Why did Dr. Ambedkar burn Manusmriti and What was its impact on Dalits and Hindu Society?

 

Why did Dr. Ambedkar burn Manusmriti and What was its impact on Dalits and Hindu Society?

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

(“Special on 25 December: Manusmriti Burning Day)

 

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a pioneering leader in India's Dalit (formerly known as Untouchable) rights movement and the architect of the Indian Constitution, publicly burned copies of the “Manusmriti” (also known as the “Laws of Manu”) on December 25, 1927, during a massive gathering in Mahad, Maharashtra. This event, now commemorated annually as “Manusmriti Dahan Diwas” (Manusmriti Burning Day) or Equality Day, was a pivotal act of symbolic protest rooted in the Mahad Satyagraha—a non-violent campaign demanding Dalits' equal access to public resources, particularly the Chavdar Tank (a water reservoir historically barred to them by upper-caste Hindus).

The “Manusmriti”, an ancient Hindu legal text attributed to the sage Manu (circa 200 BCE–200 CE), outlines the “Chaturvarna” system—a hierarchical social order dividing society into four castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras), with Dalits positioned outside as "untouchables." Ambedkar viewed it as the scriptural foundation of caste-based discrimination, untouchability, and gender inequality, justifying practices like barring lower castes from temples, water sources, and inter-caste marriages. He argued that as long as Hindus revered such texts, genuine reform was impossible, stating in his speech at the event: "It would be futile to expect that any person who revered the Manusmriti could be genuinely interested in the welfare of the Untouchables." His broader aim was not merely to end untouchability but to uproot the entire “Chaturvarna” system at its ideological core, ridiculing orthodox defenders by saying, "They have not read Manusmriti... we will never accept it." Ambedkar likened the burning to revolutionary acts like Gandhi's bonfires of foreign cloth during the independence struggle, emphasizing it as a necessary rejection of oppressive traditions: "If this has become ancient, then why do you have any objection to someone burning it?" He even issued a stark warning: "If unfortunately, Brahminism does not end by burning Manu Smriti, then we will have to either burn the people suffering from Brahmanism or leave Hinduism."

The ceremony itself was defiant: After upper-caste authorities blocked access to venues and supplies, Dalit organizers secured alternative land from a Muslim supporter. Ambedkar arrived by boat to evade transport boycotts, and participants—over 3,000 strong—took oaths affirming equality before the text was ritually torn and burned page by page on an open altar inscribed with slogans like "Bury Brahminism" and "Untouchability should be destroyed." This act was not an attack on all Hindu scriptures (Ambedkar spared texts like the Vedas or Upanishads, which he saw as less prescriptive of caste) but a targeted strike against what he called the "casteist rulebook" enabling systemic oppression.

 Impact on Dalits

The burning was a transformative moment for Dalits, serving as a clarion call for self-assertion and resistance against centuries of dehumanization. It empowered marginalized communities by rejecting the religious legitimacy of their subjugation, framing equality as a non-negotiable right rather than a charitable concession. For the first time, Dalits actively destroyed a sacred symbol of their oppression, fostering a sense of agency and unity—evident in the event's scale and the subsequent resolutions passed, which declared Dalits' equal claim to public spaces and inter-caste solidarity.

This act catalysed broader Dalit mobilization, influencing movements like the temple entry campaigns and Ambedkar's eventual mass conversion to Buddhism in 1956, where nearly 500,000 Dalits renounced Hinduism to escape caste dogma. It laid ideological groundwork for affirmative action policies (reservations) in the Indian Constitution and inspired ongoing Dalit literature, activism, and cultural assertions—such as annual “Dahan Diwas” celebrations that keep the fight against untouchability alive. Today, it remains a beacon for Dalit rights, highlighting persistent issues like caste violence and discrimination, and reinforcing the community's resolve: as one observer noted, "People still face caste-based discrimination in every aspect of their life."

 Impact on Hindu Society

For Hindu society, the burning was profoundly disruptive, exposing fractures in the orthodox framework and igniting fierce backlash while sowing seeds of reform. Upper-caste Hindus, particularly Brahminical elites, decried it as an assault on tradition, with media outlets branding Ambedkar "Bhim Asur" (demon Bhim) and intensifying efforts to suppress Dalit gatherings. This polarization deepened communal tensions in Mahad and beyond, underscoring the chasm between reformist and conservative factions.

Yet, it compelled introspection and debate on caste's scriptural roots, challenging the notion that Hinduism was inherently egalitarian and pressuring leaders like Gandhi to engage more directly with untouchability (though Ambedkar critiqued Gandhi's approach as paternalistic). The event contributed to a wave of social reform, influencing Hindu thinkers to question “Manusmriti's” authority and paving the way for legal changes like the abolition of untouchability in 1950. Its legacy endures in contemporary Hindu society, where it fuels discussions on caste privilege, gender roles (as “Manusmriti” also subordinates women), and secularism—warning against "cultural fascism" from groups like the RSS that revive hierarchical ideals. Ultimately, Ambedkar's act reshaped Hindu discourse, making caste critique a mainstream (if contentious) issue and advancing India's trajectory toward constitutional equality.

What were Dr. Ambedkar's apprehensions about the fate of Christians in free India How far they have come true?

 

What were Dr. Ambedkar's apprehensions about the fate of Christians in free India How far they have come true? 

-         SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

                                                

 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Apprehensions About the Fate of Christians in India

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the architect of India's Constitution and a fierce critic of caste-based oppression, expressed deep concerns about the future of Christianity in India during a pivotal speech to Indian Christians in Sholapur (now Solapur) on January 1, 1938. At the time, Ambedkar was actively exploring religious alternatives for Dalits (then called "Untouchables") as a means of escaping Hindu caste hierarchies, and he seriously considered Christianity alongside Buddhism and Islam. However, his praise for Jesus Christ as a revolutionary figure promoting equality, liberty, and fraternity was tempered by sharp critiques of how Christianity had adapted (or failed to adapt) to India's social realities.

Ambedkar's apprehensions were not abstract theological debates but practical warnings rooted in his observations of caste persistence, missionary shortcomings, and the political naivety of Indian Christians. He feared that without structural changes, Christians—particularly Dalit converts—would remain marginalized, their conversions offering spiritual solace but little social or political liberation. Key apprehensions included:

1. Persistence of Caste Within and Outside the Church: Ambedkar worried that Christianity would import or retain caste divisions, leaving Dalit converts as "untouchables" even after baptism. He noted that higher-caste Christians often discriminated against Dalit newcomers, mirroring Hindu prejudices, while Hindus continued to shun all Christians as "polluted." In his speech, he lamented: "The Indian Christian is a disjointed—it is a better word than disunited—society... The converts from the Untouchables are looked down upon by the converts from the higher classes." He personally experienced this when a Christian acquaintance in Baroda refused him lodging due to his Dalit status, despite the host's conversion. Without dismantling caste, Ambedkar predicted, Christianity would fail to integrate Dalits into a truly egalitarian society.

2. Vulnerability Due to Lack of Political Engagement: Ambedkar's core fear was that Christians' apolitical stance would doom their institutions and community to irrelevance. He observed that despite high education levels—producing nurses, teachers, clerks, and officers—Christians were "inconspicuous" in public life, with "not a single Christian in the High Court, not a single Christian in the District Court, not a single Christian in the Collectorate." He warned: "It is difficult for any institution to survive without political support," urging agitation for rights like scholarships, which Dalit Christians lost upon conversion without protest. In contrast, he praised illiterate Dalits for mobilizing politically to secure legislative seats and hostels, asking Christians: "Your society is so much educated, how many are District judges or magistrates? I tell you; this is because of your neglect towards politics."

3. Missionary Focus on Conversion Over Emancipation: Ambedkar criticized missionaries for prioritizing baptisms over "political rights" and social justice, stating they "feel they have done their duty when they convert an untouchable to Christianity" but ignore post-conversion injustices. He feared this would leave Dalit Christians dependent on foreign aid, unable to challenge the "Brahmanical Social Order" (BSO), and ultimately segregated like historical Buddhists.

These views influenced Ambedkar's ultimate choice of Buddhism in 1956, as it seemed better suited to Indian soil without the baggage of foreign institutional hierarchies.

 How Far Have These Apprehensions Come True?

Ambedkar's predictions have proven prescient, especially in the post-Independence era amid rising Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) and entrenched caste dynamics. While Indian Christians (about 2.3% of the population, or ~28 million as per the 2011 Census) have made strides in education and urban professions, systemic vulnerabilities persist and have worsened in recent decades. Here is an assessment:

Apprehension | Current Status | Extent Realized

 Caste Persistence: Dalit Christians (over 70% of the community) face "double discrimination". They are shunned by Hindus and marginalized within churches, where upper-caste (Syrian or "forward" caste) Christians control leadership and resources.  Separate burial grounds, segregated seating, and denial of sacraments for Dalit converts are documented. Conversion also strips Dalits of affirmative action benefits (e.g., reservations in jobs/education), unlike Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar’s apprehension has largely come true as Caste endures, fueling internal church schisms and external hostility. Ambedkar's fear of superficial integration is evident.

Lack of Political Engagement/Representation: Christians hold low parliamentary seats: ~3.5% in the opposition INDIA bloc (8 MPs from 235 seats) and even less in the ruling BJP-led NDA (~2%). No major national Christian-led party exists, and Dalit Christians are underrepresented in state politics. Anti-conversion laws in 11 states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) target Christian outreach, often without due process. Recent elections (2024) brought slight relief by curbing BJP's majority, but Christians mobilized through prayer and voting blocs rather than independent power. As such Ambedkar’s apprehension has come mostly true: Neglect of politics has left the community "spectral" and reactive, as Ambedkar warned, exacerbating vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability to Injustices/Persecution: Attacks on Christians surged 550% from 2014–2024, averaging 2 per day in 2024 alone— including church burnings, assaults on clergy, and village boycotts (e.g., an 8-month boycott in Chhattisgarh in 2025). Hindutva groups like RSS/VHP frame Christians as "foreign" threats, echoing Ambedkar's BSO concerns. Missionary-led education persists but faces funding cuts and vigilantism. As such Ambedkar’s apprehension has come Fully True: Without political muscle, institutions teeter; Ambedkar's "survival without support" prophecy rings true amid state complicity in some cases.

In summary, Ambedkar's apprehensions have materialized to a significant degree, particularly for Dalit Christians, who remain educationally advanced yet politically sidelined and socially besieged. The rise of Hindutva since the 1990s has amplified these risks, turning his 1938 warnings into a stark reality. However, glimmers of agency—such as interfaith Dalit solidarity and electoral mobilization—suggest paths forward if Christians heed his call for political agitation.

How Kanshi Ram’s Opportunistic Alliances Helped Restrengthen BJP–Hindutva and Confused the Dalits

How Kanshi Ram’s Opportunistic Alliances Helped Restrengthen BJP–Hindutva and Confused the Dalits

-SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

 

Kanshi Ram occupies a pivotal place in modern Dalit political history for transforming Dalit assertion into an organized electoral force through the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). His emphasis on numerical strength, caste mobilization, and power capture brought Dalits into the centre of electoral politics. However, one of the most controversial and consequential aspects of his strategy was the repeated opportunistic alliances with ideologically antagonistic forces, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

This brief argues that Kanshi Ram’s alliance politics—especially BSP–BJP coalitions—played an unintended but decisive role in re-legitimizing Hindutva, strengthening the BJP’s social base, and creating ideological confusion among Dalits. What was presented as tactical pragmatism produced long-term structural benefits for Brahmanical majoritarianism while weakening the moral and ideological clarity of Dalit politics.

1. BJP–Hindutva as an Ideological Opponent of Dalit Emancipation

The BJP is not merely a competitive electoral party but the political arm of the RSS-led Hindutva project, which is historically rooted in:

• Brahmanical social hierarchy
• Cultural homogenization under Hindu nationalism
• Rejection of caste annihilation
• Hostility toward Ambedkarite Buddhism and minority rights

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar consistently warned that Hindu unity was built on Dalit subordination, and that Hindu majoritarian politics would always sacrifice Dalit interests in moments of crisis. From this perspective, any alliance with Hindutva was not a neutral tactical choice but an ideological rupture with Ambedkarite politics.

2. Kanshi Ram’s Rationale: Power First, Ideology Later

Kanshi Ram defended alliances by arguing that:

• BSP had no permanent enemies
• Power must be captured “from wherever possible”
• Ideology could be addressed after acquiring power This framework reduced ideology to an adjustable variable and treated alliances as value-neutral instruments. However, repeated alliances with BJP normalized engagement with a fundamentally anti-Ambedkarite force, blurring the distinction between strategic flexibility and ideological surrender.

3. How These Alliances Strengthened BJP and Hindutva

3.1 Political Legitimation of Hindutva

During the 1990s, BJP was still struggling with its image as an upper-caste, anti-minority party. Alliances with BSP provided it:

• Dalit legitimacy
• Democratic respectability
• A shield against accusations of caste bias

When a Dalit-led party shared power with BJP, it conveyed that Hindutva was compatible with Dalit interests, weakening resistance to it.

3.2 Fragmentation of Anti-Hindutva Forces

BSP–BJP alliances fractured the possibility of a stable anti-Brahmanical coalition of:

• Dalits
• minorities
• secular forces

Instead of consolidating an ideological front against Hindutva, Dalit politics became available for negotiation with it. This fragmentation directly benefited BJP by isolating minorities and weakening collective resistance.

3.3 BJP’s Social Engineering Lessons

Through alliances, BJP learned:

• how to target non-Jatav Dalits and non-dominant OBCs
• how to use symbolic Ambedkar imagery
• how to fragment Dalit unity internally

These lessons later allowed BJP to expand independently, absorb sections of Dalits into Hindutva politics, and marginalize BSP electorally.

4. Ideological Confusion Among Dalits

4.1 Contradictory Political Messaging

Dalits were simultaneously told that:

• Brahmanism is oppressive, and
• Brahmanical parties can be partners in power

This contradiction produced political disorientation. The clarity about caste as a structural enemy was replaced by transactional calculations.

4.2 Dilution of Ambedkar’s Political Warnings

Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism as a social order was reduced to:

• symbolic reverence
• statues without social reform
• slogans without moral consistency

By allying with BJP, BSP weakened Ambedkar’s core warning that Hindu majoritarianism and Dalit emancipation are fundamentally incompatible.

4.3 Normalization of Cynical Politics

Repeated alliances and abrupt breakups taught Dalits that:

• politics is about deals, not principles
• ideology is negotiable
• power justifies contradiction

This cynicism weakened grassroots activism and discouraged long-term commitment to social transformation.

5. Structural Benefits to Hindutva

5.1 Time and Space for Consolidation

Alliance periods gave BJP time to:

• strengthen RSS networks
• expand into Dalit and OBC localities
• moderate its public image

Once consolidated, BJP no longer needed BSP.

5.2 Symbolic Appropriation of Ambedkar

After gaining legitimacy, BJP rebranded Ambedkar as:

• a nationalist constitutionalist
• a Hindu social reformer
• a figure disconnected from Buddhism and caste radicalism

This appropriation succeeded because BSP had already blurred ideological boundaries.

5.3 Weakening of Independent Dalit Politics

As BSP declined, Dalits lacked:

• strong ideological institutions
• autonomous social movements
• clear anti-Hindutva political orientation

The vacuum was filled by BJP’s welfare nationalism, symbolism, and identity fragmentation.

6. Contrast with Ambedkar’s Political Strategy

Ambedkar refused alliances that compromised moral clarity. For him:

• politics was a tool for social reconstruction
• ideology preceded power
• Hindu majoritarianism was a structural threat

Kanshi Ram reversed this order by treating power as the primary objective and ideology as flexible. This shift proved costly.

Conclusion

Kanshi Ram’s opportunistic alliances—especially with the BJP—may have delivered short-term political gains, but they structurally strengthened Hindutva, diluted the moral force of Dalit politics, and confused Dalits about the nature of their struggle.

By legitimizing Hindutva through partnership, fragmenting anti-caste coalitions, and normalizing principle-light politics, these alliances helped BJP mature into a dominant force while leaving Dalit politics ideologically weakened.

In the long run, Kanshi Ram’s alliance strategy did not defeat Brahmanical power; it enabled its consolidation, confirming Ambedkar’s warning that without ideological clarity, political power becomes fragile and reversible.