During the debate on ‘Constitution at 75’ in the Rajya Sabha during the winter session in December 2024, Home Minister Amit Shah made a controversial remark: “There is a fashion these days – Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar... Had you chanted the name of God so many times, you would have been blessed with heaven in seven births.”

This statement was perceived by many as mocking Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, leading to significant backlash from opposition parties and public intellectuals. Critics argue that Shah’s tone and repetition of Ambedkar’s name in a sing-song manner appeared dismissive, highlighting an underlying tension between the Sangh Parivar’s ideology and Ambedkar’s vision of social justice and rejection of caste hierarchies.

The incident has sparked a broader debate about the relationship between the current government’s policies and Ambedkar’s ideals, inviting criticism from various quarters examining this dynamic. For instance, Sagarika Ghose, a noted journalist and currently a Rajya Sabha MP, opined that the Sangh Parivar is in perpetual conflict with Ambedkar’s radical modernism, emphasising the fundamental opposition between Hindutva and Ambedkarism.

Ambedkar, a staunch advocate for the rights of the marginalised, social equality, and a secular India remains a central figure in the ideological divide between Hindu nationalist groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the values enshrined in India’s Constitution. His rejection of caste, commitment to secularism, and advocacy for social justice starkly contrast with the RSS’s focus on Hindu nationalism and its support for a hierarchical social order.

The Sangh Parivar’s uneasy relationship with Ambedkar’s vision

The RSS has long struggled to reconcile its vision of India with Ambedkar’s radical modernism. Ambedkar’s call for the abolition of the caste system, his focus on social justice and his commitment to secularism directly conflict with the RSS’s conception of an ethnocentric identity underpinned by caste structures, hierarchical social order and Hindu nationalism.

Historically, the RSS upheld a vision of Hindu society that did not align with Ambedkar’s focus on equality and social reform.

A former pracharak (propagator) and Panchjanya editor, Devendra Swarup, once explained to The Wire the Sangh’s evolving stance, noting their initial reservations about Ambedkar. He asserted, “Ambedkar and every Ambedkarite is anti-Hindu... (But) the problem before us is that since the Dalit movement has adopted Ambedkar as an icon, we cannot avoid him.”

In recent years, however, the RSS has attempted to appropriate Ambedkar’s image, primarily for electoral gains. This appropriation has focused on aspects of Ambedkar’s life that can be selectively interpreted to support its agenda, such as his conversion to Buddhism – a religious stream that is often viewed by Hindu nationalist groups as part of India’s cultural and spiritual heritage.

The RSS emphasises this aspect while downplaying Ambedkar’s criticism of Hinduism and his staunch advocacy for a secular, inclusive India.

The Sangh’s opportunistic appropriation of Ambedkar is evident when Swarup further explains, “Many propositions established within the Sangh are at an emotional level; there is no serious intellectual thought process behind them. The way we have adopted Ambedkar confirms this.”

By presenting Ambedkar as aligned with their vision, the RSS misrepresents his views on Hinduism and nationhood. Ambedkar explicitly rejected the idea of a Hindu-dominated state, advocating instead for a pluralistic, secular society that treated all religions equally.

Moreover, while the RSS advocates for ‘caste harmony,’ it does not seek to dismantle the caste system, a central tenet of Ambedkar’s philosophy. Ambedkar’s vision was the complete abolition of caste-based hierarchies, contrasting with the RSS’s position, which maintains traditional social divisions under the guise of unity within the Hindu community.

Among the many ideological disagreements the RSS had with Ambedkar, his support for the partition of India was also a significant one. Ambedkar advocated for partition as a practical solution to the persistent communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims, believing that a separate state for Muslims would ensure peaceful coexistence.

The RSS, however, was firmly opposed to this idea, seeing it as a betrayal of the vision of a united India. This stance on partition was just one of the many points of contention the RSS had with Ambedkar’s approach to addressing India’s communal and social challenges.

Ambedkar’s abject rejection of Hinduism

Ambedkar’s rejection of Hinduism was rooted in his opposition to the caste system, which he saw as a fundamental aspect of the religion perpetuating social and economic inequalities. He argued that Hinduism, by institutionalising caste, denied Dalits and marginalised groups their dignity and rights.

Ambedkar believed that reformist movements within Hinduism were insufficient, as they failed to challenge the caste system at its core. He viewed Hinduism as nothing more than a multitude of castes, fostering inherently unjust and oppressive beliefs.

Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism extended to his conviction that its rigid, hierarchical structure was incompatible with modern democratic values. He saw Hinduism as an obstacle to liberty, equality, and fraternity, which he regarded as essential for India’s progress. He described ‘Hinduism as a ‘veritable chamber of horrors,’ and its tenets irredeemably antithetical to liberty and equality.

This rejection was not only a religious stance but a social and political challenge to the prevailing order. Ambedkar’s vision of an egalitarian, secular India was realised in the Constitution he helped shape, with provisions ensuring equality before the law, religious freedom, and the prohibition of untouchability. These measures aimed to dismantle the social hierarchies that had been entrenched in Hindu society for centuries.

Ambedkar’s push for social reforms also extended to personal laws, where he championed the Hindu Code Bill. This proposed legislation sought to secure property rights for women and promote gender equality, but it faced stiff opposition from conservative Hindu groups.

The opposition underscored the tension between Ambedkar’s progressive vision of social justice and the more traditional, hierarchical worldview espoused by the RSS and other conservative factions.

The RSS’s selective appropriation of Ambedkar’s legacy

Despite the ideological divide, the RSS recognises Ambedkar’s significance, particularly for his role in drafting the Constitution. However, the RSS’s engagement with Ambedkar often appears selective and politically motivated.

Leaders like Mohan Bhagwat have occasionally quoted Ambedkar to present the RSS as more inclusive, especially on issues concerning Dalits. Yet, these references often focus on his contributions to constitutional law and his opposition to untouchability, while sidelining his critiques of Hinduism, caste, and the need for a secular state.

The RSS’s attempts to co-opt Ambedkar's legacy are seen as opportunistic, reflecting the political need to engage Dalits and other marginalised communities, especially during elections.

However, these attempts to align Ambedkar with their ideology have been perceived as shallow, as they fail to address the substantive reforms he always championed – such as the abolition of caste-based discrimination and the promotion of a secular, egalitarian state.

The core ideological divide

At the heart of the tension between Ambedkar and the RSS lies their fundamentally different visions for India’s future. Ambedkar’s vision was rooted in social justice, secularism, equality, and the promotion of a scientific understanding of societal structures, which directly contradicted the RSS’s ideology of Hindu nationalism and a caste-based social order.

While both sides talked about national unity and betterment, their methods and values are often at odds.

The RSS, recognising Ambedkar’s influence, has been careful not to openly oppose him, especially considering his widespread reverence among Dalits and marginalised communities. However, the selective appropriation of his legacy reveals the ideological gulf that remains between them.

Despite occasional references to Ambedkar, the RSS’s commitment to Hindu nationalism and caste-based social structures makes it impossible for them to fully embrace Ambedkar’s vision of a secular, egalitarian India. Ambedkar’s legacy – rooted in the fight for equality, social justice, and secularism – invariably remains a powerful counterpoint to the RSS's vision of India.  

Key instances from his writings

Ambedkar’s most pointed critique of Hinduism is powerfully expressed in his seminal work Annihilation of Caste (1936), where he vehemently condemned Hindu society and its religious scriptures for perpetuating caste discrimination. Central to his critique was the Manusmriti, which he identified as the cornerstone of caste-based oppression.

In 1927, Ambedkar publicly burned a copy of the Manusmriti during the Manusmriti Dahan Din event, a symbolic act of rejection against the text’s authority and its endorsement of inequality. This act, in fact, was not just symbolic; it reflected Ambedkar’s belief that the caste system and the religious doctrines that supported it must be thoroughly rejected.

In Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar’s rhetoric is stark and uncompromising. He called for a radical upheaval of the social order, demanding it be demolished root and branch. His critique extended to the Hindu scriptures, which he argued must be discarded entirely. He boldly stated that these texts were ‘inconsistent with liberty, equality, and fraternity,’ the very principles upon which a just society should be built.

Ambedkar was thus clear that any meaningful social reform could not occur without rejecting the foundational texts that perpetuated such injustice.

Ambedkar wrote:

“The wall built around Caste is impregnable and the material, of which it is built, contains none of the combustible stuff of reason and morality,” adding emphatically, “I think that breaking up of caste amongst the Hindus is well-nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take ages before a breach is made. But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be done quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about a breach in the system, then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras, which deny any part to reason, to Vedas and Shastras, which deny any part to morality. You must destroy the Religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.”

For Ambedkar, the caste system was a direct consequence of the religious doctrines that upheld it. He argued that the Hindu religion, as contained in the Vedas and Smritis, was not a divine, transcendent belief system but rather a complex set of “sacrificial, social, political and sanitary rules and regulations, all mixed up.”

As Ambedkar wrote, “What is called Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions.”

He contended that the Vedas, Shastras, and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative, must cease to be regarded as such by law. He advocated that “the preaching of any doctrine, religious or social contained in these books should be penalised.”

For Ambedkar, the rejection of these scriptures was crucial to dismantling the oppressive caste system and building a society based on equality, justice, and rational morality.

The Sangh’s efforts to balance Hindu nationalism and equality

The Sangh Parivar, and RSS as its fountainhead, faces a complex balancing act between its ideological commitment to Hindu nationalism, which often upholds traditional caste structures, and the necessity to respect the constitutional framework that champions equality, social justice, and secularism.

The challenge lies in reconciling these conflicting forces, especially since the Indian Constitution is a key pillar of democracy and social justice, often running counter to the RSS’s traditionalist stance. Moving forward, it is likely that the Parivar will employ several strategies to navigate this tension.

Groups affiliated with the Sangh may focus on selective interpretations of the Constitution that align with their vision, such as emphasising national unity, cultural identity, and a Hindu way of life while downplaying the Constitution’s egalitarian provisions. This would allow them to promote an inclusive vision of Indian nationalism for Hindus without emphasising constitutional equality for marginalised communities.

The Sangh is also likely to intensify efforts to co-opt the legacy of Dalit leaders like Ambedkar, portraying him as a reformist who sought to cleanse Hindu society of its ills, while subtly sidelining his critiques of caste-based social structures.

Additionally, the RSS is likely to promote a vision of the ‘Hindu way of life’ that embraces modernisation while adhering to traditional values, framing caste as an evolving system that can be reformed through education and socio-economic progress. This approach would seek to appeal to both traditionalists and progressives, though it is expected to remain controversial.

The Sangh Parivar may also continue to promote Hindutva as a unifying ideology that transcends caste divisions, framing a united Hindu society that is ‘above’ caste differences in the name of national unity, while not directly addressing the inequalities existent or perpetuated by the caste system itself.

Rather than challenging the constitutional guarantees of equality, the Sangh is likely to emphasise policies that encourage social mobility within the existing caste structure, such as skill development and entrepreneurship.

This strategy would present opportunities for Dalits and OBCs without dismantling the caste system. Furthermore, the Sangh may continue to push for a reinterpretation of secularism, arguing for a form that respects Hinduism as the dominant culture while allowing for religious pluralism, without necessarily endorsing equality between all religions.

Finally, the Parivar may advocate legal reforms that modernise the caste system, such as creating opportunities for marginalised groups, within the framework of Hindu society. These reforms could be framed as an extension of Hindu tradition and culture, while still failing to address social and economic disparities.

The RSS’s approach to nationalism should be understood as flexibly embedded in caste, adapting to the context. When the situation demands a broader and unified Hindu identity, the RSS tends to emphasise cultural unity across castes, portraying caste as secondary or downplaying its importance to promote a cohesive Hindu identity.

When specific contexts or political strategies require it, the RSS may invoke caste directly, either by acknowledging caste distinctions or by addressing caste-related issues in ways that serve its broader goals. In this way, the RSS’s Hindu nationalism should be seen as situationally adaptive with it comes to caste, using it as a tool to either unify or differentiate within the Hindu community as the situation dictates.

This will likely be the multi-pronged approach that balances an emphasis on Hindu nationalism with selective adherence to the principles of the Indian Constitution, offering a vision of India where caste distinctions are downplayed or reframed as part of cultural evolution, while still offering opportunities for Dalits and marginalised communities within a Hindu-centric framework.

These strategies are likely to give a reprieve in navigating the tensions between the constitutional commitment to equality and their broader ideological goals.

However, these political manoeuvres will have lasting effects that transcend generations. They pose a profound threat to the spirit of India’s Constitution, which enshrines the values of modernism, scientific rationalism, equality, equal opportunity, and pluralism. By selectively interpreting and distorting the Constitution to fit narrow ideological goals, the very principles that have ensured India’s progress and cohesion will be undermined.

The Constitution, with all its alleged imperfections, has been the anchor for the country’s unimaginable diversity, providing a framework that respects inclusivity and protects the rights of all citizens. If the multi-pronged approach is pursued intensely as a political strategy, with systemic support from the ruling regime, India risks losing the spirit of its guiding document that has preserved its democratic ideals and social justice for decades.

In the end, the nation could be left with a hollow version of its Constitution, one that no longer reflects the aspirations of its people, but instead serves to deepen divisions and erode the values that have kept India united through its complex history.