A barely 10-second clip of Home Miniter Amit Shah was circulated a couple of days ago, falsely claiming that he insulted BR Ambedkar – the hottest currency in political markets for a while now – and the nation has since been debating who loves Ambedkar more.
At least in political circles, the debate is framed differently – who hates Ambedkar more? BJP has history on its side as Congress, before independence and also post-independence under Nehru was no admirer of Ambedkar. They were rivals, almost enemies, and there are enough statements by Ambedkar himself against the Congress party which prove it. There are statements by Nehru too, such as his letters to Edwina, where he has expressed his utter contempt for Ambedkar.
Congress, on the other hand, is using the shortened clip of Shah to prove how BJP hates Ambedkar. The saga did not start there, however, but with Rahul Gandhi wrongly quoting Veer Savarkar on the Indian constitution and flashing Manusmriti in the parliament. With the benefit of hindsight, the BJP should have gone on the offensive and perhaps they would not need to be defensive over Ambedkar today. We will come to that later.
Rahul Gandhi basically has been trying this age-old leftist trope of Manusmriti vs Constitution for years now, which is essentially to keep the caste pot boiling. His non-stop “kaun jaat ho” performance in the run-up to the 2024 elections reaped him some benefits, so he knows that it works. Ambedkar and the Constitution are just tools that Congress is using to further its cause.
Historically, it is clear as water that Congress (from inception till the 1990s) had no affinity at all for Ambedkar. If one counts negative statements by Ambedkar on various entities, individuals, and ideas – and he had plenty to offer – the statements against Gandhi, Nehru and the Congress party will hopelessly outnumber his statements against the RSS. In fact, one is hard-pressed to find any statement by Ambedkar which directly attacks the RSS.
Ambedkar vs RSS or Ambedkar vs Hindutva is all extrapolation of statements made by Ambedkar against the Hindu religion itself (the way he understood it) and Hindu politics (of that era). And that’s why Rahul Gandhi flashed Manusmriti in the parliament – he could not have quoted Ambedkar to directly attack the BJP, RSS or even Hindutva. It was the same extrapolation, helpfully aided with lots of manipulation and lies about Savarkar.
Now Congress has this gift of being equivocal without being questioned over its hypocrisy. Rahul Gandhi can position himself as a Shiv Bhakt as well as an Ambedkarite, and no one in his ecosystem will question him. BJP doesn’t enjoy the same luxury. Here, people question how they can be Ambedkarite and also say Jai Shri Ram.
The party, as well as the Sangh, essentially ignores such questions on an organizational level. That is, politically, an understandable thing to do. First, why should the party get entangled in such debates when their rivals get a free pass? And second, maybe there is no answer at an organizational level – a political party is not exactly a think-tank. Beyond the institutional level, it is time for supporters and sympathisers to discuss and make up their minds on an ideological level. Even when it comes to Sangh, individual Swayamsevaks or officer-holders discuss (and I have discussed with a few) but they won’t issue statements on behalf of the Sangh.
This article is an attempt to join the debate, on the riddle of Ambedkar and his position in the Hindutva movement, on a very basic level, because the subject matter otherwise deserves a full book.
Ambedkar and Hindu religion
First things first, and I’m not going to be politically correct here – Ambedkar was not a Hindu leader. He was very clear, especially towards the end of his life, that he was not a Hindu. In fact, via the 22 vows he created and took when he changed his religion, he made it more than apparent that not only did he not want to be identified as Hindu, but he went on to create an identity that was primarily “against Hinduism” rather than Buddhist or anything else – after all, the vows included things like no pind daan, no faith in Lord Ram or Krishna, renouncing Hinduism in full as ‘harmful to society’ etc.
Even before this Deeksha into Buddhism where he took and administered these 22 vows, Ambedkar almost invariably used the term Hindus (or “Hindoos” as it was spelt during the British era) to refer to an outgroup rather than an ingroup. Therefore, one can’t even argue that he stopped identifying himself as a Hindu only towards the end part of his life when he might have been too livid and frustrated with his attempts at some sort of unity or harmony coming to nought.
This mere fact itself could be argued to be a deal breaker where he can not be a part of the Hindutva movement altogether. And that’s precisely what many argue, but they clearly are not ‘too many’ even on a platform like X, where actually the “Right Wing” is represented far more fairly than any other platform. I ran a poll, and Ambedkar was winning handsomely by the time this article went up. I can very safely conclude that the voters were overwhelmingly “RW”.
One can dismiss this voting as unscientific or voters as not knowing the “truth” about Ambedkar, but both would be uncharitable, especially the latter. Unlike the leftists, at least on the Hindu side, there should be an attempt to understand conflicting viewpoints.
I’ve tried to have conversations and expose myself to arguments by people who think Ambedkar, despite these 22 vows and other statements, can indeed be considered an important part of the Hindutva movement, and I’ll be trying to summarize those. Please note, that these are not necessarily endorsements of those arguments, but I’m just putting them out as there should be a debate and churning.
‘Ambedkar was a reformer’
Hindutva, not as defined by JNU jholachhaps or champagne intellectuals, but as defined by Savarkar and practised by Sangh, is indeed a liberal reformist movement around Hinduism. Savarkar, in his many writings, has talked about the seven shackles of Hindu society and he decries many practices that were hitherto either sanctioned by shastras or by mainstream interpretation of shastras.
These included untouchability, temple entry of all castes, prohibition on inter-caste marriage or inter-dining between castes, prohibition of rites sanctioned by the Vedas to certain castes, and many more allied issues. Patit Pavan Mandir in Ratnagiri of Maharashtra is a living testament to his efforts and beliefs, which can be and were argued to be going against “traditional” Hinduism.
Savarkar didn’t burn any of the shastras which were supposed to sanction these practices that he termed as shackles for the society and actively opposed. Nonetheless, he clearly went against the Shastras as per the existing wisdom and practices of that time. And that’s what reformers do. They would end up offending the traditionalists as they are trying to change things.
The argument from this lot usually says that Ambedkar’s attacks on Hinduism and opposition to shastras, such as Manusmriti, should be taken in the same spirit i.e. they were meant to advance the Hindu society. They are willing to forgive – even though no one is asking for forgiveness – the acerbic words of Ambedkar because they reflect his life agonies as a “scheduled caste” person.
There is also an important difference between the attitudes of Ambedkar and Veer Savarkar. Savarkar’s reformation was driven by the aim of finding unification of Hindus in the face of increasing external threats – including the formation of a secular state. When he spoke about transcending one’s micro identity like caste, he was more focused on what Hindus need to do to find their unified identity in a secular state rather than an inherent animosity towards Hindu Dharma and what it stood for, unlike Ambedkar.
So how does that make Ambedkar a ‘Hindu’ reformer when he hardly considered himself one? Usually, this is answered with a broad-based definition of who is Hindu and what is Hinduism, with that ubiquitous reference to the Supreme Court terming it a ‘way of life’ thrown in.
There are also some isolated statements by Ambedkar that are used to argue that he wasn’t entirely against every Hindu Dharmashastra. For example, in Annihilation of Caste, which arguably is one of the most stringent attacks on traditional Hinduism by Ambedkar, he says, “I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with liberty, equality and fraternity, it may not be necessary for you to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.”
Further, some have argued that many other ‘reformists’ from the same era were not too kind on traditional shastras or even non-Vedic gods, such as folks from Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj. If they can be considered part of the larger Hindu fold, why not consider Ambedkar too? Forget Arya Samajis, even Jains for example may not believe in many of the Hindu gods and some of them have not-so-charitable views on Hindu gods, but don’t the two communities live as brethren?
Not too convincing, but the context of the colonial era and various ‘reform movements’ at that time should be taken into account I believe. “Decoloniality” was not known to them (obviously, the entire world was living in a colonial era) and understanding that especially in terms of the Indian or Hindu context is a very recent phenomenon. Lots of fire and fury would be generated, and I’d skip that currently as we already have enough fire and fury going on.
‘Ambedkar criticised Islam’
The second most offered argument in favour of Ambedkar’s role in the Hindutva movement is his comments on Islam and the Muslim community, especially around the creation of Pakistan or the Malabar genocide of Hindus. He didn’t mince words and didn’t try to sugarcoat things, which usually leftists or secularists do when it comes to Islam.
That part is undeniable. Yes, Ambedkar did say nice things about Islam too, and on some occasions even supported ‘untouchables’ converting to that religion, but he indeed took a principled stand when it came to describing the Malabar massacre of Hindus by Moplah Muslims (which secularists pass off as peasant revolution against the British) or about Islamic separatist mindset when it came to the creation of Pakistan.
But he wasn’t the only one either. Men like Sri Aurobindo and even Ravindranath Tagore too have taken a critical view of Islam and talk about Islamic separatist mindsets. And then obviously you have people Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. However, the argument is that it would be difficult for the leftists and Islamists to defend when Ambedkar is quoted verbatim.
While you may not be entirely impressed with this sole reason alone, it is not an invalid one either. On a lighter note, you do need citations that don’t get banned on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia bans Ambedkar, there will be far more outrage than if it bans Sita Ram Goel.
‘At least he didn’t convert to Islam or Christianity and chose an Indic religion’
“What the consequences of conversion will be to the country as a whole is well worth bearing in mind. Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real. If they go to Christianity, the numerical strength of Christians becomes five to six crores. It will help to strengthen the hold of the British on this country.”
The above are words of Ambedkar, and they fully tie into the civilisational concept of a nationhood. One will not be at all wrong to say that these are actually even more ‘Hindutva’ than what Savarkar wrote in the book ‘Essentials of Hindutva’. Savarkar was, for the sake of argument, even willing to admit Muslims into the civilisational framework if they were willing to consider India as their holy land instead of Mecca.
In the same paragraph cited above, Ambedkar actually says that Sikhism is the best choice for mass conversion, but he finally accepted Buddhism. Actually not, he almost invented a new religion with those 22 vows. But still, whatever he ended up creating, can that be called an Indic faith/panth? Many believe so, giving examples of ‘reformers’ of that time who also created new movements.
Also, his conversion to other religions is seen as some kind of ‘left with no choice’ move, about which I’m not fully convinced. Ambedkar had talked about mass conversions out of Hinduism many times in his lifetime.
‘Ignore his bitter words, he was just angry due to injustice’
There is no doubt that caste conflicts have been a bane of our society and certain castes indeed got unfair, even inhuman treatment from the rest of the society. I’m not at all comfortable with dismissing everything as ‘atrocity literature’ even though it’s a fact that exaggerated accounts exist. More than exaggeration, it’s the manipulated narratives that exist.
I too come from a supposed ‘high caste’ and I have seen the feudal mindset of some people. I’ve seen reverse casteism too, and that’s why I can’t pick just one side here. One thing I’ve seen and am sure of is that the feudal mindset of my folks was not due to some Manusmriti. I indeed never found it in my home or village. In fact, many of them were not even religious. I’ve written about it in my book and I’ll just advertise that here.
But on a serious note, yes, people can indeed say bitter things out of bitter experiences. That is true in general and one can look forward to having a fresh start. Was that the only reason Ambedkar said so? Not quite. He was a lawyer, a politician, and an activist. He had many reasons to.
‘He is the biggest Dalit icon; you can’t ignore and alienate your own people’
Finally, the realpolitik explanation lands. I’ve heard many Sangh and BJP folks say that it would be a grave mistake to assume that every person with Ambedkar’s DP on social media or a photo at his home will be a rabid Ambedkarite whose sole aim in life is to finish off Hinduism, and especially Brahmins.
Before this one is immediately laughed off and rejected as a white lie, I think people do need to factor in that a large part of the masses indeed don’t indulge in any critical analysis of ideologies before adopting something in vogue. Most just adopt political slogans.
For example, today a Samajwadi Party supporter would be all incensed over ‘insult to Babasaheb’ just because SP is in INDI Alliance and Akhilesh Yadav is working in tandem with Rahul Gandhi. But back in the 1990s, SP folks had damaged many Ambedkar statues in parks and villages in Uttar Pradesh, because they saw those statues as BSP trying to assert authority. That’s how politics is senseless and fickle in this country.
“Ambedkar has been sold off to them as their messiah by people who controlled the narrative, and now we can’t do much about it. It will not be wise to immediately start attacking Ambedkar and alienate them and push them further into the leftist or Islamist side. We have to ignore certain things and work steadily to make our point.”
Now that would have made perfect sense if an alternative plan was there. At least I can’t see any.
But the moot point is what that ‘alternative plan’ has to be. Sangh seems to be pretty comfortable accepting Ambedkar as it is, and so is BJP, and frankly, you can’t accuse them of any backstabbing as that’s how they always were.
Sangh accepted Ambedkar and Phule into their scheme of things more than 30 years ago. I’d suggest reading this book (available online for free here) titled “Manu Sangh and I” written by Ramesh Patange in 1996, a Padma Shri recipient and senior RSS ideologue. The book essentially argues that RSS does not believe in Manusmriti, even though it may not burn it.
This is exactly why the BJP could not have the upper hand when Rahul Gandhi was spreading lies about Savarkar. The Manusmriti in his hand made the party develop cold feet basically, as they don’t want to ‘support’ that text because in their minds they are reformists too.
From the outside, RSS and BJP seem to be clear in their mind that Ambedkar and Hindutva can go hand in hand, and they have been like this for literally over 30 years now. Primarily because in their worldview, both Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra are pretty liberal ideas that can accommodate all.
Defining Hinduism and Hindutva in the most liberal fashion ever might appear very self-congratulatory and self-important, but I don’t think that’s how ideologies work. One can argue to include Periyar next, and I don’t even want to guess the names thereafter. A line has to be drawn, and if that line is drawn after Ambedkar i.e. after including it, I’m fine with it, but at least the line should be clearly defined and be visible.
The risks of unanswered questions
As I had said earlier, Sangh or the BJP are not going to answer any questions on an organisational level and they are not even obliged to. But the broader RW and Hindu community has to have a discussion.
The biggest risk currently is not how Ambedkar is being raised to the status of God, he was raised to that status way back, but the virtual introduction of blasphemy around him. Even if the manipulated video of Amit Shah is seen without any context, the charge against him is essentially that he refused to recognise Ambedkar as God, chanting whose name can result in attaining heaven.
Pretty ironic that a man whose administered vows included refusal to recognise some Hindu gods should have the right to be identified as a God by everyone.
Also, gods can fight each other, be jealous of each other, and even conspire against each other, but if he is insisting on being worshipped by everyone – that is definitely not Hindu or Hindutva, that’s pretty Abrahamic. I have no idea how that can be defended.
Despite all this, I don’t favour lock, stock, and barrel rejection of Ambedkar from the Hindutva fold, for the reasons I put above (as put forward by those who insist on admitting him into the fold) are not entirely invalid. However, that can not come at the cost of a free exchange of thoughts, which is what is being threatened right now.
