Waman Meshram, National President, Bharat Mukti Morcha
Two categories of history writers
Generally in India there are two categories of history writers are seen. One category writes history by making religion as basis, religious groups as basis, and religious beliefs as basis. And there is second category there are historians that writes history by making secularism as the basis. In the present times writing history by making religion as the basis and secularism as the basis is the biggest coning by rascals, it is biggest game; that’s why those who write history by making religion as the basis and those who write history by making secularism as the basis, what is surprising is that both these are Brahmins. This is point to think over because with this people will get lots to learn. On the one side we see that there are historians in the country to write both religion and secularism as the basis of history, and on the other hand there is history written by Jyotibha Phule, it is written by making secularism as the basis?
Did Babasaheb Dr.Ambedkar’s style of writing history, his method, is it religious or secular framework? Or his writing method, his flow is uniquely different. I believe that frameworks of religion and secularism are not helpful to understand the historical analysis written by Jyotibha Phule or Babasaheb Dr.Ambedkar.
Those who wish to look at, understand, know the perspective of India’s history written by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar and Phuleji, they will have to carry on the analysis by stepping aside of religion-secularism framework, only then they will be able to understand the point. That’s why I always try that our ideological flow of analysis is different. If you write from the framework of religion then you do not have any independent thinking. Why? It is so because it is an ideology of Brahmins. Most of the historians who write history by making religion as the basis are Brahmins and their style of analysis is also Brahmanical. Why? It is so because this is Brahmin flow of ideology. Most of the historians who write history with religion as its basis are Brahmins and their style of analysis is also brahmanical. If both the historians writings are brahmanical then those leading Phule-Shahu-Ambedkar movement, if they carry on their analysis by staying one of the two frameworks then how can I say that their own independent thought and if you do not have your own independent thought then how can you have your struggle independent? Those who agitation is independent, their ideology, and their objective is different. Their analysis, their language, their terminology is different. This is so because the thought that you want to reach to the people, there is only one way of reaching it, and that is language, words, and if the words that constitute your ideology are not strong then the message that you will have to convey, will not get conveyed correctly.
That’s why, always one who is genuinely independent, her ideology, her language, her terminology is different. You study the agitations of Jyotibha Phule, Dr.Ambedkar then you will understand this. In order to convey their statements, convey their thoughts to the people, they tried to use words in their own ways.