New Delhi: Joining the battle to appropriate BR Ambedkar's legacy, the RSS mouthpiece Organiser, in its cover story, has launched a scathing counter-offensive claiming the Dalit icon was "disgusted with the Congress and Communist' even as the two parties now attempt to represent Ambedkar's 'praxis as their own".

“There have been attempts by the Congress leaders and Communists recently to categorically represent Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s political praxis as their own,” which the Sangh finds laughable because “Babasaheb was disgusted with both – the Congress and the Communists".

The UP government, through a recent order, has made the use of Ambedkar's middle name Ramji mandatory in all official correspondence. The Organiser article interestingly also refers to the Dalit icon as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.

There is a colour row taking place in Uttar Pradesh – Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s statue was painted orange from blue and then repainted blue again.

Earlier, Rahul Gandhi, in a tweet, had alleged that it was in the “RSS/BJP DNA to keep Dalits at the lowest rung of the society”.

“Frequent questions are being raised about the legacy of Dr Ambedkar and who owns it especially targeting nationalists and proponents of Hindutva. To be true, the whole Bharat owns it," says Organiser.

The magazine further says, “However, the political forces which believe in breaking Bharat have been misappropriating Babasaheb for their schismatic plans. The Congress and the Communists are disfiguring the whole Ambedkarite political idiom of reform, inclusion, democracy and development to suit their agendas of creating division, chaos, and conflict.”

COMMUNISTS DIDN’T SEE THE ELECTORAL BENEFITS OF DALIT MOVEMENT, WHICH THEY SEE NOW

In one of the sections, “Communists Affronted Ambedkar” the author Shaan Kashyap writes: “Ambedkar still talks today through history and Constitution of India. His original writings when read and reproduced in the right context affirm that the Congress and Communist always detested and discriminated against him.”

The article mentions Communist stalwart Shripad Amrit Dange who worked against Dr Ambedkar’s candidature from Bombay City North constituency in 1952 parliamentary elections. Dange believed that Dr Ambedkar espoused ‘separatist’ politics.

Marxist leader Sharad Patil “tried to situate Dr Ambedkar in the multi-linear methodology known as Ma.Phu.Aa (Marxism-Phule-Ambedkarism). He had to bear with a long, internal struggle within the CPI (M) on the question of caste struggle.”

“Patil eventually founded his own Satyashodhak Communist Party in 1978 because CPI (M) couldn’t see the electoral gains of Dalit movement then, which they see now," says the article.

The edition recalled Bhalchandra Trimbak Ranadive writing in 1979, which states that despite struggles against untouchability Dr Ambedkar failed to produce the desired result of abolition of the evil.

He has mentioned well-known scholar Gopal Guru’s remarks “that most traditional Marxists have time and again characterised Dr Ambedkar as a liberal bourgeois and refused to grasp the brilliant insights that Dr Ambedkar brought out through his political praxis. Dr Ambedkar was fixated in the ‘liberal bourgeois’ frame with a purpose by Marxists,” it says.

'NEHRU-CONGRESS DIDN'T GIVE AMBEDKAR HIS DUE'

In the cover story, the author has written about the instances when Jawaharlal Nehru disappointed Babasaheb. It says that Dr Ambedkar wanted to serve in the Planning Department but he was given law Ministry.

Ambedkar finally resigned from the Cabinet on September 27, 1951. The article revisits the remarks made by Dr Ambedkar, “Being a Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, I knew the Law Ministry to be administratively of no importance. It gave no opportunity for shaping the policy of the Government of India. We used to call it an empty soap box only good for old lawyers to play with.”

He continued, “When the Prime Minister made me the offer, I told him that besides being a lawyer by my education and experience, I was competent to run any administrative Department… Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which he was intending to create. Unfortunately, the Planning Department came very late in the day and when it did come, I was left out.”

The Sangh-backed magazine has further questioned: “Why Ambedkar was not made a member of the Planning Commission? Why was his expertise of Economics not utilized for the national services by Nehru? Nehru didn’t go by merit, but by nepotism.”