Hinduism & Freedom of Speech

[IcyCosmic]

Namaskar.

What are your feelings on this quote?

“In the Hindu religion, one can[not] have freedom of speech. A Hindu must surrender his freedom of speech. He must act according to the Vedas. If the Vedas do not support the actions, instructions must be sought from the Smritis, and if the Smritis fail to provide any such instructions, he must follow in the footsteps of the great men.
He is not supposed to reason. Hence, so long as you are in the Hindu religion, you cannot expect to have freedom of thought”
― B.R. Ambedkar

[Omkara]

Ambedkar was a delusional British lickspittle who has been raised to godhood by a bunch of equally delusional followers.

He was not part of the freedom struggle and actively worked against it, going so far as to say-

"...Their position (the depressed classes), to put it plainly, is that we are not anxious for transfer of power from the British to the Indian people...."

The mythology around him being the author of the constitution is false-

"Now, Sir," the member said, "we have inherited a tradition. People always keep saying to me : 'Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution.' "My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will." He ridiculed the "notions of democracy" the country had acquired because of its hatred of the British, like the notion that to leave any discretionary powers with the Governor is undemocratic. "We have inherited the idea that the Governor must have no power at all, that he must be a rubber-stamp," the member explained. "If a minister, however scoundrelly he may be, if he puts up a proposal before the Governor, he has to ditto it. That is the kind of conception about democracy which we have developed in this country," he continued."But you defended it," interjected a member from Rajasthan."We lawyers defend many things....," said the member. Several members were on their feet protesting He proceeded to ask the Home Minister : were our Constitution to give discretionary powers to Governors on the lines of the Canadian Constitution, how would it become undemocratic ? The Home Minister said his answer was that the member had been responsible for drafting the Constitution. The member shot back, "You want to accuse me responsible for drafting the Constitution. The member shot back, "You want to accuse me of your blemishes?" He returned to the point a little later in his speech : "Sir," he said, "my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody...." The member ? B.R. Ambedkar, of course. The occasion? The debate in the Council of States, as the Rajya Sabha was then known, on 2 September, 1953, regarding the Bill for establishing the state of Andhra.

He was a political nobody during his time who failed to even win his own Lok Sabha seat. So much for the PR con job about him being a national hero.

As for his comments which you have quoted, any person who claims to belong to a religion but does not accept what it's scriptures say is deluding himself. Being part of a religion perforce means that you agree to the theology laid out in it's scriptures.

[jignyAsu]

Pranam,

Let us look into some historic facts here. The hindus have always openly debated with Buddhists, Jainas and Charvakas (atheists) who rejected & often denounced the Vedas. Often anti hindus would openly write their own version of Ramayana etc potraying celebrated Hindu gods as lusty and violent and they existed amongst us in India. All this proves that we have always had a high degree of tolerance and openness, ignoring a few incidents here and there.

But I believe that ambedkar here is talking about Hindu believers being brainwashed and superstitious on Vedas. Let us consider this -

In our unique sanathana dharma, questioning was not only accepted but encouraged. Look at the varieties we have had - those who rejected the concept of Ishwara, Vaishnavaites, Shaivites, Shaktas, Advaitis -> drastically differing philosophies! Even in Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna ends by telling Arjuna to act as he thought right. All of us have co-existed with mutual respect for long.

It is apparent that there is so many things that are beyond the understanding of senses like consciousness, God, life etc. Looking upto a credible source and Rishis with high moral standards and wisdom is but the most sensible measure anyone can take.

Only those who possess hatred and jealousy would accuse us of lacking freedom of thought even after considering the above.

The thread is probably suited under the general discussions or lounge.

[govind_das]

Namaskar.

What are your feelings on this quote?

“In the Hindu religion, one can[not] have freedom of speech. A Hindu must surrender his freedom of speech. He must act according to the Vedas. If the Vedas do not support the actions, instructions must be sought from the Smritis, and if the Smritis fail to provide any such instructions, he must follow in the footsteps of the great men.
He is not supposed to reason. Hence, so long as you are in the Hindu religion, you cannot expect to have freedom of thought”
― B.R. Ambedkar

I don't agree with it. The same could be said of Christianity and the Bible, or Islam and the Qur'an. Or for that matter, any scripture-based religion. Just because there is a definite scripture that all followers are expected to accept, does not preclude free thought, as the existence of so many sects and variations of Hinduism suggests.

[Webimpulse]

Namaste all,

I actually had a sort of similar (but obviously not identical) thought here, on the relationship of Hinduism to the literary idea of "thoughtcrime" as presented in the George Orwell book 1984:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11513

In short, what we all agreed upon in that thread was that Hinduism doesn't classify most actions as right/wrong so much as beneficial/harmful. Judging something as right or wrong, and restricting actions accordingly, is not the same as knowing which actions are the most beneficial or harmful to one's spiritual well-being.

It's kind of like the difference between censorship and critical speech. Critical speech criticizes what someone else said, whereas censorship prevents it from being said altogether. People should never get the two mixed up, IMHO.