1. IISER Pune: Academic freedom throttled; Ambedkar lecture series cancelled

At the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Pune, a carefully curated student-led event titled Muktiparv, organised to honour Ambedkar and host conversations around caste, resistance, and equality, was abruptly cancelled by the administration. The lectures were to feature prominent anti-caste voices including Deepali Salve, Nazima Parveen, and Smita M. Patil — all respected scholars and public intellectuals. Students had spent months preparing the event, which was to be a space for reflection on Ambedkar’s radical legacy.

However, within hours of a complaint by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a right-wing student group that labelled the speakers as “extreme left,” the administration called off the event. A police complaint lodged by ABVP further pressured the institution. The IISER administration cited vague “concerns” as the reason for cancellation but failed to specify what the concerns were, or who raised them. In response, the Student Council and several campus groups condemned the move as “sudden and unjustified”, accusing the institute of buckling under political pressure.

Students connected this silencing to a broader institutional pattern — pointing to persistent underrepresentation of SC/ST faculty and systemic barriers faced by marginalised students in elite educational spaces. “This is not about one event,” a student said while speaking to The Observer Post. “It is about the gatekeeping of ideas. Who gets to speak, and who gets silenced?” The cancellation of Muktiparv is emblematic of how even academic spaces are shrinking for Ambedkarite thought and Dalit assertion.

2. Mhow, Madhya Pradesh: Dalit groom barred from temple, allowed entry only under police watch

In Sanghvi village near Mhow — the very town where Ambedkar was born — caste discrimination reared its head again. On his wedding day, a Dalit groom from the Balai community was denied entry into a Lord Ram temple by dominant caste villagers. His wedding procession had arrived with the intention of offering prayers, a common practice. However, they were stopped outside the temple, and only after two hours of argument and police intervention was the groom permitted to enter — that too under close police watch and in the presence of a few family members.

Eyewitness accounts and video footage shared on social media show the groom and his guests arguing with dominant caste locals, who resisted their presence in the temple. The police attempted to downplay the incident, claiming the dispute was merely over access to the sanctum sanctorum, which “as per tradition” is restricted to priests. But Dalit groups and community leaders were unconvinced.

Manoj Parmar, president of the All India Balai Mahasangh, denounced the incident, stating that it reflected the continued “frustrated mentality” of those clinging to caste-based exclusion. “Even today, our community is treated like outsiders in our own country,” he said, speaking to The New Indian Express. This incident — on Ambedkar Jayanti no less — laid bare how caste continues to dictate access to public and religious spaces, even in the birthplace of India’s greatest anti-caste thinker.

3. Udaipur, Rajasthan: Police stop Dalit groups from hoisting Ambedkar flag at iconic circle

In Udaipur, another symbolic assertion of Dalit pride was curtailed — this time by the police. At Ambedkar Circle in the heart of the city, activists from the Bhim Army and other Dalit organisations gathered to hoist a blue flag bearing Ambedkar’s image and the Ashoka Chakra. This flag, a potent symbol of resistance and Ambedkarite identity, was to be installed near the life-sized statue of Dr. Ambedkar — a tradition on his birth anniversary.

However, police led by Bhupalpura SHO Adarsh Parihar intervened, stopped the crane that was arranged to hoist the flag, and allegedly misbehaved with the crane driver. As per The Observer Post, despite the activists’ assurance that the flag would be respectfully removed after the day’s celebrations, the SHO insisted on written permission from the Additional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police — permissions that were reportedly denied.

Shankar Chandel, leader of the Congress SC Cell, condemned the police action as discriminatory and politically motivated. “Why are other communities allowed to put up flags freely — for Hanuman Jayanti, Parshuram Jayanti, or Vivekananda Jayanti — but Dalit groups are blocked?” he asked, as reported by The Observer Post. The flag bore no religious symbols and was not permanent. Activists claimed this was not about procedure, but about prejudice. They announced plans to submit a memorandum to the Udaipur SP and Collector to protest what they called casteist and biased treatment. 

Remembering Ambedkar is still a struggle for the marginalised

These three incidents, all unfolding on Ambedkar Jayanti, reflect a dangerous contradiction. While state institutions and political leaders publicly celebrate Ambedkar with flowers and speeches, the substance of his message — of annihilating caste, asserting dignity, and challenging social hierarchies — continues to be resisted on the ground. Educational institutions silence Ambedkarite discourse, social spaces still police Dalit bodies, and state machinery selectively applies the law to block public assertion by marginalised communities.

Ambedkar once said, “Caste is a notion; it is a state of the mind.” These events show that the caste mindset is alive and well — not just in remote villages, but in our most prestigious institutions and modern cities. To truly honour Ambedkar, India must move beyond symbolic gestures and confront the structures and prejudices that still seek to silence the very people he fought for.

Related:

On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today?

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

Raid on Adivasi leader Manish Kunjam for ‘seeking investigation into the tendu patta bonu scam’, condemned by rights groups

The post Caste Shadow on Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Surprisingly, I vividly remember that the story of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Gandhi, was narrated to us by a Brahmin teacher in my village. What struck me even more was the tone of his narration—it seemed to express a subtle sympathy for the killer of Bapu. Yet, that same teacher never took the time to tell us who Babasaheb Ambedkar was.

The entry of Dr. Ambedkar into my life came quite late. I cannot say exactly when I first heard his name, but my real engagement with his work began when I enrolled in a postgraduate programme in Political Science in Delhi.

Traditional Political Science syllabi gave very little space to Ambedkar’s ideas, although they readily imposed the political thoughts of Manu and Kautilya—both of whom were staunch upholders of the caste-based social order—on students. If someone wants to pursue research on Manu, they are free to do so. But I am still unable to understand the rationale behind compelling every student to study Manu at the undergraduate or postgraduate level in a course on Indian political thought.

It may be understandable that M. S. Golwalkar, one of the key ideologues of the Hindutva ideology, praised Manu as “Lord (Bhagwan)” and called him as “the greatest lawgiver of mankind.” However, the disproportionate space assigned to Manu in political science textbooks raises serious questions about the fragility of the secular character of India’s educational system. That Ambedkar—one of the staunchest critics of the caste-based social order and a vocal opponent of “Hindu Raj”—has remained neglected in the mainstream educational system and media should not come as a surprise to many.

My stay at Delhi’s two universities over a span of 11 years—two years at Jamia Millia Islamia and nine years at Jawaharlal Nehru University—brought me significantly closer to the thoughts and legacy of Babasaheb Ambedkar. In the classroom, our professors did make references to Ambedkar’s ideas, but I found myself unsatisfied with the way they interpreted and explained his work. I noticed that they had a vested interest in highlighting only certain aspects of Ambedkar while concealing others. The professors soon lost their influence over us when many of us realized that their discussions of Ambedkar inside the classroom and their actions outside were quite disconnected. For them, teaching Ambedkar, writing about him, publishing books, and getting projects in his name seemed more like career-building strategies. For many of us, however, Ambedkar was a ray of light—an inspiration to escape the darkness of an unequal social order. I began to look beyond the classroom and found that engaging with Ambedkarite activist-scholars at the university and those actively involved in Ambedkarite movements was far more fruitful than simply taking notes from careerist professors.

Since Ambedkar wrote in lucid prose, he was not particularly difficult to understand. Unlike many other politicians, he never neglected the importance of scholarship. He read, researched, and wrote until his last breath. The focus of his scholarship was not on fairy tales, nor was he interested in metaphysical or divine questions. As an organic intellectual, he wrote about the problems faced by the most marginalized sections of society—people whom the caste-based system did not even consider human, let alone treat as equals. Ambedkar’s writings, spread across thousands of pages, continue to serve as a torchlight for marginalized communities. Those who uphold the status quo are trying hard to appropriate Ambedkar, but they cannot bury the power and truth of his dozens of volumes of writings.

But unlike armchair scholars confined to the ivory towers of the establishment, Ambedkar believed that the process of thinking is intrinsically linked to action. In contrast to the so-called “objective” scholarship of the mainstream, his writings had a clear purpose and stood firmly with the downtrodden. He recognized that the cloak of “objectivity” and “neutrality” often serves to maintain the status quo and reinforces existing hegemonies. That is why he not only wrote but also acted. He agitated, and he penned. In Ambedkar’s philosophy, the process of thought and action-oriented programmes are inseparable. He was truly a “concerned” scholar and an organic politician.

In my understanding, Ambedkar belongs to the tradition of materialist-rationalist thoughts shaped by Buddhism, Kabir, and Jyotirao Phule. Consequently, he was deeply critical of metaphysical, idealist, Vedantic, and Brahminical frameworks for interpreting the world. Unlike Brahminical thinkers, Ambedkar did not shy away from confronting material reality. Nor did he resort to explaining concrete problems through metaphysical abstractions or the construction of myths. In contrast to the Brahminical scholarly tradition, he categorically rejected the notion of divinity and the role of supernatural beings.

Although he acknowledged the social significance of religion, his conception of it was radically different—his vision of religion excluded the presence of God. For Ambedkar, religion was not about ritual performance or appeasing a higher power; rather, it was a social space where marginalized communities could assert their dignity and forge collective solidarity.

In essence, Ambedkar deconstructed Brahminical myths and laid the groundwork for a new social order rooted in the ideals of equality, liberty, and fraternity. Throughout his life, he remained deeply uneasy with the idea of human beings surrendering—whether to divine forces or to fellow humans. For him, both the worship of gods and the veneration of heroic figures were equally unacceptable.

Ambedkar was a staunch advocate of equality in the political, social, and economic domains. Continuing the legacy of Buddha, Kabir, and Phule, he offered a scathing critique of the caste-based social order. As an iconoclast, he denounced the religion into which he was born and criticized the Hindu social order and its religious texts for perpetuating caste-based discrimination.

Since most of us are raised within a Brahminical social milieu, we are trained from childhood to perceive the caste hierarchy as “natural” and the prevailing social system as one that fosters “harmony” and “equilibrium.” From structural-functionalist scholars to most upper-caste leaders and intellectuals, there has long been a tendency to normalize and defend the caste order. However, the emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the broader political stage began to challenge this entrenched narrative. His powerful call for the annihilation of the caste system resonated with millions who had long been treated as pariahs by the upper castes.

Ambedkar’s enduring contribution lies in his ability, much like a skilled doctor, to diagnose the deep-seated stagnation of Indian society. He prescribed a clear remedy: without the annihilation of caste, the achievement of political, social, and economic equality, and justice for women and minorities, the nation cannot truly progress.

While it is true that the mainstream Indian Left—whose leadership has largely been dominated by Brahmins and other upper castes—ignored Dr. Ambedkar and excluded Dalit leadership until the Ambedkarite movement brought him into public consciousness, this should not be used to validate the Hindutva narrative that portrays Ambedkar as an “enemy” of Marxism or socialism. Marxism and socialism are not monolithic ideologies; they are interpreted and shaped by prevailing parties or dominant leaders, and thus, no single definition is universally accepted. What matters is that Ambedkar engaged with Marxism on his own terms, expressing both agreement and disagreement with its dominant interpretations during his time.

Given that Marxism is a materialist philosophy that advocates for the removal of class-based inequality and the establishment of material equality, Ambedkar’s own work resonates strongly with Marxist principles. His efforts to organize the working class, his emphasis on eradicating economic inequality, and his commitment to a materialist, scientific, and rational worldview align him closely with Marxist ideals and practice.

However, Dr. Ambedkar differed from the dominant Marxist interpretation on the questions of class, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the use of violence. Unlike mainstream Marxist thinkers, Ambedkar’s understanding of class emphasized the social identities of labourers and rejected the notion of the working class as a homogenous entity. His key contribution lay in highlighting the lack of solidarity among workers, despite their shared exploitation.

While Marxists called for unity among labourers, Ambedkar insisted that unity could not be achieved without first addressing the internal divisions created by caste. Upper-caste comrades were often eager to bring about revolution, overlooking the fundamental reality that caste—structured around graded inequality—stood in the way of genuine worker solidarity. Ambedkar argued that caste must first be annihilated to lay the foundation for a truly classless society. This view diverged sharply from that of upper-caste Marxists, who often saw the caste question as a distraction or even a threat to working-class unity. The mainstream Left’s continued failure to enact meaningful social transformation should prompt a serious re-examination of Ambedkar’s nuanced perspective on class and caste.

No doubt Ambedkar was a great scholar, a brilliant lawyer, and an influential Parliamentarian. The construction of his image as a legal scholar holding the Constitution of India has created the impression that Ambedkar only believed in legal and constitutional methods, and therefore, had no ideological connection with Marxists, who are often associated with violent means. To support such a claim, Ambedkar’s famous speech titled “Buddha or Karl Marx” is frequently cited.

It is true that Ambedkar acknowledged that both Buddhism and Marxism opposed private property. However, according to him, Buddhism diverged from Marxism on the question of violence. Ambedkar emphasized that Buddhism, unlike Marxism, rejected violence. That said, his critique of Marxism in this regard must be situated within the historical context of his time. It is a matter of historical record that some communist leaders, backed by the brute force of the state, resorted to violence in their attempt to establish a “class-less” society.

Supporters of such violent methods might argue that radical social change and reordering of class relations cannot be accomplished through purely constitutional and legal means, and that violence by the oppressed is not a violation but an act of liberation. While Ambedkar may have agreed with the goal of achieving a class-less society, he preferred to pursue a different strategy—one that did not involve violence. This belief was deeply held and unwavering, despite criticism from the Left, who at times dismissed Ambedkar as “at best a radical bourgeois leader.”

Ambedkar and his critics held different perspectives on these issues. However, the failures of various communist regimes—though not of Marxism as a philosophy—have led even some of his critics to reconsider his principled critique of violence. Importantly, Ambedkar’s rejection of violence does not imply a lack of belief in peaceful yet radical movements. His famous call to “educate, organise, and agitate” reflects a commitment to constitutional and legal methods, but not a confinement to them.

Consider the historic Mahad Conference of 1927, where Ambedkar led thousands of untouchables to assert their right to access a public tank that had been denied to them by caste-based restrictions. During this agitation, upper-caste aggressors attacked Ambedkar and his followers, yet he stood his ground. His editorials in Bahishkrit Bharat are a testament to his unwavering message urging Dalits not to accept caste discrimination and to rise in rebellion. In one editorial dated May 20, 1927, Ambedkar clearly stated that no one would grant Dalits their rights out of charity—they had to be prepared to fight for them. Is this not strong evidence that Ambedkar was far more than merely a legal scholar? His call to struggle against discrimination and exploitation, and his insistence on securing a life of dignity, align him with mass movements—and place him ideologically close to the Left.

However, one of my biggest attractions to Babasaheb Ambedkar is his theory of minority rights, which is inherently linked to the broader concept of social justice. In light of the rise of right-wing forces in India and elsewhere, Ambedkar’s ideas have become even more relevant today. As previously mentioned, Ambedkar was a staunch opponent of any dictatorial or authoritarian regime. He understood well that the suppression of liberty is often justified in the name of lofty goals, and he consistently cautioned marginalized communities not to fall prey to such narratives.

With the advent of democracy and the introduction of universal suffrage, Ambedkar recognized the transformative potential of the right to vote for bringing about social change. However, he did not believe that formal political equality alone was sufficient to ensure justice and equality in society. He argued that social reform, economic equality, and robust safeguards for minority rights were essential complements to political democracy. In other words, while equal voting rights represent a significant achievement, they are only truly effective when accompanied by social and economic justice, along with institutional protections for minorities.

Ambedkar frequently cautioned that democracy as an institution can only survive when social and economic equality is achieved. While he did not believe in using violent methods to bring about radical change, he also disagreed with liberals who believed that formal equality and a market-driven economic order would eventually lead to a just society. In various writings and speeches, Ambedkar highlighted the threat that class-based inequality poses to the sustainability of democracy.

Today, economic inequality in India has increased significantly compared to Ambedkar’s time. The ongoing crisis of Indian democracy and rising societal instability can largely be attributed to this widening economic gap. If Ambedkar were alive today, his foremost agenda would likely include launching mass movements for full employment, equitable access to quality public education, and comprehensive healthcare for all. He would also have been at the forefront of resisting reactionary and conservative forces that disguise themselves as nationalist. He would have strongly opposed the conflation of religion and politics, and any attempts to align the Indian state with the majority religion. No one denounced Hindu nationalism as forcefully as Ambedkar, who called it “the greatest calamity for this country.” Undoubtedly, he would have aligned himself with the Left.

Ambedkar’s democratic theory and his idea of social justice are closely linked with his concept of minority rights. He opposed authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes because he believed that one person, one party, one caste group, or one class cannot be entrusted with safeguarding the interests of all. He was acutely aware of the fact that ruling castes often attempt to serve their own interests under the guise of “nationalism,” dismissing the legitimate concerns of marginalised communities as “communalism.”

Perhaps he was among the first to expose the trope of nationalism versus communalism as a tool to silence the voices of the oppressed. His critique of nationalism does not imply support for communal politics. Rather, Ambedkar demonstrated how the category of nationalism has been co-opted by sections of the upper castes to present their own interests as “national interests”, while branding those who question this dominance as “communal.”

Ambedkar has also been unfairly accused of being a supporter of British imperialism. However, the historical reality is that he was not against India’s freedom. While the upper castes considered the mere transfer of power from British rulers to Indian elites as the attainment of Swaraj, Ambedkar pressed nationalist leaders to explicitly define the rights and safeguards that minorities would receive in post-Independence India. These upper-caste leaders often appeared “radical” in their political critique of British rule but remained deeply conservative and status quoist when issues concerning Dalits, Adivasis, lower castes, and religious minorities were raised.

Ambedkar’s critique of Indian nationalism stemmed from a commitment to social justice. Throughout the freedom struggle, he consistently raised the issue of caste-based inequality and worked to amplify the voices of the marginalised. He firmly believed that caste-based social order was a significant obstacle to fostering fraternity among Indians. Without addressing the caste question, he argued, the process of nation-building could not be complete.

In contrast, upper-caste leaders and their allies in the Hindutva camp often promoted an ascriptive theory of nationalism, asserting that the idea of the Indian nation has existed for thousands of years. In tracing the nation back to ancient times, Hindu right-wing ideologues positioned the Hindu community as the authentic nation and cast minorities and non-Hindus as outsiders. Since the minorities were not considered fully part of the Hindu nation, their patriotism was constantly questioned. As a display of loyalty, the Hindu right demanded that minorities abandon their distinct identities and assimilate into the dominant culture in order to receive validation as true patriots. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the dangers posed by religious and communal interpretations of nationalism and citizenship. That is why, he opposed strongly communal majority. That is why he strongly opposed attempts by upper-caste Hindus to forge a communal majority.

For Ambedkar, the antidote to the politics of communal majoritarianism—which posed a serious threat during his time and continues to endanger India’s social fabric—was the establishment of mechanisms to check authoritarian tendencies and institutionalize safeguards for minorities. One of the greatest threats to democracy, in his view, was the concentration of power. In other words, Ambedkar was a strong opponent of absolute power and an ardent advocate of power-sharing among communities.

As a true democrat, Ambedkar was disheartened by the suppression of opposition voices during Nehru’s regime. While numerous books celebrate Nehru’s democratic credentials and openness to dissent, little attention is paid to the fact that he dismissed the first democratically elected communist government in Kerala, played a key role in the centralization of power, and presided over a Parliament that lacked an official Leader of the Opposition until 1967—during the peak of the Congress system. Ambedkar himself noted that he was not granted his ministry of choice in Nehru’s cabinet, even as some ministers were assigned multiple portfolios. Today, under BJP rule, the marginalization of opposition voices and the stifling of dissent has intensified manifold. That is why Ambedkar’s unwavering commitment to defending dissent and opposition remains profoundly relevant in today’s political climate. Ambedkar’s critique of hero-worship also offers a powerful lens through which to understand the rise of populist right-wing leaders. We still await a critical analysis of Narendra Modi’s rise through the lens of Ambedkar’s political thought.

Ambedkar was deeply pained to witness the Congress Party using its own Dalit leaders to silence him whenever he raised his voice. Today, the BJP has perfected the art of delegitimizing authentic Dalit leadership by grooming its own representatives through the ideological apparatus of the Hindutva laboratory. Consequently, while Dalits are now nearly proportionally represented in legislative bodies, most of these leaders—elected through joint electorates and reliant on their party’s backing—tend to remain silent or toe the party line on critical issues affecting their communities.

It is important to remember that Ambedkar strongly demanded a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes during the Round Table Conference, a demand that the British Government ultimately granted. However, he was compelled to give it up following Gandhi’s fast. He observed that authentic Dalit voices often struggle to garner support from both mainstream political parties and caste Hindu voters, resulting in their continued marginalization.

It is unfortunate that most mainstream scholars of India’s electoral system rarely acknowledge the structural inequality inherent in the first-past-the-post system. There is little advocacy for proportionate and effective minority representation, a demand that Dr. Ambedkar passionately championed. While many European countries have embraced proportional representation for minorities, Indian intellectuals often take pride in pointing out the shortcomings of other nations rather than engaging in introspection and learning from successful democratic models to advocate for reform at home.

While Ambedkar contributed significantly to the shaping of democracy, the safeguards for the interests and rights of minorities were especially close to his heart. It is important to note that the term minority, for Ambedkar, was not confined to religious minorities alone. He defined minorities broadly to include socially discriminated groups. According to Ambedkar, the category of minority applies not only to religious communities such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, but also to Dalits and Adivasis.

Several political scientists have later classified minorities into types such as religious, linguistic, caste-based, and tribal (Adivasi) minorities. Ambedkar believed that the true measure of a successful democracy lies in how well it protects the interests and rights of its minorities. He was acutely aware that, in a democratic polity, governments are formed based on majority support—meaning that minorities are often excluded from power. To address this structural inequality, Ambedkar warned against the creation of a communal majority.

Today, the danger Babasaheb foresaw has become increasingly apparent. The deliberate strategy of stoking communal tensions and demonizing the Muslim minority as the “other” in Indian society is designed to unite the majority community through a shared religious identity and thereby forge a communal majority. From Ambedkar’s perspective, the formation of a communal majority is anathema to democracy, as it inevitably leads to the suppression of minority rights.

Keeping in view these dangers, Ambedkar clearly stated that a government formed through majority rule should not be regarded as holy or sacrosanct. Speaking at the Annual Session of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation held in Bombay on May 6, 1945, Ambedkar said, “Majority Rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice. A majority community may be conceded a relative majority of representation but it can never claim an absolute majority.”

In simple terms, Ambedkar argued that while the formation of a government may occur through majority support, it must never overlook the necessity of respecting the consent of the minority. For this reason, Ambedkar opposed the enactment of any law that lacked the approval of minority communities, warning that such disregard could provoke rebellion. Law after law directly affecting minorities—especially the Muslim minority—is being enacted by the Modi-led BJP Government without seeking their consent. In fact, the recent enactment of the Waqf Amendment Bill (2025) is widely seen as a majoritarian assault on minority rights.

On multiple occasions, Ambedkar demanded both proportionate and effective representation for minorities. It is important to note that while proportionate representation is necessary, it is not sufficient. The term effective is crucial in Ambedkar’s framework for safeguarding minority rights. Once the principle of effective representation is acknowledged, it essentially grants the minority a form of veto power. This veto power serves as an assurance that minorities need not fear majority rule, as no law would be passed and no policy formulated without their equal participation and consent.

In other words, the success of democracy lies in ensuring that minorities feel confident, secure, and prosperous. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, sought to give the country a strong and just constitution, and he did his utmost to safeguard the interests of weaker sections within it. However, Ambedkar was also aware that, without the active participation of minorities and other marginalized groups in policymaking, even a good law would not ensure justice. To emphasize his point, Ambedkar argued that if marginalized communities are included in decision-making processes, they can interpret even a bad law to deliver justice. But if they are excluded from executing policies, even the best of laws will fail to serve their interests.

One of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s greatest achievements was securing constitutional, institutional, and legal protection for the policy of social justice and reservations—thus removing it from the whims of any individual, whether in the executive or the judiciary. Ambedkar understood that justice could not be achieved without addressing gender inequality and legally granting Hindu women equal rights. This is why he pushed hard for the passage of the Hindu Code Bill in its undiluted form.

No one understood better than Ambedkar the suffering of Hindu women during the post-Buddhist era, particularly under the social codes of Manu, which stripped them of their rights and severely restricted their mobility. As a feminist, Ambedkar recognized that the caste system was perpetuated by controlling the sexuality of Hindu women and prohibiting inter-caste marriages. He aimed to eliminate these social evils and liberate women through the Hindu Code Bill. Unfortunately, the Hindu Right—both within the Congress party and outside it—conspired against him. When he found himself isolated, Ambedkar was forced to resign. To this day, Ambedkar’s mission to liberate Hindu women remains unfulfilled.

As is evident today, the philosophy and goals of Dr. Ambedkar are more relevant than ever before. However, the struggle for emancipation from the caste-based social order can only succeed if broader solidarity is forged. I find that Ambedkar’s thoughts and programs align more closely with Leftist agendas. When I use the term “Left,” I refer to the broader Marxist and socialist philosophy. While I acknowledge that Ambedkar did not agree with every aspect of mainstream Marxist and socialist interpretations, that does not mean Ambedkar—and by extension, Ambedkarites—are not natural allies of the Left. Here, the term “Left” does not refer to any specific political party. Nor am I ignoring the reality that leadership within mainstream Left parties in India has historically been dominated by upper castes, who often neglected caste issues and hesitated to elevate Dalit leaders to top positions. Nevertheless, the historical failures of certain Left organizations should not become a permanent obstacle to an alliance between Ambedkarite and Leftist forces.

That is why, for me, my Ambedkar is a Leftist Ambedkar.

Dr. Abhay Kumar holds a PhD in Modern History from the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His forthcoming book explores Muslim Personal Law. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com

The post My Ambedkar is a leftist Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These journalists are using digital platforms like YouTube and Facebook as effective instruments to reach out to a wide audience, raise independent voice on issues that matter, and make a mark for themselves.

We spoke to Sumit Chauhan of The News Beak, Ashok Kumar of Dalit Dastak, and Dr. Mahesh Verma of Democratic Bharat, who are among the emerging Dalit YouTube Journalists: in this conversation we understand their journalistic journey, both the opportunities and challenges that digital platform offers them.

From facing caste discrimination in newsrooms to burying critical stories, and creating independent voices for themselves and finding satisfaction in the work they do, this is the story of Dalit journalists who have overcome challenges to establish a niche and a name.

Sumit Chauhan – The News Beak

Sumit is an Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC) graduate, and runs his YouTube channel The News Beak, which has 9.25 lakh subscribers and has published around 3400 videos. For him journalism is a tool to change society, and his early disillusionment with corporate media houses as a first-generation learner led him to chart an independent path for himself.

Speaking to us at Sabrangindia over the call, he observed that whatever was taught in the classrooms about journalism was hardly followed on the ground. Sumit started his career with ABP News after completing his IIMC study in 2014, and later on worked with Zee News, India News, and News Nation, before quitting the latter in 2020 to work independently through his YouTube channel.

Speaking to us about his newsroom experiences, he flagged the caste-based discrimination was rampant in these media houses, and he personally faced a lot of difficulties and discrimination as a Dalit journalist. Apart from critical stories being supressed because they look “negative”, Sumit noted that these big media houses hardly have any Dalit representation, and are similar to club memberships, except that such memberships in this case is based on caste. This directly had effects on recommendation for jobs, promotion, and kind of stories that would be appreciated.

Frustrated due to professional and personal pressure for not being able to work on issues which mattered for him, he quit his media job in 2020 to work exclusive for his YouTube channel. Before this, he had already begun a YouTube channel in 2019 named, The Shudra, due to sheer discontent at work. He explained that when he launched the channel in 2019, he consciously named it The Shudra as he wanted to be caste assertive, but later changed the name to The News Beak as he realised the importance of the annihilation of caste. Interestingly, when he launched The Shudra, in order to avoid personal identification, he only used audio to tell the stories, but it nonetheless resonated with the audience. As the channel started to monetise, it encouraged him to quit his job and work as an independent journalist.

He explained that while there were lot of members from the community who had started reporting on YouTube and other digital platforms, he felt that the professional approach of the journalism was still missing there, which further encouraged him to take up his present role. Through his channel he aims to highlight Dalit history and the issues of the Dalit community, including critical stories affecting their lives, and as the channel and resources grow, he plans diversify the themes and issues he covers.

Ashok Kumar – Dalit Dastak

Ashok Das is also an IIMC graduate and started his journalistic career in 2006. His journey as a journalist has won him various recognition, and he has also been recipient of the Global Investigative Journalism Network Fellowship. He runs his YouTube channel Dalit Dastak, and maintains that his focus is to show positive side and achievements of the Dalit community, as he wants to go beyond depicting Dalits as an oppressed community. Emphasising the achievements of Dalits is important for him, as it shows that the members of the SC community are not mere hapless victims but people capable of obtaining best things in their lives. Furthermore, their success can help inspire others to follow their suit and encourage them not to get bogged down in the face of difficulties. His channel Dalit Dastak has 12.2 lakh subscribers and hosts over 4700 videos.

His career in journalism spans various news outlets, including Lokmat, Amar Ujala, Bhadas4Media and Deshonnati. In June 2012, he launched his magazine Dalit Dastak, which covered various Dalit issues, but which had to be stopped in 2022 due to increase in the cost of the printing. In 2015, he launched his publication house Das Publications and in 2017 he launched his YouTube channel Dalit Dastak, both of which are presently running.

Ashok observed in his conversation with us that YouTube helped him to expand the reach of his journalist content, even to the audience overseas, making his content global at the same the cost. Additionally, it also helped to interaction with his viewers as they readily kept sending him the feedback over for the content he produced. His primary purpose remains to highlight Dalit heroes and history, which remains marginalised by mainstream media, as they would have never studied or engaged with the history in which Dalits figures are prominent forces.

On the completion of 100 years of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Mook Nayak, Dalit Dastak had also organised an event at India International Centre to celebrate his achievements. Recently, in 2020, he was invited for a panel discussion on Caste and Media by Harvard University. Apart from India, he has reported about caste discrimination in the US, Canada, and Dubai. Similarly, he published 25 stories about Dalit living in Canada. Ashok believes that his exposure of foreign countries has made him realise that freedom of speech for press is strongly respected in these countries, which we should learn from them. But at the same time, he notes that as the Indians have migrated overseas, they have also taken their caste identity with them across the globe, even if it is not as strong as it is in India.

Dr. Mahesh Verma

Dr. Mahesh’s experience in media spans across radio, print and electronic media, which began with his initial job at All India Radio in 2000. Then after, he was associated with Hindustan Times as a trainer in 2003, and with Vividh Bharti as Broadcaster during 2005-08 in Mumbai. Since then, he worked across the organisations, including ETV Rajasthan, Dainik Bhaskar, and Rajasthan Gaurav, the latter belonging to Vishwa Hindu Parishad, in which he faced casteist discrimination by the management. Later on, in 2019 he launched his own Youtube Channel, “Democratic Bharat”, which has been subscribed by over 20 thousand people. Dr. Mahesh noted that having his own channel allowed him to air independent voice, which would otherwise have been difficult. Even as he launched his channel in 2019 to focus on the issues of Dalit, Adivasi’s, and minorities, he personally suffers from various medical issues of bone and retina. But in spite of these personal, even offensive barriers that he has suffered since his time in Mumbai, he continues to actively pursue his journalistic goals un-intimidated.

Digital Discrimination

While online platforms have provided independent voice and audience to Dalit journalists, allowing them greater say in comparison to corporate media houses, the issue of censorship still looms large.

One of the journalists we spoke to alleged that if you use words like “Chamar”, “Bhangi”, or “Valmiki” in the news content –to showcase existing slurs and discrimination, even distinctions—the Platforms will not monetise your content, even though no such restriction applies when using words like “Kshtriya” or “Brahmin”!  Even in monetising criteria I is clear that large social media platforms that are corporate giant’s caste discriminate!

Similarly, platforms like YouTube and Facebook use “Community Guidelines” to either demonetise the content or even remove content, putting inordinate pressure on journalist. In one such incident, the journalist alleged that when they uploaded content showing the victims hanging from the tree, Facebook demonetised their channel for 6 months, even though they had blurred the image as per the Guidelines.

Furthermore, copyright claims are also leading to contents of small producers being taken down the wall, which forces many journalists to then depend on content from secondary sources.

The new IT Rules have also added to burden of independent digital journalists, as those with small teams will find it difficult to comply with the rules which require appointment of grievance redressal officers by the digital media entities. Nonetheless, the digital space has opened up the arena for independent journalists, including Dalit journalists, to tell their stories fearlessly and uncompromisingly, which continues to inspire us.

Related:

Award Wapsi, Gujarat: Dalit journalist returns award

Untouchability and exclusion, absence of voice: Dalit situation 2023

State-sponsored attacks of surveillance reveal an erosion on Indians’ right to privacy, especially journalists, political opposition

The post Meet Ambedkarite journalists using social media to bring us stories from the margins, foregrounding both their hurdles & achievements appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stones were thrown at a procession in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, on the occasion of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Jayanti. The area had become tension-filled as a result of stone pelting, and a large number of police officers had been deployed. People can be seen throwing stones at the Shobha Yatra from one roof in a video that been doing rounds on social media, and the stone-pelters are seen hiding their mouths.

According to the Jagran report, a procession was held on April 14 to commemorate Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar’s birth anniversary in village Bhartia in Mathura’s Jait police station area. Some people threw stones at the procession during this time. Several people were injured as a result of stone pelting during the procession. After the incident, a large number of police forces had been deployed on the spot.

According to Jagran, preparations were made in the morning for a Shobha Yatra on Ambedkar Jayanti in Bharatiya village of Jaint under the leadership of village head Mahendra. Then, in the morning, some villagers approached Mahendra and refused to accompany the procession. He stated that if the yatra is carried out, there may be a dispute. The yatra was the then taken out in the afternoon. One side of the procession threw stones as it rotated through the village. Then stone-pelting began on both sides. A half-dozen people were reportedly injured in the incident, but they fled the scene. The procession was temporarily halted, as per the Republic World.

Superintendent of Police (City) MP Singh and Circle Officer Sadar Praveen Malik reached the spot on receiving information about the stone-pelting incident. When the police arrived, stones were being thrown in the village, the video of which is also going viral on social media. Tension prevailed in the village after stone-pelting. It has been reported by the Amarujala that eleven villagers, including three constables, were injured and the police have detained five people. 

The video can be viewed here:

Stone pelting in #UttarPradesh‘s #Mathura on Bhimrao Ambedkar Shobha Yatra to stop it.#AmbedkarJayanti #AmbedkarJayanti2023 pic.twitter.com/05yIckun6g

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) April 15, 2023

Related:

Anti-Dalit violence all pervasive even in April 2023, #DalitHistory month

Manual Scavenging continues unabated, Indian Govts turns a deaf ear to acknowledge this systemic, extreme violence

Safai Shramik Union raises demands for a law that safeguards rights of sanitation workers: Maharashtra

Section 144 imposed in Jamshedpur; arrests made in Bihar and Maharashtra over instances of violence during Ram Navami

Hot on the heels of the violence of Ram Navami, MHA issues advisory to states to ensure law and order during Hanuman Jayanti celebration

Police to closely monitor Ram Navami processions in Hyderabad and Mumba

Majoritarian Politics via Ram Navami Processions and Opportunist Muslim Elites

Ram Navami violence by Aaj Tak calls into question the lopsided portrayal of communally sensitive news

Hindutva mobs in Bihar run amok, cause loss of Rs. 6 crores

Hindutva’s role in riots and official complicity

What was CJP’s PIL seeking directions for implementation of law for regulation of religious processions all about?

Ram Navami: West Bengal administration on alert as 2000 celebrations planned

Exaggerated or ominous, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) claims it has plans for 1500-2000 rallies during Ram Navami in Bengal

Violence over Ram Navami procession in Bengal’s Howrah, state a particular target

The post Mathura: Stones thrown at the Ambedkar Jayanti procession leaves several people injured appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, a statue of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, jurist, social activist, and Dalit icon, was vandalised in the Badaun district of Uttar Pradesh, sparking widespread controversy. Although it was promptly replaced, the new statue depicted Dr. Ambedkar clad in a saffron sherwani. This new statue was eventually painted blue, reportedly by Himendra Gautam of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). “They painted Ambedkar’s statue Saffron to own him and showcase him as per their own ideology,” says author and Dalit rights activist Kancha Ilaiah, adding, “This is also why they are highlighting ‘Ramji’ in his name. Today people from different backgrounds are busy claiming Ambedkar, because he has shaken them! The OBCs are also claiming Ambedkar as their own as he was the man who gave us our constitution and laid the foundation for our democracy. Neither the BJP nor any Hindutva group can survive without the support of OBCs. So they are busy carrying his pictures and showing how much they respect Ambedkar.”
According to Bharat Singh Jatav, District President of the Aarakshan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, “There is anger among the community members due to the colour of the coat. Saffron is unusual as we have always seen his pictures and statues in dark coloured western outfits, blazer and trousers. It must be repainted,” he had added. Sinod Shakya, a former BSP MLA, said, “After painting many buildings saffron across the state, the BJP government now wants to saffronise Ambedkar statues, which is unacceptable.” The vandalism of the Ambedkar statue was not an isolated incident; there have been reports of Ambedkar statues being damaged in several other districts in Uttar Pradesh. 
 
Why so blue?
Several Dalit protests in the recent past have involved carrying blue flags. But why is the colour blue so significant for Dalits? According to Raosaheb Kasbe, formerly a political science professor at the Savitribai Phule Pune University, “The idea behind it was that blue is the colour of sky—a representation of non-discrimination, that under the sky everyone is believed to be equal. There are many theories around this, but there is no settled history on why blue became the colour of Dalit resistance”. Ilaiah says, “I read somewhere, I don’t remember where exactly, but I read that Ambedkar had said that the blue sky is all over us. Just like how Dalits, Shudras and tribals are all over the country. We should therefore claim this universal colour as our own. We are all equal under the blue sky.” 

Many Indian towns have statues of Ambedkar clad in a three-piece blue suit and carrying India’s constitution; Beena Pallical of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights has opined that Ambedkar’s blue suit was one of the primary inspirations for the blue flag of Dalit movements.

Ambedkar’s suit itself was reportedly a symbol of “political resistance,” flouting the rules regarding what Dalits were permitted to wear. According to Dalit writer and entrepreneur Chandra Bhan Prasad, “Manudharma, or the laws of Manu, codify the rights and duties of various social groups prearranged into castes. According to that, we are told we can only wear the apparel of corpses, or ragged, old, dirty clothes. We are not supposed to be nicely dressed or even be clean”. In 2002, Ramachandra Guha wrote of Ambedkar, “By the canons of tradition and history, this man was not supposed to wear a suit, blue or otherwise. That he did was a consequence of his extraordinary personal achievements: a law degree…a Ph.D. from America and another one from England, the drafting of the Constitution. By memorialising him in a suit, the Dalits were celebrating his successful storming of an upper caste citadel.” In Ilaiah’s opinion, Ambedkar “favoured the colour blue for his suit as it represented the blue sky under which everyone is equal. Also, he was educated in Amercia where all Presidents wore blue suits on important occasions. Perhaps, this might have influenced him. Blue in America represents democracy, republicanism and equality, all ideas that meant a lot to Ambedkar.”  
 
According to the 2017 paper Fabric-Rendered Identity: A Study of Dalit Representation in Pa. Ranjith’s Attakathi, Madras and Kabali, “Blue as a colour is often used by Dalit communities especially in protests and rallies as a mark of empowerment.” The paper notes that the colour blue “emerged as a self-identifying sign for Mahar Dalits in Maharashtra.” Mahars comprise the largest group of Dalits in the state. The paper, while citing the book Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting by Christophe Jaffrelot, explains, “Ambedkar is known to have introduced the blue Mahar’s Flag as his party flag for the Independent Labour Party. It is representative of identifying with Dalit consciousness that is non-discriminatory. It also appeals to the masses as in the ‘blue collar workers’.” However, the colour blue has also been employed to single out the Dalit community; the paper recalls a 1995 instance when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena in Maharashtra implemented a policy requiring Dalit children to wear blue uniforms.
 

The post The Significance of the Colour Blue in the Dalit Movement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

जब देश की आज़ादी का भी, सदियों  से चले आ रहे हिंदू धर्म के जाती प्रथा पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ा, तो आख़िरकार बाबासाहेब ने अपने लाखों साथियों के साथ १९५६ में बौद्ध धर्म की दीक्षा ले ली । सबरंगIndia में देखिए, उस दिन उनके द्वारा ली गयी २२ प्रतिज्ञाएं.

The post Thus vowed Babasaheb appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First they threw stones at the car in which Kanhaiya Kumar, president of JNU students union, was travelling from Nagpur airport to the city today to address a public meeting at the Dhanwate Hall on the occasion of the 125^th birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.  Next, at the jam packed hall, some shoes and slippers were hurled and a few even tried to jump on to the dais in an unsuccessful bid to disrupt the meeting.

But Kumar was unfazed. Mocking the hooligans who called him a “traitor”, he asked if their conduct accorded with Hindutva’s idea of “patriotism”. “Nagpur is Babasaheb Ambedkar’s land, not Golwalkar’s [ideologue-in-chief of the RSS},” said Kumar. “Sangh headquarters is not Parliament and Manu Smruti is not the Constitution,” he added.

It may be recalled that on October 14, 1956, Dr. Ambedkar had converted to Buddhism along with over 3 lakh of his followers at a mammoth rally in Nagpur protesting against the inequities and indignities of the caste system.

"The atmosphere at the meeting was electric", Sharad Dudhat an activist from Nagpur told SabrangIndia. "The Dhanwate Hall was jam-packed and there were nothing less than 1,500-2,000 people outside the hall which accomodates around 1,200 persons, The best part is that an overwhelming majority of those assembled were students and young people.I can't remember when I last attended a meeting as exciting as today's in Nagpur". Kumar who spoke for about 45 minutes was greeted with thunderous applause time and again as he spoke about his idea of Azaadi, said Dudhat.

According to news reports five persons have been detained by the police.

Here is the text of his speech at Nagpur:

The post Targeted by Bajrang Dal goons in Nagpur, Fearless Kanhaiya Kumar unhurt, unfazed appeared first on SabrangIndia.