All are Worshippers of Ambedkar!

Naoroji

On December 17, in the Rajya Sabha, Home Minister Amit Shah mocked the Congress by saying, “‘Ambedkar! Ambedkar! Ambedkar! Ambedkar! Ambedkar! Ambedkar! Ambedkar!’ For some people, this has become a fashion now. It is like chanting God’s name repeatedly; doing so can ensure a place in heaven for up to seven lifetimes (‘Saat Janam Tak’).” In protest of this, the opposition parties, particularly the Congress MPs, argued, “Amit Shah has insulted Ambedkar (with the implication of ‘Is Ambedkar some God to be invoked repeatedly?’). Therefore, he must apologize! Amit Shah must resign from his ministerial position! The Prime Minister should remove him from the Cabinet!” Countering Congress’s protests, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs also staged demonstrations.

The arguments and counterarguments by the two parties and their allies unfolded as follows:

Congress Coalition Argument
“Ambedkar is the architect of the Constitution! You (BJP) have insulted him. You do not believe in the Constitution at all. Your faith lies entirely in Manu Smriti! Ambedkar burned the Manu Smriti text on December 20, 1927. In the past, in December 1949, your RSS and Hindu Mahasabha members burned effigies of Ambedkar. They condemned the Constitution written by Ambedkar as being entirely foreign. During your ten years of governance, there have been 30,400 attacks on Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). You are conspiring to dismantle the reservations established by Ambedkar gradually.” These were Congress’s arguments.

BJP Coalition Argument
“Congress defeated Ambedkar in elections twice in the past. You awarded the ‘Bharat Ratna’—the highest civilian honour—to your family members but did not bestow it upon the great intellectual Ambedkar. In 1990, the VP Singh government supported by our party, awarded Ambedkar the Bharat Ratna. During your five years of rule in Karnataka, nearly 9,000 attacks occurred on SCs and STs. In 1940, Ambedkar, writing about Pakistan, criticised Islam, stating, ‘Islam divides people into Muslims and non-Muslims.’ You, for the sake of votes, criticise us as communal and appease Muslims at the expense of Hindus. In 1939, Ambedkar visited an RSS office and observed no caste-based discriminations in its activities, which he praised.”

Thus, both the main political parties accused each other of disrespecting Ambedkar. During debates on English and Hindi television, intellectual advocates from both parties passionately claimed, “It is we who truly uphold Ambedkar’s ideals.” However, both sides struggled to address specific arguments, while some claims were supported with historical evidence.

For example, Congress supporters cited Ambedkar’s conversation with the then RSS leader Guru Golwalkar on September 7, 1949, where Ambedkar allegedly remarked, “The RSS is like a poisonous tree dreaming of restoring Peshwa rule! I cannot associate with it.” BJP opponents used historical texts to validate these claims.

Meanwhile, BJP advocates could not provide specific dates or documents to back claims like Ambedkar’s supposed praise for the absence of caste discrimination in the RSS. Both parties selectively used arguments and concealed inconvenient facts. For instance, BJP leaders mentioned Ambedkar’s criticism of Islam in his book “Pakistan or the Partition of India” (Vol. 8, Page 358) but ignored his criticisms of Hinduism in the same book. Congress leaders highlighted this inconsistency.

Ambedkar’s alleged statement: “Hinduism is inherently opposed to freedom, equality, and fraternity. In that sense, it is incompatible with democracy” is often cited by BJP opponents.

Both Parties’ Claims on Ambedkar’s Worship
There are varied opinions on the reverence shown toward Ambedkar by these two coalitions. Many intellectuals argue that neither party truly upholds Ambedkar’s principles. Instead, both engage in political opportunism. Given Ambedkar’s status as a revered figure among Dalit voters, both parties compete to claim him as their own to secure Dalit votes.

This raises an important question: If two rival political parties are vying to claim the same individual as “ours,” what does that imply? It suggests that some aspect of Ambedkar’s ideology resonates with both parties or serves their political needs.

For example, consider Congress. In June 1945, Ambedkar wrote a scathing critique titled “What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables.” Despite his harsh criticism, within two years, upon Gandhi’s suggestion and Nehru’s invitation, Ambedkar set aside his disagreements and joined the Congress government as the Minister of Law. Within weeks, he became the Chairman of the Committee tasked with drafting the new Constitution. On November 25, 1949, Ambedkar praised Congress: “The work of this Constitution proceeded in an orderly and disciplined manner because of the Congress party’s presence in the Constituent Assembly. The discipline of the Congress party ensured that the Drafting Committee could present this Constitution without any obstacles. Therefore, the credit for the seamless drafting of the Constitution belongs to the Congress party.”

Despite these accolades, Congress failed to explain why they did not award Ambedkar the Bharat Ratna during their tenure.

Why Does the BJP Admire Ambedkar?
Despite Ambedkar’s severe criticisms of Hinduism and his conversion to Buddhism, the BJP reveres him for breaking ties with Congress after four years of association. Both parties swear by the Constitution, which was primarily designed to safeguard the interests of the wealthy classes. Since these political parties represent those wealthy classes, they praise Ambedkar for his role in drafting the Constitution, even superficially.

Ambedkar, who rose from an oppressed caste background to become a towering intellectual, remains a symbol of inspiration in a hierarchical society. Throughout his life, he fought for the rights of the oppressed. Historically, ruling classes often attempt to co-opt reformers from oppressed groups, offering them high status and recognition. This creates illusions among the oppressed masses, ensuring smoother governance for the rulers.

This is why political parties compete to praise Ambedkar—not for his anti-caste ideology but for his role in drafting a Constitution that serves the ruling classes. Marx observed in “Capital”: “The more a ruling class can assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule”.

(Telugu original appeared in Andhra Jyothy daily, dated 26-12-2024)

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 33, Feb 9 - 15, 2025