As the insult directed at Babasaheb Ambedkar by Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha draws widespread criticism from across the country, right-wing Hindu nationalist ideologues are attempting to construct a narrative that aligns Ambedkar’s ideology with the politics of figures like Savarkar, the RSS, and the BJP. (Balbir Punj on X: "The resurrection of Dr Ambedkar" / X). They selectively quote from Ambedkar’s vast body of work to paint a misleading picture suggesting that Babasaheb appreciated the ideology of Hindutva.
One such claim highlights Ambedkar’s praise for Swami Shraddhanand as “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables.” However, they conveniently ignore the fact that Shraddhanand was involved in the Shuddhi movement, aimed at converting Muslims to Hinduism. This practice angered Muslim clerics. Ambedkar responded to Shuddhi by stating, “If the Hindu society desires to survive, it must think not of adding to its numbers but increasing its solidarity, and that means the abolition of caste. The abolition of castes is the real sangathan of the Hindus, and when sangathan is achieved by abolishing castes, Shuddhi will be unnecessary.” This stance was in stark contrast to the Tanzim movement by the Tablighi Jamaat, which sought to convert Hindus to Islam. Shraddhanand later joined the Indian National Congress but was also a part of the Hindu Sangathan movement under the revitalized Hindu Mahasabha, which was committed to the idea of a Hindu Nation.
Another narrative being promoted equates Ambedkar and Savarkar, claiming they were “two sides of the same coin.” While it is true that Savarkar started the Patit Pavan temple, which allowed Dalits to enter temples, Ambedkar opposed this move. He believed it would create separate temples visited only by Dalits. An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of Bahishkrit Bharat stated that Ambedkar had opposed the Patit Pavan temple from the beginning, arguing it would eventually be labeled as a temple exclusively for the untouchables. Ambedkar did acknowledge Savarkar’s efforts but deemed them irrelevant.
Hindutva proponents also exaggerate Ambedkar’s disagreements with the Congress. Some argue that Nehru became authoritarian after the deaths of Gandhi and Patel, sidelining the opposition. Amit Shah claimed that Ambedkar resigned from Nehru’s Cabinet over differences on Article 370, foreign policy, and the treatment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, the primary reason for Ambedkar’s resignation was the shabby treatment of the Hindu Code Bill, which faced massive opposition, including demonstrations by RSS volunteers. The protests culminated in a large rally at Ramlila Maidan on December 11, 1949, where effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burned.
The RSS’s mouthpiece, Organiser (December 7, 1949), stated, “We oppose the Hindu Code Bill. We oppose it because it is a derogatory measure based on alien and immoral principles. It is not a Hindu Code Bill. It is anything but Hindu.” This aggressive campaign delayed and diluted the bill, causing Ambedkar immense disappointment and leading to his resignation.
The ideological differences between Ambedkar and Hindutva politics are stark. In 1927, Ambedkar publicly burned the Manusmriti, which he saw as a symbol of caste oppression. In contrast, RSS ideologues like M.S. Golwalkar praised the Manusmriti. Savarkar also supported Chaturvarnya and extolled the Manusmriti, calling it “the scripture most worshipable after the Vedas for our Hindu Nation.” He added, “Even today, the rules followed by crores of Hindus in their lives are based on Manusmriti. Today, Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”
Ambedkar’s opposition to Hindutva ideology was unequivocal. On October 13, 1935, in a meeting at Yeola near Nasik, he declared, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu!” He argued that Hinduism lacked liberty, compassion, and equality. In his revised edition of Thoughts on Pakistan, Ambedkar opposed the formation of Islamic Pakistan, warning that it could pave the way for a Hindu Raj or Rashtra, which he deemed a catastrophe.
Despite pressures to convert to Sikhism or Islam, Ambedkar chose Buddhism after careful study. Dr. Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha reportedly struck a pact with Ambedkar, agreeing not to oppose his conversion if he avoided converting to Islam.
Today, the BJP seeks to appropriate Ambedkar’s legacy by erecting statues and building an international museum in his memory. While these are symbolic gestures, they fail to honor Ambedkar’s core values. The BJP’s Mandal vs. Kamandal politics starkly contrasts with Ambedkar’s commitment to social justice. For instance, when the Mandal Commission was implemented, the BJP resorted to Kamandal politics. Advani’s Rath Yatra, part of this strategy, led to the fall of V.P. Singh’s government.
Although the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha opposed Ambedkar in the Lok Sabha elections, it was Congress that later ensured his place in the Rajya Sabha and appointed him as chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution. The BJP’s attempt to co-opt Ambedkar into the Hindutva fold is a desperate and fabricated effort to claim legitimacy from a man who stood firmly against the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. The irony is glaring: those who advocate for a Hindu Nation now attempt to project Ambedkar, a staunch opponent of Hindu Rashtra and a proponent of a secular, democratic republic, as part of their ideological parivar.
---
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor