Prof. Palshikar! I Am Sorry: Dr. Ambedkar
S. R. Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)
Prof. Palshikar! I am deeply pained by the vandalism carried out yesterday in your office by four members of the so-called 'Republican Party'—an act directed at a cartoon of me. I trust that perhaps they do not fully grasp the nature of their actions; therefore, I ask that you forgive them. I, too, am profoundly saddened by what they have done, and I struggle to understand what ideal of mine they sought to uphold through such behaviour. Throughout my life, I have fought for the freedom of Dalits to speak, for they have been victims of enforced silence for centuries—rendered, in effect, deaf and mute. For ages, they were compelled to endure every form of humiliation in silence—an experience I, too, have lived through. Through my education, I became their voice, dedicating my life to ensuring they had a means to express themselves. Yet, by acting as they did against you yesterday, they have effectively silenced that very voice.
No! I cannot remain silent. I must speak out about this incident, especially since it was carried out in my name. I understand that this was triggered by a cartoon of me featured in a book. Citing my alleged 'insult,' some of my overzealous followers created an uproar in Parliament, bringing its proceedings to a complete standstill. Others even demanded that the scholars who authored the book be prosecuted under the SC/ST Act. One of my well-wishers even went so far as to call for the dissolution of the very institution that produced these books. I am deeply distressed to learn of all this. I have been a lifelong lover of books; I spent my entire life curating a diverse collection in my personal library—a collection I also took the time to read. If demands are now being made to ban a book in my name, you can well imagine how much pain this causes me.
I had hoped that once the government, in the House—yielding to pressure from a few individuals for the sake of electoral politics and without any proper justification—gave an assurance that the cartoon would be removed from the book, those demanding it would be satisfied. Yet, they were not; instead, they went to your office yesterday and engaged in acts of vandalism. This is an affront to my own approach—one where I have always patiently listened to the barbs and criticisms of my opponents and responded to them with civility. Throughout my life, I have faced countless such criticisms, yet I have never lost my composure. I have always subscribed to the sentiment famously attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I engaged in serious debates on critical issues with figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel, but I never sought to suppress the views of my opponents; rather, I always responded with arguments, facts, and decorum. In fact, during my very first meeting with Gandhiji, I told him, "If you wish to defeat me, do so through principles, not through appeals to emotion." If some people, invoking my name, choose the path of vandalism over dialogue, it stands in direct opposition to my own principles.
The cartoon that has sparked this entire uproar was published in 1949, while I was present. I saw it then and understood the satire—as well as the underlying concern—expressed by Shankar regarding the slow pace of the Constitution-making process. I actually found it quite apt. Both Nehru and I were concerned about the sluggish pace of the Constitution-making process, though such delays were, in fact, natural given the nature of the task. Later, in my speech on November 25, 1949—the day the Constitution was adopted—I provided a justification for the time taken to draft it. I have learned that the book containing the aforementioned cartoon also discussed the reasons for the slow pace of the Constitution-making process and posed questions to students based on the cartoon. If only those who engaged in vandalism and uproar—claiming it was in response to an insult to me—had taken the time to read the context provided in the book, perhaps they would not have acted this way.
Throughout my life, I have always advocated for constitutional methods of protest. Every movement I led was peaceful and remained strictly within the bounds of the law. I have never endorsed violence or vandalism. To those who engage in destruction in my name, I would advise them to read the specific portion of my speech delivered upon the adoption of the Constitution, where I stated: "We must abandon the methods of *satyagraha*, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience. While there may be some justification for resorting to unconstitutional means when no constitutional avenues remain to achieve social and economic objectives, there is no such justification when constitutional methods are available. These methods are the grammar of anarchy, and the sooner we abandon them, the better it will be for us."
It causes me great distress today to see the extent to which efforts are being made—both by the state and non-state actors—to suppress voices of dissent in our country. I recall the high hopes with which we enshrined the freedom of expression in our Constitution. Today, I observe that some individuals, leveraging their numerical strength or brute force, succeed in silencing the legitimate voices of the vulnerable. Governments today, too, employ similar tactics to stifle the voice of the public. The culture of reasoned argument and debate has all but vanished from our nation. I am aware that some people suppress the voices of others by claiming that their religious or sectarian sentiments have been offended. I have witnessed how, through orchestrated uproar, certain groups managed to get books—such as those written about Shivaji, or works by Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushdie—banned. These very people did not even spare me. You may recall that when the Maharashtra government published my previously unpublished book, *Riddles in Hinduism*, certain individuals demanded its ban, labeling it anti-Hindu and hostile toward Hindu deities. It was only through the efforts of my Dalit followers and intellectuals—who organized a massive public demonstration in Bombay in its defense—that the book was saved. Yet, what they did yesterday is entirely contrary to the principle of freedom of expression. If, tomorrow, some people were to demand a ban on my writings based on the criticisms contained within them, what argument would the Dalits have left to oppose such a move?
I understand why my Dalit followers act this way. I am well aware of the depth of their respect for me and the extent to which they are emotionally connected to me. Whenever someone tells them something—whether true or false—about me, they become agitated and resort to such actions. It is not entirely their fault; they are often misled by their own leaders. Many of them have not even read my work in its entirety, leaving them susceptible to the influence of others. It seems to me that the Dalit community has not truly grasped the essence of my slogan: "Educate, Agitate, and Organize." It also pains me deeply to witness the nature of Dalit politics being practiced in my name today. The Republican Party, which I founded with such high hopes, has now splintered into fragments, with its leaders forging unprincipled and opportunistic alliances for personal gain. Instead of addressing the issues faced by Dalits, they are engaged in pure "vote-bank" politics and a pursuit of power, all while emotionally exploiting the people. The situation surrounding this cartoon is a case in point.
It causes me great distress that some of my overzealous and ill-informed followers have reduced me to being merely a messiah for the Dalits. I, in fact, belong to the entire... I belong to the nation. When I spoke of liberty, equality, and fraternity, it was not solely for the Dalits; I sought these for all the people of this country. When I drafted the Hindu Code Bill, I advocated for the complete emancipation of all Hindu women. It is true that I secured certain special rights for the Dalits—rights that were essential for them to attain equality. Therefore, I urge my followers and admirers not to confine me within the boundaries of a single caste, but rather to view me on the canvas of the entire nation.
I also request my followers not to elevate me to the status of a deity, for I prefer to remain a human being. It seems you have forgotten my words regarding the 'worship of individuals'—a practice I warned against, saying, "If you do not nip this in the bud, the very idea of hero-worship will lead to your ruin." By deifying an individual, you begin to place your faith in one person for your own security and liberation; the consequence is that you develop a habit of dependency and turn away from your own duties. If you fall prey to such notions, your condition within the national mainstream will become even more precarious than that of a mere log of wood drifting in a river. "Your struggle will be entirely in vain." It seems to me that by taking issue with my cartoon, my followers are intent on turning me into a deity. I do not wish to be anyone’s prophet; like the Buddha, I simply want to remain a human being. Throughout my life, I have offered sharp criticism of many people—criticism that was, in fact, well-founded. No one in this world is beyond error; therefore, criticism is an essential component of public life.
I also urge my followers to truly understand my life’s philosophy and values, and to embody them in their own conduct. They must clearly grasp that their own freedom of expression will remain secure only if they, in turn, protect the freedom of others; otherwise, they will merely strengthen the rising fascism and fundamentalism in the country. To those political leaders who exploit my name, I say this: instead of engaging in the emotional manipulation of Dalits, or playing the politics of 'vote banks' and caste, you should focus on a politics of substantive, issue-based change—one that would foster the well-being not only of Dalits but of all Indians.
Prof. Palshikar! I would like to express, once again, my sincere regret for the mistreatment you faced at the hands of some of my so-called followers.
