Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2015 > An Open letter to Dr Shashi Tharoor

Mainstream, VOL LIII No 40, New Delhi, September 26, 2015

An Open letter to Dr Shashi Tharoor

Monday 28 September 2015, by A K Biswas


Dear Dr Shashi Tharoor,

 Your speech, driven both by facts and thoughts, in Oxford University Union on July 22, 2015 on a motion Britain does owe reparations to India, has stirred up millions of Indians at home and abroad with patriotic fervour and admiration. But this is likely to provoke areas that are equally impelling to warrant thoughts for consideration.

Let me elaborate the points to drive home the inherent dichotomy. A section—essentially the most influential one—will (or should) be deeply embarrassed if Britain even hypothetically accedes to the demand articulated by you. Most of the powerful figures in socio-cultural-political spheres owe their eminence to mindless, if not shameless, loyalty to sub-serve the British causes and interests during the long course of the colonial domination. A colourful tapestry of forgetfulness over public memory regarding their misdeeds and mischief against the country has provided them respite from uproarious public condem-nation and denouncement. A few historical instances of cataclysmic incidents may highlight the real import of their role of treachery.

Your critical reference to ‘Robert Clive of India’ and his ‘loot’, though very apt, our intellectual class, however, is, for reasons not very transparent, shy about a historical fact of Clive’s generosity towards an eminent Indian to place on record for public knowledge or reference. Clive was nothing more than an incidental factor in laying the foundation of the British Empire in the mango groves of Plassey in West Bengal’s Nadia district. Focus on the tallest of the conspirators who had collaborated and successfully facilitated the British conquest leading to the establishment of their Indian Empire is starkly wanting. The East India Company was pretty content with the oppor-tunity for commercial operations and trade in Bengal. Universally every regime had or will have a handful of powerful favourites as well as disgruntled elements. The Court of Siraj-Ud-Daulla was no exception consequent upon his assertion of authority for tightening his grip over the affairs of state. A feudal lord of Nadia, Krishna Chandra Roy, advised a body of disgruntled men for “inviting the English to take the government into their hands”. This has been recorded in 1803 by biographer Rajiv Lochan Bandopadhyay who was a descendant of the dynasty of Krishna Chandra. Consequent upon the fall of Siraj-Ud-Daulla, Lord Clive presented twelve guns to Krishna Chandra Roy, “in recognition of the services rendered by him”. This was an extraordinary gesture. Those guns were used in the battle of Plassey. Obviously these devastating firearms were the rewards of no mean service. Krishna Chandra was the tallest and strongest pillar of support for establishment of the British Empire in 1757.

May we ask whether the gift of those lethal weapons to Krishna Chandra Roy was part of the ‘reparations’ the British paid right after the battle of Plassey and or a ‘share of the loot’ Clive is accused of committing? Haven’t India thereby forfeited its claim for further reparations from Britain? A nation that doesn’t condemn a traitor is also a collaborator or co-founder of a colonial empire. He was a friend, who helped the East India Company to subjugate India. The British collaborator is an outright enemy of India.

Why this culture of deafening silence surrounding the diabolical role played by Krishna Chandra Roy? As the universal head of the Hindu society of Bengal, he had unleashed a reign of terror. “Rajah Krishna Chunder Roy, in the latter part of 18th century, used to restore persons and families who had forfeited their caste by their latches by recovering from them a heavy fine for which there used to be haggling. This fine was in addition to the expenses incidental to the ceremony of prayaschitta.” The wealthy Tagores of Jorasanko, Calcutta had offered a sum of rupees five lakhs to Krishna Chandra Roy for favour of a visit to their residence but he declined. He had prohibited the Tagores from wearing the sacred Brahminical chord (janau) tough they too, like Raja Ram-mohan Roy were descendants of Bhattanarayan.

Robert Clive had conferred on Krishna Chandra the title of Rajendra Bahadur. Besides, he exercised his political influence on the Mughal Emperor to confer the title of Maharaja on this zamindar. Our scholars do not take Rajiv Lochan Bandopadhyay seriously. But that the guns were positioned strategically in the Rajbari at Krishna Nagar for public exhibition till the last day of colonial rule in India is no fiction. This is a historical truth. William Hunter, the most meticulous chronicler of the Indian Empire, recorded these facts in the Statistical Account of Bengal (vol. II) in 1875.

Feudal lords apart, the British had strange suitors. In 1803 when the British Army, con-quering Orissa, reached the gates of Jagannath temple at Puri, a delegation of priests met Lieutenant Colonel Campbell and conveyed to him an ‘oracle’ of the Lord of the Universe for handing over its management. The ‘nation of traders’, as Nappolean ridiculed the British, was too eager to take over the management of the temple which was almost like a mint. They levied tax on pilgrims resorting to Puri and paid salaries regularly to the pandas, priests and devadasis.

Lord Krishna’s solemn assurance to the Hindus in the holy Gita was to the effect that as and when their ‘dharma’ would be in danger, He would emerge as the defender of the devotees and faithful. The shrine though is the residence of Krishna, his elder brother Balabhadra and sister Subhadra went under British control and management. In compliance of His assurance to his faithful, Krishna did not appear with his chakra to defend even his own home and the dignity of his kith and kin. Outrageous though, it did not appear to Him that there has been any ‘glani’ or insult or indignity to the Hindu religious sentiments, is it correct?

So Dr Tharoor, how do you justify your claim for reparations from the same colonial rulers? When Lord Jagannath, who is the avatar of great Lord Vishnu, has failed the Hindu, how does your claim for reparations have leg to stand? If anyone believes that the mischief of the priests should not be taken as true reflection of Lord Jagannath, then why didn’t the devoted and faithful Hindus denounce and blacklist them for their misdeeds?

Between 1803 and 1841 poll taxes were collected and the major share of it went into the Company’s coffers. Besides Puri, pilgrim tax was collected in Gaya, Prayag as also Tirupati. The pandas, also called gayawals of Gaya, who perform pindadan for final salvation of wandering souls of dead fathers and forefathers of Hindus on the banks of the river Falgu, stood by the East India Company during the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857 with manpower for boosting up the safety and security of the government. With these traitors and fifth columnists, including gods, or their agents licking the boots of the British, how justified are you, sir, I wonder, to demand reparations?

The British authorities sanctioned Royal Salute for the maharaja of Gwalior, 13 gun salutes for the maharaja of Burdwan for their unflinching loyalty and impressive contribution during the Sepoy Mutiny. The maharaja of Darbhanga, maharaja of Bettia, maharaja of Hathua, raja of Benares, raja of Tikari (Gaya), raja Joykrishna Mukherjee of Uttarpara, Hooghly, to note a few, received favours from the alien rulers for their loyalty and contribution towards them. So, can the claim for reparations stand on its leg justifiably? What they did to sustain the colonial rule was pure treachery against India.

Dr Tharoor, your statement is that when the colonialists left, India’s literacy was just 16 per cent which is diagnosed as the fundamental reason for our backwardness. But this warrants some introspection. The Compulsory Primary Education Bill 1911, tabled by Gopal Krishna Gokhale in the Central Legislative Council of the Governor-General, has occupied—unjustifiably as well as undeservingly—huge spaces in historical discourses. The following stipulation occupied the heart and soul of Gokhale’s Bill: “In any area, where 33 per cent of the male population is already at school, there this principle of compulsion should be applied.” (Italicised by this writer) Who were to benefit if this principle was applied? First of all females were altogether excluded by the great leader. The compulsion, if passed, as a law and enforced could benefit perhaps few urban centres, for example, Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Poona, Dhaka, Cuttack, Karachi, Lahore etc. Who could reap the advantage of compulsion in the given framework?

Let me point out, by 1911 Bengal, which was ahead in educational progress, presented a picture of peculiar interest for appreciation. W. H. Thompson, Superintendent of Census Operations of Bengal had observed that “The extent of literacy among males of the bhadralok seems to have reached its limit.” As an alumni of St Xavier College, Calcutta, you, I guess, need no elucidation of word ‘bhadralok’, who actually is an exclusive caste club for Brahmans, Baidyas and Kayasthas. The official, however, underlined that in the case of all three the last decade (1901-1911) “has shown great progress” in female education. Speaking factually, this self-styled bhadralok club did everything to frustrate the educational aspirations of all others in Bengal. The opponents of the Gokhale education bill were Sir Surendra Nath Banerjea whereas Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Madan Mohan Malviya extended their support.

And ahead of Gokhale, coincidentally, M.K. Gandhi appeared on the scene as the icing on the cake. In his Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, he displayed his inner self in 1909, “The ordinary meaning of education is knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education. A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary knowledge of the world. But he cannot write his own name. What do you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to his happiness? is not necessary to make this education compulsory. Our ancient school system is enough..... We consider your modern school to be useless.” The avatar of peace, swadeshi and non-violence consigned the issue of education for the masses to the abyss of darkness and ignorance. Could a greater violence to human progress and national prosperity be inflicted non-violently than what the Father of the Nation did? The beneficiaries had all good reasons to project him for the nation as what they did after his obscurantist, malefic outburst against education for the masses.

So, when an American journalist wanted to point her finger to the pitfalls in the preachings of some of such tall leaders, she was dismissed as anti-Indian and lackey of imperialism. She wrote, “[......] if Indian self-government were established tomorrow, and if wealth rushed in, succeeding poverty in the land, India, unless she reversed her own views as to her ‘untouchables’ and as to her women, must still continue in the frontline the earth’s illiterates....” [Italicised by this writer] This was Katherine Mayo, an erudite scholar. You know the intrinsic importance of Mayo’s warning and the guideline for emancipation of India. The Indian attitude either to her untouchables or to her women has not changed at all. The untouchables have been rechristened as Scheduled Castes whom Gandhiji disgraced and disenfranchised millions by terming them as harijan, a word that actually means a bastard whose mother is without morality.

The British educational policy, based on the Down Filtration Theory, was propounded by Charles Woods in 1854. The fundamental idea behind the theory implies that the upper layer of the Indian society, when educated, would allow education to percolate down to the lower levels and thus educate and elevate them. In Britain this principle worked successfully. But Britain was not India and what succeeded there had no chance to be fruitful on Indian soil. Caste proved the solid and impenetrable obstacle impeding the filtration of education from the upper layer to the lower social layers. Rev. Lal Behari Day, an intellectual stalwart of nineteenth century Bengal, had sarcastically observed that “the Brahminical filter was hermetically sealed” and it never allowed a drop of knowledge to perco-late downwards. Vidyasagar, the legendary educationist and social reformer, on September 29,1859 addressed a letter to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, John Peter Grant, advising the government to confine official efforts to “the education of the higher classes on a compre-hensive scale”. “The higher classes” is an euphemism for the bhadralok in Bengal. When India’s celebrated educationists and social reformers are against the masses of their own countrymen, can universal education avert colossal disaster? Today in the name of compulsory education, a set of sophisticated men in the HRD Ministry has been making every effort to keep the masses steeped in the blinding darkness of ignorance perpetually without tampering with ear-shattering sound and fury. How can you really make 16 per cent literacy a case against the British for reparation? By denying education, a microscopic minority has committed a crime against the masses who have justification to demand reparations.

Mulakkaram, breast tax, the eternal shame of God’s own country Nangeli of Cherthala

There are tons of truth in your claim that British depredations and exploitation provided the base for the industrial revolution during 200 years of colonial rule. A distinguished native and people’s representative from God’s own country, your goodself are well aware of the unprecedented moral depravity over the mulakkaram levied from untouchable women in the Travancore kingdom till 1803. The rank shameless and greed of the Travancore kings under the wicked advice of the Brahmans had no parallel. The common man was subjected to hundreds of taxes for sporting a moustache, resorting to fishing, using a fishing net, wearing jewelleries, trading in pepper, spices. Flaunting moustache, which symbolised prestige, by a low-caste man offended the upper castes! ”The upper classes were perpetually exempted from paying these taxes, as the primary motive was to create the lower caste’s subjugation by keeping them in an eternal debt........” This reminds us of your brave words in the Oxford University debate that Britain does owe reparations. The upper-caste wealth, riches and aristocracy were built on the toil and tear of the lower castes.

Sacrifice of an untouchable Ezhava girl over Mulakkaram, breast tax 

Nangeli was a Ezhava woman lived in the early 18th century at Cherthala in the erstwhile princely state of Travancore which levied obnoxious tax on untouchable women for covering their breast. In Malayali, this tax was called Mulakkaram, which the Travancore king-dom made compulsory. It mandated untou-chable women to go before upper caste men without any shred of cloth over their upper part of the body. To cover their bosom was considered as immodesty. A tax was levied from the untouchable women if they covered their breasts. Nangeli challenged the royal law of mulakkaram during Maharaja Avittom Thirunal Balarama Varma (1798—1810). She refused to uncover her bosom as well as to pay the tax. When a shameless pravathiyar (village officer) of the Travancore raj asked her to pay tax, she chopped off her breasts and presented them in a plantain leaf to him. This tax was ritualistically paid on plantain leaf. Profuse blood loss led her to death soon. This occurred in 1803. Nangeli’s husband Chirukandan jumped into his wife’s pyre and committed suicide with her on her pyre. Terrified and apprehensive of widespread adverse public reaction and consequences, Maharaja of Travancore abolished the breast tax the next day by a royal proclamation after Nangeli’s death. The shame of the wicked dynasty could be glossed only by a soulful name of Malabar as God’s own country. According to The Hindu, October 21, 2013 “the heavy taxes ensured that the lower castes were kept eternally in debt, while members of the upper castes flourished”. The lower castes, therefore, paid for their own exploitation, degra-dation, dehumanisation at the hands of the upper castes as you accused the colonial rulers that “We literally paid for our own oppression.”

Didn’t The Hindu assertion sound that the Malabari upper-caste Hindus’ biggest “cash cow” were the untouchables and low castes exactly as you alluded to India as “Britain’s biggest cash cow”? Their impoverishment was the cause of upper-caste nourishment and prosperity through systematic exploitation—physical, financial and moral—of the lower castes of India in the same way, as you expounded your thesis that “Britain’s Industrial Revolution was based on the systematic deindustrialisation of India”?

In 1897 Vivekanada accused that “..........Malabaris are all lunatics, their homes so many lunatic asylums and they are to be treated with derision by every race in India until they mend their manners and know better. Shame upon them that such wicked and diabolical customs are allowed.” Oppression of the low and untouchable castes, though common all over India, Kerala marched ahead over others.

What the Brahminical religion, culture and norms or rituals did was more than enslavement of the lower castes. They were subjugated physically, crippled morally, corrupted ethically, and stunted psychologically by drilling a sense of perpetual inferiority into their psyche. Religion became a heinous weapon for blackmailing and inflicting trauma. See how a coat of religiosity was applied to brutal exploitation for the benefit of the upper castes by a man Indians worship as Mahatma: “The Sudra, who only serves (the higher castes) as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property, who indeed has not even ambition to own anything, is deserving of thousands obeisance. The very Gods will shower down flowers on him.”

What an attempt to inculcate a belief that “God will shower down flowers on him” if he remained a slave all through the ages. The ancient lawgiver Manu by saying that “A priest may with confidence take away any possession from a servant (Sudra); for since nothing at all belongs to him as his own, his property can be taken away by his master” (Manu 8.417) could not match Gandhi. His dose further runs: “Those who educate Sudras and women will go to hell.” (Manu 3.156). Hindus are mortally afraid of hell. Since childhood, tens of thousands of children in Bengal must have seen imaginative photos of hell showing men and women being diabolically tortured for misdeeds and mischief. Nevertheless, the vile lawgiver Manu looks a like lamb before the Mahatma in wolf’s clothing. Nobody calls Manu a friend of the untouchables. Gandhi went to London and made the grotesque declaration in the Round Table Conference that he alone represented the interests of the untouchables!

Hindus lack Conscience

Historians note that Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the USA (March 4, 1801-March 4, 1809) oddly was ‘the first to suggest making reparations to black slaves’. He owned hundreds of slaves and freed only a few of them. Jefferson inherited approximately 5000 acres (2000 ha; 7.8 sqmi) of land at the age at 21. As a wealthy slave owner, he used slave labour to run his household, plantation, tobacco fields, and various shops. Over the course of his life Jefferson owned some 600 slaves, buying and selling them as necessary for the management of his affairs, and maintaining about 130 at any one time. Nevertheless, he displayed a wonderful streak of human warmth and magnanimity towards the Negros. In fact, he was referred as “Negros President” who on March 2, 1807, signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves into law effective from January 1, 1808. Import and export of slaves were made a federal crime, the first step towards their ultimate emancipation some 54 years later.

Often the US Blacks are compared to India’s Scheduled Castes, the euphemism for untouc-hables. Indian rulers and administrators place apartheid and untouchability at par. But these two are incomparable and hence such an attempt is sinister. Apartheid is vastly different from untouchability. Slavery was the result of a law made by man. Untouchability was crafted into scriptures Hindus hold in unassailable esteem. Manumission was approved in law for emancipation of the Negro slaves. India’s Manu’s mission for Hindus was to keep slaves in perpetuity under the garb of untouchability for their benefit in general and that of Brahmans in particular. “He (Brahman) may make a servant (Sudra) do the work of a slave, whether bought or not bought, for the self-existent one created him to be the slave of the priest.” (Manu 8.413) What an iron-cast arrangement for privilege the lawgiver made for the Brahmans! Alongside this also read his further ordinance, “Those who educate Sudras and women will go to hell.” (Manu 3.156) This ordinance prohibits the educators or teachers against giving knowledge of letters to Sudras and women. The vengeful orthodox preceptor holds out the fear of hell to the Hindus who would venture to teach any of the categories of people banned getting education at all. The Hindu hell is a dangerous place to imagine. So none would risk going there. The fictitious heaven, on the other hand, is a place packed with all good things necessary for pleasure and happiness.

 Dr Ambedkar had, therefore, diagnosed the disease and prescribed the antidote for cure. The case of Nangeli had amply demonstrated over two centuries ago that the objective of caste is to yield benefits to the upper strata in the social hierarchy. In the process, the caste-lords never hesitated to inflict injury to the soul, to the dignity and self-respect of the whole community of the victim. Every Hindu, bereft of shame, sensitivity or public censor, feels as if he possesses a license that authorises him to harm the lower strata in any way, howsoever ignoble, heinous, brutal or barbarous the intended action might be. The enlightened or the illiterate, the wise and the idiot, all stand on the same footing in attitudinal hostility towards the lowest in the caste pyramid. This they gained from the scriptures which they hold as infallible. This faith of infallibility to the Shastaras has turned them into mindless and thoughtless robots. Dr Ambedkar’s prescription is as follows: “The enemy, you must grapple with, is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste....... The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. ... People will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded.” 1

You are aware of the reparations agreement between Israel and West Germany on September 10, 1952 under which West Germany was to pay Israel for the slave labour and persecution of the Jews during the holocaust, and to compensate for Jewish property that was stolen by the Nazis.

Between 1935 and 1945, about six million Jews were exterminated under Nazi command. This is holocaust. Hindu scriptures sanctify caste horror for eternity. Human power cannot interfere, abridge or amend or repeal the Shastras. It bestows on the beneficiary the freedom to draw the quantum of blood he needs. In 2007, the US Congress’ Concurrent Resolution condemned caste atrocities and urged India to end Dalit atrocities. The European Union too adopted a similar resolution appealing to end caste atrocities, discrimination and deprivation. The British Parliament has enacted a law to end caste-based discrimination, which is rampant there. But when the David Cameron Government suddenly became caste-blind, it shelved the enforcement of the equality law in 2010 to appease Hindus who are in minority in comparison to the Dalits there, placing the Hindus under a mountain of gratitude. Caste has now a fertile overseas home under the protective care of the erstwhile colony.

 Some of the Indians try to project that caste was a creation of the British rulers. Sir, this is nothing short of insinuation against the transcendental intelligence and spiritualism of Hinduism. To concede to such view will mean that the Vedas, Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Purana, Shastra, one and all, will fall under the surgical knife for desertion like carcass. This may upset the whole Hindu scheme of caste. Long, long before the British landed on Indian soil, caste was in full bloom inflicting horrors of atrocities on the untouchables in the name of scriptures in a manner far worse than that Hitler committed on the Jews during a brief period of history. Persecution against the untouchables unleashed by the Hindus bears no parallel anywhere in the globe. Hitler earned universal condemnation whereas there is none for the Hindus for their hatred against the untouchables.

Denial of education has regimented men and women in tens of millions agelessly and frustrated from blooming their potential fully to make life meaningful and lead an honourable existence. The loss as a result has been not only to him/her but the country has been deprived of his significant contributions to the society.

Computation of reparations for the African Americans is not yet an easy task. Some attempts in that direction suggest that on account of ‘stolen labour’ for 70 years between 1790 and 1860, it has been computed at $ 62.9 trillion for 2 million labours. Physical torture, oppression, rape and murder, psychological trauma besides denial of right to equality and dignity or opposition against their upward mobility in life have not been taken into account for determining reparations. So in money value @ 63 rupees per dollar reparations are equivalent to Rs 3962.7 trillion. The African-American in 2010 were 38.9 million. The untouchables in India were always more populous than the African Americans. The reparations for the ex-untouchables will be far larger. In 2011, the SC population was 166,635,700, that is, 16.2 per cent of India whereas the tribals accounted for 88,326,240 souls (8.2 per cent). The demographic figures pertaining to SCs and STs suffer mindless manipulation, distortion or fudging at the hands of officials entrusted to enumeration for political, financial and social reasons. Honesty or integrity fail them to present the truthful picture on data. This was highlighted by a Member of the Constituent Assembly when drafting the Consti-tution of India was engaging the attention of the august House over seven decades back.

I think you will agree with me that computation of reparations for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is a more tricky and time-consuming process. An international organisation, like the International Human Rights Commission, can be approached for doing this job. This is too important to be left to Indian hands. The Hindus do not admit caste-based discrimination and untouchability in any international forum because that will bring them face to face with their scripture that sanctify these sins against a vast sea of humanity. At the Durban Conference their delegation told lies and was booed and jeered by the participants from across the world. The then government had picked up a junior Minister of the MEA belonging to a minority community to lie for the Hindus.

Kanti (Chandra) Biswas, a Minister for well over two decades of the Left Front, was greeted with orthodoxy marked by calibrated brahminical venom when the education portfolio was allocated to him in West Bengal. After being sworn in as a Minister, one day Comrade Promode Dasgupta of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) handed over to Biswas some 400 letters he had received in the Party office from across the State. One of the writers of those letters was a Brahman of Bhatpara, the cesspool of brahminical prejudice, and he said Bengal would not get education from a Chandal. The letter-writer’s fervent plea to the CPM boss was to divest the Chandal of the State’s education portfolio. The Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Prof Murli Manohar Joshi, once at a meeting of Education Ministers suddenly attacked Kanti Biswas because he was the best and most successful of all the State Ministers in handling the education portfolio. The reason of his ire was that though a Brahman, Biswas, he alleged, had obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate to harvest political profit. According to Joshi, only a Brahman could render a creditable account as a Minister as Kanti had achieved!

An 80-year-old Dalit was stoned to death in Sasarama district of Bihar for hoisting the national flag on August 15, 2013. Nothing will happen to the murderers who committed the heinous crime. As murderers of a powerful caste they will see to it that the favours of police, administrative machinery and judiciary were tilted towards the beasts. In Bihar upper-caste convicts of Dalit massacres by Ranveer Sena have been acquitted recently on a flimsy ground by the Patna High Court. Every Dalit there knows that the Division Bench that acquitted the murderers had a judge belonging to the community of the barbarous Sena. The judiciary’s ability to dispense evenhanded justice for all is thus in deep doubt.

 Dr Tharoor, the country has no case for reparations from the UK. The traitors and collaborators, the priests and pandas who sold their gods for benefits will come to occupy the centre-stage of history so far kept under wraps by our intellectual classes.

Rather I will urge you to employ your erudite gift of the gab to articulate the case of reparations for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes as loudly and effectively as you did in the Oxford University Union in July 2015.

With regards and good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Dr A.K. Biswas
(A retired IAS officer and Former Vice-Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar)


  • Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 68.

A retired IAS officer and former Vice-Chancellor, B. R. Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, the author can be contacted at biswasatulk@

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.