In its earlier days, the anti-corruption movement was also a drama. The set, which was a raised platform with a thin white mattress, was inspired by the independence movement. The plot was also, of course, that a man would go on an indefinite fast and a large crowd would come to watch. The leader of the movement, Anna Hazare, displayed some of Gandhi’s mannerisms, such as a thoughtful tilt of his head. His lieutenants played their part by crawling across the stage whispering words in the leader’s ear, as did Gandhi by prominent figures in the independence movement. There was also a person on the stage who was dressed like Swami Vivekananda.
Sometimes even ordinary Indian life is a drama. People unknowingly imitate actors of reputed cinema. In several video clips, intoxicated Indians, including upper-class women threatening police or security guards, are actually cutting scenes from the film. Indians borrow not only the pantomime but also the morals of historical figures and film classics. For example, Gandhi’s technique of the right to protest and his glorification of austerity have permeated Indian life. But in the vast drama of modern Indian life, there is one historical figure, which is not enough – BR Ambedkar. They are rarely imitated and their techniques of fighting strong enemies are almost never used by the Indians.
It is true that his fame has increased since his death because of the power of the upper castes to decide who Indians should like. In fact, this month, another book about him was released. Ambedkar: A Life Writer Shashi Tharoor points out that today only Gandhi’s statues are more than Ambedkar. “One measure of his stature is that there are only two statues of him and Gandhi on the ground in front of Parliament.” But modern India’s tribute to Ambedkar is more gracious, perhaps even an apology for the pain India has caused him throughout his life. No Ambedkar is seen in terms of life hacks but his story is full of them and we have ruined him all these years by only worshiping him.
Their most important way of fighting, an umbrella strategy that accommodates other techniques, is this: in battle against a formidable enemy, align with a more formidable force. Then promote your ally as a future, better version of your enemy.
Hinduism made Ambedkar “untouchable”, an expression he freely used to describe himself, although modern upper caste people display a certain proxy-sensitivity to the term. Ambedkar not only abandoned Hinduism, but aligned with an equally formidable force- Hindu culture. He made a show of considering converting to Christianity, Islam or Sikhism and then rejecting them because he did not believe they were superior to Hinduism. In the end, the leader chose Buddhism because it was what Hinduism was without all its wounds. “Buddhism was,” writes Tharoor, “a type of Hindu Protestantism.”
In other areas as well, Ambedkar used tactics to counter the enemies with formidable but modern forces. He countered Hindu practices by invoking the finest insights of the West. For them, westernization was not a form of subjugation of a dominant culture, but a way of punishing ancient India. At the same time, he countered the political clout of North Indians and Hindi by insisting on English as a language that could unite the entire country. For the same reason, he overtook South India as well: “There is a huge difference between North and South. The answer is conservative. South is progressive. The North is superstitious, the South is rational. South is educationally ahead, North is educationally backward. The culture of the South is modern. The culture of the north is ancient.”
He may not have had enough knowledge of the South, but this approach suited him in neutralizing the power of his political rivals.
He took Gandhi. We are often told that there were “ideological differences” between them, which is another way of saying nothing. Historians can be lame transmitters of human psychology. It is more likely that Ambedkar’s disillusionment with Gandhi had something to do with a turf fight. Gandhi, an upper-caste male, was India’s most influential social reformer, but he did not tolerate any humiliation of being an “untouchable”. Imagine if the country’s most influential feminists were men. Whatever the cause of their friction, Ambedkar also countered Gandhi by engaging with forces that were as formidable as Gandhi, but futuristic. It was not a man, because then no one else could match Gandhi’s stature. So Ambedkar aligned with the great moral idea of the modern city. He rejected Gandhi’s village romance and the idea that the unit of governance should be the village. In fact, Ambedkar said that the Indian village is the source of India’s social cruelties. Furthermore, to counter Gandhi’s influence, Ambedkar aligned himself with a more modern force: the Indian Constitution.
Ambedkar had said that if the Gandhian strategy of protest through civil disobedience was allowed to continue in independent India, India would again be in danger of losing its independence. Once independence is achieved, Ambedkar said, everyone has to follow the law. He rejected Gandhian protest as a “grammar of anarchy”. Nevertheless, in Indian politics, this grammar has emerged as the primary technique.
Why Gandhi is portrayed more than Ambedkar may have little to do with their castes, and more to do with what is easier said than done.
Manu Joseph is a journalist, novelist and producer of the Netflix series ‘Decauld’.
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and breaking news Updates on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.