Three Types of Ambedkar Adulation

Recently I read a book on Ambedkar’s role and influence on the preamble of the Constitution. Just the preamble, not the entire constitution! Boy, was it impressive – the sheer range of considerations he was aware and tried to balance is unbelievable, and the constraint that he could not copy from the West as-is leading to adjustments specific to India. But more on that book in later blogs.

 

If that sounds like gushing praise, well, that’s the theme of this blog. Pranay Kotasthane wrote of 3 levels at which discussions on Ambedkar are conducted. Level 0 is good old Hero Worship.

“I call this the zeroth level because discussions at this level aren’t even about Ambedkar’s ideas. They are about raising him to demi-god status, statue included. It is indeed ironic that a person who warned India and Indians of the dangers of hero-worship has been put on pedestals across the country.”

 

So ironic indeed. Here is what Ambedkar wrote on the dangers of hero worship:

“There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness… This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

Wow! Ambedkar said this long before the advent of Indira Gandhi or Modi or NTR or MGR or Jayalalithaa.

 

Then there’s Level 1 aka political ideology-based adulation. Here is where it gets really crazy. Ambedkar was flexible, a man willing to change his views with life and experience. He was also a man who wrote very well and wrote all his life. Combine those two things and here is where you end:

“Because he has left behind such a rich body of work, it is always possible to pick one quote from him in order to slot him in your favourite ideological category… Was he a Socialist? Was he a left-liberal? Was he a nationalist who opposed Pakistan? Or was he a capitalist because he argued for industrialisation?”

Here is the election manifesto he wrote for the political party he formed:

“The policy of the Party is not tied to any particular dogma or ideology such as Communism, or Socialism, Gandhism, or any other ism. The Party will be ready to adopt any plan of social and economic betterment of the people irrespective of its origin and provided it is consistent with its principles. Its outlook on life will be purely rational and modern, emperistic and not academic.”

Reminds of what Deng Xiaoping famously said about China’s pivot to capitalism in 1979, “It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”. Or as Ambedkar himself wrote on the topic of changing one’s views:

“No thinking human being can be tied down to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important than consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn to unlearn what he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to rethink and change his thoughts.”

 

Which brings us to the highest Level 2, aka the thinker.

“This is the level where we engage with Ambedkar’s ideas, specifically his reasoning.”

Kotasthane elaborates:

“His argumentation style often follows a purva paksha approach i.e. he starts by articulating the best-case arguments made by his opponents. He then proceeds to dismantle them one after the other. While doing so, he builds his own case logically and explicitly. This means that you can trace the causal chain of his ideas and clearly locate your point of disagreement without having to paint him in any one ideological hue.”

 

Kotasthane ends it perfectly when he says:

“More than any specific ideas of his, India would benefit a lot if we could learn from his commitment to reason. The true tribute to a scholar like him would be to engage with his ideas and critique them. Indeed, there can be no finality in thinking.”