The four days dedicated by Parliament to deliberate on the 75th anniversary of the Constitution of India culminated in a heated debate over Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly. Both sides of the aisle sought to claim the legacy of Ambedkar.
A statement by Home Minister Amit Shah, which was intended to ridicule the Opposition’s claim to represent Ambedkar’s legacy, did not provoke a response in the House but led to an unprecedented uproar outside the next day.
A 12-second clip of the minister’s speech was widely circulated on social media, with suggestions that he had been unfair to Ambedkar’s memory. In fairness, it must be asked why the Opposition did not protest in the Rajya Sabha as the minister spoke. Amit Shah maintains that his speech was clipped out of context to create controversy.
The Opposition, which seemed disorganised during the session, with allies distancing themselves from Congress slogans, suddenly found a cause to rally around. The shameful events on the penultimate day of the winter session may well be the darkest episode in our constitutional history. MPs are elected to debate issues in Parliament, not to spar like gladiators at its gates.
During the Winter Session, the Lok Sabha worked for just 57% of the time, while the Rajya Sabha functioned for only 43%. Very little productive work is being done in Parliament.
Instead of focusing on the floor of the House, we now witness hyperactivity at the gates. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi holds mock media interviews, and Opposition MPs climb the ramparts of the new Parliament building. Despite the Lok Sabha Speaker’s direction that no demonstrations be held at the gates, ruling party MPs block the entrances to counter the Opposition protests.
Allegations of fisticuffs being exchanged and two MPs being injured have emerged. The Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has been tasked with investigating the matter. Politicians’ activities on Parliament premises are now subject to a criminal probe—an unprecedented situation in the annals of parliamentary democracy.
Let us now come back to the Ambedkar legacy and who has claims over it.
When the Constituent Assembly was formed in 1946, Dr. Ambedkar faced strong opposition to his candidacy from Congress stalwarts, including Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. As a result, he failed to get elected from his then home state of Bombay.
Some Congress leaders in Bombay were reportedly of the view that “apart from the doors, the windows of the Constituent Assembly were closed to Bhimrao Ambedkar.” The reason for their opposition stemmed from Ambedkar’s differences with Mahatma Gandhi, which led to his 1933 fast in Yerwada Jail and the subsequent signing of the Poona Pact. In 1936, Ambedkar had also formed the Indian Labour Party, which contested elections against Congress in provincial elections.
Later, Ambedkar formed the Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF), which came to his aid in 1946, ensuring his election to the Constituent Assembly from the Jessore-Khulna constituency in undivided Bengal. Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Namosudra SCF legislator, helped secure Ambedkar’s election through the Bengal Legislature. Ambedkar won with the highest votes, with Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s brother, Sarat Chandra Bose, securing one vote fewer. Other prominent figures, including Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Frank Anthony, were also elected alongside Ambedkar.
The partition of 1947 saw Jessore-Khulna going to the East Bengal Province of the Dominion of Pakistan. The member elected from Jessore-Khulna was to be included in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in Karachi.
Since his election in 1946, Ambedkar had made significant contributions to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly of undivided India. Rajendra Prasad thus sent a request to B.G. Kher, the then Premier (as Chief Ministers were called at the time) of Bombay, asking him to ensure Ambedkar’s election to the Constituent Assembly of India.
“I am anxious that he should attend the next session of the Constituent Assembly, commencing from the 14th of July 1947, and it is therefore necessary that he should be elected immediately,” Rajendra Prasad wrote to Kher.
Kher set aside his opposition, which had previously forced Ambedkar to seek election from Bengal. He arranged for the member from Poona (Pune), Mukund Ramrao Jayakar, to resign. The resulting by-election was won by Ambedkar, while Jayakar was appointed a minister in the Bombay government.
Ambedkar’s Bengal connection came to light during the Winter Session of 2015 when, at the instance of Narendra Modi, Constitution Day was first observed on November 26. Trinamool Congress floor leader and veteran parliamentarian Sudip Bandopadhyay mentioned it in his tribute. A controversy followed, with BJP MP from West Bengal’s Darjeeling seat, Surinder Ahluwalia, disputing the claim and asserting that Ambedkar was elected from Bombay State. Both MPs were right. Ambedkar, while presiding over the Drafting Committee (which had 10 members, with B.N. Rau writing the document), was indeed a member from Bombay when the Constitution was adopted.
Ambedkar’s differences with Congress, which led to his resignation from Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 and his subsequent unsuccessful bids to enter the Lok Sabha from Bombay North-Central (in the first general election of 1952) and from Bhandara (in a 1954 by-election), are often highlighted. It is worth noting that, despite contesting against Congress on both occasions, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha in 1952 as a member of the Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF). This was made possible because the Congress did not oppose his Rajya Sabha nomination.
While the spotlight is on Ambedkar, it is worthwhile to recall the comment he made about his role: “The Hindus wanted the Vedas, and they sent for (Ved) Vyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted the epic Ramayana and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus want a constitution, and they have sent for me.”
While the legacy of Bhimrao Ambedkar is being debated, it is important to recognise that not all in Congress were opposed to him. He had been both an opponent and an ally of the party.
Three days before the Constitution was formally adopted on November 26, 1949, the Organiser, in its November 23, 1949 edition, carried an article by the then RSS Sarsanghchalak lamenting that “unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat” had been glossed over.
Ambedkar’s Constitution of India is a product of competing ideas that were incorporated into a historic text. The behaviour of current MPs, both inside the House and outside, stands in stark contrast to Ambedkarite thought, whose legacy everyone seems eager to usurp.
(Shubhabrata Bhattacharya is a retired editor and a public affairs commentator)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
