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.
No comments:
Post a Comment