Ambedkar: A unifier at a fundamental level

In May 1916, addressing a seminar in the US, B R Ambedkar explained, “Hinduism is like a multi-storied building, with several floors but without a connecting ladder. One lives and dies on the floor on which he is born…Mahatmas have come and gone, but the untouchables have remained untouchables”. But his acceptance of the Poona Pact years later shows that his attack on Gandhiji was never personal. For he had learned pragmatism, and faith in democracy and the moral order from great thinkers like M G Ranade, John Dewey, and Harold Laski.

Ambedkar refused to accept the term ‘Harijan’ for the untouchables, as it implied that they resign to their Karma. He preferred ‘Dalit’. He had thundered in Nagpur in 1937, “With justice on our side, I do not see how we can lose our battle”.

Read | Row in Rajasthan village over installation of Ambedkar, Maharaja Surajmal statue

Ambedkar’s credo “Educate, Organise and Agitate” opened a new social, political and religious dimension in pre- and post-Independent India. He had many differences with Gandhi over strategies, but both wanted to achieve an egalitarian society of equals. He assured his followers, ”It is a matter of joy to fight this battle, which is fully spiritual. Our struggle is for emancipation from the hierarchical and suppressing Hindu social system.”

He also said, ”It is on the economic base that the religious, social, and political institutions of society are standing up. To change the base, the building needs to be demolished.” ‘Rama Rajya’ was Gandhi’s ideal, but for Ambedkar, abolishing ‘Ravana Rajya’ was the foremost need.

Like Gandhi, Ambedkar was always learning to unlearn and relearn. Though in 1937 he had briefly shared a platform with M A Jinnah, took part in the Round Table Conferences, did not boycott the Cripps Mission, and was a critic of many a vague Congress policies, nevertheless his contribution to the freedom movement through his fight for individual dignity was equally impactful.

His address to the Constituent Assembly expressed his fond hope for an inclusive ethos in the country. “I know today we are divided politically, socially and economically; We are a group of warring camps…But, Sir, with all this…with all our castes and creeds, I have not the slightest hesitation that we shall in some form be a united people.”

Though he waged a relentless battle against the conservative hypocrisy of mainstream Hindu society, he was never vindictive like the modern-day politically powerful. “Power is one thing and wisdom and prudence are quite different things. In deciding the destiny of the people, the dignities of the leaders or men or parties ought to count for nothing. Let us prove by our conduct that we have not only the power but also the wisdom to carry with us the entire country and to make them march on the road of unity.” Babasaheb’s words seem not to have fallen into the ears of the power-hungry present-day political cultists.

He believed that “an individual is an end to himself” and he never accepted the logic that individuals should dissolve into society like drops of water in the ocean. He was greatly concerned that the Constitution may be legally subverted by the “majoritarian premise” and the rights of citizens could be taken away by legislatures of a party having a brute majority and an autocratic leader.

Post-Independence, Ambedkar failed in the electoral field, but his life’s work became a ladder for many from the oppressed communities to climb into the chambers of power. For many millions more of the oppressed and suppressed classes, he was the man who made them understand that ‘living’ meant ‘living with dignity’.

Ambedkar was an icon but he became one by himself being iconoclastic, even so enriching, rather than diminishing, Indian society by challenging its core beliefs and practices. Due to this, it has not been obvious to many that Ambedkar was a unifier of India at a very fundamental level. The importance of his work for an egalitarian society and his insistence on ‘fraternity’ as a core democratic value alongside liberty, equality and justice have not been fully appreciated for unifying India at the level of individuals and society.

Gandhi may have sounded Utopian at times, but Ambedkar was more a pragmatic idealist, and has arguably had more influence on the evolution of Indian society since Independence. India’s intellectual evolution would have been poorer but for its encounter with Ambedkar.

(The writer is an educationist and author)