The Conundrum

Guest Article

An Uneasy Tension.

A significant section of the Sangh Parivar has long held a deep respect and admiration for B.R. Ambedkar. This sentiment is not a post-2014 or post-Modi development but has been evident for over three decades. In bookstores owned by the Sangh or its affiliated organizations and individuals, one can often find multiple works authored by Ambedkar. In some cases, his books outnumber those of Veer Savarkar, reflecting the esteem in which he is held.

The admiration for Ambedkar within the Sangh is rooted in more than just his critiques of Islam, as expressed in his book on Pakistan, or his opposition to Article 370. These aspects, while significant, are secondary. The primary reason for this regard is Ambedkar’s stance on caste and his reformist zeal, which aligns closely with the perspectives of the RSS, Savarkar, and Ambedkar himself. This shared commitment to social reform and the eradication of caste inequalities has been a point of convergence.

An illustrative example of this connection is the response to Arun Shourie’s controversial book, Worshipping False Gods, which criticized Ambedkar. In its aftermath, Dattopant Thengadi, a prominent RSS leader, authored Ambedkar aur Samajik Kranti ki Yatra (“Ambedkar and the Journey of Social Revolution”), highlighting Ambedkar’s contributions to social justice. Thengadi’s association with Ambedkar was not merely rhetorical; he had served as the election agent for Ambedkar and later became the General Secretary of Ambedkar’s Scheduled Caste Federation.

This historical context is essential when examining contemporary perceptions of Ambedkar within BJP and Sangh circles. Some online supporters of the BJP argue that the party’s deification of Ambedkar is purely a political strategy aimed at securing Scheduled Caste (SC) votes. While political considerations undeniably influence BJP’s actions, such as the establishment of the Panchatirtha (memorials at Ambedkar’s birthplace in Mhow, his education site in London, Deeksha-Bhoomi in Nagpur, Mahaparinirvan-Bhoomi in Delhi, and Chaitya Bhoomi in Mumbai) and the strengthening of the SC/ST Act, these initiatives also reflect a genuine reverence for Ambedkar’s legacy.

That said, the Sangh Parivar is not monolithic. Like any large and diverse organization, there are dissenting voices. Similarly, the broader Hindutva support base of the BJP and Sangh Parivar is divided on this matter. While a majority align with the reverence for Ambedkar (genuine or otherwise), others remain critical or skeptical.

Ambedkar is widely known for his sharp criticism of Hinduism — not just as a religion but also from a socio-historical perspective. Without delving into the merits of his scholarship, which is a contentious subject in itself, we will limit ourselves to presenting facts and observations.

A significant number of devout Hindus, across varnas, find the 22 Vows controversial, perceiving them as overtly antagonistic toward Hindu traditions and deities. Consequently, the inclusion of Ambedkar within the Hindutva fold appears paradoxical to many, often resulting in cognitive dissonance. Idealists, who are steadfast in their principles, argue that figures deemed ‘anti-Hindu’ — regardless of their stature — should remain outside the ambit of Hindutva. However, this stance raises a critical question: what constitutes being ‘anti-Hindu’?

The ambiguity surrounding this definition complicates the discourse. After all, numerous Hindu leaders of the 20th century — celebrated by all — have made statements that, when quoted without attribution, might easily be labeled ‘anti-Hindu’ in today’s polarized environment. This underscores the importance of reaching a consensus on what qualifies as ‘anti-Hindu’ and who should be assigned that label. Without such clarity, there is a risk of indiscriminately including controversial figures under the guise of honoring social reformers, which could dilute the ideological coherence of Hindutva.

Another concerning trend is the political homogenization of Hinduism, where individuals not aligning with a specific political narrative — often associated with the BJP — are swiftly branded as Congress sympathizers, casteists, or given similar reductive labels. This pattern undermines the principle of samanvaya (reconciliation and harmony), which organizations like the Sangh uphold as a core ideal.

It is clear that those advocating for Ambedkar’s inclusion in the Hindutva fold do so for several reasons:

1. Genuine admiration for his contributions to social reform.

2. His critical analysis of Islam, which is often used to challenge leftist narratives (whether it is effective or not is another question).

3. The strategic aim of bringing Scheduled Castes into the Hindu fold, thereby countering the influence of radical Ambedkarite figures like Chandrashekhar Azad and others.

4. The need for an alternative icon to the Gandhi-Nehru duo.

A politically astute individual recognizes the validity of arguments on both sides of this debate. However, politics often necessitates trade-offs and compromises — particularly in India, where complex historical figures exert significant influence over contemporary discourse.

In the short term, a pragmatic approach involves moderating the deification of Ambedkar, which can be strategically amplified during election cycles, while ensuring that it is never entirely abandoned. Equally important is maintaining the support of the ‘Idealists’ — those who view Hindutva through a more principled lens. The BJP must reassure these Idealists that it is not transforming into an anti-General Category, Ambedkarite party, as they represent a core segment of its voter base.

At the same time, Idealists must make a critical distinction: being anti-Ambedkarite does not equate to being anti-Scheduled Caste. Co-option is a valuable political strategy, but it must be executed with caution. Historical examples, such as Jinnah’s co-option of the Ulema during the Pakistan movement, highlight the risks of uncritically embracing such strategies. While the short-term benefits of co-option may be appealing, the long-term consequences can prove unpredictable and even destabilizing.

The long-term goal should be to reduce the Identitarian trends within the Hindu fold. So that the situation ceases to exist that people vote for you only if you worship their icons & give ticket to a leader of that community. This can be done by empowering the lower strata socially, financially and educationally so that their insecurity decreases, and they start to think on ideological lines. We shouldn’t lose sight of this long-term goal.

The BJP must tread carefully to ensure that this co-option and engagement with controversial figures does not lead to a fragmentation of the Hindutva movement. Strategic foresight is essential to balance short-term political gains with the long-term ideological and structural integrity of Hindutva. In my mind, the aim is not a Saffron-Blue alliance. The aim is Saffron engulfing the Blue. We don’t want to see the Saffron end up becoming blue. I saw a post on X in which this co-option was being compared to the story of Mahadev consuming Halahal during Samudra Manthan. I don’t know what the future holds but this analogy is apt.