Dr. Ambedkar now transcends all criticisms. Everyone across the political spectrum, from the extreme right to the extreme left, and all religious groups- Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists—appropriate his writings to their own advantage. We have come to such a state that we can almost abuse any political leader or saint, but the smallest words of criticism against Dr. Ambedkar become a great cause of fear and backlash. How has this happened? In such a situation, it was indeed daring of Arun Shourie to study the life of Dr. Ambedkar and question some of the well-entrenched narratives. The author makes some explosive charges against Dr. Ambedkar for which he had to face the wrath of the latter’s followers, including a physical attack.

The book is loosely divided into two parts. In the first part of the book, Arun Shourie shows Dr. Ambedkar’s role during the years which led to the independence. In the second part, Shourie discusses his actual contribution to the framing of the Constitution. Is it proper to call him the Father of the Constitution when, first, it was clearly a combined effort of many intellectuals coming together and, secondly, when a previously drafted Constitution of 1935 was its solid base? This idea is now entrenched in the Indian psyche so deeply that it is impossible to separate the constitution book and Dr. Ambedkar in any public display of images or statues. 

AMBEDKAR AND THE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

Arun Shourie begins by saying that Dr. Ambedkar never fought for Indian independence. His public life of almost a quarter of a century in the most crucial years of our independence movement (including the partition) shows no evidence of his speaking against the British. He was an active member of the British governing machinery, and his years before independence were in support of the colonial government and in the critique, sometimes severe, of Indian leaders. Gandhiji, of course, was a special target.  

His position on the caste system of India, the clearest enunciation of which is his Annihilation of Caste, was a rhetoric of parroted colonial and missionary arguments against the ‘upper’ castes’ (Brahmins and Banias) as forever exploiting the Sudras. He made the British believe that he was the sole representative of the Harijans, just as Jinnah was for Muslims. Despite his continuous pleading to make his Federation the sole representative of the Depressed Classes, the British consistently refused, however. Muslims overwhelmingly voted for the Muslim League of Jinnah just before the independence (which was almost a referendum for Pakistan); however, Dr. Ambedkar never won any elections. His party lost badly even in Harijan constituencies to the Congress.

For Dr. Ambedkar, Hinduism was only for the suppression and oppression of the weak and the servile.  He believed that the antisemitism of the Nazis against the Jews was in no way different in ideology and in effect from the Sanatana Dharma of the Hindus against the untouchables. Innumerable times, in his writings and speeches, he tells the British authorities that the untouchables were always loyal to the British and were in fact responsible for winning wars for them. The Scheduled Castes had apparently been the earliest source of manpower for the East India Company, and it was with their help only that the British conquered India. This was a controversial claim. 

At the Round Table Conference, Dr. Ambedkar was on the side opposed to the national struggle for freedom- the British, and on the side of Jinnah in the ‘deliverance’ of the country from the Congress. Dr. Ambedkar supported Jinnah when he gave a call for the Day of Deliverance (22nd December 1939), when all the Congress ministries resigned at the central and provincial levels to protest against the British involving India in the Second World War without their consent. Jinnah called for the ‘Day of Deliverance’ as a celebration of this combined Congress resignation. The celebrations across the country had the vociferous support of Dr. Ambedkar and EV Ramaswami (the father of the Dravidian movement). 

1942 QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT 

Dr. Ambedkar played a peculiar role during the Quit India movement when most of the Indian Congress leaders were in jail. On 20th July 1942, a few weeks before the start of the movement (8th August), the British government in India appointed him as the Minister of Labour in the Cabinet. He was officially on the side of the British. This was a long overdue appointment when a desperate Dr. Ambedkar started getting noisy and disgruntled. In an explosive passage, Arun Shourie mentions a letter from the governor to the Viceroy which notes the desperation of Dr. Ambedkar to join the government and says, ‘I have reason to believe that he owes money to certain people who have helped him in the past and that he is unable to pay it back.’

The British communication records show clearly how they used leaders like CP Ramaswamy Aiyyar, Ambedkar, Aga Khan, and Jinnah to denounce Gandhi. These members were fully aware of what the rulers thought of the Congress and the nationalist movement, and they also knew that a confrontation was imminent over the Quit India movement. However, these leaders chose to side with the government. 

1942 Quit India was arguably a watershed moment in the independence movement. The British, in its wake, arrested the Congress leaders, and Gandhi was in jail for almost 20 months. The Viceroy, Churchill, and the Cabinet Council were brutal in inflicting atrocities on the Indian public. According to Nehru, 10,000 people died as a result of these atrocities. In 1943, Bengal also faced one of the worst famines in the history of the country, where at least 1.5 million people died as a direct consequence of Churchill’s and his War Cabinet decisions. There were never any words of condemnation or efforts on the part of Dr. Ambedkar to bring relief to famine-struck Bengal.  

In 1943, Gandhi undertook a fast in jail which lasted for 21 days, and during which he almost died.  The country shook, but Dr. Ambedkar stood firmly by the side of the British government. The Cabinet and Churchill simply wanted Gandhi to die. Only two Indians did not waver in their support for the British: one was Ambedkar and the other, Firoz Khan. The former became a Bharat Ratna and the latter became the PM of Pakistan. The British Viceroy and Churchill took Ambedkar’s support for Cabinet decisions for granted. 

As an aside, CP Ramaswamy Aiyyar developed cold feet later with the arrest of Gandhi, and he left the Council, citing reasons to join the states and the rulers to withstand the challenge posed by Gandhi and the Congress. He joined the ruler of Travancore as a face-saving action. Jawaharlal Nehru said of Ramaswamy’s attitude towards imperialism: There is little now in common between us except our nationality. He is today a full-blooded apologist of British rule in India, especially during the last few years; an admirer of dictatorship in India and elsewhere, and himself a shining ornament of autocracy in an Indian state.

All through the independence movement, Dr. Ambedkar was a loyal minister in the Cabinet fighting for the British cause. He wrote that India does not deserve independence till everyone in the country (Hindus, Muslims, Depressed Classes, Parsis, Anglo-Indians, tribes, and so on) unites. This was a typical statement that the British reiterated to continue their rule. Nationalists like Sri Aurobindo argued that this was an impossible pre-condition for an independent nation and was only an excuse to continue colonialism.

One of the most controversial issues of those times was the payment of Rs. 13,000 per month to a hard polemicist and communist called M.N. Roy against Gandhi. During the Second World War, with the joining of the hands of Churchill and Stalin against Hitler, the Communists made a duplicitous turn and became friends of the British. They started spying on the nationalists for the British masters. This payment to MN Roy was made through the Labour Ministry under Ambedkar. MN Roy was receiving an additional Rs. 13,000 per month for a subscription to his magazines too which amounted to seven and a half lakhs a month in the times when Shourie wrote the book (1997).  

Hard questions followed in the assembly, which Ambedkar thoroughly stonewalled. For all practical purposes, he was a British minister out to fight the nationalists. Ambedkar could not reply on the correct audit of this money given to an individual. He claimed the money was for the Indian Labour Federation. However, the then president flatly denied that any money came to the Federation from the Ministry. The money was only for an individual, MN Roy, for his anti-Gandhi and anti-Congress activities.

With the countering of Gandhi and the Congress by the British, the Executive Council was always in concurrence. They were sometimes more eager than the Viceroy himself. Members were in full knowledge of the actions to crush the national movement. Of the two opposing sides, they clearly chose to side with the British. In summary, there was not a single instance where Ambedkar fought for the country. Dr. Ambedkar supported the Partition because he said it was impossible for the Hindus to live in peace with the Muslims. Also, the loyalty of the Muslim soldiers would always be suspect in a united India. People construct this as his concern for the Hindus, but Arun Shourie says this support was purely from pragmatic considerations which would allow the British to stay in India. 

THE DEPRESSED CLASSES

The British opened a huge fault line between the Congress on one side and the Muslims, along with the Depressed classes, on the other side. The Depressed classes’ strategy of using Ambedkar was, however, a failure. The 1932 Communal Award declared separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, Muslims, Sikhs, and Anglo-Indians. This was clearly a policy to divide the country, promising to have long-lasting consequences. Gandhi responded with a fast unto death against an Award threatening to divide Hindu society neatly and almost permanently into two confronting divisions. This has to be the greatest contribution of Gandhiji to keeping Hindu society united. The British finally relented and stopped this award. 

Ambedkar was batting for the British proposal, knowing fully well that this would permanently divide the Hindus despite a limited period of twenty years for its implementation. Other Depressed class leaders like MC Rajah were severely critical of the award and, in fact, Ambedkar was the only one propagating the division. He was critical to the point of being abusive to Gandhi. Other Depressed Classes leaders thought Ambedkar was speaking only for Mahars and not for the entire community. Gandhiji was batting for joint electorates with reservations and these, in fact, gave more seats in the legislative councils- a point to which Ambedkar did not have an answer. Dr. Ambedkar had the stock answer that any leader not agreeing with him was simply a paid agent of the Congress.

Gandhi loudly proclaimed that this was only the first step towards the abolition of untouchability completely. Ambedkar constantly and vehemently criticized Gandhi’s efforts to eradicate untouchability. Gandhiji was either late or ineffective or working for personal fame, or trying to win the Depressed Classes over with super kindness. Ambedkar consistently refused to be a part of Gandhi’s efforts. Not restricting to Gandhiji, he was critical of other leaders like MC Rajah, attributing wrong motives to them. 

Peculiarly, Dr. Ambedkar was always asserting the British stand that India did not deserve Swarajya. In 1946, Lord Wavell records Ambedkar saying that ‘if India became independent it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen.’ He kept repeating the line to the British that it was only due to the help of the Scheduled Castes that the British could secure power in India. He wanted to see himself as the only leader of the Depressed Classes and almost convinced the British authorities. Ironically, in the elections that followed, twice in the reserved constituencies, Dr. Ambedkar and his party candidates lost very badly to the Congress candidates. It was a virulent hatred for Gandhi that defined Dr. Ambedkar in the times of the independence movement.  

THE SECOND INNINGS 

Despite having resisted the independence movement with all vehemence, despite his regular abuse of Gandhi and other Congress leaders, despite supporting Jinnah, and despite never winning an election, it was an amazing move to give him a place in the Cabinet after independence. The Congress, in a forgive and forget mode, offered the post of Law Minister, but Shourie writes that Dr. Ambedkar never acknowledged their largesse. As Shourie informs, Dr. Ambedkar pleaded to Gandhi via Babu Jagjivan Ram to give him a place in the new government. It was indeed the big-heartedness of Gandhi and the Congress to recognize the intellect of Dr. Ambedkar and offer him a place in the building of the new country.  

The government made him the President of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. This was the origin of a whole new myth created in the name of Dr. Ambedkar as the Father of our Constitution. Shourie says he was clearly not. Dr. Ambedkar, in fact, had vehemently opposed the Constituent Assembly right till our independence. He wanted a Commission comprised of lawyers from the US or Britain to deal with constitutional questions in India, which apparently were way beyond the thinking capacities of Provincial Assemblies. Dr. Ambedkar wrote this in April 1946, just one year before the independence. Till the very end of British rule, he not only opposed the idea of a Constituent Assembly to draw the Constitution but also told the British that granting independence was the ‘greatest disaster” for India. 

The Constitution was the outcome of a huge effort on the part of many intellectuals and leaders who organized themselves as subcommittees, Advisory committees, the Constituent Assembly, and the final Drafting Committee. The last had the secretarial task that the new Draft incorporated and tallied with the decisions of the Assembly. Taking the example of a few Articles, Shourie meticulously details the long and sometimes painful process of the many debates through layers of committees before the Drafting Committee finally approved it. There is absolutely no truth in the story of Dr. Ambedkar’s having single-handedly written down the Constitution of India.

As scholars repeatedly acknowledge, the Constitution of 1950 borrowed heavily from the Government of India Act of 1935. The ideas of the Bicameral Legislature, the division of powers between the Center and the states, the resting of residuary powers, Emergency provision in the event of a collapse of the constitutional machinery, the posts of the Governor, the powers of the judges and the Supreme Court, the laws regarding inter-state relations, the establishment of the Public Service Commission, and so on almost made the 1950 Constitution an amended version of the 1935 Act according to many critics. A member of the Constituent Assembly says that ‘the Constitution is essentially the Government of India Act of 1935 with only adult franchise added’. 

Shourie shows how, through the huge involvement of many people, there was a consideration of proposals, finalization of recommendations, and decisions taken by repeated revisions, reconsideration, and votes. How can then one single person be the author of the Constitution? Dr. Ambedkar himself had no illusions of being the author of the Constitution. He declared in the debates a few times that he was not the author of the Constitution and was even ready to burn it. He was just a ‘hack doing things against his will’ regarding the Constitution. Regarding the criticism that the 1950 Act was a copy of the 1935 Act, Dr. Ambedkar responded, ‘As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, I make no apologies.’ Yet, Dr. Ambedkar is the Father of the Constitution despite having minimal or even no proof. He had an important role, no doubt, in the context of the Constitution, but to call him the father and make him single-handedly responsible for it is one of the biggest myths of post-independent India. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Today, Dr. Ambedkar is beyond any criticism, as the author of the book painfully recognized after the book’s release. Ambedkar’s followers subjected him to both verbal and physical abuse. It is sad that one can abuse any god, goddess, saint, or icon in the country, but to touch Dr. Ambedkar would amount to the biggest blasphemy or sacrilege. Arun Shourie repeatedly worries that the Education Ministry itself subsidizes grossly the polemical writings of a person who had so many irrational biases and prejudices, amounting to almost hate against the major religions of India and its social systems.      

One has to struggle to find reasons for Gandhi to decide the fate of the country by choosing people like Nehru and Ambedkar to become a part of the new India formulation. Despite being a patriot of the highest order, Nehru had a deep antipathy for the past of India. He refused to believe, like all colonials, that traditional India had any solutions for its future. He completely ignored the sage-like wisdom of Sri Aurobindo, who had an unclouded vision of what the past of India actually represented. In fact, for Aurobindo, a return to the traditional ideas, which did not mean a shunning of industrialization or the so-called modernity, held solutions not only for the future of India but for the entire world in the grip of crass materialism and greed for power. Ironically, Nehru also abandoned his mentor, Gandhi, in his later years. 

Dr. Ambedkar wrote extensively on every conceivable topic. He had his own ideas, sometimes right and sometimes wrong. India has now made a habit of plucking from his writings whatever suits them to their convenience. Hence, the ‘right wing’, the ‘left wing’, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Aryan-Dravidian deniers, the anti-Brahmins, practically everyone can make use of his writings to bash the opponent. However, at the core of his ideology was a strong antipathy to both Hinduism and the Brahmins. As Jakob De Roover writes in his essay, Ambedkar Was Wrong About Hinduism:

Ambedkar’s basic message was that (a) Indian society is dominated by an all-pervading religion named Hinduism, (b) this is a bad and wrong religion, which has no universal spiritual principles, (c) its evil Brahmin priests are responsible for inventing its multitude of commands and prohibitions, (d) the caste system has its sacred foundations in Hinduism, (e) this Hindu system prevents a true nation and society from coming into being in India. To annihilate caste, one would of course have to destroy its foundations – the religion that has produced it; consequently, the annihilation of caste entailed the annihilation of Hinduism.

This is what Ambedkar stood for. He echoed such utterances as though they constituted a rational and moral analysis of a culture; in reality, these were discarded scraps of an old Christian theology of false religion now presented as facts about the world. If our ‘colossus’ had even an inkling of the Protestant-Christian framework which produced the judgements he reproduced, he could have spared himself the effort and summed up his harangue in one simple sentence: ‘Hinduism is false religion and it needs to disappear.’

Jakob De Roover ends his essay by saying: …To promote the annihilation of a culture and its traditions without any understanding is one of the worst things one can do to humanity. Our cultures and our roots are all we have to save us from the loss of bearings that is overtaking the contemporary world. For India, the rediscovery of its cultural resources will be essential to its future survival.

Yet, instead of taking this seriously, the country is witness to the rising celebration of a ‘thinker’ whose ‘thought’ stands diametrically opposed to this endeavour. If there is one piece of evidence that establishes the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of India’s ideologues on all sides of the political spectrum, it must be their glorification of Ambedkar’s thought. 

As an aside, it is amazing once again that besides the combination of Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar, who incidentally were equally colonial in their ideas and had nothing to do with Indian traditions, we had a Muslim as our education minister (for almost a decade) as a grand exhibition of our secular credentials. How could there have been any rationality in formulating an education system which would truthfully describe our Sanatana past? Instead, we came up with an education and training that everything was bad and primitive about our Hindu past and that the Islamic or colonial rules were in fact good for the country. Did we not commit a national suicide at the excellent opportunity presented to us at the time of independence? Embracing the future did not mean abusing our past or falsifying our history, and that is why, even after 75 years of independence, a love for the country is almost a negative, condemnable emotion.