Leftist and liberals quote Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on caste while driving home a point which states that Hinduism is brahmanical and caste based (I agree with them and it's good that hindus are becoming aware about this issue and have constantly sought to solve it through enactment of multiple legislations).

But why do the same activists and writers fail to quote his book 'Pakistan and Partition of India' while reporting islamic radicalisation? Also, Dr. Babasaheb has never brought this concept of 'Jai bheem jai meem' which every leftist person loves, he in fact was against it, then why are these people defiling his work and using him as a tool to achieve their goals? Why not accept his views on islam too and introspect because he was truly analytical?

I agree with you. This is never taught at law schools in Socio and History class, because it does not suit the ideology of the professors. This is what Ambedkar said:

"Islam is said to bind people together, but this is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defeat of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs."

https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-br-ambedkars-idea-of-islam-exposes-woolly-headed-liberals-of-the-day-10559281.html

Maybe it's not widely taught because its a statement that vastly oversimplifies an entire religion, appears laden with prejudice and was written in a specific political and historical context. In a modern context it is obviously islamophobic and not helpful or educational in any practical way (unless you are pursuing an islamophobic agenda)?

The OP question also seems like a bit of a non-starter: in the US, just because some of the founding fathers had slaves or may have held racist views, doesn't mean such racist views should be studied uncritically nowadays, even if they have contributed other useful literature.

Or are you trying to 'cancel' Ambedkar or something, like some liberal woke type?

No, the attempt is to hold liberals accountable to their views in respect of Islam as well without putting the problematic aspects under the rug in the name of minority because Islam doesn't behave like a minority. It behaves like how the 'minority' Britishers behaved in India. Slow expansionism because of its inherent culture imperialistic doctrines (Dawa for example).

Surely most liberals don't defend Islam per se, and many do criticise islamic practices which don't mesh with their liberal worldview. What liberals object to is using such arguments as a fig leaf for islamophobia and discrimination.

This 'slow expansionim' you claim seems to be exactly that. How is Islam in India in the 21st century comparable to expansionism of the British empire, any more than modern-day Christians in India aren't expansionist because of the crusades or modern-day Hindus aren't responsible for imperialist Hindu emperors or conquerors. Most religions have expansionism in their books, and those that don't - even Buddhism - have had powerful misuse the scriptures to expand their power. That's simply history but it' says very little about culture.

Thank you for posting. That comment really brought out the trolls and a spate of ad hominem, none of which will be published except this one which is indicative of much worse ad hominem / Islamphobia that was not published...

Lesson learnt: it's always good to provoke the trolls sometimes and make them justify what they argue, then wait - if they descend to ad hominem and show no interest in engaging, it proves they didn't have much of a point to start with. Prove me wrong :)

Can you please explain (with examples) how Ambedkar's statement "vastly oversimplifies" an entire religion? I hope you are aware that Ambedkar wrote an entire book on the subject and that the statement you referred to wasn't given in isolation! You are the one who has read the statement without context; please read the entire book as you are obviously ignorant of what is a vastly complex subject matter. Here's the link to the book (you'll need to copy paste it); you can download it for free!

Volume_08.pdf (mea.gov.in)

Not an Ambedkar scholar but that selective quote certainly seemed like an oversimplification that is part of the historical landscape of the time.

If there is something in that book that you think is relevant for modern day politics and trying to run a pluralist society, please do share, happy to learn.

Class A deflection. But it fails. Ambedkar wrote about Hindusim the same way he wrote about Islam. If we can study his views on Hindusim (as we should), we should also study his views on Islam. So what if it is Islamophobic? Is it Islamophobic to say that Islam needs serious reform today? Or that there are genuine problems with integrating Islam into the rest of modern Indian society? Cause these are very real issues and Ambedkar's views are extremely relavent to discussing them.

No one is trying to cancel Ambedkar. Instead OP is pointing out India's liberal's have "Cancelled" his views on Islam cause it makes people feel bad.

Intellectual rigour my foot.

Ambedkar wrote in a tense political climate that resulted in countless deaths and partition. When you are proposing 'integrating Islam' into India, what exactly do you mean? And is this a view that tries to preserve plurality and freedom of religion or suppress it? What has Ambedkar's writing on this topic taught you on this that needs to be done, which is not unconstitutional and not islamophobic?

You do not have the freedom to have religiously backward practices. By integrating I mean just that. The Hindus move forward. The Christians move forward. Even the Parsis are turning progressive when it comes to religion (women married to non Parsis now can enter fire temples). But Islam in this country refuses to move on with the rest. To them their backward practices (child marriage, hijab and what not, all of which the other communities have at least abandoned on paper) is their "identity".

I am sorry, that just does not work.

Ambedkar's constitution gave no community a carte blanche license to remain backward.

Either they move forward with India or whether they like it or not, India will start to leave them behind (as is happening today)

Thanks for sharing your views without ad hominem, even if your views are effectively islamophobic (even if you might not think so).

That might go for some Muslim religious leaders but many community leaders and followers are also 'progressive' and less strict. I'm sure you've met a Muslim who drinks alcohol or eats pork? By your yardstick then, would such a person not be more 'progressive' and adaptable than your interpretation of their religion would suggest? And would a Brahmin who clings to tradition and refuses to eat meat be 'regressive'?

But equally that will go for plenty of 'traditionalist' religious leaders of other religions, especially many Hindu ones some of whom nowadays especially seem to be becoming more regressive and violent, or brainwashing their followers for money or political power. Likewise many of the followers of both religions remain 'backward', as you call it, with many potentially 'regressive' practices like dowries, female infanticide, lynchings of other communities, cow 'protection', casteism, not allowing women into temples, you name it, without any signs of legislative reform or interest to. If you go far enough back in the scriptures of any religion, you're likely to find things that are not progressive. But that doesn't mean that a religion is not evolving.

But aren't all those not equally signs of 'backwardness' in any religion then, by your yardstick?

This is not whataboutery, but it should be a readily understood a fact that there is no inherent 'badness' or regressiveness in any religion, as you imply, nor is it helpful or will lead to a better society to demonise an entire community. India has a different predominant version of Islam from Turkey from Pakistan from Saudi from Iran, and in all those places the way the religion evolved and either became more or less regressive has been shaped by politics and powerplays.

If you try to paint all Muslims or an entire community as backward, then you ignore all the different ways a religion is practiced by people and their individual choices.

Nice try. It needed a judge to take town triple talaq while Hindus reformed their laws via parliament as did the Christians post Mary Roy's case.

We need to stop this myth that Indian Islam is somehow different from the global trend. It is not. Indian Islam is just as much Islam as is Islam in other nations.

You know how I know this? Despite Israel being an ally and someone who has helped this country in more than one war, during Ramazan, suddenly Muslim owned shops stop selling Coca Cola cause of the Israeli connection.

When something happens in France or Denmark, the global "solidarity" movement here kicks in and India has law an order problems.

But when Indian Hindus try and complain about atrocities in Pakistan they are called Fascist.

Ambedkar had a very good point. He said the loyalty of the Indian Muslim can never fully lie in India. To this extent he is on the same page as Savarkar. Along with being on the same page about eliminating caste to fix Hindu Society.

Your entire response is that the Hindus are backward too. I have conceded that. But the Hindus reform. They constantly reform. Their conventions change. Today a Hindu will think child marriage is as much as a sin as a Hindu who would have defended it. Hindus want to be modern, the have embraced modernity.

Muslims starting from the way they dress seem to want to goback to the dark ages.

One or two Muslims are the exception and not the rule. The rule is those who want the heads of people who "offend" their religion.

I am sick of liberal whitewashing. Face up to the truth. Islam in India needs to be reformed. So what if they feel oppressed. Pain is part of progress.

How can you say that? Have you conducted any research to find out the roots of Islamophobia? Or are your views based on literature which itself is devoid of any research.

I have lived my childhood in a small town. The area around the railway station is Muslim dominated. Auto stands around the station are meant for Muslim auto drivers only. Hindu auto drivers have auto stand slightly far away from the station.

When I shifted to Mumbai, I contacted a broker for apartment who happened to be Muslim. Since I had no contacts in Mumbai, he told that he will arrange the carpenter, electrician, plumber, etc for me. All of them were Muslims.

Same is true for any job work in my hometown- while a Hindu thekedaar would have no issue in bringing Muslim labour, muslim thekedaar always brings Muslim labour.

There is absolutely no research to back statements like, "vastly oversimplifying an entire religion, bla bla..." When the experience of a common Hindu is very different.

Thanks for sharing your experience, but surely the same experiences would also apply to a Muslim trying to live in a Hindu society in Mumbai (but often worse, in that they often wouldn't even be offered a flat). Same goes for Christian societies or Parsi societies, or Brahmin neighbourhoods in villages and so on. India was divided and conquered by the British just like that, why repeat and exacerbate those mistakes instead of trying to fix them?

You said that Ambedkar's views on Islam would be considered as Islamophobic.

Do you also have a view about the truthness or the falseness of Ambedkar's view? If it's false, then it should have been a freak observation, which by common layman experience, appears to be not. If it's the truth, then are you saying that something can be true and Islamophobic at the same time?

Something needs to be false if it is held to be Islamophobic or any religionphobic. How can truth generate phobia of something? By that logic, speaking truth about Nazi atrocities would make one Naziphobic? Can Naziphobia be a real thing at all. Absolutely not, because truth is the truth.

You can't say a rock falling down is birdphobic.

That's a good point, islamophobia often does not seem like the right and accurate word, as it often seems to be about hate or mistrust of Muslims. Functionally 'islamophobia' as it is often used, is no different from anti-semitism, racism or other forms of bigotry and intolerance isms. Any suggestions for better words?

Regarding your claim that Ambedkar's views of Muslims are accepted by a 'common layman', then ask yourself: by which common layman? An intolerant or bigoted common layman? An educated common layman? A Muslim common layman? A common layman in Kerala or in UP?

Then ask yourself, if it is a view accepted amongst some people, why is this so, if not also through a lifetime of political propaganda and intolerance passed down the generations? I.e., Islamophobia: fear your Muslim neighbour. And ask yourself whether such 'fear' and distrust of another community - often inflamed by religious or political leaders - has brought any positives to this country, or whether it's actually brought a lot of strife. And is insisting on and pandering to those differences between communities any different than the British strategy of 'divide and conquer'?

I'm not hopeful to actually get a response or convince anyone that their intolerance is just that or not, but know that it's easy to counter the common opinions espoused by the Islamophobic.