Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while speaking in the Rajya Sabha on the Constitution’s 75th anniversary, remarked, “Abhi ek fashion ho gaya hai—Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar. Itna naam agar bhagwan ka lete to saat janmon tak swarg mil jata” [It has become a fashion to say Ambedkar, Ambedkar…If they took God’s name so many times, they would have secured heaven for seven births]. To trivialise the invocation of Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s name—central to the discourse on the Constitution and justice—is a disservice not only to Ambedkar’s legacy but also to the people of India who revere him.

Such a remark reveals a deeper contempt and disdain for Ambedkar’s pivotal role in shaping modern India. Shah’s claim that his statement was distorted by the Congress—a frequent scapegoat for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s missteps—rings hollow. Similarly, his counter-accusation branding the Congress as “anti-Ambedkar, anti-Constitution, and anti-reservation” is unconvincing and reeks of political deflection. Nothing can adequately explain why a seasoned strategist like Shah would risk alienating India’s 225 million Dalits, who regard Ambedkar as their foremost icon.

The answer lies in an inadvertent reveal of the Sangh’s ideological antipathy toward Ambedkar. Despite their calculated attempts to co-opt his legacy for electoral gains, the ideological chasm between Ambedkar’s egalitarian vision and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s-BJP’s Hindutva worldview remains irreconcilable. Shah’s remark was an unintentional yet telling leak of the suppressed animosity that many within the Sangh harbour against Ambedkar’s critique of caste and Hindutva. If chanting Ambedkar’s name has indeed become a ‘fashion’ as Shah claimed, the BJP itself has embraced this ‘fad’ more than any other party. Their invocation of Ambedkar is an electoral necessity, not an ideological alignment, driven by the importance of Dalit votes for their political dominance. However, such slip-ups expose the fragile facade of their claimed reverence for Ambedkar and risk undoing the BJP’s carefully crafted outreach to Dalit communities.

The ideological and philosophical differences between Ambedkar and the RSS are stark. These encompass multiple areas ranging from caste, religion and nationalism to constitutional values. Ambedkar was a fierce critic of the caste system and believed it to be the foundation of Hindu society’s inequality. He advocated for its complete annihilation and embraced Buddhism to reject Hindu orthodoxy. The RSS, in contrast, has historically upheld the Varna system as an organising principle of society. In his book, Bunch of Thoughts, M.S. Golwalkar glorified ancient Hindu social structures, viewing the caste system as integral to India’s cultural identity. While Ambedkar sought to destroy caste, the RSS views it as a feature to be ‘reformed’ but not annihilated.

Ambedkar rejected Hindu nationalism, viewing Hinduism as inherently discriminatory against marginalised communities. He believed in an inclusive, secular nation where all religions were treated equally. He said, “The assertion by the Hindus that India is their country is untenable…India belongs to all Indians who reside in it.” The RSS, in contrast, promotes Hindu Rashtra—a vision of India as a Hindu nation, with Hindu culture as its foundation. This vision is exclusionary to minorities and Dalits, often sidelining their struggles. Ambedkar led mass conversions of Dalits to Buddhism, des­cribing Hinduism as a religion that perpetuates caste oppression. He famously said, “I was born a Hindu, but I will not die a Hindu.” The RSS opposes conversions from Hinduism and has been involved in reconversion drives (Ghar Wapsi), pressuring Dalits and others to return to Hinduism. The contradiction is glaring: Ambedkar’s embrace of Buddhism as liberation versus the RSS’s insistence on retaining Dalits within the Hindu fold.

As the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, Ambedkar championed individual rights, secularism and social justice. He was a firm believer in democracy as a means of achieving equality. The RSS, on the other hand, has shown ambivalence toward the Constitution, at times advocating for a reorientation towards Hindu scriptures like the Manusmriti. Golwalkar expressed scepticism of Western-style democracy. Ambedkar’s faith in the Constitution as a transformative tool versus the RSS’s preference for a cultural-nationalist framework marks the contradiction.

Ambedkar championed gender equality, drafting the Hindu Code Bill to reform Hindu personal laws, including inheritance rights for women. He said, “I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved.” The RSS’s vision of women is rooted in traditional roles as caretakers and mothers, emphasising subservience and domesticity. Ambedkar’s push for gender equality versus the RSS’s conservative view of gender roles.

Ambedkar envisioned Dalits as a separate political and social identity, advocating for self-respect, education and political assertion. He said,pnxbet official “Political power is the key to all social progress.” The RSS seeks to subsume Dalit identity within a unified Hindu identity, undermining Ambedkarite calls for independent Dalit assertion. The contradiction is stark: Ambedkar’s insistence on Dalit empowerment versus the RSS’s attempt to dilute Dalit identity in Hindu nationalism.

The Dalit icon famously burned the Manusmriti, denouncing it as the foundation of caste-based oppression. He said, “Manusmriti is a symbol of injustice and inequality.” The RSS reveres the Manusmriti as an ancient Hindu text, sometimes praising its guidelines for societal organisation.

Ambedkar was a proponent of state-led economic redistribution and believed in policies to uplift marginalised communities. He said, “Without economic and social liberty, political liberty has no meaning.” The RSS leans toward free-market policies that prioritise traditional hierarchies, often sidelining Ambedkar’s vision of redistributive justice. The contradiction is evident between Ambedkar’s socialist ideals versus the RSS’s preference for traditional economic structures.

Education was central to Ambedkar’s philosophy for emancipation. He urged Dalits to “Educate, Agitate, Organise”. The RSS, on the other hand, promotes education rooted in Hindu traditions, often sidelining critical caste discussions in curricula. Ambedkar’s secular, egalitarian approach to education directly contradicts the RSS’s religious and nationalist approach.

These contradictions highlight the fundamental incompatibility between Ambedkarite thought and the RSS’s Hindutva ideology, exposing the opportunistic nature of the latter’s co-option of Ambedkar’s legacy for political gains.

In view of these fundamental contradictions, the RSS largely neglected Ambedkar and his movement during its formative years. A significant shift occurred under the leadership of Balasaheb Deoras, who succeeded Golwalkar as sarsanghchalak. Deoras adopted a strategic outreach approach to broaden the RSS’s appeal, aiming to co-opt icons from diverse communities. It was during this period that Ambedkar was incorporated into the RSS pantheon as pratahsmaraniya (to be remembered at daybreak).

To attract lower-caste groups, the RSS launched the Samajik Samarasata Manch (Social Harmony Platform), emphasising social harmony over caste annihilation. A slew of publications emerged, attempting to reinterpret Ambedkar in saffron hues and portray him as being aligned with RSS leaders. The main source for these portrayals was Dattopant Thengadi, an RSS pracharak, who wrote a book titled Dr Ambedkar aur Samajik Kranti Ki Yatra (Lokhit Prakashan, Lucknow). In it, he makes sweeping claims about Ambedkar’s alleged closeness to himself and other RSS leaders. Interestingly, Ambedkar’s voluminous writings and speeches as well as recollections by his biographers and associates, make no mention of either Thengadi or any of the episodes he refers to, raising questions about the credibility of these assertions.

It is often claimed that Ambedkar visited RSS training camps—such as one in Pune—in 1939, where he supposedly met the RSS founder K.B. Hedgewar, and admired the discipline and caste-free environment among RSS volunteers. Another claim suggests he visited an RSS shakha in Dapoli in 1935. These narratives rely primarily on oral testimonies from RSS members and lack corroboration from any other sources. RSS sources allege that in September 1949, Golwalkar met Ambedkar in Delhi to thank him for his supposed role in lifting the ban on the RSS that was imposed after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. While the meeting is documented, there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Ambedkar played a pivotal role in lifting the ban. Ambedkar’s records are silent on the specifics of their discussion, making it unlikely that such a significant contribution would have gone un-noted.

Another claim often made by RSS-affiliated sources is that Ambedkar praised the discipline and caste-free environment within the RSS ranks. Yet, there is no mention of such praise in Ambedkar’s writings or speeches. Given his scathing critique of Hindu orthodoxy and casteism, it is implausible that he would have lauded the RSS without documenting such a significant departure in his extensive body of work.

The RSS’s claims about Ambedkar’s admiration for its principles or his connections with its leaders appear to be part of a broader strategy to co-opt Ambedkar’s legacy. These narratives lack substantiation in documented history and are at odds with Ambedkar’s steadfast critique of caste and his rejection of Hindu orthodoxy, which form the bedrock of his ideology.

“The final was really intense; the Chinese were breathing down our necks throughout the game and made it really difficult for us to create a clear goal scoring chance,” Harmanpreet said in a Hockey India release.

The BJP, led by the theatrically adept Narendra Modi, has gone overboard in showcasing its devotion and allegiance to Babasaheb Ambedkar. It has established grand memorials such as the Dr Ambedkar International Centre (DAIC) in Delhi, the Ambedkar Memorial in London, and the Ambedkar National Memorial in Delhi. It has institutionalised the grand celebration of Ambedkar Jayanti as Samrasta Divas (Harmony Day), among other initiatives, swiftly outcompeting all other political parties in appropriating Ambedkar’s legacy. This calculated strategy has paid off handsomely in terms of Dalit votes, with the BJP securing a greater number of reserved seats than the combined tally of all other parties. However, the BJP’s track record in trampling upon Ambedkar’s values, principles and ideals remains unmatched. The proverbial temple of the Constitution that Ambedkar envisioned has been reduced to a mere facade under its governance, with democracy lying wounded, struggling for survival.

(Views expressed are personal)

Anand Teltumbde is an Indian scholarmega swerte, writer and human rights activist