(1/n): Sources of Ambedkar’s textual knowledge. Ambedkar almost never worked directly from Sanskrit or Pali manuscripts. In his own prefaces he thanks or cites: •G. Bühler’s The Laws of Manu (Oxford, 1886) •Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East series •T. W. Rhys Davids

(2/n): The outlook of those translators British Indology in the late 1800s tended to: •Treat Indian texts as evidence of moral or racial backwardness. •Divide Indian history into a “golden Buddhist age” and a “decadent Brahminical age.” •Use scripture to justify the

(3/n): Echoes in Ambedkar’s writings In Who Were the Shudras? (preface) he notes that “the authorities I have followed are the English translators.” His descriptions of ancient India: “priest-ridden,” “anti-woman,” “anti-labour”. These were parallel colonial judgments found in

(4/n): Documented Christian or missionary exposure •During his studies at Columbia University, Ambedkar read comparative religion with Prof. James Shotwell and John Dewey; both used Christian-liberal frameworks to discuss ethics and democracy. •In London, he interacted with

(5/n): Colonial Filters, Not Sanskrit Texts Ambedkar openly admitted: “I do not know Sanskrit.” Yet, he interpreted Hinduism through English translations by British orientalists; the same men who called Hindu society “barbaric.” His view was second-hand colonial sociology, not

(6/ n): He relied on writers like John Muir, Rhys Davids, Monier Williams, Max Müller, and Vincent Smith; all products of the colonial academic establishment. These men viewed India through the lens of Christian moral superiority and imperial justification.

(7/n): Colonial Purpose Behind Those Sources British “Indology” wasn’t scholarship; it was strategy. By depicting Hinduism as backward and oppressive, they justified British and Christian rule as “moral governance.” Ambedkar unknowingly echoed the rhetoric of empire; not of

(8/n): Zero Engagement with Śāstras Ambedkar never studied Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, or Dharmaśāstra commentaries firsthand. His readings were summaries of summaries, filtered through Western moral judgment. How can Amebdkar's criticism of Hinduism be valid when it’s three layers

(9/n): Buddhism Through Western Eyes Even his understanding of Buddhism came through Rhys Davids and Thomas William Rhys Davids’ wife Caroline, who cast the Buddha as a Western-style reformer rebelling against Brahminism; a completely colonial framing. Ambedkar simply adopted

(10/n): Vedic vs. Victorian Values His moral framework wasn’t Indian. It was Benthamite utilitarianism and Protestant morality, dressed in Buddhist robes. So his rejection of Hindu ethics wasn’t a “revolution” . It was Victorian morality judging Vedic philosophy.

(11/n): Echo Chamber Almost every “source” Ambedkar cited to attack caste or religion was produced by the very empire that ruled over his people. Instead of decolonizing thought, he internalized colonial prejudice and reproduced it in Indian language.

(12/n): The Irony of ‘Liberation’ He claimed to liberate India from Brahminism, yet his tools were those of colonial anthropology, missionary theology, and British sociology. In the name of emancipation, he reintroduced intellectual slavery to colonial frameworks.

(13/n): No Vedic, Only Victorian Critique Ambedkar’s attacks on Vedas mirror Victorian missionary pamphlets calling Hindu texts “superstitious,” “inhuman,” “anti-woman.” Ironically, these were the exact colonial tropes used to justify British and Christian rule over “heathens.”

(14/n): What the record shows about Ambedkar’s reading Ambedkar’s notes and bibliographies list mainly: Colonial-era Indological works: Bühler’s Laws of Manu (Oxford 1886), Max Müller’s and Rhys Davids’s Sacred Books of the East, Monier-Williams’s Hinduism (1877), Jolly’s

(15: n): Modern Indologists such as Sheldon Pollock, Richard King, and B. N. Sarkar write that Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism must be read as a response within a colonial epistemic field: he reversed the value-signs (Buddhism good / Brahminism bad) but accepted the British

Image Quote reference:- “I do not know Sanskrit.”- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah,” in Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, page 223 (Education Department, Government of Maharashtra edition)

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak बाबासाहेब अंबेडकर को तो संस्कृति के साथ अरबी ,जापानी, चयनीज भाषा भी नहीं आती थी तो केवल संस्कृत ना जानने के कारण संस्कृत का विरोध अपनी अयोग्यता नही है, ज्ञान नहीं है, मूर्खता को योग्यता नहीं कहा जा सकता!"संस्कृत दुनिया की एकमात्र भाषा है जिसमें गाली गलौज नही 100%वैज्ञानिकता है!

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak @jsaideepak Why did this kiddo tag you? Tell them it’s not just about burning Manu; it’s about something bigger… about bringing Manu back when the time comes. Sai, I need to ask you something why have you changed? You’ve started acting like those upper-caste Brahmins… why?

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak He was a crypto christian.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak First you needed to show that the translations by the "colonials" were flawed. Only then you could have claimed that Dr Ambedkar's understanding was flawed. But being casteist trash, you have straightway jumped to the claim. In the 100-150 years since those translations, no

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Expose? Even 98% Hindus don't know sanskrit. They are totally depended on translations Max muller, griffith & wilson etc did their translation based on the commentary of pauranik scholars such as Sayana Problem is in the Hindu scholars and their commentaries not the translator

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak He did not have it since its guardians had thoroughly discredited the civilisation with their actions and atrocities on his fellow people.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak He was a fraud who concocted stories. All his so-called translations of Hindu texts were blatant lies.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak It's not just him. Entire generations of Indian leaders from pre-Independence era until today have internalized colonial narratives and viewpoints. They try to shape the nation and society through such colonized mentality. Tragic!

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak आजकल ऐसे अधकचरा खाकर उल्टियां करने वाले सोशल मीडिया पर अज्ञानता की गंध फैलाकर रखे हुये है। डा अंबेडकर ने पाली और संस्कृत भाषा का गहन अध्ययन किया था। यहां तक कि उन्होने पाली भाषा के पुनरूत्थान के लिये पाली की डिक्शनरी विकसित की और पाली व्याकरण की भी रचना की। उन्होने अपनी किताब The

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Babasaheb” is not just a name — he is an ideology. An ideology that shows the path — from slavery to self-respect, from oppression to rights. That’s why he is the one who is most loved, and also the one who is most hated. Because Babasaheb is not just a person — he is the symbol

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Learning our history, culture and scriptures from invaders' translations is plainly stupid. They are bound to be biased.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Everybody knows how Hinduism treats it's Dalit people..

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak One cannot criticize if they don't read in it's original language,but all must follow even without reading it? And accept if such scriptures or their spirit led to ill treatment, social outcast, untouchability & even denial of basic human rights? Show the flaws of his citations?

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak After first PhD he learned and understand everything about sanskrir it's meaning

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak So one cannot critique Islam unless they know the Arabic language

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Ambedkar should have eaten more beef for more knowledge

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Brahmins ate meat, matter of fact sacrificed cows. Vedic is putting animals in fire.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Brahminism divides people and denied education to SC ST OBCs in History. Brahminism denied Sanskrit to other than Brahmins except British, German. What selfish motives behind it? So, the Casteiest Fanatics denied Sanskrit to Ambedkar, Ambedkar learned through English.

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak Yeah as if noone who knew sanskrit actually bothered to translate it into other languages for thousands of years....sanghi logic is so r3t@rded man!

@notyouryashaswi @jsaideepak And you will tell he is not lawyer and uneducated. ।. Waste dustbins like you are every where in this society. ..