Hijacking Ambedkar’s legacy

In recent years, and particularly after the elections to the 16th Lok Sabha, there has been a beeline to lay claim to the political legacy of BR Ambedkar. This onrush is not merely the trend in political parties, but also across a wide spectrum of social and political platforms as well. The contenders feel they have a rich harvest to reap if they succeed in inheriting, at least, a share of this legacy. The scale, however, seems already tilted: The Bahujan Samaj Party, which laid claim to Ambedkar’s legacy did not succeed in winning even a seat to the 16th Lok Sabha and its vote percentage came down to 4.1 per cent, from 21 seats in the 15th Lok Sabha with 6.2 per cent votes. The BJP has emerged as the party securing the largest number of seats and votes from the Dalit constituency in the 16th Lok Sabha. Further, some political parties, with a pronounced Dalit support base, such as the Republican Party of India (Athavale) which claims a direct descent from the Republican Party of India, founded by Ambedkar himself, have now joined hands with the NDA alliance.

These developments have gone hand-in-hand with the recasting of Ambedkar in very different roles in the emerging political discourse. While in the past he was strongly associated as the champion of preferential policies, particularly to Dalits, and the chief draftsman of the Indian Constitution, increasingly he is projected as someone favourable to the market and the forerunner of an emerging Dalit middle class. Ambedkar’s ardent advocacy of rights and constitutionalism are cited as evidence for the same. There is an attempt at quarantining Ambedkar's growing appeal through fragmentation of the social constituency of his appeal, through caste mobilisation, pitting one Dalit caste against the other in the name of opportunities and resources, and by intellectually savvy arguments that the social dynamics of Indian society were very different from the one highlighted by him.

But interestingly, such appropriation, and repositioning of Ambedkar’s legacy, has gone hand-in-hand with the wider social outreach of Ambedkar not merely among Dalit castes and communities, but also among minorities and the backward classes. There is a palpable increase of his presence among some Adivasi communities. These social constituencies have been making a claim for respect and dignity, along with equal rights. For these constituencies Ambedkar is the symbol of social protest and spokesperson of a version of democracy where their voice too has a place. There are a few among them, particularly the elite, who count numbers for a potential electoral alternative, too!

While such appropriation of and connectivity to a powerful icon with a broad base of social appeal, can never be avoided in a competitive democracy — and political parties and interests will try to outdo one another in the process — there are a few core concerns, one can say, that are specific to Ambedkar, and his writings and activity consistently bear witness to it. These are also the concerns that he considered non-negotiable and around which he drew his battlelines with friends and adversaries. Further, these concerns have found a resounding echo among certain social groups and strata as to make them feel that Ambedkar is their authentic voice.

It may not be out of place to highlight a few of these nodal concerns. Ambedkar is a votary of equality, and a democracy that is egalitarian. Ambedkar’s critique of limited representation under the colonial order, his critique of the national movement that did not pay adequate attention to social reforms, his attack on social relations resting on the principles of gradation and ranking, his arguments against making sectarian interests as national interests, and his opposition to confining productive forces — be it capital, land, skills and competences — in a few hands, reflect this concern. This egalitarian thrust went alongside two concerns: centrality of human dignity, and a deep urge towards human perfection. He identified certain structures that militated against these two-fold concerns, such as untouchability, servility, slavery, exclusion and gender exploitation, and the consequences they have for human flourishing. At the same time, he thought that rule of law and public institutions are important. In their absence, dominance rules the roost. It is the poor and the disadvantaged who suffer the most when the rule of law is violated. In other words he did not see the rule of law as a tool of dominance, but as an enabling contrivance for the disadvantaged. The non-partisanship of rule of law rests precisely on the ground that it enables people to claim their dignity when it is violated and define themselves in ways that they want. Ambedkar did not think that a political order has to be a meek onlooker at the wisdom of the market, but saw it as having a defining and regulative role. His was a critical voice, and he spared none. There were few who stood up to Gandhi, either due to admiration or for fear of being marginalised, but he did so with great grit and conviction. He treated Jinnah in the same way. At the same time, he argued that if the Congress wanted to craft a united polity it could not do so by sitting on the pedestal, ignoring significant sections of Muslims who were no longer with it.

Ambedkar also argued that a society calls for a moral fabric, that keeps it going amidst conflicts and strife, nay, even keeps it within bounds. Law has its limits. This moral fabric stops society from being fragmented, and sustains, what he termed, fraternity. It predisposes one to respect another and make place for him or her. Ambedkar’s option to Buddhism rested on that plank. He saw Buddha’s teachings as upholding a moral foundation to society. At the same time, the Buddha demonstrated what humans can be, without invoking the transcendental for the purpose.

Given these nodal concerns, it will prove pretty demanding on any political party or a political interest to make Ambedkar integral to their political striving. Of course, there will always be much on display, and by way of tokenism. But as we step into 125th year of his birth, there is much in his concerns that is a matter of concern to most of us.

The author teaches Political Science at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi