Do Hindu Movements Need Dr Ambedkar?

Should the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promote Dr Ambedkar?

A pro-Hindu handle in X asked this question and had conducted an online survey on 6 December 2024. It was the Parinirvan Diwas of Dr Ambedkar.

Majority of those who answered this handle chose the first choice given in the online poll – that it was wrong in principle and also politically, both in terms of long-term and short-term benefits, to promote Dr Ambedkar and instead of Dr Ambedkar, the BJP should promote other pro-Hindu Scheduled Community (SC) leaders.

In a way the poll is emblematic of the views in India over accepting Dr Ambedkar as a nation-builder. Also, the larger question embedded in this online survey is if Dr Ambedkar was compatible or antagonistic to Hindutva.   

The most important reason the Hindutva movement in particular and Hindu society in general should accept and celebrate Dr Ambedkar is because of his life-long project: Deep Decolonisation of Hindu Dharma.

Deep Decolonisation of Dharma: From Religion of Rules to Religion of Principles

Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956) was, like all great personalities in history, a complex person. He had contradictions and evolving perspectives. Like all great historical figures, his life was a journey of transformation, marked by shifts in stance and nuanced positions. Yet, beneath the surface of these apparent contradictions lay a profound and unwavering commitment that was always remained a constant.

This was to reshaping Hindu society based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

His pursuit of this life goal led him down diverse paths, sometimes necessitating seemingly contradictory positions. He was not without flaws, nor did he claim infallibility. His imperfections reflected not only the inherent human condition but also the intense socio-political and ethical churning of his era. 

Dr Ambedkar wanted to restructure Hindu society and take it from a religion of rules to a religion of principles.

A significant but troubling transformation that colonisation brought about with respect to Hindu Dharma was that it froze the Dharmashastras and local conventions. This freezing was done through the framework of British legal judicial system.

Naturally the Dharmashastras were frozen in such a way that showed them ethically and civilisationally inferior to the British judiciary and yet like vassals of an emperor, kept them as quasi-autonomous judiciary systems mostly facilitating the dominant sections of the society. This also essentialised Hindu society.

The most malignant forms of social stagnations like child marriage and untouchability and restrictions on temple entry were allowed to continue. This in turn made a strong, ethical justification for the Christian Empire.

Hindu Dharma became a religion of rules. If 'Swarajya' meant continuation of this religion of rules as the absolute judicial and legal system, then a Scheduled Community person would naturally support the presence of British in India as the protector of his or her basic human dignity.

Dr Ambedkar became the voice that pointed out this core problem implicit in the freedom movement to the collective conscience of India. In this he urged that Hindus should restructure their religion radically. He stated that Hindu Dharma should move from being a religion of laws to a religion of principles. Then he said that this could be accomplished through the principles of the Upanishads. This is the deep decolonising process.

Bhim Darshan a vital part of Hindutva

Today’s Indian Constitution, the Bhim Smriti, arises from Bhim Darshan – the vision of Dr Ambedkar rooted uncompromisingly in the Upanishadic Brahmatva and its social derivative principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. Being a Smriti it is subject to change but its core principles cannot be violated. Dr. Ambedkar in a way mapped the Smriti-Shruti relation to the Constitutional process. He explained this as the best aspect of the Constitution:

This is the defining aspect of the Smriti. Dr Ambedkar himself had hinted at the fact that the colonial process had frozen this aspect of Smriti and had chosen the customs over the Smritis and made it into laws. Incidentally here Dr Ambedkar returned to Manusmriti itself which he had cremated decades earlier to point out the progressive nature of the Smritis over the accumulation of customs:

This was on 18 February 1949.

Dr Ambedkar observes how the British system stopped the Smriti-churning process that was rooted in Indian tradition. One may agree with certain portions of Smriti and may be opposed to other parts. But the civilisational process has the ability to correct the Smritis. They have the ability to produce Smritis – some of which are far ahead of their time in certain domains. However, the British system stymied this process. This is deep colonisation. Challenging this is deep decolonisation.

When Dr. Ambedkar proudly informed the members of the Constituent Assembly, which included many distinguished legal experts, about the Indian Constitution's uniquely straightforward amendment process, he was, in essence, modernizing and adapting the ancient Indian tradition of Smriti writing, a practice deeply ingrained in their cultural framework.

Dr. Ambedkar, when he found the Hindu Dharmacharyas—the scriptural authoritative pontiffs of the day—unwilling to come out of the British notion of Smritis into which they had wrapped themselves, decided to move to Buddhism.

In his conceptualisation of Kamma and Dhamma, he takes Dhamma to be the ‘moral order of the Universe’. This is very much the Vedic Rta. It is to this Rta that Indian Constitution must approximate itself through the various amendments.

This ‘moral order of the Universe’ is a primal entity. It is not the product of human endeavour. But it is to this Rta or the ‘moral order of the Universe’ that all human endeavours should adhere to. That is why the Preamble of the Constitution uses the term ‘secure’ rather than like the US Constitution which uses the word ‘establish’.

Thus Dr Ambedkar embodied in Indian Constitution, not superficially but deeply, the principle of Hindutva – which is not just replacing a few English terms with Sanskrit, but dissociating from ourselves every negative impact of colonisation that has entered into our being and eating its vitals even as we feel comfortable because of the vested interests we have developed because of the very disease.    

The inclusion of Dr Ambedkar's name in the daily prayers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) long before his widespread near-mandatory political adoption post-1990, points to the fact that the RSS leaders were aware of this deep decolonising mission of Ambedkar.

But there is also a historical legacy of interactions between the Sangathan movement and Dr Ambedkar.

Dr. Ambedkar and Hindu Sangathan – a brief history

The reasons behind the RSS's stance on Dr. Ambedkar are multifaceted and complex. 

One intriguing element is the interaction between Dr Ambedkar and the RSS's founder, Dr Kesav Balram Hedgewar. Hedgewar extended an invitation to Ambedkar to visit an RSS camp, an invitation that the latter Ambedkar accepted.

RSS accounts claim that Dr Ambedkar was favourably impressed by the lack of untouchability within the RSS. This claim, however, is often contested and dismissed as RSS propaganda aimed at appropriating Dr Ambedkar's legacy.

Interestingly, there exists at least one independent source corroborating the visit.

Balasaheb Dagaduji Salunke, an Ambedkarite and member of Parliament, documented this event in his memoirs. He recounts Dr Ambedkar's acknowledgement of the RSS's military discipline. 

It's crucial to remember that this invitation and visit occurred after Dr. Ambedkar's public declaration that he would not die a Hindu. (info courtesy: 'Arise Bharat') This context adds another layer of complexity to the relationship between Dr Ambedkar and the RSS.

Incidentally, Dr Hedgewar also invited Vithalbhai Patel to address the nascent RSS.  Patel, a prominent figure at the time, had championed a bill to legalise inter-caste marriages among Hindus, a move that faced immense opposition from orthodox circles and even stalwarts like Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.

This invitation suggests a deliberate strategy on Hedgewar's part to expose his Swayamsevaks to diverse perspectives and leaders who in those days most radically challenged prevailing social norms and wanted just rebuilding of the Hindu society. This seemingly conscious decision to introduce his followers to such reformative voices provides further insight into the early development of the RSS and its integral relationship with the worldview of Ambedkar.

Within the broader ‘Sangathan’ circle, which encompassed various Hindu nationalist organisations, he was recognised as a crucial voice of conscience. This recognition is evident in Veer Savarkar's congratulatory message in the 1942 souvenir published for Dr Ambedkar's Golden Jubilee. 

Savarkar lauded Ambedkar's Dharmic war, acknowledging his fight for social justice as needed for Hindu survival and as fundamental to human dignity. Furthermore, Savarkar made a profound and prescient statement, asserting that even Dr Ambedkar's ‘occasional anti-Hindu utterances and attitude cannot but lead ultimately to the strengthening of the Hindu Sangathan movement.’

This statement reveals a nuanced understanding of the potential for constructive dissent within the movement and an openness to engaging with critiques of Hinduism to foster its evolution and growth.

Another one important Sangathanist leader who had close relations with Dr Ambedkar and was a sa-hridya in his battle for social justice was Mukund Ramrao Jayakar, a Hindu Mahasabha leader and a champion of the causes of the downtrodden.

The tenure of Golwalkar as RSS leader witnessed a notable evolution in the organisation's stance on Ambedkar and the issue of caste. Though initially inclined towards orthodoxy, Golwalkar's meeting with Ambedkar, seeking his support in lifting the ban on the RSS, should have made the former contemplate.

This period saw Dattopant Thengadi, a prominent RSS figure, join Dr Ambedkar's team and even serve as his election agent in 1952. Thengadi's close interaction with Ambedkar provided valuable insights into his deep and holistic patriotism, influencing Golwalkar's own perspective.

Gradually, Golwalkar shifted from his orthodox position towards a more liberal one. He began advocating for societal restructuring, likening it to "demolishing an old house," a significant departure from his earlier views on reservation and the caste system.

Furthermore, Golwalkar explicitly stated that the varna system was merely a social construct, not an immutable aspect of Hinduism, emphasizing its dispensable nature.

He pointed out that varna system was only a vyavastha not an avastha.  He even orchestrated a gathering of Dharmacharyas at Udupi Mutt, where they unanimously endorsed a statement declaring untouchability as having no basis in Hindu Dharmashastras. The motion itself was moved by an IAS officer belonging to SC community.

This historical event, though boycotted by some prominent traditional heads, including some Shankaracharyas, marked a significant step towards challenging caste-based discrimination within Hinduism.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras stands out as perhaps the most progressive RSS leader after Dr Hedgewar, demonstrating a remarkable openness and enlightenment in his approach to social issues.

Soon after assuming leadership, he delivered a powerful speech at the prestigious Vasant Vyakhyanmala lecture series in Pune, forcefully advocating for the complete eradication of untouchability.

In his address, Deoras invoked Dr Ambedkar's critique of Hinduism, specifically referencing, Riddles in Hinduism, where Ambedkar expressed his disappointment with Hindu society's failure to uphold a social system based on the principles of Mahavakyas. This bold move garnered both praise and criticism, highlighting the internal tensions within the RSS regarding social reform.

Undeterred by the backlash, Deoras remained resolute in his conviction.  Perhaps mindful of the reluctance of some key Dharmacharyas to denounce untouchability, he declared that if untouchability was not considered a sin, then nothing else could be.

This powerful statement implicitly condemned those religious leaders who lacked the moral courage to oppose caste-based discrimination. Deoras' unwavering stance on this issue marked a significant shift within the RSS, signalling a growing commitment to social justice and equality.

Narendra Modi and Dr. Ambedkar

Dr Ambedkar, with his characteristic insight, recognised a principle even more potent than fraternity: Maitri, the sublime ideal of loving-kindness, which blossomed as Metta in the Pali tradition.

The rigid interpretation of Dharmashastras, hybridised with the British legal system, had tragically reduced Hinduism to a mere collection of rules, perpetuating bias and even hatred towards the marginalised.

Dr Ambedkar envisioned a radical transformation of Hinduism, a leap from the stifling confines of being 'a religion of rules' to the liberating embrace of universal principles.

However, he harboured deep reservations about the capacity of Hindu leaders, both traditional and reformist, to undertake such a profound shift.

Sadly, in the years since his passing, Hindu traditionalist leadership, has done little to dispel his doubts.

This is not to say that progress has been absent. There have been significant strides.

Thus the Sangh possesses a unique advantage: its deep roots within the vast cultural and spiritual tapestry of Hinduism allow for an authentic and enduring engagement with Dr Ambedkar's legacy. This connection transcends mere political expediency, fostering a profound and ongoing dialogue.

An illustrative example occurred in Tamil Nadu in 1986, when miscreants vandalised a statue of Dr. Ambedkar in Chennai. In a pre-1990 era, the incident barely registered in the public consciousness. Parties and trade unions that today prominently display Ambedkar's image remained conspicuously silent.

Yet, amidst this apathy, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), the labour wing of the Sangh Parivar, rose to the occasion. They diligently worked to restore the statue, their actions demonstrating a genuine commitment to honouring Ambedkar's legacy.

This act serves as a poignant reminder of the Sangh's enduring engagement with Ambedkar's ideals, one that transcends fleeting political trends and speaks to a deeper resonance with his vision for social justice.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi coming from the Sangh background, embodies a Sangathan movement increasingly attuned to Ambedkar's call for spiritual reformation within Hindu society.

One tangible tribute by Modi to Ambedkar is this is the establishment of the Dr. Ambedkar International Centre, which was positioned as a hub for research, analysis, and policymaking dedicated to socio-economic transformation.

Another form of Ambedkar's impact is evident in the Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (VCK), a Tamil Nadu party known for its strong antipathy towards Hinduism and the BJP, choosing to model its conference venue after the Centre.

The Indian Government released in 2016 an app for UPI-enabled digital financial transactions and named it BHIM (Bharat Interface for Money). Dr Ambedkar's doctoral thesis was 'The Problem of Rupee' submitted at the London School of Economics.

Dr Ambedkar yearned for Hindus to break free from the shackles of social stagnation imposed by a rigid, rule-bound essentialising of their religion – a distorted version that emerged as a hybridised form through colonialism.

By highlighting the concept of Brahmatva – the inherent divinity within all beings – as the bedrock of democracy, Dr Ambedkar implicitly acknowledged a more profound and authentic understanding of true Sanatana Dharma. He envisioned a Dharma rooted in the principles of equality, compassion, and universal interconnectedness.

In this sense, Dr Ambedkar emerges as a true Sanatana Dharmic seer, surpassing even many Dharmacharyas who cling to a rigid, rule-based interpretation of the tradition. He recognized that the essence of Sanatana Dharma lies not in preserving outdated social structures, but in embracing the timeless principles that foster spiritual growth, freedom, social justice and societal harmony within the ever-evolving landscape of modernity.