“You Just Garland His Picture and Forget His Teachings”: Anand Teltumbde on the Hollow Worship of Ambedkar in Indian Politics

One of India’s leading public intellectuals and an authority on the Dalit movement, Anand Teltumbde, has been in the news across the country for his book on Ambedkar, Iconoclast: A Reflective Biography of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. The book offers a deep analysis of not just Ambedkar’s philosophy, but also the man he was—complex, visionary and tenacious. In this interview with Frontline, Teltumbde, brings to life Babasaheb, an icon who is now worryingly “worshipped” by several political parties and ordinary people. Ambedkar had “very progressive values”, which are being eclipsed by this veneration, which is “very easy”, says Teltumbde: “You just hang up somebody’s picture on the wall, garland it and forget about his teaching”.

Excerpts:

Ambedkar is “worshipped” by swathes of Indians: Political parties, ordinary citizens, everyone. Is he finally getting his due? Or is there a danger in veneration, because it obscures the real man behind the legacy?

Actually, the latter. There is a tradition of worshipping great people in India. The trend started in the late 60s when electoral politics started becoming competitive. Nehru’s was a larger-than-life story. The Congress aura started depleting his death, and there appeared to be a hidden objective of the Congress to reach out to rural areas. They wanted to create something like an agent from among the very popular Shudras.

So, land was distributed to the Shudra tenants and tailors. With this there came empowerment. Brahmins moved from rural to urban areas and the baton of Brahminism came into the hands of Shudras. Their political aspirations also began rising. But all of them[Shudras] could not be contained by the Congress. Today, Dalits are very organised because of the Ambedkar’s movement: He rose as a single icon. There is no other example in the world, where over 220 million people rallied around a single icon.

Also Read | Annihilating caste with radical empathy

Okay, so it was an easy electorate for political parties.

This has been a most unique phenomenon the world-over. So, you manipulate entire masses by holding up an icon. And it came in handy for political parties to play up Ambedkar: They started presenting him in their own ways. He did, from time to time, say things that were not necessarily consistent; there were contradictions. So, this has been skilfully used by the political class. The most striking use of Ambedkar has been by the BJP. In the early 80s, after Golwalkar’s [a prominent RSS leader] passing, Deorastook over and changed the strategic path of the RSS: The organisation began making inroads into the lower social strata.

So, in a way, it is dangerous also for the values that Ambedkar propagated: Worshipping has become political while his ideals are being completely ignored?

Absolutely. Ambedkar wanted to see India as a modern society based on liberty, equality, fraternity. That, to him, was democracy and a way of life. His very progressive values are being eclipsed by the “worship” we see now. And worshipping is very easy: you just hang up somebody’s picture on the wall, garland it and forget about his teaching.

Ambedkar’s progressive values are being eclipsed by the “worship” we see now, says Anand Teltumbde. Here, former Minister Vellampalli Srinivas pays tribute to Ambedkar on his death anniversary in Vijayawada on December 6, 2020.
| Photo Credit:
K.V.S. Giri

In the last few years, we have been heard the BJP say that the Congress defeated Ambedkar, while the Congress says the Constitution, written by Ambedkar, is in danger from the BJP. So, what is the truth?

Ambedkar fought against Hinduism. He was against the Congress politically. He was also against communists. As for the Hindutva parties, he names Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. Also, the Jana Sangh. When the Constituent Assembly was formed, the Congress prevented Ambedkar from entering the Parliament. Vallabhbhai Patel, for instance, said that not only the doors but even the windows of the Parliament would be closed for Ambedkar. Babasaheb’s political career had almost ended.

With 1946, and cabinet mission coming in [to discuss the transfer of power from the British government to Indian political leadership] it was just miraculous that Ambedkar contested this membership from United Bengal. Jogendra Nath Mandal, one of his comrades, was a minister in the Muslim League. So, Ambedkar got elected from the Jessore-Khulna constituencyin United Bengal. But then there came the Partition and if Ambedkar had to stay in the Constituent Assembly, it would have been the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. So, his membership had gone. The Congress offered him a membership from Pune. So, he had some kind of interaction with the Congress, but not with the Hindu Nationalist party.

“Ambedkar had apprehensions that after the British leave, the reins would go to upper-caste hands and they will neglect Dalits. That’s why he fought his entire political career for a share in the future power structure for Dalits.”Anand TeltumbdeScholar and author

Let me ask you some questions on contentious contemporary issues, for instance the Uniform Civil Code. The BJP says that Ambedkar supported it. How do you see it.

Yes, that has been the BJP’s strategy: To pick up certain things and sort of expand on it. Yes, it is true that Ambedkar was for a Uniform Civil Code: He wanted a single civil code across the country. The Hindu Code Bill he drafted called for gender equality. But the BJP’s Uniform Civil Code jumps onto Muslim women. That is not what Ambedkar wanted. Why he actually drafted it for Hindus was because they were the majority. His reasoning was that if you could make a start in that community, other people may also see the merits. He was not bringing it in with coercion.

The book offers a deep analysis of not just Ambedkar’s philosophy, but also the man he was—complex, visionary and tenacious.
| Photo Credit:
By Special Arrangement

When Ambedkar drafted the Hindu Code Bill and made it public, what was the reaction of the Jana Sangh or the Hindu Mahasabha?

Ambedkar faced a huge problem. Probably the biggest in his life. There were lots of meetings condemning Ambedkar Ramlila maidan in Delhi. The RSSburnt his effigiesand abused his caste viciously.

So, the RSS opposed the idea?

Yes, the RSS, the Hindu Mahasabha and all those who prescribed Hindutva. They have a hydra-headed network.

An important point you make in your book is that we cannot give Ambedkar the entire credit for drafting the Constitution. Why do you say so when every single person says he is the “father of the Indian Constitution”?

Because, that is the truth. The Constitution was not written by a [single] man. What was the process? A Constituent Assembly was formed. They hired an advisor, a civil servant, B.N. Rao, to create a draft. He created a draft within a month, and that became the basic document, based on his interviews with many constitutionalists. He had travelled to many countries, and with the knowledge he acquired he was an intelligent person. There were committees formed, most of which were chaired by members of the Congress.

So, the entire process was in the hands of the Congress. And many, many people discussed every issue threadbare and created something like conclusions. That paper went to an advisory committee, which came to the Constituent Assembly and was discussed. Again, the Congress was in the saddle. A draft was created. Ambedkar made some 20 significant changes. One was the Preamble. Then that became a draft, which was open for the public to comment on. They kept it for seven, eight months. Then discussions started in the Assembly about every clause.

Ambedkar had serious physical ailments at the time. And it is a fact that most of the members of the drafting committee were not around. But he, along withS.N. Mukharjeeand B.N. Rao, and other members of his staff, laboured over every article of the draft. So, Ambedkar’s contribution cannot be negated. But essentially, the articles, the decision on articles or the shape of the articles were actually filtered through a process, headed by the Congress “oligarchy”: Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and Abul Kalam Azad. These four people controlled the process. Later on, in the Rajya Sabha, Ambedkar (after resigning) said he was used as “a hack”. He added: “What I was asked to do, I did much against my will.”

“The Constitution was not written by a [single] man… but Ambedkar’s contribution cannot be negated”, says Teltumbde.
| Photo Credit:
Wiki Commons

You also talked about how Gandhi was a grand strategist to bring Ambedkar into the Constitutional Assembly. In what ways were their views different? Because in today’s India, they are projected as enemies.

Their contention was political. Gandhi took a very moralistic stand: That if separate electorates are given to Dalits, they would be separated out permanently from Hindu society. Then a bitterness came about on Gandhi’s views on caste, and hit a sensitive nerve. Gandhi’s opinion, only at the end of his life, was that casteism also is bad. But otherwise, he believed castes were good, and only untouchability was not. And not only Gandhi, but all upper-caste reformers’ swan song was that untouchability should go. They were not sure about caste.

And that is [reflected] even in the Constitution. Untouchability went away, but caste remains. How can untouchability go without caste? But Gandhi’s clairvoyance, or magnanimity, whatever you call it, was to induct Ambedkar at a very difficult time.

What was the relationship between Ambedkar and Savarkar. Because today they are being projected as having been good friends. Was there actually a friendship?

Absolutely not. They are trying to project that Ambedkar was friends with Golwalkar and everybody.

Today’s India is about making the country a Hindu Rashtra. What was Ambedkar thinking on this?

Ambedkar said that a Hindu Raj, if it comes, would be the biggest calamity to the country. Ambedkar had a bigger problem with Hinduism than Islam. He did not relate to Islam per se. There is absolutely not an iota of doubt in the fact that he would never, ever endorse a Hindu Rashtra.

Also Read | Relevance of Ambedkar

One important point about Marxist socialist ideology: Ambedkar criticised it. And this is now being used by the BJP, the RSS.

Ambedkar had a problem with Marxist ideology, certainly. The problem he saw was two-fold: That Marxism relied upon the dictatorship of the proletariat; the other was that it relied on violence. Now, no Marxist scholar will buy this, okay? This is a faulty understanding of Marxism. So that apart, his contention was that he did not like dictatorship. Basically, Ambedkar’s ideology was rooted in pragmatism. The liberal mode, which was inherited from his teacher at Columbia University, John Dewey. And when he lived in England, Fabianism was on the rise, and he imbibed that too. The impact of these ideologies reflected in different ways and he looked at Marxism through that lens.

And the Communist Party was strong at that time.

Yes. He had to contend with communists. One thing that he did not have much of a grounding in was communist ideology. He did not care really. I checked his books in the library and there is oneDas Kapitalvolume there. And that also appeared unread. There were commentary books on Marxism. You could tell Ambedkar liked a book if they are with replete with underlines and comments with colour pencils. But I have never found that anywhere in Marxist books.

What were Ambedkar’s views on British rule? He believed it would be replaced by the Indian upper-caste? So, his fear was right?

Yes, in hindsight. When the British actually transferred power, it naturally came to the Congress. And the Congress was nothing but a representation of social elites, landlords and capitalists. So, notwithstanding Gandhi’s camouflage of a mass movement, the Congress, at its core represented these classes. Naturally, Ambedkar had apprehensions that after the British leave, the reins would go to upper-caste hands and they will neglect Dalits. That’s why he fought his entire political career for a share in the future power structure for Dalits. Or safeguards.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi pays tribute to Ambedkar at Deekshabhoomi, in Nagpur on March 30, 2025.
| Photo Credit:
ANI

Ambedkar also said that if you want to abolish the caste system, you will have to abolish Hinduism itself. Given this stance, how do you see the upper-caste dominated BJP and RSS now appropriating Babasaheb?

You can, on one hand, appropriate Ambedkar and selectively ignore what he said elsewhere. In the Annihilation of Caste, he actually formulates that. That the caste system’s root is actually is in the Hindu Dharma Shastras. And unless the Hindu Dharma Shastras are dynamited, the caste system would not go. He had made up his mind to exit Hinduism in 1935. Then he declared he would not die as a Hindu. That is not mentioned or considered by the RSS or the BJP.

Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Deekshabhoomi in Nagpur where Ambedkar embraced Buddhism in 1956 and paid tribute to Ambedkar. This, when the BJP-ruled States are bringing in anti-conversion laws. How do you see this contradiction?

The BJP’s behaviour vis-à-vis Ambedkar is entirely contradictory. If they are logically consistent, if they have some ethics, they cannot touch Ambedkar at all. What they are projecting is they have turned everything upside down. Ambedkar exited Hinduism and accepted Buddhism not as this sect of Hinduism. But this whole Hindu gang is projecting something like he has: That Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, which it is not. There is nothing similar.

Buddhism was a revolt against Brahminism. They are trying to project it is as Brahminism. They have recently begun calling themselves Sanatanis, etc. Maybe call it by that name. But it’s something Hindu, and not even original. It is something like a nomenclature given by foreigners and incidentally, the ancestors of Muslims. So, this is all actually comical. Ambedkar did not want anybody to worship even him. I am more worried about Dalits actually worshipping Ambedkar. Because that is more dangerous than Modi worshipping.

But the BJP and the RSS have partially appropriated Ambedkar in recent times. And Dalit organisations have failed to understand this political game. How do you see it?

Yes, you are absolutely right. I’m not so as worried about Modi or them worshipping Ambedkar, but their own people are worshipping Ambedkar. Because of that, I had to write this book. Ambedkar’s own people [mainly from Maharashtra] themselves did not understand the man. Ambedkar founded the Scheduled Caste Federation. He later wanted it dissolved and to created a party of all castes, The Republican Party of India. That was his conception.

Also Read | ‘It is a people’s constitution… made by people like you and me’: Vinay Kumar

Tell us about the decline of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Uttar Pradesh.

In fact, it was Maharashtra that Ambedkar’s followers, from all over India, were looking to in the ‘60s. This has become the centre of the Dalit movement. BSP is another phenomenon. BSP actually went off on a different track. So, Ambedkar came in handy. Ambedkar stayed true to his ideology, but the BSP did not, and they very pragmatically began allying with anybody to get into power.

So, would you say that Dalit organisations failed to understand the core of Ambedkar’s thoughts and therefore, over a period of time, got nowhere?

Absolutely. That is what I am driving at. Because they never understood Ambedkar; somebody needed to formulate what Ambedkar wanted. What was Ambedkar’s goal? So, I wrote this book to catalyse the kind of thinking that during Ambedkar’s times, there were a lot of forces impinging upon him and he created his own path, and he expanded his own path.