Sanjay Parate
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a unique and towering representative of the Dalit, exploited, and oppressed sections of Indian society. Born into the Hindu religion, he chose not to die as a Hindu — a decision deeply symbolic of his lifelong struggle against caste oppression. His statues across the country — dressed in western attire, Constitution in hand — symbolize more than just personal triumph; they embody the collective resistance of the Dalit-deprived masses against a deeply entrenched system of injustice. Ambedkar’s struggle was never merely about religious conversion or individual emancipation. It was — and remains — a movement for the creation of a new social order: one that recognizes every human being with dignity and respect. It is a multidimensional struggle — social, political, economic, and cultural — aimed at building a society where the most marginalized have the right to live fully and develop without fear or humiliation.
Despite political independence in 1947 and the adoption of a progressive Constitution under Ambedkar’s guidance, that dream remains unfulfilled. The Indian ruling class attempted, as Ambedkar warned, to “build a palace on a dung heap.” As a result, even decades after independence, we have failed to construct an egalitarian society that ensures justice and dignity for Dalits and other deprived communities.
Ambedkar’s speech at the Round Table Conference on 20 November 1930 still resonates where said that before the British came, we were untouchables. After they came, we are still untouchables. We were not allowed into temples then; we are still barred from them today. What has really changed, he asked.
Were he alive today, Ambedkar would raise the same searing questions. Why did Rohith Vemula have to end his life? Why are those who commit atrocities against Dalits often acquitted? Why are reserved posts left vacant? Why are Dalits and women still denied temple entry? Why is the Constitution being undermined while the Manusmriti is subtly reintroduced?
These questions are no longer directed at British imperialism but at the Sangh-directed BJP government led by Narendra Modi. The RSS, which never participated in the freedom movement and instead colluded with British colonial rule, now claims ownership of Ambedkar’s legacy. This is the same RSS that Ambedkar warned about when he said,"If Hindu Raj becomes a reality, then it would be greatest menace to this country. Whatever may Hindus say, actually it does not make a difference that Hinduism is a danger to Independence, Equality and Brotherhood."
The demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6 — the very day of Ambedkar’s Nirvana — was not a coincidence, but a deliberate blow to secularism and an attempt to erase Ambedkar’s legacy. Today, the Sangh Parivar attempts to whitewash history by portraying Ambedkar as an ally of RSS founder Hedgewar, even though there is no historical evidence of their ideological or political alignment. In fact, Sangh ideologues consistently opposed Ambedkar’s reformist vision — from burning his effigy over the Hindu Code Bill to rejecting his ideas on social equality.
Ambedkar’s ideology stands in direct opposition to the RSS's dream of a Hindu Rashtra based on the Varnashrama system. As the struggle for Dalit rights intensifies, the conflict between these two visions of India becomes more pronounced.
To carry forward this unfinished struggle, all forces committed to human liberation must come together. Ambedkar recognized this need during his lifetime. In the historic Mahad Satyagraha of 1927, where the Manusmriti was publicly burned, he welcomed participation from individuals of all castes. As he famously said, “We are not against Brahmins, we are against Brahminism."
Notably, liberal Brahmin reformers supported his education and social efforts. He took the name “Ambedkar” from a compassionate Brahmin teacher who guided him in his early years — a reminder that the struggle is against oppressive systems, not individuals.
Ambedkar’s vision extended beyond caste — he linked social justice with economic emancipation. He supported farmers, labourers, and industrial strikes. He opposed the Zamindari system in Konkan and consistently stood with the working class. His first political party, the Independent Labour Party (ILP), carried a red flag — just like the Communists. Speaking at the Railway Dalit Workers Conference in 1938, he declared, "There are in my view two enemies which the workers of this country have to deal with. The two enemies are Brahmanism and Capitalism.”
In the late 1930s, Ambedkar organized massive peasant rallies with Communist leaders like B.T. Ranadive, Dange, and G.S. Sardesai. The ILP and Communist-led movements often joined hands in strikes and mass mobilizations, including the historic November 7 strike against the anti-worker Industrial Disputes Bill in Bombay. Dalit workers participated enthusiastically, and Ambedkar stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Communists at rallies that saw violent police repression.
History is clear: Ambedkar had strong connections with leftist and working-class movements — not with the Sangh Parivar.
That said, Ambedkar was not a Marxist, and Communists are not doctrinal followers of Ambedkar. These two streams — Ambedkarite and Marxist — evolved parallelly, each rooted in the fight against exploitation. One focused on annihilating caste; the other on ending class oppression. But experience has shown that these two struggles are not contradictory — they are complementary.
Caste hierarchy, particularly Brahminism, divides the working class from within and weakens class unity. Conversely, class exploitation does not respect caste solidarity — rich Dalits can and do exploit poorer Dalits. Thus, a true revolutionary transformation requires the fusion of both struggles — for class and caste liberation.
As Jyotiba Phule rightly said in 1890: "Intelligence is lost without education, morality is lost without understanding, development is lost without morality, and Shudra is ruined without money. Education is important."
This statement powerfully connects the dots between social exclusion and economic deprivation.
Today, the Dalit-oppressed-deprived masses are excluded from both the means of production and purchasing power. The demand for land rights unites them in the fight against both caste and class exploitation. In an era where forests, water, land, and minerals are being handed over to corporations, and the Constitution is being subverted to enable this loot, only the united strength of Ambedkarites and the Left can offer a credible resistance.
Red is the colour of class struggle. Blue is the colour of social justice. The unity of red and blue — of workers and Dalits, of factory and field, of well and temple — is essential to bring about fundamental change in India. This is not just an alliance of convenience; it is a historical necessity.
In this sense, Baba Saheb is not just relevant — he is indispensable to the present and future of this country.
The author is an independent writer on politics, social and agrarian issues. The views are personal.
Despite political independence in 1947 and the adoption of a progressive Constitution under Ambedkar’s guidance, that dream remains unfulfilled. The Indian ruling class attempted, as Ambedkar warned, to “build a palace on a dung heap.” As a result, even decades after independence, we have failed to construct an egalitarian society that ensures justice and dignity for Dalits and other deprived communities.
Ambedkar’s speech at the Round Table Conference on 20 November 1930 still resonates where said that before the British came, we were untouchables. After they came, we are still untouchables. We were not allowed into temples then; we are still barred from them today. What has really changed, he asked.
Were he alive today, Ambedkar would raise the same searing questions. Why did Rohith Vemula have to end his life? Why are those who commit atrocities against Dalits often acquitted? Why are reserved posts left vacant? Why are Dalits and women still denied temple entry? Why is the Constitution being undermined while the Manusmriti is subtly reintroduced?
These questions are no longer directed at British imperialism but at the Sangh-directed BJP government led by Narendra Modi. The RSS, which never participated in the freedom movement and instead colluded with British colonial rule, now claims ownership of Ambedkar’s legacy. This is the same RSS that Ambedkar warned about when he said,"If Hindu Raj becomes a reality, then it would be greatest menace to this country. Whatever may Hindus say, actually it does not make a difference that Hinduism is a danger to Independence, Equality and Brotherhood."
The demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6 — the very day of Ambedkar’s Nirvana — was not a coincidence, but a deliberate blow to secularism and an attempt to erase Ambedkar’s legacy. Today, the Sangh Parivar attempts to whitewash history by portraying Ambedkar as an ally of RSS founder Hedgewar, even though there is no historical evidence of their ideological or political alignment. In fact, Sangh ideologues consistently opposed Ambedkar’s reformist vision — from burning his effigy over the Hindu Code Bill to rejecting his ideas on social equality.
Ambedkar’s ideology stands in direct opposition to the RSS's dream of a Hindu Rashtra based on the Varnashrama system. As the struggle for Dalit rights intensifies, the conflict between these two visions of India becomes more pronounced.
To carry forward this unfinished struggle, all forces committed to human liberation must come together. Ambedkar recognized this need during his lifetime. In the historic Mahad Satyagraha of 1927, where the Manusmriti was publicly burned, he welcomed participation from individuals of all castes. As he famously said, “We are not against Brahmins, we are against Brahminism."
Notably, liberal Brahmin reformers supported his education and social efforts. He took the name “Ambedkar” from a compassionate Brahmin teacher who guided him in his early years — a reminder that the struggle is against oppressive systems, not individuals.
Ambedkar’s vision extended beyond caste — he linked social justice with economic emancipation. He supported farmers, labourers, and industrial strikes. He opposed the Zamindari system in Konkan and consistently stood with the working class. His first political party, the Independent Labour Party (ILP), carried a red flag — just like the Communists. Speaking at the Railway Dalit Workers Conference in 1938, he declared, "There are in my view two enemies which the workers of this country have to deal with. The two enemies are Brahmanism and Capitalism.”
In the late 1930s, Ambedkar organized massive peasant rallies with Communist leaders like B.T. Ranadive, Dange, and G.S. Sardesai. The ILP and Communist-led movements often joined hands in strikes and mass mobilizations, including the historic November 7 strike against the anti-worker Industrial Disputes Bill in Bombay. Dalit workers participated enthusiastically, and Ambedkar stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Communists at rallies that saw violent police repression.
History is clear: Ambedkar had strong connections with leftist and working-class movements — not with the Sangh Parivar.
That said, Ambedkar was not a Marxist, and Communists are not doctrinal followers of Ambedkar. These two streams — Ambedkarite and Marxist — evolved parallelly, each rooted in the fight against exploitation. One focused on annihilating caste; the other on ending class oppression. But experience has shown that these two struggles are not contradictory — they are complementary.
Caste hierarchy, particularly Brahminism, divides the working class from within and weakens class unity. Conversely, class exploitation does not respect caste solidarity — rich Dalits can and do exploit poorer Dalits. Thus, a true revolutionary transformation requires the fusion of both struggles — for class and caste liberation.
As Jyotiba Phule rightly said in 1890: "Intelligence is lost without education, morality is lost without understanding, development is lost without morality, and Shudra is ruined without money. Education is important."
This statement powerfully connects the dots between social exclusion and economic deprivation.
Today, the Dalit-oppressed-deprived masses are excluded from both the means of production and purchasing power. The demand for land rights unites them in the fight against both caste and class exploitation. In an era where forests, water, land, and minerals are being handed over to corporations, and the Constitution is being subverted to enable this loot, only the united strength of Ambedkarites and the Left can offer a credible resistance.
Red is the colour of class struggle. Blue is the colour of social justice. The unity of red and blue — of workers and Dalits, of factory and field, of well and temple — is essential to bring about fundamental change in India. This is not just an alliance of convenience; it is a historical necessity.
In this sense, Baba Saheb is not just relevant — he is indispensable to the present and future of this country.
The author is an independent writer on politics, social and agrarian issues. The views are personal.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment