SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front
(Asian independent) Predicting how a historical figure like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar would react to a contemporary phenomenon like the Hindutva-corporate alliance involves speculation, but we can make an informed assessment based on his writings, speeches, and actions. Ambedkar, a towering intellectual, social reformer, and architect of India’s Constitution, was deeply committed to social justice, equality, and the annihilation of caste oppression. His views on Hinduism, economic systems, and political power provide clues to how he might have responded to such an alliance today.
Context of Hindutva-Corporate Alliance
The term “Hindutva-corporate alliance” typically refers to the convergence of Hindutva ideology—promoting Hindu cultural and political dominance—with corporate interests, often seen in the interplay of right-wing political movements and economic policies favouring big business in modern India. This could involve policies prioritizing economic liberalization, deregulation, or corporate influence alongside cultural nationalism that emphasizes Hindu identity, sometimes at the expense of marginalized groups.
Ambedkar’s Likely Perspective
- Critique of Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism:
– Ambedkar was a fierce critic of orthodox Hinduism and its caste system, which he saw as inherently oppressive. In works like *Annihilation of Caste* (1936), he argued that Hinduism’s hierarchical structure perpetuated inequality and dehumanized Dalits and other marginalized groups. He viewed attempts to unify Hindus under a singular cultural or religious identity with scepticism, as they often ignored or suppressed caste realities.
– Hindutva’s emphasis on a monolithic Hindu identity would likely have been antithetical to Ambedkar’s vision of a society free from caste oppression. He might have seen it as a repackaging of upper-caste dominance, cloaked in nationalist rhetoric, that marginalizes Dalits, Adivasis, and minorities further.
– If alive today, Ambedkar might argue that Hindutva’s cultural nationalism distracts from addressing systemic inequalities and risks entrenching caste privileges under the guise of unity. He could point to instances where Hindutva policies or rhetoric appear to undermine constitutional protections for marginalized groups, such as debates over reservations or minority rights.
- Scepticism of Corporate Power:
– Ambedkar was not inherently anti-capitalist, but he was wary of unchecked economic power that exacerbated inequality. He advocated for a mixed economy with strong state intervention to uplift the oppressed, as seen in his support for land reforms and labour rights. In his role in drafting the Constitution, he emphasized safeguards for workers and marginalized communities.
– A Hindutva-corporate alliance prioritizing corporate interests over social welfare might have alarmed him. For example, policies favouring deregulation or crony capitalism could be seen as neglecting the economic empowerment of Dalits and other disadvantaged groups, whom he championed.
– He might critique the concentration of wealth and power in corporate hands, especially if it aligns with upper-caste elites, as reinforcing caste-class hierarchies. Ambedkar could point to data showing persistent economic disparities—e.g., studies indicating Dalits and Adivasis remain underrepresented in corporate leadership and wealth distribution—as evidence of systemic failure.
- Constitutional and Democratic Concerns:
– As a defender of constitutional democracy, Ambedkar emphasized equality, liberty, and fraternity as foundational principles. He warned against majoritarianism, noting in his 1949 Constituent Assembly speech that democracy risks becoming mob rule without constitutional morality.
– He might view a Hindutva-corporate alliance as a threat to these principles if it undermines constitutional checks, suppresses dissent, or prioritizes nationalist agendas over pluralistic values. For instance, he could criticize policies or actions that erode judicial independence, weaken labour protections, or curtail freedoms of speech and religion.
– Ambedkar would likely advocate for strengthening democratic institutions to counter any alliance that consolidates power among elites, whether ideological or economic.
- Intersection of Caste and Capital:
– Ambedkar’s analysis often linked caste and economic oppression. He might argue that a Hindutva-corporate alliance risks perpetuating a system where upper-caste elites dominate both cultural narratives and economic resources, leaving Dalits and other marginalized groups doubly disadvantaged.
– He could highlight how corporate-driven development often displaces Adivasis or exploits Dalit labor without addressing their structural exclusion. For example, he might reference reports on land acquisition disputes or labor conditions in industries to underscore how such alliances prioritize profit over justice.
- Strategic Response:
– Ambedkar was a pragmatist who built movements, drafted laws, and engaged in dialogue to advance his vision. If alive, he might mobilize civil society—Dalit organizations, labor unions, and progressive intellectuals—to challenge the alliance’s excesses. He could write incisive critiques, much like his essays in *Annihilation of Caste* or *Riddles in Hinduism*, exposing contradictions in Hindutva’s claims of inclusivity or corporate promises of trickle-down prosperity.
– He might also push for policy reforms, such as stronger affirmative action, wealth redistribution, or corporate accountability measures, to counterbalance the alliance’s influence. His conversion to Buddhism in 1956 suggests he would advocate alternative ethical frameworks to challenge Hindutva’s cultural hegemony.
Hypothetical Scenarios
– On Cultural Policies: If the alliance promoted policies like cow protection laws or temple-centric nationalism, Ambedkar might argue they divert attention from caste atrocities or economic deprivation, reinforcing upper-caste priorities. He could cite crime statistics showing ongoing violence against Dalits to demand focus on real issues.
– On Economic Policies: If corporate tax cuts or land reforms favoured big business, he might analyze their impact on rural Dalit and Adivasi communities, using economic data to argue for equitable growth models.
– On Political Rhetoric: He would likely dissect speeches or campaigns blending Hindutva with corporate success narratives, exposing how they gloss over caste and class divides to maintain elite dominance.
Limitations of Speculation
While Ambedkar’s principles are clear, his response would depend on today’s specific political and economic nuances, which differ from his era. He might adapt his strategies to leverage modern tools like social media or global human rights frameworks, but his core commitment to dismantling oppression would remain.
In summary, Dr. Ambedkar would likely view a Hindutva-corporate alliance with deep suspicion, critiquing its potential to entrench caste, economic, and cultural inequalities. He would challenge it through intellectual rigor, grassroots mobilization, and constitutional advocacy, urging a return to equality and justice as India’s guiding ideals.
