Every modern protest creates a new image for the masses. Politics has devolved into event management, where every action generates thousands of social media “reels.” A new business model has emerged from growing public unrest—an unrest that is itself a symptom of the failures of modern capitalism. Yet, digital profiteers ensure that the core issue is diluted while the spectacle is magnified. They do this not out of sympathy for the cause, but because controversy yields impressions. We have all become victims of this system, and in many ways, enslaved to it. The result is that public discourse is now strictly binary: if you are not with us, you must be against us. There is no space for disagreement. You fight against one oppressor only to be forced into the camp of another, simply because there is no middle path in today’s digital world. The more regressive and loud your rhetoric, the higher the TRP for your channel, digital or otherwise.
The fundamental problem today is our fixation on creating individual icons out of protests rather than focusing on the issues. I am not referring to every sit-in, because those who truly understand the legacies of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule, and Periyar know better. A true movement is not merely about rhetorical slogans; it is much deeper. Look at the greatest revolutions brought about by Ambedkar and Periyar in India: they were silent revolutions. They did not merely seek to change others; they sought to equip the marginalized with knowledge and wisdom.
Ambedkarism is not merely the chant of “Jai Bhim.” It is the powerful legacy of keeping a movement alive even when it is not visibly occupying the streets. Its most potent aspect is its autonomy and its ability to cultivate leadership from the most marginalized sections of society. It refuses to merely pick up the flags of others or chant slogans for their causes.
Consequently, the central debate today is not between the Left and the Right, but about maintaining the independence of the Ambedkarite movement. People must understand that despite all the pulls and pressures that have existed since Baba Saheb’s time, the movement has refused to bow down. Today, everyone is chanting “Jai Bhim,” which reflects the power and success of the Ambedkarite movement. But consider the period before the 1980s, when academics rarely wrote about it, or the 1990s, when JNU liberals dismissed the Mandal Commission as “casteist.” Ambedkarism survived not because of patronage from the Left or the Right, but on its own foundational ground.
While I strongly advocate for alliances between the Left and other anti-caste forces, such unity must be predicated on a deep respect for the historical background of the anti-caste movement. We cannot work under the condition of a “patron.” Any alliance must accept the autonomy of Dalits, Backward Castes, and Adivasis. It is not merely an issue of “erasing caste” to fit into a mainstream narrative; it is about respecting the agency of those who have been historically wronged—not just by brutal physical oppression, but by Brahmanical intellectualism.
It is equally important to recognize the diversity of political thought, whether among the Left, Ambedkarites, or socialists. There are numerous factions within the Left, just as there is a rapid proliferation of Bahujan, Dalit, and Republican parties. Despite internal differences and fragmentation, both the RPI and the BSP have played massive roles in asserting the dream of Dalit political autonomy. There are resentments—not just in Left or liberal circles, but among Ambedkarites who wish to see the BSP rise but are disappointed by its current indifference. Chandrashekhar Azad is a new entrant, and while those with sentiments for the late Kanshiram Ji still prefer the BSP, many feel they would be a much more powerful force if they joined hands. This is the reality on the ground. Similarly, the Left has its own internal differences; for instance, AISA became far more powerful and widely accepted precisely because it engaged with caste discrimination and embraced an understanding of Ambedkarism.
We must also recognize that we are currently being co-opted by the modern warfare of capitalism. Many will not like to admit it, but capitalism creates “brands.” Often, these brands are built to demolish ideology, elevating the individual above the party. Political parties today thrive on branding, which is built on public events and optics. Young influencers are the products of this system; they create visible faces to be used accordingly. For example, when Rahul Gandhi invites a young Gen-Z face like Neha Bora instead of promoting traditional youth leaders like Deepankar Bhattacharya or the NSUI, it is a calculated branding exercise. Congress’s own people question why the NSUI isn’t being promoted, but the fact is, Neha represents both the youth and a marketable brand. The media will not bother with her party; it cares about her. That is how modern branding works.
Once you become part of an agitation, the media will ask you about everything—from Ambedkarism to Brahmanism. Caught in the limelight, many are ready to give their opinions on every issue under the sun. Sometimes, it is better to say, “I don’t know much about this,” but our current set of leaders feel compelled to speak on everything. Normal issues are deliberately made controversial so that the actual problem is ignored in favor of creating drama and securing screen time.
We need to stop dragging up historical grievances merely to critique contemporary individuals. Historical issues have been debated for decades, and we must understand that different parties have always formed alliances. It was never merely about individuals fighting; it was about parties fighting. Baba Saheb was supported by socialist leaders like Prof. N.G. Ranga and Ashok Mehta when he contested the Lok Sabha elections. Alliances are historical, but they must be principled.
The future of India will be secure if the Left forces, Ambedkarites, and Periyarists come together. But the essential ingredient of this togetherness is the acceptance of diversity and respect for the autonomy of individual parties and organizations. Ambedkarites face similar internal challenges within the Dalit movement, as hitherto unrepresented communities seek a share in the power structure. Nobody is ready to accept a dominant narrative, whether it comes from outside the movement or from within.
A true movement emerges from a long, arduous struggle, not merely from a sit-in or a viral protest. India’s oppressed fought for their share in society and politics on their own terms, and they secured it today. It is the victory of the self-respect movement of Dalits and the marginalized that all parties—which once opposed or ignored Dr. Ambedkar—are now compelled to chant “Jai Bhim.”
Yet, Ambedkarites must be careful: not everyone chanting “Jai Bhim” or “Jai Savitri” is a well-wisher of the community. The Dalit political struggle today is not about fighting to become backbenchers in a dominant-caste political structure. It will always be part of broader democratic movements, but only if its autonomy and independence are unequivocally respected and accepted.
*Human rights defender
Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net