his video depicts.
Date: 4/2/2025
No comments:
Post a Comment