Owning Ambedkar

A CONSTANT IN THE OFTEN CONTENTIOUS discussions on India’s constitutional journey 75 years after it adopted a written document defin­ing the central aspects of political and social life is repeated reference to BR Ambedkar. Almost no speaker, whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, or others like Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s (AIMIM) Asaduddin Owaisi, failed to dwell on the legendary Dalit leader who chaired the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly (CA) and is hailed for his passionate and intellectually compelling advocacy of the rights of the depressed classes. Dozens of mentions in both Houses of Parliament recognised the Constitution’s and Ambedkar’s role in providing opportunities and a future to India’s underprivileged. The partisanship that marks current-day politics saw the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) opponents accusing it of violating constitutional safeguards and the ruling dispensation re­turned fire by placing Congress’ record in office under an unflattering spotlight.

It was hardly surprising that Ambedkar’s much-quoted remark that the outcomes of a Constitution, howsoever praiseworthy it might be, would not be good if those implementing it were bad, was interpreted in contrary and convenient ways. BJP and its allies drew on the imposition of Emergency, indis­criminate use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments and vote-bank-driven legislation to flog its opponents while the anti-BJP spectrum accused the party of a majoritarian agenda and upending the Preamble’s commitment to secularism and socialism. The fault lines and most of the arguments are not new, but the force of their articulation does demand attention, pointing as it does to a fierce debate on national identity and the nature of India’s democracy. This is notewor­thy as, on the face of it, the multitudinous references to Ambedkar can be seen to reflect the crucial electoral weight Dalits command in elections with their ability to be a deciding factor in close contests. BJP’s sub-par score of 240 seats in the Lok Sabha elections is in some part attributed to the Opposition’s success in accusing the party of plotting to undo reservations. BJP’s bounce back in the Haryana and Maharashtra state polls thereafter is again partly attributed to its success in countering the hurtful allegation. Dalits and Adivasis are a focus area for BJP which, despite inroads in many states, will see its outreach as work-in-progress. These sections were once the bedrock of Congress’ political support and while the party lost out to competitors, including non- BJP parties in states like Odisha, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Dalit and tribal votes are es­sential to any comeback hopes it may harbour.

The political relevance of the man described as the author of the Constitution—he was himself more modest about his role—is certainly explained by the continued salience of the social interests he represented. His modern-day legatees, such as Kanshi Ram and Mayawati, powerfully demonstrated how the loyalty of dominant Dalit castes like the Jatavs could power the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) to political office by not just forcing national parties to cede leadership in a coalition but even on its own strength. Yet, with so many choosing to see only aspects of the man, what does Ambedkar represent? And in the race to associate with—or appro­priate the icon—where does he stand in India’s political and social firmament a little more than a century after he was called to the bar in London in 1922? Is he largely a legend, captured in the popular imagination by myriad statues depicting him with a copy of the Constitution under the arm and finger pointing upwards and onwards, or does Ambedkar have a significance that transcends immediate and transactional political considerations?

Ambedkar’s lasting contribution to India’s social life is no doubt his monumental effort to uplift the lot of the depressed classes. He offered a shining example of what realisation of self-worth can achieve and how racial and eugenic theories about the inherent worthiness of different castes for cer­tain tasks are a fallacy. Such was the power of his intellect that Ambedkar could outshine contemporaries from privileged backgrounds and who benefitted from inter-generational advantages. He held himself as an equal in debates with Mahatma Gandhi, with whom he had profound disagreements. But even as he spoke for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) of India, he held up a mirror to Hindu society, compelling it to consider its prejudices and hypocrisies. In his much discussed ‘Annihilation of Caste’, he wrote: “In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values; and the Hindus must realize that if there must be standards to measure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to revise those standards.” The lengthy tract, never delivered in public as his hosts the Jat Pat Todak Mandal (Dismantle Caste Society) developed cold feet, was by Ambedkar’s assertion his last address to a Hindu audience. He had decided to leave the Hindu fold.

HIS CONVICTION THAT a casteless society requires an all-pervasive attack on Hindu scriptures for sanctioning a divisive and demean­ing social hierarchy was too strong for the Mandal which feared, not without reason, that the address would be seen as a call for the annihilation of the Hindu religion. They wrote to Ambedkar in as many words. But distinc­tions between ‘varna’ and ‘caste’ did not hold his attention for long. His lived experience was sufficient to tell him of how religious prescriptions influenced Hindu practices and the cost his fellow caste people paid, often enough by way of physical hardship and punishment. The rising demands for reservations by forward and middle castes today on the face of it appear to be the antithesis of the casteless society Ambedkar had advocated. The rise to prominence of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) since the mid-1990s is correctly seen as social and political empowerment. The demands of groups like Marathas and Jats for inclusion in OBC quotas point to more, not less, caste-based mobilisa­tion. There are also competing demands within existing reserved categories for reassignment of quotas. These trends are in part explained by the competitive politics unleashed by the Mandal revolution but a lessening of inequalities is also discernible. Candidates accessing the OBC quotas for government jobs are matching scores achieved by forwards and a significant number choose to appear for examinations under the ‘general’ category.

The accelerating processes of urbanisation are reducing the ubiquitous­ness of caste distinctions in cities and towns. Caste is more apparent in rural settings but some rough edges have softened. But despite reforms in personal laws, Hindu society is in need of further improvement. The goal of reform is not achieved until tribals and Dalits find a place as equals in the Hindu fold. The lives of many members of these social groups are suboptimal and do not receive the benefits of enhancements in India’s national life. Again, the problem has been aggravated by a past tendency to see some communities as exhibits in a museum, a pater­nalistic approach that condemned these soci­eties to unequal and primitive lives. The real challenge lies in ensuring they do not miss out on the advantages of modernity along with the preservation of their cultural identities. There is little excuse for Dalit quarters in villages offering a sharp contrast to their neighbours in states and regions that are by no means remote or lacking in means. Ambedkar’s energetic appeal to Hindu society to actively consider the need for equity has not lost its importance. He said that just because people are unequal should not be the ground to reject the need for equality. “Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless one must accept it as the govern­ing principle,” he wrote.

Ambedkar wrote voluminously on social concerns of the depressed classes and correctly identified deficiencies of social reform move­ments led by forward classes. These efforts, he said, were limited to issues such as widow remarriage, female education and employ­ment and child marriage, which were matters relating to the Hindu family but did not address the core problem of caste discrimination. Legis­lation since Independence, springing from the Constitution itself, no doubt granted weaker sections guarantees about their well-being. But as seen in some states where OBCs have achieved political power, they have in turn become oppressors of Dalits. Conversion is a significant fault line that pits the Sangh Parivar and Church groups against each other. Indeed, the approach of evangelical organisations that see tribals and Dalits as sheep needing to be brought home is not only unethical but has very adverse social ramifications. Conversion is not a superficial experience as it makes one set of people suddenly very different from their neighbours. Religious practices as well as cus­toms relating to birth, marriage, divorce and death change, sometimes overnight. Tribal societies can—and have—witnessed volatile reactions, with the ‘converts’ targeted with violence. But while conversions have a perni­cious underside, Hindu society owes to itself the need to ensure those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale are not subject to dis­crimination and less equal lives. Only then will these sections feel any sense of true belonging. Change is visible among Dalits and Adivasis as the spread of literacy and economic gains enabled them to make use of opportunities. Their impatience with their lot and search for better lives requires urgent solutions and there is a role for both government agencies and Hindu civil society, including the Sangh Parivar, to address lingering deficits apart from a political discussion on conversion.

Ambedkar held cogent and well-articulated views on nearly all aspects of India’s national life. And he did not hesitate to speak his mind, refusing to be bogged down by considerations of political correctness or for fear of being labelled one way or the other. Efforts have been made to inject ambiguity into his views on the Kashmir problem, but it is quite evident that he was out of sympathy with Article 370, recognising the divisiveness inherent in the special dispensation that would make Jammu & Kashmir different from other states in India. He was scathing about communists and socialists, using his grasp of economics and India’s social ethos to dismiss a Marxist or an economic interpretation of the Indian condition. In his last speech to the CA, he zeroed in on the discomfort of communists with democracy, noting: “The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitu­tion? I venture to say no. The Communist Party wants a Constitution based upon the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They condemn the Constitu­tion because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property with­out payment of compensation. The second thing the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute… so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.” He found communist doctrine unconvincing and saw its adherents adrift of the Indian reality.

The renewed tussle between BJP and its opponents over the legacy of Ambedkar requires scholars to re-examine his thoughts and the insights they offer on political issues of the day. In some ways they might, to the discomfiture of BJP’s ideological opponents, be supportive of the ‘nationalism’ the saffron party advocates. BJP’s current leadership, even if not its rank and file, has realised the importance of Dalits and Adivasis within the Hindu tent, and their relentless attacks on Congress for denying Ambedkar his due are part of this battle which is yet to conclude. But while that debate rages, Hindu society has much to gain by an honest reading of Ambedkar’s message in its entirety and true spirit.

BR AmbedkarConstituent AssemblyDalit leaderHindu societyIndian Constitution