Anand Teltumbde – “Ambedkar challenged Gandhi’s Mahatmahood”
The author of ‘Iconoclast: A Reflective Biography of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’ on why BR Ambedkar stands out, common misconceptions about him, and the lessons that young Dalits must take from his life and teachings
There were several leaders contemporary to Dr BR Ambedkar working on different issues that ailed society. What makes him an ‘Iconoclast’?
You are right; there indeed were several leaders who worked on different issues that ailed society. It all started with the British conquest of India during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which exposed some of the serious weaknesses and drawbacks of Indian social institutions. The British introduced the English language as well as certain modern ideas from the European Renaissance such as liberty, social and economic equality, fraternity, democracy and justice. They inspired advanced sections of society to undertake reforms to do away with evil customs and traditions within Hindu society. The other section, however, thought that India had been vanquished because it had deviated from its Sanatan roots and saw the regeneration of Hindus through the revival of those core principles. Colonial policies inspired demands from still another section of educated elites for participation in governance, which evolved into the nationalist movement. All these movements were by and for the upper castes and did not concern with the caste exploitation of the majority of their own people. This realization gave birth to the non-Brahmin movement of Jyotiba Phule and later to Dalit movements in various provinces with different kinds of visions and approaches. If you consider this snapshot, there are hundreds of leaders who variously contributed to the betterment of society with varying degree of effectiveness. Many of them, particularly those among the non-Brahmin and the anti-caste streams, may even be iconoclasts in their own right.
Ambedkar differs from them in certain ways: One, he singularly problematized the caste system as the main obstacle in India’s progress and spoke of its annihilation. None expressed it in those terms. Two, he characterised castes as not only a social evil but also a religious evil, and spoke of dynamiting the Hindu Dharmashastras that sustained it. None spoke this language. Three, after realising the impossibility of this task, he turned towards the political solution and came in confrontation with stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi and challenged his Mahatmahood. Even in his intellectual journey, he similarly took on giants like Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes. It was such a rebellious attitude towards established icons and ideas that makes him an iconoclast. Incidentally, as I stated in the book, he proudly defined himself as one.
Other authors have penned biographies of Dr Ambedkar. What would you say is different in the approach of Iconoclast?
Ambedkar’s biographies were indeed written during his lifetime, with at least three notable examples. Interestingly, his most famous biographer, Dhananjay Keer, was a follower of Savarkar, while the second earliest biographer, CB Khairmode, though a Dalit from Ambedkar’s own caste, had sympathies with the Hindutva movement and even contested elections on a Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) ticket. With growing interest in Ambedkar from the late 1980s onwards, following the increased accessibility of his writings and speeches, a plethora of biographical literature emerged.
In recent years, significant contributions to this literature have come from Ashok Gopal, Aakash Singh Rathore, and Scott R Stroud, all of whom I have gratefully acknowledged in my book. Iconoclast builds upon these esteemed contributions by presenting Ambedkar as a man of flesh and blood, who lived in his own times and endeavoured to achieve his goals. It radically differs from earlier efforts by tearing away the layers of hyperbole, often spun by vested interests among his devotees and, more significantly, by politicians and the State.
In this work, Ambedkar is presented not as an object of devotion but as an important case study for the present generation to learn from. I made it a point to follow the methodology he employed for the Buddha, whom he regarded as his master, to ensure that Ambedkar’s life and legacy are approached with critical analysis rather than mere reverence.
Can you point out some common mistakes that people unknowingly or knowingly commit while talking about Dr Ambedkar and his legacy?
A common misconception is that Ambedkar wrote the Indian Constitution single-handedly. This is not an innocent notion but carefully crafted one so as to make the entire lower strata uphold the Constitution as their own. This claim, often propagated by the State, oversimplifies the reality. While Ambedkar did indeed make the most significant contribution among the seven members of the Drafting Committee, it is important to understand that he was not solely responsible for writing the Constitution. TT Krishnamachari, a member of the Drafting Committee, acknowledged in November 1948 that the “burden of drafting this [revised] constitution” fell largely on Ambedkar because other members were unable to make “substantial contributions” due to “death, illness, and other preoccupations.” Additionally, Ambedkar’s role in piloting the draft constitution is evident from the Constituent Assembly debates, where he actively defended and explained its various provisions.
The then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru also recognized Ambedkar’s contributions during parliamentary discussions. However, it would be misleading to say that he wrote the Constitution on his own. The drafting process was tightly controlled by the Congress Party, specifically by its leadership — Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Maulana Azad. Granville Austin, in his pioneering study of the making of the Indian Constitution, noted the dominant role played by this “government wing” of the Congress, led by an “oligarchy” of top leaders who steered the process.
Ambedkar himself expressed dissatisfaction with being labelled the “architect” of the Constitution. In a debate in the Rajya Sabha on September 2, 1953, he responded to a member’s remark by saying, “I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will... My friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody.”
There are many more such misconceptions for which I would urge the readers to read the book. It is not possible to discuss them briefly here.
In today’s era where young Dalits are being enticed to lean towards a certain kind of conservative politics, what lessons can they take from Dr Ambedkar’s life and teachings?
The motivation behind writing this book, as elaborated in the preface, is to urge the new generation of Dalits not to become sectarian devotees of Ambedkar, but rather to see him as an integral part of their liberation struggle and to learn from his legacy. Vested interests have systematically reduced Ambedkar to an inert icon, promoting him in a way that encourages his followers to merely venerate him rather than engage with his ideas critically. Ambedkar’s pragmatism, without the right guidance, has been misconstrued as crass opportunism by this generation. The consequences of this can be seen in the significant support that Dalits have extended to the BJP — a party embodying the Brahminism that Ambedkar vehemently opposed. Over the last three elections, the BJP has secured more reserved seats in parliament and state assemblies than all other parties combined.
After the 1930s, Ambedkar eclipsed other Dalit leaders and movements that had emerged across various regions, becoming the most significant leader for Dalits, who constituted one-sixth of India’s population — a historical parallel that is unmatched. Yet, despite his stature, he was largely ignored by the ruling classes after his death. Dalits had to struggle to erect his statues, and it took a decade before a marker was established at his cremation site. His son had to march from Mhow (Ambedkar’s birthplace near Indore) to Mumbai, collecting small donations to construct the Chaitya, which still stands today at what came to be known as Chaitya Bhoomi and sees gatherings of over two million people.
The younger generation of Dalits must understand when and why Ambedkar became important and how the process unfolded. As explained in the book, with the intensification of electoral competition from the late 1960s — driven by political economic changes like land reforms and the Green Revolution — the ruling classes began to promote Ambedkar’s icon to attract Dalit votes. This trend has reached its peak with Narendra Modi’s announcement of the construction of “Panchtirths” in honour of Ambedkar.
To understand these historical processes is crucial for the new generation. Without such knowledge, they risk being misled into a sectarian devotion to Ambedkar, unable to recognize their own condition, the factors responsible for their plight, or what ails their movement. By examining the past critically, they can identify what needs to be done going forward.
Since Ambedkar represents a pivotal figure for their future, it is essential for them to revisit him with a critical perspective. Iconoclast aims to facilitate this process. It is only through a learning attitude that they can shape their politics and develop strategies for the future.
Would you say that it has become easier or more difficult to be someone like Dr Ambedkar in 2024?
I do not indulge in speculations or rhetoric. Ambedkar was, moreover, quite unpredictable throughout his life. However, if one were to imagine him today, in a time when almost all the values he held sacred — liberty, equality, and fraternity — are being trampled upon with impunity, he would undoubtedly have been in revolt against this regime, albeit with no support. It is indeed extremely difficult to picture someone like him in the present context. Had Ambedkar been alive, he would likely have found himself imprisoned under draconian laws like UAPA, possibly even as our co-accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case.
Whatever his circumstances, Ambedkar was always opposed to hegemonic Brahmanism, which the current regime embodies. No one dismissed the politics of the Sangh Parivar as sharply as he did when he stated, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.” Tragically, in today’s clamour for his symbolic reincarnation among his followers, he would find no one standing with him. Even the so-called Ambedkarites may reject him for not aligning with their brand of Ambedkarism.
Post Elgar Parishad which even led to your incarceration, what challenges do you observe for activists and the Dalit community at large to mobilise and make specific demands to attain better standards of living?
It is not just the Dalit community; mobilizing people for any cause has become nearly impossible, except for religious gatherings that serve as proxies for regime support or superficial political sloganeering that merely legitimizes the claim that democracy is still intact. Any other form of mobilization is met with severe repression. Even small meetings in private homes or film screenings trigger police intimidation. All civil rights organizations like ours (CPDR, PUDR, even PUCL) have been rendered non-functional, as they are labelled as front organizations of the CPI (Maoist). When a party like Congress that ruled the country for six decades is labelled as party of Urban Naxals, there is no question of other outfits to survive. Indeed, the possibility of mobilizing people around livelihood issues or demands for better or even basic living standards has virtually disappeared.
Chittajit Mitra (he/him) is a queer writer, translator and editor from Allahabad. He is co-founder of RAQS, an organization working on gender, sexuality and mental health.
