Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar & Ambedkar, But What About The Constitutional Values?

To sum up, painful though, I would love to quote Teltumbde again: After seven decades of operating under his (Ambedkar’s) Constitution, we have to concede that instead of coming closer to his conception of democracy, we have gone light years away from it

Had Ambedkar been alive today, he would have been probably jailed along with Bima Koregaon accused – Anand Teltumbde, author of A Reflective Biography of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar ICONOCLAST.

Everybody likes to own Ambedkar, much as they talk about Mahatma Gandhi or, for that matter, even Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

Intellectual, author and civil rights activist Anand Teltumbde, who wrote that marvellous, thoroughly researched biography of Ambedkar, wrote: The Ambedkarites do not realise that their blind devotion is rather blasphemous as it is against what he stood for. He wanted them to Prabuddha (enlightened), capable of dissecting the past, analysing the present and charting out the future. They do not realise that this innocuous attitude has been the single biggest reason for their pathetic plight. They splintered over what they think is Ambedkar or Ambedkarism. They let themselves to be manipulated by manoeuvring Ambedkar icons. Each time they shout Victory to Ambedkar, they actually defeat him by their irrational behaviour. Ambedkar did not want devotees, he wanted followers.”

Teltumbde also says: “His (Ambedkar’s) iconisation is not just a matter if intrinsic devotion of the grateful people; it is being completely promoted by politicians of all hues to deracialise Ambedkar and depoliticise Dalits. It has become a major fulcrum for electoral politics in the country. It is vital that he is presented as his true persona, an iconoclast (the breaker of icons).”

One must read this book in the context of current controversies over remarks against Ambedkar in Parliament and outside. When I heard Teltumbde at the book launch event followed by a discussion at The Mumbai Press Club on October 30, I promised him that I would read ICONOCLAST and write and speak about it. I have been waiting for an occasion for it and then came the Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s avoidable statement in the Rajya Sabha: "Abhi ek fashion hogaya hai - Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar. Itna naam agar bhagwan ka lete to saatjanmontakswarg mil jata”

As expected, this has led to a massive criticism of Shah and the BJP. Coming as it did in the wake of Congress vice president flaunting a copy of The Constitution of India at all his political events from Bharat Jodo Yatra to discussion in Parliament, Shah’s statement has given enough fuel for the opposition fire and ire against the BJP.

As Teltumbde writes: Institutions and individualshave no right to defend the rights of depressed class if they are not run by untouchables” This, the author says, the Nagpur Conference laid the foundation of Ambedkar’s future work. This is where, I think, Rahul Gandhi’s repeated assertion about lack of adequate representation of Dalits in the process of governance and all walks of public life and even key jobs in public and private sector gains importance.

Amit Shah probably likes to say that these statements of Rahul are a fashion these days! Think of the party which test-ballooned during the Lok Sabha poll period the idea of changing the Constitution. Had the BJP succeeded in getting two-thirds majority in Parliament, it could have done what it wanted.Remember, but for a social media post, none from the BJP’s top leaders or the RSS even tried to say that these opinions belong the “fringe elements” and the party does not subscribe to them. BJP MP Anandkumar Hegde had in March this year called upon the people to ensure a two-thirds majority to the BJP to delete the word “secular” from Constitution. That was when the Congress became aggressive against what it called the BJP’s designs to play with Constitution.

Having failed to obtain the requisite majority, BJP began to deride the Congress from Nehru to Rahul for allegedly insulting Ambedkar – the architect of Constitution. But the BJP has no explanation for restricting the entry of the Dalits into Hindu temples and ‘punishing’ the backward class youths for drinking water from the wells in the upper class area in some states. Ambedkar would say (as per Teltumbde) that the agitation (in the 1920s) for temple entry was not to worship God but to assert the basic human right of the untouchables.

As regards Mo-Shah criticism of Nehru for his anti-Ambedkar attitude, Teltumbde’s book throws enough light on the issue. It was supposed to be a Cabinet Masterplan to oppose Ambedkar’s election to the Constituent Assembly with none other than Sardar Patel who led the tirade. Mark these words of Patel: “….apart from the doors, even the windows of the Constituent Assembly re closed for Dr Ambedkar. Let us now see how it enters into the Constituent Assembly”.

This challenge was taken up by a Namasudra lawyer Jogendra Nath Mandal which ultimately led to Ambedkar’s election from Jessore-Khulna constituency (now in Bengladesh), that too with the support of Congress.

Unlike James Bond’s diamonds, the soured relationships between Nehru and Ambedkar were not forever! On the ‘Deal with the Congress’, Teltumbde writes quoting a recent book that a shrewd Nehru ensured that Ambedkar was made chairman of the (Constitution) Drafting Committee. This was to end out a strong political message that the untouchables would not face discrimination, ever, under the Congress rule. This once act did more for a sense of Dalit empowerment than other measures taken subsequently. (Ref:Anjoo Balhatra Sharma- Voices in the Wilderness: Critiquing Indian Constituent Assembly Debates).

Post-division of the Bengal province, Ambedkar lost his Jessore-Khulna membership to the Constituent Assembly. Then Rajendra Prasad, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly called for electing the Ambedkar. “I am anxious that he (Ambedkar) should attend the next session of the Constituent Assembly…,” Prasad wrote to BG Kher (Bombay CM) directing the latter to nominate Ambedkar. This change would not been possible but for Mahatma Gandhi Although Nehru, Patel and Azad emerged as the oligarchs of the Congress, the glue between them was provided by the moral authority of Gandhi. Thus, Gandhi alone could have paved the way for the election of Ambedkar (despite Patel’s outspoken resistance), Teltumbde mentions.

In the twilight yeas of the transfer of power, Ambedkar faced darkness ahead but was rescued by the Gandhian stratagem that embalmed him as the modern Manu, Teltumbde writes and explains: “And here lay the prowess of the Gandhian strategy. With one stroke, it provided the pro-people veneer over the potentially not-so-pro-people Constitution and ensured the longevity of the post-colonial State. Ambedkar’s disowning of the Constitution also would be of no avail.”

Let me quickly jump into the issue of constitutional morality in the context of the present political scenario. Quoting noted Amedkar biographer, writer and poet Changdev Bhawanrao Khairmode, Teltumbde writes that the successful functioning of democracy, however, necessitated certain preconditions: the absence of glaring inequalities in society; the existence of opposition; equality and law and administration; and the observance of constitutional morality.

To sum up, painful though, I would love to quote Teltumbde again: After seven decades of operating under his (Ambedkar’s) Constitution, we have to concede that instead of coming closer to his conception of democracy, we have gone light years away from it.

Mo-Sha and RaGa are you listening? Try to stop trying to own Constitution or Ambedkar, try to imbibe the values.

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a YouTube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging.)