THE BUDDHA AS A HINDU AND MARXIST

The Mystery of the Adi Buddha

I had been to Bodh Gaya.Buddha got enlightenment while meditating underneath a fig tree here.Emperor Asoka's evil queen Tissarakha  thought Asoka was pouring his love and affection to the tree instead of her and used a Mandu thorn to kill the tree in the Mahamega arama.Hindus had been visiting Bodh Gaya since atleast Buddha's own life time.The site was actually maitained by a lineage of Saiva priests.

Why so?

It is because there was a Hindu Buddha.The Adi Buddha,who is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In Lalita Vistara, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha. The original name of Bodhgaya is Kikata, after Gautama attained enlightment there, it came to be known as Buddha gaya. Even today the rituals of worship is preformed by sannyasis of Sankaracharya sect.

Lankavatara Sutra, the famous buddhist work says that Ravana, King of Lanka first worshipped Vishnu incarnation Buddha then successive and future Buddha.

It is very evident that Purana and Buddhist Chronology does not synchronize with each other, while they seem to be saying about the same person. When Analyzing this question. It becomes apparent that we have merged two Buddhas. The Adi Buddha or Avatar Buddha of Vishnu and Shakya Buddha or Gautama Buddha into One.

Adi Buddha was born on 1887BC to Mother Anjana in Kikata (Bodh Gaya).

He established the Philosophy of Ahimsa, Non Violence. He preached against ritual animal sacrifices that has crept into Vedic Hinduism. He emphasized the divine in all beings and divinity of all souls arousing compassion for all.

Bhagavata Purana says "At the commencement of the Kāli-yuga will Vishnu become incarnate in Kikata, under the name of Buddha, the son of Jina, for the purpose of deluding the enemies of the gods."

Puranas say that Adi Buddha was born in Ikshvaku Dynasty.

Adi Buddha is contemproary of Srenika(Sunika) whose father was Hemajit or Kshemajit or Kshetroja or Ksetrauja. Son of Srenika is Kunika. His son is Dharshaka.

Siddhartha was was born around 560BC in the royal family of Suddhodana and Mayadevi in Lumbini in Nepal. Siddhartha received his name Gautama from his spiritual Master Gautama Muni, who belonged to Kapila dynasty,as per Sundarananda Charita. He left home, his royal comforts to find enlightenment. He went to Bodh Gaya to meditate and got enlightenment.It again means Bodh Gaya was a pilgrimage centre during his time.

Gautama Buddha is the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyavada, three pillars of Atheism. He Went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of Adi Buddha.

If Adi Buddha was the contemporary of srenika,as stated above,again confuion arises-Bimbisāra (c. 558 – c. 491 BC or during the late 5th century BC,was  also known as Seniya or Shrenika in the Jain histories.He was a King of Magadha (r. 543 – 492 BC or c. 400 BC and belonged to the Haryanka dynasty. He was the son of Bhattiya,a chieftain. His expansion of the kingdom, especially his annexation of the kingdom of Anga to the east, is considered to have laid the foundations for the later expansion of the Maurya Empire.

He is also known for his cultural achievements and was a great friend and protector of the Buddha. Bimbisara—according to Hiuen Tsang—built the city of Rajgir (Rajagriha), famous in Buddhist writings (others attribute the city's foundation to his successor).He was succeeded on the throne by his son Ajatashatru.

Bimbisara welcomes Buddha

He became a devotee of Jainism impressed by the calmness of Yamadhar (a Jain Muni). He frequently visited Samavasarana of Lord Mahavira seeking answers to his queries.Per Jain scripture, Bimbisara killed himself in a fit of passion, after his son had imprisoned him. Consequently, he was reborn in hell, where he is currently residing, until the karma which led to his birth there comes to an end.It is further written, that he will be reborn as Mahapadma (sometimes called Padmanabha), the first in the chain of future tirthankaras who are to rise at the beginning of the upward motion (Utsarpini) of the next era of time

According to Buddhist scriptures, King Bimbisara met the Buddha for the first time prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, and later became an important disciple that featured prominently in certain Buddhist suttas. He is recorded to have attained sotapannahood, a degree of enlightenment in Buddhist teachings. Although Bimbisara let the women in his palace visit Buddha in his monastery in the evenings; the women wanted a hair-and-nail stupa they could use to venerate the Buddha any time. Bimbisara spoke with Buddha who complied with their requests.

Many biographies of the Buddha begin not with his birth in his last lifetime but in a lifetime millions of years before, when he first made the vow to become a buddha. According to a well-known version, many aeons ago there lived a Brahman named (in some accounts) Sumedha, who realized that life is characterized by suffering and then set out to find a state beyond death. He retired to the mountains, where he became a hermit, practiced meditation, and gained yogic powers. While flying through the air one day, he noticed a great crowd around a teacher, whom Sumedha learned was the buddha Dipamkara. When he heard the word buddha he was overcome with joy. Upon Dipamkara’s approach, Sumedha loosened his yogin’s matted locks and laid himself down to make a passage across the mud for the Buddha. Sumedha reflected that were he to practice the teachings of Dipamkara he could free himself from future rebirth in that very lifetime. But he concluded that it would be better to delay his liberation in order to traverse the longer path to buddhahood; as a buddha he could lead others across the ocean of suffering to the farther shore. Dipamkara paused before Sumedha and predicted that many aeons hence this yogin with matted locks would become a buddha. He also prophesied Sumedha’s name in his last lifetime (Gautama) and the names of his parents and chief disciples and described the tree under which the future Buddha would sit on the night of his enlightenment.

Over the subsequent aeons, the bodhisattva would renew his vow in the presence of each of the buddhas who came after Dipamkara, before becoming the buddha Shakyamuni himself. Over the course of his lifetimes as a bodhisattva, he accumulated merit (punya) through the practice of 6 (or 10) virtues. After his death as Prince Vessantara, he was born in the Tusita Heaven, whence he surveyed the world to locate the proper site of his final birth.

He determined that he should be born the son of the king Shuddhodana of the Shakya clan, whose capital was Kapilavastu. Shortly thereafter, his mother, the queen Maha Maya, dreamed that a white elephant had entered her womb. Ten lunar months later, as she strolled in the garden of Lumbini, the child emerged from under her right arm. He was able to walk and talk immediately. A lotus flower blossomed under his foot at each step, and he announced that this would be his last lifetime. The king summoned the court astrologers to predict the boy’s future. Seven agreed that he would become either a universal monarch (chakravartin) or a buddha; one astrologer said that there was no doubt, the child would become a buddha. His mother died seven days after his birth, and so he was reared by his mother’s sister, Mahaprajapati. As a young child, the prince was once left unattended during a festival. Later in the day he was discovered seated in meditation under a tree, whose shadow had remained motionless throughout the day to protect him from the sun.The later legend is well known.

The Nirvana of Buddha

But the irony is that,for a man who espoused Ahimsa,the end was by eating meat.At age 80 the Buddha, weak from old age and illness, accepted a meal (it is difficult to identify from the texts what the meal consisted of, but many scholars believe it was pork) from a smith named Chunda, instructing the smith to serve him alone and bury the rest of the meal without offering it to the other monks. The Buddha became severely ill shortly thereafter, and at a place called Kusinara (also spelled Kushinagar; modern Kasia) lay down on his right side between two trees, which immediately blossomed out of season. He instructed the monk who was fanning him to step to one side, explaining that he was blocking the view of the deities who had assembled to witness his passing. After he provided instructions for his funeral, he said that lay people should make pilgrimages to the place of his birth, the place of his enlightenment, the place of his first teaching, and the place of his passage into nirvana. Those who venerate shrines erected at these places will be reborn as gods. The Buddha then explained to the monks that after he was gone the dharma and the vinaya (code of monastic conduct) should be their teacher. He also gave permission to the monks to abolish the minor precepts (because Ananda failed to ask which ones, it was later decided not to do so). Finally, the Buddha asked the 500 disciples who had assembled whether they had any last question or doubt. When they remained silent, he asked two more times and then declared that none of them had any doubt or confusion and were destined to achieve nirvana. According to one account, he then opened his robe and instructed the monks to behold the body of a buddha, which appears in the world so rarely. Finally, he declared that all conditioned things are transient and exhorted the monks to strive with diligence. These were his last words. The Buddha then entered into meditative absorption, passing from the lowest level to the highest, then from the highest to the lowest, before entering the fourth level of concentration, whence he passed into nirvana.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the term ādibuddha is often used to describe Samantabhadra, Vajradhara or Kalachakra. In East Asian Mahayana, the ādibuddha is typically considered to be Vairocana.

The Guhyasamāja Tantra says of Vajradhāra, " Vajradhara, the Teacher, who is bowed to by all the Buddhas, best of the three diamonds, best of the great best, supreme lord of the three diamonds."

Alex Wayman notes that the Pradipoddyotana, a tantric commentary, states that the "three diamonds" are the three mysteries of Body, Speech, and Mind. Wayman further writes: "Tsong-kha-pa's Mchan-'grel explains the "lord of body": displays simultaneously innumerable materializations of body; "lord of speech": teaches the Dharma simultaneously to boundless sentient beings each in his own language; "lord of mind": understands all the knowable which seems impossible.

According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the ādibuddha is also seen in Mahayana Buddhism as representation of the universe, its laws and its true nature, as a source of enlightenment and karmic manifestations and a representation of the Trikaya.

Within the Nichiren school of Japanese Buddhism, the Nikko-lineage, specifically the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, regard Nichiren as the Adi-(primal) Buddha and dispute the contentions of other sects that view him as a bodhisattva.

Tibetan thangka of Vajradhara

Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Indonesian Buddhism. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.This concept is used by the Indonesian Buddhist Council, an organization that seeks to represent all Buddhist traditions in Indonesia such as Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

Adi Buddha is a term used in Tantric Buddhism to refer to the Primordial Buddha. The term Sanghyang Adi Buddha is agreed upon and used by the Indonesian Supreme Sangha and the Indonesian Buddhist Council as the designation for the God Almighty. This term is not found in Pāli Canon, but used in some old Indonesian Vajrayana texts such as Sanghyang Kamahayanikan.

Sang Hyang Adi Buddha refers to "the seed of Buddhahood" inside every being. In Mahayana Buddhism, Adi Buddha refers to the primordial Buddha that outlines the same Universal Dhamma.The Adi-buddha is not a monotheistic deity as in the Abrahamic traditions, but is rather the primordial nature of mind, the part of the mind that never enters samsara, and is thus the "primordial Buddha." As the Primordial Buddha never entertains conceptual ignorance or proliferation, all that arises is referred to as "self-liberated."

Indonesian National Encyclopedia (1988) describes Adi Buddha and the traditions that are used this term thus:

"Adi-Buddha is a term for the Almighty God in Buddhism. This title came from the Aisvarika tradition of Mahayana in Nepal, which is spread through Bengal, and became also known in Java. Aisvarika is the term for the disciples of theist view in Buddhism. This word came from 'Isvara' which means 'God' or 'Great Buddha' or 'the Almighty', and 'ika' which means 'follower' or 'disciple'. "

"This term is used by the Svabhavavak Buddhism in Nepal. This school is one of the branch of Tantrayana school of Mahayana. The term for God Almighty in this school is Adi-Buddha. Later, this view also spread to Java in the time of Srivijaya and Majapahit. The present scholars knows this term from the paper of B.H. Hodgson, a researcher who studied the religious in Nepal.

"According to this view, one can coalesce (moksha) with Adi-Buddha or Isvara through his efforts with the ascetic path (tapa) and meditating (Dhyana)."

The use of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a name for a supreme God is controversial among Indonesian Buddhists to the present day. The reason is that the concept of Sanghyang Adi Buddha, which only exists in Tantrayana/ Vajrayana traditions, is not a god in the sense of a personal god of the monotheistic religions. The use of the name of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a personal god, is the product of a compromise with political reality, and is contrary to the teachings of Buddhism. Because of this political compromise, Indonesian Buddhism differs from mainstream Buddhism. This controversy also extends to Very Venerable Ashin Jinarakkhita as the originator of the term Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a god in Buddhism.

Mahavamsa traces the Shakya dyansty to Ikshvaku dynasty and starts the dynasty with Ikshvaku.

Threvada Texts refer to six Preceding Buddhas (Those who have been awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, krakuccanda, Konagamara and Kashyapa, also they say Maitreya as the Buddha of the future.

Amara Simha, Buddhist scholar, who wrote Amarakosha gives eighteen names of Vishnu avatara including the name Sugato (Which Shankara calls Buddha) and seven names of Shakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. So we can even argue that Shankara talks about avatar Buddha not Shakya Buddha. Amarakosha states the Lord Buddha is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being.

Analysing Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita sutra, Astasahastrika prajna- paramita sutra, Sata-Shastrika Prajna, Pramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara shows three categories of Buddha namely,

Human Buddhas: Like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi(Original-First) Buddha: the Avatar of Vishnu.

Adi Shankara, who can be termed founder of Hinduism,in discussion with others treated both Buddhas as one person and did not discriminate between the two.Hindu scholars doesn't see Vedanta in Buddhism,since Buddha was a Nasthika.Maybe,Buddhism can be included only as part of the Purva Mimamsa,which dwelt only in outer spheres of human actions.With his Advaita Mayavadha philosophy Sankara not only stopped the rise of Buddhism in India, assuring its decline. 

By Combining two Buddhas Indology scholars have ignored the Purana accounts and thus the Indian mythology. Whenever the Puranas refers to Adi Buddha,the euro centric scholars will cite Gautama Buddha to discredit and vice versa.

Colonel Kennedy, argues that the Buddha of the Purana and Buddha the founder of the Buddhist system of religion have nothing in common but the name, and that the attempted identification of these two is simply the work of European scholars, who have not been sufficiently careful to collect information, and to weigh the evidence they have had before them.

The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories arise from the euro centric existential dilemma.

Indology scholars just pick and choose to discredit Purana sources. The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddha’s Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddha’s Nirvana is imaginary. Western scholars arbitrarily skipped 12 centuries of Indian history because their ‘hypothesis’ about Alexander’s invasion did not match with centuries-old Indian chronology.

We see that Early Buddhist texts distinguishes the two Buddhas, while the later ones seem to ignore the former. The Rock Edicts of Piyadasi teachings are of Adi Buddha and not Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu. Avatar of Vishnu is Adi Buddha.

Buddha is considered as an avatar of Vishnu, by traditions within Hinduism. Buddhists traditionally do not accept the Buddha to be a Vishnu avatar. The adoption of Buddha may have been a way to assimilate Buddhism into the fold of Hinduism.Much like Hinduism's adoption of the Buddha as an avatar, Buddhism legends too adopted Krishna in their Jataka tales, claiming Krishna the Vishnu avatar, to be a character whom Buddha met and taught in his previous births. The adoption of the Buddha in texts relating to Hindu gods, and of Hindu gods in Buddhist texts, is difficult to place chronologically. According to Alf Hiltebeitel and other scholars, some of the stories in Buddha-related Jataka tales found in Pali texts seem slanderous distortions of Hindu legends, but these may reflect the ancient local traditions and the complexities of early interaction between the two Indian religions.

Bodh Gaya

Though an avatar of Vishnu, the Buddha is rarely worshipped like Krishna and Rama in Hinduism.According to John Holt, the Buddha was adopted as an avatar of Vishnu around the time the Puranas were being composed, in order to subordinate him into the Brahmanical ideology. Further adds Holt, various scholars in India, Sri Lanka and outside South Asia, that the colonial era and contemporary attempts to assimilate Buddha into the Hindu fold are part of a nationalistic political agenda, where the Buddha has been reclaimed triumphantly as a symbol of indigenous nationalist understandings of India's history and culture.

Swami Vivekananda said:

"Buddha was a great Vedantist (for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta), and Shankara is often called a “hidden Buddhist”. Buddha made the analysis, Shankara made the synthesis out of it. Buddha never bowed down to anything — neither Veda, nor caste, nor priest, nor custom. He fearlessly reasoned so far as reason could take him. Such a fearless search for truth and such love for every living thing the world has never seen."

He added:

"In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone’s door. In Sankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends.."

There are several other statements of Vivekananda on Buddha,which are contradictory;he has also termed Buddha a Hindu.In Notes Taken Down in Madras ( 1892-1893) ,Vivekananda says,"Buddha,we may say now,ought to have understood the harmony of  religions;he introduced sectarianism."

But in Vivekananda's Buddha's Message to The World ( 18 March 1900 ) Vivekananda remarked:

"Buddha was the triumph in the struggle that had been going on between the priests and the prophets in India. One thing can be said for these Indian priests — they were not and never are intolerant of religion; they never have persecuted religion. Any man was allowed to preach against them. Theirs is such a religion; they never molested any one for his religious views. But they suffered from the peculiar weaknesses of all the priests: they also sought power, they also promulgated rules and regulations and made religion unnecessarily complicated, and thereby undermined the strength of those who followed their religion."

Vedantists will never agree with Vivekananda's statement that Buddha was a vedantist.Buddhism,infact,has nothing to do with vedanta.For this too,I quote Vivekananda:"Buddhism proves nothing about the Absolute Entity. In a stream the water is changing; we have no right to call the stream one. Buddhist deny the one, and say, it is many. We say it is one and deny the many. What they call Karma is what we call the soul. According to Buddhism, man is a series of waves. Every wave dies, but somehow the first wave causes the second. That the second wave is identical with the first is illusion. To get rid of illusion good Karma is necessary. Buddhists do not postulate anything beyond the world. We say, beyond the relative there is the Absolute".

The Oxford professor and later President of India, S Radhakrishnan states that "as a matter of fact, nowhere did Buddha repudiate the Upanishad conception of Brahman, the absolute"; that Buddha, if anything, "accepted the Upanishad's position". Buddhologists like K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich meanwhile, argue that the Buddha's anatta theory does indeed extend to the Brahmanical belief expounded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that the Self (Atman) is the Universal Self, or Brahman.They point to the Pali Alagaddūpama-sutta, where the Buddha argues that an individual cannot experience the suffering of the entire world.

Ambedkar,the Dalit leader who in 1935 declared his intention to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism and converted about 20 years later, rejected that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Ambedkar, while he was a Hindu and before he launched a new form of Buddhism, reinterpreted Buddha's teachings into what he called Navayana (New Vehicle), wherein he tried a Marxist interpretation of Buddha teachings. He founded and converted to a new version of Buddhism, a version which criticized and rejected Hinduism, but also Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism because, according to Ambedkar, they all misrepresented the Buddha.

To me,arguing on philosphy is intellectual masturbation.Buddha need not be a Hindu to be accepted into its fold because Buddha is part of the great Indian tradition where the Samkhya/Charvaka primeval Marxist philosphy ruled for 700 years.Hinduism even accepts that soulless philosphy part of its tradition.Hence,the ousted Rama advised his brother King Bharatha to  honour the Charvakas,the then Marxists,while knowing the Marxists are intolerant.Hence the many lives of Buddha makes the Indian tradition vibrant and exotic.

© Ramachandran 

MARUTHANAYAGAM-CONVERSION AS OPPORTUNISM

He Had Captured Puli Thevar Too

“The mutiny in Meerut, which many claim as India’s first war of Independence, took place in 1857. However, almost a 100 years before that rebellion broke out, Marudhanayagam took on the British. To stop him, the British had to spend an amount that is almost on par with the amount that the US had to spend to vanquish Saddam Hussein in recent times",said Kamal Haasan on Marudhanayagam,while he was on a project on the so called hero.

Marudhanayagam,was Muhammad Yusuf Khan thoughout his mature life.So why the movie is titled Maruthanayagam?To appease the Hindus?

The British had his body dismembered and his body parts displayed on the principal gateways of the city of Madura for a while before despatching it to various other places as a warning to others who might harbour thoughts of rebellion against them.

Kamal had shot 30 minutes of the film and two hours were left.His then wife Sarika was the costume designer.But why Kamal shelved his dream project?As a political analyst,I infer that the movie,if made would be in hot waters,because Marudhanayagam,a Vellala Pillai,had got converted into Islam,and for long years in his life,he was Muhammad Yusuf Khan.He is not a hero of Hindus,neither of the Tamils.For people of Travancore,he was a brabarian,who looted the state every season.

His life is a contrast to the life of Chempaka Raman Pillai,the modern day anti British warrior,who never changed loyalities,unlike Marudhanayagam-It is better Kamal do a film on Chempaka Raman Pillai.

There are different accounts and versions on Marudhanayagam, but one of the most extensively researched accounts happens to be by an Englishman called Samuel Charles Hill.Hill, in his book on Marudhanayagam tilted Yusuf Khan, The Rebel Commandant, says Marudhanayagam was born a Hindu at Pannaiyur in Ramnad district and that he ran away from home as a boy. Later, he converted to Islam and took the name Muhammad Yusuf aafter which he seems to have entered the services of a couple of Europeans.

Yusuf Khan tomb

Yusuf seems to have rendered  service, both as a military general and as an administrator. From the time he provided security to the convoys bringing supplies to the forts at Tirunelveli to the countless victories he won for the British, his services were ubiquitous. As a result, he was appointed Governor of Madurai and Tinnevelly. Yusuf Khan (1725 – 15 October 1764) or Maruthanayagam Pillai (correctly Mathuranayagam Pillai) was born in Panaiyur, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India in 1725. From humble beginnings, he became a warrior in the Arcot troops, later Commandant for the British East India Company troops. The British and the Arcot Nawab used him to suppress the Polygars (Palayakkarar) in the south of Tamil Nadu. Later he was entrusted to administrating the Madurai country when the Madurai Nayaks rule ended. Later a dispute arose with the British and Arcot Nawab, and three of his associates were bribed to capture Yusuf Khan; he was hanged in 1764 in Madurai.

Polygar (also spelled Palegara, Palaiyakkarar, Poligar, Palegaadu, Palegar, or Polegar, or Paalegaadu was the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military governors appointed by the Valmiki Nayaka rulers of Southern India (notably Vijayanagara Empire, Madurai Nayakas and the Kakatiya dynasty) during the 16th–18th centuries.

The Polygars of Madurai Country were instrumental in establishing administrative reforms by building irrigation projects, forts and religious institutions. The Polygars who worshipped the goddess Kali did not allow their territory to be annexed by Aurangzeb.

Their wars with the British East India Company after the demise of the Madurai Nayakas is often regarded as one of the earliest struggles for Indian independence. The British hanged many and banished others to the Andaman Islands. Dheeran Chinnamalai, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone, Puli Thevar, the Marudu brothers and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy were some notable Polygars who rose up in revolt against the British rule in Southern India. The war against the British forces predates the Indian rebellion of 1857 in Northern India.

Maruthanayagam Pillai (or Mathuranayagam Pillai) alias Yusuf Khan was born circa 1725  in a Hindu farming family of Saiva Vellalar caste.Being too restless in his youth, he left his native village, and converted to Islam. To make a living, he served as a domestic hand at the residence of the French Governor Monsr Jacques Law in Pondicherry. It was here he befriended another French, Marchand (a subordinate of Jacques Law), who later became captain of the French force under Yusuf Khan in Madurai. Whether Yusuf Khan was dismissed from this job or left on his own is unclear. He left Pondicherry, for Tanjore and joined the Tanjorean army as a sepoy (foot soldier).

Around this time, an English captain named Brunton educated Yusuf Khan, making him a learned man well-versed in several languages. From Tanjore he moved to Nellore (in present day Andhra Pradesh), to try his hand as a native physician under Mohammed Kamal, in addition to his career in the army. He moved up the ranks as Thandalgar (tax collector), Havildar and finally as a Subedar and that is how he is referred to in the English records ('Nellore Subedar' or just 'Nellore'). He later enlisted under Chanda Sahib who was then the Nawab of Arcot. While staying in Arcot he fell in love with a 'Portuguese' Christian (a person of mixed Indo-European descent) girl named Maasa (?Marsha /?Marcia), and married her.

In 1751, there was an ongoing scuffle between Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, (who was the son of the previous Nawab of Arcot Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan hence the rightful claimant) and Chanda Sahib his relative and a pretender, for the throne of Arcot. The former sought the help of British and the latter the French. Chanda Sahib initially succeeded and became the Nawab, forcing Muhammed Ali to escape to the rock-fort in Tiruchirapalli. Chanda Sahib followed and with the help of the French, besieged Trichy. Muhammed Ali and the English force supporting him were in a grim position.

 

 Robert Clive, (who had earlier joined the East India Company as a writer) with a small English force of 300 soldiers made a diversionary attack on Arcot to draw away Chanda Sahib's army from Trichy. Chanda Sahib dispatched a 10,000 strong force under his son Raza Sahib to retake Arcot. Raza Sahib was aided by the Nellore Army and Yusuf Khan as a Subedar must have been in this force. At Arcot, and later at Kaveripakkam, Chanda Sahib’s son was badly defeated by Robert Clive, and it was now Chanda Sahib's turn to escape to Tanjore where he was killed by Mankoji, a Tanjorean general. The English quickly installed Muhammed Ali as the Nawab of Arcot and most of Chanda Sahib's native forces defected to the English.

Madurai during Yusuf Khan

Yusuf Khan's military career started during the Carnatic Wars. Under Major Stringer Lawrence, Yusuf Khan was trained in the European method of warfare and his natural talent in military tactics and strategy blossomed to its full potential.Over the next decade, as the Company fought the French in the Wars of the Carnatic, it was Yusuf Khan's guerrilla tactics, repeatedly cutting the French lines of supply, that did the French in, particularly during Lally's siege of Madras in 1758.Thomas Arthur Lally was to later describe the role of the Nellore Subedar's sepoys in these words: "They were like flies, no sooner beat off from one part, they came from another.

His greatest supporter during this period was George Pigot, the English governor in Madras. 

George Pigot

In March 1956 Yusuf Khan was sent to Madurai to collect taxes and restore order. But during that time Madurai was under control of one Barkadthullah of Chanda Sahib days, with the support of Hyder Ali of Mysore. During this time an old Fakir climbed the top of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and was preparing to build a dargah for himself, which angered the locals. Barkadthullah justifying the Fakirs attempts further added fuel to the fire. During this time Yusuf Khan arrived with little as 400 troops to take control of Madurai, showing his brilliance in defeating Barkadthullah’s large army, with Barkadthullah fleeing to Sivaganga Zamin and the Fakir, got whacked out of the town.

Once again Yusuf reached Madurai on May 20, 1759, only to find the place in total chaos. He is believed to have restored order swiftly and was able to remit his rent regularly. 

Puli Thevar statue in  Nerkattumseval

During this time Yusuf Khan battled with Puli Thevar, (pronounced Pooli Thevar; the correct full name was 'Pooludaiya Thevar' or in short 'Poolu Thevar') a polygar of Nerkattumseval(Original Name was Nelkettaanseval), a small town to the south-west of Madurai. Puli Thevar was rebelling against the Nawab and the British. Yusuf Khan quickly separated Travancore Raja from Puli Thevar's group after entering into an agreement. Yusuf Khan captured several of Puli Thevar's forts which were earlier tried unsuccessfully by the British. Later in a battle Puli Thevar was captured by Yusuf Khan, however Puli Thevar disappeatred in Sankarankovil (some believe he disappeared in Sankarankovil Gomathi Ambal Sannithi ). It is believed that Puli Thevar  escaped to regions of Hyderabad Deccan along with his followers where he was planned to be hanged. Puli Thevar remains a legend in the area and no further details about him is available.

Hill in his book points out that apart from remitting his rent regularly, Yusuf Khan managed to create and equip a force with which he could take on the combined forces of the Nawab and the British.

Reports of Yusuf Khan's victories  filled the Arcot Nawab with jealousy and alarm that he might depose him. Yusuf Khan  instructed all the traders to render taxes directly to him, while the Arcot Nawab wanted to have taxes routed through him. The British Governor Pigot diplomatically advised Yusuf Khan to do as per Arcot Nawab’s order, also some British traders supported the same citing Yusuf Khan as Nawab’s employee. To make matters worse the Nawab’s brother Mahfuz Khan started planning to poison Yusuf Khan, with the whole hearted support of the Nawab.

In 1761, and again in 1762,Yusuf Khan  offered to lease Tinnevelly and Madurai for four years more at seven lakhs per annum. His offer was refused, and whether he was enraged at this, or whether he thought himself powerful enough to defy his masters, he shortly afterwards threw off his allegiance and began to collect troops in an ambition to be the lord of Madurai.

Charles Hill book 

Around this time some British traders reported  to the Nawab and the Company, on Yusuf Khan "as encouraging people with anti-British sentiments, spending vast sums on his troops”. Nawab, in turn with the British sent Captain Manson with orders to arrest Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan sent a note to Sivaganga Zamindari reminding them on their pending Tax arrears.Sivaganga’s Minister and General came to meet Yusuf Khan in Madurai, and after not getting their expected respect, got a rude warning, citing annexure of certain territories for the failure of arrears. The enraged Sivaganga Zamindar, immediately ordered Yusuf Khan to be “captured and hanged as like a dog”. Ramnad Zamin’s general Damodar Pillai and Thandavarayan Pillai met the Arcot Nawab in Trichy,complained on Yusuf Khan’s plunderings of Sivaganga villages, his cannon manufacturing plant in association with a certain French Marchaud, whom he a befriended earlier, with plans for a war against the Nawabs.

Arcot Nawab and the British quickly acted by amassing a huge army. For a start they aroused Travancore Raja against Yusuf Khan.In the ensuring battle the Travancore Raja was defeated and the British flags in his domains were chopped and burnt, and joined hands with the French and also hoisted the French flag on the Madurai Fort. When Governor Thomas Saunders in Madras called Khan for a meeting, he refused evoking the wrath of the East India Company.Delhi’s Shah and Nizam Ali of Hyderabad, the Arcot Nawab’s overlords proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the rightful legal governor of Madurai and Tirunelveli regions. Arcot Nawab along with the British was hell bent on finding a reason to capture and kill Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan had enemies lurking around him everywhere. Earlier working for the Arcot Nawab and British he earned the wrath of Mysore, and had slaughtered most of all rebellious Polygars who were anti-British, and the remaining were on the prowl. Now the Tanjore, Travancore, Pudukkotai, Ramnad, Sivaganga kingdoms joined with the British and the Arcot Nawab to attack Yusuf Khan, who by this time had proclaimed himself independent ruler of Madurai and Tirunelveli. In the First siege of Madurai in 1763, the English could not make any headway because of inadequate forces and the army retreated to Tiruchi citing Monsoons.

Nizam Ali of Hyderabad once again proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the Rightful governor, while the Arcot Nawab and the British issued death sentence for Yusuf Khan as “to be captured alive and hanged before the first known tree as like a dog”.

In 1764 again the British troops surrounded the Madurai Fort, this time cutting supplies to the fort.Yusuf Khan and his troops went without food and water for several days inside the fort,surviving on horse and monkey meat according to European sources,but held on with great energy and skill, renovating and strengthening the fort at great expense, and repelling the chief assault with a loss of 120 Europeans including nine officers,killed and wounded. At the end of that time little real progress against him had been made, except that the place was now rigorously blockaded.

The Arcot Nawab consulted Sivaganga General Thaandavaraaya Pillai, along with Major Charles Campbell, hatching a  plot to bribe Yusuf khan’s Dewan Srinivasa Rao, Marchand the captain of the French mercenaries and Khan’s doctor Baba Sahib. One morning, when Yusuf Khan was offering his prayers inside the fort, Marchand, Srinivasa Rao and Baba sahib went in quietly and pinned Yusuf Khan to the ground and tied him up using his own turban. Hearing this commotion, one youth called Mudali, close to Yusuf Khan, raised an alarm. He was quickly caught and cut down. As the news of the coup reached Yusuf Khan's wife, she rushed to the scene with a small posse of troops. But they were helpless against the well armed French and other European mercenaries, standing guard around the fallen ruler. Under cover of darkness and an even darker veil of secrecy, Marchand whisked away Yusuf Khan out of the fort and handed him over to Major Charles Campbell, who commanded the English among the besiegers. The major part of Yusuf Khan's native forces remained totally unaware of the fateful drama that had been enacted inside his house.

The next day, in the evening of 15 October 1764, near the army camp at Sammattipuram, on the Madurai- Dindigul road, Yusuf Khan was ignominiously hanged as a rebel by Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, the Nawab of Arcot. This place is about two miles to the west of Madurai, known as Dabedar Chandai (Shandy), and his body was buried at the spot.

What motives forced the three main conspirators, who were Yusuf Khan's close confidantes, to betray him? It is said that Yusuf Khan had once flogged Marchand with a whip (the first time a European officer had been whipped by a native ruler) and so he was waiting for an opportune time to take revenge. It is also possible that extreme misery of the people and soldiers inside the fort  might have forced the Dewan Srinivasa Rao and Baba Sahib, the physician of Yusuf Khan to decide that handing Yusuf Khan over to the English, would make them lift the siege and relieve the people of their intense agony and suffering.

Records show that the British tried to hang yusuf Khan thrice and twice the rope broke.Twice the noose broke down and he fell down alive, for which Yusuf Khan ordered the troops to remove a neck brace before hanging.The agitated Nawab ordered his men to chop his body into several parts and place them all over his domains. As went his head to Tiruchirappalli ,arms to Palayamkottai, legs to Tanjore and Travancore for public viewing and later buried at Periyakulam city near Madurai. The remaining body was buried at Madurai.In 1808, a small square mosque was erected over the tomb in Samattipuram, in Madurai, which exists to this day on the left of the road to Theni, at Kaalavaasal, a little beyond the toll-gate, and is known as 'Khan Sahib's pallivasal'. 

Hill's book sums up his life with this quote: “Of Yusuf Khan, there now remains only a little white mosque, a street in Madura known to the people by his name though officially it bears another designation and a fast fading memory of one who, though he died a rebel, had been a gallant and skilful soldier...."

Why Yusuf Khan got converted in the first place? We can only guess based on his other actions and the signs of those times. Between the fall of the Nayak Kingdoms and British take over, Tamil Nadu was total mess, with Arcot, Mysore, Palayakaras, Travancore, French, British, Dutch, Zamindars and all trying to feast on the pieces.

Each bent on betraying the other, making and breaking alliances turns and twists.

Yusuf Khan reminds us of the Condottieri ,mercenary adventurer captains, who switched allegiances by the day. French today, tomorrow Arcot. Day after the British-always looking to make money and aggrandize himself.

For such a person, faith is also matter of convenience. Being a Hindu in those tumultuous times would not have been any advantage and given his colour, Europeans hardly are going to accept him as one of his own.

Condottieri were Italian captains contracted to command mercenary companies during the Middle Ages and multinational armies during the early modern period. They notably served European monarchs and Popes during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance and the European Wars of Religion. Notable condottieri include Prospero Colonna, Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, Cesare Borgia, Andrea Doria, the Duke of Parma, and the Marquis of Pescara.

The term condottiero in medieval Italian originally meant "contractor", given that the condotta was the contract by which the condottieri put themselves in the service of a city or of a lord, but became a synonym of "military leader" during the Renaissance and Reformation era. Some authors have described Guido da Landriano (the real figure behind the legendary Alberto da Giussano) as the "first condottiero" and Napoleon Bonaparte (in virtue of his Italian origins) as the "last condottiero". According to this view, the condottieri tradition would span a huge diverse period from the battle of Legnano in 1176 to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Most historians would narrow it down to the years from c.1350 to c.1650, with a particular focus on the rise of the commanders of free companies (capitani di ventura) and their transformation into captain generals fighting for the major powers during the struggle for political and religious supremacy in Europe.

In 1494, the French king Charles VIII's royal army invaded the Italian peninsula, initiating the Italian Wars. The most renowned condottieri fought for foreign powers: Gian Giacomo Trivulzio abandoned Milan for France, while Andrea Doria was Admiral of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In the end, failure was political, rather than military, stemming from disunity and political indecision, and, by 1550, the military service condotta had disappeared, while the term condottiere remained current, denominating the great Italian generals (mainly) fighting for foreign states; men such as Gian Giacomo Medici, Ambrogio Spinola, Alexander Farnese, Marcantonio II Colonna, Raimondo Montecuccoli and Prospero Colonna were prominent into the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The political practice of hiring foreign mercenaries, however, did not end. For example, the Vatican’s Swiss Guards are the modern remnants of a historically effective mercenary army.

The end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 and the birth of Westphalian sovereignty diminished Roman Catholic influence in Europe and led to the consolidation of large states, while Italy was fragmented and divided. The condottieri tradition greatly suffered the political and strategic decline of Italy and never recovered.

Portrait of a condottiero by Ermanno Stroiffi

Contrast Yusuf Khan with Puli Thevan.Puli Thevar, one of Yusuf Khan’s enemies, fought for his own heritage, land and freedom and died for it.Puli Thevan was a Tamil Polygar who ruled Nerkattumseval, situated in the Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. He is notable for fighting against the imperial British rule in India.Puli Thevar was born in the Maravar community in Puli Nadu, a part of Pandya Nadu.Venni Kaladi, was the general of Puli Thevar's army.

Yusuf Khan’s loyalties changed by the hour. Finally he grew too large for his boots and the same Nawabs and Colonials who aided his growth, ganged up on him and killed him.

He is not worthy of any honour, just because he was eventually killed by India’s oppressors.

While an adventurer’s story would be an exciting read/movie, Kamal Haasan maybe trying to make him into  some kind of an oppressed lower caste hero who rebels against his society, converts and fights against oppression. That is just hijacking an opportunist for his own agendas.

Going to the other conversion,Yusuf Khan had married a christian.

The Catholic Mission in North Arcot dates back to 1604. 

The last great prince of the declining Vijayanagar empire (now in Andhra Pradesh), Venkatapathy Deva Rayalu, conquered the kingdom of Vellore in January 1604 and named it Raya Elluru. Elapuri or Elluru in Telugu language would mean city or town. Raya Elluru was meant a town conquered by the king Rayalu and thus the town was named after him - combination of two words Raya and Elapuri.

There were then some Jesuit Fathers at the court of King Rayalu at Chandragiri. He took them also to his new court at Vellore. The word Vellore derives from the Tamil word ‘Vel’ which means 'spear'; according to another conjecture there were idols of Tamil God ‘Murugan’ holding ‘Vel’ in and around Vellore. Vellore was formerly called Velappadi (a place thickly surrounded by a particular tree called ‘Velamaram’) and for this reason and background the name Vellore came into existence. 

Ancient Jesuit documents show that among these Jesuits, there was one named Fr. Antonious Rubunus, a preacher and confessor, who was commuting between Chandragiri and Vellore. He was sent to Japan on 12th August 1642. On 22nd March 1643 he was killed at Nagasaki.

In 1610, there was a general upheaval against the Jesuits,because of persecution.It was due to the dishonourable conduct of the Jesuits that their residences both at Chandragiri and at Vellore were suppressed by a Royal order of the king Philip III of Spain and Portugal in 1611.

© Ramachandran 

THE WOMEN IN AMBEDKAR'S LIFE

He Had a British Lover Too

"You have not cared to inquire into my past," BR Ambedkar wrote to his fiancée Sharda Kabir in February 1948. "But it will be available to you at any time in the pages of many Marathi magazines." Thus, in a terse statement, the towering leader of the untouchables dismissed his private preoccupations, almost like an afterthought, and put a premium on the recorded instances of his biography in the public domain. 

Ambedkar,1952.On his way to Columbia University

The rebuffs and slights never did cease, even at the height of his public eminence. In 1945, visiting Puri as the Labour Member of the Viceroy’s Council, he was refused admittance to the Jagannath temple, and, in Calcutta, the same year, was boycotted by servants at a home to which he had been invited. The fusion of his public and private lives could also occur in some amazing ways: in another letter of February 1948, he complained to his intended brahmin bride about how the passage of the Hindu Law of Marriage Bill was held up by a packed legislative calendar. The delay grieved him — the bridegroom-to-be, who would have loved to be married under its provisions, as much as the Law Minister in charge of steering the new Bill through parliament. Wearing both hats, he proceeded to guide her through the salient points of the Civil Marriage Act — the fallback law that would apply to their case.

Savita Bhimrao Ambedkar or Sharada Kabir (1909 – 2003), was a doctor and the second wife of Babasaheb Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution.

In Ambedkar's various movements, during the writing of the books, Indian Constitution and Hindu code bills and Buddhist mass conversion, she helped him from time to time.  Ambedkar credited her in the preface of his book The Buddha and His Dhamma for extending his life for eight-ten years.

Savita

Savita was born in Bombay in a Marathi Brahmin family. Her birth name was Sharada Kabir. Her mother was Janaki and her father was Krishnarao Vinayak Kabir. Her family were a resident of Doors village, located in Rajapur of Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra. Later, her father came from Ratnagiri to Bombay. On Sir Rao Bahadur C. K. Bole Road, near the pigeon in the west of Dadar, the Kabir family rented Sahru's house in Matruchaya.

Sharda was a brilliant student. Her early education was completed in Pune. Around 1937 she did MBBS from Grant Medical College, Bombay. When her studies were completed, she was appointed as the first-class medical officer in a major hospital in Gujarat. After a few months of illness, she left her job and returned home. Her six of eight siblings had inter-caste marriages. Those days it was an extraordinary thing for Marathi Brahmins. Savita said, "Our family did not oppose inter-caste marriages, because the whole family was educated and progressive."

At  Vile Parle, Dr S.M. Rao had close links with Ambedkar. When Ambedkar came from Delhi to Bombay, he often used to visit the doctor. Sharda Kabir also used to visit Dr Rao's house as she had a family relationship with him. One day both met at Rao's home.

Ambedkar was then the Labour Minister in the Viceroy's Executive Council. Sharda did not know much about Ambedkar, except that he is in Viceroy Council. Sharada was impressed with Ambedkar's stunning personality.

The second meeting took place in the Advice Room of Dr Mavalankar. Ambedkar had blood pressure, blood sugar and joint pain at that time. In 1947, during the writing of the Indian Constitution,  Ambedkar got health-related problems due to diabetes and high blood pressure. He did not sleep. having neuropathic pain in the legs,; insulin and some homoeopathic medicines could provide relief to some extent. He went to Bombay for treatment. Sharada came closer to Ambedkar during treatment.

Ambedkar's first wife, Ramabai, died in 1935 after a long illness. Meetings continued and Ambedkar exchanged letters with Sharda.  There was talk of literature, society, and religion. Sometimes they also debated. In 1947, Ambedkar started worrying about his health. There must be someone to take care. In a letter to Dadasaheb Gaikwad on 16 March 1948, Ambedkar wrote, "To keep a woman nurse or to take care of the house for service, there will be doubts in people's mind, so marriage is a better way. After the death of Yashwant's mother (Ramabai), I had decided not to marry, but in today's situation, I will have to give up my decision." Ambedkar and Sharda Kabir decided to get married.

On 15 April 1948, when they became a couple, she was 39 and he was 57. After their marriage, she was popularly called "Mai" (mother) by his followers. As Registrar for marriage, Rameshwar Dayal, Deputy Commissioner, was called into Delhi. It was completed as a Civil Marriage under the Civil Marriage Act. Among those who attended the occasion were Rai Sahab Puran Chand,  Macy (Private Secretary), Neelkanth, Ramkrishna Chandiwala, Estate Officer Meshram, nephew of Chitre, his wife, Sharda Kabir's brother, and Home Secretary Banerjee. The then governor-general of India, C. Rajagopalachari, invited them for a Sneh Bhoj and greeted them. Sharda adopted the name Savita. Ambedkar used to call her, "Shārū".

On Ashok Vijaya Dashami (The Day on which Buddhism was accepted by Emperor Ashoka ) 14 October 1956, Savita accepted Buddhism along with her husband in Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur. She was given the initiation of Buddha's Dhamma by the Burmese Bhikkhu Mahastavir Chandramani giving Three Jewels and Five precepts. After this, Ambedkar himself initiated his followers to Buddhism. Savita Ambedkar became the first woman to accept Buddhism in this movement.

Many people from Delhi came to meet  Ambedkar at 26, Alipur Road when he was sick. It wasn't possible that everyone will get a glimpse. Savita had to perform the dual duties of a wife and doctor. Ambedkar's health was steadily getting worse. She continued her care with full devotion till he breathed his last. After Ambedkar's death, his close friends and followers removed Ambedkar's acknowledgement of her help, from the book, Buddha and his Dhamma. After the death, some Ambedkarites blamed Savita for killing him. Rumours were spread that she had been giving slow poison.

The irony is that the people who are fighting against the caste system are becoming casteists. If Brahmin women refuse to marry Dalits, you would say it is casteism. If she does then you would say it is a conspiracy.

Ambedkar was already suffering from diabetes and ill health before marrying Savita. His health was deteriorating because of the heavy work and responsibilities on him. He was organising Dalits throughout the country. He has been involved in research-orientated works and publishing books. His economical condition was also not good. In his busy schedule, he didn't have time to take care of his health. Even Mrs Rama bai died of illness.

Savita knew the health conditions of Ambedkar before marrying. Since 1955 Ambedkar's health deteriorated further and faster. On medical advice, his teeth had been extracted long before. While getting up and moving about in the house he would require support. He had also trouble to breathe. An oxygen cylinder was purchased and he was given oxygen off and on But this was kept secret as Ambedkar feared that his followers would take fright at this news. Later he was given oxygen twice a week. In winter his body was given warmth by a heating apparatus. Sometimes he was also given an electric bath. Western type of food was also tried for his health but it was not to his taste and the arrangements for having such food prepared for him had to be discontinued.

After Ambedkar's death, thus Savita was separated from the Ambedkarite movement by vested interests by describing her as a Brahmin. She left for his farmhouse in Mehrauli in Delhi. Till 1972, she lived there. The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru formed a committee to investigate the matter, and that committee released her from the charges after the investigation.

After the demise of Babasaheb, when Nehru and Indira Gandhi offered Savita a Rajya Sabha seat, while they were Prime Ministers, she adhered to her husband's principle, rejecting the offer thrice.

Republican Party of India leaders Ramdas Athavale and Gangadhar Gadhe returned her to the mainstream Ambedkarite movement. The young activists of the Dalit Panthers movement treated Mai with respect. Again, she got separated from them. The posthumous Bharat Ratna for Ambedkar was received by Savita from President R Venkataraman on 14 April 1990.

She died in Mumbai on 29 May 2003.

The British lover

Savita was not the only love in Ambedkar's life. He had a British lover, Frances 'Fanny" Fitzgerald. During 1923-1943 the two had exchanged between them 91 letters. Dr Ambedkar’s personal librarian S S Rege had handed over the letters to Prof Arun Kamble.

Frances worked as a typist in Britain’s House of Commons and India House in London.

Frances, the Irish widow and mother of two, sheltered Ambedkar during his years in London. History preserves her offertory of red-lipped kisses. 

Ambedkar himself did not shy away from acknowledging his relationship with 'F', as he referred to her. One of his most serious works, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables (1945), a trenchant critique of Gandhi and the Congress, is prefaced by a long dedication which ends: "To F., In Thy Presence is the Fullness of Joy." 

In 1921, the 30-year-old Bhim Rao resumed his doctoral studies at the London School of Economics and pursued Law at Grays Inn. Dependent on financial assistance, he lived the first year very frugally. His lodging was a room in a house in the Primrose Hill area of northwest London. It is this 2,050 sq ft three-storey six-bedroom house with a terrace that the Maharashtra government acquired in 2015 for close to Rs 40 crore.

What Ambedkar biographers know already is that the two met at the British Museum in 1920. In July 1920, he left for London with a loan from Shahu Maharaj to complete his studies. According to his biographer Dhananjay Keer, Ambedkar had to go to work with little food; "the keeper of the boarding house was a harsh and terrible lady". He moved from this to another boarding house, apparently that of Frances or her mother. After Ambedkar's return to India, Frances began corresponding with him in 1923, addressing him often as 'My darling Bhim'. She was instrumental in shipping a lot of books to Ambedkar and in sourcing material from the India Office library.

What is evident from a letter published in Khairmode's biography is that Ambedkar had suppressed his marriage to Ramabai from Frances. In 1905, Ambedkar, then 14, was married to nine-year-old Ramabai (who died in May 1935). Expressing concern over Ambedkar overworking himself, Frances wrote on March 11, 1925: "It is not as if you had a wife and family depending on you." Ambedkar chose to make this letter public in his own lifetime.

In 1923, when Ambedkar returned to India, Frances began writing to him; they stayed in touch until 1943 when her plans to come to India were disrupted. She was denied a visa because of "the political situation".

Having declared in 1936 that he was born a Hindu but shall not die one, Ambedkar had faced bitter criticism from the pro-Congress press of the time. There were even news reports in January 1937 that Ambedkar was to return from England having "secretly married an English widow." Ambedkar, of course, never married Frances, who died in 1945.

Ramabai

Ambedkar married his first wife Ramabai ( 1898-1935 ) in 1908 in a very simple ceremony in the vegetable market of Byculla, Mumbai. At the time, Babasaheb Ambedkar was aged 15 and Ramabai was nine. His affectionate name for her was "Rāmu", while she called him "Saheb".They had five children – Yashwant, Gangadhar, Ramesh, Indu (daughter) and Rajratna. Apart from Yashwant (1912–1977), the other four died in their childhood.

Ramabai was born in a poor family to Bhiku Dhatre (Valangkar) and Rukmini. She lived with her three sisters and a brother, Shankar Dhutre, in the Mahapura locality within the village of Vanand near. Her father earned his livelihood by carrying baskets of fish from Dabhol Harbour to the market. Her mother died when she was young and, after her father also died, her uncles Valangkar and Govindpurkar took the children to Bombay to live with them in the Byculla market.

Ambedkar married Ramabai, soon after he cleared the matriculation examination. He was a student at Elphinstone High School at the time. Ambedkar’s father Ramji Subedar had settled his son’s marriage with Ramabai. The wedding ceremony was held at the Byculla Bazar (Machhli Bazar) of Bombay. The groom’s family assembled at one corner of the market and the bride’s at another. Filthy water was gushing down a drain near the platform on which the rituals were performed. Ramabai was the youngest daughter of her parents, who had died when she was a child. Her father Bhikku Dhutre (Valangkar) had been from Vanand village near Dabhol and worked as a porter at the Dabhol port. She and her brothers and sisters were brought up by their relatives. Her brother’s name was Shankar Dhutre. (Dhananjay Keer, 2018, p 23).

Ramabai’s maiden name was Ramibai. After marriage, she was renamed Ramabai. Ambedkar’s followers addressed her as “Ramayee”.

Though Ambedkar and Ramabai married in 1908, they actually started living a married life only in 1917, after his return to Bombay from London. It was an occasion for celebration. Ramabai thought that her pain and miseries would soon end. Her Saheb would get a job, earn money and everyone would live happily. She hoped that they would have more children (the first child Gangadhar had died by then) and lead a happy, contented and prosperous life (Khairmode, 2016, p 112).

Testing times frequently visited the Ambedkar couple. The first time they found themselves in trouble was when Ambedkar went to London for the second time in 1920 to complete his studies. Before leaving, he left some cash with Ramabai for the household expenses but that did not last long and she had to manage with the meagre earnings of her brother Shankarrao and younger sister Meerabai. They could barely bring home 8-10 annas (50-60 paise) a day by doing odd jobs. She used the money for buying provisions and tried to somehow fill the stomachs of the family members. Those were difficult times for her. There were days on which they had to sleep on empty stomachs (Vasant Moon, 1991, p 25).

While Ramabai was struggling to arrange two square meals a day for the family in India, Ambedkar was no better off in faraway London. Ramabai wrote to him, describing the pitiful economic condition of the family. Ambedkar replied to her in these words:

London, 25 November 1921

Dear Ramu,

Namaste

Received your letter. I was pained to know that Gangadhar [Ambedkar’s eldest son] is ill. Have faith in yourself. Worry would lead to nothing. I am happy to learn that your studies are continuing. I am trying to arrange some money. I am also on the verge of starvation here. I have nothing to send to you but I am trying to arrange something. If it takes time or if you are left with nothing, sell off your jewellery to run the household. I will get new ornaments made for you. How are the studies of Yashwant and Mukund going? You have not written anything about it.

My health is fine. Don’t worry. I am pursuing my studies. I know nothing about Sakhu and Manjula. When you get the money, buy one sari each for Manjula and Laxmi. How is Shankar doing? How is Gajra?

Best to everyone

Bhimarao (Anil Shahare, 2014, p 57)

Ambedkar was disappointed that he had to quit his studies midway and return to Bombay from London. His happiness over his reunion with the family was clouded by this disappointment. Hence, after around two and half years with Rambai in Bombay, Ambedkar left for London in 1920 to complete his studies. Ambedkar’s departure to London brought fresh trouble for Ramabai. This is evident from Ambedkar’s above reply to the letter of Ramabai. He returned to India in 1923 and their life was back on the rails. But Ambedkar got sucked deeper and deeper into socio-political movements and could hardly spend time with Ramabai.

How the two of them sacrificed their personal happiness and peace on the altar of social work was described by Ambedkar in an editorial on 3 February 1928 in Bahishkrit Bharat thus: “This writer [Ambedkar], who wrote 24 columns for Bahishkrit Bharat for a year for spreading social awareness without getting a penny in return and who, while doing this, did not care about his health, happiness and peace – she (Ramabai) made him the cynosure of her eyes. That is not all. When this writer was abroad, she carried the burden of the family on her shoulders and still does that. Even after this writer was back from overseas, she did not flinch in carrying basketfuls of cow dung on her head during periods of financial distress. And this writer could not find even half an hour in 24 hours for this extremely affectionate, amiable and venerable wife” (Prabhakar Gajbhiye, 2017, p 152).

This editorial was written to mark the completion of one year of the publication of the newspaper, titled, “Is Bahishkrit Bharat’s debt, not public debt?”

Ramabai and Ambedkar were dealt one cruel blow after another when they lost their three sons and a daughter. His son Gangadhar died when he was studying in America. Later, Yashwant was born, followed by Ramesh, Indu and Rajratna. The latter three also passed away. The loss of their four children left Ramabai and Ambedkar heartbroken. It looked like the family of Karl Marx, who has lost his children one by one in poverty. Ambedkar shared his pain in a letter to his friend Dattoba Pawar with heart-wrenching words: 

“We [Ramabai and Ambedkar] will not be able to get over the shock of the death of our last son soon. These hands have delivered three sons and one daughter to the cremation ground. Whenever I remember them, my heart aches. What we had thought about their future lies in ruins. Clouds of pain are hovering over our life. The death of the children has made our lives as tasteless as food without salt. The Bible says, “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavour, with what will it be salted?” The vacuum in my life testifies to the truth of this statement. My last son was extraordinary. I am yet to see a child like that. His departure from this world has made my life like a garden full of thorns. I am so despaired and distressed that I cannot write anymore. Accept salutations from your friend in deep agony” (Anil Shahare, 2014, p 70).

Home in London where Ambedkar stayed

Ramabai died on 27 May 1935 at Rajgruha in Hindu Colony, Dadar, Bombay, after a prolonged illness.

After Ambedkar’s return to India, the economic condition of the family improved. But Ramabai’s health started deteriorating. Ambedkar’s biographer Dhananjay Keer writes:

“Ramabai was ill. Ambedkar had not found time to look after his family for almost 10 years. He once took Ramabai to Dharwad for a change of air. But there was no improvement in her health … Babasaheb did all he could to bring about an improvement in her condition” (Dhananjay Keer, 2018, p 237).

But medicines simply did not work and Ramabai’s health continued to deteriorate. She became exceedingly weak and was confined to the bed for six months before her death.

She often had to starve in the initial years of her marital life, and that had broken her body. The death of four children had broken her heart. On 27 May 1935, Saheb’s Ramu bid farewell. Ambedkar had returned home the night before her death. He was by her side when she died. A morose Ambedkar, with his heart heavy with sorrow, walked haltingly with the funeral procession. After returning from the funeral ground, he locked himself up in a room. He cried like a child for a week after Ramabai’s death (Dhananjay Keer, 2018, p 239).

She had been married to Ambedkar for 29 years. Ambedkar's book, Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1941, was dedicated to Ramabai. In the preface, Ambedkar credits her with his transformation from an ordinary Bhiva or Bhima to Dr Ambedkar. The dedication read:

“Inscribed to the memory of Ramu

As a token of my appreciation of her goodness of heart, her nobility of mind and her purity of character and also for the cool fortitude and readiness to suffer along with me which she showed in those friendless days of want and worries which fell to our lot.”

Ambedkar said her support was instrumental in helping him pursue his higher education and his true potential. She has been the subject of a number of biographical movies and books. A number of landmarks across India have been named after her.

In Ambedkar: The Attendant Details (Navayana, ₹295), editor Salim Yusufji employs a rare combination of scholarship and sensitivity to paint a portrait of the mass leader as a man who was as vulnerable and bitter as anyone else, though, of course, redeemed by the extraordinary genius and fortitude that made him who he is.

 
Dhamma Diksha ceremony, Nagpur,14 October 1956

As the "ephemera of his life" keep flowing in, Ambedkar steps out of the aura of sainthood bestowed on him by history — revealing blind spots, prejudices, a mercurial temper and often fragile humanity.

The adulation Ambedkar got from the poor was extraordinary. On a visit to Nagpur in 1942, for instance, a group of "women in tattered saris" accosted him with garlands of marigolds. They had sold extra bundles of firewood and grass to be able to afford their modest gifts. An emotional Ambedkar recounted to them his own early years, spent in need and misery, promising to do his utmost to uplift the lives of their children. "If I cannot do this, I will take my own life with a gun," he said.

His message to the lower castes, however, was one of unequivocal rebellion among the ranks. Ambedkar urged them to not do the menial tasks they did (and continue to do in some parts of India even decades after him) for a paltry sum. "Stop eating the flesh of dead cattle to quiet the fire in your stomach. Stop cleaning the dirt of the village," he thundered at them. "For so long we have cleared the dirt, now let the one who creates the dirt learn to clean it."

In an essay, writer Mulk Raj Anand remembers Ambedkar telling him about his preference for the Buddhist greeting Om Mani Padmaye ("May the lotuses awake") over namaskar, with its casteist Hindu connotations.

Ambedkar with Savita, 1948

Always impeccably dressed in Western attire in stark contrast to other national leaders who usually donned swadeshi clothes, Ambedkar advocated spending half of one's salary on buying books. By the end of his life, he could have made several lakh rupees by selling his collection, but instead, chose to donate the entire holdings to the college he had helped establish in Bombay.

Kartar Singh 'Polonius' recalls being told by Ambedkar about the three books that made him weep — Life of Tolstoy, which he also recommended to his fiancée Sharda Kabir during their courtship as an example of the portrait of an unhappy marriage; Victor Hugo's Les Miserables; and Thomas Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd. No less was Ambedkar's enthusiasm for newspapers, which he read every day thoroughly and filed away stories from in folders over the decades.

The essay,' Waiting for a Visa' was the closest he came to writing directly about his life, going back to the trials of growing up as a Mahar in rural Maharashtra. In a singularly heartrending episode, Ambedkar describes a journey he undertook with his siblings to meet their father, only to be refused shelter and water by most along the way for their untouchable caste. 

Much later in life, after several years of education in England and America where he felt no discrimination due to his caste when he returned to India with a PhD from Columbia University, he was suddenly, and shockingly, reminded of his pariah status. He failed to rent lodgings with anyone in Baroda, where he was employed in the service of the Maharaja. Eventually, he stayed at a Parsi inn on false pretences for a few days but was discovered and hounded out. Even his friends, who, like him, had the advantage of foreign education, refused to offer him refuge for fear of inciting a mutiny among their household staff.

Rajagriha, Bombay, February 1934: (L to R) Yashwant, BR Ambedkar, Ramabai, Laxmibai(widow of Ambedkar’s brother, Anandrao), Mukundrao, and dog Toby

Books were the greatest part of his life and for them, his house in Bombay ‘Rajgriha’ was specially designed and redesigned to suit his liking where he could store his vast collection of books

From 1924 to 1934, his library had become one of the biggest in Bombay.

Later, he had a massive collection of more than 50,000 books and he was the most extensive private collection in India.

Babasaheb was a Pet lover, especially a dog lover. He would bring dogs from the farthest corners of the country. He had kept many dogs in Bombay and Delhi.

In his early years, he also had pet deer.

Babasaheb was so close to a dog named Toby that when he died, Babasaheb mourned for days.

He had a great desire to be a painter so that he could paint a portrait of Lord Buddha.

He had an irresistible fascination to possess big and outsized varied types of fountain pens. Among the best were used by him, including Parker, Sheaffer and Waterman.

He also had a golden pen which was given to him by someone from England, which he kept very carefully. His stationary needs were attended by in Bombay: Thacker and Co. John;
In Delhi: Dhoomimal Dass stationary at Connaught Place.

Babasaheb possessed two cars. One in Bombay served him during his early years attending courts as an advocate and legislative assembly sessions. The second one was in Delhi, which was an old mobile model purchased from Rafi Ahmed Kidwai. It was used to attend parliamentary sessions, Ashok Buddha Vihar. The scheduled Castes Federation (SCF) flag always fluttered on the Bonnet.

On July 22, 1942, when Babasaheb took in-charge as Executive Councillor in New Delhi (Labour Ministry), he was searching for a house, there was no place which could accommodate his vast collection of books. After a lot of searching, he selected 22, Prithviraj Marg, New Delhi.

The watchman of the house said that the big house was a haunted house and had remained untenanted even by the English man for several years. The CPWD engineer also discouraged him.

Babasaheb said that “he had been fighting with all sorts of ghosts and spirits in India since his entry into politics. So, let him have his new experience also into this matter”.

The house was thus repaired and all surroundings were replanted. Rows of flowers blossomed all around.

Sometimes, Babasaheb himself used to flower plants at this house.

-------------------------------------------------

Reference:

Ambedkar, B.R. (2019). Pakistan or the Partition of India in Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Volume 8, Bombay: Government of Maharashtra

Moon, Vasant. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1991

Shahare, M.L. and Anil, Nalini, Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar Ki Sangharsh Yatra Evam Sandesh, Samyak Prakashan, New Delhi, 2014

Bahishkrit Bharat mein Prakashit Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar ke Sampadakiye, translation Prabhakar Gajbhiye, Samyak Prakashan, New Delhi, 2017

Keer, Dhananjay, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Jeevan Charit, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 2018

Khairmode, Changdeo Bhawanrao, Babasaheb Ambedkar: Jeevan Aur Chintan, Bhaag-1, translation Dr Vimal Kirti, Samyak Prakashan, New Delhi, 2016

© Ramachandran