Co-opting icons to reverse reforms: A battle for legacy

# Ajayan | These poignant lines from K Satchidanandan’s poem ‘Iruvar’ resonate with a striking intensity in today’s charged atmosphere, where two towering icons of social reform have been audaciously appropriated by a political faction that fervently upholds the very religious ideology these reformers starkly contradicted.

On the national stage, BR Ambedkar has been drawn into the political fray, with the ruling BJP invoking his legacy in a calculated offensive against the Congress. And in the southern heartland of Kerala, the revered social reformer Sree Narayana Guru finds his legacy entangled in a contentious discourse around Sanatana Dharma 

- a concept he unequivocally distanced himself from. It is worth noting that while Ambedkar famously renounced Hinduism to embrace Buddhism, Guru himself boldly proclaimed that Hinduism was not a religion at all, asserting that there were many Sanatana Dharmas rather than a singular one. Ironically, it is this very pluralistic perspective that is attempted to be confined within rigid ideological framework with political support from different corners; why even a section of the Congress.

When Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan during the conclave at Sivagiri very recently said that efforts were on to tie down Guru to the confines of Sanatana Dharma, Hindu outfits found it disturbing. Despite the fact that there could be political motives behind Pinarayi’s statement, it remains a fact that Guru was above the ideals that these Hindu outfits champion. Guru was one who believed that different schools of thought, incidentally when most of them are rationalistic, together formed the Hindu group, practically the majority of those now herded together as Hindus were literally out of that. For someone who installed a mirror as the deity in a temple, the message against this fanaticism becomes clearer.

For Guru, the concept of Sanatana Dharma, as it is now championed, represented rigidity - an unchanging and eternal order. Ironically, it was precisely this inflexibility and permanence that Guru stood firmly against, advocating instead for a more inclusive, evolving perspective that certainly would never be Sanatana Dharma. Interestingly, the onus falls on the leadership of the Sivagiri Mutt, an institution that, by law, is not classified as a Hindu organization, to elucidate and uphold the true essence of Guru’s teachings.

Adding fuel to the fire, the head of the Sivagiri Mutt recently questioned the propriety of the practice requiring men to enter temples bare-chested, sparking yet another controversy among Hindu outfits, which defend it as a time-honoured ritual. Ironically, this debate unfolds in a land where the Renaissance movement once fought valiantly for the right of women to cover their bodies, a poignant reminder of Kerala’s progressive legacy. K Satchidanandan’s evocative lines say it all in a different context.

Dr. BR Ambedkar

Way north in Delhi, when BJP leader Amit Shah said in Parliament that  chanting Ambedkar’s name on loop has become fashion. Not stopping at mere rhetoric, Shah went a step further, suggesting the Congress ditched Ambedkar and instead should chant the names of gods, fetching them the express pass to heaven’s gates.

What Shah failed to grasp, blinded perhaps by his relentless opposition to the Congress, was that for Indians, Ambedkar is no mythical deity for whom temples are erected, sometimes over the rubble of demolished religious structures. Ambedkar was a living god, one who walked among all to uplift the downtrodden and restore their humanity - a far cry from the divine symbols used as political props.

Critical missteps in Shah's assertions included his misrepresentation of Ambedkar’s stance on Article 370. Contrary to the claims, the architect of the Constitution advocated for a zonal plebiscite in Jammu, Ladakh, and Kashmir, reflecting a nuanced approach. Also, Shah’s narrative overlooked the fact that Ambedkar's resignation was rooted in the Congress's reluctance to pass the progressive Hindu Code Bill.

The Hindu Code Bill was a revolutionary proposal that sought to dismantle regressive practices deeply entrenched in Hindu society. It aimed to outlaw polygamy, reform patriarchal inheritance laws, and address caste-based discrimination, among other social injustices. Ambedkar, as the chair of the subcommittee tasked with drafting the Hindu Code Bill, introduced it in the Constituent Assembly in October 1947. With Nehru as its staunchest advocate, the Bill aimed to usher in sweeping reforms to establish equality and justice within what is now termed Hindu society. However, history bears witness to fierce opposition from Hindutva groups and leaders like Savarkar, whose resistance ultimately led to the Bill's defeat. Disillusioned by this setback, Ambedkar tendered his resignation from Nehru’s Cabinet on September 27, 1951.

What Shah also forgot was Ambedkar’s words: “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.” On December 25, 1927, Ambedkar made a historic and symbolic gesture by burning the Manusmṛiti, whose tenets Hindu outfits then and even now champion. To Ambedkar, this ancient Hindu law book epitomized the roots of gender and caste oppression. He believed that the Manusmṛiti

, by granting immense powers to Brahmins, endorsing the Varna system and perpetuating systemic inequalities, laid the foundation for untouchability.

In a world where public memory fades faster than a passing trend, the ideals of reformers get contorted, and fabricated lies are paraded around as gospel truths. Tragically, the legacy of these visionaries now lies vulnerable in the clutches of opportunistic spin-doctors, highlighting an urgent call for a genuine second wave of the Renaissance movement. And no, not the fragmented, politically charged version conjured by Pinarayi during the Sabarimala verdict protests, but a true resurgence of progressive ideals that transcends divisive agendas.