After more than seven decades of independence, Indian politics finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with complex issues that challenge its foundational ideals. While it may be misleading to draw direct parallels with neighbouring Bangladesh, the invocation of Dr BR Ambedkar the iconic architect of the Indian Constitution into contemporary debates as recently happened in the Upper House of Parliament highlights a significant conundrum.

This reference reflects not only our un-statesmanlike attitude but also our uncharitable attitude towards a stalwart who championed the rights of the underprivileged during an era when nationalist politics largely marginalised him. Even today, discussions surrounding the thinker qua activist Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar evoke multiple discourses, positioning him in a metaphorical rehearsal room of history, awaiting an authentic assessment by future generations. His legacy serves as both a reminder and a challenge to current political narratives, urging us to confront the undue turns that politics takes for its own benefits. In reflecting on Professor Khilnani’s profound observation that Indian history is often portrayed as a “curiously unpeopled place”, we are morally bound to consider the essential contributions of its founding fathers.

The question arises—can we envision India without acknowledging figures such as Kabir, Phule, Birsa Munda, Periyar, and Ambedkar? These individuals form the bedrock of the Indian Constitution and embody the multicultural essence of our society. Their legacies are steeped in a relentless struggle for justice and equality, which resonates through an immeasurable saga of sacrifice. Therefore, modern India cannot be understood solely through the glossy lenses of Yoga, discussions in well decorated seminar rooms on the ‘civilisation state’, or grand narratives of economic growth.

Instead, it is crucial to recognise how the enduring thoughts and philosophies of these thinkers awakened the dormant masses from antiquity and shaped the identity of today’s Indian republic. Today, when we examine India, it is clear that its path to freedom was not a sudden midnight epiphany but rather a gradual evolution shaped by influential figures like Ambedkar. His contributions are inseparable from the annals of modern Indian history, as he dedicated his life to navigating the country towards radical experiments in social justice. Ambedkar’s polemics resonate with those of critical thinkers in that it boldly posed volleys of perturbing questions and thus challenged the entrenched system of caste/cultural hegemony, positioning himself against the mainstream currents of Indian nationalism.

His efforts laid the groundwork for a more equitable society, highlighting the complexities and struggles inherent in India’s perennial quest for true freedom. The Indian state’s political actions, often driven by elite centralisation, clash with Ambedkar’s ideals, which diverge significantly from the narratives of major political entities like the Congress Party or current majoritarian frameworks. Ambedkar embodies a challenge to these dominant discourses, advocating for true democracy and genuine welfare for marginalised groups, including Adivasis. In contrast, the prevailing political logic tends to accommodate these communities not out of a benign commitment to democratic principles but rather as a means to construct a cohesive national entity capable of generating economic surplus. This approach prioritises the construction of political stability to strengthen the state over authentic democratic engagement and inclusivity in India’s diverse multicultural landscape. Even today, it appears that the elites are making concerted efforts to promote new discourses aimed at unifying India, particularly at a time when achieving a cohesive national identity seems increasingly challenging. The political landscape is heavily influenced by the narrative of “one nation, one election,” which seeks to streamline governance and enhance national unity. However, this push for a singular identity must be viewed through the lens of India’s multicultural society, which complicates the realisation of such a grand elitist vision.

In this context, it is essential to critically examine and reflect on the cultural dimensions of our diverse populace. Many regions and sections experience psychological unease regarding the overarching project of transforming various social groups into a modern citizenry that would be loyal and acquiescent to the state. This necessitates a deeper understanding of how identity symbolism interacts with the lived realities of different communities across India. Thus, we understand that Ambedkar is no longer merely a protestant icon against the scourge of untouchability; today, his spirit gets amplified and becomes the pivotal embodiment as the key ideologue of social justice. His thought serves as a formidable barrier against the evolving challenges posed by the Indian state, particularly its attempts to undermine accountability amidst a crisis-ridden capitalism that threatens to stifle substantive democracy.

This situation risks rendering the state increasingly authoritarian in a Hegelian sense. Consequently, any reference to Ambedkar must be approached with sensitivity, or else a murky climate of thought or similar veiled attempts might ultimately be self-defeating, if not condescending to India’s vast multitude of unequal citizens, hence undemocratic and unparliamentary.

-The Statesman (India) / ANN