Riddles in Hinduism
Author | OCLC 1003286723 | |
---|
Riddles in Hinduism is an
Ambedkar wrote the book during 1954–1955, but delayed its publication because he could not find a photograph that he wanted to include in the book. Ultimately, he could not publish the book because of lack of funds. After his death in 1956, the manuscript of the book remained at his residence in Delhi, and ultimately came in the possession of the Government of Maharashtra. The Government published the book in 1987 as part of the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (BAWS) series.
The contents of the book, especially an appendix titled The riddle of
Publication history
In September 1951, Ambedkar resigned from the
According to Rattu, Ambedkar wrote Riddles in Hinduism between the first week of January 1954 and the end of November 1955. Ambedkar asked Rattu to make four "press copies" of the manuscript, concerned that Hindu-owned presses would destroy the copies.
During the last days of his life, Ambedkar wanted to publish seven books, including the Riddles in Hinduism, but did not have money to do so. He sought financial help from some industrialists and the government, and prioritized the publication of the Buddha and His Dhamma, which was published shortly after his death.[4]
After Ambedkar's death in 1956, his wife
Ambedkar's writings remained unpublished for several years. J.B. Bansod, a Dalit advocate, filed a lawsuit against the Government of Maharashtra, requesting access to Ambedkar's papers in order to publish them.[6] In 1976, the Government established the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Source Material Publication Committee to publish the papers.[7] The Riddles in Hinduism was published in 1987, as part of the Volume 4 of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (BAWS) series. The published text was based on manuscripts of the book's chapters found bundled in a file, with Ambedkar's handwritten alterations. The final manuscript, if any, has not survived. Ambedkar mentions the title Riddles in Hinduism in his introduction to the book. Ambedkar's original plan for the book included 24 "riddles", which changed often in blueprints. The manuscript file includes a table of contents, which does not match with the actual contents of the file. For example, the file has a chapter titled Riddles of Rama and Krishna, which is not mentioned in the table of contents.[8]
In 1988,
Contents
As suggested by the book's subtitle - An Exposition to Enlighten the Masses - Ambedkar intends to
The surviving manuscript contains over 170,000 words. It features several incomplete notes from Ambedkar and chapters with missing text. It comprises 24 "riddles" and 8 appendices, categorized as religious, social, or political.[15]
Introduction
If the Hindu intellect has ceased to grow and if the Hindu civilization and culture has become a stagnant and stinking pool, this dogma [of the infallibility of the Vedas] must be destroyed root and branch if India is to progress. The Vedas are a worthless set of books. There is no reason either to call them sacred or infallible.
B.R. Ambedkar in Riddles in Hinduism[16]
In the introduction, Ambedkar describes the book as "an exposition of the beliefs propounded by what might be called
Ambedkar describes the Vedas - generally considered among the most sacred of the Hindu texts - as "worthless". He describes the Purusha Sukta as an interpolation in the Vedas, and states that the only reason the Brahmins portray the Vedas as infallible is because this hymn grants them superiority over others.[20]
Ambedkar states that he is well aware of the risk of writing such a controversial book, but asserts that this is necessary to liberate the Hindu mind.[21]
Part I: Religious
Riddle No. 1: The difficulty of knowing why one is a Hindu
Ambedkar discusses the vagueness of the term "Hindu": one cannot be called a Hindu for following a certain set of beliefs, because Hindu beliefs and practices vary widely (for example
Riddle No. 2: The origin of the Vedas: The Brahmanic explanation or an exercise in the art of circumlocution
Ambedkar questions the origins of the Vedas, and discusses the
Riddle No. 3: The testimony of other Shastras on the origin of the Vedas
Ambedkar states that the various Hindu texts offer 11 different mythical explanations for the origin of the Vedas, tracing their origin to different sources including
Riddle No. 4: Why suddenly the Brahmans declare the Vedas to be infallible and not to be questioned?
Ambedkar states that the Brahmins describe the Vedas as
Riddle No. 5: Why did the Brahmans go further and declare that the Vedas are neither made by man nor by god?
Ambedkar states that the Vedas cannot be apaurusheya (not man-made), since the
Riddle No. 6: The contents of the Vedas: Have they any moral or spiritual value?
Ambedkar questions the ethical and spiritual value of the Vedas, quoting various scholars, including
Riddle No. 7: The turn of the tide, or how did the Brahmans declare the Vedas to be lower than the lowest of their Shastras?
Ambedkar questions why certain Hindu texts such as the Veda samhitas were classified as
Ambedkar discusses the various "artificial, ingenious and desperate" arguments provided by Brahmin scholars to support the high status of the Smritis (for example,
Riddle No. 8: How the Upanishads declared war on the Vedas?
Ambedkar questions the belief that the Vedas and the Upanishads are complementary texts from a single system of thought. He quotes various sources to show that the Upanishads were originally not considered a part of the Vedic literature. He then quotes various Upanishads to show that they were often in opposition to the Vedas, and even considered the Vedas as inferior. Ambedkar states that at one time the Vedic Brahmins held the Upanishads in low esteem, quoting the Dharma Sutras of Baudhayana in his support.[30]
Riddle No. 9: How the Upanishads came to be made subordinate to the Vedas?
The original title of this chapter was "Jaimini versus Badarayana" after two ancient scholars. Ambedkar describes
Riddle No. 10: Why did the Brahmans make the Hindu gods fight against one another?
Ambedkar states that the concept of Trimurti suggests that the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva work collaboratively. However, the various legends manufactured by the followers of these gods show them engaging in feuds. For example, in a Skanda Purana story, Shiva cuts off Brahma's fifth head in support of Vishnu's claim that he was the first born among the gods. In a Ramayana story, Brahma creates enmity between Vishnu and Shiva, and in the end, the gods and the sages declare Vishnu to be superior. Ambedkar states that the concept of avatars was first associated with Brahma, and was appropriated by Vishnu's followers. Brahma's cult declined in India because of defamatory attacks from the followers of the other gods. For example, the Vaishnavite text Bhagavata Purana accuses Brahma of committing adultery with his own daughter, resulting in admonishment from sages. The Puranas are full of propaganda and counter-propaganda by Vaishnavites and Shaivites aiming to prove the supremacy of their favorite god. According to Ambedkar while the existence of polytheism in the Hindu society is understandable, the existence of combats and feuds among the various gods requires explanation.[32]
Riddle No. 11: Why did the Brahmans make the Hindu gods suffer to rise and fall?
Poor creatures, they became nothing more than mere toys in the hands of the Brahmins. Why did the Brahmins treat the Gods with so scant a respect?
B.R. Ambedkar on the Hindu gods, in Riddles in Hinduism[33]
Ambedkar briefly discusses two common criticisms of Hinduism,
Ambedkar states that an earlier hymn of the Rig Veda accords equal status to all the gods, but later hymns variously name
Quoting a
Ambedkar then discusses Rama and Krishna, stating that the stories of them being
Riddle No. 12: Why did the Brahmans dethrone the gods and enthrone the goddesses?
This chapter was originally titled Vedic and non-Vedic Goddesses. Ambedkar states that the Hindus have worshipped goddesses since the beginning, listing several goddesses from the Rigveda. He then lists various goddesses from the Puranas, and quotes several Hindu texts to point out that these are variously considered to be either distinct goddesses, or different names or forms of the same divinity.[35]
According to Ambedkar, the Vedic goddesses were worshipped out of courtesy, simply because they were wives of the gods. Although the Vedic literature describes several conflicts against the
Ambedkar then quotes the Markandeya Purana to state that the Brahmins made their gods look imbecile cowards, whose wives had to rescue them against the asuras. Ambedkar asks if the Brahmins started the worship of the goddesses to put "a new commodity on the market".[35]
Riddle No. 13: The riddle of the ahimsa
In the table of contents of Ambedkar's manuscript, the Riddle No. 13 was originally titled "How the Brahmans who were once cow-killers became the worshippers of the cow?"[36]
Ambedkar states that various vices were common among the
The rest of the text is missing from the manuscript.[37]
Riddle No. 14: From ahimsa back to himsa
The previous chapter, incomplete in the surviving manuscript, presumably described how the Hindu society moved from himsa (violence) to
Riddle No. 15: How did the Brahmans wed an ahimsak god to a bloodthirsty goddess?
Ambedkar states that after approving the consumption of alcohol and meat, the Brahmins wrote the
Appendix I: The riddle of the Vedas
This appendix consolidates the matter of the riddles 2–6. Ambedkar discusses the authorship and the changing authority of the Vedas.[40]
Appendix II: The riddle of the Vedanta
This appendix consolidates the matter of the riddles 8–9. Ambedkar states that the Hindus today regard Vedanta (the philosophy of the Upanishads) as India's most important contribution to the world's philosophical thought. However, originally, the Vedanta was considered "repugnant and hostile to the Vedas", and the Upanishads were not considered a part of the Vedic literature. He provides several quotes, including from the Upanishads, in his support. Ambedkar then quotes Charvaka and Brahaspati, and asks why the Vedic Brahmans compromised with the Vedantists but not with these scholars. Finally, he discusses the opposing views of Jaimini and Badarayana over the authority of the Upanishads.[41]
Appendix III: The riddle of the Trimurti
This appendix consolidates material from Riddle No. 10-11. Ambedkar provides a list of various sects prevalent in India in the past, from the Buddhist text Chula Niddesa. He discusses the decline of older gods and the rise of new cults, and also discusses the possibility of Shiva originally being a non-Aryan god.
Ambedkar then discusses a legend about the birth of the god
Ambedkar then cites various mythological stories to assert at the Brahmin devotees of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva engaged in a "systematic campaign of vilification and degradation" against each other, resulting in the decline of the Brahma's cult. He asks if the Brahmins engaged in such sectarian conflicts for political reasons.[42]
Appendix IV: Smarth Dharma and Tantrik Dharma
The Hindu religion is nothing but worshipping so many Gods and Goddesses, worshipping so many trees, visiting so many places of pilgrimage and making offerings to the Brahmins. Was the religion formulating for enabling the Brahmins to earn their living?
B.R. Ambedkar in Riddles in Hinduism[43]
This appendix is divided into three parts, but several of its pages are missing. The surviving manuscript has pages from Part II - Smarth Dharma and Part III - Tantrik Dharma. Part I was presumably about
In Part II, Ambedkar discusses the dogmas of the Smarth Dharma (
In Part III, Ambedkar describes the Tantrik Dharma (
Ambedkar mentions that religion started with questions on topics such as the nature of the
Appendix V: The infallibility of the Vedas
Ambedkar presents passages from the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Manusmriti, which glorify the Vedas as authoritative texts to be read every day. The rest of the chapter is missing in the surviving manuscript.[45]
Part II: Social
The riddle of women: Why did the Brahmins degrade the Indian women?
The BAWS editors excluded this chapter from the Riddles in Hinduism, because it was already included in BAWS Series 3 as Chapter 17: The Woman and the Counter-Revolution.
Ambedkar states that before Manu, Indian women were considered equal to men in status, were highly respected, and had access to the highest learning and education. In his support, he cites the writings of various scholars including
Riddle No. 16: The four varnas: Are the Brahmans sure of their origin?
Ambedkar describes the
He notes that these texts offer different explanations for the origin of the varnas; in fact, some of these texts offer multiple, contradictory explanations. Ambedkar asks why the Brahmins could not give a uniform and consistent explanation about the origin of the varnas. Moreover, the different texts disagree about the equality of the varnas. Ambedkar states that the Brahmins concocted the theory of the varnas and inserted it into the Rigveda, contrary to established traditions, resulting in this "chaos". He questions the motive of the Brahmins who did this.[49]
Riddle No. 17: The four ashramas: The why and how about them
Ambedkar discusses the
Ambedkar then quotes the Vashistha Dharma Sutra and the Gautama Dharma Sutra, which unlike the Manusmriti, state that a person can enter any of the ashramas without needing to go through the previous stages. He states that a Brahmachari who did not wish to marry immediately had the option of becoming an Aranas (or Aranamanas) in order to continue his studies. Manu removed this option, and dictated that a Brahmachari must pass through the subsequent stages to enter the Sannyasa stage. According to Manu, a man who seeks the final liberation without having children "sinks downwards". Ambedkar questions why Manu "made escape from marriage impossible".[50]
Ambedkar also questions the need for the Vanaprastha stage, stating that it overlaps with the Grihastha and the Sannyasa stages.[50]
Riddle No. 18: Manu's madness or the Brahmanic explanation of the origin of the mixed castes
The caste of Chandala is said by Manu to be the progeny of illegitimate intercourse between a Shudra male and a Brahman female. Can this be true? It means that Brahmin women must have been very lax in their morality and must have had special sexual attraction for the Shudra. This is unbelievable. So vast is the Chandala population that even if every Brahmin female was a mistress of a Shudra it could not account of the vast number of Chandalas in the country.
B.R. Ambedkar in Riddles in Hinduism[51]
Ambedkar discusses the various categories of castes mentioned in the Manusmriti, and then focuses the discussion on the mixed (sankara) castes. Manusmriti gives a list of various combinations of mixed-caste parentage, and classifies them as anuloma (acceptable) or pratiloma (condemned). For example, the child of a Vaishya father and a Kshatriya mother is called "Magadha" and is classified as pratiloma. Later authors have made several additions to the list.[52]
Ambedkar notes that Manu does not list all the possible combinations of mixed-caste parentage, and wonders if he was afraid of mentioning certain combinations for some reason. He also states that some of the mixed-caste names in the list appear to be fictitious. Plus, Manu and other authors disagree over several mixed-caste combinations. For example, the child of a Vaishya father and a Kshatriya mother is called "Ayogava" in Aushanas Smriti and "Pukkasa" in Brihad-Vishnu Smriti.[52]
Ambedkar describes Manu's explanation of the origin of the mixed castes as historically inaccurate, giving several examples. For example, the Magadhas were the residents of the Magadha region, not people of mixed Vaishya-Kshatriya origin. Ambedkar accuses Manu and later authors of perverting history and defaming respectable tribes as bastards. He questions the reason behind this "madness", stating that the Brahmins' attempts to impose the varna system rules against mixed-caste marriages must have failed, and Manu had to invent explanations for the existence of a large number of castes that did not fit in any of the four varnas. Ambedkar states that if Manu is right in ascribing the origin of the populous Chandala caste to illegitimate sexual intercourse between Shudra males and Brahman females, such forbidden relationships must have been very common. Ambedkar wonders if Manu realized that he was assigning "an ignoble origin to a vast number of the people of this country leading to their social and moral degradation."[52]
Riddle No. 19: The change from paternity to maternity: What did the Brahmans wish to gain by it?
Ambedkar discusses the eight types of marriage and the 13 types of sons recognized in the Hindu law. He describes many of these relationships as "euphemisms for seduction and rape"; for example, the Paishacha marriage is a euphemism for rape, and described as lawful for a Vaishya and a Shudra. He also states that the existence of these categories shows that the Brahmin attempts to restrict the society to only certain types of permissible marriages had failed.[53]
Ambedkar states that Manu made a few changes to the prevalent social norms while establishing rules about various types of marriages and sons. For example, Manu excludes certain types of sons (such as those born out of Shudra women) from inheritance. Ambedkar also states that before Manu, only the varna of the father determined the child's varna. Moreover, the male head of the family - not the biological father - owned the illegitimate children of his wife. Ambedkar wonders why Manu changed the traditional law.[53]
Riddle No. 20: Kali Varjya or the Brahmanic art of suspending the operation of sin without calling it sin
Ambedkar discusses the dogma of Kali-varjya ("Kali Varja"), which is codified in the Aditya Purana. According to this dogma, certain practices are forbidden in the Kali Yuga (the current age), but permissible in the other yugas. Ambedkar lists several examples of such customs, including widow remarriage and sacrificial killing of cows (gomedha). The Kali-varjya dogma forbids these practices but does not condemn them or provide any reason for forbidding them. Ambedkar states that these practices are not immoral, sinful or otherwise harmful to the society, as evident from the fact that they are allowed in the other yugas. He asks why did the Brahmins came up with "this technique of forbidding a practice without condemning it."[54]
Appendix I: The riddle of the Varnashrama Dharma
These explanations [justifying the existence of the varna system] are like effusions of the imbeciles. They show how hard the Brahmins were put to for the defence of the varna system. The question is why were the Brahmins not able to give a consistent and uniform unimpeachable, convincing and rational explanation of the varna system of which they have been such strong protagonists?
B.R. Ambedkar on the varna system, in Riddles in Hinduism[55]
This appendix consolidates the matter or Riddles 16–17. Ambedkar discusses the varna system and the ashrama systems, collectively called the Varnashram Dharma. Ambedkar asks why Manu prohibits a Brahmachari from entering the Sannyasa ashrama without going through the life of a householder. He states that compulsory marriage without any consideration to wealth or health of a person would lead to personal and national ruin, unless the state guaranteed
Ambedkar quotes various texts on the origin of the varna system, and discusses the explanations offered for the existence of the varna system, including the one attributed to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. He dismisses these explanations as absurd, and concludes that the Brahmins have been unable to offer any reasonable explanation on the topic.[56]
Ambedkar then discusses the ashrama system, and criticizes it as a stupid attempt at a planned economy, saying that it cut off old men from their families.[56]
Appendix II: Compulsory matrimony
This appendix overlaps with and supplements the Riddle No. 17 and Appendix I. Ambedkar criticizes Manu for making marriage compulsory for a Brahmachari, and questions the need for the Vanaprastha ashrama.[57]
Part III: Political
Riddle No. 21: The theory of Manvantara
Ambedkar describes the concept of
Riddle No. 22: Brahma is not Dharma: What good is Brahma?
Ambedkar mentions the various forms of Government, and discusses different definitions of democracy. He intends to quote John Dewey's Democracy and Education, but the surviving manuscript is missing the actual quotes. Ambedkar states that a democratic government can succeed only in a democratic society: if a society is divided into groups such as castes, and the citizens promote interests of their own group over the interests of the society, the democratic government will fail. According to Ambedkar, a democratic society is not possible without fraternity (as the French revolutionists call it) or "maitri" (as the Buddha calls it).[59]
Ambedkar states that religion of a society is the main source of its fraternity. Hinduism, instead of teaching fraternity, promotes the division of society into classes (
Riddle No. 23: Kali Yuga: Why have the Brahmans made it unending?
Ambedkar describes the concept of Kali Yuga, stating that its characterization as the immoral age has a psychological effect on the people's mind. He discusses various theories about the original meaning of the term yuga, and the different dates proposed for the start of the Kali Yuga. Quoting Garga's Siddhanta, the Mahabharata, and the Vishnu Purana, Ambedkar argues that the Kali Yuga lasted for 1000 years and ended in the 2nd century CE. He states that Brahmins later claimed that Kali Yuga has not ended, and invented various explanations to support their claim; for example, they say that it is supposed to last for 1000 divine years, with 1 divine day being equal to 1 human year.[62]
Ambedkar states that the
Ambedkar states that all these instances of immorality had taken place before the start of the Kali Yuga, which looks better from a moral perspective. Ambedkar asks if the Brahmins extended Kali Yuga to blackmail Shudra kings by destroying their subjects' faith in their rule in a purportedly immoral age.[62][63]
Riddle No. 24: The riddle of the Kali Yuga
Quoting various texts, Ambedkar discusses various Hindu units of time. Ambedkar states that the names of the four yugas derive from gambling-related terms, and their meaning changed over time. Ambedkar asks why did the Brahmins invented the theory of Kali Yuga, and described it as the age of degradation. He states that according to Brahmins, only the Brahmin and the Shudra varnas exist in the Kali Yuga. He also discusses Kali-varjya, earlier described in the Riddle No. 20. Ambedkar asks why the Brahmins invented these concepts.[64]
Appendix I: The riddle of Rama and Krishna
Part I: Rama
Ambedkar summarizes the story of
Ambedkar states that according to Valmiki's Ramayana, Rama's wife Sita was found by a farmer in a field as a baby, and presented to king Janaka, who adopted her. Ambedkar finds this story unconvincing, and instead refers to Buddha Ramayana (Dasaratha Jataka), according to which Sita was a sister of Rama. He states that the Buddha Ramayana story seems more "natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules of marriage": if true, the incestuous marriage of Rama and Sita should not be regarded as an ideal.[65]
Ambedkar disputes the Ramayana's characterization of Rama as a virtuous and illustrious man, stating that he is not worthy of deification. He calls Rama's modern characterization as a monogamous man incorrect, stating that Valmiki refers to many wives of Rama in the
Ambedkar discusses Rama's character as an individual, describing his mistreatment of Vali and Sita. He describes Rama's killing of Vali as a cowardly act and an unprovoked, premeditated murder. Ambedkar notes that after killing his wife's captor Ravana, Rama did not immediately visit her, instead spending time on other tasks such as the coronation of Vibhishana. When he finally met Sita for the first time in several months, he told her that he had killed Ravana to recover his honour and not for her sake. Rama then doubted Sita's chastity, stating that Ravana would not have failed to have sex with her. A dejected Sita declared that she would have committed suicide before meeting him if she was aware of such thoughts of Rama. After Sita proved her chastity by a fire test, Rama took her back to his capital Ayodhya. When Sita became pregnant, Rama abandoned her because of public rumors that she was carrying Ravana's child, although he was personally convinced of Sita's chastity. According to Ambedkar, Hindus cite this incident to portray Rama as a democratic king, arguing that he cared about the public opinion; however, it only proves that he was a cowardly and weak monarch who cared more about his name and fame rather than doing the right thing as a king and a husband. Rama then tricked Sita into visiting the hermitage of Valmiki, and had Lakshmana abandon her there. Sita gave birth to his two sons there, but he never visited them. After 12 years, he invited many sages to a yajna, but did not invite Valmiki. Nevertheless, Valmiki arrived there, and introduced him to his two sons. Later, Sita also visited him, but preferred to die by burying herself into the earth rather than returning to Rama. Ambedkar describes Rama's treatment of Sita as cruel.[65]
Next, Ambedkar discusses Rama as a king. Ambedkar states that Valmiki's detailed descriptions of Rama's daily life do not suggest that he was involved in administration or attended to public affairs. Instead, Rama spent time on religious rites, enjoying company of court jesters and women, drinking and eating (including flesh). In his support, Ambedkar cites
Part II: Krishna
Ambedkar then discusses
Ambedkar describes Krishna's acts as a warrior and a politician immoral, presenting summaries of various legends about him. For example, Ambedkar states that Krishna instigated
Reception
Soon after the publication of the book as part of the BAWS Volume 4 in 1987, its content - especially the appendix The riddle of Rama and Krishna - led to a political controversy.[67] Madhav Gadkari, the editor of the Marathi language newspaper Loksatta, wrote in his column Chaufer that the appendix maligned Rama and Krishna.[68] Through his columns, Gadkari campaigned for the controversial appendix to be deleted from the book.[69]
Shiv Sena, a Hindu-centric political party, rioted in Mumbai asking for the appendix to be removed from the book. As a result, the Government of Maharashtra withdrew the book. This led to counter-protests across Maharashtra by thousands of Dalits.[67] The Dalit Buddhist followers of Ambedkar and Buddhist monks wrote protest letters and newspaper articles, and participated in a march that was popularly called the "Bhim March".[70] The controversy united various Dalit groups, who sought to protect Ambedkar's legacy.[71]
The disturbances in Mumbai resulted in to damage to private and public properties, and the defacement of the Martyrs' Memorial at the Hutatma Chowk. The Government deployed policemen to prevent defacement of Ambedkar's statues across the city.[71] As a compromise, the Government resumed the publication with a disclaimer that that it did not concur with the views expressed in the chapter.[67]
The publication of the book became a major issue in the 1987
In January 1988, the Maratha Mahamandal held a burning of the book at the organization's meeting in Amravati.[67] Shashikant Pawar, the President of Maratha Mahasangha, condemned the Government's publication of the book.[73]
Raju pointed out that Rama's mistreatment of Vali, Shambuka and Sita has been criticized by many others, including C. Rajagopalachari who called it "disgraceful".[71] Similarly, Gunvanthi Balarama, in an article in Bombay (December 1988), stated that various other leaders of Maharashtra had been "no less critical" of Hindu epics than Ambedkar; these leaders included Bal Thackeray's father Prabodhankar Thackeray.[74]
Based on an analysis of Ambedkar's drafts, American academic Scott R. Stroud (2022) states that the book shows "Ambedkar's potential as an innovative thinker in the global history of rhetoric."[75]
In 2023, Hamara Prasad, the founder of the Hindutva organization Rashtriya Dalita Sena stated that he would have shot Ambedkar for hurting Hindu sentiments by writing the Riddles in Hinduism.[76][77] This led to a controversy, and the Telangana Police arrested him, charging him under the hate speech laws.[78]
References
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 8.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 11–12.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 12.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 12–14.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 8–9.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 10.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 11.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 7.
- ISBN 9788187733836.
- ISBN 978-93-5109-157-8. Retrieved 2022-11-29.
- ^ a b Ankit Kawade 2021, p. 180.
- ^ .
- ^ Ankit Kawade 2021, pp. 180–182.
- ^ Ankit Kawade 2021, p. 182.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 15.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 8.
- ^ a b Vasant Moon 1987, p. 5.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 51–54.
- ^ Ankit Kawade 2021, p. 177.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 8–9.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 9.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 58–65.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 16–17.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 19–24.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 25–27.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 28–36.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 37–52.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 66–84.
- ^ a b Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 53–61.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 62–66.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 67–70.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 70–79.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 98.
- ^ a b c d Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 80–98.
- ^ a b c Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 90–107.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 50.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 85–97.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 98-1-3.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 118–127.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 128–150.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 151–160.
- ^ a b c d Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 161–175.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 182.
- ^ a b c d Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 176–182.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 183–186.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 187.
- ^ Hari Narke 1987, pp. 429–431.
- ^ Hari Narke 1987, pp. 432–437.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 105–128.
- ^ a b c Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 129–138.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 154.
- ^ a b c Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 139–154.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 155–165.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 232–235.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, p. 250.
- ^ a b c Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 236–261.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 261–271.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 275–280.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 166–179.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 348–349.
- ^ Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 179.
- ^ a b c Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 180–216.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 288–306.
- ^ Vasant Moon 1987, pp. 307–322.
- ^ a b c d e Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 217–232.
- ^ a b Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, pp. 232–246.
- ^ a b c d Shobhna Iyer et al. 2016, p. 14.
- ISBN 9780231149006.
- ^ Jyoti Punwani (2022-06-17). "Journalism loses one of its tallest giants". Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
- JSTOR 4398126.
- ^ a b c d S.V. Raju (April 1988). "Ambedkar, Hinduism and the 'Riddles' controversy". Freedom First. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
- ISBN 9789389867367. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
- JSTOR 4402382.
- JSTOR 1466031.
- S2CID 248595384.
- ^ Balakrishna Ganeshan (2023-02-10). "Hindutva leader says would have shot Ambedkar, BSP Telangana chief demands action". The News Minute. Retrieved 2023-02-22.
- ^ "'Would've shot Ambedkar like Godse': action sought on Hindutva leader". Madhyamam. 2023-02-10. Retrieved 2023-02-22.
- ^ Abdul Basheer (2023-02-10). 'Would have killed Ambedkar if he were alive': Telengana man arrested after video sparks row. India Today. Retrieved 2023-02-22.
Bibliography
- Ankit Kawade (2021). "Clearing of the Ground - Ambedkar's Method of Reading". Caste: A Global Journal on Social Exclusion. 2 (1): 174–188. .
- B.R. Ambedkar (2016). S. Anand; Shobhna Iyer (eds.). Riddles in Hinduism: The Annotated Critical Edition. Navayana. ISBN 9788189059774.
- B.R. Ambedkar (1987). Vasant Moon; ISBN 978-93-5109-064-9.
- B.R. Ambedkar (1987). Vasant Moon (ed.). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar - Writings and Speeches (PDF). Vol. 4. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation. ISBN 978-93-5109-064-9.
External links
- Riddles in Hinduism (1987), published by the Government of Maharashtra
- हिन्दू धर्म की पहेलियां (1995), Hindi translation published by Government of India's Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, as part of डॉ. अम्बेडकर सम्पूर्ण वाङ्मय Series Volume 8 (ISBN 978-93-5109-157-8)