
In a recent statement in Parliament, Union Home Minister Amit Shah remarked that it has now become a fashion to repeatedly invoke the name of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, suggesting that if Ambedkar’s name had been repeated as one does with God, it could have earned one heaven for seven lifetimes. Shah further attributed Ambedkar’s resignation from the Nehru Cabinet to Jawaharlal Nehru, attempting to shift the blame for the breakdown in their relationship onto the Prime Minister of the time. These statements warrant a closer look, especially considering the political implications behind them.
Undermining Ambedkar’s Legacy
Shah’s comparison of invoking Ambedkar’s name to the act of repeating God’s name carries subtle, yet powerful implications. By making this comparison, Shah minimizes Ambedkar’s monumental contribution to India’s constitutional framework, which is the bedrock of India’s democratic principles. While the concept of God is personal and a matter of individual faith, the Constitution—shaped by Ambedkar—governs the entire nation, regardless of personal beliefs. Linking the remembrance of Ambedkar to mere fashion attempts trivialize his invaluable role in creating a progressive and inclusive India.
Dr. Ambedkar, who is often considered the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, was a visionary who dedicated his life to challenging the deep-seated social hierarchies that dominated India’s caste-based system. His work laid the foundations for a just society, rooted in equality and social justice. To dismiss him as a passing trend undermines the enduring importance of his legacy. The Hindutva forces have long been ambivalent about Ambedkar’s ideology, as it directly contradicts the hierarchical and exclusionary principles that they espouse.
Hindutva Forces and Their Opposition to Ambedkar’s Vision
Historically, the Hindutva ideology has been at odds with the constitutional principles that Ambedkar championed. The statements made by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the key proponents of Hindutva, on the Indian Constitution offer critical insight into the ideological rift. Savarkar criticized the Constitution, calling it “un-Indian,” while declaring that the Manusmriti, the ancient Hindu law text, should be the guiding legal scripture for India. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), also criticized the Constitution, emphasizing that it lacked “Bharatiya” elements. In its editorial on November 30, 1949, the RSS mouthpiece Organizer claimed that the new Constitution was “alien” to the cultural and religious ethos of the Indian people.
Moreover, the RSS’s consistent advocacy for the Manusmriti over the Constitution illustrates a profound ideological divide between Ambedkar’s vision of a secular, democratic state and the Hindutva forces’ preference for a theocratic state rooted in ancient, patriarchal Hindu laws. The Manusmriti’s promotion of caste-based discrimination and the subjugation of women is in direct contradiction to the inclusive and egalitarian principles espoused by Ambedkar and embedded in India’s Constitution.
Ambedkar’s Resignation and the Hindu Code Bill
The Hindu Code Bill, a progressive reform package that Ambedkar pushed for, aimed to address the inequalities faced by women in Hindu society. This bill sought to modernize Hindu personal laws, addressing key issues like marriage, inheritance, divorce, and women’s rights. Ambedkar’s draft of the bill included provisions for equal inheritance rights for women, the legalization of widow remarriage, and the establishment of monogamy as the norm. The bill was a major step toward gender equality, as it sought to dismantle patriarchal structures deeply entrenched in Hindu society.
While Nehru did express support for the bill, he was also caught in a political bind. As India’s first Prime Minister, Nehru understood the complex interplay between social reform and political pragmatism. The bill faced fierce opposition from conservative Hindu groups, including the Hindu Mahasabha and the Bharatiya Janata Sangh, who saw it as an attack on traditional Hindu family structures. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, a key figure in the Hindu Mahasabha and a precursor to the BJP, argued that the bill’s provisions—particularly those granting women equal inheritance rights and advocating for monogamy—were foreign to Hindu traditions and threatened the core of Hindu society.
However, the real opposition came not just from Nehru’s hesitance, but from the Hindutva forces who feared that the bill would undermine the patriarchal social order and challenge the existing power structures. Ambedkar’s frustration stemmed from these forces, and his resignation from Nehru’s Cabinet in 1951 was a result of his disillusionment with the government’s failure to pass the bill in its original, comprehensive form.
Nehru, on the other hand, was caught between his desire for social reform and the political realities of post-independence India, where the support of orthodox Hindu groups was crucial for political stability. He ultimately revised the bill, leading to the passage of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) and the Hindu Succession Act (1956), which were important steps in the direction of social reform, though they fell short of Ambedkar’s original vision.
Ambedkar’s Advocacy for a Secular India
In addition to his work on social reform, Ambedkar was a staunch advocate for a secular India, as opposed to a Hindu Rashtra. In his famous 1956 statement, when he embraced Buddhism, Ambedkar emphasized that while India may have a Hindu majority, it was a secular state with no official religion. His assertion that “A Hindu State is an impossibility” and that such a state would be undemocratic and theocratic stands in direct opposition to the vision of a Hindu Rashtra espoused by Hindutva proponents like Savarkar.
Ambedkar’s rejection of a Hindu Rashtra was rooted in his understanding of the deep social inequalities and religious intolerance that such a state would perpetuate. He understood that a theocratic state would not only discriminate against religious minorities but also entrench caste-based discrimination, which was the very system he sought to dismantle. His public burning of the Manusmriti in 1927 was a powerful act of defiance against the caste-based social system that it represented.
The BJP’s Contradiction
The BJP, which traces its ideological roots to the RSS and Hindutva forces, has long sought to appropriate Ambedkar’s name for its political purposes. On the one hand, the party portrays itself as a champion of Ambedkar’s legacy, invoking his name in its rhetoric to appeal to Dalit and backward communities. On the other hand, its policies and actions often contradict the values Ambedkar espoused. The RSS and BJP’s promotion of a Hindu Rashtra, their opposition to progressive social reforms like the Hindu Code Bill in its earlier avataar, and their glorification of figures like Savarkar, who championed the Manusmriti, are in direct conflict with Ambedkar’s vision of a secular, democratic India based on equality and justice.
Amit Shah’s statement, by attributing Ambedkar’s resignation solely to Nehru, seeks to obfuscate the real reasons behind Ambedkar’s disillusionment—namely, the opposition from the Hindutva forces and the failure to implement meaningful social reforms. By trying to play up the Nehru-Ambedkar rift, Shah diverts attention from the ideological battle between Ambedkar and the forces of Hindutva, which continues to shape India’s political discourse.
Conclusion
Amit Shah’s recent statement is an attempt to diminish Ambedkar’s legacy and misrepresent the reasons behind his resignation. The real story lies in the ideological battle between Ambedkar and the Hindutva forces, who sought to uphold a hierarchical social order while Ambedkar pushed for an egalitarian society based on the principles of justice, equality, and secularism. It is crucial to expose the contradictions in the BJP’s stance, as it attempts to co-opt Ambedkar’s name while opposing the values he fought for. In doing so, the party risks undermining the very principles that have shaped India’s democratic and inclusive society.
T Navin is an independent writer