Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

Babasaheb is a term of veneration, and Google searches make clear it does not also happen to be his name. Even Jesus Christ is only a redirect to Jesus, and IMO the only reason we have to put up with Mahatma Gandhi as a title is that ignorant Westerners would get confused and probably think M.K. Gandhi was one of Sonia Gandhi's kids.

As a whole, the article is sufficiently hagiographic, and defensive about his qualifications, that it IMO compromises its accessibility and probably ends up preaching to the choir. The repeated use of "Depressed Classes" without a link or definition is another symptom of this. The wording "intended to be treated as human beings", an exaggerated POV slogan of resentment rather than conveying any objective information about the (shocking) grounds for resentment is yet another.

(This article is IMO presently headed for being gutted because of its unencyclopedicity. I also hate to see wasted effort, but personally (not as an editor) i feel the most unfortunate aspect of that is that a more encyclopedic article would be more effective in recruiting public opinion to his cause than this one will be.)
--Jerzy(t) 09:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Completely agree about Babasaheb, but I couldn't see how to alter the existing title of the stub. This needs to get done. My original article was I think NPOV, but I hadn't looked at it for a while. It's a bit difficult to keep the Ambedkarite faction in check, if that's what it is. Please be bold and re-edit as you wish. Shantavira 10:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree on the article being full of POV stuff and non-encyclopaedic. Not sure if I agree on a move to change the title. It's hard to believe Mahatma Gandhi is the only such article (with a term of veneration in the title). How about Mother Teresa? Of course, I'm not even getting into royalty, Christian saints and the like. IMO, the reason is that Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu is known worldwide as Mother Teresa. And if Babasaheb Ambedkar is more popular (on Google, say) than Bhimrao Ambedkar, why not stick with the current title? Ambarish | Talk 12:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I added this article, early this UTC day, to Cleanup, noting that the change of title needs (if loss of history is to be avoided) action by a sysop.

Mother Teresa is indeed another good example. FWIW, i am less bothered by her, royalty and the ancient saints and saint-equivalents of all traditions, for distinct reasons:

• Mother T, and the monarchs of more than a few generations vintage, have other names, but virtually everything about them that we still care about was done in interaction with people who had stopped even thinking of them by their original names. And while Mother and King do have "venerative force", if you will, they are also definite functional roles as well, diluting that problematic effect IMO.
• Saint George and Sri Krishna are figures that i assume to have no verifiable history, but more importantly, whether they do or not really only matters to the people who venerate them: their bios are IMO pseudo-bios whose substance is philosophical rather than historical, and i would, for instance, have no strong objection to Sri Krishna as a title, especially since i am aware of historical figures with names like Krishna Menon and (hmm...) Ramakrishna (?).
• Altho there are plenty of official saints with some verifiable history, some of them not only are usually called "St. ...", but also can't be clearly identified without the word. (Francis of Assisi is as well recognized as St. Francis of Assisi, and i am pleased that the non-PoV version is the article title. But, for instance St. Lawrence may be necessary; IMO e.g. Lawrence of the gridiron would be silly and less effective.)

As to the suggestion of keeping the title of veneration in this article's title,

1. My brief Google test was impressionistic, but "Babasaheb" certainly was not the overwhelming choice, and Web pages with may be less common than without it;
2. Even if it is/were overwhelming, i think it is clear that that would be because people whose PoV makes them venerate him are disproportionately interested in him and creating more pages.
3. IMO it is a fact that the term is widely but not universally used, and that it is not necessary to identify him. I happen to think he deserves veneration more than, say Indira Gandhi, but that's PoV, and i favor keeping PoV's like mine out of article titles whenever possible, if only to keep as clear as possible our commitment to NPoV as being crucial to our mission.

IMO, the article should acknowledge what the most used term of veneration is, but not pretend it is necessary to identify him or actually part of his name; i didn't do a thorough edit, but that was one area where i made a change.
--Jerzy(t) 18:42, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Since I am fairly new at this, I won't edit myself, but I think the first line of the article should use the term Dalit rather than Untouchable

Edits on 4 September 2005

Hi, am reverting the last edits by the user Nirav.Maurya to his previous edit because there is no reason why the section 22 vows should be removed. IMO it may be a better idea to list a section deletion on talk page before doing so. His first edit on the same date rewrites a lot on the relation between Mahatma Gandhi and Ambedkar but references are absent. However, I have not made any modifications to it; Yet, i am mentioning it here so that someone may fix it. ---Gurubrahma 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

- The Gandhi-Ambedkar reference is from Rajmohan Gandhi's book "Patel: A Life." The reference has been added. - Nirav Maurya

Neutrality Problem

Dear All,

This article is posing a problem in my point of view over its well-pointed out criticism of Hinduism and Hindu society.

Its fine with me if Ambedkar believed Hinduism was no good. Its his own right. But this article comes across more as an anti-Hinduism page than a biography of Ambedkar.

ALSO, please refer to "Patel: A Life" by Rajmohan Gandhi for its discussion of the Yeravda Pact discussions. It was entirely incorrect to present Gandhi and the Congress Party as untouchable-baiters, while Ambedkar as some sort of hero for not recognizing the British "Divide and Rule" Policy.

What specific points would you like changed? - Nat Krause 20:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The 22 vows

What is reason to dispute the neutrality of the article or 22 vows ? Is it because, the most barbaric Hindu religion is unmasked ? Is it because there is fear among the Brahmanic class of Hindus that downtroddens will realise their slavery and will break the shackles of slavery ?

The divine slavery is given utmost protection by the Hindu gods (as mentioned in the vow Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh etc), scriptures. Can someone point to me that which Hindu God has opposed the divine slavery ? The divine slavery is practised not for few decades but more than 3000 years treating the downtrodden man worst than an animal. If the atrocities on the downtrodden masses were raised in Human Rights court, no doubt the severest of the punishment would be awarded to the oppresor Brahmanic classes. Well, few members have mentioned Babasaheb's views are anti-Hindu. Just to tell you, can someone show me a learned man like Babasaheb as Social reformer, Economist, lawyer etc. till date ? He has provide ample evidence in his "Writings and speeches volumes" and no one has dared to challenge writings till date. It is because of the 22 vows that the ideology of Babasaheb Ambedkar cannot be diluted by the Brahmanic media. The 22 vows are a great inspiration to the anyone who opposes caste system, untouchability and believes in liberty, equality and fraternity. Each vow can be tested with evidence, and more tests will bring out the ugliness of barbaric Hinduism. Hence POV of article is neutral and is nothing but truth. Suspecting neutrality of the article would be a great suppression of truth. --NishiU

I have no problem with the fact that Ambedkar didn't like Hinduism. It's totally his own point of view. However, since this article is regarding his life, not his point of view, the 22 vows should be removed from here. Does this 22 vows have some mystical importance, which deserve to clog up the space? There are so many things that Ambedkar wrote and why just 22 vows are shown here....why not all other work of Ambedkar. I demand, if 22 vows can have a place in this article, then each and every article of Dr. Ambedkar should appear here. I know, I know, I am being unrealistic, :) but I am trying to make a point here. I guess you understand.

This article is not about Hinduism and publishing biased information is not going to take us anywhere. If one view is published, then the other view does deserve to be published.

Finally, wanna keep the 22 vows, then why not all works of Ambedkar? Peace.

Among the vows, the vows 1-6, 8 & 19 can be construed as against the practices of Hinduism where as the others are more general in nature. The 22 vows are important because among the people who converted to Buddhism along with Ambedkar, most of them were illiterate and these vows were viewed as a mechanism to make it simple for them to understand why they and Ambedkar are renouncing Hinduism. IMHO, the article is not against Hinduism, but against some practices. At another level, the 22 vows reflect the great antipathy Ambedkar had for Hinduism; an exposure to these vows would hopefully let the reader judge Ambedkar's biases objectively. It may also help in giving some insights if Ambedkar became a Buddhist because he was pro-Buddha or anti-Hindu (my two cents is that it is an interaction effect). -- Gurubrahma 06:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted these as an apparent direct copy from this site: http://www.ambedkar.org/

I've a feeling a lot of other material in this article is also copied from the same site.--FRS 00:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Having read the article carefully and compared it to the biographical material at http://www.ambedkar.org/ , I didn't find any more copyvio problems. I cleaned up the article a little, and now find it pretty unobjectionable from a PoV standpoint; what are the objections to taking down the PoV dispute flag?--FRS 17:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I hv just noticed your edits (as stated above by you) where you deleted a section titled "22 vows" stating that it is copyvio. However, facts are never copyvio. For example, if I copy the list of Ten Commandments from a website, it would still not be copyvio as the list of commandments is accepted as a fact. Hence, I'd be reverting your edits. --Gurubrahma 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, although "facts" are not subject to copyright, the "expression" of facts most definitely is. You have reattached over 300 words literally copied from here http://www.ambedkar.org/ without apparent permisssion of the copyright holder. Unless you have permission or it could be construed as "fair use", I believe it to be a copyvio. (By the way, the "Ten Commandments" are not subject to copyright because of their age, not because they are "facts.")

But even if the copyright status was resolved in favor of your position, it's my firm opinion that inclusion of all this copied material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, if you want to compose a summary of what the 22 vows are about, and how they relate to the subject's overall life and times, that would be most welcome.

You also reverted out without comment a number of other edits that, imo, made the article more appropriately NPOV.

I'll wait a reasonable time for you and others to comment, but my position is that this version of the article[[1]] is much preferable to what you reverted to. --FRS 17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, let me deal with the issues you raised in the reverse order. 1) While some of your copy-edit is good, you have removed information about his editing of a newspaper etc and other information about early life. It is wrong to say that I have not commented - look at the edit summary. 2) As far as the question of 22 vows being UE goes, there was a discussion on the talkpage and if u have viewpoints to profer, that would be the place (Pls. see the issues I have raised there). If I summarise 22 vows it wd be my POV. If I leave them as they are, ppl. can make their own inferences. 3) As far as the final issue of copyright goes, pls. look at [[2]], [[3]] - the first quoting 22 vows as they were taken and the second, refering to 22 vows at a later date. Just as Ten commandments would mean the same wording with the same meaning and the same sequence, 22 vows also remain the same. And you are mistaken abt "Ten Commandments" not being facts (facts in the sense of generally accepted wisdom) - you may ask a trusted editor. Finally, do not make statements such as "literally copied" as at least another website has the same info as well as some pamphlets and books. Why not check the reference you have added or some other book? Pls. assume good faith from editors who have been around for much longer, hail from the context that they are writing abt (e.g. India) and who hv been working on an article on continuous basis. You'd hv noticed anon IPs re-adding 22 vows w/o discussion - that pretty much happens because they are not of good faith. And btw, I am a strong Gandhian (look at my efforts in fighting vandalism on Mahatma Gandhi) with academic interest in Ambedkar.--Gurubrahma 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the copyvio issue, the issue is not whether the 22 vows existed or whether they've been elsewhere reported: I'm not disputing that they are "facts" in that sense. It's also immaterial whether or not the vows (or the Ten Commandments) are 'generally accepted wisdom" (a question about which I have no opinion) or that they've been previously copied by others. The issue is whether Ambedkar's expression can be reproduced without the permission of whoever holds the copyright for that expression. In the U.S. at least, such copying, unless it is "fair use," is generally prohibited. See, for example, the warning here regarding use of Dr. Martin Luther King's writings & audio recording:[4] and WP article here:[[5]]

Regarding the UE nature of copying all 22 vows into this article: I came to this article b/c of the PoV dispute flag, and would like to improve the article so that consensus emerges that we can take the flag down. I generally agree with the anon editor above, and disagree that a summary of the 22 vows is necessarily PoV. To the extent a draft summary you (or I write) is PoV, others are free to correct it, whereas, of course, we cannot "correct" the vows themselves to be NPOV. -FRS 18:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am completely with you when you say that one cannot copy a speech. However, any pledge or a statement made can be quoted - as it is a fact that the pledge has been made. So, I can always quote Martin Luther King "I have a dream." Entire lists such as the FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 are reproduced - If it qualifies as fair use, the 22 vows for whatever worth they have, wd also constitute fair use. The anon editor's comments had more to do with his perceived belittling of Hinduism through the vows. Anyways, as you have reported the issue in copyright problems, let us wait for comments (though I believe that the tone you have reported it in is not very conducive for a harmonious debate). Thanks, --Gurubrahma 07:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have added a separate section below for copyvio discussion/analysis which I hope will be joined by others, but to respond briefly to your statement above: lists or compilations of fact, e.g., FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 generally do not enjoy copyright protection (in the U.S., at least, under Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1990)), even though they may have required substantial efforts on the part of their originator to compile, because they lack the required "modest quantum of creativity". So the reason they can be copied, is not because it is fair use, but because the lists are not copyrightable. The 22 vows, imo, cannot be considered a mere list.

Regarding further improvements to the article, irrespective of the copyvio issue, I would prefer a synthesis of the purpose and effect of the 22 vows rather than the bulk copying of them mainly to preserve balance with the rest of the article; considering B.R.A.'s other accomplishments and span of life, spending 10% on the article on the events of the last seven weeks of his life seems out of place. A better place for the 22 vows would be in the Neo-Buddhism article, in my opinion.

Another problem with the 22 vows section, is the reference to "Three Jewels and Five Percepts." This should be explained or removed.

Copyvio Examination Request

is still pending at [[6]] --FRS 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Your posting says "Copyright examination has been requested for the material described below". Could you please clarify where has it been requested from? The 22 vows are part and parcel of the Buddhism that Dr. Ambedkar gave to his followers. One has to understand that his followers were those people who were oppressed and treated as untouchables under the Hindu Varnashrama social order (Hindu Caste System). Dr. Ambedkar, after a long wait for reforms in the Hindu religion, decided to embrace Buddhism along with his followers. The Buddha's religion, he saw as the only scientific religion that had in its core value for human being and no God.

The 22 vows is a two way process - detachment from the orthodox Hinduism and its Gods (of which his followers were victims) and then attachment to the scientific path of the Buddha.

regards, NW.

I'm not sure I understand your question. If "clarify where has it been requested from?" means (1) who requested it and (2)why, the answers are (1) me and (2) for the reasons discussed in the section just before this one, and here:

• B. R. Ambedkar--In the long form of this section [[7]] of the article, advocated by some users, over 300 words are copied verbatim from (for example) [8] or [9]. I don't know the copyright status of this text, but it is recent enough (1956) that it could easily still be under copyright. It would be good if someone w/ an authoritative view on WP copyright policy would comment here [[10]] TIA--FRS 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If that doesn't answer your question, please rephrase it. Thanks, --FRS 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The following material was apparently authored by the subject of the article in 1956. Its copyright status is unclear.

1) I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them.

2) I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them.

3) I shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them.

4) I do not believe in the incarnation of God.

5) I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.

6) I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’ nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’.

'7) I shall not act in a manner violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.

8) I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins.

9) I shall believe in the equality of man.

10) I shall endeavor to establish equality.

11) I shall follow the ‘noble eightfold path’ of the Buddha.

12) I shall follow the ten ‘paramitas’ prescribed by the Buddha.

13) I shall have compassion and loving kindness for all living beings and protect them.

14) I shall not steal.

15) I shall not tell lies.

16) I shall not commit carnal sins.

17) I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs etc.

18) I shall endeavor to follow the noble eightfold path and practice compassion and loving kindness in every day life.

19) I renounce Hinduism, which is harmful for humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.

20) I firmly believe the Dhamma of the Buddha is the only true religion.

21) I believe that I am having a re-birth.

22) I solemnly declare and affirm that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the principles and teachings of the Buddha and his Dhamma.

Nothing in the article can be said to be non factual.

The term `Babashaeb' is indeed the epithet Dr. Ambedkar was given by his millions of followers. Non Dalit or upper caste people may refer to him as Dr.Ambedkar but Dalit from all over India fondly prefer to call him `Babasaheb'. The reverence and intimacy being shown to Dr.Ambedkar by his follower through the epithet is not shared by many of the upper caste people who are in the print media. They simply refer to him as Dr.Ambedkar. This could be the reason for dispute. Dr. Vijay C. Sonawane

Why is the neutrality being disputed?

To my knowledge the facts stated in the article are correct so why is the neutrality of the article being questioned. Babasaheb is not his real name as we all know but Buddhists across India fondly call him by this name irrespective of whether veneration is the motive or not. Secondly people who say Babasaheb's views are anti-hindu have neither complete knowledge of Babasaheb's views nor have they complete understanding of Hinduism. i would only recommend reading Babasaheb Ambedkar:writings and speeches Vol 2 for his deep sociological analysis of the caste system and only then can his thoughts be understood in the right context.

I don't have a problem with the neutrality of the article as it stands right now. The parts I had issues with have been NPOV'd to my satisfaction. --FRS 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I too feel that it no longer has POV. Probably, we shd wait for a week for comments & potential objections and then take down the NPOV banner from the article. --Gurubrahma 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish to post here Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Thoughts on Untouchability in India and Hindu religion.This is posted by NISHIKANT WAGHMARE, MUMBAI.pLEASE READ AND ADD.Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's thoughts on "Untouchables of India":-

                                           Untouchables are not Hindus

What is there in conversion, which can be called novel? Really speaking what sort of social relations have you with the caste Hindus at present? You are as separate from the Hindus as Muslims and Christians are. So is their relation with you. Your society and that of the Hindus are two distinct groups. By conversion, nobody can say or feel that one society has been split up. You will remain as separate from the Hindus as you are today. Nothing new will happen on account of this conversion. If this is true, then why should people be afraid of conversion? At least, I do not find any reason for such a fear... Revolution - Not Reform Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you. To call oneself a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Sikh is not merely a change of religion but also a change of name.. Since the beginning of this movement of conversion, various people have raised various objections to it. Let us now examine the truth, if any, in such objections...

A congenital idiot alone will say that one has to adhere to one's religion because it is that of our ancestors. No sane man will accept such a proposition. Those who advocate such an argument, seem not to have read the history at all. The ancient Aryan religion was called Vedic religion. It has three distinct characteristic (features). Beef-eating, drinking and merry-making was part of the religion of the day. Thousands of people followed it in India and even now some people dream of going back to it. If the ancient religion alone is to be adhered to why did the people of India leave Hinduism and accept Buddhism? Why did they divorce themselves from the Vedic religion?... Thus this Hindu religion is not the religion of our ancestors, but it was a slavery forced upon them... To reform the Hindu society is neither our aim nor our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom. We have nothing to do with anything else.

If we can gain freedom by conversion, why should we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu religion ? And why should we sacrifice our strength and property for that? None should misunderstand the object of our movement as being Hindu social reform. The object of our movement is to achieve social freedom for the untouchables. It is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion. Caste can't be destroyed I do accept that the untouchables need equality as well. And to secure equality is also one of our objectives. But nobody can say that this equality can be achieved only by remaining as Hindu and not otherwise. There are two ways of achieving equality. One, by remaining in the Hindu fold and another by leaving it by conversion. If equality is to be achieved by remaining in the Hindu fold, mere removal of the sense of being a touchable or an untouchable will not serve the purpose. Equality can be achieved only when inter-caste dinners and marriages take place. This means that the Chaturvarnya must be abolished and the Brahminic religion must be uprooted. Is it possible? And if not, will it be wise to expect equality of treatment by remaining in the Hindu religion? And can you be successful in your efforts to bring equality? Of course not. The path of conversion is far simpler than this. The Hindu society does not give equality of treatment, but the same is easily achieved by conversion. If this is true, then why should you not adopt this simple path of conversion? Speech by Dr.Ambedkar- May 30-31,1936,Nashik..

PoV fork regarding Manusmriti

A recent edit [11] changed

"The Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. By thus desecrating the much-revered volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demonstrate that equality among castes was an issue that could not be ignored."

to

"Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed (incorrectly) bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. Manusmriti is neither a part of Hindu Scriptures nor is it used in any religious ceremony. This text is neither revered - for most part it is not known, outside rural areas. By thus desecrating volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demand equality."

I propose the following as an NPOV variant of these two para's:

"The Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. By thus desecrating the volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demonstrate that equality among castes was an issue that could not be ignored. However, the importance of Manusmriti to Hindu beliefs, particularly outside rural areas, is disputed."

Just one comment, I'm not trying to make a point. While most Hindus know what are Vedas, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Ramcharitmanas, etc, as far as I know, few laymen know about Manusmriti. deeptrivia (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)