Shashi Tharoor’s attempt at understanding Ambedkar’s life

Raja Sekhar Vundru

Shashi Tharoor’s journey as a writer interestingly makes a sojourn this year to write on Dr BR Ambedkar. Tharoor started his fictional journey with the modern version of Mahabharata, ‘The Great Indian Novel’, followed by non-fictional discourses to assess India as a nation. He attracted attention with his anti-colonial tirade, ‘Inglorious Empire: What British Did to India’, and wrote recently on nationalism and democracy.

The Congress leader wrote a brief biography of Nehru in 2003, and now his biography on Ambedkar comes with ‘three caveats’ for the reader. First, that the book is on Ambedkar’s ideas and ‘not of a man of physical adventure’. The second is on the interchangeability of words such as untouchable, Dalit, etc. Third, importantly, is that he should not be accused of being a non-Dalit in his analysis of Ambedkar.

Two-thirds of the book is dedicated to Ambedkar’s life, as fast-paced reading in five parts. The first covers the completion of foreign education (1891-1923); then Ambedkar’s activist life (till 1930). The next is on ‘scaling the peak’ (1930-35) on his challenge of Gandhi, Round Table Conference and Poona Pact; followed by ‘top of the mountain’ (1935-1946) with Ambedkar at the national political stage, and finally his role as chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution and Buddhist conversion as ‘triumph and disillusionment’ (1946-56).

Tharoor doesn’t give a fresh insight into Ambedkar’s life, but refreshingly sprinkles contemporary perspectives. He relies heavily on the biographies by ML Sahare and Nalini Anil (2016), Dhananjay Keer (1954) and Gail Omvedt (2004). One-third of the book is on his assessment of Ambedkar’s legacy, where he stumbles upon four flaws. On the first flaw, Tharoor piggy-rides Arundhati Roy’s criticism of Ambedkar in ‘The Doctor and The Saint’. That concerns the 1936 ‘Annihilation of Caste’ comments on aboriginal tribes as “savage”, “in need of civilising”, etc, and his 1945 view on the aboriginal tribes’ capacity to have political representation. Both Roy and Tharoor grossly missed the context. Roy, while quoting Ambedkar, removes the sarcasm he heaped on Hindus and how he accused them of treating aboriginal tribes as “savages” and “hereditary animals”.

Ambedkar’s 1945 ‘Communal Deadlock and How to Solve It’ was a snub to the Muslim League’s idea of Partition and he formulated a new thesis on sharing political representation for minorities as a solution to prevent Partition. Tharoor follows Roy and quotes the speech of Jaipal Singh (Munda), a tribal Constituent Assembly member, on December 19, 1946 on the Adivasis’ cause, thereby crediting him for reservation for the tribes and discrediting Ambedkar. Tharoor missed Singh’s August 24, 1949, statement: “I would like to congratulate Dr Ambedkar for his new amendment which he has presented to us today.” When Sardar Patel chose to abolish reservations for all communities listed in the 1947 Draft Constitution, Ambedkar fought and brought back reservations for Dalits and tribes into the Constitution on August 24, 1949. Tharoor is also oblivious that it was Ambedkar who included tribes for reservations in employment and education as part of the Constitution.

Tharoor also finds a flaw in Ambedkar’s engagement with Gandhi as ‘ungracious’, missing Gandhi’s confession to Patel as to why he chose the fast-unto-death. Tharoor cites the next flaw: Ambedkar created a strong Centre and believed that institutions can deliver welfare of Dalits. He fumbles with the context again, forgetting that on the eve of Independence, India was under the threat of Balkanisation, which needed a strong Centre.

Tharoor also finds a flaw in his criticism of Hinduism. Tharoor, who punched in his credentials as a Hindu with his books ‘Why I Am a Hindu’ and ‘The Hindu Way’, is unhappy with the language Ambedkar used for Hinduism, oblivious of the horrifying history, for instance, of Dalit Pulayas treated as slaves in his home state Kerala by Hindu society (Sanal Mohan, ‘Modernity of Slavery’).

Not being a Dalit and writing about Ambedkar throws up a few challenges. Firstly, Ambedkar stirs up one’s deep seated notions of the ‘Hindu way of life’ through his evaluation of Hinduism as a religion, through the modern tests of equality, liberty and fraternity. Secondly, Ambedkar’s struggle on the issue of women’s equality through the Hindu Code Bill comes as self-introspection to any writer.

Reading Ambedkar cuts open the ugly underbelly of a casteist and religious society. One needs a deeper understanding of caste, religious oppression through scriptural and societal injunctions, and the continuing dehumanisation of Dalits. ‘Ambedkar’ cannot be reduced to a fast-paced biography but is an eye-opener for many decades to come till India finds its social equality.

With all of Tharoor’s flaws in understanding Ambedkar, the book is a welcome addition to the ever-increasing interest in Ambedkar.