The Indian Constitution was never conceived merely as a framework for governing an independent nation. Constitutional historian Granville Austin famously described it as an instrument of a “social revolution”; a document intended to transform Indian society by replacing entrenched hierarchies with the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. This distinction lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the place of ancient Indian texts such as the Manusmriti in legal education.

Socio-political critic and columnist Solomon Mubash argues in his recent essay, From Constitutional Morality to Brahmanical Logic: Judicial Violence and Power, that the controversy extends far beyond curriculum design or the study of history. Instead, he contends that it reflects a deeper contest over the moral and ideological foundations of the Indian republic. Whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his argument, the questions he raises extend far beyond the classroom.

At stake is not whether students should read the Manusmriti. Any serious student of law, history, religion or sociology must engage with texts that have shaped the intellectual traditions of the subcontinent. The real question is how such texts should be situated within a constitutional democracy founded on equal citizenship.

History and heritage are not the same thing.

History seeks to understand the past—its achievements as well as its contradictions. Heritage often seeks to celebrate it. Confusing the two risks turning scholarly inquiry into cultural endorsement. Ancient texts deserve academic engagement because they reveal how societies understood law, authority and social order. They do not automatically acquire normative authority simply because they are old.

The Manusmriti occupies a distinctive and contested place in India’s intellectual history. As Indologist Patrick Olivelle, whose translation remains among the most authoritative, notes, it is one of the most influential Dharmashastra texts prescribing norms of social and legal conduct. Historians have also pointed out that while its actual legal authority varied across regions and historical periods, its prescriptions articulated a social order organised around hereditary hierarchy.

The text differentiates duties, privileges and punishments according to caste and gender. Women, Shudras and those placed outside the varna order occupy unequal positions within its normative framework. Scholars including B.R. Ambedkar, Nicholas Dirks and Christophe Jaffrelot have therefore interpreted the Manusmriti as a powerful symbol of graded social inequality, even while recognising that lived social practises were often more complex than any single text could capture.

Recognising this historical reality is not an act of hostility towards Indian civilisation. It is an acknowledgement that every civilisation contains traditions worthy of preservation alongside institutions that deserve critical scrutiny.

It is precisely this distinction that informed Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s understanding of constitutional morality. In his final address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Ambedkar warned that political democracy could not survive unless it rested upon social democracy founded on liberty, equality and fraternity. He cautioned that India was entering “a life of contradictions”, where political equality would coexist with deep social and economic inequality unless constitutional values transformed society itself.

For Ambedkar, constitutional morality was therefore not blind allegiance to a legal document. It was a civic ethic that required citizens and institutions to judge inherited customs against constitutional principles rather than treating tradition as the ultimate source of legitimacy.

His public burning of the Manusmriti during the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 has generally been understood by historians as a symbolic rejection of scriptural sanction for caste hierarchy—not a rejection of Indian civilisation itself. His later leadership of the Constitution’s Drafting Committee represented an attempt to replace birth-based status with equal constitutional citizenship.

That constitutional commitment found concrete expression in Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on specified grounds and abolish untouchability. A Dalit labourer, a Brahmin scholar, an Adivasi woman and a member of a religious minority stand equal before the law not because tradition confers equal worth upon them, but because the Constitution does.

That was the revolutionary promise of the Republic.

Mubash argues that a continuing tension exists between constitutional morality and what he describes as Brahmanical social logic. Regardless of whether one adopts that terminology, the broader constitutional question remains relevant. The tension between constitutional ideals and entrenched social hierarchies continues to surface whenever caste-based discrimination is defended in the language of tradition, women’s autonomy is subordinated to customary norms, or inherited privilege seeks legitimacy through appeals to civilisational continuity rather than constitutional principle.

The danger lies in confusing antiquity with authority. No constitutional democracy derives its legitimacy from the age of its ideas. Its legitimacy derives from the justice of its institutions.

Constitutional morality asks a different question from historical tradition. It asks not whether a practice is ancient but whether it is just; not whether it is customary but whether it respects the equal dignity of every citizen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this principle in decisions such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), holding that constitutional morality must prevail where social morality infringes fundamental rights.

Yet the constitutional transformation envisioned by Ambedkar remains incomplete. Ambedkar himself distinguished between political democracy and social democracy, warning that the former could not endure without the latter. More than seven decades after Independence, the continued incidence of caste-based atrocities, manual scavenging, honour killings and structural exclusion—documented in reports of the National Crime Records Bureau, the National Human Rights Commission and successive government agencies—demonstrates that constitutional equality has not fully displaced social hierarchy.

The response to this challenge cannot be historical amnesia. Ancient texts should be read, debated and critically examined. But they must be approached as historical artefacts rather than constitutional guides. Legal education should encourage students not only to understand what such texts prescribed but also to examine who benefited from those prescriptions, who was excluded by them, and why independent India consciously chose a different constitutional path.

Every civilisation possesses traditions worth preserving. Every intellectual tradition contains ideas worthy of study. But no tradition becomes immune from criticism merely because it is ancient.

The Constitution occupies a unique place in India’s public life because it represents a conscious normative departure from systems that assign human worth by birth. As Granville Austin argued, it sought to facilitate a peaceful social revolution through democratic institutions rather than through coercion. It is therefore not merely a legal document but an aspirational framework for building a society in which liberty is not restricted by caste, equality is not constrained by status and fraternity is not defeated by inherited divisions.

The Constitution is not a mirror reflecting India as it was. It is a blueprint imagining India as it could be, and ought to be.

The real challenge before Indian institutions is not that they have forgotten their roots. It is that they sometimes forget the purpose of the constitutional project itself. That project was never about recovering an idealised past. It was about constructing a more equal future.

The future of Indian democracy will not ultimately be determined by how frequently it invokes its civilisational inheritance. It will depend on whether its institutions continue to uphold the constitutional vision articulated by Ambedkar, embedded in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. India’s civilisational inheritance deserves careful study. Its Constitution deserves primacy. The Constitution is not the antithesis of Indian civilisation; it is arguably the Republic’s most profound civilisational achievement.

Oindrila Dasgupta is a doctoral researcher at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and teaches Social Inclusion and Journalism. Her work focuses on role of journalism in terms of social justice praxis and pedagogy in India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Beyond the Manusmriti Debate: Why Constitutional Morality Must Remain India’s North Star appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His speech in the Constituent Assembly is significant because it forcefully argues that a good constitution cannot function well if it is handled by bad people. Similarly, even a bad constitution can yield good results if it is used by good people.

In other words, much more than formal rules and procedures, the social location, interests, and intentions of those who interpret or implement them are important—a point which is often missed by liberal scholars but not by Dr. Ambedkar.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, with the aim of drafting the Constitution, was held on December 9, 1946, and it continued to function for around three years, with B. R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, bearing a major share of the responsibility. When the work of drafting the Constitution was completed, Dr. Ambedkar delivered his closing speech on November 25, 1949, a day before the Constitution was formally adopted. November 26 was later celebrated as Constitution Day to mark this historic event.

Giving his closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb put it: “… however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution.”

In his speech, Dr. Ambedkar argued that rules, laws, or the Constitution are not sufficient in themselves, nor do they guarantee justice, however well they may be framed. Beyond the law, the persons who interpret and implement it are the critical factor.

In the context of the Constitution, Ambedkar takes a critical sociological view and said that mere having good rules are not enough, if the person interpreting or implanting it has a bad intention. His argument is directly linked with his political movement to fight for the proportionate and effective representation for Dalits and other marginalised castes and communities.

The opponents of affirmative action, including reservation, often invoke the logic of meritocracy. However, anti-reservationists are not willing to accept the fact that merit is often defined through caste interests.

For example, the skills acquired by rich, upper-caste males are taken as the benchmark and imposed on the rest of society, ignoring the geographical, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the country, as well as the social and economic backgrounds of the people. Unlike such Brahminical logic, B. R. Ambedkar argued for bringing every caste and community within the process of decision-making so that they could not only make laws but also interpret and implement them in their own interests.

Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that if power is not shared and remains concentrated in a few hands, the interests of marginalised castes and communities are bound to be compromised. The same logic extends to the field of law, where mere formal rules cannot ensure justice for marginalised castes; rather, they must be in a position to interpret and implement them to ensure justice in society.

To illustrate B. R. Ambedkar’s argument, let us take the analogy of a car. A new car is not a guarantee of safe driving if it is handled carelessly. Conversely, even if a car has some technical faults, there is a greater chance that the journey will be safe if the driver is experienced and careful. In the context of law, Ambedkar is not merely satisfied with having a good constitution; rather, he is concerned about the misuse of a good constitution in the hands of bad people. But even if the constitution is not perfect, if those implementing it have good intentions, there is a greater possibility of bringing about justice in society.

Although Dr. Ambedkar, in his speech, disagreed with the Indian communists and socialists over their “condemnation” of the Constitution, Babasaheb’s sociological understanding of law comes very close to the Marxist critique of law. While liberal jurisprudence emphasizes rules and procedures and the idea of providing a level playing field to everyone seeking justice in a court of law, Marxist philosophers foreground the political dimension of law. Radicals argue that, in the absence of a genuine level playing field in society—where a few monopolise wealth and shape culture, religion, and other institutions to perpetuate their dominance—the judiciary and law cannot remain neutral zones of freedom and rational deliberation.

While the class character of society is central to Marxist thinking, it does not get displaced in Dr. Ambedkar’s analysis. While Ambedkar was a firm supporter of state socialism and of the state taking greater responsibility for people’s welfare, he strongly disagreed with the communists over their support for the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of bringing about equality and reconstructing an egalitarian order through democratic and constitutional means.

Having acknowledged these differences, Ambedkarite scholars and Marxists converge on the point that, unlike liberal scholars, they do not ignore the social reality and deep-seated inequalities that exist beyond the formal and legal structures of the state. While class and property relations are central to classical Marxist analysis, Dr. Ambedkar’s primary focus is on the caste-based graded inequality of Indian society. While Dr. Ambedkar does not ignore class contradictions in society, he, unlike Marxist scholars, explains class inequality through a caste-based analysis.

Since caste-based inequality remains deeply entrenched in society and the post-Independence state did not go much beyond providing formal equality to the lower castes and other marginalised communities, Dr. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the continuing presence of upper-caste hegemony from society to politics and from culture to the economy. That is why he was concerned that a good law in itself is not a guarantee of justice unless marginalised castes and communities are in a position to interpret and implement it in their own interests. These sociological insights of Dr. Ambedkar are crucial not only for understanding our judicial system but also for analysing other institutions of the state.

[The author is the author of the recently published book Muslim Personal Law: Definitions, Sources and Contestations (Manohar, 2026).]

Related:

Caste Shadow on Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

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

A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics

The post Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Who is Girish Mahajan? A seven times elected MLA from Jamner constituency im Jalgaon district amd guardian minister for Nashik. Mahajan also an entrenched member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a close aide of chief minister Devendra Fadnavis courted criticism and controversy when he failed to mention Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on his Republic Day address on Monday. January 26.

A woman officer of the Forest Department in uniform was vocal and emotional in her outspoken outburst. “I will not allow Dr Babasaheb’s legacy and contribution to be erased,” reported ABP Marathi and Economic Times. Social media too was flooded with messages castigating Mahajan and expressing support for Madhavi Jadhav. The minister reportedly made several references to personalities in his Republic Day address, including religious figures. However Dr Babasaheb who is venerated for his remarkable contribution on being an architect of the constitution was committed! The ideologues of the far Hindu right have been forever uncomfortable with this rich tradition that challenged caste hierarchy be ut Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule or Ambedkar.

It was while the 77th Republic Day celebrations were being observed with enthusiasm across the country on Sunday, an incident in Nashik triggered political and administrative unrest after Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan was accused of not mentioning Dr BR Ambedkar in his Republic Day address. The controversy unfolded during a Republic Day programme organised in Nashik when Madhavi Jadhav, a woman employee from the forest department, openly questioned Mahajan for omitting Ambedkar’s name in his speech. Following the confrontation, tension prevailed briefly at the venue, prompting police to take Jadhav into custody to restore order.

Girish Mahajan compelled to express regret

Speaking to the media after the incident, Girish Mahajan said the omission was unintentional and expressed regret over the matter. “It must have happened unintentionally. I had no such intention. I raised slogans like ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Vande Mataram’ and ‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai’. I had no intention of deliberately omitting any name,” Mahajan said. He added that such incidents do not usually occur during his speeches and expressed remorse over the controversy.

“Suspend Me, But I Won’t Apologise”

Clarifying her stand, Madhavi Jadhav maintained that she would not apologise for questioning the minister. She said Dr Ambedkar, as the architect of the Constitution, must be acknowledged on Republic Day. “The minister made a mistake. I will not apologise. The minister should take responsibility. If you want to suspend me, do it. I will not allow Babasaheb’s identity to be erased,” she said. Jadhav further stated that she was repeatedly waiting for Ambedkar’s name to be mentioned during the speech but it never came up, despite references to other leaders.

“The names of people who were not responsible for democracy and the Constitution were repeatedly mentioned. Then why was the name of the real creator of the Constitution missing?” she asked. She added that while she does not believe in the dates of August 15 or January 26, she firmly believes in democracy and constitutional values.

Related: 

Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda

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

Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial

The post Republic Day 2026: Omission of Ambedkar in Girish Mahajan’s speech sparks outrage  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While paying lip service to Ambedkar, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat equated him to RSS Founder K.B. Hedgewar, “Both dedicated their lives to social progress and held a common aspiration for nation’s growth”. Now what is common between Ambedkar’s dream of social equality, democratic, federalism, abolition of caste and RSS founder’s vision of a Hindu nation, based on the ancient holy books upholding caste system and patriarchy? These are polar opposites. But as paying tribute to Babasaheb has become mandatory for all for electoral compulsions, Bhagwat has to stretch things to pull Babasaheb in the ambit of list of their icons.

Not to be left behind, Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India went on to criticise the Indian National Congress “Congress has become the destroyer of Constitutions. Dr Ambedkar wanted to bring in equality… Babasaheb wanted every poor, every backward to be able to live with dignity and with their heads held high, to have dreams and complete them…Congress has always treated SCs, STs, and OBCs as second-class citizens.”

In a way Narendra Modi is distorting the facts. It is true that Ambedkar was critical of Congress and Gandhi at various occasions; still it was Congress and Gandhi with whom he interacted maximally to achieve his goal of social equality in particular. Gandhi is much criticized for betraying the cause of Dalits. ‘Poona Pact’ has come under severe criticism, but all said and done this was the most practical step towards affirmative action for Dalits. Gandhi was so touched by Ambedkar’s positions that he understood the ills of caste in a deeper way and made eradication of untouchability as his major mission for the next two years. Going from village to village, ensuring that Dalits are permitted entry into the temples and are able to draw water from the village wells. This also became the mission for many Congress workers.

This is the time when BJP ideology founders were singing praises for the values of the caste system and arguing that it is this system which has given stability to Hindu society! Ambedkars yeoman service to the nation was recognized by the national leaders and they were keen that Ambedkar should be part of the Constituent Assembly, In her biography ‘BABASAHEB: My Life with Dr. Ambedkar’, Savita Ambedkar quotes correspondence between Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of Constituent Assembly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister-elect, Sardar Patel, the Home Minister, G. Mavalankar, Speaker and BG Kher, the CM of Bombay state to stress how all the top Congress leaders were extremely keen to have her husband elected to the Constituent Assembly unopposed. For instance Patel wrote to Mavalankar on July 5, 1947: ‘Dr Ambedkar’s nomination has been sent to PM. I hope there would be no contest and he would be returned unopposed so that he could come here on the 14th.’ “

Congress ensured that Babasaheb won the seat for Constituent Assembly and made its Chairman. The participation and Contribution of Babasaheb, well supported by Congress, yielded the fruit in the form of the Indian Constitution. On the contrary Organiser, the mouthpiece of RSS, the father organization of BJP, came out heavily saying that this Constitution has nothing Indian about it. The ideological mentor cum fellow traveller of RSS, Savakar was against it saying the “Manusmriti is the Constitution for India.”

Same way Ambedkar handled the responsibility of drafting the Hindu Code Bill, with Nehru standing behind him. The Code was opposed by some elements within but mainly by the ideologues of Hindu Nationalism, who went on to burn the effigy of Ambedkar on 12 December 1949. While RSS-BJP are upholding the Brahmanical version of Hinduism Babasaheb had already declared that I was born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu.

Similarly as RSS was talking of Hindu Rashtra, Babasaheb in revised edition of the book on Pakistan, opposed it on the ground that this may pave the way for Hindu Raj which will be the biggest tragedy for us. BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology is deeply opposed to Babasaheb’s dream of Annihilation of caste and has been deeply opposed by Modi’s ideology. Modi’s parent organization RSS has floated Samajik Samrasta Manch, which talks about harmony among caste rather than its annihilation.

Currently some ideologues are arguing that since annihilation is not easy, so let us resort to strengthening sub caste identities to get them more privileges! This will be a disaster for the values of our Fraternity, the core principle of Indian Constitution. RSS is also trying to wean sections of Dalits by co-option and social engineering. RSS organizations are also inventing icons of sub communities among Dalits and giving them values of patriarchy, and caste hierarchy along with Anti Muslim slant.

One could see the response of BJP to implementation of Mandal Commission, which was a major step towards social justice. In response, BJP did not oppose it for electoral calculations but instead intensified their Ram Temple campaign. The way BJP is floating the identity issues and derailing the path of social justice is highly despicable. At the same time through various manoeuvres it has also succeeded in turning a section of deprived youth as its foot soldiers who dance in front of mosques with naked swords.

On the top of that it is Rahul Gandhi of Congress who brought to fore the implementation of the Constitution as the major path for social and economic justice. Putting the blame on the plight of Dalits/OBC and neglect of Babasaheb by Congress is like putting the truth on its head! At the same time it is putting the blame of one’s own doings on others.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Standing Truth on its Head: Ambedkar and BJP agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If we observe the glorification of Dr. BR Ambedkar by the RSS-BJP rulers on his birth anniversary, it appears that they, the sangh parivar are the most loyal followers of him, none other. According to Prime Minister Modi, Ambedkar was ‘architect of the Constitution of India’ and ‘Messiha of the Schedule Castes’.

The UP government has announced a grand celebration of ‘Ambedkar Jayanti’ beginning with a series of programmes from the morning of April 13 (2025), leading up to the main celebrations on April 14 at Lucknow which will be attended by the Hindutva icon, chief minister, Adityanath. These programmes “aim to acquaint the younger generation with Dr Ambedkar’s remarkable life, visionary leadership, and his unwavering commitment to justice, equality, and social reform”.

Dr. Ambedkar is receiving fullsome praise after his death. In life, the RSS and its bandwagon which included the VD Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha, never missed an opportunity to denigrate him, often resorted to the burning of his effigy! If Dr. Ambedkar were to appear now, in the India ruled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadres, make no mistake, he would be either lynched or put in jail under terror laws for his trenchant opposition to Caste and the attendant denigration of Sudras, Women. Especially his sharp critique of Privileged Castes hegemony and Hindutva.

1. Ambedkar supported the burning of Manusmriti

The RSS wants Indian constitution to be replaced by the Manusmriti or Manu Code or laws of Manu which is known for its derogatory and inhuman references to Sudras, Untouchables and women. This is the very Book that Babasaheb burned.  The Constituent Assembly of India finalised the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949, RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organiser in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:

“But in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

By demanding promulgation of laws of Manu in an Independent India, the RSS was simply following its mentor, philosopher and guide VD Savarkar who declared that,

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by the crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. He also called for burning Manusmriti on December 25 each year.

2. Ambedkar held ‘High’ (Privileged) Caste Hindus which control Hindutva politics responsible for the miserable life of Hindus and hatred for Muslims

He was crystal clear in his view, that,

“[The] high caste Hindus are bad as leaders. They have a trait of character which often leads the Hindus to disaster. This trait is formed by their acquisitive instinct and aversion to share with others the good things of life. They have a monopoly of education and wealth, and with wealth and education they have captured the State. To keep this monopoly to themselves has been the ambition and goal of their life. Charged with this selfish idea of class domination, they take every move to exclude the lower classes of Hindus from wealth, education and power, the surest and the most effective being the preparation of scriptures, inculcating upon the minds of the lower classes of Hindus the teaching that their duty in life is only to serve the higher classes. In keeping this monopoly in their own hands and excluding the lower classes from any share in it, the high caste Hindus have succeeded for a long time and beyond measure…

“This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power, as they have done to the lower-class Hindus. This trait of the high caste Hindus is the key to the understanding of their politics.”

[B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), p. 123, first Published December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

3. Ambedkar renounced Hinduism

Ambedkar, in his historic speech in Nagpur on October 15, 1956, a day after he had embraced Buddhism, said,

“The movement to leave the Hindu religion was taken in hand by us in 1935, when a resolution was made in Yeola. Even though I was born in the Hindu religion, I will not die in the Hindu religion. This oath I made earlier; yesterday, I proved it true. I am happy; I am ecstatic! I have left hell — this is how I feel. I do not want any blind followers. Those who come into the Buddhist religion should come with an understanding; they should consciously accept that religion.”

If he tries to convert now we can imagine what terrible fate he will meet!

4. Ambedkar fought for equal rights for women

For the RSS Hindu women are inferior in every respect. The outfit, demands promulgation of Manusmriti as constitution of India which shockingly denigrates women as we will see in the following [few out of dozens]:

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
6. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

Sharply to the contrary, Dr. Ambedkar believed in equality for women. He was clear that, “We shall see better days soon and our progress will be greatly accelerated if male education is persuaded side by side with female education…” He went on to stress that “I measure the progress of community by the degree of progress which women had achieved”. He advised Dalit women, “Never regard yourself as Untouchables, live a clean life. Dress yourselves as touchable ladies. Never mind, if your dress is full of patches, but see that it is clean. None can restrict your freedom in the choice of your garments. Attend more to the cultivation of the mind and spirit of self-Help.”

Liquor was a bane in Dalit families and in order remedy it he asked women “do not feed in any case your spouse and sons if they are drunkards. Send your children to schools. Education is as necessary for females as it is for males. If you know how to read and write, there would be much progress. As you are, so your children will be.”

5. Ambedkar did not subscribe to the idea of Hindu nation and decried Hindutva

Dr. Ambedkar, a keen researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, while underlying the affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of Two-Nation Theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”

According to him, the idea of “Hindustan for Hindus…is not merely arrogant but is arrant nonsense”. He was emphatic in warning that,

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country… [It] is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”

6. Ambedkar believed in Socialism

Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objective Resolution [OR] on December 13, 1946. Dr. Ambedkar’s turn to respond to OR came on 17 December 1946. He stated:

“If this resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity, of which I have not the least doubt, coming as it does from the mover of the resolution [Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru], I should have expected some provision whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality and i should have from that point of view expected the resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there would be nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land, I do not understand how it could be possible for any future government which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically, unless its economy is a socialistic economy.”

7. Ambedkar’s antipathy towards ‘Hindutva ‘nationalists’ & ‘Patriots’

Dr Ambedkar, as early as 1931, said that whenever he demanded equality for lower Castes, marginalised sections and Depressed classes he would be called a communalist and anti-national. He was forthright in telling the ‘nationalists’ & ‘patriots’:

“India is a peculiar country, and her nationalists and patriots are a peculiar people. A patriot and a nationalist in India is one who sees with open eyes his fellowmen treated as being less than men. But his humanity does not rise in protest. He knows that men and women for no cause are denied their human rights. But it does not prick his civic sense to helpful action. He finds the whole class of people shut out from public employment. But it does not rouse his sense of justice and fair play. Hundreds of evil practices that injure man and society are perceived by him. But they do not sicken him with disgust. The patriot’s one cry is power and more power for him and for his class. I am glad I do not belong to that class of patriots. I belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy, and which seeks to destroy monopoly in a very shape and form. Our aim is to realise in practice our ideal of one man one value in all walks of life, political, economic and social.”

[Dr BR Ambedkar in the Plenary Session of Round Table Conference, London, 8^th Sitting, January 19, 1931.]

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Rediscovering Ambedkar to Fight Against Hindutva

Hindutva Forces Want to Appropriate Ambedkar but not Impart his Teachings

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Scathing Attacks on Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra

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

Take Fatima Sheikh, India’s first Muslim woman teacher. Her life and work alongside Savitribai and Jyotirao Phule embody the very essence of solidarity and resistance. Together, they challenged Brahmanical patriarchy and caste exclusion, striving for an inclusive education system that empowered the most marginalised. Yet there is an ongoing attempt to erase Fatima Sheikh from mainstream history, her legacy buried under layers of casteist and communal erasure. Her erasure is not a mere oversight but a calculated act, one that seeks to deny the very existence of intersectional struggles against oppression.

This politics of erasure is not isolated; it is part of a broader project to sanitise history, neutralise dissent, and normalise inequalities. By excluding figures like Fatima Sheikh, Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and persons with disabilities are systematically pushed to the margins of public memory and denied their rightful place in the nation’s narrative.

Historical Revisionism: Sanitising the Past for Oppression

The deliberate erasure of figures like Fatima Sheikh reveals a pattern of historical revisionism designed to sustain existing hierarchies. History is manipulated to present reform movements as caste-neutral, male-driven, and Hindu-led, obscuring the intersectional struggles that shaped them. By erasing Fatima Sheikh, the radical solidarity between Dalits, Muslims, and women is invisibilised, and the convenient, dominant narrative of typical prototype reformers as saviours is reinforced.

B.R. Ambedkar, for instance, is sanitised into a token figure, hailed as the architect of the Constitution but stripped of his scathing critique of caste and his revolutionary vision for an egalitarian society. His advocacy for reservations, a lifeline for educational equity, is sidelined even as these policies are viciously attacked today. Ambedkar’s fiery critique of Hinduism’s role in upholding caste oppression is deliberately erased from school curricula and public discourse, making it easier to appropriate him while gutting his radical ideas.

Similarly, the contributions of Muslim freedom fighters like Ashfaqulla Khan and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan are systematically downplayed to sustain communal stereotypes. Women like Jhalkaribai, the Dalit warrior who fought alongside Rani Lakshmibai, and Begum Rokeya, a Muslim reformer who championed women’s education, are excluded to uphold patriarchal and casteist narratives. Even Adivasi leaders like Birsa Munda, who fought against colonial exploitation and for Adivasi rights, are reduced to hollow symbols, their histories carefully erased to sustain their marginalisation.

But the silence is uneasy most of all when it comes to disabled individuals. Their absence from historical narratives is not just glaring but insidious. It reflects the deeply entrenched ableism in Indian society, which sees disability not as a social issue but as a private affliction to be ignored. This erasure denies disabled people even the most token representation, ensuring they remain outside the frameworks of education, policy, and society itself.

The Violent Silence of Ableism

The absence of discourse on disability in historical narratives is perhaps the most violent form of erasure. It is not just a denial of disabled lives but a refusal to even acknowledge their struggles and contributions. Ableist attitudes perpetuate the idea that disabled people are incapable of agency or participation in society, reinforcing their marginalisation.

Statements like “the deaf and blind do not go to school with others” go unchallenged, as though their exclusion is natural. This systematic exclusion reinforces invisibility of disabled, creating a narrative of othering and leaving a place only at the bottom of the social hierarchy, with no place in history and no claim to justice.

Ableism is a tool of domination, one that intersects with caste, gender, and religion to maintain systems of oppression. By refusing to document the lives and struggles of disabled people, society ensures an easy othering where disabled are invisible, unaccounted for, and unrepresented. This silence is not benign, it is violent.

Education: A Weapon of Exclusion

The erasure of marginalised voices from history is deeply tied to the politics of education. Education is not merely a tool for liberation; it has also been weaponised to exclude. By controlling whose stories are taught, dominant groups perpetuate the myth that Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and disabled people are undeserving of knowledge, power, or leadership.

This exclusion is evident in the privatisation of education, which transforms a fundamental right into an elitist privilege. Marginalised communities, already struggling under systemic oppression, are locked out of educational spaces, ensuring a continued cycle of poverty and exclusion. Reservation policies, which aim to provide equitable access, are constantly undermined. Their necessity is questioned as the struggles that birthed them are erased from public memory.

For disabled people, the exclusion is even starker. Accessible education systems and infrastructure are virtually non-existent, leaving them reliant on charity rather than rights-based systems. The very idea of education for the disabled is treated as an afterthought, ensuring they remain on the margins, locked out of opportunities for participation in society.

Reclaiming Radical Histories

To resist the politics of erasure, we must reclaim the radical histories of marginalised communities. Fatima Sheikh’s story must be restored not simply as a tribute to her legacy but as a weapon against the narratives that erase the struggles of Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and disabled people. The histories of Ambedkar, Jhalkaribai, Ashfaqulla Khan, Birsa Munda, and countless others must be told in their entirety, with their radical critiques and intersectional struggles at the forefront.

The absence of disability discourse must also be addressed. Disabled people’s lives and struggles must be documented, acknowledged, and integrated into mainstream narratives. This requires dismantling ableist attitudes and creating systems that recognise disability as a social and political issue, and not a personal battle.

The Politics of Memory and Justice

The politics of historical erasure is not just about the past, it is about controlling the present and foreclosing the future. By denying Fatima Sheikh and others like her their rightful place in history, the ruling elite seeks to sustain a system of exclusion that privileges dominant castes, religions, and abilities.

Fatima Sheikh’s legacy reminds us that education is not a privilege for the few but a right for all. Her work challenges the casteist, communal, patriarchal, and ableist narratives that underpin Indian society, offering a vision of education as a tool for liberation and solidarity. To honour her is to fight against the forces that erase her.

The fight against historical erasure is, ultimately, a fight for justice. It is a fight to ensure that history reflects the struggles and contributions of all communities, and that education becomes a tool to dismantle hierarchies rather than perpetuate them. This fight demands that we challenge the dominant narratives, expose their silences, and reclaim the radical potential of memory to inspire resistance and solidarity. Let us carry forward this fight, with the legacy of all those erased from history as our guide; while it remains important to ask ‘who benefits from these erasures?’

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. Sharamisthaa Atreja is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Fatima Sheikh: Politics of Historical Erasure, Exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

They go on to quote Ambedkar that Swami Shraddhanand was the “the greatest and most sincere champion of the Untouchables”. They ignore the fact that that same Swami was involved in Shuddhi, ‘Conversion of Muslims to Hinduism’. This is what annoyed the Muslim clerics.

On this Shuddhi, Ambedkar responded, “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 was parallel and opposite to Tanzim by Tablighi Jamaat, which was trying to convert Hindus into Islam. Though Shraddhanand later became part of the Indian National Congress, he was also part of Hindu Sangthan, a part of the revitalised Hindu Mahasabha committed to establishing a Hindu Nation.

New constructs are now being floated that Ambedkar and Savarkar are two sides of the same coin. True that Savarkar started the Patit Pavan temple that allows entry of Dalits into temples. As per Babasaheb, this will create a separate temple where only Dalits will visit. “An editorial in the April 12, 1929 issue of “Bahishkrit Bharat” states that Ambedkar had opposed the construction of the Patit Pawan temple from the very beginning. He believed that these temples would later be called temples for the untouchables.” However, Ambedkar did appreciate Savarkar’s efforts. Though he felt they were irrelevant.

These are some points that are being raised by Hindutva ideologues. They go hyper while describing Ambedkar’s relations with Congress. Some of them argue that after the death of Gandhi and Patel, Nehru became authoritarian and ignored the Opposition. BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that Ambedkar resigned from the Nehru cabinet due to “differences” with Nehru on the issue of Article 370, foreign policy and on the condition of SC/STs (Scheduled Castes/Tribes).

The crux of the issue is that the major reason for Ambedkar resigning from the cabinet was his disappointment with the shabby treatment given to the Hindu Code Bill. A huge opposition and meetings against the Bill were organised by RSS. Their volunteers demonstrated in front of Parliament. The peak of this was the massive protest in Ramlila Maidan on December 11, 1949, in which effigies of Ambedkar and Nehru were burnt.

Opposing the Hindu Code Bill, The Organiser (mouthpiece of the RSS), December 7, 1949, wrote: “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.” The result of this aggressive campaign by RSS on the Hindu Code Bill was that it had to be delayed and diluted. This was the painful moment for Babasaheb, that led him to resign.

The question of Manusmriti, the Chaturvarnya, was a crucial part of the differences between Ambedkar and Savarkar to BJP. While on December 25, 1927, Babasaheb burnt the Manusmriti, the second sarsanghchalak of RSS, M.S. Golwalkar went on to write eulogies on Manusmriti.

Savarakar also detailed his support to Chaturvarnya and praised Manusmiriti: “Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.” And “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”.

The central point of difference that Ambedkar had with the Hindutva ideology is being pushed under the carpet. On October 13, 1935, Ambedkar spoke in a meeting in Yeola near Nasik, dropping a ‘bombshell’ when he said, “I will not die as a person who calls himself a Hindu!” As per him, this religion has no place for liberty, compassion and equality. In the revised edition of his book, Thoughts on Pakistan, he opposed the formation of Islamic Pakistan as that may pave the way for Hindu Raj or Rashtra and that will be a “big calamity” for its people.

As he declared this, there were many pressures on him to embrace Sikhism or Islam. Dr. Moonje from Hindu Mahasabha struck a pact with Ambedkar that if he avoided conversion to Islam, Hindu Mahasabha would not oppose his move. Babasaheb’s own deeper studies led him to choose Buddhism.

Today, the BJP is trying to project that they have “honoured” Babasaheb by erecting his statues, raising an International Museum in his memory and other symbolic things. These are identity-related issues, while the crux of Babasaheb’s values remains undermined. When the Mandal Commission (on reservations) was implemented, the BJP resorted to kamandal (Hindutva) politics. As veteran BJP leader L K Advani was arrested during his Rath Yatra (as a part of kamandal politics), BJP, which was part of the parties supporting V P Singh’s government, withdrew its support and the government fell.

Congress, along with Hindu Mahasabha, opposed Ambedkar in Lok Sabha elections. Yet, it was Congress again that ensured that he was made a Rajya Sabha member. He was made a member of the Interim Government and also Chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution.

BJP’s anxiety to prove that Ambedkar was part of Hindutva politics is, therefore, a pure concoction to derive legitimacy from the memory of a person who stood totally against their very ideology of a Hindu Nation.

What an irony, that those who stood/stand for a Hindu Nation are today trying to project Ambedkar, who was opposed to Hindu Rashtra and wanted to have democratic, secular republic, as a part of their ideological parivar!

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Does Babasaheb’s Ideology Match With Hindu Nationalist Politics? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

History of the Hindu Code Bill

Talks about a Hindu Code Bill had emerged since the 1920s itself. The AIWC (All India Women’s Conference) demanded a revision of the Hindu Code to overcome deficits in women’s rights. This was the crucial difference between the reforms of the 19th century which were piloted from above and these, which were reforms actively sought by the women themselves. The AIWC declared a Women’s Legal Disabilities Day in 1934 at the instance of Renuka Ray. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was then tabled by its author G.V. Deshmukh in the Central Legislature.

The same year, the Shariat Application Bill tabled by H.M. Abdullah was passed which gave the daughter a share in property. However, in both the Hindu and Muslim case agricultural land was exempted from the application of the respective bills. This was because agricultural property fell under the ‘jurisdiction of provincial legislation’ while these two Acts of 1937 were Central legislations. (Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy:The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India 1941–1956, 2012). Why was this the case? Probably, the vote-influencing elite class couldn’t be touched or angered!

However, the demand for codification of Hindu personal law driven by Hindu women did gain legitimacy with the 1937 “Deshmukh Act.” A Hindu Law Committee was appointed on January 25, 1941 headed by B.N. Rao (who went on to become the constitutional advisor of the Constitution’s drafting committee). Other members were- Shri Dwarakanath Mitter, ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Shri R. Gharpure, Principal, Law College, Poona and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer from Baroda. The committee appreciated the role of Women’s Associations across the country. The committee suggested two measures in its final report submitted in June 1941. These were largely related to an enlargement of the terms of reference and the need for provincial legislative changes to apply to the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act in agricultural landed property.

With these suggestions in mind two draft bills on the law of marriage and inheritance were prepared and presented before a joint committee of both the houses. The two bills together came to be known as the draft Hindu Code Bill and were presented before the Legislature to be debated in 1943-44. The Committee was invoked again and began working from 1945 onwards. Dwarkanath Mitter presented a dissenting opinion stating that of the total number of people interviewed for the bill, only 33.4% supported the codification drive [the percentage being even smaller in the “Hindu Heartland” (coined by Gyanesh Kudasia)]. The figures are from the Report of the Hindu Law Committee, 1947.

Maharashtra offered the greatest support in favour of the Code Bill. Dharma Nirnay Mandal (formed at Lonavala in 1936) which was at the forefront went to many places in Maharashtra raising awareness on the codification issue. It brought out several publications including Why Hindu Code, co-authored by T.K. Tope and H.S. Ursekar. The Hindu Code Bill was thereafter referred to the Select Committee in April 1948. The ball was now in Ambedkar’s court.

Views of Ambedkar and Nehru on the Bill

Ambedkar believed the Code Bill to be a vehicle towards reforming Hindu society. He therefore considered the Hindu Code Bill as historic as the Constitution making process. He spoke of the aims and objectives of the bill in the simplest of terms to make it accessible to all. He stated that – “in order to reduce the confusions surrounding Hindu laws and also to make these more equitable and relevant to contemporary Indian society, the Bill seeks to codify the law relating to certain aspects covering marriage, property, succession etc.”

With these essential points in mind, let us now move to see the people who opposed the Bill who have been grouped into categories by Reba Som in her article ‘Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?’(Modern Asian Studies, February 1994).  We shall simultaneously accentuate the contradictions and paradoxes of these people on the issue which exposes their hesitance for reforms and their unwavering commitment to not want women being treated at par with men. These were-

One. Those stalwarts within the Congress who had been arrayed against the likes of Nehru from 1930s onwards. These were represented by Rajendra Prasad who had been unhappy over the issue since the start. Prasad believed that the progressive idea of introducing basic changes in personal law was only the view of a microscopic minority and its imposition on the Hindu community as a whole would have disastrous consequences. When frustrated by Prasad and others in the assembly over the issue of the bill, Nehru told them that the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige for him. Prasad had drafted a letter in response to this on which he consulted (luckily for him), Vallabhbhai Patel before sending it. Patel counselled him on the benefits of remaining quiet as this would brighten his chances of being elected the first President of India. Prasad thus, kept quiet and got elected the first President. However, once he assumed this constitutional role, his obduracy over the bill continued, sometimes citing procedural lapses on Nehru’s part (for which there was no provision but only convention) and sometimes by terming the efforts at getting the bill passed as anti-democratic. He in fact, even threatened to withhold Presidential assent to the Bill even if it was passed from both the houses. Surprisingly, Prasad was the President when, later, in five parts the Hindu Code Bill was largely passed by Indian Parliament.

Along with the likes of Prasad were Hindu fundamentalists within the Congress like the Deputy Speaker, Ananthasayanam Aiyyangar who was convinced of the soundness of polygamy. This group never made an earnest effort to carry through the reformist agenda Congress propagated. Some among those who were not so opposed to the contents of the Bill were at sixes and sevens because of the fact that the Bill was piloted by Ambedkar, an untouchable. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a liberal member of the Congress too criticised Ambedkar for his “professional, pedagogic and pontifical attitudes” which will “only alienate attitudes that have almost been reconciled,” records Reba Som.

Two. The Hindu Mahasabha with people like N.C. Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who opposed the Bill based on the fact that it threatened the very foundation of Hindu religion. The Mahasabha tried to argue that the “Hindu” Code Bill was a communal legislation (only for the Hindus) and instead that a Uniform Civil Code should be introduced in its place. Thus, it becomes clear that it was not out of a progressive reformist zeal that the Mahasabha wanted a Uniform Civil Code but only so that the state power interferes in Muslim affairs as well. Mukherjee argued that the Hindu Code be made optional, an argument similar to what Jinnah made during the passage of the Shariat Application Bill 1937. Mukherjee had been in Nehru’s cabinet and wholeheartedly supported the Code which he was now opposing and therefore, Ambedkar dismissed his remarks as non-worthy of consideration.

Within this category let us add a subcategory of Hindu reactionaries outside the Parliament represented by the RSS. In March 1949 the All-India Anti-Hindu-Code Bill Committee with Swami Karpatriji Maharaj at its head was formed which opposed the Constituent Assembly’s interference in personal laws of Hindus based on Dharma Shastras. (Ramchandra Guha, India after Gandhi, 2008) Alongside this Committee was also a battery of lawyers from various Bar Councils across the country who absolutely condemned the Code Bill. The Committee held several hundred meetings throughout the country opposing the Bill. The All India Hindu Code Bill Virodha Samiti even published a book, Hindu Code Bill: Praman Ki Kasauti Par in Hindi by Swami Karpatriji Maharaj, condemning the government propaganda about the Bill and presenting the Bill in complete opposition to the ideology of Sanatan Dharma. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) This Committee even marched on to the Parliament raising derogatory slogans like “Down with the Code Bill” and “May Nehru Perish.”

Three. The Sikh group represented by men like Sardar Mann and Sardar Hukum Singh inside the Parliament and Master Tara Singh outside it, who resented being clubbed with the Hindus in the broad framework of reform. Tara Singh denounced the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament. This can be found dated 13th December in G. Parthasarathi edited Letters to Chief Ministers Vol.2 1950-1952. Interestingly, after Ambedkar had resigned and not much alteration had been made to the Bill, Sardar Hukum Singh stated that the Bill could now be passed as the objectionable parts had been removed.

Four. Muslims represented by Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal who argued that the Hindu Code Bill was a bid to end the Mitakshara joint family. This would lead to division of families and property issues. The most baffling part is that despite hailing from Bengal which was the epicentre of Dayabhaga School, Naziruddin Ahmad chose to speak about Mitakshara. Even more fascinating is the fact that provincialism, evoked by Jinnah during the debate on Shariat Application Bill 1937, was ensured among Bengali legislators by the very same Naziruddin Ahmad. Of the scant information on him over the Internet, his appointment as the chief whip by A.K. Fazlul Haq, then Bengal chief minister is surely significant. The same provincialism is found wanting in Naziruddin Ahmad while speaking on the Hindu Code Bill. When he remarked that Hindu families would suffer the same fate as Muslims, he was given a shut up call by Renuka Ray who asked why he was not ready to let the Hindus enjoy the same advantages that the Muslim society enjoys.

Six. Women Parliamentarians, largely the ones who were consistent in their approach and most fully committed to get the Code Bill passed. Even their criticism, expressed through Sucheta Kriplani and Hansa Mehta, was sound and logical based on the fact that the reforms did not go as far as they should have and that they were half-hearted.

Ambedkar’s resignation and his assessment of Nehru

Correspondence between Ambedkar and Nehru on the topic brings out the differences in views as well as approach to the Hindu Code Bill. On August 10, 1951, Ambedkar wrote to Nehru-

“My health is causing a great deal of anxiety to me and to my doctors. They have been pressing that I must allow them a longer period of about a month for continuous treatment and that such treatment cannot now be postponed without giving rise to further complications. I am most anxious that the Hindu Code Bill should be disposed of before I put myself in the hands of my doctors. I would, therefore, like to give the Hindu Code Bill a higher priority by taking it up for debate and consideration on August 16 and finish the matter of by September 1, if the opponents do not practice obstructive tactics. You know I attach the greatest importance to this measure and would be prepared to undergo any strain on my health to get the Bill through.” (Selected Writings of Ambedkar)

Nehru however, knew that the conservatives were too many and quite vehement in their opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. There was now no Patel to ensure the whip in support of the measure. However, Ambedkar did not pay attention to this view and he felt extremely frustrated that Nehru wasn’t able to get the Bill passed.  The fact remains that with the active support of the then President, many members including the chief whip were all firm in their disapproval of the Hindu Code Bill. Nehru could not hurry it through since elections were also round the corner. As Ambedkar sarcastically put it, ‘I have never seen a case of chief whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal whip.’(Reba Som, 1994) Ambedkar was, however, convinced of Nehru’s sincerity, it was only his lack of determination that he criticised.

There were a few more issues (not connected to Nehru directly) over which he resigned. Nehru’s sincerity is reflected in a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers on October 4, 1951. He stated- “it was obviously a controversial measure and it was not our desire to suppress debate or even to treat this as a strictly party measure necessitating a Whip.” He cites this as the reason for failure to get even parts of the Bill through. He goes on to say, “I have no doubt that a considerable majority in Parliament desired the passage of this bill with minor alterations. But that majority was helpless before a determined minority and we had to confess defeat.  For the moment at least I do not think, however, that all this time on the Hindu code bill has been wasted. It has kept this important subject before the public and made people think about it. It had made it one of the major issues in India and I have little doubt that it will have to be taken up and passed sometime or the other. For my part I am convinced that progress in India must be on all fronts- political, economic and social. Unless this happens we shall get held up.” 

Nehru’s reaction to Ambedkar’s resignation

Frustrated and flabbergasted over the stoicism of conservative elements within the Congress, Dr. Ambedkar rendered his resignation on September 25, 1951. On his resignation, Nehru spoke in the Parliament with a sense of loss. “It is a matter of regret for me, if for no other reason, for the fact that an old colleague should part company in the way he has done today.”

Moreover, Nehru wrote to Ambedkar on September 27, 1951 with mixed feelings of appreciation for Ambedkar’s efforts and determination on his part to get the Bill through sooner or later. He wrote,- “I can quite understand your great disappointment at the fact that the Hindu Code Bill could not be passed in this session and that even the marriage and divorce part of it had ultimately to be postponed. I know very well how hard you have laboured at it and how keenly you have felt about it.” Nehru goes on to state that “I tried my utmost, but the fates and the rules of Parliament were against us.” He promised to keep fighting stoutly, “personally, I shall not give up this fight because I think it is intimately connected with any progress on any front that we desire to make.” 

Conclusion

Eventually, when the Hindu Code Bill was passed in various parts in 1956, Nehru offered his tribute to Ambedkar. He stated that Ambedkar would be remembered above all ‘as a symbol of the revolt against all the oppressive features of Hindu society’. But he “will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits.” (Ramchandra Guha, 2008)

The glowing tribute by Nehru to Ambedkar and Ambedkar’s admission of Nehru’s sincerity of efforts says it all. It was not these two but rather “the orthodox of all religions united” (from the title of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Essay) who were pitted against them on the issue of Hindu Code Bill. What’s more concerning is the remark heard from certain quarters of the Parliament after the passage of the Hindu Code Bill. During 1955 and 1956, when the Hindu Code Bill was enacted in fragments, Ambedkar’s absence was cited as a reason for the smooth passage of the Bill. (Chitra Sinha, 2012) Throughout the trajectory of the Hindu Code Bill, Nehru and Ambedkar remained consistent in pushing for reforms. Therefore, this struggle for the Hindu Code Bill and those who opposed it and actually disrespected Ambedkar should be clearly identified. Lest History Forget!

(The author is a PhD Candidate at the department of history, AMU)

[1] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh formed in 1925

Related:

Dr BR Ambedkar: How the ongoing tussle between the BJP and Congress is both limited & superficial

What Nehru Flagged as ‘Most Dangerous’ Modi Now Invokes for Votes

Nehru’s Prescient Words During 1st General Elections Resonate Today

Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence

The post A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ruling dispensation, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), leaders within Parliament and its ideologues outside Parliament, argued that all the ills of society and violation of constitutional values began with Jawaharlal Nehru (amendment to stop hate speech), via Indira Gandhi (the Emergency), via Rajiv Gandhi (the Shah Bano Bill) to Rahul Gandhi (tearing the Bill) have been the violators of the values of Constitution.

BJP leaders and Hindu nationalist ideologues are stating that the Indian Constitution has been based on Western values, a colonial imprint on our society; it is a break from India’s civilisation and culture. They also argue that the Constitution and its application is the appeasement of Muslim minorities for vote bank purposes that has been done by the Congress party.

As we know, the Constitution was the outcome of the values that emerged during the freedom movement. It also kept in mind the long tradition of our civilisation. The understanding of our civilisation is very different for those who participated in the freedom movement, those who stand for its ideology, and those who kept aloof from the anti-colonial movement and bowed to the British rulers.

While the freedom movement saw India as a plural nation with rich diversities, those who stood aloof saw the civilisation as Hindu civilisation. For them, pluralism is a diversion and imposition by the educated, modern leaders.

Even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) combine forgets that what they call as Hindu civilisation is undermining the contributions of Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism to our civilisation. Even the interpretation of Lord Ram, their major icon, is so diverse for Kabir, who saw the Lord as a Universal spirit, for Gandhi, who saw Him as protector of all the people, irrespective of their religion in his famous: Ishawar Allah Tero Naam (Allah and Ishwar are same).

Jawaharlal Nehru saw India, Bharat Mata, in his book, The Discovery of India, as an “ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.” With great pride, he recalled the rule of Emperor Ashok, who in many edicts etched on stones, talked of equal treatment for Vedic Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivikas.

This is the core difference between the RSS combine and its ideologues who see India as exclusively Brahmanical Hindu, and those like Gandhi and Nehru, as a country belonging to all the people.

The Indian Constituent Assembly mainly represented the stream that struggled against the British, the national stream, while RSS was a marginal stream sticking to “India as Brahmanical Hindu nation”. This started getting reflected immediately after the draft of the Indian Constitution. B.R Ambedkar and Nehru were cautious and stated  that the implementation of its basic structure should be ensured by those ruling the country.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of BJP, in 1998, formed the Venkatachaliah Commission to review the Constitution. K.R. Narayanan, the then President of India, aptly remarked: “It is not the Constitution that has failed us; it is we who have failed the Constitution!”

This is so true, particularly after the rule of the Narendra Modi government (2014 onward). It is during this period that though the Constitution has not been changed as such, though many from the RSS camp have expressed their wish to do so, without getting reprimanded from the top leadership. This was most blatantly stated to back up their slogan of ‘400 Paar’ (More than 400 seats in Parliament in the 2024 elections), meaning that ‘we want so many seats so that we can change the Constitution.’

The blatant rise of hate speech, lately most clearly stated by a sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court, Shekhar Kumar Yadav, when participating in a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, saying: “The country will run as per the wishes of its majority.”

Justice Yadav made the remarks while delivering an address on “Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code”. “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” Yadav said.

Worse than his stating so, has been the statement of BJP’s Yogi Adityanath, the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, who supported Yadav’ utterances. Mercifully, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of Yadav’s communal hate speech. But, who will take cognizance of Yogi supporting him?

Commenting on the current state of affairs, Justice Aspi Chinoy made a very apt comment. He said, “The BJP being the government at the Centre and having an absolute and overwhelming majority in Parliament, sees no need to alter the de jure status of India as a secular country and Constitution. Being in control of the state and its diverse instrumentalities it has been able to achieve its goal of undermining India’s secular constitution and introduce a Hindutva based ethnocracy, even without amending and altering the de jure secular status.”

This sectarianism of the ruling BJP goes back to the time when the draft of Constitution was released. A couple of days’ later, the RSS mouthpiece (unofficial) Organiser stated on November 30, 1949. “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Meaning that Manusmriti has been ignored by makers of the Indian Constitution!

The father of Hindu nationalist politics, V D Savarkar, was quoted by Rahul Gandhi while participating in debate, “The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable after Vedas for our Hindu nation and from which our ancient times have become the basis for our culture, customs, thought and practice.”

The crux of the matter comes to the surface when we compare the chief of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution, Ambedkar, and one of the RSS sarsanghchalak, K. Sudarshan. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmiriti and drafted the Indian Constitution. The RSS chief went on to label the Indian Constitution as being “based on Western values” and called for the need to draft the Indian Constitution based on the Hindu Holy book!

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

The post 75 Years Down the Line, Whither Indian Constitution? appeared first on SabrangIndia.