In the current modern Indian political process, Ambedkarism in theory is acceptable, but in practice, it is problematic. So far, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has been appropriated by many, from Caste Hindus to OBCs and Dalits, each as per their own convenience. This phenomenon is not limited to Ambedkar alone. We see it in how the ultimate atheist and communist revolutionary, Bhagat Singh, is being used by forces diametrically opposed to his ideology. Today, one can find a range of past leaders, from radical revolutionaries to ultra-fundamentalists, grouped onto a single poster. They are presented as options before the citizens (read voters) who can then choose, based on their own ideological convenience.
The history many of us were taught presented Ambedkar as the person who opposed Mahatma Gandhi in the freedom movement. Many held the belief that Ambedkar was not competent enough to question Gandhi's strategies in the Indian freedom movement. However, as one begins to realize the iron grip of caste in the Indian society, that perspective shifts. One sees the 'controlled and regulated' steps in the direction of social justice taken by the Indian National Congress, as against Ambedkar's demand for open and assertive actions to achieve social justice at par with political justice.
Finally, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself realizes the mammoth power of these regressive forces, which became most evident in the free India's Parliament when the Hindu Code Bill of 1951 failed. The bill was essentially against patriarchy, which sought to secure equal property rights to women in ancestorial property. Despite being the Law Minister and a prominent educationist, economist, social scientist, and the ultimate constitutionalist, Ambedkar could not convince the conservative Hindu Forces including Dr. Rajendra Prasad. This was felt and construed as an attack on Hinduism itself, as if a challenge against their essential religious practice, which even resonates today.
The years in Ambedkar's life after his resignation, until his death, roughly a five year period, were spent on a quest for answers. Though he had burned the Manusmriti as early as 1927, stating it as tool for oppression and untouchability, he realized that the caste system ingrained in Indian society was nearly unshakable. He was in search of a new religion. In his mind, he weighed the options of Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism, before finally opting for Buddhism. Even in within which, he carved out a specific path calling it 'Navayana'. The underlying philosophy called for work towards the Nirvana of the oppressed society as a whole, rather than an individual's goal for salvation. The purpose of this adoption and adaptation of Buddhism as a tool for social justice, or to create justice based society, still remain unachieved.
The best way to avoid following someone's teachings is to idolise them. By elevating a person to a godly status, you make them an object to be worshipped rather than a figure whose principles may be practiced. The present Indian political history demonstrates Ambedkar's fate to be the same. As stated at the beginning, Ambedkar today is appropriated by many. Amongst all, the most vibrant and meaningful appropriation is seen in the 'Ambedkar Study Centres' in some of the National Law Schools and private colleges. In these academic ecosystems, dissent is taught only as a theory, and its practice in any form is opposed and suppressed brutally by college authorities. When students are not allowed to unionise and protest, their option now is to form 'Ambedkar Study Centres ' to express their collective opinion. In the present day India, the word 'Ambedkar' has almost become synonymous with dissent. Though the term 'dissent' is treated as a safety valve of democracy, it remains good only for intellectual discourse, and not for action. Factually, pretentious democrats dislike the practice of dissent. Although in speeches dissent is highlighted as a virtue and a key component of democracy, many in the judiciary and the executive equally repel its practice. Dissenting lawyers, students, and politicians are all treated as roadblocks to the development of institutions and the country as a whole. A lawyer with an element of dissent is never considered for Judgeship, or a judge for elevation. Even a dissenting judge is often disliked by senior judges on the bench. This author had the fortune of meeting Justice Krishna Iyer once, who remarked that he was not made party to many Constitution Benches because he was considered a person with independent views.
Ambedkar had a miserable professional life when he joined the Mumbai Bar. Apart from the untouchability practiced on him, what hurt him professionally was the cold attitude of judges, solicitor firms, and even clients. They all felt that a Dalit, though more qualified than many at the Bar at that point in time, was not a person with the social status to deliver justice. To them, he was someone less favoured by the judges of the colonial judiciary. Even today, after hundred years, the social status of a Dalit lawyer is not much different. A Dalit lawyer, from a village, who studied in a vernacular medium, living in poverty, with no relatives as judges or lawyers much less a small time government officer, finds it tough to survive in an Anglicised court system. They must compete with young lawyers who are products of the best law schools, some of them, even with credit of having appeared before Supreme Court judges in moot court competitions. The scale of social justice remains very unbalanced, adding many still born Ambedkar's in our country.
The entirety of Ambedkar's battle was largely on a single agenda, caste. We have judgments written for the need of a casteless society, but unfortunately, 99% of the proponents or advocates of such a society never bothered to practice it in own lives.
Recently, the Supreme Court passed a judgment based on the Scheduled Caste Order, stating that conversion from Hinduism to Christianity results in the loss of one's caste. While the judgment is correct as per the constitutional order, a relevant practical question is still unanswered: Will a person lose the caste status in the eyes of society? In reality, no matter how many times a person changes their religion, the caste shall follow. Sikhism arrived with the idea of reform and social revolution, yet we now have separate Gurdwaras for Dalit Sikhs. Similarly, Dalits who converted to Christianity have separate churches. Radical social changes are not promoted in Indian society; uncomfortable questions are always preferred to be left unanswered. We relish in cosmetic changes and tokenistic representations of Dalits, and not those moves that truly shake the superstructure of the status quo.
Author is a senior Advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.