Tac Logo
Response to Professor Yogendra Yadav: Ambedkar, Iconization, and The Burden of Radicality

Response to Professor Yogendra Yadav: Ambedkar, Iconization, and The Burden of Radicality

By Sumit Samos

In his recent article in the Indian Express on April 15, Professor Yogendra Yadav takes a single line from my piece on April 14 and clubs it alongside certain State-led commemorations of Dr. Ambedkar by the BJP, thereby implying that I am content with the symbolic iconization of Ambedkar by the State. This not only misrepresents the core argument of my piece but also relies on selective quoting and misinterpretation, ultimately undermining its intended purpose.
When I wrote, "A remarkable reversal of fortune history has delivered," that sentence simply referred to how the very groups that once dismissed or derided Baba Saheb Ambedkar—orthodox caste Hindus, Congress leaders, and sections of the Left—are now eager to embrace his legacy. Anyone familiar with the political climate of the 1930s and '40s would understand the historical inversion I was referencing. At the same time, Dr Ambedkar engaged with the communist movement and Congress from time to time, as opposed to his complete opposition to organizations like the Hindu Maha Sabha and RSS. I must make this distinction clear, lest I be accused of reading history through a partisan lens. More importantly, my article went far beyond that single line. I discussed Dr Ambedkar's deep apprehension and anticipations about religious majoritarianism, upper-caste Hindu dominance in positions of power, and the urgent need for political and constitutional safeguards for social and religious minorities to be materialised. I explored his call for alternative historical frameworks centered on Dalit-Bahujan histories—frameworks that challenge the dominant cultural narratives of Hindu civilizational pride, exceptional South Asia, and anti-colonial historiography that either subsumes the Dalit-Bahujan socio-economic conditions or deflects them to the opposite party. I also critiqued the current Ambedkarite civil society for lacking the spontaneity, strategic foresight, and visionary expansiveness that Dr Ambedkar himself embodied in formulating programmes and policies for Dalits in changing political landscapes.
Unfortunately, Prof. Yadav ignored these arguments and instead extracted one line to suit his broader critique of iconization. This does a disservice not just to my piece but also resonates with the approach that reduces the iconization of Ambedkar to the instrumentalisation by political parties while muting Dalits as spectators or passive receivers. Professor Anand Teltumbde is a vocal proponent of this approach, where scrutiny of Dalits is the focal point in dealing with India's class and caste problems. The tendency of this scrutiny is so intense and suffocating that even the one-day celebration of Dr Ambedkar's birth anniversary on April 14 by the Dalit masses becomes a moral class lesson on leading digital and print media. For decades, figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Tagore have been upheld as symbols of the nation and its future—both in academia and popular media. Yet, one rarely, if ever, encounters any social group being reminded of how they have "failed" Gandhi or Nehru on their birth anniversaries. It is for all Indian citizens to reflect upon, but with Baba Saheb Ambedkar, it has to be his Dalit mass followers who are to be routinely subjected to explicit or subtle reminders. It is a form of caste pigeonholing that reduces Baba Saheb Ambedkar, and Indian public discourse, across the ideological spectrum, has become accustomed to this reductive framing. No critiques are questioning any particular social groups, whether merely featuring Gandhi or Nehru's names and images in textbooks is sufficient. I genuinely wonder how many times articles have been written expressing fatigue over Gandhi's iconography or questioning the state's annual commemoration of his birth anniversary. This selective scrutiny exposes a deeper moralizing impulse embedded in Indian public discourse—one that has long been weaponized to scapegoat Dalits, associate them with social stigma and criminality, and unjustly burden them with the weight of the nation's crises. Both societal attitudes and political narratives have historically placed this disproportionate responsibility on their shoulders.
When liberal Bhadralok Bengalis return home to celebrate Durga Pujo, no one questions whether they are engaging with the multiple streams of theological debates. It is simply seen as a time of familial bonding, cultural celebration, and social harmony. Likewise, when liberal Tamil Brahmins attend the elite Sabhas in Chennai during the December music season, it is framed as a celebration of heritage, aesthetics, and high culture. There is no scrutiny, no moral burden, no interrogation of ideological alignment or political implication.. But the Dalit masses are scrutinized at every step. If they celebrate Hindu festivals like everyone else, they are derided as being Hinduized. If they celebrate Buddhist festivals, they are termed ritualistic. If they hold to the constitution, they are tagged as statists; if they protest, they are put behind bars without any news of them being political prisoners, a tag that is available to a select few from urban cities. As they say in Hindi, Na Ghar Ka Na Ghat Ka.
Iconization of Ambedkar Vs Gandhi—Different Histories, Different Stakes
While Prof. Yadav argues that Ambedkar's iconization being complete risks rendering him an empty signifier—available for selective appropriation—I contend that this concern is premature. The caste Hindu society, by and large, has yet to accept Dr. Ambedkar even nominally, let alone in substance. The upper-caste Hindu middle class largely harbors resentment towards Ambedkar for his role in instituting reservation policies; the elites remain indifferent to his legacy, and dominant intermediary castes often respond with hostility and violence when Dalits attempt to install his bust or invoke his name in rural public spaces. The ritualistic invocation of his name by political parties does not amount to a societal embrace and does not mean that his iconization is complete. True iconization would mean internalizing Baba Saheb Ambedkar's radical critique of caste and embracing Dalits as equal citizens and kin. Until that threshold is crossed, Baba Saheb Ambedkar remains a figure of contempt among Caste Hindus and not that of even a minimum consensus—a symbol of the transformation yet to come, not one already achieved.
For the Dalit masses, he is far from an empty signifier—and will remain so. He stands as a symbol of their dignity, civic rights, and enduring hope for a better future. However, what Ambedkarite politics can achieve in his name depends on a complex interplay of internal dynamics and external forces. The iconization of Dr. Ambedkar holds the potential not for passive reverence but for generating sharp internal critiques and catalyzing alternative political imaginaries from within. We have seen that happen time and again from different groups, from RPI, Dalit Panthers, to Andhra Dalit Mahasabha, BSP, and VCK. The All India Independent Scheduled Caste Association, led by Rahul Sonpimple, and the Bhim Army, led by Chandrashekhar Azad, represent emerging forms of alternative politics in recent years. While the former believes in mobilizing Dalits around pertinent material questions and building autonomous institutions as opposed to the passivity of bureaucrats and intellectual classes, the latter emerged as a youthful assertion against caste violence and was upset with the non-agitational politics of the BSP. Both tendencies reflect a critique of the limitations within contemporary Ambedkarite political leadership and intellectual circles, exposing their inability to chart new directions for Dalit emancipation. The crisis of the intellectual class lies not in the iconization of Baba Saheb Ambedkar but in their inability to expand the corpus of existing emancipatory scholarship in ways that address the complexities of today's shifting socio-economic and political landscape.
The anti-caste intellectual tradition in recent years has struggled to produce pathbreaking research or theoretical frameworks, and this is even though more Dalit Bahujan students have entered higher education. This intellectual stagnation is shaped by multiple factors: structural barriers within academia, the compulsion to conform to dominant upper-caste frameworks, and the adoption of the popular academic vocabulary that often alienates their scholarship from the masses they are to represent.
On the political front, the leadership that remains visible tends to either pursue isolationist electoral strategies or operate on the margins of dominant regional alliances—frequently lacking the bargaining strength needed to negotiate meaningful power. This vacuum, however, has not deterred the Dalit masses from mobilising and protesting against violence, for their rights and provisions from the local level to the national level. On many occasions, these are led by disparate groups of Ambedkarites if they work in that particular area, which often go unacknowledged while assessing the Ambedkarite movement.
Moving on, in the article, there is also a parallel being drawn between the iconization of Gandhi and Ambedkar by Professor. However, the genealogies and mechanisms behind their iconization are fundamentally different. Gandhi's image was State-sponsored, nurtured by the Congress party as Dr Ambedkar himself argued in his BBC interview, and cemented by academic historians such as Bipan Chandra, who, notably, relegated Baba Saheb Ambedkar to the margins—even in landmark events like the Poona Pact. This is despite Baba Saheb Ambedkar's enhanced stature post-Round Table Conferences, where he emerged as a key representative of the Depressed Classes with mass support across the country. Baba Saheb Ambedkar's iconization, in stark contrast, emerged from the grassroots—built through resistance in the face of caste violence and caste Hindu hostility in villages and towns across India. From Owen Lynch's documentation of Dalit processions meeting with violence in 1970s Agra to Ambedkar statues being caged in Tamil Nadu in the present, this is a legacy forged through struggle and assertion of space—not a State-backed celebration one sees getting popular visibility through the media. The iconographic elevation of Ambedkar is not merely a product of spontaneous emotionalism but rather a historically grounded expression of Dalit agency—anchored in vernacular traditions of community building, socio-political organizing, educational advocacy, resistance to caste atrocities, and deliberate contestation of hegemonic authority.
Contrary to dominant portrayals in public discourse, Dalit masses have not merely rallied for statues or busts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—they have waged sustained struggles on the ground, including street protests in the 1980s that were met with violent backlash, all for the right to publish and circulate his writings. The pioneering efforts of Ambedkarites such as Bhagwan Das, Lahori Ram Balley, J.B. Bansod, and Vasant Moon stand as powerful reminders of who truly carried the torch of Ambedkar's intellectual legacy. It was not the mainstream intelligentsia or academic institutions, but Dalit communities themselves who took the lead in publishing and distributing vernacular translations of Ambedkar's works—often at great personal cost and always intending to make emancipatory literature accessible and affordable across India. Small books and pamphlets are a common feature of most Ambedkarite gatherings. Their work laid the foundation for the very intellectual discourse that academia now engages with, though rarely acknowledging its source, but are ever ready to moralise about ideas and books on April 14..
While Gandhi has not inspired significant mass mobilizations in recent decades, neither for books nor for rights(except perhaps during the Bhoodan movement), Ambedkar continues to symbolise the demand for justice and accountability from the state. The protests in Una (2016), Rohith Vemula's institutional murder (2016), the agitation against the dilution of SC/ST POA (2018), Safai Karamchari mobilizations, and Muslim protestors carrying Ambedkar's photo during the anti-CAA protests (2020)—all testify to the continuing radical resonance of Ambedkar. This is not a top-down iconization but a dispersed, decentralized, organic phenomenon. The attempt to conflate this with Gandhi's more institutionalized memorialization misses the very radical energy and spontaneity at the heart of Baba Saheb Ambedkar's contemporary relevance. Further, Gandhi is largely seen as a mere nostalgia, a harmless, saintly person from the past who led the nationalist movement. Contemporary popular politics draws very little philosophical or political inspiration from Gandhi.
The familiar tropes of non-violence and Hindu-Muslim unity, often invoked in his name, have rarely translated into transformative political action. Gandhi's image may appear on posters, but it does not carry the political immediacy or mobilizing power that Ambedkar's legacy commands today. Unlike Ambedkar, Gandhi is no longer a living political constituency—he is a symbol, not a force.
In the 2024 UP Lok Sabha outcome—unexpected by many—narratives around the Constitution and reservation resonated more powerfully than the Ayodhya Temple campaign. This was possible only because decades of Ambedkarite movements have politicized SCs and sections of OBCs, embedding the Constitution and discourse around reservation into the heart of their political consciousness. Terms like Samata Mulak Samaj (Egalitarian Society) and Sambidhanik Adhikar (Constitutional rights), the importance of better education, and the hope of a dignified life are often reiterated in many Ambedkarite gatherings, in their songs, in poems, and in music across the country by the poorer Dalits. It is not mindless as many would like to portray. What ought to raise greater concern—and merit both academic and public scrutiny—are the mass gatherings orchestrated by an expanding cohort of self-styled 'Babas' and dubious spiritual preachers. Yet, instead of interrogating these phenomena, moral judgment is disproportionately reserved for the Dalit masses commemorating Baba Saheb Ambedkar.
The Burden of Radicality Shouldn't Rest Solely on Dalit Masses
Prof. Yadav speaks of the need to reclaim Baba Saheb Ambedkar's radicality "before he became respectable." But who is he addressing? It is the Dalit masses who kept Ambedkar's radical legacy alive, long before the Congress, the BJP, or mainstream academia acknowledged him. And even today, should the responsibility to 'reclaim' his radicalism fall on Dalit masses alone?
If 'radical Ambedkar' is absent from public discourse, it is also because Delhi-based civil society, intellectuals, and academics, many of whom had more access to media and educational institutions under Congress rule, did not take on the responsibility of popularizing Ambedkar's deeper philosophical work. Despite the availability of the (BAWS) in English for more than twenty years now, and the spread of Ambedkarite mobilisations across different states, not many have worked to make his ideas on fraternity, democracy, public policy, and a whole range of themes he worked on accessible to wider audiences. Could it be that Ambedkar was still seen—by even progressive civil society—as "merely" a Dalit icon, rather than a universal thinker of democracy and social transformation?
Appropriation Does Not Equal Co-optation
Prof. Yadav's concern about the State or the RSS appropriating Baba Saheb Ambedkar is valid, but appropriation alone does not signify the failure of Ambedkarite iconizations. Rather, it signals how politically significant Baba Saheb Ambedkar's legacy has become, and no party wants to be on the wrong side of history, at least in their public proclamations. Political figures and social movements are inevitably subject to multiple interpretations and modes of engagement. However, the rise of Hindutva has not prevented large-scale celebrations of Baba Saheb Ambedkar by Dalit masses across India—and contrary to what is implied, these gatherings are not being orchestrated in tandem with the BJP or RSS.
If anything, this mass remembrance of Ambedkar by Dalit masses is akin to paying homage to a parental figure—a deeply emotional, scattered, decentralized act of remembrance. A critique of Brahmanical Hinduism and upper caste hegemony continues to be reiterated in many such gatherings. This is a form of radicalism rarely witnessed in other political gatherings.
There is no empirical evidence suggesting that Dalit masses who are followers of Dr. Ambedkar either advocate for a Hindu Rashtra or support the BJP en masse—such positions stand in direct contradiction to their foundational ideology. In the recent Lok Sabha elections, nearly 70 percent of the core Ambedkarite voters in Uttar Pradesh supported the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the INDIA alliance. Similarly, in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, around half of Ambedkarite Buddhist voters backed non-BJP, non-Congress alliance parties, while the rest of the vote was scattered across the alliance parties. These voting patterns reflect a consistent ideological commitment, and they are not swayed by Hindutva as it is made out to be. Despite this, must their celebration of Dr Ambedkar be constantly moralized or subjected to ideological policing?
Ambedkarism 2.0 Must Be a Collective Project
Yes, the Ambedkarite political leadership and intelligentsia have not been able to address critical issues such as rising caste-based violence, migratory distress, the decline of public sector jobs, and the urgent need for renewed emphasis on land rights, education, and dignified employment. Parties such as the BSP have faltered at the ballot box and grapple with leadership crises, internal turmoil, party functioning, and narrative building, but this does not signal the failure of the Dalit masses following Ambedkar. It is not the failure of the iconization of Baba Saheb Ambedkar by the masses. On the contrary, Dalit political assertion remains dynamic beyond the realm of electoral politics—manifesting in protests, a renewed commitment to the constitutional ideals of justice and equality, and, at times, even through internal contestations.. One needs to distinguish between these two trajectories. Dalit political mobilizations and community initiatives at the grassroots frequently struggle with limited organizational capacity and resources, leaving them ill-equipped for long-term engagement, and their political actions are particularly susceptible to state repression during moments of large-scale confrontation and social boycott by Caste Hindus. There have been many such events in the past.
One must take into account this vulnerability and community position while projecting the burden of radicality on the Dalit masses as it relates to Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Suppose we are to envision "Ambedkarism 2.0," centered on Baba Saheb Ambedkar's radical ideas of democracy and fraternity, as Professor Yadav mentioned. In that case, it must be the shared responsibility of everyone. Concepts like Fraternity and Democracy cannot be a one-way street, it has to be a fellowship, an associated mode of living. Dalit masses following Baba Saheb Ambedkar cannot waste their energy in appealing to the Caste Hindus in a social project. He realized the futility of such endeavors in the early 1930s and advised the Dalits to focus on educational, economic, and political questions. Baba Saheb Ambedkar once said that everyone wants to 'reclaim' the Dalits, but rarely does society question the moral and structural hostility of its governing classes. Every year, we come across numerous articles on Baba Saheb Ambedkar's relevance to public policy, law, labor rights, women's rights, and more, and that they should be recovered. But how often do we encounter a truly reflective engagement with the question: to what extent has his philosophy and calls to action been realized by the same groups of people, who are in positions of power, in media, in state machinery, in civil society, and academia, far more disproportionately than Dalits? Why does the burden of radicality solely fall on the Dalit masses in ensuring such a social project?

About the Author

Sumit Samos

Sumit Samos is a researcher from Odisha who works on Caste, Political mobilizations, Cultural production and Christianity. He did his MSc in Modern South Asian Studies from Oxford and is currently an incoming PhD student at University of Pennsylvania.

Enjoyed this article?

Share it with your friends and colleagues!