Also Read - In Absence of Sonia And Rahul, Congress Leaders to Meet Tomorrow to Discuss Organisational Issues

What would B. R. Ambedkar have made of modern India? While Google celebrated the great reformer’s 124th birthday with a doodle, the man himself would have been disappointed at the way different political parties are trying to appropriate his legacy. And he would have been surely dismayed to see that 65 years after adopting the Indian Constitution, untouchability is still a thing. (READ: B. R. Ambedkar Remembered with special Google Doodle: Google Celebrates 124th Birth anniversary of Babasaheb) Also Read - Farm Bills Row: 'Black Day of Parliamentary Democracy in India,' Says Congress; Rajnath Assures MSP Won't End | Highlights

From the RSS/BJP to Congress, everyone wants a piece of Ambedkar, while the truth is none of them have done much other than pay lip-service to his beliefs. And that includes most of the Dalit politicians who benefit from his work. But the rush to ‘claim’ Ambedkar isn’t a rare phenomenon, since everyone is trying to ‘claim’ new icons to replace older, more flawed ones. Also Read - Farm Bills to be Tabled in Rajya Sabha Today; Oppn Puts United Front, BJP Seeks Support From Regional Parties | Top Points

In fact, all parties, respective of their ideology, lay claim to icons like Bhagat Singh, Rabindranath Tagore and B. R. Ambedkar. Ironically, if any of them were alive today, they would have greatly condemned for their ‘views’.

Bhagat Singh was an anarchist, atheist and feminist who probably would’ve been trolled on Twitter for his outspoken stance. Tagore would definitely have been painted as an anti-national Adarsh Liberal for this quote: ‘India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been taught that the idolatry of Nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will gain truly their India by fighting against that education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity.’

Ambedkar VS The Others

And if Ambedkar were alive today, he probably would’ve been forced to go into exile for his views on Hinduism and the caste system. While Gandhi was apologetic about caste, only switching to his anti-untouchability stance later on, Ambedkar was always, anti-caste and anti-religion. Gandhi had written this about the caste system in 1921 (translated from Gujarati to English by Ambedkar): ‘Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as inter-dining and inter-marriage… These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System.’

On the other hand Ambedkar, in a speech that he never gave, in 1936 titled Annihilation of Caste wrote: ‘I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion (Hinduism) must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear off the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that is caused by misnaming this law as religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable them to realise that what they are told is religion is not religion, but that it is really law, you will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition. So long as people look upon it as religion they will not be ready for a change, because the idea of religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of change, and when people come to know that what is called religion is really law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed.’

So indeed it’s quite ironic to see RSS claim that Ambedkar actually supported their idea of Ghar Wapsi. In fact, he was so opposed to Hinduism and all its rules that he converted to Buddhism. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Ambedkar was even more critical of Islam than Hinduism; that makes him popular with the RSS. But that hardly makes him a Hindu icon because this is what he actually said about Hindutva or the concept of the Hindu nation: ‘If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. It is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. It is incompatible with democracy. It must be stopped at any cost.’ He was actually dead against the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha as the manifesto of the political party he set up read: ‘The Scheduled Castes Federation will not have any alliance with any reactionary party such as the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS.’

We often remember Ambedkar for being the architect of the Indian Constitution but by far his greatest contribution was for the fight to get rid of the caste system and untouchability. He, more than any of the other leaders, realised that freedom was hollow, if it didn’t apply equally to everyone. It’s sad that history doesn’t place him on the same pantheon as it does other leaders of the Indian Independence Movement. While Ambedkar never actually fought for freedom against the British, he is, without a doubt, the architect of modern India. He envisioned an India where everyone was equal; cleverly realising that just getting rid of the British wouldn’t be enough if a select few continued to make the decisions for the masses.

What would Ambedkar have thought of modern India?

I am sure the great man would’ve been less than amused to see how the battle against untouchability panned out. A survey carried out by the NCAER – India’s oldest and largest independent non-profit economic policy research institute – found that one out of four Indians still practise some form of untouchability. According to the survey, 27% people claimed they practised some form of it. It was most prevalent among Brahmins with 52% admitting to it. Among religions, Jains were the most caste-conscious (35%), followed by Hindus (30%), Sikhs (23%), Muslims (18%) and Christians (5%). State-wise, untouchability is most widespread in Madhya Pradesh (53%), Himachal Pradesh (50%), Chattisgarh (48%), Rajasthan and Bihar (47%), UP (43%) and Uttarakhand (40%). West Bengal meanwhile proved to be the most progressive state with only 1% of the respondents claiming they practised untouchability.

He would also have been sad that rather than integration of the untouchables, the society we live in has been further divided based on caste discrimination. Ambedkar had envisaged that reservations in politics would have ended in 10 years.

When asked about it by Manu Joseph in an interview in Outlook, Babasaheb’s grandson Prakash Ambedkar had replied: ‘The Dalits in most parts of the country are so scattered that they do not have a meaningful electoral strength. So, here, reservation of seats for Dalit candidates has served a purpose. Having said that, the cancellation of political reservation would have made no difference to the Dalit movement because Dalit politicians who have benefited from the reservation of constituencies have turned out to be puppets in the hands of parties like the Congress and the BJP. These parties exploit political reservation to increase their own seat count. The welfare of Dalits has been lost in political calculations. So if political reservations end today, it may not make a difference to the larger welfare of Dalits.’

I am willing to bet he would have been deeply saddened by the way politicians used the Dalit vote-bank and even shocked how Dalit politicians, particularly Mayawati, used the Dalit tag to amass great wealth. He would’ve been found the desire to spend over Rs 2500-crore on statues repulsive, and would’ve have wondered how hollow symbolism came to be more important than real work? And more than anything else, Ambedkar would have definitely wondered how 65 years after India adopted the constitution; religion and caste continues to play such a big part in the average Indian’s life?