by Sanjana K.S and Aneri Vora
Introduction
A couple of years ago, in the month of April 2018, a statue of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, one of the founding fathers of India’s constitutional democracy, was vandalised in a village, Badaun, in Uttar Pradesh. The statue was reinstated the following week and painted in saffron. This was unusual, as Ambedkar is usually associated with the colour blue or sometimes black. After public outrage, a Bahujan Samajwadi Party worker repainted it blue. The makeover of Ambedkar from blue to saffron to blue is representative of the tussle over his iconography. Dr B. R. Ambedkar, in recent months, has saturated the Indian political imagination in the most interesting ways, pulling him in varied directions—left, right, and centre. Babasaheb’s ideas and thoughts continue to be revisited as different political groups claim him for their own ideological purposes. While one hails him as the messiah of Dalits and the father of the Indian Constitution, the other positions him as a faithful patriot to the nation. Ambedkar today stands between blue and saffron.
(Image Source: OnManorama, 2018)
The resilience of his legacy is exemplified in his reimagining as a leader speaking from and to the margins, alone as a universal icon—familiar, yet a little too enigmatic to be contained within the complex identitarian categories of Indian politics. His greatest offering to the Indian nation—the Constitution—has stood the test of time and continues to evolve as a document. In more recent times, the political symbolism of the Indian Constitution, used to pose an effective counter-narrative to the Hindu right-wing forces, has sacredly tethered the unbridled potential of an ‘idea of India’ with a collective political action that revitalises newer formations of ‘the people’. Ironically enough, in times of constant misuse and abuse of the Constitution, instead of burning it—as Ambedkar would have had it—the document has garnered a mystical power of its own. Preamble reading and public demonstrations of the Constitution have assumed a new performative meaning that ritualises the spirit of solidarity among sections of the population, bringing them together to achieve a common good. The Constitution has become, as Ambedkar believed, ‘a vehicle of life’ and a ‘spirit’ of this age. However, as this decade has witnessed the systematic decimation of the Nehruvian state and its ideological sway, it is imperative to ask: How did we get here? How did one of the largest democracies in the world slip into the abyss of majoritarianism? Were there predispositions for such authoritarian tendencies present since the inception of India’s democracy?
Growing Hindu majoritarian sentiments are a major blow to caste discourse, which is deliberately erased to propagate the political rhetoric of ‘Hindu unity’. Moreover, caste-based regional parties are struggling to counter the offensive march of the Bharatiya Janata Party—a party committed to the Hindutva ideology that refurbishes caste hierarchies, yet also claims to have done the most for the upliftment of Dalits and worships Ambedkar.
The Hindu right-wing does not merely aim to win elections; rather, it seeks to transform Indian society and culture into its own vision of a nation. The current life of Indian democracy is marked by a resurgence of communal registers of politics, indicating a disenchantment with secularism. Questions of caste and reform have either been swept under the carpet in the name of Hindu unity or face attacks on welfare politics itself. The fate of democracy is such that the government skirts around any deliberation on deepening socio-economic inequalities and has coercively crushed any democratic movements by marginalised groups. It is also true, however, that the latter have also failed to sustain inter-group solidarity to pose an effective counter-movement to the Hindu right. Thus, in the face of already decaying institutions and the declining health of the body politic, how do we reimagine and recalibrate the political imagination of the nation?
In a desperate search for political alternatives and a sustainable way out of the current political conundrum, this paper turns to Ambedkar’s insightful understanding of Indian society and politics. This paper recalls Ambedkar’s warning at the altar of India’s independence for the purpose of addressing the contradictions of democracy today:
“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality, and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value… How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.” – (Dr B.R Ambedkar, Constitution Assembly, 26th January, 1950)
This paper aims to provide an Ambedkarite remedy to the contradictions of Indian democracy in three interrelated measures: (i) the intricate relationship between the social and political, (ii) the reconceptualisation of democracy as ‘associated living’ as opposed to its conception as the rule of the majority, and (iii) communal questions and the ‘de-binarising’ the Hindu-Muslim debate. The paper puts forth two preliminary arguments for discussion. First, the surge of the Hindu right is not a ‘break’ from liberal democracy as usual; rather, it is only an aggressive byproduct of a troubled relationship between the social and political. Second, the Hindu-Muslim ordering of Indian secularism since the Partition and the contemporary hardening of the binaries obfuscates the socio-political realities of Indian society and politics. This paper problematises the stand of both liberal and right-wing political imaginations of Indian history as that of religious strife and contention. It revisits Ambedkar’s prominent works, particularly Annihilation of Caste, Pakistan or the Partition of India, and some of his other works and speeches.
Lastly, the urgency of writing this paper stems from a gnawing awareness of the appropriation of Ambedkar by the Hindu right in repurposing his anti-caste vision, devoid of its radical content, to articulate their Hindutva ideology. This essay comes as a wake-up call to the progressive camps regarding the Right’s absorption of Ambedkar into their ‘Hindu pantheon’, albeit it seems contradictory given the icon’s popular reputation as a critic of the Brahmanical order. However, one can no longer afford to be deluded by the seductive appeals of the Right, or we might not stand a chance to retain Ambedkar’s quintessential vision for action. This paper is divided into two parts: the first part by Aneri Vora is titled “Interweaving the Social and the Political: Ambedkar’s Compelling Vision for Socio-Political Emancipation.” The second essay by Sanjana, titled “Revisiting Ambedkar in the Times of Crisis: Rescuing Indian Democracy from the Hindu Right,” highlights Ambedkar’s views on the communal question and hinges the Hindu-Muslim relationship on caste. It argues that the Hindutva movement—and the counter to it—has phased out caste concerns. This paper makes a case for caste-inclusive transformative politics through an earnest acknowledgment of intersectionalities while forming solidarities. This will facilitate common goals and build trust, thereby creating spaces for mutuality and alliances in a deeply fractured society.
This two-part essay is a poignant ode to the everyday struggles of Dalits, Muslims, and women who have remained at the margins of democratic discourse that has been occupied by a handful of political elites, then and now.
I
The Contradictions between the Social and the Political: Locating Ambedkar between Tradition and Modernity
An important factor behind the rise and popularity of right-wing politics in India is its recognition of the importance that culture, folk idioms, and everyday practices—including moral and ethical codes of conduct based on them—hold in the self-understanding and perceptions of the electorate (Gudavarthy, 2023). The BJP draws its ideological moorings and narrative power from its overarching goal of consolidating and strengthening Hindu religion and culture, which would form the basis of the Indian nation-state. This is foremost a social project, as cultivating a Hindutva identity involves homogenising and foregrounding certain Hindu rituals and socio-cultural practices (viz. the BJP’s temple politics, emphasis on a glorious Hindu past and a golden age of Hindu history, valorising indigenous i.e. Hindu traditions and knowledge, tapping into popular sentiments of ‘pseudo-secularism’ and the ‘Muslim threat’, among others).
The BJP and its allied organisations thus prioritise the social over the political, where the state and its agencies are subservient to the larger ideological goal of securing an ethno-religiously homogeneous Hindu nation and society. The state, then, is merely a means to facilitate the societal and cultural transformation required by the Hindutva project. In line with this, the right wing has had a long history of grassroots organising and mobilisation, including civil society and non-governmental organisations that spread its message of unity (cultural, religious, and political), pride, martial discipline, and a strong sense of belonging (Andersen and Damle, 2019). This emphasis on the social over the political is unlike that of the centrist and left parties, whose orientation and leadership in recent decades have largely been top-down and elitist, which has been an important factor in their inability to capture political imagination or offer a viable political alternative.
This divide between the social and the political is also evident among the leaders of post-independent India, where leaders of the Left and Congress focused their energies on the state and its laws and institutions as the main foci of social change. Thus, not only was Nehru preoccupied with the question of how to bridge the gap between his elite social location and the lifeworld of the masses, his faith in science, technology and modernisation also led him to believe that caste, religion, and gender-based issues would be resolved through top-down modernisation and state-led policies (Parekh, 1991; Bilgrami, 1998). Similarly, the Left’s economic determinism, discomfort with socio-cultural and religious questions, and the elite locations of many of their top leaders led to a neglect of the social.
Apart from the Hindutva movement, whose emphasis on culture and tradition was largely exclusionary and status quoist, Gandhi was among the few who recognised the importance of speaking in the popular idiom and crafting a politics that draws from cultural and folk elements, using the same for his emancipatory project. However, his politico-economic programme of a polity based on autonomous villages with local self-government, economic self-sufficiency, and opposition to large-scale industrialisation was largely seen to be unviable and impractical in a world where growth and development had become synonymous with modernisation and industrialisation. While Gandhi’s programme was indeed a radical philosophical critique and rejection of the pathologies of Western civilisation, Indian leaders had much more immediate and practical concerns such as poverty alleviation, provision of basic social services such as food, housing, education and healthcare, and the development of agriculture and industry to ensure self-sufficiency in food and industrial production, among other things. Not only was economic growth and development important to achieve these aims, India also had to take its place in a world where modernity and industrialisation had become a way of life and the norm of governance, leading to a reorganisation of the international economy and the international politics of aid—especially at a time when India had been ravaged by systematic loot, deindustrialisation, pauperisation, and impoverishment due to colonial misgovernance and policies.
Gandhi’s socio-cultural project, on the other hand, while drawing on a capacious and creative reinterpretation of Hinduism and ethical self-transformation through Swaraj, Ahimsa and self-suffering, also emphasised the importance of communal harmony and religious tolerance as deeply embedded in the socio-historical fabric of India. Despite this, his vision did not outline a programme for structural criticism and change, where a radical and revolutionary praxis could attack and alter existing inequalities based on caste, gender, religion, region, and sexuality. Gandhi’s ambiguity regarding the Chaturvarna system has led to fierce debates among scholars (Dalton, 1995; Pantham, 1983; & Biswas, 2018), and his emphasis on ‘virtuous womanhood’ (Binu, 2023) shows how his vision retained elements of conservatism, falling short of radical socio-political transformation.
The discussion so far indicates a fundamental tension between programmes that draw from popular morality and cultural idioms on the one hand, and those advocating for a radical praxis for the liberation of the vulnerable and historically underrepresented groups on the other. While the former are able to better connect with the masses, they often fall prey to varying degrees of conservatism; while the latter, although conducive to modernity with an emphasis on equality and dignity for all, envisage a top-down process of change and transformation, where the masses obediently follow in the footsteps of the enlightened elite. In this context, Dr Ambedkar’s socio-political philosophy emerges as an attractive alternative.
A firm believer in the values underlying modernity and the Enlightenment, Ambedkar placed a premium on the latter’s motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. In his lifelong crusade against the rigidly hierarchical caste system and fierce criticism of ubiquitous caste-based discrimination, Ambedkar argued for the importance of cultivating the ability to think rationally and critically for oneself. Having experienced caste-based discrimination himself, Ambedkar recognised the necessity of overthrowing exploitative social structures and radically reinventing practices, customs and ways of living that oppressed individuals and groups based on ascriptive identity markers like caste, gender, religion and class. Recognising how caste-based hierarchies and practices of untouchability (among other oppressive structures and practices) gain legitimacy and permanence in the name of religious dictates and cultural pride deriving from tradition—such as sacred religious books and scriptures—Ambedkar presciently forewarned us of the dangers of blind obedience and deference to authority. For caste Hindus, rational and critical thinking would lead to a recognition not simply of the futility and irrationality of the caste system, but also of the grave moral injustice and ethical injury that the caste system represents. The existence of caste not only exposes as farcical the claims to superiority and glory of Indian civilisation and tradition but also calls for an absolute and radical ‘reconstruction’ of Hinduism where the caste system is destroyed in its entirety. Ambedkar became increasingly doubtful of the possibility of dislodging the Chaturvarna system as one of the central tenets of Hinduism, eventually converting to Buddhism on 14th October 1956.
The lower castes and Dalits, on the other hand, needed to recognise their self-worth, self-respect and dignity, boldly raise their voices against caste-based discrimination and unite in their struggle in demanding recognition of their personhood, equal human rights and opportunities, equitable material redistribution, and redressal of the sub-human treatment meted out to them for centuries. The highly popular slogan ‘Educate, Agitate and Organise’ embodies the importance Ambedkar placed on Western education and on cultivating a rational, modern outlook for the Dalits to reclaim their rightful place in Indian society and the dynamic, modern world beyond. As a national icon, Ambedkar is often represented in his trademark three-piece blue suit, armed with a book in hand. In the commonly practised politics of symbolic representation, images of iconic national leaders—through their content, source and mode of representation—come to represent competing ideas of the nation, national belonging and community, signify attempts at appropriation, and serve as important tools in struggles for meaning-making and power. In this context, Ambedkar’s representation in a blue suit, book in hand, which has been circulated, used and popularised by the Dalit community, serves as a “symbol of aspiration and striving” for the community (Kumar, 2017), based on a modern sensibility.
Given his emphasis on reason, rights, individual dignity, self-determination and autonomy, Ambedkar recognised the importance of formal law and constitutional safeguards in institutionalising and realising these normative ethical ideals in reality. Apart from his seminal contributions as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the first Law Minister of the country, Ambedkar was also a proponent of parliamentary democracy, contesting a national election and a by-election in 1952 and 1954 respectively, as a candidate from the Scheduled Caste Federation (a political party he founded). However, despite being a national leader, a high-ranking minister and a revered figure of socio-political emancipation, Ambedkar was never able to win an election. Thus, despite attaining high-ranking political positions and stature, Ambedkar was unable to secure broad social support for his project of a systematic and structural critique of caste Hindu society and the establishment of an open, casteless society in its wake. Similarly, despite attaining multiple higher education degrees from elite institutions abroad, Ambedkar had trouble finding housing upon his return to India.
This contradiction between the social and the political, between cultural norms and formal institutions, was a contradiction that Ambedkar had to grapple with throughout his life. Perhaps this was also the reason why Ambedkar was acutely aware that political change cannot occur without social change, and that social reform was perhaps more, if not as, important as political reform. His awareness of the importance of addressing cultural and religious practices, rituals and traditions is perhaps nowhere more evident than in his book The Annihilation of Caste. Originally meant as a speech to be delivered at the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal (a radical wing of the Arya Samaj), Ambedkar was eventually forced to self-publish 1,500 copies of this speech.
Notwithstanding the iconic status it has since attained, the most important aspects of the speech for our purposes are Ambedkar’s recognition of how the social realm has been ignored in favour of the political, and his emphasis on the indispensability of radical social and religious change, without which deep-rooted emancipatory possibilities cannot be realised. The speech initially begins with a note on the battle between the social and political organisations of the Indian National Congress, which, as Ambedkar notes, the social wing decisively lost. Ambedkar argues that the social wing lost because they mainly focused on reforms within the high-caste Hindu family, rather than advocating for the abolition of the caste system itself. To quote Ambedkar:
“It also helps us to understand how limited was the victory which the ‘political reform party’ obtained over the ‘social reform party’… that political reform cannot with impunity take precedence over social reform in the sense of the reconstruction of society, is a thesis which I am sure cannot be controverted” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 2.16).
Ambedkar notes further:
“To sum up, let political reformers turn in any direction they like, they will find that in the making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of the prevailing social order” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 2.16).
This keen awareness of the intricate relationship between the social and the political, and their repercussions in democratic life, makes Ambedkar truly unique. The caste question not only found considerable space in his political thought, but it was also complemented with a political programme.
Interweaving the Social and the Political: Ambedkar’s Compelling Vision for Socio-political Emancipation
Contesting the materialism and class primacy of Marxists and socialists, Ambedkar argues that it is religion that touches the human soul most deeply and motivates human behaviour (Ambedkar 1936). In a caste-riddled society like ours, a proletarian revolution will not abolish the caste system. Criticizing the views of those who argue that caste allows for economic efficiency or racial purity, Ambedkar notes that caste has only served to weaken and divide Hindu society. In fact, he argues that “Hindu society is a myth” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 6.2), consisting “only (of) a collection of castes” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 6.2). Outlining his own conception of an ideal society, he argues that mere similarity of customs, habits, beliefs and thoughts do not constitute a society. Static and closed societies where groups simply copy each other cannot be a nation/society in the true sense. As Ambedkar notes,“Men constitute a society when they possess things in common,” which is different from “having things in common” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 6.6). The former, Ambedkar’s desired society, is a dynamic and open society where men come to possess things in common through active and constant communication. Men must “share and participate in a common activity, so that the same emotions are aroused in him that animate others” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 6.7). This, Ambedkar refers to as the “associational mode of living”, where communities are marked by a spirit of solidarity and belonging that derives from regarding every member as an equal and as partners in a shared destiny. “Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity, so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure, is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 6.7). While other communities such as the Sikhs, Muslims and Christians share such associational modes of living, the caste system prevents Hindus from doing so. The point here is not that each religious or ethnic group should have their own modes of associational living; Ambedkar rather wants to recover the impulse towards acknowledging the radical equality inherent in each individual that these religious groups recognise, which in turn serves as the glue that binds society together in a spirit of brotherhood.
For Ambedkar, there is a close connection between the society and the nation, and he often uses them synonymously. Both require an associated mode of living, based on a sense of belonging cultivated on values of equality, brotherhood and love, which a stratified caste-based society is unable to foster. Ambedkar’s conceptions of nation and society are then tied to his conception of the polity, which is far deeper than an emphasis on parliamentary democracy and human rights. It consists of what Scott Stroud has described as a pragmatic conception of democracy (Stroud, 2023a). This is a dynamic and vibrant conception of democracy where each of us puts forth our views and defends our conceptions of the good, while also remaining open to those we disagree with. Liberty, equality and fraternity for Ambedkar served as semi-transcendent ideals (Stroud, 2023b) that are neither metaphysical commands nor timeless natural rules, nor are they entirely relative, arising wholly from our community and social practices—lying somewhere in between instead. Each of these values represents separate and sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting ideals that we fine-tune and try to bring into balance through a community based on equality and open communication with each other.
Such a society “should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts… There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 14.2).
As we shall see in the second part of this article, the right wing has often used Ambedkar’s arguments on the communal question and his views on the caste system as an impediment to socio-political unity, to appropriate his thought. In arguing for the abolition of the caste system, Ambedkar often emphasised how the fragmentation and division of Hindu society along caste lines prevented a consolidated Hindu society and nation from emerging. Savarkar’s anti-caste crusade and Ambedkar’s appreciation of the former have also been used to appropriate Ambedkar. However, not only did Savarkar, as president of the Hindu Mahasabha, ensure that his anti-caste activism remained strictly separate from the Mahasabha, Ambedkar’s criticism of Savarkar for his advocacy of retaining a modified Chaturvarna system is also conveniently ignored (Islam, 2023). Ambedkar was also against the creation of a nation-state based on religious and cultural majoritarianism, advocating instead for a polity grounded in an open, dynamic and participatory society.
Moreover, in presenting him as an advocate of a homogeneous majoritarian ethno-cultural conception of nationalism, they inevitably erase the fundamental tensions between Ambedkar and the then Hindu right wing. This tension is manifest in the Jat-Pat Todak Samaj’s revocation of the invitation it had extended to Ambedkar since the latter’s speech “called for a complete annihilation of Hindu religion, doubted the morality of the sacred book of the Hindus as well as hinted at Ambedkar’s intention to leave the Hindu fold” (Gautam, 2022). After Ambedkar’s refusal to even “alter a comma” (Gautam, 2022), the Mandal withdrew its invitation.
Ambedkar’s scathing critique of Brahminical Hinduism has always been a point of tension between him and the right, which the latter refuses to acknowledge. After systematically decimating all arguments that advocate for a continued or reformed existence of the Chaturvarna, Ambedkar locates its source in the fact that caste is regarded as a sacred tenet among Hindus, which he locates in the Shastras. To quote Ambedkar, apart from inter-dining and inter-marriage, “The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the shastras” (Ambedkar 1936, sec.20.9). Ambedkar also criticised the institution of priesthood, calling for a radical change in the way priesthood as a profession is organised, making it democratic and meritocratic. Ultimately, it is the Brahmins who must give up their caste privileges, given that they are the vanguards of political and economic reform. However, Ambedkar does not see either the secular or the religious Brahmin leading a movement that destroys their power and privilege.
Ambedkar ultimately came to the realisation that the destruction of the caste system required stepping outside the Hindu fold and converting to Buddhism, a decision he made after carefully scrutinising other religious teachings for more than a decade. Contrary to the right wing’s assertion that Ambedkar chose Buddhism due to its affinity to Hinduism, Ambedkar recognised instead the importance of speaking to the people in their language, of framing his emancipatory project in terms they could comprehend and connect with. Buddhism, with its origins and initial growth in the Indian subcontinent, was suited to do so. More importantly, as Christopher Queen has noted, Ambedkar saw Buddhism as the religion that “met his complex requirements of reason, morality and justice” (Roychowdhury, 2017). He interpreted Buddhism as meeting “one of the most basic requirements of modernity – the exercise of individual choice, based on reason and historical consciousness” (Roychowdhury, 2017).
Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism highlights his awareness of the power of religion in defining our worldviews and self-conceptions, and therefore the importance of tapping into the social. While being a firm believer in the values underlying the Enlightenment and modernity, Ambedkar was an equally firm critic of British colonialism and imperialism, while also recognising the importance of ensuring that his discourse resonates with the everyday understanding of the masses. His Buddha and His Dhamma, argue Rathore and Verma (Ambedkar 2012), represents an ingenious attempt to develop a political theology that serves as a liberatory philosophy and practice for oppressed groups, grounded in ethics and morality based on universal respect, equality and compassion. They quote Bellwinkel and Schempp (2004), who argue, “Dr Ambedkar was, through the example of Hinduism and the caste system, painfully aware of the entanglement of religion and society; therefore, he intended to reconstruct Buddhism not only as a religion for the untouchables but as a humanist and social religion, which combined scientific understanding with universal truth” (Bellwinkel and Schempp, 2004, in Rathore and Verma, 2012, p. 15). Apart from reinterpreting Liberty, Equality and Fraternity through a Buddhist lens, The Buddha and His Dhamma also includes a host of ethico-political concepts that serve as the basis for a community based on radical equality, freedom and solidarity. Among other virtues such as sila, which means fear of doing wrong, khanti, which is forbearance, and karuna, which implies “loving kindness to human beings”, Ambedkar also includes maitri, which signifies “extending fellow feeling to all beings, not only to one who is a friend, but also to one who is a foe; not only to man, but to all living beings” (Ambedkar 2012, p. 78). Scholars such as Chandan Gowda and Aishwary Kumar have shown how the ideal of maitri exceeds current meanings of friendship, love, compassion and belonging. As Kumar notes, a defining feature of maitri is refusing the “foundational distinction between friend and foe” (Kumar 2013). It alludes neither to friendship nor fraternity but to “adoration, an immeasurable gift of belief and compassion across the abyss of difference” that we extend even to our enemies (Kumar 2013).
Chandan Gowda (2023) notes how maitri can serve as a powerful basis for social and political community, as an unconditional extension of mutual respect, acknowledgement and a sense of camaraderie to all without fail. This extension of fellow-feeling to all sentient beings—be it the king or the bandit, the human or the animal—is a logical extension of Ambedkar’s attempt to ground democracy and society on the basis of a radical conception of equality, which recognises the unconditional value and dignity of life itself. This then ties into Ambedkar’s emphasis on maitri as a life-giving force in contrast to modern conceptions of sovereignty, which regard the modern state’s most important feature as its power to punish, its monopoly on legitimate force and violence, and to take human life.
Quoting Ambedkar, Gowda (2023) notes: “Could anything other than maitri, he (Ambedkar) asks, ‘give to all living beings the same happiness which one seeks for one’s own self, to keep the mind impartial, open to all, with affection for everyone and hatred for none?’” As Gowda (2023) further points out, in his posthumous work Riddles of Hinduism, Ambedkar comes to ground the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Buddhist religion, and liberty and equality were sustained not by law but by fellow-feeling. This fellow-feeling was now represented not by fraternity but by maitri. “Departing from a human-centred idea of community, maitri gestures to the sentient world at large and fosters an expansive political consciousness where nation, religion, race, caste, gender and language, among other sources of social identity, do not come in the way of experiencing community life freely and vastly. The male-centred image of brotherhood implied by fraternity also makes way for a wider sense of solidarity encompassing human as well as non-human life” (Gowda 2023).
Ambedkar’s larger politico-theological project is summed up in the following quote: “Positively, my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha… Law is secular, which anybody may break, while fraternity or religion is sacred, which everybody must respect.” (Ambedkar, 1954, as quoted by Gowda, 2023).
As Ambedkar emphasised in his idea of associational living, a stratified and static society, where culture and traditions are simply diffused from one group to another, cannot be said to constitute a nation or a community. This rigidity and immobility can only be maintained through force and violence, or through a dogmatic belief in religious laws, as the caste Hindu society shows. Ambedkar’s democratic conception of society and state – which emphasises the importance of pursuing an activity in common, where every individual has the right to participate and constitute this ‘common’ – is only possible when citizens cultivate the ethic of maitri, of mutual respect and adoration across all arbitrary divisions.
Not only does Ambedkar often use ‘nation’ and ‘society’ interchangeably, he also posits an inextricable link between democracy and society by arguing that they be grounded in the twin concepts of associated living and maitri. Maitri, with its universal orientation, enables human loyalty and affiliation to extend not just to one’s own group or nation but to the world at large. At the same time, in grounding the concept in his reformulated Buddhist ethics, Ambedkar also urges us to practise maitri both locally and nationally. This, combined with a vision of a dynamic, open and mobile society whose members are in constant conversation with each other, provides resources to develop thicker, local conceptions of the community and polity based on the indigenously reinterpreted principles of liberty, equality and fraternity rooted in the norms and ethics of the Indian masses.
Thus, Ambedkar’s emphasis on the mutual constitution of the social and political, and his politico-theological project of developing an emancipatory conception of the polity and society derived from the everyday ethical understandings of the Indian people, serve as an extremely important alternative to hegemonic conceptions of community, belonging and politics today.
Tapping into the long-neglected aspect of transforming society by speaking to the people in their own language, the right has managed to drum up popular support for its conservative and exclusionary idea of the nation, as we will see in the second part. In this context, Ambedkar’s emancipatory conceptions of the nation and the community, focusing on social change while resonating with cultural idioms, require the urgent attention of progressive camps today.
Although an incisive critic of the leftists, liberals and the socialists for their hypocrisy in espousing a radical praxis while maintaining the status quo (as their organisations were dominated by caste Hindu elites), Ambedkar lived by his principle of engaging in conversation and debate to create an emancipatory society in common. The Annihilation of Caste was meant primarily for progressive, upper-caste Hindus to recognise how deep the rot of casteism ran within Indian society. Questioning and criticising the left for its belief that social change would be led mainly by workers defending their class interests, Ambedkar said: “However, what I would like to ask the socialists is this: Can you have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the social order?” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 3.8) “Will the proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution? What will move men to such an action? It seems to me that, other things being equal, the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling that other men with whom he is acting are actuated by feelings of equality and fraternity and – above all – of justice… The assurance (of change) must be the assurance proceeding from a much deeper foundation — namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal equality and fraternity” (Ambedkar 1936, sec. 3.10, 3.11). It is time to bring Ambedkar’s social and political vision from the margins to the center.
Bibliography:
Ambedkar, B. R. (2014). Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition. Verso Books. (Original work published 1936)
Ambedkar, B. R. (with Rathore, A. S., & Verma, A.) (2012). B. R. Ambedkar: The Buddha and His Dhamma: A Critical Edition. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1956)
Andersen, W., & Damle, S. (2019). The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism. Penguin Random House India.
Binu, D. (2022). Gandhi: A Flawed Feminist? The Telegraph Online. https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/mahatma-gandhi-a-flawed-feminist-confined-by-patriarchy-and-the-purdah-system/cid/1974869#goog_rewarded
Bilgrami, A. (1998). Nehruvian Modernity and its Contradictions. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(12), pp. 2168-2172.
Biswas, S. (2018).Gandhi’s Approach to Caste and Untouchability : A Reappraisal. Social Scientist, 46(9-10), pp. 71-90.
Dalton, D. (1995). Mahatma Gandhi: Non Violent Power in Action. Columbia University Press.
Gautam, P. (2022). Why Ambedkar Converted to Buddhism. Outlook Magazine. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/why-ambedkar-converted-to-buddhism-news-191616
Gowda, C. (2023). Ambedkar’s Ideal of Maitri. The Outlook Magazine. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/ambedkar-s-ideal-of-maitri-magazine-309546
Gudavarthy, A. (2023). Politics, Ethics and Emotions in ‘New India.’ Routledge.
Islam, S. (2022). Truth about Savarkar and Caste. Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/truth-about-savarkar-and-caste-7832134/
Kumar, S. (2017). Did Ambedkar want Dalits to wear three-piece suits? A clothing label raises some sartorial questions. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/magazine/840199/did-ambedkar-want-dalits-to-wear-three-piece-suits-a-clothing-label-raises-some-sartorial-questions
Pantham, T. (1983). Thinking with Mahatma Gandhi: Beyond Liberal Democracy. Political Theory, 11(2), pp. 165-188.
Parekh, B. (1991). Nehru and the National Philosophy of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 26(1/2), pp.35-48.
Roychowdhury, A. (2017). Three reasons why Ambedkar embraced Buddhism. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/research/buddha-purnima-special-three-reasons-why-ambedkar-embraced-buddhism-4649990/
Stroud, S. (2023a). The Evolution of Pragmatism In India: Ambedkar, Dewey and the Rhetoric of Reconstruction. The University of Chicago Press.
Stroud, S (2023b). Bhimrao Ambedkar as Theorist of Democracy. The Loop: European Consortium of Political Research’s Political Science Blog. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/bhimrao-ambedkar-as-theorist-of-democracy/
Aneri Vora is a PhD scholar at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
TheDaak review 
Leave a comment